vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 49, the nays

are 50. the amendment is not agreed to. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. i'm sorry. the senator from florida. mr. rubio: i call up my amendment 3907 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. rubio for himself and mr. scott of florida proposes an amendment numbered 3097. mr. rubio: mr. president, we witnessed about a month ago historic and unprecedented protests in cuba as people took to the streets. one of the things that's been untold is that one of the reasons that's now possible is because cubans had i want willed access to the internet. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the senator from florida. rube rue cubans had limited access to the -- mr. rubio: cubans had limited access to the internet which allowed them to communicate with the world. they were able to share with the world the true brutality of that regime. it was the first time people had ever seen it. and so what -- this amendment

does is it creates a reserve fund within the national telecommunications and information administration to help ensure that we're doing all we can to provide internet access, unfettered, uncontrolled by the regime in cuba, which actually cuts off that access, as it did in the middle of this -- of these protests. by the way, using chinese technology. so this would allow us to pursue how we can provide unfettered internet access to the people of cuba. it's something that i understand has broad support in this chamber, even in the administration. i hope we can pass this. a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i strongly support the gentleman's amendment. in fact, the biden administration is in the midst of trying to find out what is the greatest technological ability to create internet access for people of cuba without the limited -- and

limiting the ability of the regime to jam that internet access. and i hope that we will see this shortly. so this reserve fund would be in good order and in line with what the administration is seeking to do as well. the presiding officer: 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. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. leahy: mr. president, i have a unanimous consent request, if i might -- the presiding officer: if the senator from alabama would withhold, the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. leahy: i would like to put in the record a statement in support of the rubio amendment. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. shelby: mr. president, i call up my amendment number 3293

and ask it be reported by number. this is an amendment by shelby, inhofe, wicker, and others dealing with defense infrastructure. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from alabama, mr. shelby, for himself and others proposals an amendment numbered 3293. mr. shelby: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: this amendment provides $50.2 billion to meet defense infrastructure needs across this nation. i believe we need to modernize our shipyards, our test ranges, our depots, ammunition plants, install 5g technology at military bases, support our nuclear defense infrastructure, and so much more. these infrastructure projects are absolutely critical to our national security. they impact millions of jobs across the country, both military and civilian.

we're talking about projects not just in my home state of alabama but in arizona, georgia, virginia, rhode island, connecticut, maine, california, hawaii, maryland, nevada, new mexico, and many more. actually, all of us. my democratic colleagues, in explicably, blocked a vote on a related amendment in the infrastructure bill that just passed the senate. it is time to stand upped appeared be counted for america, for national security. will my democratic colleagues now support this multitrillion-dollar social spending binge while continuing to turn a blind eye to the military infrastructure needs in their own states? i certainly hope not. it must stop, mr. president. i urge my colleagues to support

our military and vote yes on this amendment. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, this is well-intended because there are always needs for national defense. but i would like to point out that the armed services committee on a bipartisan basis raised the top line of the defense bill this year by $25 billion, allowing us to cover the unfunded requirements of the department of defense. this was not only a bipartisan effort, it was overwhelmingly approved by the committee. so we are not reneging on our commitment to fully fund the department of defense, and i know this bill originated as an attempt to amend the infrastructure bill, but as it's written, this bill provides over

$50 billion fund for unspecified uses. it could be infrastructure, it could be military platforms, it could be a host of things. and the fund would extend from 2022 to 2031, beyond this congress and beyond the current administration. mr. president, i think we should adhere to the rules, the regular order, which has been conducted in the armed services committee. i think we've well positioned ourselves for an adequate budget and determination of spending this year. for that reason, i urge my colleagues to oppose thisempt a. mr. shelby: 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:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 46, the nays are 53. the amendment is not agreed to. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i call up amendment 3251 and ask it be record by number.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from iowa, mr. grassley, proposes amendment numbered 3251. mr. grassley: hear me. you will be shocked what the democrats want to do in their budget. they want to use reconciliation to provide $125 billion tax cut to the salt relief. 51% of the benefit of that repeal would go to those making over $1 million while those with incomes under $50,000 would see any benefit. the liberal tax policy center says the top one-tenth of 1% of households would receive an average tax cut of $144,000 a year. democrats cry the wealthy are not paying their fair share, at the same time proposing to give

billionaires tax -- six-figure tax cuts. if my democrat colleagues are genuine in their concern about the wealthy paying too little taxes, their budget is not the way to do it so vote to support my amendment to impose restrictions on repealing and modifying the salt cap that would result in tax cuts for the wealthy. i reserve my time. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, and colleagues, our tax bill will rb progressive even though my friend from iowa told you just the opposite. now, the 2017 trump tax law specifically targeted families in the middle for tax hikes to pay for some of the handouts that republican colleagues wanted to give corporations and the mega wealthy. over here on our side we want to

fix that mistake. but my friend from iowa is offering an amendment to lock in those tax hikes on families in the middle. democrats are proposing very substantial tax cuts for working class folks, for the middle class, and what we're going to be doing in our tax bill is working to make the tax code more progressive by ensuring that the mega wealthy pay their fair share. i mean, we've all seen, and this has been documented for quite some time, and my colleague from iowa knows that we expose these mega i.r.a.'s that billionaires have. i hope my colleagues will reject the grassley amendment and when we do, i will offer what is truly a progressive alternative. thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: there is no time remaining. 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:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 48, the nays are 51, and the amendment is not agreed to. the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i call up my amendment 3569 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from oregon, mr. wyden, proposes an amendment numbered 3569. mr. wyden: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, it takes -- the presiding officer: could we have order in the chamber, please. take your conversations off the floor. the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, it takes extraordinary chutzpah for senate republicans to claim that democrats want to make the federal tax code less progressive. the trump 2017 tax law was a huge giveaway to the biggest

corporations and the wealthiest individuals. senate democrats are going to fix that in our tax bill. we're going to have tax cuts for working people. for example, we're going to have tax cuts for middle-class people with kids, and we're going to make sure that those at the top, those multinational corporations and the wealthiest individuals are going to pay their fair share. that's going to make the tax code more progressive and fairer. to vote for a progressive fair tax system, you ought to support our amendment 3569. mr. grassley: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: the senator from oregon should have read the 2017 tax bill, and he wouldn't give a speech like that. the wyden amendment is an example of democrats on the one hand complaining wealthy pay too

little tax while supporting massive tax cuts for the rich. nothing in my amendment prevents changes to the tax code that would make it more progressive. who supports the wealthy paying their fair share should have supported my amendment and vote no on the wyden amendment. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 47, the nays are 51. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. durbin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent that the following the klobuchar amendment, the following be in order, the amendments be reported in order with no intervening amendments

in order. bozeman 3030, brawn 3114. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. tuberville: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: i call up my amendment 3113 and it be report by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from alabama, mr. tuberville, proposes amendment number 3113. mr. tuberville: thank you very much. believe it or not, people back home duly listen to what we say here. the far-left rally cry of defund the police is is not just d.c. rhetoric. they're actually acting on it. more than 80% of law enforcement in america is ask unanimous consented by state and local

police departments. 80%. these men and women are community heroes. we should invest in all of them. but local leaders across the country have decided the woke thing to do is cancel their city's police force. my amendment is pretty simple. if your city council wants to defund their police, don't expect the federal government to make up the difference. the american taxpayers in alabama have to pick up the tab for local leaders in oregon and minnesota who value the woke defund-the-police movement over their own community safety. i call on my colleagues to support our law enforcement by voting yes for this amendment. opposing my amendment is a vote? support of defunding the police and against the men and women in blue. the presiding officer: the gentleman's time has expired. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: i am so excite.

this is perhaps the highlight of this the long and painful and torturous night. this is a gift. if it wasn't complete abdication of senate procedures and esteem, i would walk over there and hug my colleague from alabama. and i will tell you right now, thank god, because there's some people who said there are members of this deliberative body that want to defund the police, to my horror. and now this senator has given us the gift that finally once and for all we can put to bed this scurrilous accusation that somebody in this great esteemed body would want to defund the police. so let's all of you 100 people not walk but sachet down there and vote for this amendment and put to rest the lies -- and i am sure i will see no political ads attacking anybody here over defund the police. and i would ask unanimous consent to add something else to this obvious bill. can we add also that every senator here wants to defund the police, believes in god,

country, and apple pie. thank you. mr. tuberville: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. mr. tuberville: 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:

ms. klobuchar: to reallocate funding for the capitol police, washington, d.c., and metropolitan police. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take your conversations off the senate floor. ms. klobuchar: and all first responders who defended the capitol on january 6. the insurrection at the capitol was more than an assault on democracy. it was an actual life-or-death situation for the many brave law enforcement officers who show up

here to work every single day. last week, we unanimously passed legislation which senator blunt and i led to award the congressional gold medal to honor these officers, and i was proud to stand with president biden when he signed it into law. this amendment shows our continued commitment to remembering the heroism and the sacrifice of the first responders who risked their lives to protect this capitol. before i came to the senate, i saw firsthand the vital role that law enforcement officers play in keeping our citizens safe. that's why i'm not surprised by the last vote and the nature of the last vote, and i thank senator booker for his response to senator tuber bill's amendment. we also must ensure that the officers in this place have the resources they need to do their job, and we took an important step forward in passing the funding for the police. i want to thank my colleagues and join me in introducing this

amendment. i ask all of my colleagues to join us in voting for it. 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? a senator: yield back. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. the yeas and nays are ordered. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 99, the nays are zero, and the amendment is disagreed to. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. the senate will be in order. please take your conversations off the senate floor. mr. sanders: i ask unanimous consent that following the brawn amendment, the following amendments be in order, that the amendments being reported by number with no amendments in order prior to a vote in relation to the amendment.

fisher 3128, ernst 3115, scott, florida, 3383, young, 3444, lankford it 3792. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection o. mrs. capito: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, madam president. i call up my amendment number 3284 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from west virginia, mrs. capito, proposes amendment numbered 3284. mrs. capito: thank you, madam president. i am a strong supporter of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration. this technology allows us to turn carbon dioxide into a valuable product. some anti-fossil fuel keep-it-in-the-ground advocates only support it when it has nothing to do with fossil fuels, and i believe that is a misguided approach. if we're serious about

supporting and increasing the number of c.c.u. projects, which i am and many of us are, wind to support projects of all types of facility including on our coal and gas-fired power plants. we also need too support the need of carbon dioxide to produce oil through a process called -- the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. the senate is not in order. please take your confers off the senate floor. senator capito. mrs. capito: we also need to support the use of carbon dioxide to produce oil through a process called enhanced oil recovery o i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the amendment number 3284 and recognize that smart c.c.u.s. policies and fossil fuel use can go hand in hand. thank you, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from we have h. west virginia. mr. manchin: i rise also in support of the my colleague's amendment. we need to deploy all the climate change solutions we can if we're going to meet our global climate goals. that includes cumming the use of

our resources with technologies like ccus that will ensure that we can use them in the cleanest way possible. we need to continue to do more to bring down the costs of these critical tech nomination and expedite the wide scale deployment both domestically is and abroad, including in cups like china and india who are aggressively expanding their fossil fleet as we speak. if the united states of america gets our of fossil fuels, there won't be another country to step to the plate to do the research appeared development to combat climate change. so i urge all my colleagues to support this amendment. a senator: voice vote. voice vote. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. all those in favor, say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to o

mr. leahy: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask consent that the following roll call votes be ten-minute roll calls. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: i call up my amendment number 3103 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from arkansas, mr. boozman, proposes an amendment in my judgment 3103. mr. boozman: madam president, my amendment will establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund to ensure rural electric co-op ratives remain -- cooperatives

remain eligible for usda financing of construction, maintenance of fossil fuel burning plants. i ask my colleagues to support this commonsense approach to ensure that electricity needs of rural america continue to be met and in the future are affordable and reliable. the amendment ensures that rural americans continue to have accessible, affordable, reliable energy to power their farms, their businesses, and broadband networks in the 21st economy. in order to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, the department of agriculture has proposed the retirement of fossil fuel-burning power plants in rural america. so this amendment would protect rural america and make sure that they have reliable and affordable energy. i ask my colleagues for a yea vote. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam

president. unfortunately i cannot support the amendment offered by my good friend and ranking member. this amendment would restrict the usda's ability to support a transition to clean fuel economies. rural communities, especially rural utilities, and rural electric co-ops can help lead the transition to clean energy and create good-paying clean energy jobs at the same time. we know that. we need to provide the usda with the tools and the resources and the flexibility to make that happen. it's important to know that our rural partners are asking to be a part of this transition. they don't want an amendment that blocks them from being able to do that. we all know that tackling the climate crisis is imperative. just yesterday the u.n. put out yet another report showing the climate crisis is spiraling out of control. our budget will ensure that the u.s. will not only compete but lead the world's race toward a

clean energy future and certainly rural america is an important part of that. so i would urge a no vote. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. 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 53, the nays are 46. the amendment is agreed to. the senator from indiana. plp braun: i call up my amendment 3114 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from indiana, mr. braun, proposes amendment numbered 3114. mr. braun: mr. president, in the 11th hour, democrats added a provision to the american rescue plan that this body did not have time to vet. under this provision, if states took the money, they could not lower their taxes in any way through 2024. six federal lawsuits have already been filed, including in states like louisiana, ohio, and

arizona. west virginia is leading a lawsuit with an additional 13 states, including new hampshire and montana. states are not happy with this overreach. we can fix this mistake now. states have the right to cut their own taxes, and we have no right to get in their way. i introduced the let states cut taxes act with dan bishop of north carolina to repeal this overstep in the american rescue plan. a vote for this amendment is a vote to protect states' power to impose or cut their own taxes. please join me on this bill across the board. i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. the senator from oregon.

mr. wyden: thank you, mr. president. i will be very brief. democratic and republican governors want this. certainly on the democratic side they have expressed an interest in expanding tax cuts for working families and vulnerable people who are still feeling the economic pain. some are interested in expanding low-income housing. this helps accomplish the goals. i support this. if it's acceptable, maybe we can even do it by voice vote. mr. braun: i suggest a roll call vote. the presiding officer: the yeas and nays are ordered. the yeas and nays were previously ordered. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: i rise in opposition. this makes no sense whatsoever. first of all, our friends, no one voted on that side for this a.r.p. next of all, this was done to help people with the programs that were going and needed help. it was not intended to use people's tax dollars to regive it to the states so the states could look like they were reducing the taxes by not using the money. that's ridiculous. and we should not be supporting this whatsoever. it makes no sense at all.

the presiding officer: all time is expired. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote -- on this vote, the yeas are 66, the nays are 13. the amendment is agreed to. mrs. fischer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: mr. president, i call up my amendment number 3128 and ask for that be recorded --

reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from from nebraska, mrs. fischer, proposes an amendment numbered 3128. mrs. fischer: mr. president. the presiding officer: could we have order, please. the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: mr. president, americans making over $100,000 a year claim nearly 80% of electric vehicle tax credits in 2018. according to a left-wing environmental advocacy group, e.v.'s cost $19,000 more than gas-powered vehicles. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to say wealthy americans should pay their fair share in taxes. yet they want to expand a tax credit to disproportionately benefit even more people with six-figure salaries. everyday americans are living paycheck to paycheck because of

the sharp rise in costs due to inflation. but my colleagues on the other side want to subsidize luxury vehicles only the rich can afford, using money from hardworking taxpayers and my amendment would put a stop to that. it prohibits individuals from claim being the tax credit if they make over $see,000 a year or in the car they are buying costs over $40,000. there's nothing wrong with the we will-off buying fancy cars -- the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. the senate will come to order. thank you. the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: there is nothing with the we we will well-off bug fancy cars. while i question -- the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mrs. fischer: the least we can do is to show bipartisan support for denying taxpayer subsidies for the rich. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president,

we're strongly opposed. senator stabenow will speak for us. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you. this amendment is just plain anti-pickup truck. let's start there. when our farmers and small businesses and families are buying their next pickup truck or s.u.v., we want them to have the incentive to purchase a new, all-electric truck like we have seen now being produced by the companies. with the price ceiling in this amendment, there is a price ceiling they would not be allowed to receive the incentive that consumers buying small cars would receive. the fact is, more people buy pickup trucks and large vehicles than people who buy small vehicles. so we eliminate more carbon pollution when people who drive trucks and s.u.v.'s chose all-electric vehicles like the great ones that are now coming out into the marketplace. so i would ask you to vote no and stand with pickup truck owners across the country.

the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: mr. president, we have a pickup truck 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:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 48. the amendment is agreed to. the senator from iowa. ms. ernst: madam president, i call up my amendment -- the presiding officer: could we have order. ms. ernst: thank you, madam president. madam president, i call up my amendment numbered 3115, and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. could everyone please have order. the clerk: the senator from iowa, ms. ernst, for herself and mr. thune, proposes amendment numbered 3115. ms. ernst: madam president, i grew up on a farm in southwest iowa where we took extraordinary pride in the work we did and the livestock and crops we raised.

our hardworking livestock producers should not have to worry about being subject to onerous regulations and increased production costs due to the federal permits or regulation. my amendment would prohibit or limit any new federal methane requirements on livestock that would increase the cost of beef or other critical products. this, quote, cow tax -- this, quote, cow tax, end quote, will just result in higher food costs for americans at the grocery store at a time when inflation has already caused prices to skyrocket. this cow tax could put our local farms out of business. they could devastate our rural communities who are continuing to feed and fuel the world. i won't stand by while the democrats force iowa farmers and ranchers and american consumers

to pay for their over the top regulations. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and keep america's farming and ranching operations going and food prices affordable for our hardworking families. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: madam president, i would like to speak in opposition to the amendment. let me be clear. colleagues, let me be clear. let me be clear. e.p.a. is not acting to regulate methane from cows or any other farm animals. this amendment is designed as a messaging amendment to suggest that the agency is undertaking actions that it is not considering. democrats are working to advance policies that assist farmers and ranchers in participating in address greenhouse gas emissions in ways that help their bottom line. methane is a superclimate

pollutant. it is at least 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in terms of global warming. in order to stem the tide of climate change, we must reduce methane emissions. the biden administration and my democratic colleagues are laser focused on making sure our nation's largest sources of methane, the oil and gas sector, is doing all it can to reduce or eliminate methane emissions. the american people should rest assured that no one is focused on regulating cow emissions as this amendment would suggest. i recommend a no vote. thank you. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 66, the nays are 33. the amendment is agreed to. mr. scott: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: madam president, i call up amendment 3383 and ask that it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from florida, mr. scott, proposes an amendment numbered 3383. mr. scott: madam president, earlier this year we saw hamas rein down for eight days. alcohol l following these attacks on israel, president biden's state department said that funding couldn't go to hamas. that's unacceptable. we've seen horrible anti-israel sentiments permeate the halls of congress but we cannot and i will not accept the ignorance of some of my colleagues to it the evil and devastation that hamas

brings to israel. my amendment will ensure that any money will not end up in the hands of hamas terrorists and allows for further sanctions against the groups. this amendment is a commonsense way to protect american tax dollars, stand with a great ally israel and continue the fight against the evils of hamas. i hope all of my colleagues will vote for this amendment. mr. menendez: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: the united states government already has laws in place to prevent u.s. taxpayer dollars from going to terrorist organizations and laws that specifically prevent funds from going hamas and palestinian jihad. this is purely a messaging amendment that does nothing in practice. but it's a message we can all get behind. and because democrats stand against terrorist organizations who threaten innocent civilians in israel and anywhere else in the world, we support the amendment and we would urge the gentleman take a voice vote.

mr. scott: 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: