vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 50, the nays are 50. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. sanders: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up a the following amendments in the order listed and that the anticipates be reported by -- and that the amendments be report by number. cardin 716, sasse, number 192, graham 687, ernst 132, lins 542, shaheen 834. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. a senator: mr. president? mr. cardin: i call p my amendment. the presiding officer: the

clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: mr. cardin proposes an amendment numbered 716. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. quiet in the chamber. mr. cardin: i would ask that 30 seconds is of my time be devoted to senator portman. i each of our states have challenges in the adequacy and fairness of vaccine distribution systems. this amendment would provide that there would be federal support to the states for implementing a transparent and consistent vaccine administration program and bolstering states' awareness campaigns to increase awareness and knowledge of the safety and effectiveness of covid-19 vaccines particularly among vulnerable communities, including ethnic minority populations. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, i strongly support this amendment. the most important thing we can do right now is to get the

vaccines distributed. and one of the problems we've got is that about 40% of americans are still saying they're uncomfortable get being a vaccine. part of that is because we haven't been able to gret a proper -- get a proper public awareness campaign out there by coats with white coats, folks who are respected and trusted to say it is necessary for us because these are safe and effective and by getting these vaccines in place, we can turn things around. i support the amendment. the presiding officer: time is expired. mr. sanders: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. who yields time in opposition to this amendment? who yields time in opposition to the amendment? all time is yielded. question is on the amendment. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 100, the nays are zero. the amendment is agreed to. mr. sanders: mr. president?

the presiding officer: can we have order, please. the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i call up my opinion amendment number 653 and ask it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report by number. the clerk: the senator from wyoming, mr. barrasso, proposes anempt numbered 653. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: my amendment addresses the serious impacts of the biden administration moratorium on oil and natural gas leases and the impact on federal lands and waters. wyoming and many states across the west have federal land where there is oil and gas development. the revenue generated from the lease sales goes to states which use it for essential services. one of the many crushes consequences of the moratorium is eliminating hundreds of millions of dollars for k-12 education for students funding oil in these states. in 2019 alone, revenues from oil and gas contribute $740 million to wyoming's public schools. this amendment creates a

devastate-neutral reserve fund to protect students in schools from this misguided moratorium by restoring these lost funds to the states. i urge a yes vote. thank you, mr. president. mr. heinrich: mr. president, my friend from wyoming and i disagree on many things. the presiding officer: quiet in the chamber. mr. heinrich: we disagree on the impact of this policy in the immediate. and we disagree on the speed of the energy transition to a zero-carbon economy. what we do not disagree about is that these communities we support. we support their schools, and throughout this transition, we should support the people who have kept the lights on and made this country the greatest energy country on the face of the earth. so i would support this amendment because it's about supporting the schools in those communities.

mr. barrasso: voice vote. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a second? is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 98, the nays are 2, and the amendment is agreed to. the senator from nebraska. he is. a senator: i call up 192 and ask it be reported by number.

the clerk: the senator from nebraska, mr. sasse for himself and others proposes amendment number 192. mr. sasse: thank you. mr. president, we're doing a lot of red versus blue jersey stuff today. until about 2:00 a.m. it's going to be mostly straight partisan votes. it would be good for us to find some common ground and this amendment is a good opportunity for us to do that. mr. durbin: the senate is not in order. mr. sasse: this is an opportunity to come together and to defend babies. it's pretty simple actually. every baby, whether she's born in a state-of-the-art hospital with a nicu unit --. the presiding officer: please come to order. mr. sasse: or whether born in an abortion clinic in a strip mall, every baby is born with dignity and is created in god's image and she deserves care. this amendment is aimed at making sure that babies who survive abortions get the same degree of care any other newborn would. there's nothing partisan about

that. that's why my democratic colleagues joe manchin and bob casey both voted for this year as last year's legislation. we disagree on a bunch of stuff but not this. there's a lot of complicated debates in this chamber but this isn't one of them. here's a chance for 100 senators to come together and support every baby. every baby deserves a fighting chance. thank you, mr. president. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic whip. mr. durbin: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: can the senate return to order. take conversations out of the chamber. mr. durbin: mr. president, it is already current law that all federal protections for people apply to every infant born alive, including those born alive during the course of an abortion. simply put, you cannot kill an infant regardless of how they came into this world. this is the law of the land thanks to the born alive infant protection act which passed the house and senate by a voice vote and was signed into law by president george bush in 2002.

does it work? in 2013, dr. kermit gosnell, a physician in pennsylvania, was found guilty on three counts of murdering babies born alive in his clinic after botched late-term abortions. he is currently serving three life terms in prison. i would say to the senator from nebraska, of course we agree. people like dr. gosnell should pay a heavy price. but to put this into a budget resolution just doesn't fit, and i'm afraid one page doesn't do justice to even the explanation that was given. so i raise a point that the pending amendment is not germane to the underlying resolution and therefore violates section 305-b-2 of the congressional budget act of 1974. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. sasse: pursuant to section 904 of the congressional budget act, i move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of senate amendment 192 and i ask

for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 52, the nays are 48.

three-fifth of the senators chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the point of order is sustained and the amendment fails. mr. graham: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: i'd like to call up my amendment 687, please. the presiding officer: the clerk: . the clerk: mr. graham proposes amendment numbered 687. mr. graham: the remaining mexico policy was put in place by the trump administration about the flow of immigrants coming to the united states for economic reasons. before the remaining mexico policy was adopted, migrants traveled the united states seeking to turn themselves in and claim asylum whether they had a valid claim or not and they would be released into the united states and often did not return for their court dates. if we end the mexico policy for

asylum seekers, it will make a run on the border and complicate efforts. over 50,000 asylum seekers have been waiting in mexico rather than the united states while they often disappear waiting in the one million person asylum case backlog. this is an important change that the trump administration mutt in place and it is -- put in place and it is a serious mistake to reverse it. mr. menendez: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i oppose this amendment because my distinguished colleague and friend put it in a very narrow context. this amendment suggests that all agreements, protect la makeses -- proclamationings between the united states and mexico will be preserved. the problem is congress does not have a clear picture of the arrangements and supporting documents that the trump

administration negotiated with mexico. i qted -- requested those documents for two years, yet the trump administration was afraid to put them up for congressional and public scrutiny. so without knowing what they say and how long the previous administration or how low they may have stooped, i don't see how any member can make an educated vote on this amendment to consent to that which they don't even know exists. i therefore oppose the amendment for those and other reasons and i raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane to the underlying resolution and is in violation of the congressional budget office of 1974.

mr. graham: mr. president, pursuant to section 904 of the congressional budget office and the waiver provisions about the budget resolutions, i move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purposes of this amendment, senate amendment 687, and i ask for the yeas and the nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 50, the nays are 50, three-fifths of the senators not voted in the affirmative, the point of order is sustained and the amendment fails. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. eshes. ms. ernst: mr. president, i call up my amendment 132 and ask it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from

iowa, ms. ernst, for herself and others, proposes amendment numbered 132. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. senators will take their conversations out of the chamber. the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: mr. president, this amendment reflects the intent of s. 80, sarah's law, which would amend the mandatory detention provisions of the i.n.a. to require the detention of anyone unlawfully present in the united states who is charged with a crime resulting in the death or serious bodily injury of another person. it honors the life of a girl from iowa, sarah root. her life was tragically cut short by a drunk driver who was

illegally here in the united states. sarah's law currently has 21 cosponsors of one of the first things the biden administration did was stop prioritizing violent aliens for deportation. this amendment reflects that d.h.s. should not implement such pelosi, i thank, inhofe, grad, hyde-smith, lee, rick scott and hoeven for joining me in this effort and i ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this commonsense amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: this amendment is opposed by the center for american progress, america's voice, s.c.i.u., national immigrant justice center and many, many other civil rights and immigration organizations and the reason they oppose it and why i oppose it is -- oppose it is that this amendment applies to people charged, not

convicted. now i'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is in this country we believe people are innocent until proven guilty. what this amendment does is vilify immigrants, many of whom are working and essential -- in essential and dangerous jobs right now, often for very low pay. mr. president, this amendment is not germane to the budget resolution as required by law, therefore i raise a point of order that the pending amendment violation section 805, b-2 of the national congressional budget act. ms. ernst: pursuant to the budget act of 1974, i move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable budget resolutions for purpose of senate amendment number 132, and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there

a sufficient second? there .is the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 52. the nays are 48. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not voting in the affirmative, the amendment is not agreed to to. the amend falls. the senator from utah. a senator: we had a vote a moment ago to have ten-minute votes. the votes are closer to 30 minutes than ten minutes. i ask unanimous consent that the clerk time the votes to ten minutes, that we not go beyond ten mints. at the end of ten minutes, we get an extra one minute of grace time and that we close the vote after 11 minutes. the presiding officer: is there an objection? the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: reserving the right to object. i understand the senator from

utah's sentiments and i share them. there is a physical need to call the roll call which takes an amount of time which sometimes can be more than ten minutes. in we reach a tie situation, and have to call in the vice president, it takes even longer. the most effective thing i have seen in the senate to deal with this issue is for members to sit in their chairs and to vote as their names are called. we can bring it to -- the roll calls to an end much more quickly. now they're running around 30 minutes. i would suggest -- i'm going to object to your suggestion but i would suggest when we reach the point where members are sitting in their chairs, amendments are called and we vote them quickly, we can come to a conclusion in a much faster way. mr. romney: would the gentleman agree we take as much time as it takes to read the names and if it requires the vice president to come here, we give her sufficient time to get here, but otherwise ten minutes? mr. durbin: i think you're going to find ten minutes is not practical. i wish -- i'm for electronic

voting just to go way out on a limb but i want to tell you -- mr. romney: that's probably not practical tonight. a senator: would the gentleman yield. mr. romney: certainly. mr. schumer: it would speed things along if we -- you keep handing us new sheets. that's okay but let's see the total amount of amendments and then we it try to move the time as quickly as possible. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: mr. president, with due respect to the majority leader, i understand what he's suggesting. but the senator from utah has made a motion which has absolutely nothing to do with the number of votes that we're going to be taking tonight. look, 365 days a year we're told as individual senators to wait our turn. we'll get to vote on whatever we want to vote on if and when we vote on it. it's the one time with budget vote-a-rama where anybody can ask for a vote on anything. now, i don't see anything wrong with the senator from utah's

request that we limit the amount of time it takes to vote to the amount of time it takes to call the roll. and then to add to that, any additional time that might be taken up by waiting for the vice president in the event of a tie. so i'd like to resuggest what the senator from utah has asked. that is i ask unanimous consent that we so limit the amount of time we take to vote to the time it takes to call the roll, subject to the need to wait for vice president harris to come and break any tie. the presiding officer: is there objection? objection is heard. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, on behalf of myself, senator manchin, senator capito, senator moran, senator

shaheen, senator portman, and senator king, i call up amendment number 546 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from maine, ms. collins, for hst and others proposes an amendment numbered 546. ms. collins: and i ask that i be notified when i have 30 seconds remaining. the presiding officer: the chair will do so. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise to offer an amendment to replenish and strengthen the provider relief fund which has been a lifeline for hospitals, nursing homes, and community health centers as well as physician practices across the country. but especially so in rural america. the presiding officer: the senator has 30 seconds. ms. collins: mr. president, our rural hospitals have been

particularly hard hit during this pandemic. with that, i will yield to my friend from west virginia. mr. manchin: i ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia west virginia. mr. manchin: 18 ruler hospitals closed across america last year. any people have sympathy for rural america? 20% of the population is rural. we only got 60% of the money that was associated that we sent out the last cares package and that's 60% to rural hospitals. we need to treat them fairly. a 20% set-aside as if -- is fair. thank you and i appreciate your support. the presiding officer: who yields time in opposition? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i rise in support of the amendment. clearly all across this country rural communities are suffering. real health care crises in terms of loss of hospitals that they desperately need. so i would hope this would be an issue that all of us will work

together to rebuild health care in rural america and make sure that our communities have the hospitals that they need. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 99. and the nays are 1. and the amendment is agreed to. the majority leader. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent to address the chamber for a minute. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: we have another great accomplishment, one right

after the other because they both came together. earlier today we all congratulated our good friend senator murray for achieving a historic milestone, 9,000 roll call votes. well, we're pretty lucky because today we get to celebrate another 9,000-vote accomplishment by none other than the great senior senator from california, senator feinstein. i have about six page also of wonderful things to say about her which i will submit to the record if there's no objection. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire.

mrs. shaheen: i would like to call up amendment 834 as modified and speak for 30 seconds and then turn the mike over to my colleague, senator murkowski, who is the cosponsor of this amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from new hampshire, mrs. shaheen for herself and others proposes an amendment numbered 834 as modified. mrs. shaheen: thank you. this amendment supports organizations serving survivors of domestic vie license, -- violence, sexual assault and child abuse as we know because of covid, those survivors and families have been hit particularly hard and there's been very little money that has gone to support them. this amendment would say very strongly we need to do better. senator murkowski. ms. murkowski: mr. president, we are ensuring with this amendment that there will be resources for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse. as senator shaheen has pointed

out, our shelters are very, very much in need of our support. we urge you all to protect the most vulnerable in their time of need and would ask for your support on this amendment. mrs. shaheen: i would like ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is a sufficient second. is there further debate? if not, the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 100, the nays are zero. the amendment is agreed to. the senator from indiana. a senator: i call up my opinion amendment number 843 and is ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the the clerk will report. the clerk: senator braun for

himself sand others proposes amendment number 833. mr. braun: mr. president, my amendment helps assure is that the e.p.a. cannot, through regulation or otherwise -- mr. carper: mr. president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order to hear the senator from indiana. mr. braun: mr. president, my amendment helps ensure that the e.p.a. cannot, through regulation or otherwise, ban fracking in the united states. this is an issue of energy independence f locking in our co2 emissions reduction provided by clean natural gas and it gives us time to find the cleanest, least expensive options down the road. due to our american energy renaissance, the u.s. passed russia as a leading energy supplier in 2011 and passed saudi arabia in 2018. fracking has been a boon to the economy as well. according to the global energy

institute, if fracking were banned in 2021, the u.s. economy would lose 19 million jobs in four years, local and state tax revenues would plummet and gas prices would double. this is why president biden promised we will not ban fracking. we will protect and grow jobs. yet many in this body have called to ban fracking. the american people deserve to know who stands with -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. braun: i ask my colleagues to support this amendment. mr. carper: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: unfortunately, i must rise in opposition to the brawn amendment 833 this evening. on its face, this amendment would prohibit e.p.a. and the council on environmental quality from issuing any regulations or guidance that would ban oil and gas fracking. president biden has stated repeatly that he does not support a blanket ban on fracking. he has said that we should

capture methane that emanates from fracking, not ban the practice altogether. let me give you his exact words. let me be clear. and i had know this always comes up, we're not going to ban fracking. the amendment that's written before us appears to go beyond just prohibiting e.p.a. and the council on environment quality from issuing regs to ban oil and gas fracking. the effect here may actually go on and prevent the federal government from regulating emissions of methane and air toxics that are related to fracking. i encourage my colleagues to not vote for this hasty and unnecessary amendment. medicine shane is 85 times more -- methane is 85 times more toxic than -- we shoulding controlling it. the presiding officer: question is on the amendment.

is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient. there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 57, it the nays are 43 and the amendment is agreed to. the senator from vermont.

mr. sanders: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up the following amendments in the order listed and the amendments to be reported by number and that the amendments alternate. grassley number 91 is cortez masto number 853, inhofe number 786, paul number 1, ernst number 767, daines number 678, johnson number 542, lee number 821. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. it is so ordered. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i call up my amendment 91 and ask it be report by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report by number. the clerk: mr. grassley proposes amendment numbered 91. mr. grassley: my amendment creates a point of order against

repeal of the salt tax deduction as part of the covid package. any covid relief package should be targeted at helping those in need, not the benefit of the top one percent. according to j.c.t., over half of the benefit from the repeal would go to those with incomes over $1 million, and 50,000 people -- or $50,000 or lower wouldn't benefit at all. according to an analysis of the tax policy center, the top one percent would receive an average tax cut of $144,000. no covid relief package should include six-figure tax cuts to multimillionaires when millions of middle-class americans are struggling to make ends meet. and for the benefit of my friends on the other side of the aisle, it is not progressive to give tax cuts to the top one percent of the people.

the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator from oregon. may we have order for the senator from oregon, please. mr. wyden: mr. president, i've been advised that inclusion of this amendment in the budget resolution would be corrosive to the privileged status of the resolution. since this amendment contains material inappropriate for a budget resolution, its adoption could jeopardize the privilege of this resolution, which would completely halt our efforts to provide urgent, critical pandemic relief. additionally, this amendment is not germane to the budget resolution as required bid law. accordingly, i raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 305-b-2 of the congressional budget act of 1974. mr. grassley: plant? officerrer the senator from iowa.

mr. grassley: pursuant to section 904 of the coppingal budget act, and the waiver provisions ally accountable of budget resolutions, i move to waive all applicable sections of that act and applicable bucket resolutions for the purpose of senate amendment 91 and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 49,s nays are 51. three-fifths of the senators duly choateen and sworn in the having vote in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed tox point of order is sustained. the amendment falls. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. cortez masto: i call up

amendment 853. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from nevada, ms. cortez masto proposes an amendment numbered 853. ms. cortez masto: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. we'll please have order in the senate. the senator from nevada. ms. cortez masto: mr. president, the coronavirus pandemic has devastated economies and industries in every single state across the country. in nevada, our hospitality, travel, and tourism sectors have been especially hard hit. these businesses are economic engines for our communities, employing hundreds of thousands of workers and pumping billions of dollars into our economy each year, but they're facing incredible challenges right now due to covid-19. this amendment ensures that the senate will prioritize support for the hospitality industry and its workers as it crafts

legislation to provide coronavirus relief and recovery to communities across the u.s. almost half of all job losses since the pandemic began have been in the travel, lee sure, and hospitality industries and the situation gets more dire every day we don't act. communities across this country have suffered as nearly as $500 billion in travel spending and an estimated $64 political has evaporated. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment to expand support for our struggling hospitality industry and provide relief for the workers in the industries hardest hit by this pandemic. the presiding officer: who keels time? opposition -- who yields time in opposition? if there is no further debate, the question is on the amendment. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no.

the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe:/call up amendment 786 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: mr. inhofe proposes amendment 786. mr. inhofe: i yield 15 seconds to our friend from tennessee, senator laggerty. mr. hagerty: i am pleased to join the senator from oklahoma as the lead cosponsor of his amendment in support of our shared objective of maintaining the u.s. embassy in jerusalem, the eternal and indivisible capital of the state of israel. it is paving the wait for peace throughout the region and should be represerved. our allies there know we will stand with them. mr. inhofe: mr. president, this amendment shouldn't be controversial to anyone. it's been our position in the

united states for 25 years jerusalem is the capital of israel and we should have our embassy in jerusalem. this is not controversial. in 1995 the same amendment was 93-5. in 2017, it was 90-0o with that, i retain the balance of my time. the presiding officer: any senator seek recognition in opposition? mr. inhofe: i does for the yeas and nays on my amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 97, the nays are 3, and the amendment is agreed to. the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: i call up my amendment

one and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. paul, proposes an amendment numbered 1. mr. paul: every american family must balance their own family budget. voters wonder why congress never balances its budget. the democratic budget before us will add $15 trillion in dead over the next decade, the penny plan budget which is consistent with the balanced budget amendment that most republicans have voted for balances the budget in five years. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky will suspend. the senate will be in order. the senator may continue. mr. paul: when i first introduced this bill, you only had to cut one penny. now it's more difficult.

last year it was two pennies, 2% cut, now it's a three penny plan and you have to have a 3% cut. but it's still foreseeable we could balance the budget. it's the right thing to do. it's stronger country for us to leave to our kids and grandkids and i urge a yes vote. the presiding officer: any senator seek recognition in opposition? if not, the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there is a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 39, the nays are 71, the amendment is not agreed to. we'll do it over. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa.

a senator: amendment 767 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: ms. ernst proposes amendment numbered 767. the presiding officer: there will be order in the chamber, please. ms. ernst: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: mr. president, a $15 federal minimal wage would be devastating for our hardest-hit small businesses at a time when they can least afford it. these small businesses like restaurants and child care centers provide vital services for working families and are the lifeblood of our rural communities. the c.b.o. estimates that raising the federal minimum wage to $15 would result in 1.3 million jobs lost. this during the worst period of

job loss since the great depression. the cost of living in states like iowa is very different than the cost of living in states like new york or california. we should not have a one-size-fits-all policy set by washington politicians. we all support higher wages, but a $15 federal minimum wage would be counter productive to this goal. i thank my colleague, senator tim scott for working on this with me, and i urge my colleagues to vote yes. the presiding officer: any senator seeking recognition in opposition? the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, at a time when half of our workers are living paycheck to paycheck, when millions of workers are earning starvation wages and when congress has not voted to raise the minimum wage since 2007, i will do everything that i can to make sure that a $15 an

hour minimum wage is included in this reconciliation bill, but there appears to be some misunderstanding. as the author of the raise the wage act, it was never my intention to increase the minimum wage to $15 immediately and during the pandemic. my legislation gradually increases the minimum wage to $15 an hour over a five-year period. and that is what i believe we have got to do. we need to do it in the reconciliation bill and we need to end the crisis of starvation wages in iowa and around the united states. so i will support this amendment because nobody is talking about doubling the federal minimum wage during the pandemic. we're talking about gradually phasing it in over a five-year period. eshes ernst mr. president -- ms. ernst: mr. president, do i

have time remaining? the presiding officer: i'm sorry, the senator from iowa has no time remaining. the question is on the amendment. mr. sanders: i would accept a voice vote. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? ms. ernst: we withdraw the requests for the yeas and nays and mr. president. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. daines: i call up my amendment number 678. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by

number. the clerk: senator daines proposes an amendment numbered 678. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. mr. daines: despite president biden's call for unity. the presiding officer: will the senator suspend for a moment? the senator come to order. senator from minnesota. mr. daines: despite president biden's call for unity, with a stroke of a pen, he killed the keystone xl pipeline and the thousands of jobs that come with it. he eliminated tens of millions of dollars of tax revenues for communities in minnesota, for education, for law enforcement, for infrastructure, as well as across the west. hardworking americans across our country, dozens of families in montana have been given the pink slip. they were told to go home. their paycheck is gone. this isn't because of a pandemic. this is because of president biden. i hope all of my colleagues join me today for the good of american energy and our blue

collar workers where they can stand with the job-killing green new deal agenda. the choice is clear. i yield back my time. the presiding officer: any senator seek opposition to the amendment? if not, the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: