[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 63 (Tuesday, April 13, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1888-S1889]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Biden Administration

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, in all honesty, sometimes it is hard to 
figure out exactly what the policy goals are that the Biden 
administration is striving to achieve.
  Take the so-called COVID-19 relief bill that was signed into law just 
last month. Despite the fact that every pandemic relief bill that 
became law last year received broad bipartisan support, this bill did 
not. In fact, not a single Republican voted for it.
  The Biden administration is preparing to rinse and repeat this 
strategy with a new misleading label, calling it infrastructure. But 
the reason why Republicans didn't vote for the COVID-19 relief bill, 
while we did for every single one last year, was because only about 10 
percent of the bill was actually dedicated to the goal stated by the 
proponents. Only about 10 percent of the massive $1.9 trillion bill was 
related to the pandemic, and less than 1 percent was related to our 
vaccination efforts.
  As I said, now the administration is preparing a rinse-and-repeat 
strategy with a new misleading label: ``infrastructure.''
  If one of the surveyed questions on ``Family Feud'' was, ``Name 
something that is considered infrastructure,'' I would bet the top two 
answers would be roads and bridges. The other popular answers would 
probably include: airports, railroads, ports, tunnels, and waterways. 
But our Democratic colleagues are broadening that definition in ways 
that really are not accurate.
  Just as they tried to brand things like environmental justice funding 
as ``pandemic relief,'' they are now getting very creative with the 
definition of ``infrastructure.'' In fact, the President's 
infrastructure plan has a lot in common with his COVID-19 relief plan.
  First of all is the pricetag. The nonpartisan Committee for a 
Responsible Federal Budget estimates this plan would cost $2.65 
trillion. That is trillion with a ``t.''
  For reference, the last major infrastructure bill that became law in 
2015 was widely described as the largest package in more than a decade. 
That overwhelmingly bipartisan legislation totaled just over $300 
billion, one-ninth of the cost of this new plan.
  But there is another similarity between these two massive proposals, 
the long list of unrelated progressive or liberal policy priorities. 
Only about 5 percent of the spending in this colossal infrastructure 
plan is directed toward roads and bridges.
  So where does the rest of the money go? For starters, this proposal 
would provide $174 billion for electric vehicle chargers, far more 
money than would go toward the roads and bridges Americans drive on 
every day. There are roughly 280 million cars on the road, the vast 
majority of which are internal combustion engine driven. Yet rather 
than provide for the vast majority of travelers, this would favor $174 
billion for electric vehicle chargers.
  This proposal includes a whopping $400 billion to support caregiving 
for elderly and disabled Americans. There is no question about the 
importance of quality care for these individuals, but this is no 
definition of infrastructure. So this is really another Trojan horse: 
calling it one thing, making it look like one thing, and doing 
something entirely unrelated and different.
  There is $25 billion for government childcare programs; $10 billion 
to create a Civilian Climate Corp--whatever that is. Then there is the 
massive funding for sustainable buildings and private homes.
  This proposal would provide $213 billion to build or retrofit more 
than 2 million affordable and sustainable places to live. This is 
really just the Green New Deal 2.0. And right on cue come the 
unrealistic targets to lower emissions.
  Rather than research and development or innovation, this relies on 
taxation and regulation, an unrealistic goal. This infrastructure plan 
calls for 100 percent of electricity to come from renewable sources by 
2035.
  To be clear, we are nowhere close to that target now. And the effort 
to get there would have a devastating impact on States all across the 
country, including mine.
  Last year, renewables accounted for only 20 percent of our total 
electricity generation. In Texas, we generate more electricity from 
wind turbines than any other source in the country, but yet last year 
alone, renewables of all kinds--solar, wind, biomass, you name it--
accounted for less than 20 percent. Natural gas accounts for more than 
double that.
  We experienced what happens when these unrealistic, pie-in-the-sky 
goals are set. We had a 120-year weather event, the so-called polar 
vortex in Texas. It is a long, sustained period of subzero freezing 
that may be more common in Massachusetts than it is in Texas. As a 
matter of fact, like I said, it is a 120-year weather event. What we 
found out was the severe weather affected wind turbines, which 
effectively froze up snow- and ice-covered solar panels, and even 
natural gas went offline because the electric pumps that compress the 
natural gas to put it into the pipelines failed as well. About the only 
reliable fuel source during that period of time was nuclear power, 
which represents a fraction of our total energy needs.
  I am a proud supporter of renewable energy sources as well as a 
broader effort to reduce emissions. There is no question about this. 
Just last week, I joined folks from the North American Development Bank 
and their public and private partners to announce a new solar farm in 
Webb County, Laredo, TX. But there is a big difference between 
supporting renewables and what the Biden administration is trying to do 
with this unrealistic and pie-in-the-sky target.
  At the start of the pandemic, we got a small taste of the real-world 
impact of a shift from oil and gas and what that would look like. When 
the pandemic hit, the need for Texas's greatest natural resource 
plummeted. Demand dropped precipitously as people stayed home and quit 
driving. With fewer cars and planes on the road and in the sky, oil and 
gas producers were left with a high supply and low demand. And that is 
when the layoffs began.
  Last fall, a report by Deloitte found that between March and August 
of 2020, about 107,000 oil and gas workers were laid off. To be clear, 
this doesn't include the countless workers who had their pay cut or 
were temporarily furloughed.
  If the Biden administration enacts aggressive deadlines to eradicate 
our most prevalent and abundant energy sources, and the jobs they 
create, a lot of Texas energy workers and their families would be left 
high and dry.
  But the bad news doesn't stop there. The list of unrelated and 
downright damaging provisions in this bill is a long one. The big 
question with any legislation, especially something of this size, is, 
How are you going to pay for it?
  In the past, the vast majority of infrastructure funding has come 
from the highway trust fund, but for years it has faced serious 
shortfalls. To a serious degree, Texans have footed the bill for those 
shortfalls. In fact, we are one of the few States that receives less 
than

[[Page S1889]]

it contributes to the highway trust fund, a so-called donor State.
  But rather than address the solvency of the trust fund and the 
inequitable burden put on donor States before the authorization expires 
at the end of September, the administration has completely ignored the 
issue altogether.
  The President's infrastructure plan doesn't even draw on the highway 
trust fund. So in order to pay for the sweeping liberal wish list, 
President Biden has proposed the largest set of tax hikes in more than 
half a century. By increasing the business tax rate from 21 to 28 
percent, we would see an increase in revenue in the short term but 
serious long-term economic harm.
  The tax burden on American companies would be greater than that of 
our biggest trading partner, as well as our competitors, and would have 
far-reaching consequences on our competitiveness and our economy and 
jobs for hard-working American families
  After all, we know the cost of these tax hikes won't be reflected in 
lower earnings for CEOs. The brunt would be borne by consumers who pay 
higher prices, workers who earn lower wages, and, let's not forget, 
those whose jobs would disappear entirely.
  A study by the National Association of Manufacturers found this 
proposal would put 1 million people out of work in the United States in 
the next 2 years--a million people out of work. Just as we are 
beginning to come out of the pandemic, having been vaccinated and 
taking care for both our health and the health of others and now 
opening up our economy, this would be the reward for the American 
people: 1 million Americans out of work as a result of this misguided 
policy.
  This legislation is not about improving America's roads and bridges; 
it is another partisan wish list under the guise of something that has 
traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support. Despite what some people 
think, the American people, I believe, are smart enough to see through 
this bill for what it is, an unaffordable, unwanted liberal wish list.
  The Federal deficit is at its highest since World War II. This is not 
a time to go on another spending spree, using borrowed money from 
future generations. This is the time to craft smart policies that 
achieve the needs of our country without driving the next generation 
deeper and deeper into debt.
  There is no question that America's roads and bridges--our real 
infrastructure--need an investment from the Federal Government, but we 
can update that infrastructure for far less than $2.65 trillion.
  Last Congress, the Environment and Public Works Committee developed a 
truly bipartisan example of an infrastructure bill. It included 
provisions for rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges to improve 
road safety, protect the environment, and grow the economy.
  The bill was so popular, in fact, that it passed the committee 
unanimously. And what was the pricetag on that bill? Just over 10 
percent of the cost of the President's current proposal. It would have 
authorized $287 billion over 5 years. That is $100 billion less than 
what Democrats proposed spending on caregiving alone.
  A bipartisan bill to rebuild our crumbling roads and bridges is 
possible. We have done it before, and we can do it again. But our 
Democratic colleagues are going to have trouble getting not only 
Republicans but many Members of their own party on board if they 
continue to push this sort of unrealistic, economy-harming sort of 
plan.
  I am sure it comes as no surprise that putting Americans out of work 
while driving up the deficit and hurting our global competitiveness are 
wildly unpopular. Even smoke and mirrors can't conceal the impact of 
this so-called infrastructure bill.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Iowa.