vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 50, the nays are 506789 the amendment is not agreed to. mr. lankford: madam president,

i call up my amendment number 5384 and ask it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: mr. lankford proposes an amendment numbered 5384 to amendment numbered 5214. mr. lankford: the biden administration continues to declare that we are in had a public health emergency because of covid-19. this public health emergency first declared in january 2020 has been renewed ten times. title 42 is the health authority specifically designed to prevent people from coming into the country during a pandemic. it is nonsensical to say that we have a covid health emergency everywhere but on our southern border. if there is a public health emergency in this country, then title 42 authority must remain in place. title 42 authority is the last line of defense that our border patrol agents have to protect our nation and my democratic colleagues said they agreed with that idea back in april. the situation has only worsened

since that time, so surely they'll agree with me more today. i urge the adoption of this amendment that we would remain consistent with title 42 authority in this nation. mrs. murray: madam president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from washington. mrs. murray: let's be clear about what's going on here. this amendment is an attempt by republicans to derail our ability to get this bill across the finish line. title 42 is a public health tool and hour it is used should be guided by public health experts looking at data, looking at science, not politicians looking to score political points or in this case republicans trying to stop a bill that lowers costs, lowers emissions, and lowers the deficits. i urge my colleagues to vote no. mr. lankford: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? traps to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 50, the nays are 50. the amendment is not agreed to. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from montana. mr. durbin: will the senator from montana hold for just a moment, please. thank you. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that following disposition of the crapo amendment number 5404, the following amendments be the next in order, 53589 collins, motion

to commit. senator scott 5389 marshal, 5383 capito. and 5431 grassley. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senior senator from montana. mr. tester: madam president, i call up amendment number 5480 and i ask no it be reported by number. the clerk: mr. tester proposes amendment numbered 5480 to amendment number 5194. mr. tester: madam president, this amendment is actually quite simple. it is to make sure that we have a comprehensive plan in place before title 42 is lifted. very frat forward. this is not whether title 42 should ever be lifted or not. rather, it is about making sure we are doing the right thing at the right time, which i believe is when the covid-19 national

emergency is lifted. and when we have a plan in place. and i would urge an aye vote. mr. lankford: madam president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: well, i anticipate there'll be a few people that are going to vote for it before they voted against it in this case. what this is is this is actually my title 42 bill except with one little tweak in it. it takes it out of byrd compliance. so this allows any individual to be able to vote for this one but actually oppose the one that would have actually implemented the policy that was actually byrd-compliant. this is the reason people get so angry at washington, d.c. because people will say, oh, i didn't really mean to do that. i meant to do this. here's my concern. i think anyone should ask

everyone if they voted one way at one time and one way another, what's different on this because here's what i think happens next. what i think is about to happen is someone is going to stand and they're going to call a point of order on this and say this is not compliant with the byrd rule. and people are going to say, i tried to get it done, but that parliamentarian just knocked it down. so that's what i bet happens next. we'll see. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. the democratic whip. mr. durbin: i raise a point of order that the pending amendment does not produce a change in outlays or revenues and therefore violates section 313 (b) 1 (a) of the congressional budget act of 1974. the presiding officer: the senior senator from montana. mr. tester: of about i make my motion, i would just say we were here earlier this week on a different bill that had nothing to do with the budget act. pursuant to section 904 of the congressional budget act of

1974, i move to waive section 313 of that act for the purpose of this provision and i would ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? on this vote the yeas are 56 and the nays are 44. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the point of order is sustained and the amendment falls.

the senator from kansas. a senator: madam president on roll call 286, i voted no. it was my intention to vote aye. therefore, i ask unanimous consent that i be permitted to change my vote as it will not change the outcome. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. moran: thank you. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: i call up my amendment 5404 and ask it be reported by number. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from idaho, mr. crapo, proposes an amendment numbered 5404 to amendment 5194. mr. crapo: my amendment will guard against squeezing middle-class taxpayers. super sized irs funding will squeeze billions from the middle-class workers and small businesses through ramped-up audits. my colleagues on the other side, the president all say

that that is not intended by the bill, and in fact the bill itself says that's not intended. but this is not enforceable language and everyone knows that the targeted money in the bill cannot be achieved unless the middle class, people with incomes under $400,000, are hit with a wave of new audits. we also know that the congressional budget office will score that, showing that there is no way to accomplish the objectives of this bill unless you stop -- unless you audit the middle class. my bill puts in some teeth behind what is admitted bid everyone to be the intention of the legislation, to say that none of the new irs funding may be used to audit those earning below $400,000. if my amendment is not adopted, billions in taxes will be squeezed out of taxpayers earning below $400,000. according to the cbo, including

middle-income workers and small businesses. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senior senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, i rise in opposition to my friend's amendment. we all agree here that taxpayers with less than $400,000 in taxable income should not face a tax increase, and there is language already -- and i'd like to note this -- in the enforcement section of the bill that says just that. but the crapo amendment goes much further than that. it applies, and i quote here, to taxpayers with taxable income. and as americans have learned recently, billionaires often have little or no taxable income for years on end. so under this amendment, the

billionaires who live off their borrowings would be immune from audit, and that would invite further tax avoidance. i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. mr. moran: 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: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 50, the nays are 50. the amendment is not agreed to. the junior -- the majority whip. mr. durbin: -- following grassley amendment number 5421. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from florida. mr. scott: i have a motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from florida, mr. scott -- mr. scott: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. scott: i historic crisis the biden administration has created on the southern border is threatening the national security of the united states every day. savage cartels own oration border now. this fiscal year more than two million people have illegally entered the united states. drugs are pouring into our communities and killing thousands of americans. it must end now. sadly, democrats are still doing nothing support border control or actually support the border. they want to supersize the irs and add 87,000 more agents. before one more additional agents is hired, we must give border patrol the support it needs. it is time to stop the democrats are super-sighing the irs. mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i gather that this is the first of the motions to

commit this legislation back to committee. i want colleagues to understand what this is really all about. these motions to commit are motions to kill this bill, period. and what that means is, let's try to do everything we can to delay democrats from being able to deliver for the american people. lower prescription drug costs for the elderly, lower health care premiums, lower carbon emissions, lower energy costs, less tax cheating by the wealthy. the senate ought to be moving this legislation forward instead of trying to kill the bill through these motions to commit. one last point. i gather we're going to have a

bit more discussion -- i would ask for 30 seconds additional time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. a senator: i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. wyden: i urge opposition to the scott proposal. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. mr. scott: 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: