[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 133 (Saturday, August 6, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4165-S4195]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               HONORING THE DEDICATION OF THE BALL FAMILY

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee 
on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 
698 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the resolution by title.
  The senior legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 698) honoring the dedication of the 
     Ball family to providing college educations and celebrating 
     their 100-year legacy at Ball State University.

  There being no objection, the committee was discharged, and the 
Senate proceeded to consider the resolution.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 698) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  (The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in the Record of June 
23, 2022, under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of entering into a 
colloquy with the chair of the Finance Committee, Mr. Wyden, concerning 
section 13204, clean hydrogen, which establishes for the first time tax 
incentives for the production of clean hydrogen, and section 13701, 
Clean Electricity Production Credit, which establishes for the first 
time technology neutral tax credits for clean electricity production.
  I would like to commend my friend from Oregon, the chairman of the 
Senate Finance Committee, for his leadership in crafting title I of the 
Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which includes new tax incentives that 
will promote clean energy, fight climate change, and help create good-
paying, American jobs. I want to especially say thank you for including 
in the clean energy package, section 13204 of title I of the Inflation 
Reduction Act of 2022, which is similar to my legislation, S.1807, the 
Clean H2 Production Act.
  Section 13024 of title I of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 
provides a production and investment tax credit for the production of 
clean hydrogen.

[[Page S4166]]

In Section 13204, the term ``lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions'' for a 
qualified hydrogen facility is determined by the aggregate quantity of 
greenhouse gas emissions through the point of production, as determined 
under the most recent Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy 
use in Technologies--GREET--model. It is also my understanding of the 
intent of section 13204, is that in determining ``lifecycle greenhouse 
gas emissions'' for this section, the Secretary shall recognize and 
incorporate indirect book accounting factors, also known as a book and 
claim system, that reduce effective greenhouse gas emissions, which 
includes, but is not limited to, renewable energy credits, renewable 
thermal credits, renewable identification numbers, or biogas credits.
  Is that the chairman's understanding as well?
  Mr. WYDEN. Yes.
  Mr. CARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Additionally, I would like to clarify that the intent of section 
13701 allows the Secretary to consider indirect book and claim factors 
that reduce effective greenhouse gas emissions to help determine 
whether the greenhouse gas rate of a qualified fuel cell property, 
which does not include facilities that produce electricity through 
combustion or gasification, is ``not greater than zero.''
  Is that the chairman's understanding?
  Mr. WYDEN. Yes.
  Mr. CARPER. I thank the Senator from Oregon for his comments on these 
issues and his leadership.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with 
the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator 
Wyden. I want to comment on the transferable tax credit provisions 
supporting sustainability in the bill and, in particular, the 
application of general limitations that already exist in current law 
for various tax credits. As the chairman knows, the bill includes a 
historic investment in tax credits and incentives to promote the 
development of various clean energy technologies and provides a broad 
regime to permit eligible credits to be transferred from the project 
owners to another unrelated taxpayer.
  Under current law, the ability to claim general business tax credits 
is subject to a number of potential limitations in section 38 of the 
Tax Code based on the taxpayer's income tax liability. The bill 
language does not appear to apply the section 38 limitations to reduce 
the amount of the credit eligible to be transferred by the transferor 
of tax credits. This would be consistent with the goal of encouraging 
additional investment by expanding the availability of these tax 
credits to project owners without regard to their ability to claim the 
credits themselves.
  I expect that the Treasury Department will develop technical guidance 
for these transferable credits in a manner that reflects the intent 
that the section 38 limitations under current law will not apply to the 
transferor.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator for his inquiry and can clarify that 
the Senator is correct that the current-law limitations that generally 
apply to tax credits under section 38 would not reduce the amount of 
credits eligible for transfer by the transferor of transferable tax 
credits under the bill and that the Treasury Department should issue 
technical guidance that reflects this intent.
  Mr. CARDIN. I welcome the chairman's leadership and support to 
clarify this issue, ensuring that the amount of the tax credits 
eligible for transfer are not limited by section 38 so that they will, 
in fact, expand investment in projects that will achieve the broader 
climate goals of this bill.
  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with Senator Wyden for clarification regarding a tax provision 
included in the bill currently before the Senate. Section 13704 of the 
bill, which concerns production credits for biofuels, defines 
``transportation fuel'' that can qualify for the credit as a fuel that 
is suitable for use as a fuel in a highway vehicle or aircraft. The 
fuel must also be below a carbon emissions ceiling and meet a 
processing requirement.
  Senator Wyden, as chair of the Finance Committee, is it his 
understanding that, although a fuel must be suitable for use as a fuel 
in a highway vehicle or aircraft to qualify for this biofuel production 
credit, it may still actually be used for any business purpose, 
including as transportation fuel, industrial fuel, or for residential 
or commercial heat?
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator for her inquiry. That is correct. The 
credit is intended to incentivize production of biofuels of a certain 
quality, usable as fuel for highway vehicles or aircrafts, but not 
limited only to fuels which are actually used in highway vehicles or 
aircrafts.
  Ms. HASSAN. I thank the chair for that clarification and for engaging 
in this colloquy.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my 
colleague, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Wyden.
  In the corporate alternative minimum tax, there is some question as 
to whether companies that operate in foreign countries with standard 
tax years that are different from the U.S. could lose foreign tax 
credits strictly because of these non-conforming years. This may 
especially be an issue in the very first year of the corporate 
alternative minimum tax's application.
  Does Treasury have authority to issue regulations dealing with 
potential issues with foreign income taxes relating to nonconforming 
foreign tax years and how that impacts foreign tax credits in the 
corporate alternative minimum tax? This would include fair rules for 
the utilization of foreign tax credits in the law's first year.
  Mr. WYDEN. Yes, regulations such as these would be in line with the 
legislative text and our intent for companies to be able to 
appropriately utilize foreign tax credits in the corporate alternative 
minimum tax.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. I thank the chairman for this clarification of the 
provision.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with 
the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator 
Wyden.
  I want to ask for a clarification of the provision in the underlying 
bill regarding the corporate book minimum tax. Is it the chairman's 
understanding and intent that, because the corporate alternative 
minimum tax is based on financial statement income, it does not include 
Other Comprehensive Income?
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator for his inquiry and can clarify that, 
for purposes of the corporate alternative minimum tax, Other 
Comprehensive Income is not included in financial statement income.
  Mr. CARDIN. I thank the chairman for that clarification.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a 
colloquy with Senator Wyden for clarification regarding a tax provision 
included in the bill currently before the Senate.
  With regard to the advanced manufacturing tax credit, it is the 
intention that section 45X, as established by section 13502 of the 
Inflation Reduction Act, is intended to apply to components for which 
production was completed after December 31, 2022, and are sold to an 
unrelated party after December 31, 2022?
  In other words, the credit should be available to the entirety of 
eligible components currently underway if those components are 
concluded after 2022. For example, an offshore wind vessel that began 
construction in 2019 and was completed at a date after December 31, 
2022, would be eligible for the credit applied to the full cost of 
production of the vessel and not just for the portion completed after 
December 31, 2022.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Senator for his inquiry. That is correct. The 
credit is intended for any eligible components produced and sold after 
December 31, 2022, regardless of the portion of the component that was 
produced before January 1, 2023.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I look forward to passing this important 
piece of legislation that will help fight inflation, invest in domestic 
energy production and manufacturing, reduce carbon emissions, and lower 
healthcare costs for millions of Americans.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to engage in a colloquy with 
the distinguished chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator 
Wyden.
  There is some question as to the proper ordering of the calculation 
of

[[Page S4167]]

the credit under section 53 and a taxpayer's liability under section 
59A, the base erosion and anti-abuse tax. Does the Treasury have 
authority to issue regulations dealing with potential issues with the 
ordering of the calculation of the credit under section 53 and the tax 
under section 59A?
  Mr. WYDEN. Yes, we believe that Treasury will have authority to issue 
regulations dealing with potential issues with the ordering of the 
calculation of the credit under section 53 and the tax under section 
59A. Regulations such as these would be in line with our intent in 
drafting the BEAT interaction provisions in the corporate alternative 
minimum tax.
  Mr. CARDIN. I thank the chairman for that clarification.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I would like to engage my friend the 
chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Wyden, in a colloquy.
  One of the many vital investments made in the Inflation Reduction Act 
to reduce energy costs and confront the climate crisis is the qualified 
commercial clean vehicle credit. This provides a tax credit of up to 
$40,000 for qualified heavy commercial electric vehicles, or up to 
$7,500 for qualified commercial electric vehicles weighing less than 
14,000 pounds, which includes both trucks and mobile machinery.
  Mobile machinery is a vehicle that is unrelated to transportation, 
such as a forklift or bulldozer. The qualified commercial clean vehicle 
credit utilizes an existing statutory definition of mobile machinery, 
the purpose of which is to provide for an exemption from the excise tax 
on heavy trucks that is deposited into the highway trust fund.
  The new application of the mobile machinery definition will raise 
novel questions about which types of vehicles qualify as mobile 
machinery, in cases where the determination was not necessary in the 
context of the excise tax on heavy trucks. One such case is commercial 
lawn mowers, most of which currently have gas-powered engines that are 
a significant source of pollution.
  I ask the chairman of the Finance Committee whether commercial lawn 
mowers can fit the criteria of mobile machinery and, therefore, qualify 
for the qualified commercial clean vehicle credit, provided that the 
vehicle meets the other criteria for the credit.
  Mr. WYDEN. A commercial lawn mower could qualify as mobile machinery, 
since it performs a similar operation to the purposes listed in the 
statute. Therefore, if such a vehicle met the other criteria for the 
qualified commercial clean vehicle credit, it would be eligible.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the Senator for clarifying this point, and I 
share that understanding.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, the legislation being considered today 
includes a historic expansion of the section 179D commercial buildings 
energy-efficiency tax deduction. The deduction, made permanent in 2020, 
is an important tool to tackle climate change by encouraging 
investments in energy-efficient buildings.
  I have been made aware of a discouraging trend among those who use 
section 179D that some entities attempt to receive payments in exchange 
for providing section 179D allocation letters to private sector 
building designers.
  As I have said before, entities seeking to avail themselves of the 
tax benefits of section 179D cannot seek, accept, or solicit payments 
from designers in exchange for providing section 179D allocation 
letters.
  The issuance of a section 179D allocation letter shall not be used as 
leverage to request a payment from a designer; allocation letters 
should be duly issued once the applicable design services have been 
performed.
  These actions run counter to the intent of section 179D(d)(4)'s 
express direction to allow the allocation of the section 179D deduction 
``. . . to the person primarily responsible for designing the property 
in lieu of the owner of such property.''
  Consistent with congressional intent, section 179D allocation letters 
are administrative in nature and serve to formalize the allocation of 
the tax deduction to the eligible designer.
  As section 179D is rightly expanded in the legislation being 
considered in the Senate, it must be reaffirmed that it is 
congressional intent that entities cannot seek, accept, or solicit 
payments in exchange for providing 179D allocation letters.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this body has a long record of coming 
together to improve healthcare for Americans. In 2003, we worked in a 
bipartisan manner to establish the Medicare Part D benefit. More 
recently, I have worked with my Finance Committee colleagues on 
oversight investigations to hold: EpiPen manufacturers accountable who 
were misusing taxpayer dollars, insulin manufacturers and PBMs 
accountable who were unfairly increasing the list price of insulin, and 
our organ donation system accountable and investigate its troubling 
underperformance.
  We can work together and meaningfully improve healthcare. This 
Congress, I have worked with my Democrat colleagues to introduce eight 
bills to lower drug costs. In the past year alone, we have passed five 
of my bills out of committee on a bipartisan basis. They will lower 
drug prices and create more competition while holding Big Pharma and 
PBMs accountable. Unfortunately, the leader hasn't brought any of these 
bills up for a vote, even though they would easily pass the Senate. But 
this hasn't stopped me from trying to find other ways to help bring 
down the cost of medications.
  In 2019, as Finance Committee chairman, I began a bipartisan 
committee process with the ranking member from Oregon to lower the cost 
of prescription drugs. The bill is called the Prescription Drug Pricing 
Reduction Act. We held three committee hearings to learn from 
policymakers and advocates while also holding Big Pharma and PBMs 
accountable. We held a committee mark-up where the bill passed 19 to 9, 
on a bipartisan basis. We continued to hold additional negotiations to 
make improvements to the bill. It contained stuff I liked and didn't 
like. But that is bipartisan legislation. Today, it is still the only 
comprehensive prescription drug bill that can garner more than 60 votes 
on the Senate floor.
  I recently outlined on the floor the bill's details in case the 
majority party has forgotten. I won't restate every part of my July 20 
speech, but here are some of my bill's key measures: No. 1, it lowers 
costs for seniors by $72 billion and saves taxpayers $95 billion. No. 
2, it establishes an out-of-pocket cap, eliminates the donut hole, and 
redesigns Medicare Part D. No. 3, it ends taxpayer subsidies to Big 
Pharma by capping price increases of Medicare Part B and D drugs at 
inflation. No. 4, it establishes accountability and transparency in the 
pharmaceutical industry. No. 5, and the bill is bipartisan. Believe it 
or not, a bipartisan bill limiting pharmaceutical increases is 
possible. Compare this to what the majority has offered: Their partisan 
bill includes more reckless spending and tax increases. Their partisan 
bill reduces the number of new cures and treatments. Their partisan 
bill fails to enact any bipartisan accountability for Big Pharma and 
PBMs.
  Even while the majority party has decided to pursue a purely partisan 
bill in secret over the past 20 months, I have continued to meet with 
Democrats and Republicans to advance my bipartisan and negotiated bill. 
I have met or spoken with: President Biden and White House staff, 
Speaker Pelosi, Leader McCarthy, HHS Secretary Becerra, House Democrats 
who wanted a bipartisan bill, Problem Solvers Caucus Health Care 
Working Group, Congressman Welch, Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers, 
Democrat Senators Sinema and Carper, and others.
  I wanted a bipartisan bill to pass this Senate. We could still pass 
the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act. My colleagues know it. 
Several of them have thanked me publicly on my bipartisan work to lower 
prescription drug prices. Sadly, they have chosen a different route. 
They have chosen a bill that contains zero PBM accountability. It gives 
middlemen a pass. They have chosen a bill that contains none of the 25 
accountability and transparency provisions that had bipartisan 
consensus in my bill. This includes ending DIR clawbacks that are 
hurting patients pocketbooks and small/independent pharmacies; ending 
``spread pricing'' in Medicaid that is drive up taxpayer costs; 
requiring sunshine on PBMs through financial audits, so we knows the 
true net cost of a drug; requiring sunshine on excessive drug

[[Page S4168]]

price increases and launch price of new high-cost drugs. None of these 
bipartisan accountability and transparency provisions--and more--are 
included in their bill.
  Finally, one last thing I would like to address about my colleagues' 
reckless tax and spending bill: I have heard some of my colleagues on 
the other side say this bill's prescription drug provision is Grassley-
Wyden. That is untrue. This is a reckless tax and spending bill. It is 
not bipartisan, and no reporter should accept or repeat that notion. I 
oppose the partisan bill because it is a long list of reckless tax 
increases and spending. This is not the bipartisan prescription drug 
bill that passed out of the Finance Committee 19 to 9.
  I have filed the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act as an 
amendment today. We could strike and replace this reckless tax and 
spending spree with comprehensive drug pricing reform that could garner 
more than 60 votes and lower drug prices while holding Big Pharma and 
PBMs accountable. We could actually enact meaningful accountability and 
transparency in the pharmaceutical industry. I have filed that 
amendment, too. We could pursue PBM transparency and accountability. I 
have filed that amendment, too.
  I have said throughout this Congress, I will work with anyone who 
wants to pass the bipartisan and negotiated Prescription Drug Pricing 
Reduction Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                               H.R. 5376

  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to talk 
about the partisan reconciliation legislation that is before us 
tonight. It is named the Inflation Reduction Act, but that is misnamed 
because, unfortunately, it does not reduce inflation; it actually makes 
things worse.
  When you are at the gas pump or at the grocery store or buying 
something anywhere today, you are feeling the sticker shock. Yet this 
legislation is going to make it even worse. It adds $700 billion more 
in spending and over $300 billion more in new taxes at the worst 
possible time, increasing costs to consumers and actually making 
inflation worse.
  The nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model that a lot of us have used 
over the years to look at various legislation predicts that it will 
actually increase inflation over the next 2 years.
  While over time it says that may even out, it won't decrease 
inflation as the name suggests and the bill sponsors claim. Why? Well, 
primarily because when you put $300 billion-plus of new taxes in the 
economy, it actually hurts workers and it hurts consumers.
  Yes, they are saying it is going to go to companies, but what happens 
then? Companies pass it along. And at a time when we have the worst 
inflation in over 40 years, that is bad for the economy.
  The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation that we have to rely on 
here in Congress--not a partisan group but nonpartisan--says this bill 
will hurt Americans in nearly every tax bracket. They say that more 
than half of the burden of the over $300 billion in new taxes is going 
to fall on folks making less than $400,000 a year.
  Well, that directly contradicts promises made not to increase taxes 
on Americans at that level.
  While I am glad the blow to manufacturers has been somewhat softened 
in the last 24 hours, with the latest version of the bill, what the 
Democrats did was essentially exchange one bad tax--the book tax on 
manufacturers--for another bad tax, a tax that will tax stock buybacks, 
that is going to hurt particularly Americans who are trying to save for 
retirement.
  Let me start with the book tax. This is a proposed tax that is very 
different from the existing corporate income tax which is based on 
income that business report to the IRS when they file their taxes. That 
IRS income, by the way, is defined by the U.S. Congress. Here in the 
Senate, we debate that all the time: Is it good to have a particular 
tax incentive or another tax incentive, that is not in the book tax? 
The book tax, instead, looks at a company's financial statement. And 
that is what this new bill does.
  In fact, it comes up with a whole other definition of tax and, 
therefore, another tax system called the adjusted financial statement 
income. This is broader than the IRS income. It is not fair. It is way 
too complicated, and it is going to hurt employees and consumers.
  Taxable income owed the IRS is meant to raise revenue, and, again, it 
includes these incentives or disincentives for certain activity like 
being able to immediately deduct the cost of new equipment, if you are 
a manufacturer. We want to encourage that, particularly in periods of 
high inflation, so we allow them to do that.
  The financial statement income is not determined by us. It is not 
determined by elected representatives at all. In fact, Congress does 
not have anything to do with it. It is actually determined by something 
called the Financial Accounting Standards Board, which is a private 
nonprofit recognized by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as 
the accounting standard setting for private companies.
  That may work fine for determining accounting standards, but this 
change effectively puts these people in control of what the corporate 
tax base is, even though they are not elected to anything. That doesn't 
make sense. Let's not set up a whole new tax system for some companies. 
Let's learn from the past.
  Back in 1986, when we passed a big tax reform bill, they put a book 
tax in place, and it was repealed less than 3 years later. Why? Because 
it was viewed as unfair, way too complicated, and, actually, they 
thought that you shouldn't have these nonelected officials deciding 
what the taxes ought to be.
  They said it was bad for the economy, too, because companies were 
managing to the book tax rather than the IRS tax. So let's learn from 
the past. Why would we want to do that again, set up a whole other tax 
system, tax the American economy, tax consumers, tax workers, and do so 
through something that in 1986, we looked at and decided this is not 
working?
  So Democrats will say tonight, Well, this new complicated tax system 
is just going to affect big companies.
  That is true. But you know what, big companies employ a lot of 
people, and a lot of people are going to be hurt. They also sell to a 
lot of consumers, all of us who will be hurt. Last year, there were 
over 200 companies listed on the Fortune 500 as meeting the criteria 
that is set out in this legislation. They employ over 18 million 
Americans. It is those employees and those who are customers who are 
going to bear the brunt of these tax increases as it is passed down to 
them in the form of lower wages, lower benefits, and higher prices for 
goods and services.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan group, just last year 
said they expected 25 percent of these corporate taxes to fall on 
workers; again, this means lower wages. The nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office says that employees and workers bear more like 70 percent 
of the burden of income taxes, so there is a long list of analyses in-
between.
  Let's say between 25 percent and 70 percent of these taxes are going 
to fall on workers in the form of lower pay and lower benefits at a 
time when wages are not keeping up with inflation that is getting 
higher and higher.
  And, by the way, it is not just wages I am talking about; families 
will now face even higher prices as the cost of corporate taxes get 
passed along to them. In a study last year performed by the business 
schools at the University of Chicago and Northwestern, they found that 
31 percent of corporate taxes fall on consumers through higher retail 
prices. Aren't prices high enough?
  Dems have just added another new tax in the past 24 hours. Democrats 
now say we are going to have this complicated tax called an excise tax 
on stock buybacks. Again, this is instead of some of the tax they had 
in the other new tax that they put forward called the book tax.
  Now, Democrats tonight will talk about how taxing buybacks is good 
because it somehow hurts Wall Street fat cats. Here is the truth: It 
increases the price of stocks to allow buybacks, and by taking away 
that incentive by putting a tax on it, there will be less of it. So the 
reality is this is a tax on working families, including those trying to 
save for retirement when they are already dealing with the struggling 
portfolios due to the recent economic contraction and the record 
inflation we are experiencing.

[[Page S4169]]

  Fifty-eight percent of Americans own stock, and 60 million investors 
invest in an IRA or a 401(k). We want people to save for retirement; it 
is a good thing. We want them to have healthy retirement. So when 
Democrats say they worry about stock prices going up, I have to ask: 
Are they worried about people having a healthy retirement account?
  Again, when companies buy back stock, it generally causes that stock 
to go up, which means it makes Americans' retirement accounts that much 
larger. Why is that a problem? The Tax Foundation says retirement 
accounts own 37 percent of all corporate stock. That is about $8\1/2\ 
trillion in retirement funds, $8\1/2\ trillion of retirement funds own 
corporate stock. Americans lost about $2 trillion in their IRAs during 
the COVID crisis. Let's not encourage them to lose anymore.
  Some will say, this is just 1 percent. Well, we know that once a tax 
is initiated, it tends to increase. This is the camel's nose under the 
tent. The first income tax in 1913, by the way, was 1 percent and just 
on top earners. I think a lot of middle-income earners right now would 
be happy to have a tax rate that low.
  This type of proposal will impact families and their retirement, and 
for that reason, we should not even go down this path. Democrats will 
also tax employee stock ownership programs, or ESOPS, in this package. 
I think some of my colleagues might be surprised to hear that. ESOPS 
are plans to give employees ownership of their own companies, with tax 
incentives for the dividends to go to their retirement savings. They 
are really popular.
  ESOPS work; they are great. They enjoy wide bipartisan support here 
in the Congress. Employees have this ownership stake, and because of 
that, those companies tend to do better. Employees are happier. They 
are more profitable. They are more productive. The companies benefit 
from it. I don't understand why Democrats want to punish this ownership 
structure. Doing so will, once again, discourage investment and hard 
work, and it could not come at a worse time.
  That is why I want to introduce an amendment tonight that will exempt 
ESOPS from the minimum book tax. This is a commonsense amendment--
nothing complicated about it. It will encourage savings and investment; 
it is good for the country; and I encourage my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle who support ESOPS to support the amendment.
  I also plan to offer an amendment that will increase funding for 
Customs and Border Patrol by $500 million that will be used for new 
technology to detect fentanyl and other dangerous drugs that are, 
unfortunately, flooding across our southern border.
  Over 100,000 Americans died of drug overdoses last year, the worst 
year on record. Unfortunately, more and more people are dying of 
overdoses, and they are dying from this synthetic opioid called 
fentanyl. About two-thirds of those overdose deaths were due to 
fentanyl.
  At a time when deadly fentanyl is flooding across the border, only 2 
percent of cars and only 16 percent of commercial vehicles are being 
screened. Now, these drugs come across the ports of entry where only 2 
percent of cars and 16 percent of trucks are being screened.
  They also come between the ports of entry, but at a minimum, we 
should be able to do screening of these vehicles and trucks. It is a 
gaping hole in our border security, and it has got to be fixed.
  This amendment will simply assure that the new funds in this bill for 
the Department of Homeland Security bureaucracy, for an office called 
Readiness, $500 million will be assigned to a higher priority, to have 
Customs and Border Protection be able to detect and stop deadly 
fentanyl that is being smuggled into this country at record levels.
  So this money would stay at the Department of Homeland Security. It 
will instead be used for a more urgent priority. Let's be serious about 
our national security and this drug crisis we face, and let's give the 
Border Patrol what they need to counter the drug cartels and the 
traffickers.
  Tonight, I also plan to offer an amendment to ensure the new postal 
electric vehicles are actually made in the United States of America. In 
this bill, there is a $3 billion appropriation to the Postal Service. 
We just went through postal reform, as some of you know, we provided 
them additional funding that they needed. This is an additional $3 
billion appropriation to buy electric vehicles and charging 
infrastructure. However, there is no requirement that these vehicles be 
made in America, with U.S. batteries and other components.
  In other words, the bill uses taxpayer funds to buy electric vehicles 
that can be made with Chinese batteries and Chinese critical minerals. 
We know that this is counter to everything we are trying to do around 
here. We just passed legislation to make us more competitive with 
China. Again, we just passed legislation to provide the Postal Service 
with funds for new vehicles, including electric vehicles. The 
Postmaster General just made a decision to go from 10 percent electric 
to 20 percent to 50 percent. That is already happening. But in that 
case, there are requirements; in this case, there are not.
  We know that Democrats believe that when we are expanding electric 
vehicles, that we ought to ensure that these vehicles are being made in 
America. How do we know that? Because in another part of the bill, 
which is the expansion of the electric vehicle tax credit, Democrats 
included new requirements that the tax credit award EVs made in the 
United States with American components.
  My amendment would simply apply these identical requirements to these 
new electric postal delivery vehicles. Both involve taxpayer subsidies. 
What is good for the American driver should be good for the Postal 
Service.
  My hope is this misnamed ``Inflation Reduction Act'' can be stopped 
before it makes things worse, but at least I urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to look at these commonsense amendments and accept 
some of these amendments. Some, I have laid out, and some others, I 
have talked about tonight to improve a flawed bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we have just heard a discussion of the 
issue of tax reform, and my colleague across the aisle has said there 
should be no corporate minimum tax on corporations, and yet Americans 
know that billionaire companies one after the other--some of the most 
profitable companies in our entire country, companies like Amazon--
don't pay a single cent in tax.
  They use our legal system. They use our road system. They use our 
education system. They use it all in vast quantities and don't 
contribute a single dime. One single ordinary worker does more to pay 
for all of the infrastructure these massive companies utilize than the 
company does.
  It is about time corporations that make massive profits pay 
something, and 15 percent isn't even their fair share. And it is part 
of a global agreement to hold corporations accountable, so they don't 
skip from one country to another, to another, to another, evading 
everyone everywhere.
  My colleague also said a lot about why we should not put a 1 percent 
tax on stock buybacks. Let's understand what stock buybacks are. First 
of all, a president of a company works to get a board, and that board 
is compensated, and then that board makes lots of decisions about, 
well, the welfare of the top executives. They set the salaries for the 
top executives, and then they give them stock options.
  Now, if you have a stock option and then your company buys back 
stock, every share gets more valuable; you make a massive amount of 
money. This is a corrupt system. It does nothing to further the 
investment of the company and the productivity of America. It does 
nothing to increase the R&D--research and development--that goes into 
new products. It does nothing to make their product more price 
competitive.
  It is ``enrich the rich'' scheme, and putting a 1 percent fee on that 
to help pay for all of the infrastructure the companies use is 
certainly more than appropriate. In fact, we should simply ban the 
stock buybacks. This is a very, very modest reform in the right 
direction.
  It is the case that in this Chamber, under the Republican stock 
provisions,

[[Page S4170]]

1 year after another under their tax provisions, they have basically 
enabled the billionaires and corporations to escape any contribution to 
the welfare of our country. That is wrong. These tax reforms are right, 
and the healthcare provisions will help.
  They are not nearly as powerful as I would like to see, certainly. I 
want to negotiate every single drug, the way the Veterans' 
Administration does, the way every foreign country does, every 
developed country does. We should get the best prices, not the worst in 
the developed world.
  And in climate, while this, again, doesn't do everything I want, the 
investments in solar and wind will drive a bold, determined transition 
from fossil fuel energy to renewable energy.
  We have to electrify everything with renewable energy. If we do that, 
set that example for the world and work with the world, we have some 
chance of humanity tackling this massive problem of climate chaos that 
is causing so much trouble across our land--from the massive floods in 
Kentucky to the forest fires of the Pacific Northwest, town after town 
being burned down. It is really America that has to lead the way.
  There is a lot more I would like to see in this bill, just as my 
colleague from Ohio has a whole series of ideas.
  I filed a lot of amendments, but I can't pull them up tonight. I 
can't ask for a vote on them because under the structure that we are 
dealing with now, anything that changes may result in this bill never 
passing, and so this is why, when we come back in the next session of 
Congress, we have to reform this Senate so we can do legitimate 
amendments like my colleague from Ohio suggested in a process where 
they get due consideration and don't torpedo the bill under which we 
are discussing them.
  Those reforms are so essential because the arc of this Chamber has 
been one in which individual amendments have been incredibly 
suppressed. It is unacceptable. We are all so frustrated with the fact 
that deals are made by basically four individuals leading the two 
Chambers off this floor rather than determined and responsible debate--
public, transparent debate--on the floor of this Chamber.
  So the right answer is to come back and make this place work so that 
all ideas--as my colleague from Ohio listed his, I have my list. I want 
to add in affordable housing. I want to stop all the drilling. I want 
to fund the community colleges. I want preschool to be counted. I want 
to fix so that we can take the electric vehicle tax credits and do even 
better with them. I want to include the two-wheel and the three-wheel 
vehicles. I want to put in the summer benefit for food that has been so 
effective in helping so many children make it through the summer. But I 
can't do these things.
  Let's fix this Senate. Let's have the types of debates we should 
have, and tonight, let's pass this bill for the right steps in the 
right direction on tax reform, on healthcare, and on climate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic whip.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all 
remaining time on the bill be yielded back; that there be 2 minutes of 
debate, equally divided, prior to each vote with respect to the 
reconciliation bill; and that following the disposition of Sanders 
amendment No. 5210, the following amendments be the first Republican 
amendments in order: No. 1, amendment No. 5301, Senator Graham; No. 2, 
amendment No. 5409, Senator Barrasso; No. 3, amendment No. 5382, 
Senator Capito; No. 4, amendment No. 5384, Senator Lankford; and No. 5, 
amendment No. 5404, Senator Crapo.


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

  
  On page S4170, August 6, 2022, second column, the following 
appears: ; and that following the disposition of Sanders amendment 
No. 5120, the following amendments
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: ; and that 
following the disposition of Sanders amendment No. 5210, the 
following amendments


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


  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  There will now be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided.
  The junior Senator from Vermont.


                           Amendment No. 5210



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

  
  On page S4170, August 6, 2022, second column, the following 
appears: Amendment No. 5120
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: Amendment No. 5210


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


  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, the American people are sick and tired 
of being ripped off by the greed of the pharmaceutical industry, which 
makes tens of billions of dollars per year in profit, charging us by 
far the highest prices in the world for our medicine.
  This bill as currently written allows Medicare to negotiate prices 
with the drug companies but not until 4 years from now and then for 
only 10 drugs--a tiny fraction of the total. That is a very weak 
proposal and not what the American people want. They want us to lower 
prescription drug costs now, not in 4 years, and they want all drugs 
covered. The VA has been negotiating drug prices for 30 years and pays 
half--half--as much as Medicare pays.
  My amendment is simple. It says that Medicare should not pay any more 
than the VA for prescription drugs. If we do that, we will cut the cost 
of Medicare prescription drugs in half and save $900 billion.
  Please support this amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from South 
Carolina.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GRAHAM. Well, Madam President, we are off to the races, so I am 
going to make this easy.
  I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 
313(b)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The junior Senator from Vermont.


                        Vote on Motion to Waive

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 313 of that 
act for purposes of this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 1, nays 99, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 288 Leg.]

                                YEAS--1

       
     Sanders
       

                                NAYS--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
     Rounds
     Rubio
     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
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). On this vote, the yeas are 1, the 
nays are 99.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from South Carolina.


                Amendment No. 5301 to Amendment No. 5194

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5301 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 South Carolina [Mr. Graham] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5301 to amendment No. 5194.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To strike a tax increase that would result in higher consumer 
    prices for gasoline, heating oil, and other energy sources for 
             Americans earning less than $400,000 per year)

        Strike part 6 of subtitle D of title I and insert the 
     following:

       PART 6--LIMITATION ON DEDUCTION FOR STATE AND LOCAL TAXES

     SEC. 13601. EXTENSION OF LIMITATION ON DEDUCTION FOR STATE 
                   AND LOCAL, ETC., TAXES.

       (a) In General.--Section 164(b)(6) is amended by striking 
     ``2026'' and inserting ``2027''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2022.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 2 minutes, equally divided.
  The Senator from South Carolina.

[[Page S4171]]

  

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, to the Members of the body, if you think 
America needs a new gas tax, then your ship has come in. Vote for the 
Democratic bill because, believe it or not, these people over there 
want to raise gas taxes right now.
  The last time they tried to help you was the American rescue act. And 
here is what the Vice President said: Help has arrived for the families 
who have struggled to put food on their table, for the small businesses 
that have struggled to keep their doors open. Help has arrived.
  She said that in March. Inflation was 2.6 percent. Help has arrived. 
It is 9.1 percent.
  This bill will increase gas taxes 16.4 cents on every barrel of 
imported oil and petroleum, and every barrel of crude oil found in 
America, to be refined in America, will have an additional 16.4 cents-
per-barrel-tax increase.
  This is insane. This is stupid. If you like high gas prices, vote for 
them. If you want to lower prices at the pump, vote for my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, this amendment would strike a four-tenths-
of-a-cent-per-gallon fee on Big Oil refiners that helps pay for the 
cleanup of toxic waste spills, especially important to our low-income, 
historically disadvantaged communities.
  One expert analysis found that our bill is going to decrease the 
average household's energy costs by $500 per year. So, for many 
consumers, the Superfund fee would be less than $10 a year, a fraction 
of the savings from our bill.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 5301

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. 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.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 289 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
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     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
  The amendment (No. 5301) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                Amendment No. 5469 to Amendment No. 5194

  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5469, and I 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 New Hampshire [Ms. Hassan] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5469 to amendment No. 5194.

  The amendment is as follows:

      (Purpose: To eliminate the reinstatement of Superfund taxes)

        Strike part 6 of subtitle D of title I.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The are 2 minutes equally divided.
  The Senator is recognized.
  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, this is a commonsense, straightforward 
amendment to strike the surcharge on barrels of oil, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Thank you very much.
  This gives phony and cynical a bad name. They wouldn't let you do 
this in professional wrestling. If you think people are this dumb, you 
are going to be sadly mistaken.
  What she is doing is trying to strike the provisions that she just 
voted against, but it requires 60 votes. So she can vote for repealing 
a gas tax she just voted against so she will look good for the voters.
  If you really wanted to repeal the gas tax, the new one indexed for 
inflation, you should have voted for my amendment. What you are doing 
is deceitful, dishonest, and we are going to call you out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators are reminded to address each other 
through the Chair and in the third person.
  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I will note the inaccuracy of what was 
said on the floor about the substance of this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive section 313 for 
purpose of this amendment--
  Wrong point of order. Let me try again.
  Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment 
violates section 4106 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for 
fiscal year 2018, H. Con. Res. 71 of the 115th Congress, the Senate 
pay-as-you-go point of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                            Motion to Waive

  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of 
applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections 
of that Act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the 
pending 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 55, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 290 Leg.]

                                YEAS--55

     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
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Warnock
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--45

     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
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 55, the nays are 
45.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
  I would remind the Chamber that this is the beginning of a long 
night. Senators are reminded to address all remarks through the Chair 
in the third person and to be mindful of rule XIX.
  Rule XIX provides that no Senator in debate shall, directly or 
indirectly, by any form or words impute to any Senator or to other 
Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming of a Senator.

[[Page S4172]]

  The Senator from Wyoming.


                Amendment No. 5409 to Amendment No. 5194

  Mr. BARRASSO. I call up amendment No. 5409 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 Wyoming [Mr. Barrasso] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5409 to amendment No. 5194.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To require certain additional onshore oil and gas lease sales 
                           in certain states)

        At the end of part 6 of subtitle B of title V, add the 
     following:

     SEC. 5026_. MANDATORY ADDITIONAL ONSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASE 
                   SALES IN CERTAIN STATES.

       (a) Requirement.--Subject to subsections (b) and (c), not 
     later than December 31, 2022, the Secretary of the Interior 
     (acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management) shall conduct an oil and gas lease sale under the 
     Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) in each of the 
     States in which the Bureau of Land Management conducted lease 
     sales in June 2022.
       (b) Parcels.--The oil and gas lease sales required under 
     subsection (a) shall include, at a minimum, all parcels--
       (1) that were evaluated under the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) process for the 
     June 2022 sales; but
       (2) that were deferred by the applicable Bureau of Land 
     Management State Director.
       (c) Additional Lease Sales.--The oil and gas lease sales 
     required under subsection (a) shall be conducted in addition 
     to the quarterly oil and gas lease sales required under 
     section 17(b)(1)(A) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 
     226(b)(1)(A)).

  Mr. BARRASSO. I rise in support of the amendment to require the 
Secretary of the Interior to conduct supplemental onshore oil and gas 
lease sales by the end of 2022.
  The Biden administration went 18 months without holding quarterly 
lease sales as required by the Mineral Leasing Act.
  That failure to hold lease sales has contributed to high gasoline and 
natural gas prices, record inflation, and has increased our dependence 
on foreign adversaries.
  When the Secretary finally was forced to hold sales in June, she 
reduced the available acreage by 80 percent.
  This amendment would require the Secretary to hold supplemental lease 
sales this year, offering the previously deferred acreage, which has 
gone through multiple rounds already of environmental review.
  Instead of pleading with dictators in other countries to increase oil 
and gas production, we should expand American production. My amendment 
will do just that for people who care about the pain at the pump.
  I would ask other Senators to join in support.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. HEINRICH. This amendment disrupts the carefully negotiated 
delicate balance of this agreement, putting really the entire 
reconciliation vehicle at risk.
  Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 5409

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 291 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
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     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
  The amendment (No. 5409) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


         Amendment No. 5211, as Modified, to Amendment No. 5194

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5211, as 
modified, and I 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 Vermont [Mr. Sanders] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5211, as modified, to amendment No. 5194.

  The amendment is as follows:
       At the end of subtitle B of title I, add the following

PART 6--MEDICARE COVERAGE OF DENTAL AND ORAL HEALTH CARE, HEARING CARE, 
                            AND VISION CARE

     SUBPART A--MEDIARE COVERAGE

     SEC. 11502. COVERAGE OF DENTAL AND ORAL HEALTH CARE.

       (a) Coverage.--Section 1861(s)(2) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (GG), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (HH), by striking the period at the end 
     and adding ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(II) dental and oral health services (as defined in 
     subsection (lll));''.
       (b) Dental and Oral Health Services Defined.--Section 1861 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(lll) Dental and Oral Health Services.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
     term `dental and oral health services' means the following 
     items and services that are furnished by a doctor of dental 
     surgery or of dental medicine (as described in subsection 
     (r)(2)) or an oral health professional (as defined in 
     paragraph (3)) on or after January 1, 2025:
       ``(A) Preventive and screening services.--Preventive and 
     screening services, including oral exams, dental cleanings, 
     dental x-rays, and fluoride treatments.
       ``(B) Basic procedures.--Basic procedures, including 
     services such as minor restorative services, periodontal 
     maintenance, periodontal scaling and root planing, simple 
     tooth extractions, therapeutic pulpotomy, and other related 
     items and services.
       ``(C) Dentures.--Dentures and implants including related 
     items and services.
       ``(2) Exclusions.--Such term does not include items and 
     services for which, as of the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection, coverage was permissible under section 
     1862(a)(12) and cosmetic services not otherwise covered under 
     section 1862(a)(10).
       ``(3) Oral health professional.--The term `oral health 
     professional' means, with respect to dental and oral health 
     services, a health professional (other than a doctor of 
     dental surgery or of dental medicine (as described in 
     subsection (r)(2))) who is licensed to furnish such services, 
     acting within the scope of such license, by the State in 
     which such services are furnished.''.
       (c) Payment; Coinsurance; and Limitations.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1833(a)(1) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)), as amended by section 11101, is 
     amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (N), by inserting ``and dental and oral 
     health services (as defined in section 1861(lll))'' after 
     ``section 1861(hhh)(1))'';
       (B) by striking ``and'' before ``(EE)''; and
       (C) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``and (FF) with respect to dental and oral health 
     services (as defined in section 1861(lll)), the amount paid 
     shall be the payment amount specified under section 
     1834(z)''.
       (2) Payment and limits specified.--Section 1834 of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new subsection:
       ``(z) Payment and Limits for Dental and Oral Health 
     Services.--
       ``(1) Payment.--The payment amount under this part for 
     dental and oral health services (as defined in section 
     1861(lll)) shall be, subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), 80 
     percent of the lesser of--
       ``(A) the actual charge for the service; or
       ``(B)(i) in the case of such services furnished by a doctor 
     of dental surgery or of dental medicine (as described in 
     section 1861(r)(2)), the amount determined under the fee 
     schedule established under paragraph (2); or
       ``(ii) in the case of such services furnished by an oral 
     health professional (as defined in section 1861(lll)(3)), 85 
     percent of the amount determined under the fee schedule 
     established under paragraph (2).
       ``(2) Establishment of fee schedule for dental and oral 
     health services.--
       ``(A) Establishment.--

[[Page S4173]]

       ``(i) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a fee 
     schedule for dental and oral health services furnished in 
     2025 and subsequent years. The fee schedule amount for a 
     dental or oral health service shall be equal 70 percent of 
     the national median fee (as determined under subparagraph 
     (B)) for the service or a similar service for the year (or, 
     in the case of dentures, at the bundled payment amount under 
     clause (iv) of such subparagraph), adjusted by the geographic 
     adjustment factor established under section 1848(e)(2) for 
     the area for the year.
       ``(ii) Consultation.--In carrying out this paragraph, the 
     Secretary shall consult annually with organizations 
     representing dentists and other providers who furnish dental 
     and oral health services and shall share with such providers 
     the data and data analysis used to determine fee schedule 
     amounts under this paragraph.
       ``(B) Determination of national median fee.--
       ``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), the 
     Secretary shall apply the national median fee for a dental or 
     oral health service for 2025 and subsequent years in 
     accordance with this subparagraph.
       ``(ii) Use of 2020 dental fee survey.--

       ``(I) In general.--Except as provided in clause (iii) or 
     clause (iv), the national median fee for a dental or oral 
     health service shall be equal to--

       ``(aa) for 2025, the median fee for the service in the 
     table titled `General Practitioners-National' of the `2020 
     Survey of Dental Fees' published by the American Dental 
     Association, increased by the applicable percent increase for 
     the year determined under subclause (II), as reduced by the 
     productivity adjustment under subclause (III); and
       ``(bb) for 2026 and subsequent years, the amount determined 
     under this subclause for the preceding year, updated pursuant 
     to subparagraph (C)(i).

       ``(II) Applicable percent increase.--The applicable percent 
     increase determined under this subclause for a year is an 
     amount equal to the percentage increase between--

       ``(aa) the consumer price index for all urban consumers 
     (United States city average) ending with June of the previous 
     year; and
       ``(bb) the consumer price index for all urban consumers 
     (United States city average) ending with June of 2020.

       ``(III) Productivity adjustment.--After determining the 
     applicable percentage increase under subclause (II) for a 
     year, the Secretary shall reduce such percentage increase by 
     the productivity adjustment described in section 
     1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II).

       ``(iii) Determination if insufficient survey data.--If the 
     Secretary determines there is insufficient data under the 
     Survey described in clause (ii) with respect to a dental or 
     oral health service, the national median fee for the service 
     for a year shall be equal to an amount established for the 
     service using one or more of the following methods, as 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary:

       ``(I) The payment basis determined under section 1848.
       ``(II) Fee schedules for dental and oral health services 
     which shall include, as practicable, fee schedules--

       ``(aa) under Medicare Advantage plans under part C;
       ``(bb) under State plans (or waivers of such plans) under 
     title XIX; and
       ``(cc) established by other health care payers.
       ``(iv) Special rule for dentures.--The Secretary shall make 
     payment for dentures and associated professional services as 
     a bundled payment as determined by the Secretary. In 
     establishing such bundled payment, the Secretary shall 
     consider the national median fee for the service for the year 
     determined under clause (ii) or (iii) and the rate determined 
     for such dentures under the Federal Supply Schedule of the 
     General Services Administration, as published by such 
     Administration in 2021, updated to the year involved using 
     the applicable percent increase for the year determined under 
     clause (ii)(II), as reduced by the productivity adjustment 
     under clause (ii)(III), and shall ensure that the payment 
     component for dentures under such bundled payment does not 
     exceed the maximum rate determined for such dentures under 
     the Federal Supply Schedule, as so published and updated to 
     the year involved.
       ``(C) Annual update and adjustments.--
       ``(i) Annual update.--The Secretary shall update payment 
     amounts determined under the fee schedule from year to year 
     beginning in 2026 by increasing such amounts from the prior 
     year by the percentage increase in the consumer price index 
     for all urban consumers (United States city average) for the 
     12-month period ending with June of the preceding year, 
     reduced by the productivity adjustment described in section 
     1886(b)(3)(B)(xi)(II).
       ``(ii) Adjustments.--

       ``(I) In general.--The Secretary shall, to the extent the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary and subject to subclause 
     (II), adjust the amounts determined under the fee schedule 
     established under this paragraph for 2026 and subsequent 
     years to take into account changes in dental practice, coding 
     changes, new data on work, practice, or malpractice expenses, 
     or the addition of new procedures.
       ``(II) Limitation on annual adjustments.--The adjustments 
     under subclause (I) for a year shall not cause the amount of 
     expenditures under this part for the year to differ by more 
     than $20,000,000 from the amount of expenditures under this 
     part that would have been made if such adjustments had not 
     been made.

       ``(3) Limitations.--With respect to dental and oral health 
     services that are preventive and screening services described 
     in paragraph (1)(A) of section 1861(lll)--
       ``(A) payment shall be made under this part for--
       ``(i) not more than 2 oral exams in a year;
       ``(ii) not more than 2 dental cleanings in a year;
       ``(iii) not more than 1 fluoride treatment in a year; and
       ``(iv) not more than 1 full-mouth series of x-rays as part 
     of a preventive and screening oral exam every 3 years; and
       ``(B) in the case of preventive and screening services not 
     described in subparagraph (A), payment shall be made under 
     this part only at such frequencies determined appropriate by 
     the Secretary.
       ``(4) Incentives for rural providers.--In the case of 
     dental and oral health services furnished by a doctor of 
     dental surgery or of dental medicine (as described in section 
     1861(r)(2)) or an oral health professional (as defined in 
     section 1861(lll)(3)) who predominantly furnishes such 
     services under this part in an area that is designated by the 
     Secretary (under section 332(a)(1)(A) of the Public Health 
     Service Act) as a health professional shortage area, in 
     addition to the amount of payment that would otherwise be 
     made for such services under this subsection, there also 
     shall be paid an amount equal to 10 percent of the payment 
     amount for the service under this subsection for such doctor 
     or professional.
       ``(5) Limitation on beneficiary liability.--The provisions 
     of section 1848(g) shall apply to a nonparticipating doctor 
     of dental surgery or of dental medicine (as described in 
     subsection (r)(2)) who does not accept payment on an 
     assignment-related basis for dental and oral health services 
     furnished with respect to an individual enrolled under this 
     part in the same manner as such provisions apply with respect 
     to a physician's service.
       ``(6) Establishment of dental administrator.--The Secretary 
     shall designate one or more (not to exceed 4) medicare 
     administrative contractors under section 1874A to establish 
     coverage policies and establish such policies and process 
     claims for payment for dental and oral health services, as 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary.''.
       (d) Inclusion of Oral Health Professionals as Certain 
     Practitioners.--Section 1842(b)(18)(C) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395u(b)(18)(C)) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following new clause:
       ``(vii) With respect to 2026 and each subsequent year, an 
     oral health professional (as defined in section 
     1861(lll)(3)).''.
       (e) Exclusion Modifications.--Section 1862(a) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (O), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (P), by striking the semicolon at the 
     end and inserting ``, and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(Q) in the case of dental and oral health services (as 
     defined in section 1861(lll)) for which a limitation is 
     applicable under section 1834(z)(3), which are furnished more 
     frequently than is provided under such section.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (12), by inserting before the semicolon at 
     the end the following: ``and except that payment shall be 
     made under part B for dental and oral health services that 
     are covered under section 1861(s)(2)(II)''.
       (f) Inclusion as Excepted Medical Treatment.--Section 
     1821(b)(5)(A)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395i-5(b)(5)(A)), as added by section 11501(d), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or hearing aids'' and inserting ``hearing 
     aids''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, or dental and oral health services (as 
     defined in subsection (lll) of such section)'' after 
     ``subsection (s)(8) of such section''.
       (g) Rural Health Clinics and Federally Qualified Health 
     Centers.--
       (1) Coverage of dental and oral health services.--Section 
     1861(aa) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)), is 
     amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``and'' after the 
     comma at the end; and
       (iii) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(D) dental and oral health services (as defined in 
     subsection (lll)) furnished by a doctor of dental surgery or 
     of dental medicine (as described in subsection (r)(2)) or an 
     oral health professional (as defined in subsection (lll)(3)) 
     who is employed by or working under contract with a rural 
     health clinic if such rural health clinic furnishes such 
     services,''; and
       (B) in paragraph (3)(A), by striking ``(C)'' and inserting 
     ``(D)''.
       (2) Temporary payment rates for certain services under the 
     rhc air and fqhc pps.--
       (A) AIR.--Section 1833 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395l) is amended--
       (i) in subsection (a)(3)(A), by inserting ``(which shall, 
     in the case of dental and oral health services (as defined in 
     section 1861(lll)), in lieu of any limits on reasonable costs 
     otherwise applicable, be based on the rates payable for such 
     services under the payment basis determined under section 
     1848

[[Page S4174]]

     until such time as the Secretary determines sufficient data 
     has been collected to otherwise apply such limits (or January 
     1, 2030, if no such determination has been made as of such 
     date))'' after ``may prescribe in regulations''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(ee) Disregard of Costs Attributable to Certain Services 
     From Calculation of RHC AIR.--Payments for rural health 
     clinic services other than dental and oral health services 
     (as defined in section 1861(lll)) under the methodology for 
     all-inclusive rates (established by the Secretary) under 
     subsection (a)(3) shall not take into account the costs of 
     such services while rates for such services are based on 
     rates payable for such services under the payment basis 
     established under section 1848.''.
       (B) PPS.--Section 1834(o) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395m(o)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Temporary payment rates based on pfs for certain 
     services.--The Secretary shall, in establishing payment rates 
     for dental and oral health services (as defined in section 
     1861(lll) that are Federally qualified health center services 
     under the prospective payment system established under this 
     subsection, in lieu of the rates otherwise applicable under 
     such system, base such rates on rates payable for such 
     services under the payment basis established under section 
     1848 until such time as the Secretary determines sufficient 
     data has been collected to otherwise establish rates for such 
     services under such system (or January 1, 2030, if no such 
     determination has been made as of such date). Payments for 
     Federally qualified health center services other than such 
     dental and oral health services under such system shall not 
     take into account the costs of such services while rates for 
     such services are based on rates payable for such services 
     under the payment basis established under section 1848.''.
       (h) Implementation.--In addition to amounts otherwise 
     available, there is appropriated to the Secretary of Health 
     and Human Services for fiscal year 2022, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $900,000,000, to 
     remain available until expended, for purposes of implementing 
     the amendments made by this section during the period 
     beginning on January 1, 2022, and ending on September 30, 
     2031.

     SEC. 11503. PROVIDING COVERAGE FOR HEARING CARE UNDER THE 
                   MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Provision of Audiology Services by Qualified 
     Audiologists and Hearing Aid Examination Services by 
     Qualified Hearing Aid Professionals.--
       (1) In general.--Section 1861(ll) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(ll)) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(3)'';
       (ii) in subparagraph (A), as added by clause (i) of this 
     subparagraph--

       (I) by striking ``means such hearing and balance assessment 
     services'' and inserting ``means--

       ``(i) such hearing and balance assessment services and, 
     beginning January 1, 2024, such hearing aid examination 
     services and treatment services (including aural 
     rehabilitation, vestibular rehabilitation, and cerumen 
     management)'';

       (II) in clause (i), as added by subclause (I) of this 
     clause, by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (III) by adding at the end the following new clause:

       ``(ii) beginning January 1, 2024, such hearing aid 
     examination services furnished by a qualified hearing aid 
     professional (as defined in paragraph (4)(C)) as the 
     professional is legally authorized to perform under State law 
     (or the State regulatory mechanism provided by State law), as 
     would otherwise be covered if furnished by a physician.''; 
     and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(B) Beginning January 1, 2024, audiology services 
     described in subparagraph (A)(i) shall be furnished without a 
     requirement for an order from a physician or practitioner.''; 
     and
       (B) in paragraph (4), by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(C) The term `qualified hearing aid professional' means 
     an individual who--
       ``(i) is licensed or registered as a hearing aid dispenser, 
     hearing aid specialist, hearing instrument dispenser, or 
     related professional by the State in which the individual 
     furnishes such services; and
       ``(ii) is accredited by the National Board for 
     Certification in Hearing Instrument Sciences or meets such 
     other requirements as the Secretary determines appropriate 
     (including requirements relating to educational 
     certifications or accreditations) taking into account any 
     additional relevant requirements for hearing aid specialists, 
     hearing aid dispensers, and hearing instrument dispensers 
     established by Medicare Advantage organizations under part C, 
     State plans (or waivers of such plans) under title XIX, and 
     group health plans and health insurance issuers (as such 
     terms are defined in section 2791 of the Public Health 
     Service Act).''.
       (2) Payment for qualified hearing aid professionals.--
     Section 1833(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395l(a)(1)), as amended by section 11101(b) and 11501, is 
     further amended--
       (A) by striking ``and'' before ``(FF)''; and
       (B) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
     following: ``and (GG) with respect to hearing aid examination 
     services (as described in paragraph (3)(A)(ii) of section 
     1861(ll)) furnished by a qualified hearing aid professional 
     (as defined in paragraph (4)(C) of such section), the amounts 
     paid shall be equal to 80 percent of the lesser of the actual 
     charge for such services or 85 percent of the amount for such 
     services determined under the payment basis determined under 
     section 1848''.
       (3) Inclusion of qualified audiologists and qualified 
     hearing aid professionals as certain practitioners to receive 
     payment on an assignment-related basis.--
       (A) Qualified audiologists.--Section 1842(b)(18)(C) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395u(b)(18)(C)), as amended 
     by section 11502, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new clause:
       ``(viii) Beginning on January 1, 2024, a qualified 
     audiologist (as defined in section 1861(ll)(4)(B)).''.
       (B) Qualified hearing aid professionals.--Section 
     1842(b)(18) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395u(b)(18)) is amended--
       (i) in each of subparagraphs (A) and (B), by ``striking 
     subparagraph (C)'' and inserting ``subparagraph (C) or, 
     beginning on January 1, 2024, subparagraph (E)''; and
       (ii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) A practitioner described in this subparagraph is a 
     qualified hearing aid professional (as defined in section 
     1861(ll)(4)(C)).''.
       (b) Coverage of Hearing Aids.--
       (1) Inclusion of hearing aids as prosthetic devices.--
     Section 1861(s)(8) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395x(s)(8)) is amended by inserting ``, and including 
     hearing aids (as described in section 1834(h)(7)) furnished 
     on or after January 1, 2024, to individuals with moderately 
     severe, severe, or profound hearing loss'' before the 
     semicolon at the end.
       (2) Payment limitations for hearing aids.--Section 1834(h) 
     of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(h)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraphs:
       ``(6) Payment only on an assignment-related basis.--Payment 
     for hearing aids for which payment may be made under this 
     part may be made only on an assignment-related basis. The 
     provisions of subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 
     1842(b)(18) shall apply to hearing aids in the same manner as 
     they apply to services furnished by a practitioner described 
     in subparagraph (C) of such section.
       ``(7) Limitations for hearing aids.--
       ``(A) In general.--Payment may be made under this part with 
     respect to an individual, with respect to hearing aids 
     furnished by a qualified hearing aid supplier (as defined in 
     subparagraph (B)) on or after January 1, 2024--
       ``(i) not more than once per ear during a 5-year period;
       ``(ii) only for types of such hearing aids that are 
     determined appropriate by the Secretary; and
       ``(iii) only if furnished pursuant to a written order of a 
     physician, qualified audiologist (as defined in section 
     1861(ll)(4)), qualified hearing aid professional (as so 
     defined), physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or 
     clinical nurse specialist.
       ``(B) Definitions.--In this subsection:
       ``(i) Hearing aid.--The term `hearing aid' means the item 
     and related services including selection, fitting, 
     adjustment, and patient education and training.
       ``(ii) Qualified hearing aid supplier.--The term `qualified 
     hearing aid supplier' means--

       ``(I) a qualified audiologist;
       ``(II) a physician (as defined in section 1861(r)(1));
       ``(III) a physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or 
     clinical nurse specialist;
       ``(IV) a qualified hearing aid professional (as defined in 
     1861(ll)(4)(C)); and
       ``(V) other suppliers as determined by the Secretary.''.

       (3) Application of competitive acquisition.--
       (A) In general.--Section 1834(h)(1)(H) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(h)(1)(H)) is amended--
       (i) in the header, by inserting ``and hearing aids'' after 
     ``orthotics'';
       (ii) by inserting ``or of hearing aids described in 
     paragraph (2)(D) of such section,'' after ``2011,''; and
       (iii) in clause (i), by inserting ``or such hearing aids'' 
     after ``such orthotics''.
       (B) Conforming amendments.--
       (i) In general.--Section 1847(a)(2) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-3(a)(2)) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Hearing aids.--Hearing aids described in section 
     1861(s)(8) for which payment would otherwise be made under 
     section 1834(h).''.
       (ii) Exemption of certain items from competitive 
     acquisition.--Section 1847(a)(7) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395w-3(a)(7)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) Certain hearing aids.--Those items and services 
     described in paragraph (2)(D) if furnished by a physician or 
     other practitioner (as defined by the Secretary) to the 
     physician's or practitioner's own patients as part of the 
     physician's or practitioner's professional service.''.
       (iii) Implementation.--Section 1847(a) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-3(a)) is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new paragraph:

[[Page S4175]]

       ``(8) Competition with respect to hearing aids.--Not later 
     than January 1, 2029, the Secretary shall begin the 
     competition with respect to the items and services described 
     in paragraph (2)(D).''.
       (4) Physician self-referral law.--Section 1877(b) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395nn(b)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Hearing aids and services.--In the case of hearing 
     aid examination services and hearing aids--
       ``(A) furnished on or after January 1, 2024, and before 
     January 1, 2026; and
       ``(B) furnished on or after January 1, 2026, if the 
     financial relationship specified in subsection (a)(2) meets 
     such requirements the Secretary imposes by regulation to 
     protect against program or patient abuse.''.
       (c) Exclusion Modification.--Section 1862(a)(7) of the 
     Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)(7)) is amended by 
     inserting ``(except such hearing aids or examinations 
     therefor as described in and otherwise allowed under section 
     1861(s)(8))'' after ``hearing aids or examinations 
     therefor''.
       (d) Inclusion as Excepted Medical Treatment.--Section 
     1821(b)(5)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395i-
     5(b)(5)(A)) is amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``or'';
       (2) in clause (ii), by striking the period and inserting 
     ``, or''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iii) consisting of audiology services described in 
     subsection (ll)(3) of section 1861, or hearing aids described 
     in subsection (s)(8) of such section, that are payable under 
     part B as a result of the amendments made by the Act titled 
     `An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of 
     S. Con. Res. 14'.''.
       (e) Rural Health Clinics and Federally Qualified Health 
     Centers.--
       (1) Clarifying coverage of audiology services as 
     physicians' services.--Section 1861(aa)(1)(A) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(1)(A)) is amended by 
     inserting ``(including audiology services (as defined in 
     subsection (ll)(3)))'' after ``physicians' services''.
       (2) Inclusion of qualified audiologists and qualified 
     hearing aid professionals as rhc and fqhc practitioners.--
     Section 1861(aa)(1)(B) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395x(aa)(1)(B)) is amended by inserting ``or by a qualified 
     audiologist or a qualified hearing aid professional (as such 
     terms are defined in subsection (ll)),'' after ``(as defined 
     in subsection (hh)(1)),''.
       (3) Temporary payment rates for certain services under the 
     rhc air and fqhc pps.--
       (A) AIR.--Section 1833 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395l), as amended by section 11502(g), is amended--
       (i) in subsection (a)(3)(A), by inserting ``and audiology 
     services (as defined in section 1861(ll)(3))'' after ``(as 
     defined in section 1861(lll)''; and
       (ii) in subsection (e), by inserting ``and audiology 
     services (as defined in section 1861(ll)(3))'' after ``(as 
     defined in section 1861(lll)''.
       (B) PPS.--Section 1834(o)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395m(o)), as added by section 11501(e), is amended--
       (i) in the first sentence, by inserting `` and audiology 
     services (as defined in section 1861(ll)(3))'' after ``(as 
     defined in section 1861(lll))''; and
       (ii) in the second sentence, by inserting ``and such 
     audiology services'' after ``such dental and oral health 
     services''.
       (f) Implementation for 2023 Through 2025.--The Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services shall implement the provisions of, 
     and the amendments made by, this section for 2023, 2024, and 
     2025 by program instruction or other forms of program 
     guidance.
       (g) Funding.--In addition to amounts otherwise available, 
     there is appropriated to the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services for fiscal year 2022, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $370,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, for purposes of implementing the 
     amendments made by this section during the period beginning 
     on January 1, 2023, and ending on September 30, 2032.

     SEC. 11504. PROVIDING COVERAGE FOR VISION CARE UNDER THE 
                   MEDICARE PROGRAM.

       (a) Coverage.--Section 1861(s)(2) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(s)(2)), as amended by section 11502(a), 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (HH), by striking ``and'' after the 
     semicolon at the end;
       (2) in subparagraph (II), by striking the period at the end 
     and adding ``; and''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(JJ) vision services (as defined in subsection (mmm));''.
       (b) Vision Services Defined.--Section 1861 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x), as amended by section 
     11502(b), is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(mmm) Vision Services.--The term `vision services' means 
     routine eye examinations to determine the refractive state of 
     the eyes, including procedures performed during the course of 
     such examination, furnished on or after January 1, 2023, by 
     or under the direct supervision of an ophthalmologist or 
     optometrist who is legally authorized to furnish such 
     examinations or procedures (as applicable) under State law 
     (or the State regulatory mechanism provided by State law) of 
     the State in which the examinations or procedures are 
     furnished.''.
       (c) Payment Limitations.--Section 1834 of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m), as amended by section 
     11502(c), is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(aa) Limitation for Vision Services.--With respect to 
     vision services (as defined in section 1861(mmm)) and an 
     individual, payment shall be made under this part for only 1 
     routine eye examination described in such subsection during a 
     2-year period.''.
       (d) Payment Under Physician Fee Schedule.--Section 
     1848(j)(3) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-
     4(j)(3)) is amended by inserting ``(2)(JJ),'' before ``(3)''.
       (e) Coverage of Conventional Eyeglasses.--Section 
     1861(s)(8) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395x(s)(8)), as amended by section 11503(b), is amended by 
     striking ``, and including one pair of conventional 
     eyeglasses or contact lenses furnished subsequent to each 
     cataract surgery with insertion of an intraocular lens'' and 
     inserting ``, including one pair of conventional eyeglasses 
     or contact lenses furnished subsequent to each cataract 
     surgery with insertion of an intraocular lens, if furnished 
     before January 1, 2023, and including (as described in 
     section 1834(h)(8)) conventional eyeglasses, whether or not 
     furnished subsequent to such a surgery, if furnished on or 
     after January 1, 2023''.
       (f) Special Payment Rules for Eyeglasses.--
       (1) Limitations.--Section 1834(h) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(h)), as amended by section 11503(b), is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(8) Payment limitations for eyeglasses.--
       ``(A) In general.--With respect to conventional eyeglasses 
     furnished to an individual on or after January 1, 2023, 
     subject to subparagraph (B), payment shall be made under this 
     part only during a 2-year period, for one pair of eyeglasses 
     (including lenses and the frame).
       ``(B) Exception.--With respect to a 2-year period described 
     in subparagraph (A), in the case of an individual who 
     receives cataract surgery with insertion of an intraocular 
     lens, payment shall be made under this part for one pair of 
     conventional eyeglasses furnished subsequent to such cataract 
     surgery during such period.
       ``(C) No coverage of certain items.--Payment shall not be 
     made under this part for deluxe eyeglasses or conventional 
     reading glasses.''.
       (2) Application of competitive acquisition.--
       (A) In general.--Section 1834(h)(1)(H) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m(h)(1)(H)), as amended by 
     section 11503(b), is amended--
       (i) in the header, by striking ``and hearing aids'' and 
     inserting ``hearing aids, and eyeglasses''
       (ii) by striking ``or of hearing aids'' and inserting ``of 
     hearing aids'';
       (iii) by inserting ``or of eyeglasses described in 
     paragraph (2)(E) of such section,'' after ``paragraph (2)(D) 
     of such section,''; and
       (iv) in clause (i), by striking ``or such hearing aids'' 
     and inserting ``, such hearing aids, or such eyeglasses''.
       (B) Conforming amendment.--Section 1847(a)(2) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-3(a)(2)), as amended by section 
     11503(b), is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(E) Eyeglasses.--Eyeglasses described in section 
     1861(s)(8) for which payment would otherwise be made under 
     section 1834(h).''.
       (C) Implementation.--Section 1847(a) of the Social Security 
     Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-3(a)), as amended by section 11503(b), 
     is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(9) Competition with respect to eyeglasses.--Not later 
     than January 1, 2028, the Secretary shall begin the 
     competition with respect to the items and services described 
     in paragraph (2)(E).''.
       (g) Exclusion Modifications.--Section 1862(a) of the Social 
     Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y(a)), as amended by section 
     11502(e), is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) in subparagraph (P), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (Q), by striking the semicolon at the 
     end and inserting ``, and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(R) in the case of vision services (as defined in section 
     1861(mmm)) that are routine eye examinations as described in 
     such section, which are furnished more frequently than once 
     during a 2-year period;''; and
       (2) in paragraph (7)--
       (A) by inserting ``(other than such an examination that is 
     a vision service that is covered under section 
     1861(s)(2)(JJ))'' after ``eye examinations''; and
       (B) by inserting ``(other than such a procedure that is a 
     vision service that is covered under section 
     1861(s)(2)(JJ))'' after ``refractive state of the eyes''.
       (h) Inclusion as Excepted Medical Treatment.--Section 
     1821(b)(5)(A)(iii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395i-5(b)(5)(A)), as added by section 11501(d) and amended 
     by section 11503(f), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``or dental'' and inserting ``dental''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, or vision services (as defined in 
     subsection (mmm) of such section)''

[[Page S4176]]

     after ``(as defined in subsection (lll) of such section)''.
       (i) Rural Health Clinics and Federally Qualified Health 
     Centers.--
       (1) Clarifying coverage of vision services as physicians' 
     services.--Section 1861(aa)(1)(A) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1395x(aa)(1)(A)), as amended by section 11501(e), 
     is amended by inserting ``and vision services (as defined in 
     subsection (mmm))'' after ``(as defined in subsection 
     (ll)(3))''.
       (2) Temporary payment rates for certain services under the 
     rhc air and fqhc pps.--
       (A) AIR.--Section 1833 of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395l), as amended by sections 11502(g) and 11503(e), 
     is amended--
       (i) in subsection (a)(3)(A)--

       (I) by striking ``or audiology'' and inserting ``, 
     audiology''; and
       (II) by inserting ``, or vision services (as defined in 
     section 1861(mmm))'' after ``(as defined in section 
     1861(ll)(3))''; and

       (ii) in subsection (e)--

       (I) by striking ``or audiology'' and inserting ``, 
     audiology''; and
       (II) by inserting ``, and vision services (as defined in 
     section 1861(mmm))'' after ``(as defined in section 
     1861(ll)(3))''.

       (B) PPS.--Section 1834(o)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 
     U.S.C. 1395m(o)), as added by section 11502(g) and amended by 
     section 11503(e), is amended--
       (i) in the first sentence--

       (I) by striking ``and audiology'' and inserting ``, 
     audiology''; and
       (II) by inserting ``, and vision services (as defined in 
     section 1861(mmm))'' after ``(as defined in section 
     1861(ll)(3))''; and

       (ii) in the second sentence, by striking ``and such 
     audiology services'' and inserting ``, such audiology 
     services, and such vision services''.
       (j) Expediting Implementation.--The Secretary shall 
     implement this section for the period beginning on January 1, 
     2023, and ending on December 31, 2024, through program 
     instruction or other forms of program guidance.
       (k) Funding.--In addition to amounts otherwise available, 
     there is appropriated to the Secretary of Health and Human 
     Services for fiscal year 2022, out of any money in the 
     Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $500,000,000, to remain 
     available until expended, for purposes of implementing the 
     amendments made by this section during the period beginning 
     on January 1, 2023, and ending on September 30, 2031.

     SEC. 11505. PHASE-IN OF IMPACT OF DENTAL AND ORAL HEALTH 
                   COVERAGE ON PART B PREMIUMS.

       Section 1839(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395r(a)) is amended--
       (1) in the second sentence of paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``and (7)'' and inserting ``(7), and (8)'';
       (2) in paragraph (3), by striking ``The Secretary'' and 
     inserting ``Subject to paragraph (8)(C), the Secretary''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(8) Special Rule for 2025 Through 2028.--
       ``(A) Determination of alternative monthly actuarial rate 
     for each of 2025 through 2028.--For each of 2025 through 
     2028, the Secretary shall, at the same time as and in 
     addition to the determination of the monthly actuarial rate 
     for enrollees age 65 and over determined in each of 2024 
     through 2027 for the succeeding calendar year according to 
     paragraph (1), determine an alternative monthly actuarial 
     rate for enrollees age 65 and over for the year as described 
     in subparagraph (B).
       ``(B) Alternative monthly actuarial rate described.--
       ``(i) In general.--The alternative monthly actuarial rate 
     described in this subparagraph is--
       ``(I) for 2025, the monthly actuarial rate for enrollees 
     age 65 and over for the year, determined as if the amendments 
     made by section 11502 of the Act titled `An Act to provide 
     for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 14' 
     did not apply; and
       ``(II) for 2026, 2027, and 2028, the monthly actuarial rate 
     for enrollees age 65 and over for the year, determined as if 
     the amendments made by such section 11502 did not apply, plus 
     the applicable percent of the amount by which--

       ``(aa) the monthly actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and 
     over for the year determined according to paragraph (1); 
     exceeds
       ``(bb) the monthly actuarial rate for enrollees age 65 and 
     over for the year, determined as if the amendments made by 
     such section 11502 did not apply.

       ``(ii) Definition of applicable percent.--For purposes of 
     this subparagraph, the term `applicable percent' means--
       ``(I) for 2026, 25 percent;
       ``(II) for 2027, 50 percent; and
       ``(III) for 2028, 75 percent.
       ``(C) Application to part b premium and other provisions of 
     this part.--For each of 2025 through 2028, the Secretary 
     shall use the alternative monthly actuarial rate for 
     enrollees age 65 and over for the year determined under 
     subparagraph (A), in lieu of the monthly actuarial rate for 
     such enrollees for the year determined according to paragraph 
     (1), when determining the monthly premium rate for the year 
     under paragraph (3) and subsection (j), the part B deductible 
     under section 1833(b), and the premium subsidy and monthly 
     adjustment amount under subsection (i).''.

                       Subpart B--Tax Provisions

     SEC. 11511. APPLICATION OF NET INVESTMENT INCOME TAX TO TRADE 
                   OR BUSINESS INCOME OF CERTAIN HIGH INCOME 
                   INDIVIDUALS.

       (a) In General.--Section 1411 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(f) Application to Certain High Income Individuals.--
       ``(1) In general.--In the case of any individual whose 
     modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year exceeds 
     the high income threshold amount, subsection (a)(1) shall be 
     applied by substituting `the greater of specified net income 
     or net investment income' for `net investment income' in 
     subparagraph (A) thereof.
       ``(2) Phase-in of increase.--The increase in the tax 
     imposed under subsection (a)(1) by reason of the application 
     of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not exceed the 
     amount which bears the same ratio to the amount of such 
     increase (determined without regard to this paragraph) as--
       ``(A) the excess described in paragraph (1), bears to
       ``(B) $100,000 (\1/2\ such amount in the case of a married 
     taxpayer (as defined in section 7703) filing a separate 
     return).
       ``(3) High income threshold amount.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the term `high income threshold amount' means--
       ``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B) or (C), 
     $400,000,
       ``(B) in the case of a taxpayer making a joint return under 
     section 6013 or a surviving spouse (as defined in section 
     2(a)), $500,000, and
       ``(C) in the case of a married taxpayer (as defined in 
     section 7703) filing a separate return, \1/2\ of the dollar 
     amount determined under subparagraph (B).
       ``(4) Specified net income.--For purposes of this section, 
     the term `specified net income' means net investment income 
     determined--
       ``(A) without regard to the phrase `other than such income 
     which is derived in the ordinary course of a trade or 
     business not described in paragraph (2),' in subsection 
     (c)(1)(A)(i),
       ``(B) without regard to the phrase `described in paragraph 
     (2)' in subsection (c)(1)(A)(ii),
       ``(C) without regard to the phrase `other than property 
     held in a trade or business not described in paragraph (2)' 
     in subsection (c)(1)(A)(iii),
       ``(D) without regard to paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of 
     subsection (c), and
       ``(E) by treating paragraphs (5) and (6) of section 469(c) 
     (determined without regard to the phrase `To the extent 
     provided in regulations,' in such paragraph (6)) as applying 
     for purposes of subsection (c) of this section.''.
       (b) Application to Trusts and Estates.--Section 
     1411(a)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 
     by striking ``undistributed net investment income'' and 
     inserting ``the greater of undistributed specified net income 
     or undistributed net investment income''.
       (c) Clarifications With Respect to Determination of Net 
     Investment Income.--
       (1) Certain exceptions.--Section 1411(c)(6) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(6) Special rules.--Net investment income shall not 
     include--
       ``(A) any item taken into account in determining self-
     employment income for such taxable year on which a tax is 
     imposed by section 1401(b),
       ``(B) wages received with respect to employment on which a 
     tax is imposed under section 3101(b) or 3201(a) (including 
     amounts taken into account under section 3121(v)(2)), and
       ``(C) wages received from the performance of services 
     earned outside the United States for a foreign employer.''.
       (2) Net operating losses not taken into account.--Section 
     1411(c)(1)(B) of such Code is amended by inserting ``(other 
     than section 172)'' after ``this subtitle''.
       (3) Inclusion of certain foreign income.--
       (A) In general.--Section 1411(c)(1)(A) of such Code is 
     amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by 
     striking ``over'' at the end of clause (iii) and inserting 
     ``and'', and by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(iv) any amount includible in gross income under section 
     951, 951A, 1293, or 1296, over''.
       (B) Proper treatment of certain previously taxed income.--
     Section 1411(c) of such Code is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new paragraph:
       ``(7) Certain previously taxed income.--The Secretary shall 
     issue regulations or other guidance providing for the 
     treatment of--
       ``(A) distributions of amounts previously included in gross 
     income for purposes of chapter 1 but not previously subject 
     to tax under this section, and
       ``(B) distributions described in section 962(d).''.
       (d) Deposit Into Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.--
     Section 1817(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1395i(a)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) the excess of--
       ``(A) the taxes imposed by 1411(a) of the Internal Revenue 
     Code of 1986, as reported to

[[Page S4177]]

     the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate pursuant to 
     subtitle F of such Code after December 31, 2022, over
       ``(B) the taxes which would have been imposed under such 
     section after such date, determined as if the amendments made 
     by section 11511 of the Act titled `An Act to provide for 
     reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 14') did 
     not apply, as estimated by the Secretary of the Treasury.''.
       (e) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2022.
       (f) Transition Rule.--The regulations or other guidance 
     issued by the Secretary under section 1411(c)(7) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (as added by this section) 
     shall include provisions which provide for the proper 
     coordination and application of clauses (i) and (iv) of 
     section 1411(c)(1)(A) with respect to--
       (1) taxable years beginning on or before December 31, 2022, 
     and
       (2) taxable years beginning after such date.

     SEC. 11512. INCREASE IN TOP MARGINAL INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX 
                   RATE.

       (a) Re-establishment of 39.6 Percent Rate Bracket.--
       (1) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving 
     spouses.--The table contained in section 1(j)(2)(A) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking the last 
     two rows and inserting the following: ``

$91,379, plus 35% of the excess over $400,000..........................
$108,879, plus 39.6% of the excess over $450,000.''....................
       (2) Heads of households.--The table contained in section 
     1(j)(2)(B) of such Code is amended by striking the last two 
     rows and inserting the following: ``

$44,298, plus 35% of the excess over $200,000..........................
$123,048, plus 39.6% of the excess over $425,000.''....................
       (3) Unmarried individuals other than surviving spouses and 
     heads of households.--The table contained in section 
     1(j)(2)(C) of such Code is amended by striking the last two 
     rows and inserting the following: ``

$45,689.50, plus 35% of the excess over $200,000.......................
$115,689.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $400,000.''.................
       (4) Married individuals filing separate returns.--The table 
     contained in section 1(j)(2)(D) of such Code is amended by 
     striking the last two rows and inserting the following: ``

$45,689.50, plus 35% of the excess over $200,000.......................
$54,439.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $225,000.''..................
       (5) Estates and trusts.--The table contained in section 
     1(j)(2)(E) of such Code is amended by striking the last row 
     and inserting the following: ``

$3,011.50, plus 39.6% of the excess over $12,500.''....................
       (b) Application of Adjustments.--Section 1(j)(3) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Adjustments.--For taxable years beginning after 
     December 31, 2022, the Secretary shall prescribe tables which 
     shall apply in lieu of the tables contained in paragraph (2) 
     in the same manner as under paragraphs (1) and (2) of 
     subsection (f) (applied without regard to clauses (i) and 
     (ii) of subsection (f)(2)(A)), except that in prescribing 
     such tables--
       ``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), subsection 
     (f)(3) shall be applied by substituting `calendar year 2017' 
     for `calendar year 2016' in subparagraph (A)(ii) thereof,
       ``(B) in the case of adjustments to the dollar amounts at 
     which the 39.6 percent rate bracket begins (other than such 
     dollar amount in paragraph (2)(E))--
       ``(i) no adjustment shall be made for taxable years 
     beginning after December 31, 2022, and before January 1, 
     2024, and
       ``(ii) in the case of any taxable year beginning after 
     December 31, 2023, subsection (f)(3) shall be applied by 
     substituting `calendar year 2022' for `calendar year 2016',
       ``(C) subsection (f)(7)(B) shall apply to any unmarried 
     individual other than a surviving spouse, and
       ``(D) subsection (f)(8) shall not apply.''.
       (c) Modification to 39.6 Percent Rate Bracket for High-
     income Taxpayers After 2025.--Section 1(i)(3) of the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Modifications to 39.6 percent rate bracket.--In the 
     case of taxable years beginning after December 31, 2025--
       ``(A) In general.--The rate of tax under subsections (a), 
     (b), (c), and (d) on a taxpayer's taxable income in excess of 
     the 39.6 percent rate bracket threshold shall be taxed at a 
     rate of 39.6 percent.
       ``(B) 39.6 percent rate bracket threshold.--For purposes of 
     this paragraph, the term `39.6 percent rate bracket 
     threshold' means--
       ``(i) in the case any taxpayer described in subsection (a), 
     $450,000,
       ``(ii) in the case of any taxpayer described in subsection 
     (b), $425,000,
       ``(iii) in the case of any taxpayer described in subsection 
     (c), $400,000, and
       ``(iv) in the case of any taxpayer described in subsection 
     (d), $225,000.
       ``(C) Inflation adjustment.--For purposes of this 
     paragraph, with respect to taxable years beginning in 
     calendar years after 2025, each of the dollar amounts in 
     subparagraph (B) shall be adjusted in the same manner as 
     under paragraph (1)(C)(i), except that subsection 
     (f)(3)(A)(ii) shall be applied by substituting `2022' for 
     `2016'.''.
       (d) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 1(j)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
     amended by striking ``December 31, 2017'' and inserting 
     ``December 31, 2022''.
       (2) The heading of section 1(j) is amended by striking 
     ``2018'' and inserting ``2023''.
       (3) The heading of section 1(i) is amended by striking 
     ``Rate Reductions'' and inserting ``Modifications''
       (4) Section 15(f) is amended by striking ``rate 
     reductions'' and inserting ``modifications''.
       (e) Section 15 Not to Apply.--For rules providing that 
     section 15 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 does not 
     apply to the amendments made by this section, see sections 
     1(j)(6) and 15(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2022.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, in the richest country on Earth, millions 
of seniors should not have teeth rotting in their mouths or be unable 
to afford hearing aids or eyeglasses.
  In America today, the reality is that a quarter of Americans 65 and 
older are missing all of their natural teeth, and 20 percent have 
untreated dental cavities.
  Further, one in three seniors suffers from hearing loss, while 75 
percent who need a hearing aid cannot afford one.
  And further, it can cost seniors up to $300 for a routine eye exam 
and over $200 for a pair of glasses, which many seniors simply are 
unable to afford and do without.
  This amendment is simple. It expands Medicare to provide dental, 
vision, and hearing benefits to our seniors.
  This should not be a particularly tough vote, given the fact that the 
last poll I saw had 84 percent of the American people in support of 
this concept.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, yes, I would urge a ``no'' vote simply 
because we are living in a world where it is hard to get by. Growing 
the government, I think, will create more inflation. Everything can't 
be free because we all--it gets to be so free that you can't afford it.
  So you are the same people that told us if we passed the American 
Rescue Plan, all would be well. We are at 9.1 percent inflation. You 
are increasing gas taxes. Now you want to expand Medicare. This is 
going to hurt the American people. Stop the madness. Vote no.


                  Vote on Amendment 5211, As Modified

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 5211, as modified.
  Mr. BOOKER. 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.
  The result was announced--yeas 3, nays 97, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 292 Leg.]

                                YEAS--3

     Ossoff
     Sanders
     Warnock

                                NAYS--97

     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
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young
  The amendment (No. 5211, as modified) was rejected.

[[Page S4178]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                Amendment No. 5382 to Amendment No. 5194

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5382 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 West Virginia [Mrs. Capito] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5382 to amendment No. 5194.

  The amendment is as follows:

     (Purpose: To strike provisions concerning funding for certain 
                  activities under the Clean Air Act)

        In section 60105, strike subsection (g).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  There are 2 minutes, equally divided.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, this amendment would strike a provision 
that gives the EPA $45 million in a slush fund to use eight different 
sections of the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. The EPA 
will undoubtedly try to use this money to develop rules targeting 
electricity generation, manufacturing, agriculture, and other sectors 
of our economy.
  This will be the first time that Congress has told the EPA to carry 
out many of these Clean Air Act sections with respect to greenhouse 
gases. There is no doubt that EPA lawyers and environmental groups will 
point to this language when they try to convince courts to uphold 
future overreaching climate regulations.
  After the EPA's recent loss before the Supreme Court on the illegal 
Clean Power Plan, we should not be providing funds to the Agency that 
it will inevitably use to undertake more expansive and unauthorized 
rulemakings. This $45 million slush fund would be used to impose 
billions of dollars in regulatory burdens on our economy and increase 
costs at the worst time for consumers.
  This provision is bad for West Virginia, and it is bad for America. I 
urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, the amendment by our colleague Senator 
Capito would strike $45 million in the bill that would fund the EPA to 
use its existing narrow Clean Air Act authorities to address greenhouse 
gas emissions.
  Our colleague sought to argue that this provision did not comply with 
the Byrd rule, but the Parliamentarian ruled that it does. We are now 
presented with an amendment to strike the provision altogether.
  The EPA has lots of authorities and tools already at its disposal to 
reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by no later than midcentury. 
The quickest way we can jump-start government-wide climate action is to 
help empower Agencies to use the tools that they already have. The $45 
million in the bill before us would help the EPA to do just that.
  I spoke earlier today about the urgent need for climate action. We 
are witnessing record heat, more extreme weather, and devastating 
floods on an almost daily basis. We should fund the EPA to use all of 
the authorities at its disposal to tackle the climate crisis. The 
urgency of this problem demands no less.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 5382

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mrs. FISCHER. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 293 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
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     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
  The amendment (No. 5382) was rejected.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The junior Senator from Oklahoma.


                Amendment No. 5384 to Amendment No. 5194

  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 5384 and 
ask that it be reported by number.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the amendment 
by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Lankford] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5384 to amendment No. 5194.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide additional funding for implementation of title 42)

        At the appropriate place in title IX, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. ____. FUNDING FOR TITLE 42 IMPLEMENTATION.

       (a) Appropriation.--
       (1) In general.--In addition to amounts otherwise 
     available, there is appropriated to the Director of the 
     Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, out of amounts in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $1,000,000 for 
     fiscal year 2023, for the purpose described in paragraph (2).
       (2) Use of funds.--The Director of the Centers for Disease 
     Control and Prevention shall use the amounts appropriated 
     under paragraph (1) for the continued implementation of the 
     orders by the Director pursuant to section 362 of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 265) regarding the suspension 
     of entry into the United States of persons from countries 
     where a quarantinable communicable disease exists, until the 
     date that is 120 days after the termination of the public 
     health emergency declared under section 319 of the Public 
     Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) with respect to COVID-19, 
     including renewals of such emergency.
       (b) Prevention and Public Health Fund.--Section 4002(b) of 
     the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 
     300u-11(b)) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``each of fiscal years 
     2022 and 2023'' and inserting ``fiscal year 2022'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraphs (7) through (9) as 
     paragraphs (8) through (10), respectively; and
       (3) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) for fiscal year 2023, $999,000,000;''.

  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, the Biden administration continues to 
declare that we are in a public health emergency because of COVID-19. 
This public health emergency, first declared in January 2020, has been 
renewed 10 times.
  Title 42 is the health authority specifically designed to prevent 
people from coming into the country during a pandemic. It is 
nonsensical to say that we have a COVID health emergency everywhere but 
on our southern border. If there is a public health emergency in this 
country, then title 42 authority must remain in place.
  Title 42 authority is the last line of defense that our Border Patrol 
agents have to protect our Nation, and my Democratic colleagues said 
they agreed with that idea back in April. The situation has only 
worsened since that time so surely they will agree with me more today.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment, that we would remain 
consistent with title 42 authority in this Nation.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, let's be clear about what is going on 
here. This amendment is an attempt by Republicans to derail our ability 
to get this bill across the finish line and deliver for families in our 
country.
  Title 42 is a public health tool, and how it is used should be guided 
by public health experts--looking at data, looking at science--not 
politicians

[[Page S4179]]

looking to score political points or, in this case, Republicans trying 
to stop a bill that lowers costs, lowers emissions, and lowers the 
deficit.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 5384

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  Mr. LANKFORD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 294 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
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     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
  The amendment (No. 5384) was rejected.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DURBIN. Would the Senator from Montana hold for just one moment, 
please? Thank you.


                           Order of Business

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following disposition 
of the Crapo amendment No. 5404, the following amendments be the next 
Republican amendments in order: No. 5358, Collins; motion to commit, 
Scott; No. 5389, Marshall; No. 5383, Capito; and No. 5421, Grassley.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The senior Senator from Montana.


                Amendment No. 5480 to Amendment No. 5194

  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 5480, and I ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Tester] proposes amendment 
     numbered 5480 to amendment No. 5194.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To establish a procedure for terminating a determination by 
Surgeon General to suspend certain entries and imports from designated 
                                places)

        At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. PUBLIC HEALTH AND BORDER SECURITY.

       (a) Short Title.--This section may be cited as the ``Public 
     Health and Border Security Act of 2022''.
       (b) Termination of Suspension of Entries and Imports From 
     Designated Places Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic.--
       (1) In general.--An order of suspension issued under 
     section 362 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 265) 
     as a result of the public health emergency relating to the 
     Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic declared under 
     section 319 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) on January 31, 2020, 
     and any continuation of such declaration (including the 
     continuation described in Proclamation 9994 on February 24, 
     2021), shall be lifted not earlier than 60 days after the 
     date on which the Surgeon General provides written 
     notification to the appropriate authorizing and appropriating 
     committees of Congress that such public health emergency 
     declaration (including the continuation described in 
     Proclamation 9994 on February 24, 2021) have been terminated.
       (2) Procedures during 60-day termination window.--
       (A) Plan.--Not later than 30 days after the date on which a 
     written notification is provided under paragraph (1) with 
     respect to an order of suspension, the Surgeon General, in 
     consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the 
     head of any other Federal agency, State, local or Tribal 
     government, or nongovernmental organization that has a role 
     in managing outcomes associated with the suspension, as 
     determined by the Surgeon General (or the designee of the 
     Surgeon General), shall develop and submit to the appropriate 
     committees of Congress, a plan to address any possible influx 
     of entries or imports, as defined in such order of 
     suspension, related to the termination of such order.
       (B) Failure to submit.--If a plan under subparagraph (A) is 
     not submitted to the appropriate committees of Congress 
     within the 30-day period described in such subparagraph, not 
     later than 7 days after the expiration of such 30-day period, 
     the Secretary shall notify the appropriate committees of 
     Congress, in writing, of the status of preparing such a plan 
     and the timing for submission as required under subparagraph 
     (A). The termination of order related to such plan shall be 
     delayed until that date that is 30 days after the date on 
     which such plan is submitted to such committees.

  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, this amendment is actually quite simple. 
It is to make sure that we have a comprehensive plan in place before 
title 42 is lifted. Very straightforward. This is not whether title 42 
should ever be lifted or not; rather, it is about making sure that we 
are doing the right thing at the right time, which I believe is when 
the COVID-19 national emergency is lifted and when we have a plan in 
place.
  I would urge a ``yea'' vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The junior Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, well, I anticipate there will be a few 
people who are going to vote for it before they vote against it, in 
this case. What this is, is this is actually my title 42 bill, except 
with one little tweak in it. It takes it out of Byrd compliance. So 
this allows any individual to be able to vote for this one but actually 
oppose the one that would have actually implemented the policy that was 
actually Byrd-compliant.
  This is the reason people get so angry at Washington, DC, because 
people will say: Oh, I didn't really mean to do that; I meant to do 
this.
  Here is my concern. I think anyone should ask everyone, if they voted 
one way one time and one way another, what is different on this, 
because here is what I think happens next. What I think is about to 
happen is, someone is going to stand and they are going to call a point 
of order on this and to say this is not compliant with the Byrd rule. 
And people are going to say: I tried to get it done, but that 
Parliamentarian just knocked it down. So that is what I bet happens 
next. We will see.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Democratic whip.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I raise a point of order that the 
pending amendment does not produce a change in outlays or revenues and 
therefore violates section 313(b)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from Montana.


                            Motion to Waive

  Mr. TESTER. Madam President, before I make my motion, I would just 
say we were here earlier this week on a different bill that had nothing 
to do with the Budget Act.
  Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, I move to waive section 313 of that act for the purpose of 
this provision, and I would ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 56, nays 44, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 295 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty

[[Page S4180]]


     Hassan
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Warnock
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--44

     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
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 56, and 
the nays are 44.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Idaho.


                Amendment No. 5404 to Amendment No. 5194

  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, I call up my amendment, No. 5404, and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. 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 5404 to amendment No. 5194.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To prevent the use of additional Internal Revenue Service 
  funds from being used for audits of taxpayers with taxable incomes 
   below $400,000 in order to protect low- and middle-income earning 
  American taxpayers from an onslaught of audits from an army of new 
 Internal Revenue Service auditors funded by an unprecedented, nearly 
                $80,000,000,000, infusion of new funds)

       At the end of section 10301, add the following:
       (c) Limitations Related to the Internal Revenue Service.--
     None of the funds appropriated under subsection (a)(1) may be 
     used to audit taxpayers with taxable incomes below $400,000.

  Mr. CRAPO. Madam President, my amendment will guard against squeezing 
middle-class taxpayers. Supersized IRS funding will squeeze billions 
from the middle-class workers and small businesses through ramped-up 
audits.
  My colleagues on the other side and the President all say that that 
is not intended by the bill, and, in fact, the bill itself says that is 
not intended. But this is not enforceable language, and everyone knows 
that the targeted money in the bill cannot be achieved unless the 
middle class--people with incomes under $400,000--are hit with a wave 
of new audits.
  We also know that the Congressional Budget Office will score that, 
showing that there is no way to accomplish the objectives of this bill 
unless you audit the middle class.
  My bill simply puts in some teeth behind what is admitted by everyone 
to be the intention of the legislation, to say that none of the new IRS 
funding may be used to audit those earning below $400,000.
  If my amendment is not adopted, billions in taxes will be squeezed 
out of taxpayers earning below $400,000, according to the CBO, 
including middle-income workers and small businesses.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I rise in opposition to my friend's 
amendment. We all agree here that taxpayers with less than $400,000 in 
taxable income should not face a tax increase. And there is language 
already--and I would like to note this--in the enforcement section of 
the bill that says just that.
  But the Crapo amendment goes much further than that. It applies--and 
I quote here--``to taxpayers with taxable income.''
  And as Americans have learned recently, billionaires often have 
little or no taxable income for years on end.
  So under this amendment, the billionaires who live off their 
borrowings would be immune from audit, and that would invite further 
tax avoidance.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 5404

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  Mr. CRAPO. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 296 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
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     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
  The amendment (No. 5404) was rejected.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority whip.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Collins 
amendment No. 5358 be in order following Grassley amendment No. 5421.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The junior Senator from Florida.


                   Motion to Commit with Instructions

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, I have a motion at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Scott] moves to commit the 
     bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions.

  The junior Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, I ask that the reading be 
dispensed with.

       [Mr. Scott of Florida] moves to commit the bill H.R. 5376 
     to the Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions 
     to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting 
     any day in which the Senate is not in session, with changes 
     that--
       (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
       (2) would prohibit the hiring of any additional Internal 
     Revenue Service agents pursuant to section 
     10301(a)(1)(A)(i)(II) until such time as at least 18,000 
     additional agents (over the number of such agents employed as 
     of the date of enactment) are hired by the United States 
     Border Patrol.

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Madam President, the historic crisis that the 
Biden administration has created on the southern border by failing to 
enforce our laws is threatening the national security of the United 
States every day.
  Savage cartels own our U.S. border now. This fiscal year, more than 2 
million people have illegally entered the United States. Drugs are 
pouring into our communities and killing thousands and thousands of 
Americans. It must end now.
  Sadly, Democrats are still doing nothing to support the Border Patrol 
or actually securing the border. Instead, they want to supersize the 
IRS and add 87,000 more agents to hunt down and audit even more 
families and small businesses.
  My amendment says that before one additional IRS agent is hired, we 
must give Border Patrol the support it needs and double its forces with 
18,000 more Border Patrol agents. It is time to first secure the border 
and second, stop the Democrats from supersizing the IRS.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for my commonsense amendment.

[[Page S4181]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The senior Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I gather that this is the first of the 
motions to commit this legislation back to committee.
  I want my colleagues to understand what this is really all about. 
These motions to commit are motions to kill this bill, period. And what 
that means is: Let's try to do everything we can to delay Democrats 
from being able to deliver for the American people lower prescription 
drug costs for the elderly, lower healthcare premiums, lower carbon 
emissions, lower energy costs, less tax cheating by the wealthy.
  The Senate ought to be moving this legislation forward instead of 
trying to kill the bill through these motions to commit.
  One last point, I gather we are going to have a bit more of this 
discussion.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds of additional time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. COTTON. Objection.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WYDEN. I urge opposition to the Scott proposal.


                        Vote on Motion to Commit

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
motion to commit.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 297 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
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     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
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from Kansas.


                Amendment No. 5389 to Amendment No. 5194

  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5389 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Marshall] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5389 to amendment No. 5194.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To protect patient access to current and future treatments 
for a range of serious conditions, such as cancer, Alzheimer's disease, 
HIV/AIDS, Parkinson's disease, and sickle cell disease, among numerous 
                                others)

        At the end of title I, add the following:

 Subtitle E--Ensuring Patient Access to Drugs and Biological Products 
                     That Treat Serious Conditions

     SEC. 14001. ENSURING PATIENT ACCESS TO DRUGS AND BIOLOGICAL 
                   PRODUCTS THAT TREAT SERIOUS CONDITIONS.

       Section 1192(e)(3) of the Social Security Act, as added by 
     section 11001, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new subparagraphs:
       ``(D) Six protected classes.--A covered part D drug in a 
     category or class that is identified under section 1860D-
     4(b)(3)(G)(iv).
       ``(E) Breakthrough therapies.--A drug or biological product 
     designated under section 506(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 356(a)) as a breakthrough therapy 
     and approved under section 505 of such Act (21 U.S.C. 355) or 
     section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
     262).''.

     SEC. 14002. REDUCTION OF ADDITIONAL IRS FUNDING FOR 
                   ENFORCEMENT AND OPERATIONS.

       Section 10301(a)(1)(A)(i) of this Act is amended--
       (1) in subclause (II), by striking ``$45,637,400,000'' and 
     inserting ``$10,326,400,000''; and
       (2) in subclause (III), by striking ``$25,326,400,000'' and 
     inserting ``$326,400,000''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, this is a reckless inflation bill that 
will increase drug prices. Yes, you can write that down. Just like the 
ACA has driven up healthcare costs, this bill will increase drug 
prices.
  With a limited window to recoup R&D, manufacturers will have to 
increase their launch prices. It will also eliminate incentives for 
generics to come to market and gain market share by pricing lower than 
the branded product.
  Perhaps even worse, this bill will delay, if not eliminate, new 
innovative drugs for life-threatening illnesses, like Alzheimer's and 
cancers. This is why our amendment excludes two categories of drugs 
from price controls: Medicare Part D's six protected classes and the 
FDA's breakthrough therapy designation drugs.
  By voting ``yes,'' you will be protecting patients with mental 
illness, organ transplants, Alzheimer's, cancers, and HIV. A ``no'' 
vote is a vote to never see a cure for Alzheimer's.
  Rather than a healthcare system that offers Americans breakthrough 
medicines, this reckless tax-and-spend bill will force Americans to 
settle for end-of-life care, and that is just wrong.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment for two reasons. 
The first is, it would water down the new negotiations program, so it 
would be harder to negotiate over the most expensive drugs in Medicare 
today, including cancer drugs, which are at the top of our list. 
Second, it would water down the efforts at the Internal Revenue Service 
to beef up tax enforcement against wealthy tax cheats.
  I would urge opposition to the Marshall amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 5389

  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 senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 298 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
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     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
  The amendment (No. 5389) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.


                Amendment No. 5209 to Amendment No. 5194

  (Purpose: To establish a Civilian Climate Corps.)

[[Page S4182]]

  

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 5209, 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 Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for himself and Mr. 
     Merkley, proposes an amendment numbered 5209 to amendment No. 
     5194.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the driving force behind the fight 
against climate change has been young people here in the United States 
and abroad.
  They have marched. They have demonstrated. They demanded 
institutional disinvestment in fossil fuel companies. In short, they 
have fought for a world in which they and their kids and grandchildren 
could live in a healthy and habitable planet.
  This legislation invests some $300 billion in energy efficiency and 
sustainable energy, and that is a good thing. But it invests very 
little in giving our younger generation the opportunities to roll up 
their sleeves and get to work in moving our energy system away from the 
fossil fuel which is destroying our planet.
  This amendment invests $30 billion in a Civilian Conservation Corps, 
which would create 400,000 jobs for young people. They will be paid a 
living wage, given benefits toward higher education, and be trained for 
good union, clean-energy jobs.
  Let us stand with the young people who have led the fight against 
climate change. I urge a ``yes'' vote for the Civilian Conservation 
Corps.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I would urge a no. This has been tried 
before by my colleague Senator Sanders. This would give hundreds of 
thousands of people enlisting free housing, free food, transportation, 
educational costs.
  We have a weak economy. Every time I rise to speak, we ruin the 
government in a different way. If you really want to help the American 
people, secure their border. If you want to hire anybody new, hire a 
Border Patrol agent, not 87,000 IRS agents, not a climate corps.
  I know these are well-intentioned, but we are living in a very 
tenuous time for the American people, and their needs are not being met 
tonight. Every problem they have is being made worse. We don't need a 
climate corps right now, quite frankly. We need to secure a broken 
border before terrorists come across and kill a bunch of us.
  Vote no.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 5209

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. 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 Tennessee (Mr. Blackburn).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote or change their vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 1, nays 98, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 299 Leg.]

                                YEAS--1

       
     Sanders
       

                                NAYS--98

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     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
     Rounds
     Rubio
     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

       
     Blackburn
       
  The amendment (No. 5209) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                Amendment No. 5383 to Amendment No. 5194

  (Purpose: To expedite consideration of permits and provide regulatory 
certainty for infrastructure and energy projects.)
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5383 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from West Virginia [Mrs. Capito], for herself 
     and Mr. Inhofe, proposes an amendment numbered 5383 to No. 
     Amendment No. 5194.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise to offer a commonsense permitting 
reform amendment. There has been a lot of talk and promises about a 
supposed deal or fixing our Nation's broken permitting system, but we 
have yet to see any legislative text.
  My amendment delivers these reforms right now. Among these reforms 
are provisions that reduce delays and environmental reviews, generally 
to 2 years or less, while maintaining protections. Eliminating 
regulatory hurdles, which are now driving higher gasoline and energy 
costs, and implementing the one Federal decision--these are things 
Democrats say they will support eventually. Let's tackle inflation, 
permitting, and energy supply challenges right here tonight. Let's 
finish the Mountain Valley Pipeline now.
  Americans can't wait, and no one can build back better if we can't 
build anything at all. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to this 
amendment, which would make sweeping changes to bedrock environmental 
laws. This amendment would modify the regulatory authorities of the 
Environmental Protection Agency and multiple other Agencies. It would 
undermine protection of our water quality, weaken air quality 
protections, harm wildlife, and would have significant impacts on 
vulnerable communities.
  At a time when we need to be moving toward stable clean energy 
sources, it would focus instead on fracking and would prohibit us from 
considering the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions in Federal 
decisions.
  And thus, I urge my colleagues to vote no.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment 
violates section 313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                            Motion to Waive

  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act and relevant budget resolutions, 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 question is on agreeing to the motion to waive.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 300 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

[[Page S4183]]


     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     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

       
     Shelby
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kelly). On this vote, the yeas are 49, the 
nays are 50.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.
  The Senator from Iowa.


                Amendment No. 5421 to Amendment No. 5194

  (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the 
maximum capital gains tax rate, to provide a partial exclusion for 
interest received by individuals, to provide inflation adjustments for 
certain tax benefits, and for other purposes.)
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask to call up amendment No. 5421, and I 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 Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5421 to amendment No. 5194.



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

  
  On page S4183, August 6, 2022, first column, the following 
appears: The Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes and 
amendment numbered 5421 to amendment No. 5491.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The Senator from 
Iowa [Mr. Grassley] proposes and amendment numbered 5421 to 
amendment No. 5194.


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


  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments''.)
  Mr. GRASSLEY. It is 4:50 a.m., and I want all the people who thought 
that inflation was going to be transitory to understand that it is 
persistent, and that persistence of inflation has hurt the Tax Code 
that tries to help middle-class America.
  So my amendment fixes this by providing inflation relief to the 
middle class by increasing family and education tax provisions to 
account for Biden inflation.
  Moreover, the bill includes important savings incentives that will 
enable middle-class Americans to save tax-free, ensuring that they 
aren't taxed on phantom income resulting from inflation.
  So I urge my Members to support this. Particularly when you have in 
this Tax Code things that benefit the rich who can afford Teslas for 
$80,000, you can surely do something for middle-class America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, unfortunately, this amendment is just bad 
news. This amendment lowers capital gains taxes, and it is more tax 
giveaways to the most fortunate.
  And if you are a wealthy tax cheat, you can rest easy because 
Republican budget cuts at the IRS mean you can get away with breaking 
the law scot-free. I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Do I have some time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 5421

  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.
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 301 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
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     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
  The amendment (No. 5421) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                   Motion to Commit with Instructions

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins] moves to commit the 
     bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the motion be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion to commit is as follows:

       [Ms. Collins] moves to commit the bill H.R. 5376 to the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions to 
     report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting 
     any day in which the Senate is not in session, with changes 
     that--
       (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
       (2) that none of the amounts made available under section 
     10301 shall be used to hire any new employee until 90 percent 
     of Internal Revenue Service employees employed as of the date 
     of the enactment of this Act are working in person at an 
     Internal Revenue Service office or job site.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, the underlying bill provides billions of 
dollars to the IRS to hire 87,000 additional auditors, yet more than 50 
percent of the current IRS employees have yet to return to their 
offices or work sites.
  Here are the consequences: Four out of five phone calls from 
taxpayers go unanswered; 21 million returns have not been processed; 
refunds are taking 6 months or more.
  My motion would simply prohibit the IRS from using these billions of 
dollars to add 87,000 new employees prior to bringing 90 percent of 
their workforce back to the office.
  I would note that that 87,000 number is more than the combined 
employees at the Pentagon, the State Department, the FBI, and the 
Border Patrol agents combined.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, this motion is meant to delay or kill this 
bill. If adopted, it would harm the IRS's ability to carry out its 
duties by preventing the Agency from hiring new workers.
  Federal employees are returning to in-person work, but Agencies need 
flexibility that telework and remote work provide to compete with the 
private sector, retain qualified workers, and serve the American people 
effectively.
  Telework can also ensure Federal employees can continue to serve the 
people and stay safe if COVID variants or other public health threats 
disrupt in-person work.
  Remote and telework options allow the IRS to hire the workforce they 
need across the entire country so they can crack down on tax cheats and 
make sure big corporations are paying their fair share.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion so we can pass this bill 
today.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following disposition of 
the Collins motion to commit, the following amendments be the next 
Republican amendments in order: Kennedy amendment No. 5387, and Rubio 
motion to commit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S4184]]

  The Senator from Maine.


                             Vote on Motion

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I request 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 motion.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 302 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
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     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
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). The Senator from Louisiana.


                Amendment No. 5387 to Amendment No. 5194

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5387 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 Louisiana [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5387 to amendment No. 5194.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require oil and gas lease sales in the outer Continental 
                                 Shelf)

       At the appropriate place in subtitle B of title V, insert 
     the following:

     SEC. 502___. MANDATORY OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS 
                   LEASE SALES.

       (a) Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Lease Sales.--
       (1) Requirement.--Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary 
     of the Interior (acting through the Director of the Bureau of 
     Ocean Energy Management) (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Secretary'') shall conduct not fewer than 10 area-wide oil 
     and gas lease sales under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) during the period beginning on 
     July 1, 2022, and ending on June 30, 2027.
       (2) Schedule.--Not fewer than 2 area-wide oil and gas lease 
     sales required under paragraph (1) shall be held each year 
     during the period described in that paragraph in the 
     following planning areas of the Gulf of Mexico Region of the 
     outer Continental Shelf, as described in the 2017-2022 Outer 
     Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Final Program 
     (November 2016):
       (A) The Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area.
       (B) The Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Area.
       (b) Cook Inlet Oil and Gas Lease Sales.--The Secretary 
     shall conduct not fewer than 1 oil and gas lease sale under 
     the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et 
     seq.) in the Cook Inlet Planning Area of the Alaska Region of 
     the outer Continental Shelf, as described in the 2017-2022 
     Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Final 
     Program (November 2016), during the period beginning on July 
     1, 2022, and ending on June 30, 2027.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, on March 31 of this year, my two friends 
Senator Joe Manchin and Senator Mark Kelly wrote to President Biden:

       We are writing to urge you to develop and implement a new 
     5-year program for oil and gas production in the Gulf of 
     Mexico without delay.

  My amendment would fulfill that request and make it a congressional 
directive.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, this leasing requirement would be in 
addition to the leasing that is already required by this bill, with 75 
percent of offshore leased acres not yet being used to produce oil and 
gas. Opening up more acres to leasing is unnecessary. The main thing is 
that the passage of this amendment would jeopardize the whole package.
  Therefore, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, do I have any time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty seconds.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, all my amendment does is to take Senator 
Manchin's letter and Senator Kelly's letter--well-written, well-
reasoned--and make it a congressional directive. That is all it does.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 5387

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 303 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
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     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
  The amendment (No. 5387) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                   Motion to Commit with Instructions

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Rubio] moves to commit the 
     bill to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions.

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion is as follows:
       Mr. Rubio moves to commit the bill H.R. 5376 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate with instructions to 
     report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting 
     any day in which the Senate is not in session, with changes 
     that--
       (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
       (2) would increase funding to ensure that--
       (A) prosecutors are addressing violent crime by ensuring 
     the appropriate pretrial detention of dangerous criminals; 
     and
       (B) law enforcement is addressing crime.

  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, I don't think I need to tell anybody here 
that our work is at its best when it is focused on what people care 
about. Let me tell you what people care about. They don't care as much 
about buying solar panels and electric cars as they do about not having 
to live in a community where violent crime is rampant and you have some 
crazy prosecutor who refuses to put people in jail, who refuses to 
prosecute entire categories of crime.
  People are worried about that, and rightfully so. And it is 
happening. We have these beautiful cities that were once world-class 
cities that have become unlivable all over this country because we have 
these lunatic prosecutors that have decided that there are entire 
categories of crime they will not prosecute.

[[Page S4185]]

  That is the kind of stuff we should be working on here tonight, all 
night long. If you want to spend all night working on something, work 
on that. Don't waste time on stuff that doesn't matter to real people 
working every single day who are not going to be driving an electric 
car next year or the year after that, but they might get mugged, but 
they might be a victim of a violent crime.
  So what this does is it sends it to the Judiciary Committee and asks 
them, in 3 days, come back with some ideas about how you can spend just 
a little bit of these billions of dollars that we are throwing away on 
this garbage--how we can spend a little bit of that money to put 
criminals in jail so Americans no longer have to live in fear in their 
communities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Florida says we 
should stop our efforts on reconciliation until we put money in law 
enforcement. So we checked the record. When we put billions in local 
communities for law enforcement in the American Rescue Plan, the senior 
Senator from Florida voted no.
  And when it came to the Omnibus bill and Byrne grants and COPS money 
that local organizations and law enforcement needed so they could be 
stronger and fight crime, 31 Republicans voted no, including the senior 
Senator from Florida.
  So I would suggest we vote no on his amendment.
  Mr. RUBIO. Mr. President, do I have time remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.


                        Vote on Motion to Commit

  The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  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.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 304 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
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     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
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lujan). The majority whip.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be the next Republican amendments in order: 5316, Lee; 5418, 
Shelby; Motion to Commit, Tim Scott; 5263, Cruz; 5425, Daines; 5361, 
Ernst; 5360, Fischer; 5265, Cruz; 5385, Kennedy; motion to waive budget 
with respect to insulin; 5472, Thune; 5406 Hagerty; 5224, Portman; 
motion to commit, Hoeven; Cruz motion to commit on vaccines; Cruz 
motion to commit on targeting parents; further, that the Sanders 
amendment No. 5208 occur following the Scott motion to commit; and 
Sanders No. 5281 following the Daines amendment No. 5425.


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

  
  On page S4185, August 6, 2022, second column, the following 
appears: amendments be the next Republican amendments in order: 
5116, Lee: 5418, Shelby
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: amendments be the 
next Republican amendments in order: 5316, Lee: 5418, Shelby


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


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Utah.


                Amendment No. 5316 to Amendment No. 5194

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5316 and ask that 
it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5316.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To reduce funding for home energy performance based, whole-
 house rebates and to provide funding for supplemental payments under 
                 the payments in lieu of taxes program)

        At the appropriate place in subtitle B of title V, insert 
     the following:

     SEC. 502__. SUPPLEMENTAL PAYMENTS UNDER THE PAYMENTS IN LIEU 
                   OF TAXES PROGRAM.

       In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is 
     appropriated to the Secretary for fiscal year 2022, out of 
     any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, 
     $460,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 2031, 
     to provide supplemental payments to general units of local 
     government for each of fiscal years 2022 through 2031 under 
     chapter 69 of title 31, United States Code, with the amount 
     of the supplemental payment for each fiscal year to be 
     determined by the Secretary, based on the proportional share 
     of the payment received by the general unit of local 
     government under that chapter for the applicable fiscal year.

     SEC. 502__. REDUCTION OF APPROPRIATION FOR HOME ENERGY 
                   PERFORMANCE-BASED, WHOLE-HOUSE REBATES.

       Notwithstanding section 50121(a)(1), the amount 
     appropriated under that section shall be $3,840,000,000.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, across the Nation, local governments are 
struggling to support their constituents. These frontline public 
servants provide for the safety and well-being of their friends and 
neighbors, typically using funds derived from local property taxes.
  However, in many counties, these Federal neighbors of sorts don't pay 
property taxes, but they draw heavily on the resources made available 
by these local governments. Rescuing hikers, paving roads, addressing 
forest fires--these are just a few of the vital services that these 
communities honorably provide even though they receive little to no 
compensation for them.
  My amendment would institute a supplemental PILT Program--payment in 
lieu of taxes--an additional PILT payment increasing funds by nearly 10 
percent. It would not make these communities completely whole by 
providing true tax equivalency, but it would make a huge difference. If 
Americans want to continue to safely enjoy our national parks, 
monuments, forests, and general landscape, we must ensure this program, 
PILT, continues to serve as a reliable source of income as property 
taxes would were Federal lands subject to property tax.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to oppose the 
amendment from the Senator of Utah. This would take out one of the 
provisions in the bill which will directly help homeowners save money 
on their heating bills and on their cooling bills. It does so by giving 
them a rebate for home energy efficiency improvements, and then they 
will save for the rest of their lives in their home.
  I also find it a little ironic this would put money in local 
governments, which our Republican colleagues said have received too 
much money under the American Rescue Plan, and you have been trying to 
claw that back.
  I would urge my colleagues to stick with the provision in the bill. 
It is an important part of the bill that both provides consumers with 
savings and to address the climate crisis.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 5316

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 305 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton

[[Page S4186]]


     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
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--51

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     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
  The amendment (No. 5316) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.


                Amendment No. 5418 to Amendment No. 5194

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5418 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Shelby] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5418 to amendment No. 5194.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To end the President's War on Coal through the approval of 
                              coal leases)

       At the end of part 6 of subtitle B of title V, add the 
     following:

     SEC. 5026_____. MANDATORY LEASING FOR CERTAIN QUALIFIED 
                   APPLICATIONS.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Coal lease.--The term ``coal lease'' means a lease 
     entered into by the United States as lessor, through the 
     Bureau of Land Management, and the applicant on Bureau of 
     Land Management Form 3400-012.
       (2) Qualified application.--The term ``qualified 
     application'' means any application pending under the lease 
     by application program administered by the Bureau of Land 
     Management pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 
     et seq.) and subpart 3425 of title 43, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (as in effect on October 1, 2021), for which the 
     environmental review process under the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) has commenced.
       (b) Mandatory Leasing and Other Required Approvals.--As 
     soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall promptly--
       (1) with respect to each qualified application--
       (A) if not previously published for public comment, publish 
     a draft environmental assessment, as required under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) and any applicable implementing regulations;
       (B) finalize the fair market value of the coal tract for 
     which a lease by application is pending;
       (C) take all intermediate actions necessary to grant the 
     qualified application; and
       (D) grant the qualified application; and
       (2) with respect to previously awarded coal leases, grant 
     any additional approvals of the Department of the Interior or 
     any bureau, agency, or division of the Department of the 
     Interior required for mining activities to commence.

  Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, my amendment requires that the Secretary 
of the Interior--requires that he complete, or she, pending coal lease 
applications under the Bureau of Land Management.
  I believe we cannot allow the Biden administration to block the 
mining of our own essential energy resources and building materials.
  I urge my colleagues to support our coal miners and vote ``yes'' on 
this amendment.
  Basically, the amendment would require that the Secretary of the 
Interior to complete pending coal lease processes for both 
metallurgical and thermal coal.
  Currently, the administration has paused the Lease by Application 
program for Federal coal leases at the Bureau of Land Management and so 
forth.
  It does not change the law. It simply seeks to raise revenue by 
accelerating and ensuring approval of leases that are currently paused 
by the Department of the Interior.
  It makes a lot of sense to the American people, and it will put a lot 
of people back to work.
  I urge adoption. Amen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, this amendment does require that the 
Secretary of the Interior grant leases for coal mining, but granting 
more leases for coal mining is going to do nothing for our coal miners 
today because we are in the situation where the existing coal mines are 
looking for more customers. That is the challenge; not more leases.
  So I know that if this was something that would help the coal miners, 
that it would already be in this bill, given the knowledge and 
understanding of my colleague from West Virginia.
  So jeopardizing the employment of existing coal miners is certainly 
not in the interest of any of us, and I urge my colleagues to vote no 
on this amendment.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 5418

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. LEE. 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 executive clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 306 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
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     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
  The amendment (No. 5418) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all remaining 
votes be 10 minutes in duration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from South Carolina.


                            Motion to Commit

  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, I have a motion at the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Scott] moves to commit 
     the bill to the Committee on Finance with an instruction to 
     report.

  Mr. SCOTT OF South Carolina. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent 
that the reading be dispensed with.
  The motion to commit is as follows:
       Mr. Scott of South Carolina moves to commit the bill H.R. 
     5376 to the Committee on Finance of the Senate with 
     instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, 
     not counting any day in which the Senate is not in session, 
     with changes that--
       (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee;
       (2) eliminate additional Internal Revenue Service funding 
     for enforcement; and
       (3) establish a child opportunity tax credit for 
     individuals that--
       (A) addresses the learning loss of students as a result of 
     prolonged school closures; and
       (B) does not result in a projected revenue loss over the 
     10-year budget window of more than $45,637,400,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, in this underlying bill, 
there is $87 billion for the IRS. The Democrats want to make the IRS--
the three

[[Page S4187]]

letters you never want to see in your mailbox--bigger than the 
Pentagon, the State Department, the FBI, and the Border Patrol 
combined.
  Instead, what my motion does is that it would take $45 billion from 
enforcement and give it to parents so that they can help their kids 
make up for the learning loss that occurred during the pandemic.
  And oh, by the way, when you think about the size of the IRS and when 
you think about the enforcement, realize that according to the CBO, 90 
percent of the targeting would be on household incomes under $200,000.
  I urge my colleagues to support my motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, once again, this sends the bill back to 
committee and kills Democratic efforts to reduce the cost of 
prescription medicine, reduce health insurance premiums, reduce carbon 
emissions, and crack down on wealthy tax cheats. And if you are a 
wealthy tax cheat, you can rest easily because Republican budget cuts 
at the IRS mean that you can get away with breaking the law scot-free.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, how much time do I have 
left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two seconds.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Two seconds or 22 seconds?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two seconds.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. Mr. President, what we know already is 
that 9.1 percent of inflation is already ravaging middle-income 
Americans. I cannot believe that we will not take the time and do what 
is best for the American people, and especially those making under 
$200,000.


                        Vote on Motion to Commit

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
commit.
  Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina. 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.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 307 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
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     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
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from Vermont.


         Amendment No. 5208, as Modified, to Amendment No. 5194

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 5208, as 
modified, and I ask that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.

       The Senator from Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for himself and Mr. 
     Merkley, proposes an amendment numbered 5208, as modified, to 
     amendment No. 5194.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To extend the special rules for the child tax credit that 
        applied for 2021 and to increase the corporate tax rate)

       At the end of title I, insert the following:

                      Subtitle E--Other Provisions

     SEC. 14001. AMENDMENT OF 1986 CODE.

       Except as otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this 
     subtitle an amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an 
     amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the 
     reference shall be considered to be made to a section or 
     other provision of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

                        PART 1--CHILD TAX CREDIT

     SEC. 14101. EXTENSIONS AND MODIFICATIONS.

       (a) Extensions.--
       (1) Extension of child tax credit.--Section 24(i) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``January 1, 2026'' in the matter preceding 
     paragraph (1) and inserting ``January 1, 2026'', and
       (B) by inserting ``and 2022'' after ``2021'' in the heading 
     thereof.
       (2) Extension of provisions related to possessions of the 
     united states.--
       (A) Section 24(k)(2)(B) is amended--
       (i) by striking ``December 31, 2021'' in the matter 
     preceding clause (i) and inserting ``December 31, 2025'', and
       (ii) by striking ``After 2021'' in the heading thereof and 
     inserting ``After 2025''.
       (B) Section 24(k)(3)(C)(ii) is amended--
       (i) in subclause (I), by striking ``in 2021'' and inserting 
     ``after December 31, 2020, and before January 1, 2026'' after 
     ``2021,'', and
       (ii) in subclause (II), by striking ``December 31, 2021'' 
     and inserting ``December 31, 2026''.
       (C) The heading of section 24(k)(2)(A) is amended by 
     inserting ``Through 2025'' after ``2021''.
       (b) Extension and Modification of Advance Payment.--
       (1) In general.--Section 7527A is amended--
       (A) in subsection (b)(1), by striking ``50 percent of'' and 
     inserting ``100 percent (25 percent in the case of calendar 
     year 2022) of'',
       (B) in clauses (i) and (ii) of subsection (e)(4)(C), by 
     striking ``in 2021'' and inserting ``after December 31, 2020, 
     and before January 1, 2026'', and
       (C) in subsection (f)--
       (i) in paragraph (1), by striking ``or'',
       (ii) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``, or before October 1, 2022, or'', and
       (iii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) any period after December 31, 2025.''.
       (2) Annual advance amount.--Section 7527A(b) is amended--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or based on any 
     other information known to the Secretary'' after ``reference 
     taxable year'',
       (ii) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ``unless determined 
     by the Secretary based on any information known to the 
     Secretary,'' before ``the only children'', and
       (iii) in subparagraph (D), by inserting ``unless determined 
     by the Secretary based on any information known to the 
     Secretary,'' before ``the ages of'', and
       (B) in paragraph (3)(A)(ii), by striking `` provided by the 
     taxpayer'' and inserting ``provided, or known,''.
       (3) Monthly payments.--
       (A) In general.--Section 7527A(a) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a program 
     for making monthly payments to taxpayers in amounts equal to 
     1/12 of the annual advance amount with respect to such 
     taxpayer.''.
       (B) Modifications during calendar year.--Section 
     7527A(b)(3), as amended by the preceding provisions of this 
     Act, is amended--
       (i) by amending subparagraph (A)(ii) to read as follows:
       ``(ii) any other information provided, or known, to the 
     Secretary which allows the Secretary to more accurately 
     estimate the amount treated as allowed under subpart C of 
     part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 by reason of section 
     24(i)(1) with respect to the taxpayer for the reference 
     taxable year.'', and
       (ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``periodic payment'' 
     both places it appears and inserting ``monthly payment''.
       (C) Conforming amendment.--Section 7527A(c)(2) is amended 
     by striking ``subsection (b)(3)(B)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (b)(3)''.
       (4) Eligibility for advance payments limited based on 
     modified adjusted gross income.--Section 7527A(b) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(6) Limitation based on modified adjusted gross income.--
       ``(A) In general.--If the modified adjusted gross income of 
     the taxpayer for the reference taxable year exceeds the 
     applicable threshold amount with respect to such taxpayer (as 
     defined in section 24(i)(4)(B)), the annual advance amount 
     with respect to such taxpayer shall be zero.
       ``(B) Exception for modifications made during the calendar 
     year.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a reference 
     taxable year taken into account by reason of paragraph 
     (3)(A)(i) or subsection (c) if the taxpayer received one or 
     more payments under subsection (a) for months in the calendar 
     year which precede the month for which such reference taxable 
     year will be taken into account.''.
       (5) Advance payments to puerto rico residents.--Section 
     7527A(e)(4) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``The advance'' and 
     inserting ``Except as provided in subparagraph (D), the 
     advance'', and

[[Page S4188]]

       (B) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(D) Advance payments to puerto rico residents for certain 
     years.--For the period beginning on October 1, 2022, and 
     ending on December 31, 2022, the Secretary may apply this 
     section without regard to subparagraph (A)(i).''.
       (c) Election to Apply Income Phaseout on Basis of Income 
     From the Preceding Taxable Year.--Section 24(i) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(5) Election to apply income phaseout on basis of income 
     from the preceding taxable year.--In the case of a taxpayer 
     who elects (at such time and in such manner as the Secretary 
     may provide) the application of this paragraph for any 
     taxable year, paragraph (4) and subsection (b)(1) shall both 
     be applied with respect to the modified adjusted gross income 
     (as defined in subsection (b)) for the taxpayer's preceding 
     taxable year.''.
       (d) Safe Harbor Exception for Fraud and Intentional 
     Disregard of Rules and Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--Section 24(j)(2)(B) is amended--
       (A) by striking ``qualified'' each place it appears in 
     clause (iv)(II) and inserting ``qualifying'', and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``(v) Exception for fraud and intentional disregard of 
     rules and regulations.--

       ``(I) In general.--For purposes of determining the safe 
     harbor amount under clause (iv) with respect to any taxpayer, 
     an individual shall not be treated as taken into account in 
     determining the annual advance amount of such taxpayer if the 
     Secretary determines that such individual was so taken into 
     account due to fraud by the taxpayer or intentional disregard 
     of rules and regulations by the taxpayer.
       ``(II) Arrangements to take individual into account more 
     than once.--For purposes of subclause (I), a taxpayer shall 
     not fail to be treated as intentionally disregarding rules 
     and regulations with respect to any individual taken into 
     account in determining the annual advance amount of such 
     taxpayer if such taxpayer entered into a plan or other 
     arrangement with, or expected, another taxpayer to take such 
     individual into account in determining the credit allowed 
     under this section for the taxable year.''.

       (2) Additional modification.--Section 24(j)(2)(B)(iv), as 
     amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(iv) Safe harbor amount.--For purposes of this 
     subparagraph, the term `safe harbor amount' means, with 
     respect to any taxpayer for any taxable year, the sum of--

       ``(I) an amount equal to the product of $3,600 multiplied 
     by the excess (if any) of the number of qualifying children 
     who have not attained age 6 as of the close of the calendar 
     year in which the taxable year of the taxpayer begins, and 
     who are taken into account in determining the annual advance 
     amount with respect to the taxpayer under section 7527A with 
     respect to months beginning in such taxable year, over the 
     number of such qualifying children taken into account in 
     determining the credit allowed under this section for such 
     taxable year, plus
       ``(II) an amount equal to the product of $3,000 multiplied 
     by the excess (if any) of the number of qualifying children 
     not described in clause (I), and who are taken into account 
     in determining the annual advance amount with respect to the 
     taxpayer under section 7527A with respect to months beginning 
     in such taxable year, over the number of such qualifying 
     children taken into account in determining the credit allowed 
     under this section for such taxable year.''.

       (e) Rules Relating to Reconciliation of Credit and Advance 
     Credit.--Section 24(j) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new paragraphs:
       ``(3) Joint returns.--Except as otherwise provided by the 
     Secretary, in the case of an advance payment made under 
     section 7527A with respect to a joint return, half of such 
     payment shall be treated as having been made to each 
     individual filing such return.
       ``(4) Coordination with possessions of the united states.--
     For purposes of this subsection, payments made under section 
     7527A include payments made by any jurisdiction other than 
     the United States under section 7527A of the income tax law 
     of such jurisdiction, and advance payments made by American 
     Samoa pursuant to a plan described in subsection (k)(3)(B). 
     In carrying out this section, the Secretary shall coordinate 
     with each possession of the United States to prevent any 
     application of this paragraph that is inconsistent with the 
     purposes of this subsection.''.
       (f) Disclosure of Information Relating to Joint Filers and 
     Advance Payment of Child Tax Credit.--Section 6103(e) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(12) Disclosure of information relating to joint filers 
     and advance payment of child tax credit.--In the case of an 
     individual to whom the Secretary makes payments under section 
     7527A, if the reference taxable year (as defined in section 
     7527A(b)(2)) that the Secretary uses to calculate such 
     payments is a year for which the individual filed an income 
     tax return jointly with another individual, the Secretary may 
     disclose to such individual any return information of such 
     other individual which is relevant in determining the payment 
     under section 7527A and the individual's eligibility for such 
     payment, including information regarding any of the 
     following:
       ``(A) The number of specified children, including by reason 
     of the birth of a child.
       ``(B) The name and TIN of specified children.
       ``(C) Marital status.
       ``(D) Modified adjusted gross income.
       ``(E) Principal place of abode.
       ``(F) Any other factor which the Secretary may provide 
     pursuant to section 7527A(c).''.
       (g) Repeal of Social Security Number Requirement.--
       (1) In general.--Section 24(h) is amended by striking 
     paragraph (7).
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Section 24(h)(1) is amended by striking ``paragraphs 
     (2) through (7)'' and inserting ``paragraphs (2) through 
     (6)''.
       (B) Section 24(h)(4) is amended by striking subparagraph 
     (C).
       (h) Effective Date.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and 
     (3), the amendments made by this section shall apply to 
     taxable years beginning after December 31, 2021.
       (2) Payments.--
       (A) The amendments made by paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and 
     (5) of subsection (b) shall apply to payments after September 
     30, 2022.
       (B) The amendments made by paragraph (3) of subsection (b) 
     shall apply to payments after December 31, 2022.
       (3) Disclosure of information relating to joint filers and 
     advance payment of child tax credit.--The amendment made by 
     subsection (f) shall take effect on the date of the enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. 14102. REFUNDABLE CHILD TAX CREDIT AFTER 2022.

       (a) In General.--Section 24 is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new subsection:
       ``(l) Refundable Credit After 2022.--In the case of any 
     taxable year beginning after December 31, 2022, if the 
     taxpayer (in the case of a joint return, either spouse) has a 
     principal place of abode in the United States (determined as 
     provided in section 32) for more than one-half of the taxable 
     year or is a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico (within the 
     meaning of section 937(a)) for such taxable year--
       ``(1) subsection (d) shall not apply, and
       ``(2) so much of the credit determined under subsection (a) 
     (after application of paragraph (1)) as does not exceed the 
     amount of such credit which would be so determined without 
     regard to subsection (h)(4) shall be allowed under subpart C 
     (and not allowed under this subpart)''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments Related to Possessions of the 
     United States.--
       (1) Puerto rico.--Section 24(k)(2)(B), as amended by the 
     preceding provisions of this Act, is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(B) Application to taxable years after 2022.--For 
     application of refundable credit to residents of Puerto Rico 
     for taxable years after 2022, see subsection (l).''.
       (2) American samoa.--Section 24(k)(3)(C)(ii)(II), as 
     amended by the preceding provisions of this Act, is amended 
     to read as follows:

       ``(II) if such taxable year begins after December 31, 2022, 
     subsection (l) shall be applied by substituting `Puerto Rico 
     or American Samoa' for `Puerto Rico'.''.

       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2022.

     SEC. 14103. APPROPRIATIONS.

       Immediately upon the enactment of this Act, in addition to 
     amounts otherwise available, there are appropriated out of 
     any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated:
       (1) $3,963,300,000 to remain available until September 30, 
     2026, for necessary expenses for the Internal Revenue Service 
     to administer the Child Tax Credit, and advance payments of 
     the Child Tax Credit, including the costs of disbursing such 
     payments, which shall supplement and not supplant any other 
     appropriations that may be available for this purpose, and
       (2) $1,000,000,000 is appropriated to the Department of the 
     Treasury, to remain available until September 30, 2026, to 
     support efforts to increase enrollment of eligible families 
     in the Child Tax Credit, for advance payments of the Child 
     Tax Credit, and for other tax benefits, including but not 
     limited to program outreach, costs of data sharing 
     arrangements, systems changes, forms changes, and related 
     efforts, and efforts to support the cross-enrollment of 
     beneficiaries of other programs in the Child Tax Credit, and 
     for advance payments of the Child Tax Credit, including by 
     establishing intergovernmental cooperative agreements with 
     states and local governments, the District of Columbia, 
     tribal governments, and possessions of the United States: 
     Provided, that such amount shall be available in addition to 
     any amounts otherwise available: Provided further, that these 
     funds may be awarded by federal agencies to state and local 
     governments, the District of Columbia, tribal governments, 
     and possessions of the United States, and private entities, 
     including organizations dedicated to free tax return 
     preparation and low income taxpayer clinics funded under 
     section 7526 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

                       PART 2--CORPORATE TAX RATE

     SEC. 14201. INCREASE IN CORPORATE TAX RATE.

       (a) In General.--Section 11(b) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(b) Amount of Tax.--

[[Page S4189]]

       ``(1) In general.--The amount of the tax imposed by 
     subsection (a) shall be the sum of--
       ``(A) 18 percent of so much of the taxable income as does 
     not exceed $400,000,
       ``(B) 21 percent of so much of the taxable income as 
     exceeds $400,000 but does not exceed $5,000,000, and
       ``(C) 28 percent of so much of the taxable income as 
     exceeds $5,000,000.

     In the case of a corporation which has taxable income in 
     excess of $10,000,000 for any taxable year, the amount of tax 
     determined under the preceding sentence for such taxable year 
     shall be increased by the lesser of (i) 3 percent of such 
     excess, or (ii) $362,000.
       ``(2) Certain personal service corporation not eligible for 
     graduated rates.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the amount 
     of the tax imposed by subsection (a) on the taxable income of 
     a qualified personal service corporation (as defined in 
     section 448(d)(2)) shall be equal to 28 percent of the 
     taxable income.''.
       (b) Proportional Adjustment of Deduction for Dividends 
     Received.--
       (1) In general.--Section 243(a)(1) is amended by striking 
     ``50 percent'' and inserting ``60 percent''.
       (2) Dividends from 20-percent owned corporations.--Section 
     243(c)(1) is amended--
       (A) prior to amendment by subparagraph (B), by striking 
     ``65 percent'' and inserting ``72.5 percent'', and
       (B) by striking ``50 percent'' and inserting ``60 
     percent''.
       (c) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1561 is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) In General.--The component members of a controlled 
     group of corporations on a December 31 shall, for their 
     taxable years which include such December 31, be limited for 
     purposes of this subtitle to--
       ``(1) amounts in each taxable income bracket in the 
     subparagraphs of section 11(b)(1) which do not aggregate more 
     than the maximum amount in each such bracket to which a 
     corporation which is not a component member of a controlled 
     group is entitled, and
       ``(2) one $250,000 ($150,000 if any component member is a 
     corporation described in section 535(c)(2)(B)) amount for 
     purposes of computing the accumulated earnings credit under 
     section 535(c)(2) and (3).

     The amounts specified in paragraph (1) shall be divided 
     equally among the component members of such group on such 
     December 31 unless all of such component members consent (at 
     such time and in such manner as the Secretary shall by 
     regulations prescribe) to an apportionment plan providing for 
     an unequal allocation of such amounts. The amounts specified 
     in paragraph (2) shall be divided equally among the component 
     members of such group on such December 31 unless the 
     Secretary prescribes regulations permitting an unequal 
     allocation of such amounts. Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in 
     applying the last sentence of section 11(b)(1) to such 
     component members, the taxable income of all such component 
     members shall be taken into account and any increase in tax 
     under such last sentence shall be divided among such 
     component members in the same manner as amounts under 
     paragraph (1).'', and
       (2) by striking ``accumulated earnings credit'' in the 
     heading and inserting ``certain multiple tax benefits''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2022.
       (e) Normalization Requirements.--
       (1) In general.--A normalization method of accounting shall 
     not be treated as being used with respect to any public 
     utility property for purposes of section 167 or 168 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 if the taxpayer, in computing 
     its cost of service for ratemaking purposes and reflecting 
     operating results in its regulated books of account, reduces 
     the tax reserve deficit less rapidly or to a lesser extent 
     than such reserve would be reduced under the average rate 
     assumption method.
       (2) Alternative method for certain taxpayers.--If, as of 
     the first day of the taxable year that includes the date of 
     enactment of this Act--
       (A) the taxpayer was required by a regulatory agency to 
     compute depreciation for public utility property on the basis 
     of an average life or composite rate method, and
       (B) the taxpayer's books and underlying records did not 
     contain the vintage account data necessary to apply the 
     average rate assumption method,

     the taxpayer will be treated as using a normalization method 
     of accounting if, with respect to such jurisdiction, the 
     taxpayer uses the alternative method for public utility 
     property that is subject to the regulatory authority of that 
     jurisdiction.
       (3) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection--
       (A) Tax reserve deficit.--The term ``tax reserve deficit'' 
     means the excess of--
       (i) the amount which would be the balance in the reserve 
     for deferred taxes (as described in section 168(i)(9)(A)(ii) 
     of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or section 
     167(l)(3)(G)(ii) of such Code as in effect on the day before 
     the date of the enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1986) if 
     the amount of such reserve were determined by assuming that 
     the corporate rate increases provided in the amendments made 
     by this section were in effect for all prior periods, over
       (ii) the balance in such reserve as of the day before such 
     corporate rate increases take effect.
       (B) Average rate assumption method.--The average rate 
     assumption method is the method under which the excess in the 
     reserve for deferred taxes is reduced over the remaining 
     lives of the property as used in its regulated books of 
     account which gave rise to the reserve for deferred taxes. 
     Under such method, if timing differences for the property 
     reverse, the amount of the adjustment to the reserve for the 
     deferred taxes is calculated by multiplying--
       (i) the ratio of the aggregate deferred taxes for the 
     property to the aggregate timing differences for the property 
     as of the beginning of the period in question, by
       (ii) the amount of the timing differences which reverse 
     during such period.
       (C) Alternative method.--The ``alternative method'' is the 
     method in which the taxpayer--
       (i) computes the tax reserve deficit on all public utility 
     property included in the plant account on the basis of the 
     weighted average life or composite rate used to compute 
     depreciation for regulatory purposes, and
       (ii) reduces the tax reserve deficit ratably over the 
     remaining regulatory life of the property.
       (4) Treatment of normalization violation.--If, for any 
     taxable year ending after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act, the taxpayer does not use a normalization method of 
     accounting, such taxpayer shall not be treated as using a 
     normalization method of accounting for purposes of 
     subsections (f)(2) and (i)(9)(C) of section 168 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       (5) Regulations.--The Secretary of the Treasury, or the 
     Secretary's designee, shall issue such regulations or other 
     guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out this 
     subsection, including regulations or other guidance to 
     provide appropriate coordination between this subsection, 
     section 13001(d) of Public Law 115-97, and section 203(e) of 
     the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President, pathetically, the United States has the 
highest child poverty rate of almost any major country on Earth, and it 
is especially high among young people of color. This is the wealthiest 
Nation on Earth; we should not have the highest rate of childhood 
poverty of almost any country.
  The American Rescue Plan included a $300-a-month child tax credit, 
which ended up lowering the child poverty rate in America by over 40 
percent--over 40 percent reduction in childhood poverty, which, in my 
view, was an extraordinary achievement. Unfortunately for the millions 
of working parents who benefited from this program, it expired in 
December.
  This amendment would restore the expanded child tax credit for 4 
years and give millions of working families the opportunity to raise 
their children in dignity and security, and it would be fully paid for 
by restoring the top corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent.
  Let us reduce child poverty in America. Let us demand that the 
largest corporations start paying their fair share of taxes.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, Senator Sanders is right. The child tax 
credit is one of the most important things this body did. It brought 
down the child poverty rate by 40 percent almost immediately. We passed 
it in March. The Secretary of the Treasury had it up and running by 
July. It made a huge difference in people's lives.
  I appreciate especially the work that Senator Bennet and also Senator 
Booker and Senator Warnock have done on this. But I ask my colleagues 
to vote no because this will bring the bill down--a very good bill. We 
will continue to work hard on this every step of the way.
  I yield to Senator Bennet.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Madam President, last year, we demonstrated to the 
American people that we don't have to accept this outrageous, shameful 
level of childhood poverty in our Nation.
  We have 38 out of 41 industrialized countries in the world in terms 
of childhood poverty. The poorest people in our country are our 
children. And because we passed this bill last year, we demonstrated 
that doesn't have to be a permanent feature of our economy or our 
democracy.
  We have to fight to make this enhanced child tax credit permanent, 
and that is what I will do with people on both sides of the aisle. But 
this does not advance that cause because we

[[Page S4190]]

could lose the underlying bill. Therefore, we should vote against the 
amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. If I could ask my friend from Ohio, why would passage of 
this amendment or getting 48 votes on this amendment bring the overall 
bill down?
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, Senator Sanders, the arrangement on this 
is that all 50 Democrats are for this. We know every single Republican 
has voted against the child tax credit--not once last March but twice. 
We know that this is a fragile arrangement, and we have to pass it. As 
much as I like--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio, all time has expired.


                Vote on Amendment No. 5208, As Modified

  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. KING. 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 executive clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) is 
necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
  The result was announced--yeas 1, nays 97, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 308 Leg.]

                                YEAS--1

       
     Sanders
       

                                NAYS--97

     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
     Lee
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Markey
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Leahy
     Shelby
       
  The amendment (No. 5208), as modified, was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                Amendment No. 5263 to Amendment No. 5194

  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 5263 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 Texas [Mr. Cruz] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5263 to amendment No. 5194.

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To strike the $80,000,000,000 slush fund for the Internal 
 Revenue Service to prevent the hiring of 87,000 new Internal Revenue 
   Service employees that will surveil and audit the private account 
   information and transaction data of innocent Americans and small 
                              businesses)

       Strike part 3 of subtitle A of title I.

  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, there are a lot of bad things in this 
bill, but few are worse than the proposal by Democrats in this bill to 
double the size of the IRS and create 87,000 new IRS agents. I 
guarantee you citizens in every one of our States, if you ask them what 
do they want, they don't want 87,000 new IRS agents.
  And they are not being created to audit billionaires or giant 
corporations; they are being created to audit you. The House Ways and 
Means Committee, the minority has put out an estimate that, under this 
bill, there will be 1.2 million new audits per year, with over 700,000 
of those new audits falling on taxpayers making $75,000 or less.
  I believe, personally, we should abolish the IRS, but, at a minimum, 
we shouldn't make the IRS larger than the Pentagon, the State 
Department, the FBI, and the Border Patrol all combined. That is what 
the Democrats are proposing here. It is a terrible idea.
  If you don't want 87,000 new IRS agents, vote yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, what Americans don't want is wealthy tax 
cheats to be able to rest easy because Republican budget cuts to the 
IRS mean that they can get away with breaking the law scot-free.
  And I want everybody in this body to understand that, on our watch at 
the Finance Committee, we are watchdogging this Agency every single day 
because there is no evidence of what the Senator from Texas has said is 
going on with respect to the privacy of innocent Americans, and on our 
watch it is never going to.
  I urge opposition.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 5263

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on 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.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 309 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
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     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
  The amendment (No. 5263) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.


                           Amendment No. 5262

  (Purpose: To make health care coverage available to low-income adults 
in States that have not expanded Medicaid.)
  Mr. WARNOCK. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 5262, and I ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Georgia [Mr. Warnock], for himself and 
     others, proposes an amendment numbered 5262 to amendment No. 
     5194.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. WARNOCK. Madam President, I rise on behalf of nearly 4\1/2\ 
million Americans in 12 States, including 646,000 Georgians who, a 
decade after the Affordable Care Act became law, still do not have 
access to affordable healthcare. They are the working poor. They are 
being blocked by Governors and legislatures.
  But, sadly, today they are being betrayed by this body. The bill we 
are about to pass will rightly strengthen healthcare access for 
millions of Americans, but how do we justify doing that while leaving 
the hard-working families in Georgia who gave us this power in the 
first place and the other 11 nonexpansion States in the cold? My 
amendment would simply extend the same subsidies to them.
  If in this bill we can extend tax relief to hedge fund managers, 
then, surely, we can extend tax credits as a lifeline to the working 
poor.

[[Page S4191]]

  This is a moral moment. The scripture says: Woe to those who crush 
the poor.
  I am asking my Democratic colleagues to do the right thing and close 
this gap.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the Senator from Georgia is absolutely 
right in his description of this moral abomination where the citizens 
he represents have no healthcare decency. And he is right that it stems 
from the decisions of Republican Governors. He is talking about 
individuals with too much to qualify for Medicaid and not enough to get 
ACA subsidies.
  Tragically--and I have talked with my colleague about this--to 
preserve the rest of this bill's health, climate, and tax policy, it is 
just not possible--as much as I want it--to get this fixed today.
  I will just close by saying to my colleague that I will work with him 
every day, day in and day out, until his citizens get the healthcare 
decency he so correctly calls for this morning.
  Reluctantly, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I don't want to get in the middle off you all's fight 
over here, but am I supposed to read this or not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GRAHAM. The pending amendment No. 5262 offered by Senator Warnock 
contains matters outside the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. 
Therefore, the amendment is extraneous, and I raise a point of order 
against this amendment pursuant to Section 313(b)(1)(C) of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974.


                            Motion to Waive

  Mr. WARNOCK. Madam President, pursuant to Section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and waiver provisions of applicable 
budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections of that Act 
and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the pending 
amendment, and I ask for the yeas and the nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will a call the roll.
  The senior assistant executive clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).
  The result was announced--yeas 5, nays 94, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 310 Leg.]

                                YEAS--5

     Baldwin
     Collins
     Ossoff
     Sanders
     Warnock

                                NAYS--94

     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     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
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Shelby
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hassan). On this vote, the yeas are 5, the 
nays are 94.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.
  The majority whip.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments and motions be the next amendments and motions in 
order: 5265, Cruz; 5281, Sanders; 5385, Kennedy; motion to waive the 
budget with respect to insulin; Cruz motion to commit on vaccines; Cruz 
motion to commit targeting parents; and that all provisions under the 
previous order remain in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 5265

  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 5265 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant executive clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cruz] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 5265 to amendment No. 5194.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for certain conditions on the export to China of 
            crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve)

        At the end of part 6 of subtitle B of title V, add the 
     following:

     SEC. 5026__. CONDITION ON AUCTION OF CRUDE OIL FROM THE 
                   STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Bidder.--The term ``bidder'' means an individual or 
     entity bidding or intending to bid at an auction of crude oil 
     from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (3) Strategic petroleum reserve.--The term ``Strategic 
     Petroleum Reserve'' means the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     established under part B of title I of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6231 et seq.).
       (b) Bidding Requirements on Export of Spr Crude Oil to 
     Certain Countries.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 161 of the Energy 
     Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6241), and subject to 
     paragraph (2), with respect to the drawdown and sale at 
     auction of any crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
     after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall 
     require, as a condition of any such sale, that in the case of 
     a bid submitted by a bidder that intends to export the crude 
     oil to the People's Republic of China, the bid will not be 
     considered by the Secretary to be a valid bid unless the 
     bidder has submitted a bid 10 times higher than the next 
     highest bid received.
       (2) Waiver.--
       (A) In general.--On application by a bidder, the Secretary 
     may waive, prior to the date of the applicable auction, the 
     condition described in paragraph (1) with respect to the sale 
     of crude oil to that bidder at that auction.
       (B) Requirement.--The Secretary may issue a waiver under 
     subparagraph (A) only if the Secretary determines that the 
     waiver is in the interest of the national security of the 
     United States.
       (C) Applications.--A bidder desiring a waiver under 
     subparagraph (A) shall submit to the Secretary an application 
     in such form and containing such information as the Secretary 
     may require.

  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, this bill represents the most significant 
assault on U.S. energy production the Senate has ever considered.
  It is designed to bankrupt every coal miner in America, to 
dramatically increase gas prices consumers are paying, and to 
permanently harm U.S. oil and gas production.
  There is, however, one group Senate Democrats do not oppose having 
more oil, and that is the Chinese communists.
  In the past year, President Biden has sold over 2 million barrels of 
oil to the Chinese communist Government from America's Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. That oil was paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
  My bill would block the President from selling our oil to the Chinese 
communists.
  I would note also that it was sold to a Chinese company owned by the 
communist government in which a significant stake was owned by a 
private equity firm owned in significant part by the President's own 
son, Hunter Biden.
  If the Democrats don't want to see millions of barrels of U.S. oil 
sold to the Chinese communists, they should support my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. SCHATZ. Madam President, I raise a point of order that the 
pending amendment violates section 4106 of the concurrent resolution on 
the budget for fiscal year 2018, H. Con. Res. 71, of the 115th 
Congress, the Senate pay-as-you-go point of order.


                        Vote on Motion to Waive

  Mr. CRUZ. Madam President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional

[[Page S4192]]

Budget Act and relevant budget resolutions, 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.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 46, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 311 Leg.]

                                YEAS--54

     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
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Ossoff
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Warnock
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--46

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). On this vote, the yeas are 54, 
the nays are 46.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment falls.


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

  
  On page S4192, August 6, 2022, first column, the following 
appears: The point of order falls.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to delete the sentence.


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


  The Senator from Vermont.


                Amendment No. 5281 to Amendment No. 5194

  (Purpose: To modify the bill.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5281 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 Vermont [Mr. Sanders], for himself and Mr. 
     Merkley, proposes an amendment numbered 5281 to amendment No. 
     5194.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')


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

  
  On page S4192, August 6, 2022, first column, the following 
appears: (The amendment is printed in the Record of Sunday, August 
7, 2022, under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read:(The amendment is 
printed in today's Record under ``Text of Amendments.'')


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


  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me quote from a July 29 letter from 
over 350 environmental organizations, including Friends of the Earth, 
Food and Water Watch, and the Climate Justice Alliance, sent to 
President Biden and Senator Schumer, expressing concerns about this 
bill.

       Any approval of new fossil fuel projects or fast-tracking 
     of fossil fuel permitting is incompatible with climate 
     leadership. Oil, gas, and coal production are the core 
     drivers of the climate and extinction crisis. There can be no 
     new fossil fuel leases, exports or infrastructure if we have 
     any hope of preventing ever-worsening climate crises, 
     catastrophic floods, deadly wildfires, and more--all of which 
     are ripping across the country as we speak. Therefore, we're 
     calling on you to fulfill your promise to lead on climate, 
     starting with denying approvals for the Mountain Valley 
     Pipeline, rejecting all new federal fossil fuel leases 
     onshore, in the Gulf of Mexico, in Alaska and everywhere 
     else, and preventing any fast-tracked permits for fossil fuel 
     projects.

  This was from 350 environmental organizations, and I agree with those 
organizations.
  My amendment would eliminate all of the provisions in this bill that 
would benefit the fossil fuel industry, including opening up to 700 
million acres of public lands and waters for oil and gas drilling.
  There is a reason why BP and Shell--some of the largest oil companies 
in this country--are supporting this bill, and it is not for a good 
reason.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in the night or day--or whatever we have 
been doing as the night has turned into day--of extremes, this is the 
most extreme idea yet, and that is saying a lot.
  Senator Sanders wants to destroy fossil fuel exploration at a time 
you have got to get a mortgage on your house to fill up your car. So I 
want you to understand what is being proposed: Shutting down American 
fossil fuel exploration will make us more dependent on fossil fuels 
that are in the hands of the bad guys. Gas is $4.08 a gallon right now.
  This is the most dangerous idea tonight, today, for the American 
consumer. If you are tired of paying high gas prices, then vote 
Republican.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 5281

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. SANDERS. 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.
  The result was announced--yeas 1, nays 99, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 312 Leg.]

                                YEAS--1

       
     Sanders
       

                                NAYS--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
     Rounds
     Rubio
     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
  The amendment (No. 5281) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.


                Amendment No. 5385 to Amendment No. 5194

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5385 and ask 
that it be reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Kennedy] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 5385 to amendment No. 5194.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide for discounted insulin for low- and middle-income 
                               Americans)

        At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ___. PROVIDING DISCOUNTED INSULIN TO LOW- AND MIDDLE-
                   INCOME AMERICANS.

       (a) In General.--There is appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Secretary''), out of any monies in the Treasury not 
     otherwise appropriated, $3,100,000,000 for fiscal year 2023, 
     to remain available through September 30, 2026, for making 
     payments to Federally-qualified health centers for purposes 
     of covering direct costs incurred by such centers for making 
     discounted insulin and epinephrine available to qualifying 
     center patients, as described in subsection (b).
       (b) Insulin and Epinephrine Affordability.--
       (1) In general.--If a Federally-qualified health center 
     participates in the drug discount program under section 340B 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 256b) and makes 
     insulin or injectable epinephrine available to its patients, 
     such center shall provide insulin and injectable epinephrine 
     at or below the discounted price paid by the center or 
     subgrantee of the center under the drug discount program 
     under such section 340B (plus a minimal administration fee) 
     to qualifying center patients through fiscal year 2026.
       (2) Limitation.--As applicable, the cost of insulin and 
     injectable epinephrine made available to patients pursuant to 
     this subsection shall not exceed the cost of such insulin and 
     injectable epinephrine pursuant to the schedule of fees or 
     payment under section 330(k)(3)(G) of the Public Health 
     Service Act (42 U.S.C. 254b(k)(3)(G)).
       (c) Payments.--The Secretary shall make prospective 
     quarterly payments to Federally-qualified health centers in 
     an amount that equals the sum of the following:
       (1) The product of--

[[Page S4193]]

       (A) the number of units of insulin furnished to qualifying 
     center patients in the previous quarter; and
       (B) the direct costs of procuring and making available each 
     such unit of insulin at the discounted rate provided for 
     under this section.
       (2) The product of--
       (A) the number of units of injectable epinephrine furnished 
     to qualifying center patients in the previous quarter; and
       (B) the direct costs of procuring and making available each 
     such unit of injectable epinephrine at the discounted rate 
     provided for under this section.
       (d) Use of Payments.--Payments made to Federally-qualified 
     health centers under this section shall be used for the sole 
     purpose of covering direct costs incurred by such centers in 
     making insulin and injectable epinephrine available to 
     qualifying center patients under subsection (b).
       (e) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Federally-qualified health center.--The term 
     ``Federally-qualified health center'' has the meaning given 
     such term in section 1905(l)(2)(B) of the Social Security Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 1396d(l)(2)(B)).
       (2) Qualifying center patient.--The term ``qualifying 
     center patient'' means a patient of a Federally-qualified 
     health center whose household income is equal to or less than 
     350 percent of the Federal poverty line and who--
       (A) has a cost-sharing requirement under a health insurance 
     plan for insulin or injectable epinephrine under which the 
     patient out-of-pocket share is more than 20 percent of the 
     total amount charged by the center for insulin or 
     epinephrine;
       (B) has a high unmet deductible under a health insurance 
     plan; or
       (C) has no health insurance.
       (f) Prevention and Public Health Fund Offset.--Section 
     4002(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300u-11) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (6), by striking ``each of fiscal years 
     2022 and 2023'' and inserting ``fiscal year 2022'';
       (2) by striking paragraphs (7) and (8);
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (9) as paragraph (8); and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (6) the following:
       ``(7) for fiscal year 2027, $1,800,000,000; and''.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, my amendment, which I also offer on 
behalf of many of my Republican colleagues, would substantially and 
dramatically lower the cost of insulin for millions of Americans.
  As you know, we have 1,403 federally qualified healthcare centers in 
America, sometimes called community health centers. They have 16,000 
sites of service.
  My amendment would reimplement a rule that President Biden repealed. 
My amendment would make insulin available at federally qualified health 
centers for pennies on the dollar, and it would pay for itself by 
redirecting existing money from the ObamaCare Public Health and 
Prevention Fund.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, lifesaving medicines don't do any good if 
people can't afford them. That is why it is so important that we do 
help people get the medicine they need, especially insulin. It is 
exactly why we need to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, which does 
take historic steps to lower costs, and it caps patients' insulin costs 
at $35 a month.
  If Republicans really want to help patients get insulin, they will 
help us get this bill signed into law instead of trying to derail it 
with amendments and trying to weaken the insulin provision Democrats 
want to pass.
  We are fighting to make sure that no one has to ration their insulin 
and put their life at risk. I hope some Republicans will join us in 
working to make this lifesaving medicine affordable and pass this 
bill--hopefully soon--here today. But I do urge my colleagues to reject 
this amendment so we can get to that point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Do I have any time left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. You do not.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 5385

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. KENNEDY. 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.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 313 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
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     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
  The amendment (No. 5385) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask consent to speak for 1 minute prior 
to the Senator from South Carolina moving to waive the Budget Act.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 37 million people in our country have 
diabetes. And it is absolutely wrong that many of them cannot afford 
the insulin they need to live. I have heard from people in my State who 
risk their life and ration their insulin to make ends meet. All the 
while, drug companies are jacking up prices.
  The cost of insulin has tripled over the last decade, and it is not 
like it is three times better. The reality is, the cost of insulin 
isn't just out of control; it is devastating people and not just 
seniors but workers and students and parents who are just trying to get 
insulin for their kids.
  We have an opportunity here to make a difference and permanently cap 
insulin at $35 a month. It will save money. It will save lives. This 
should not be a hard vote to cast. A budget waiver will continue 
allowing people to get insulin at $35 a month.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to remove this 
provision from the underlying bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I believe this violates the rules of 
reconciliation. I make a point of order against page 744, line 7, 
through page 755, line 4, in the substitute. This language violates 
313(b)(1)(D) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.


                            Motion to Waive

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and the waiver provisions of 
applicable budget resolutions, I move to waive all applicable sections 
of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of the 
pending amendment.
  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.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 314 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hyde-Smith
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester

[[Page S4194]]


     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kaine). On this vote, the yeas are 57, the 
nays are 43.
  Three-fifths of the Senate duly chosen and sworn not having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to.
  The point of order is sustained, and the language will be stricken 
from the amendment.
  The Senator from Texas.


                            Motion to Commit

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cruz] moves to commit the bill 
     H.R. 5376 to the Committee on Homeland Security and 
     Governmental Affairs of the Senate with instructions to 
     report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting 
     any day in which the Senate is not in session, with changes 
     that--(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee, and 
     (2) in order to guarantee that no student is prohibited from 
     attending school, or accrues more pandemic induced learning 
     loss, ensure no funding be made available to enforce a COVID-
     19 vaccine mandate on any student eligible to attend a 
     District of Columbia public or charter school for the 2022-
     2023 school year.

  The motion to commit is as follows:

        Mr. Cruz moves to commit the bill H.R. 5376 to the 
     Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of 
     the Senate with instructions to report the same back to the 
     Senate in 3 days, not counting any day in which the Senate is 
     not in session, with changes that--
       (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
       (2) in order to guarantee that no student is prohibited 
     from attending school, or accrues more pandemic induced 
     learning loss, ensure no funding be made available to enforce 
     a COVID-19 vaccine mandate on any student eligible to attend 
     a District of Columbia public or charter school for the 2022-
     2023 school year.

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, with the support of every Senate Democrat in 
this Chamber, schools across this country shut down over the past 2 
years. Tens of millions of children were harmed.
  Today, Senate Democrats will have a choice whether or not they will 
harm thousands of schoolkids in Washington, DC, and, in particular, 
whether they will harm African-American children in Washington, DC.
  In DC, the rate of vaccination for students 12 to 15 is 85 percent. 
For African-American students, the rate drops to 60 percent. The DC 
public schools have announced that any student who is not vaccinated is 
not allowed to come to school.
  If Democrats vote no on this motion to commit, they will be voting to 
tell thousands of African-American students in DC: You are not allowed 
to come to school. Your education doesn't matter.
  The right choice, to use a mantra used by Democrats often, is ``your 
body, your choice,'' and we should not be denying children education 
because DC Democrats want to force them to get a COVID vaccine against 
their wishes or their parents' wishes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, this motion is just another effort to 
delay or kill this incredibly important bill and would effectively 
remove the requirement for students to be vaccinated against COVID-19 
in DC public schools.
  Vaccines have proven to be effective at preventing the spread of this 
harmful disease, and DC public schools now require FDA-approved COVID-
19 vaccines for eligible students, just like they do for measles and 
hepatitis A and hepatitis B.
  The requirement for DC public school students to be vaccinated 
against this virus was enacted by the District of Columbia's City 
Council, a body that was duly elected by 700,000 Americans living in 
our Nation's Capital. This motion would unnecessarily meddle with 
local, Washington, DC, government and delay or kill this vital bill we 
are here to pass today.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.


                        Vote on Motion to Commit

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion.
  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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 51, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 315 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
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     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
     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
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                            Motion to Commit

  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mr. Cruz] moves to commit the bill, 
     H.R. 5376, to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate, 
     with instructions to report the same back to the Senate in 3 
     days, not counting any day in which the Senate is not in 
     session, with changes that, one, are within the jurisdiction 
     of such committee and, two, would ensure that the Department 
     of Justice does not use resources to inappropriately target 
     parents or classify them as domestic terrorists based on 
     their engagement with public school officials as it relates 
     to their child's education unless such engagement with 
     officials is already otherwise illegal.

  The motion to commit is, as follows:

       Mr. Cruz moves to commit the bill H.R. 5376 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate with instructions to 
     report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting 
     any day in which the Senate is not in session, with changes 
     that--
       (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
       (2) would ensure that the Department of Justice does not 
     use resources to inappropriately target parents or classify 
     them as ``domestic terrorists'' based on their engagement 
     with public school officials as it relates to their child's 
     education unless such engagement with officials is already 
     otherwise illegal.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, one of the worst aspects of the Biden 
administration has been the deep politicization of the Department of 
Justice and the FBI.
  We saw that with the National Association of School Boards sending a 
letter to the White House and to the Attorney General asking that the 
Biden administration target parents as domestic terrorists and use the 
PATRIOT Act to go after them for going to school boards and complaining 
about policies that are unfair to parents, including the teaching of 
critical race theory, including in the case of Loudoun County, a 14-
year-old girl who was sexually assaulted in a bathroom, and the school 
covered it up.
  Within 4 days of receiving that letter, the Attorney General wrote a 
memo directing the FBI to target parents.

[[Page S4195]]

  Just this last week, the Director of the FBI testified at the 
Judiciary Committee that they had been interviewing multiple parents--
moms and dads--and the House has categorized it as upward of 20 moms 
and dads.
  This amendment says: Don't target parents as domestic terrorists--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time is expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the FBI has told us repeatedly that 
domestic extremism is a very real threat in America. Last November, 60 
percent of America's school leaders said that someone in their schools 
had been verbally or physically threatened over school policy.
  There is no evidence--none--that the Department of Justice is 
threatening the constitutional right of parents to peaceful, free 
speech. But there is no excuse--none--for violence against school 
teachers or board members.
  If you believe there is nothing peaceful or legitimate about 
threatening teachers, school board members or their families, vote no 
on this amendment.


                        Vote on Motion to Commit

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion.
  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 bill clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 316 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
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     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
  The motion was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The Senator from North Dakota.


                            Motion to Commit

  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the motion.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Hoeven] moves to commit 
     the bill to the Committee on Finance with instructions to 
     report.

  Mr. HOEVEN. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the names be 
waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The motion to commit is as follows:

       Mr. Hoeven moves to commit the bill H.R. 5376 to the 
     Committee on Finance of the Senate with instructions to 
     report the same back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting 
     any day in which the Senate is not in session, with changes 
     that--
       (1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and
       (2) would prohibit the implementation of the provisions of 
     the bill H.R. 5376 until the date on which--
       (A) grocery prices (as reported by the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics as annual CPI-U for ``food at home'') decrease 
     below the food at home annual inflation level (as reported by 
     the Bureau of Labor Statistics for January 2021);
       (B) gasoline prices (as reported by the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics as annual CPI-U for ``gasoline (all types)'') 
     decrease below the gasoline (all types) annual inflation 
     level (as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 
     January 2021);
       (C) diesel prices (as reported by the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics as annual CPI-U for ``other motor fuels'') 
     decrease below the other motor fuels annual inflation level 
     (as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for January 
     2021);
       (D) home heating oil prices (as reported by the Bureau of 
     Labor Statistics as annual CPI-U for ``fuel oil'') decrease 
     below the fuel oil annual inflation level (as reported by the 
     Bureau of Labor Statistics for January 2021); and
       (E) housing expenses (as reported by the Bureau of Labor 
     Statistics as annual CPI-U for ``shelter'') decrease below 
     the shelter annual inflation level (as reported by the Bureau 
     of Labor Statistics for January 2021).

  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, the American people are hurting. Inflation 
has soared to the highest we have seen in 40 years, and the Consumer 
Price Index is now 9.1 percent. Americans are seeing increased prices 
on everything from the grocery store to the gas pump. Gas prices have 
gone up $2.25 a gallon just since the President took office. Diesel 
prices since this administration took office are up $2.81--that means 
60 percent more since President Biden took office. The cost of food is 
up more than 12 percent.
  We not only have inflation, we have our economy stagnating as well--
stagflation. It is something we haven't had since the late 1970s, early 
1980s. We have the resources and the capabilities to reduce that 
inflation to address the stagnation. This tax-and-spend bill is not the 
way to do it.
  I ask that we return this to committee and come up with a plan that 
will actually get our economy going and reduce inflation. I ask for 
support on this motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  This, again, is about delay, about postponing, about putting off the 
job that needs to be done. What the focus of this bill is all about is 
cutting costs.
  What I have said to colleagues--and my friend, the Presiding Officer 
of the Senate, knows this--is that our bill on prescription drugs kicks 
in this fall. We really kick in on the efforts to hold down price 
gouging when medicine is going up faster than the rate of inflation.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this. We can't afford any further 
delay in priorities like saving senior citizens from their medicine 
costs.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, the bill increases taxes and increases 
spending. It will not bring down costs, and it will not bring down 
inflation.


                        Vote on Motion to Commit

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

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 317 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
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     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
  The motion was rejected.

                          ____________________