[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 62 (Monday, April 12, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1867-S1870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                             Infrastructure

  Mr. PORTMAN. Madam President, I am here on the floor of the Senate 
this evening to talk about our shared national priorities for 
addressing the Nation's infrastructure needs and my concerns--really 
deep concerns--about the plan the Biden administration has outlined and 
specifically the way they intend to pay for it.
  I don't think there is a single Member in this Chamber who does not 
recognize the need for us to invest in upgrading America's aging 
infrastructure. Our network of roads, bridges,

[[Page S1868]]

ports, railroads, and more has played an integral role over the decades 
in growing our world-class economy. Yet, according to a 2019 report, 
the most recent one we have from the World Economic Forum, the United 
States now ranks only 13th in the world in infrastructure based on 
factors like the quality of our roads, how efficient our trains are, 
and access to electricity and water.
  So we can and should do more to improve our infrastructure, 
particularly as competitors like China make substantial investments in 
their own infrastructure every year. We can do so in a bipartisan way, 
just as we have always done. In fact, last Congress, the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee approved bipartisan 
infrastructure legislation by a unanimous vote of 21 to 0. That was 
just last Congress, 21 to 0. This bipartisan approach last Congress 
totaled $287 billion--a substantial amount and one we have yet to 
figure out how to pay for.
  The current Transportation bill that is in play, the so-called 
infrastructure bill from a few years ago, is about $310 billion. Yet, 
even as we have to figure out how to fund the bipartisan $287 billion 
package for roads and bridges from last year--a substantial amount in 
its own right--the Biden administration recently introduced its own 
infrastructure plan that totals $2.7 trillion, almost 10 times as much.
  At the core of this Biden administration proposal is $620 billion in 
infrastructure broadly defined. It has a generous definition of the 
roads, bridges, and other physical transportation and water components 
that have traditionally been considered infrastructure. So a generous 
definition would be that out of the $2.7 trillion, $620 billion could 
be called infrastructure based on the way Republicans and Democrats 
alike have always looked at it, and again, that would include water, 
electricity, and other forms of transportation, not just roads and 
bridges. So about 20 percent of the Biden administration infrastructure 
bill actually fits the bill.
  The reason the overall package costs $2.7 trillion is because they 
have included a broad set of liberal priorities that are a far cry from 
what has ever been defined as infrastructure by either Democrats or 
Republicans. So, I guess, knowing the popularity of infrastructure--and 
it is popular; people want to see their roads and bridges repaired--the 
Biden administration has simply redefined the word to include hundreds 
of billions of dollars of spending on priorities like healthcare, 
Federal office buildings and other facilities, research and 
development, electric vehicle manufacturing, and more.
  According to the Biden administration, paid leave is now 
infrastructure, childcare is now infrastructure, and caregiving is now 
infrastructure. While many are worthy causes and should be debated and 
voted on separately, they don't belong in infrastructure bills.
  This approach is troubling to me and, I know, to many of my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle because it is a continuation of 
the raw partisanship that defined the latest COVID-19 spending package 
back in March. Rather than work to find good-faith negotiations with 
Republicans to craft a package that can gain bipartisan support, the 
Biden administration and Senate Democrats apparently are once again 
looking into potentially using reconciliation to jam Republicans--to 
pass another trillion-dollar-plus spending bill with a simple 50-vote 
majority. And, like COVID-19, infrastructure has always been 
bipartisan. So if you can't be bipartisan on COVID-19 and you can't be 
bipartisan on infrastructure, what can you be bipartisan about?

  This partisan approach, by the way, is the opposite of what President 
Biden pledged on the campaign trail and in his inauguration address. In 
his inaugural address, he talked about the need to get back to more 
bipartisanship and urged unity. I agreed with that assessment and said 
so at the time.
  Unfortunately, he has apparently listened to the more strident voices 
in his party and has gone down the partisan path. As with the $1.9 
trillion COVID spending package last March, the end result could be 
another spending bill that is far higher than it needs to be at a time 
of record debt and deficits and another partisan bill that further 
divides us at a time when we are already too divided. In fact, about a 
quarter of the Biden plan is not paid for at all, taking us further 
into debt.
  But even more troubling to me is that the Democrats plan to pay for 
roughly $2 trillion of this plan with massive tax increases on American 
workers and consumers and by making us less competitive in the global 
economy. This would completely reverse the progress we have made over 
the past few years in making America competitive again. Thanks to the 
2017 tax reforms that the Biden proposal would largely dismantle, in 
the couple of years before COVID-19, we saw record growth in jobs and 
wages, with the lowest poverty rate since the Federal Government 
started keeping track of it 60 years ago.
  In promoting the Biden tax increases, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen 
claims we need to reverse the 2017 tax reforms because they encourage 
businesses to move jobs out of the country. The reality is just the 
opposite. The 2017 tax reforms stopped the so-called corporate tax 
inversions, which caused American companies to become foreign companies 
and move jobs and investment out of America because of our 
uncompetitive tax laws. This happened to a number of companies in Ohio 
and in every State, practically, represented in this Chamber.
  The 2017 reforms also stopped the lockout effect that kept foreign 
profits of U.S. companies overseas. They weren't bringing the profits 
back. Instead, $1.6 trillion in overseas earnings has come back to the 
United States and was invested right here at home.
  Most importantly for working families, 70 percent of the savings from 
the corporate tax cuts went into workers' wages, contributing to 19 
straight months of wage growth of over 3 percent annually that we 
enjoyed before the pandemic. This wage growth was really welcome in my 
home State Ohio. We had lower wages, or flat wages, for more than a 
decade.
  And, by the way, who benefited most from this wage increase--19 
straight months of wage increases? Lower and middle-income workers--
exactly what should have been happening.
  Thanks to the 2017 reforms, the largest U.S. companies also increased 
their domestic research and development expenditures by 25 percent, 
which amounts to $707 billion more R&D. And they further increased 
capital expenditures by 20 percent, aided by this return of foreign 
profits.
  All of this U.S. investment, job creation, and new R&D would be put 
at risk by these proposed tax hikes. Under the Biden plan, which we 
have heard is raising the corporate rate from 21 to 28 percent, in 
actuality, the combined Federal and State corporate rate would go from 
25.8 percent, where it is now when you include the State and Federal--
other countries like China don't have any State income tax on their 
corporations. They just have the Federal rate. So we would be going 
from 25.8 percent--by the way, which is already above the average of 
23.4 percent for other developed countries, so-called OECD countries--
it would go from 25.8 percent up to a staggering 32.8 percent, the 
highest rate in the developed world.
  Our tax rate would once again be higher than China's and higher than 
any country in the developed world--Japan, Europeans. This is exactly 
what we got away from in 2017, and it was on a bipartisan basis. There 
was a consensus for us to do that--maybe not the exact rate, but the 
idea was to make America competitive again.
  I cochaired a task force with a fellow Senator, a Democrat from the 
across the aisle, Chuck Schumer, on the Finance Committee, and we came 
up with this idea of saying: Let's go to a territorial-type tax system, 
and let's lower the rate so that we can be competitive around the 
world. That is what happened, and it is working.
  Now, for some reason, the Biden administration says: We want to 
reverse all that. These abrupt tax hikes, which actually would be five 
times as large as the corresponding corporate tax cuts in 2017, would 
make our workers and our businesses less competitive globally at a time 
when our economy is just starting to recover.
  The Biden plan goes well beyond just making our tax rates 
uncompetitive again. It also doubles the tax on so-called global 
intangible low-taxed income, or GILTI, making it more costly for U.S. 
companies to operate outside the United States, more costly than any 
other country's companies of any

[[Page S1869]]

developed country in the world. Again, it puts us at a competitive 
disadvantage. It unfairly punishes American workers who have their jobs 
here in America, supporting international operations.
  In Ohio, for example, we have Procter & Gamble. It is headquartered 
in my hometown. They rely on overseas production to serve foreign 
markets in an affordable manner. They are not going to ship diapers 
from here overseas because it is not cost-competitive. So, for the 
foreign markets, they will make diapers in those foreign countries. 
However, by doing so, they employ thousands of Ohioans and others 
around this country who support those international sales. So all the 
back-office work, the sales work, the research and development, and so 
on is done here. The proposed Biden tax increases would make such 
companies uncompetitive overseas, resulting in our losing markets there 
and losing U.S. jobs. Remember, no other developed country in the world 
does this except us. No other country taxes these companies on their 
foreign profits. We got away from that on purpose, and we essentially 
established a minimum tax, which, again, hardly any country in the 
world has, but we wanted to have some balance here.
  Now, under this proposal from the Biden administration, that tax 
would be more than double. It is going to hurt us. The Biden 
administration also proposes to eliminate a provision regarding what is 
called foreign-derived intangible income, FDII. In 2017, we put FDII in 
place for a very simple reason, and there seemed to be a consensus 
about that, which is to provide a carrot to U.S. companies to do their 
research and development here in America. It incentivized companies to 
bring that research back and to keep that research here. It worked to 
create high-skilled and high-wage jobs.
  For example, Google, Cisco, and Facebook brought all of their 
intellectual property home--brought all of their IP home. And we heard 
from other U.S. companies like Intel and Disney, which said they kept 
their IP in the United States due to this tax law change. Why would we 
want that to go overseas?
  The Biden administration claims that it wants the United States to be 
more competitive, yet these proposed tax increases do just the 
opposite. It makes no sense that while China and other countries are 
increasing subsidies to businesses that innovate, the United States 
would be punishing our workers and global companies, making them less 
competitive
  In what amounts to an astounding admission of how deeply flawed these 
proposals are, when Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen announced the 
proposal to increase taxes we just talked about, she actually went out 
of her way to make a plea to other countries around the world. She 
asked them to raise their own corporate tax rates and to increase their 
own taxes to ensure, as she said, a more level playing field.
  Understanding the nature of the intense global competition, our 
competitors are doing just the opposite. It is naive to think that 
because we are going to raise our taxes and ask them to do the same 
that they would do that. They want more of the jobs and investment in 
their country.
  In fact, just this past week, the Finance Minister of Ireland, when 
asked about this, said they have no interest in raising taxes. Ireland 
is one of those countries that has made themselves competitive and 
resulted in our tax law changes because they were taking jobs away from 
us, and now we were bringing this IP and these jobs back. Ireland, 
China, and these other countries are going to continue to lower 
barriers to attract capital and jobs. It is wishful thinking, at best, 
to think that because we are going to raise our taxes, they are going 
to raise theirs.
  The Biden plan would mean America standing alone atop the corporate 
tax rate chart among all developed countries--standing alone, leaving 
our businesses and workers to suffer the cost, a fact borne out from 
multiple studies, including from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget 
Office that shows it is workers who bear most of the burden of higher 
taxes in the form of lower wages and lost jobs. It is not the 
corporations; it is the workers.
  As I said before, there is a clear need for us to reinvest in 
American infrastructure. I think we can all agree with that. 
Republicans and Democrats alike want to do it, and, right now, in the 
key committee of jurisdiction, by the way, the Senate Environment and 
Public Works Committee, bipartisan negotiations are ongoing. This is 
the same committee that had a unanimous vote last Congress on the 
transportation legislation.
  They are talking right now about how to put together a bipartisan 
package. That is the right way to do it: Go through regular order and 
allow Democrats and Republicans alike to offer their ideas.
  There is also a group of Republicans and Democrats outside of the 
committee who have met and are looking for a more sensible way forward. 
I am among that group. There are others as well.
  The partisan approach by the Biden administration looks to be taking 
us down the road of another trillion-dollar-plus spending package 
jammed through Congress with no support from the other side of the 
aisle. That is not good for this institution. It is not good for this 
country. It is not the way to get things done.
  Instead of a $2.7 trillion plan that goes beyond any reasonable 
definition of infrastructure and is mostly paid for with a devastating 
tax hike on U.S. workers and our economy, let's do what we know works: 
a bipartisan approach focused on what we have all agreed is 
infrastructure--roads, bridges, ports, rail, broadband, and other true 
infrastructure.
  I believe if we take that more targeted approach, we can build on the 
bipartisan framework this Congress has achieved in recent years and 
work together to find commonsense ways to fund infrastructure 
legislation, including user fees, which is what we have always used in 
the past, without resorting to partisan tax hikes, which reduce the 
competitiveness of U.S. workers, U.S. companies, and undermine 
investment in our country. I hope we take that better approach.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, we have just listened to Senator 
Portman, and you are hearing others of us on the Republican side of the 
aisle talk about the elevated levels of spending and how our Democratic 
colleagues have seemed to lose touch with the American people. This is 
something that appears to have happened at lightning speed.
  It really began on the very first day of the Biden administration. It 
started with the stroke of a pen and a stream of Executive orders. On 
Day 1, President Biden made a decision that he would weaken our border, 
and with that stroke of a pen, he destroyed hundreds--hundreds, 
thousands--of good-paying union jobs right in the middle of a pandemic, 
and that was by eliminating the Keystone Pipeline. With every decision, 
he has made it abundantly clear that he came back to Washington not to 
serve this country but to advance an agenda pushed by the most radical 
leftwing of the Democratic Party.
  That being said, the White House has a problem because the American 
people have figured out what they are up to, and as I have been home 
for the past couple of weeks, I have talked to Tennesseeans from every 
political division. They are Democrats, Republicans, Independents; they 
are unaffiliated; and they are concerned citizens. It bothers them, 
what they are seeing from this White House. How could they not have, 
after seeing Senate Democrats spend $1.9 trillion on coronavirus relief 
that spent just 9 percent of that pricetag on testing and healthcare 
jobs? If that didn't do it, President Biden surely ticked them off when 
he nominated a Health and Human Services Secretary with no healthcare 
experience--zero--and a Homeland Security Secretary who believes that 
we should have unsecured borders. You cannot make this up. People are 
astounded with this.

  So when people back home in Tennessee saw President Biden's latest 
proposal for a $2 trillion so-called infrastructure bill, they weren't 
particularly shocked to see that very little of this legislation has to 
do with infrastructure.
  Just 3 months into the new administration and already they know that

[[Page S1870]]

this is just another vehicle for the left's wish list.
  The most frustrating thing about it is that Tennesseans have 
repeatedly told me that a smart, targeted plan to fund infrastructure 
improvements would make a tremendous difference in local communities 
and in our State. They support that type of investment. They want to 
see that. Roads, bridges, waterways, highways, broadband, airports, 
they are for that. What they don't support is an administration that 
repeatedly promises one thing and then chooses to do the opposite.
  Just like last month's over-the-top spending bill, this month's 
multitrillion-dollar boondoggle isn't just a waste of taxpayer dollars; 
it is a missed opportunity to rebuild parts of our economy that were 
struggling to keep up before the pandemic hit.
  Here is a number for your talking points: Less than 6 percent. And 
what is less than 6 percent? That is the amount, that is the percentage 
of this $2 trillion bill that actually goes to infrastructure 
projects--less than 6 percent.
  Tennesseans are asking me: How could this possibly happen? We have 
been talking about having an infrastructure bill now for about 3 years, 
and you bring a bill forward--the Democratic leadership does--and less 
than 6 percent goes to infrastructure.
  Now, this sounds like a familiar tactic: Redefine your standards, put 
less than 10 percent of your funding toward your stated purpose, then 
throw the rest into yet another handout for projects that would not 
stand a chance. They wouldn't have a snowball's chance of receiving 
public support on their own, much less 60 votes here in this Chamber.
  President Biden's American jobs plan ignores rural Tennesseans who 
have to navigate flood plains to get to work or to get to school. It 
bypasses crumbling bridges they can't avoid, but it sure does pay a lot 
of attention to Green New Deal policies that were nonstarters even 
before Speaker Pelosi lost ground in the House.
  Climate change studies and union payouts take precedent over roads, 
bridges, ports, airports, and waterways. In fact, this absurd scheme 
spends more taxpayer money on electric cars than on all of those things 
combined. Yes, you heard me correctly. This so-called infrastructure 
bill spends more money, more of your hard-earned tax dollars, on 
electric cars than on all of the roads, bridges, highways, ports, 
airports, and waterways. That is correct.
  Another day, another power grab made worse by job-destroying, 
corporate tax increases that will put American companies at a global 
disadvantage. It is no wonder Democrats have been working overtime to 
stretch the definition of ``infrastructure'' past the point of reason.
  These days, entire White House press briefings rely on the idea that 
the definition of ``infrastructure'' will continue to evolve--as they 
say, it is going to evolve--to make it include whatever the Democrats 
decide that it should include. It is a time-honored liberal trick that 
has run its course.
  They can tweet that lie every day for the next 4 years if they 
choose, but here in the real world, we are dealing with an economy 
still in recovery, major industries in crisis, and millions of families 
who are working terribly hard and long hours to just make ends meet.
  What we are seeing here isn't just a disconnect. This is an 
administration attempting to impose their socialist vision on a country 
that cannot sustain the cost.
  To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I want to be clear. 
That vision of America that you have invented to fulfill this purpose 
does not exist. It is time to come up for air and talk a little 
reality.
  I know it is a popular thing here in Washington to claim that 
elections have consequences, but on your first day back in power, the 
Democratic Party got together and marched right across the line that 
separates consequences from punishment. Punishment, that is what they 
are all about.
  I would also encourage my Democratic colleagues to remember that when 
they do this, when they put together these trillion-dollar handouts for 
radical special interests, political pain for their opponents isn't the 
only result. They are punishing their neighbors, their friends, 
communities that are in their States. They are making life harder, much 
more difficult, for local businesses and small business manufacturers, 
and they are exposing our weaknesses to our adversaries.
  I will tell you, if President Biden and the majority leader shove yet 
another blank check through this Chamber, they are going to find out in 
a hurry, I really do believe, how little the American people have to 
give for their leftist agenda.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.