implemented and there's a border-adjusted carbon tax, it's going to be passed on to the consumer. if you're on a fixed income, this whole idea is a night entire you because your gas prices are going to go up, your heating bill is going to go up, and all the things they are going to make for free will create an inflationary effect, the size of the government is going to increase dramatically, interest rates will have to go up. so if you own a home, drive a car, breathe air, get ready for more taxes and more spending. all i can say is that i believe in climate change and i'd like to have a rational approach to solving the problem but this is not rational, this is partisan and this $4.2 trillion bill

is -- it's not $3.5 trillion, it will lead to a wave of illegal immigration the likes of which you have never seen before. a 262% increase in the last six months. if this bill, this idea, ever becomes reality, you can double that. if this bill ever becomes reality, a dollar increase in gas prices are going to be the good old days. they shut down the coal-fired plants without any way to replace it other than a bunch of b.s. good luck with the heating bill. they're going to change your country. it's going to be more like venezuela and less like america. this idea is going to be paid for by taxing the rich is a bunch of b.s. if you took the entire wealth of the 1%, including their cars and their dogs, it's less than

half we need to deal with the entitlement problems we already have, and you're growing exponentially the size of government. more government to pay for eventually interest rates are going to have to go up. you're putting in motion, i think, the demise of america as we know it. you're putting in motion a government that nobody's grandchild can ever afford to pay. you're putting in motion the destruction of energy independence. you've declared war on the fossil fuel industry in this country, and you've not done a damned thing about china, india, russia, or iran. so the bottom line here is if you believe in energy independence, you need to vote against this budget resolution because we'll lose it. if you believe that inflation is the death blow to the middle

class, you need to vote against this budget resolution. if you don't know how much gas prices are going to be increased, they owe you an answer. so i'm going to ask this question for the next 15 hours -- do you have any idea if all of this becomes reality how much increase at the pump will be affected by the average consumer in the next year? how much will our heating bills go up? as to the border adjusted carbon tax, will it be inflationary? where does the money go from the tax? who gets it? little details like this. all i can say is that everybody has a dream in america. there's the american dream and the american socialist dream for america. this budget resolution sets in

motion an assault on free enterprise, the destruction of energy independence, incentivizing illegal immigration at a time we can afford it the least. if you don't believe these things, then you haven't read what's in this blueprint. have you ever asked yourself the question, what the hell has happened in the last six months? why are we up a dollar a gallon at the pump? because they've declared war on fossil fuels made in america. why do we have a 262% increase in illegal immigration? because they changed all the policies that work at the border. why is inflation rising? because the fiscal policies of the biden administration and our friends on the left are driving up prices. the worst is yet to come. if this budget resolution becomes a reality, god help the

american middle class. we'll be less energy dependent. our money will go not nearly as far. you're going to have dramatically raise taxes if you intend to pay for this monstrosity. there is no way in hell to pay for this bill unless you fundamentally raise taxes across the board. at a time we're struggling to get back on our feet. so this is why we have elections in 2022, this idea will be on the ballot. and my goal and my republican colleagues is to fight like hell to stop the increase at the pump, stop an increase of your heating bills, and to stop an invasion of our country by illegal immigrants all driven by bad policy choices. but everything they've done in the last six months pales in comparison to what they're going

to do for this country if this budget resolution ever becomes reality. so yes,sir, we're going to have one hell of a fight. i don't know how long we're going to be here, but as long as it takes. america is worth fighting for, and america as we know it is at risk in this budget resolution.

mr. sanders: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up the following amendments, that they be reported by number and that the senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed with no amendments in order prior to a vote. barrasso 30 55, carper 3330, thune 3106, cortez masto 3317. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. graham: i yield the remaining republican time on the resolution. the presiding officer: the senator has that right.

mr. sanders: i yield the majority's remaining time on the resolution. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. all time on the resolution has been yielded back. mr. barrasso: madam president, i call up my amendment number 3055 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will record the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from wyoming, mr. barrasso, proposes an amendment numbered 3055. the presiding officer: there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided. mr. barrasso: madam president, i'm offering this amendment to spare the country from the so-called green new deal. the green new deal is not about protecting the environment. it's about making big government even bigger. this socialist scheme would destroy jobs, it will reduce

the quality of life for the american people, millions and millions of americans will suffer. it would worsen already high inflation. it will drive a stake through the economy and eventually bankrupt the nation. senate democrats have made it clear that they want to use this reckless tax and spending spree to implement the green new deal. just last night senator markey of massachusetts made this statement. he said without question the green new deal is in the d.n.a. of this budget resolution. let me repeat. he said without question, the green new deal is in the d.n.a. of this budget resolution. instead of raising costs on energy, we should be working to lower the cost of alternative technologies and fuels to innovation, not taxation and regulation. so i would encourage a yes vote on the barrasso amendment and

reject the job-killing green new deal. mr. sanders: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. barrasso's amendment is interesting when he talks about the green new deal. the only problem is what he's talking about has nothing to do with the green new deal. despite what senator barrasso says, the green new deal would not shift jobs overseas. in fact, it will create millions of good-paying jobs in the united states of america. it will not raise electricity prices. it will not make the united states dependent on dirty sources of energy from other countries. in case the senator from wyoming has missed it, oregon is burning, california is burning, greece is burning. there is a drought hitting

virtually every country on earth. news flash -- climate change is real, and the united states and other countries have got to address it. madam president, as a supporter of the green new deal, i have no problem voting for this amendment because it has nothing to do with the green new deal. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. a senator: yeas and 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: the yeas are 99, the nays are zero. the amendment is agreed to. the senate will come to order.

mr. carper: madam president, the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senate is not in order. the senate will be in order. the senator from delaware. mr. carper: thank you, madam president. i call up my amendment number 3330 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from delaware, mr. carper, proposes an amendment numbered 3330. the presiding officer: there are now two minutes of debate equally divided. mr. carper: madam president, the amendment that i've called up is clear, it is simple, and it is straightforward. it makes clear that we are going to address the climate crisis. we're going to do it through policies that do several things. one, create jobs. two, create jobs here in the united states. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order.

members will take their conversations off the floor. the senator from delaware. mr. carper: thank you, madam president. policies that will strengthen our economy, all while reducing the pollution that hurts our health and our environment. madam president, we are in a code red situation. this is all hands on deck when it comes to the climate crisis. we don't have a moment to waste. we need to put politics aside and act now on climate change. the budget resolution will allow us to develop legislation to address climate change. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i rise to oppose the carper amendment. we all want to address climate change, period. now, this amendment does much more than that. just because you say you want to address climate change does not mean every policy that you propose is a good idea.

there can be disagreement, and i disagree strongly with the green new deal policies in this $4.2 trillion bill. it wastes taxpayer dollars. it costs hundreds of jobs. and it hurts our economy. our economy should be a priority here. it should be the priority. we can protect the environment without punishing the economy, and this bill and amendment fails that test. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: if there is know further debate, the question is on the amendment. mr. carper: 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:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 48 -- the nays are 48 and the amendment is agreed to. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. thune: i rise in support of the amendment for family-owned businesses, farms, and ranches. for decades the tax code what is allowed family-run business is without paying taxes on the prior generation. changing this would hit generations in rural communities and force families to pay off part of the farm or business to pay the new tax. congress tried something similar before and had to repeal the tax

about it took effect because it was unworkable. unlike amendment 3317 which is a side by side the democrats will be offering temporarily, which would simply delay the tax, my amendment would provide permanent relief by preserving step-up in basis for all family-owned businesses, farms, and ranches, and i encourage my colleagues to support it and would add that i have letters of support from the national association of manufacturers, nfib, family business estate tax coalition, taxpayers protection alliance, council for citizens against government wastes americans for tax reform, national taxpayers union, family business coalition, small business entrepreneurship council and case. i urge the adoption of this amendment. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: does the senator wish to call up his amendment? mr. thune: i call up amendment 3106 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: mr. thune proposes an amendment numbered 3106.

the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: thank you, madam president. madam president, senate democrats take a back seat to no one in standing up for family farmers, ranchers, and small businesses. in fact, president biden has made it clear that any changes to stepped-up basis will provide durable protection for family farmers, ranchers, and small businesses. speaking for myself, senator cortez masto and senator tester, we are following through on that biden pledge because it is both fair and common sense. now, capital gains reform is about ensuring that the wealthiest pay their fair share. on our watch, multibillionaires cannot plant a few tomatoes and call themselves a family farmer. i will vote for the thune amendment as well as the important cortez

masto-tester-wyden amendment will be taken up next. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. mr. thune: 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:

yeas.

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 99, the nays are zero, and the amendment is agreed to. the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: that the following amendments be in order that the amendments be reported by number with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, lummis 3104, hassan-young wienld 3365, kraim 3105, scott 3073, rubio 3097. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, it is so ordered. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada.

ms. cortez masto: madam president, i call up my amendment numbered 3317, and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report by number. the clerk: the senator from nevada proposes amendment numbered 3317. ms. cortez masto: thank you. madam president, i am joined on this amendment by senators tester, wyden, and warnock, our amendment will protect family farms and small businesses while ensuring that -- many of the family-owned businesses have held their assets for generations and have a deep connection to the land they inherit. congress should protect these multigenerational farms who spent a lifetime serving their communities. we are protected to protecting the family-owned businesses while ensures that the top 12% of corporations pay their fair

share. madam president, i ask for the yeas and nays. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears. the yeas and nays are ordered. the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i appreciate the support of my colleague in acknowledging the full step up and basis for all businesses, this amendment proposed by the senator from nevada dilutes that support. the administration's proposal would end the existing step up and basis tax treatment that protects generationally owned businesses from tax liability when the business is passed on to the next generation and i might add, i said this earlier, this was tried once in the 1970's, chuck grassley was here and he was the guy who helped end this because it was unworkable. so here we are trying to do this all over again. the administration suggested it might include arbitrary exception, which i think is what

the cortez masto amendment speaks to, but this so-called protections would not provide sustained relief and in practice would be incredibly difficult to implement. the reason they didn't do it in the 1970's, we have never taxed unrealized gains in this country. this would punish hardworking families in this country and i urge my colleagues to oppose it. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

s

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 49, the nays are 50 and the amendment is not agreed to. the senator from wyoming. a senator: madam president, i call up my amendment numbered 3104, and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from wyoming, ms. lummis, proposes amendment numbered 3104. ms. lummis: madam president, as americans are trying to enjoy their last month of summer vacation before the kids go back to school, they are facing gasoline prices at a near seven-year high. what is the biden administration doing about this? they are begging russia and the opec oil cartel to pump more oil

so that u.s. gasoline prices don't rise anymore than they already have under his watch. meanwhile, through various executive actions, such as the biden ban on new oil and gas industry drilling and development and canceling pipelines, this president is attacking american workers and american energy independence. the oil and natural gas industry supports 11.3 million jobs across the country and contributes another $1.7 trillion to the american economy. it makes no sense to send production to other countries when we could be doing it here, produced cleaner, more efficiently -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. i yield back.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: madam president, senator lummis's targets -- while the department of interior -- i too am eager to see the results of that review and was hoping that we would have received it by now and i will continue to be vocal on my advocacy on american independence and addressing climate change. drilling continued on existing leases and secretary holland testified that they are in compliance with the recent court order that still allows leasing and i believe the administration has responsibility to evaluate these programs and getting a reasonable return while using our abundant resources in the most responsible way. for that reason i urge my colleagues to reject the amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 49, the nays are 50. the amendment is not agreed to. the senator from new hampshire. ms. hassan: madam president, i call up my amendment 2378 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from new hampshire, ms. hassan, for herself sand mr. young, proposes an amendment numbered 2378. ms. hassan: thank you, madam president. i rise today to offer a bipartisan amendment to promote u.s. competitiveness and support american innovation. the r&d tax credit provides critical tax support and relief

to the small businesses and start-ups that poria economy. these businesses are job creators helping inspur innovation in new hampshire and across the country. this bipartisan amendment with senator young would build on efforts to expand the r&d tax credit for start-ups while protecting the tax incentives that allow u.s. companies, start-ups, and smallbitions to stay competitive and outcompete china. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and yield to the senator from indiana. mr. young: madam president, now more than ever, we must find bipartisan solutions wherever possible to stimulate our economy, get americans back to work, and ensure we maintain our position on the world stage as the leader in scientific and technological innovation. this amendment would preserve funding related to u.s. competitiveness and innovation by retaining the full expensing for research and development and expanding tax incentives for small businesses, immediate r&d

expensing incentivizing long-term investments in innovation and technological breakthroughs. by passing this amendment, we can make sure that the united states continues to be the leader in this space. and, mr. president, i understand we are prepared to pass this by voice vote. ms. hassan: yes. the presiding officer: if there is foe 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 o -- the amendment is agreed to. a senator: mr. president, i call up my amendment number 3099 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from idaho, mr. crapo, proposes an amendment numbered 3099. the presiding officer: the

senator is recognized. mr. crapo: mr. president, the i.r.s. financial instituting reporting requirement forces financial institutions to turn over detailed bank account information to the i.r.s. based on vague and flexible criteria such as a $600 threshold and account inflows and outflows would be covered. this all to be determined by the i.r.s. think about that. it subjects every law-abiding american who has a bank account or a credit union account in which they transact more than $600 worth of transactions to have that information monitored and reported to the i.r.s. this is an outrageous violation of the privacy of american citizens, and we should reject it. the community banks and credit unions support this amendment, and i thank the icba, cuna, the a.b.a. and the nafcu for their

support as well as the center for a free economy. my amendment prevents the undue reporting of sensitive financial information on law-abiding americans. the presiding officer: who keeled time in opposition? -- who yields too i am in opposition? mr. wyden: colleague, a decade of republican budget cuts to the i.r.s. has rummed in consider be -- has resulted in rampant tax cheating at the top. tax informs is going to require new resources and new tools to crack down on the high-flying tax cheats. the crapo amendment would for all practical purposes preserve the status quo. the status quo that has contributed to the trillion-dollar tax gap mushrooming and growing bigger. this amendment would make it harder to root out tax cheating, and it's unfair to working americans who pay their taxes

automatically out of each paycheck. shortly -- and we are going to reject the crapo amendment -- i'll offer an alternative that will protect the little guy without forfeiting the chance to go after the big tax cheats, the wealthiest. i urge a vote. the presiding officer: question is on the amendment. mr. wyden: 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:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 49. the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: i call up my amendment and ask it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from oregon mr. wyden proposes

amendment number 3365. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: the i.r.s. commissioner told the senate finance committee that in his judgment the tax gap, the difference between taxes paid and taxes owed is as much as a trillion dollars a year. current tax gap estimates likely miss a large number of the high flyers who clearly are driving this tax gap up and up. taxpayers acting to conceal this income from tax authorities are going to have a much tougher time. if the congress requires that financial institutions take practical and reasonable steps to require that financial institutions report on financial accounts. our interest on our side is to go after the big guys who

generate significant in-flows and outflows of cash and other assets. and we do it in a way that protects privacy and sensitive taxpayer and small business tax information. and this privacy issue has been one of the most important issues in my time in public service. and we're going to make sure that you can get the high flyers, the wealthy tax cheats, without forcing the rights of the little guy. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: mr. president, this is one of the biggest violations of privacy of information to come -- mr. president, this is one of the biggest violations of the privacy of american citizens to come to the floor of the senate in a long time. this amendment would require reporting of -- and i quote -- large, end quote, financial account balances to the i.r.s. now instead of $600, they're going to say whatever the i.r.s. says is large is what they will require every single american

whether they are an individual, a small business, or a corporation owner. everyone is going to be subject to reporting on whatever the i.r.s. says large. this comes after another proposal that's coming down the pike to double or triple the funding to the i.r.s. so they can mon forthe -- monitor the financial transactions of american citizens. this amendment should be rejected. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. 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 50. the nays are 49. the amendment is agreed to.

the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. the senator from north dakota. a senator: i call up kramer amendment number 3105 and ask it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will order the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from north dakota mr. cramer for himself and mr. braun proposes an amendment number 3105. mr. cramer: this amendment would simply prohibit by ban on

hydraulic fracturing. such a ban would raise americans' cost of living, weaken our national security and of course actually enhance greenhouse gas emissions. thanks to the technology of tracking, since 2007, u.s. oil production has doubled and natural gas production has increased by 60%. that's helping states like colorado, new mexico, pennsylvania and it ritz us of our reliance on -- risdz us of our reliance on saudi arabia and russia. and by the way, banning fracking would lead to truple-digit -- triple-digit oil prices and global economic shock as per the university of chicago. iron -- ironically, mr. president, a ban on fracking would also increase global greenhouse gas emissions, energy sector recently said the russian gas is, quote, the dirtiest form of natural gas on earth, unquote. she's right. emissions from russian natural gas are over 40% higher than ours. democrats fracking ban would be

bad for north dakota and our nation and the environment and i urge my colleagues to vote yes. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. senators please take their conversations off of the senate floor. the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: mr. president, i would urge my republican colleagues to read the recent ipcc report. and if they did, they would find that it is now unequivocal that climate change is caused by human activity. and we are seeing what climate change is doing with our own eyes. we can no longer be blind to this reality. we are seeing the intensity and the increase in forest fires. we are seeing more extreme weather disturbances. we are seeing rising sea levels that will soon threaten the habitability of great american cities like miami, new york, and charleston. we are seeing the acidification of the oceans that threaten

fishing and marine life. and we're seeing an increase in disease. we have got to move away from fossil fuel. we have got to end fracking. i urge a no vote on this amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this

vote, the yeas are 57, the nays are 42. the amendment is agreed to. the senator from vermont. mr. sanders: i ask unanimous consent that following the rubio amendment, the following amendments be in order, that the amendments be reported by number with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendment -- shelby 3293, grassley 3251, wyden 3569, tuberville 3113, klobuchar 3731. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. scott: i call up my amendment 3073 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from south carolina, mr. scott, proposes an amendment numbered 3073. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. scott: thank you, mr. president. in over a year of uncertainty

and the pain of living through a pandemic, i have to admit i'm shocked that i have to come down here to talk about the importance of quality in-person education. today we are debating a $4 trillion tax and spending bill, and that's on top of the $2 trillion we spent in march and the $4 trillion we spent last year. how insane is that? with all that spending, there is still no guarantee that our kids will be back in school this fall. the sad reality is more than one million kids did not enroll in their local schools during the pandemic. thanks to labor union bosses and their unneeded and damaging school shutdowns, kids have been kept out of school and many, far too many, have suffered psychologically. for our children's sake, i urge all my colleagues to vote yes on my amendment and to join me in

ensuring our children are no longer confined to virtual learning. mrs. murray: mr. president, i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. we all agree in-person learning is a top priority this school year. democrats actually passed the american rescue plan without a single republican vote so schools have the resources to make safe, in-person learning possible. the c.d.c. also updated its guidance on reopening and state school districts and schools are working towards that goal. but in addition to ensuring in-person learning, we need to encourage adherence to public health guidance, especially as this delta variant is surging. we also need to support learning and mental health needs of our students, and much more. there is no disagreement on in-person learning, but the scott amendment falls short on these very important points. and by the way, we need to stop

politicizing this issue. so i encourage a no vote on this amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. scott: i agree with my colleague that we should stop politicizing this issue. all we've done for the last several months of this year is politicize this issue and every other major issue in our nation. i would like to ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: