[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.
____________________