[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 138 (Tuesday, August 3, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5687-S5690]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INVESTING IN A NEW VISION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND SURFACE
TRANSPORTATION IN AMERICA ACT--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I would associate myself with the remarks
of my colleagues who have just been here acknowledging the heroic work
done by the Capitol Police on January 6. Clearly, they are very
deserving of all the recognition that they have received. What they
went through on that very harrowing day I think is a reminder to all of
us of the importance of the work they do day in and day out and just
the challenge they face defending this Capitol and people who work in
it. I, like my colleagues, am enormously grateful and just want to join
in recognizing that with the award they just received.
I also point out that we are in the midst of a debate here on a bill
that was negotiated in a bipartisan way. It is great to see Republicans
and Democrats working together, talking together, coming up with
solutions, whether we agree with them or not. But the fact that there
are people sitting down across the table from each other and working
through some of these big issues that we face here, one of which,
obviously, in this country is maintaining a strong infrastructure, is
encouraging, and in many ways, it is refreshing to see that happening
here.
Nomination of Tracy Stone-Manning
Mr. President, it is sort of ironic, too, that in the light of that
spirit of bipartisanship, that we continue to see nominees brought to
the floor who don't reflect that spirit.
The Senate voted last week to bring Tracy Stone-Manning's nomination
to the Senate floor. It is difficult to know exactly what President
Biden was thinking when he decided to nominate Ms. Stone-Manning for
Director of the Bureau of Land Management. Perhaps the administration's
vetting wasn't thorough enough. Otherwise, it is pretty difficult to
understand why the President would nominate an individual with ties to
an ecoterrorist organization--an ecoterrorist organization--to head the
Bureau of Land Management.
That is not all. She was actually involved in a tree-spiking plot
during her time in graduate school, sending a threatening letter to the
U.S. Forest Service at the request of one of the individuals involved
in spiking trees in an Idaho forest.
Tree spiking, as many know, involves hammering spikes into the trunks
of trees to cripple chain saws or the equipment at the sawmill where
the trees are processed. It poses a significant threat to logging and
mill equipment, but most seriously, it poses a threat to human life.
In a famous incident, a worker at a lumber mill in California was
engaged in splitting logs when his saw hit a spiked log and the saw
exploded. I will let a Washington Post story covering the incident
speak for itself, and I quote from the Washington Post, as follows:
He was nearly three feet away when the log hit his saw and
the saw exploded. One half of the blade stuck in the log. The
other half hit Alexander in the head, tearing through his
safety helmet and face shield. His face was slashed from eye
to chin. His teeth were smashed and his jaw was cut in half.
Alexander had never even heard of a sabotage tactic called
tree spiking until he became a victim of ``eco-terrorism.''
Someone who objected to tree cutting had imbedded a
[[Page S5688]]
huge steel spike in the log that violently jammed the saw.
Then the Washington Post continued, and I quote again:
Tree spikes are among the most vicious of the strategies.
While the tree is still in the forest, the spike is driven in
at an angle so the head is hidden in the bark. It can shatter
a chain saw on impact, sending pieces of razor-sharp steel
flying.
It is very hard for me to believe that we are seriously considering
confirming an individual to head the Bureau of Land Management who was
in any way involved with tree spiking.
Furthermore, Ms. Stone-Manning apparently initially refused to
cooperate with the subsequent investigation into the tree-spiking
incident, only coming clean after it became clear that she could face
criminal charges for her role in the incident. Equally troubling is the
less-than-forthright response that she provided to the Senate on her
nominee questionnaire about whether or not she had ever been
investigated by a law enforcement organization.
Ms. Stone-Manning's involvement in the tree-spiking incident is not
the only reason to be concerned that she has extremist views. As a
graduate student, she also argued for population control, in one
instance referring to a child as an ``environmental hazard.'' Last
year, she took advantage of Twitter to promote an article her husband
wrote in which he expressed satisfaction at the idea of seeing homes
people have built in forests burn in fires.
President Obama's first Bureau of Land Management Director withdrew
his support for Ms. Stone-Manning's nomination over her involvement in
the tree-spiking plot. A Deputy Director at the BLM under President
Obama also expressed his concern over the nomination, noting:
Much of the focus seems to be whether this is a Democrat or
Republican thing, but the lens I look at this through is as a
38-year career person in both agencies. . . . [Y]ou need the
career employees to implement your agenda successfully across
the West. Your leader has got to be respected by career
employees and across the landscape, in both blue and red
states.
His point is well-taken. How are BLM employees and the many Americans
who regularly interact with the Bureau of Land Management going to feel
about working with Ms. Stone-Manning? Our public lands are used for a
variety of purposes, including recreation, livestock grazing, and
timber harvesting. What kind of attitude should we expect from Ms.
Stone-Manning to display toward timber harvesting? Is this really the
best President Biden can do when it comes to the Director of the Bureau
of Land Management?
As 75 House Republicans said in a letter to President Biden urging
him to withdraw the nomination, ``There is no doubt that someone with
this history of extreme, violent views should not be in a position of
authority at an agency responsible for managing 245 million acres of
federal lands and 700 million acres of mineral estate.''
I wish I could say that Ms. Stone-Manning's nomination is an
aberration, but, in fact, President Biden has nominated a number of
candidates with extremist views for various offices.
Last week, we voted on his nominee to head U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services, a nominee who failed to receive even a single
bipartisan vote in committee, due in part to her refusal to say she
won't completely bypass Congress when fashioning policies to deal with
those who are in the United States unlawfully.
Then there is the President's nominee for head of the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, David Chipman, whose main
interest seems to be targeting law-abiding gun owners and who has
communicated a clear disdain for gun owners in public remarks. This
nominee was also apparently the subject of a complaint for making
racist remarks while working at ATF.
Then there are the multiple President Biden nominees now serving in
the Department of Justice who have publicly expressed their support for
defunding the police. That is right--President Biden filled key posts
at the Justice Department, the Department charged with enforcing the
law and prosecuting criminals, with individuals who have gone on the
record with their support for defunding the police.
I suppose it is no real surprise that President Biden nominated an
individual to the Bureau of Land Management who once referred to a
child as an ``environmental hazard'' when you consider who he nominated
to head up the Department of Health and Human Services.
HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra's rabidly pro-abortion views put him far
to the left of the majority of Americans. Polls consistently show that
a strong majority of Americans believe that there should be at least
some restrictions on abortion. President Biden's HHS Secretary doesn't
seem to support any restriction on abortion, and if he does, I would
sure like to hear about them. During his time in the House of
Representatives, Secretary Becerra repeatedly voted against banning
partial-birth abortion, an abortion procedure so heinous that I think
most Americans would rightfully shrink from seeing it performed on an
animal, let alone a human being.
As I said, given that, I suppose it is not hard to believe that
President Biden nominated an individual to the Bureau of Land
Management who once described a child as an ``environmental hazard.''
President Biden tends to present himself as a moderate and someone
who will bring people together. He said in his inaugural address: ``I
pledge this to you: I will be a President for all Americans.'' In
practice, however, too often he has seemed to be a President for the
far-left wing of the Democratic Party.
I hope that my Democratic colleagues will think twice before
confirming Ms. Stone-Manning as head of the Bureau of Land Management.
Involvement with ecoterrorism should be a disqualifying factor for
heading up this Agency.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Amendment No. 2181
Ms. LUMMIS. Mr. President, this amendment is the first step to
determine how we invest in our infrastructure moving forward.
Since 2008, we have repeatedly bailed out the highway trust fund.
That makes it a trust fund that we cannot actually trust.
A highway cost allocation study provides the data that we need in
order to make long-term, sustainable, and fiscally sound decisions
about how best to invest in our Nation's aging infrastructure. These
studies used to occur regularly, but the last one was completed over 20
years ago.
My amendment would direct the Department of Transportation to carry
out a study in 4 years, giving those of us here in Congress a full year
to analyze the results before the highway programs expire once again.
We can't continue to burden future generations with out-of-control
spending, and this amendment is a signal to future Congresses that we
must find lasting solutions for infrastructure investment.
I want to thank Senator Kelly and Senator Cornyn for their support in
this effort, and I urge the rest of my colleagues to support this
amendment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, as we work to pass this bipartisan
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to upgrade and modernize our
country's infrastructure, I am glad to be here joining Senator Lummis
to introduce this amendment to include our Highway Cost Allocation Act.
As a former engineer and astronaut, my career has taught me about the
importance of having the data to tackle a complex issue.
This bipartisan amendment would require the Secretary of
Transportation to conduct the first comprehensive study of vehicle
highway usage in nearly 25 years. This information would inform
decisions to address the Highway Trust Fund's revenue shortfalls during
its next reauthorization cycle.
That is important for growing States, like Arizona and other Western
States, and for our entire country, so I urge my colleagues to support
our bipartisan amendment.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Capito and I be allowed to speak briefly just before the amendment.
Senator Capito.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S5689]]
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment.
This amendment, as we know, would require the Department of
Transportation to conduct a highway cost allocation study--the first
one since 1997.
Vehicles are different than they were in 1997, and roadway use has
increased significantly. This study will help us to analyze the direct
cost of highway use by different types of users, and then compare that
to user fee revenue contributions to the Highway Trust Fund.
This is about gathering roadway use information to inform decisions
to address the Highway Trust Fund shortfalls. I encourage my colleagues
to vote yes on the Lummis-Kelly-Cornyn amendment.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to join my voice with that of
Ranking Member Senator Capito and say I rise in support of the
amendment offered by Senator Lummis, Senator Cornyn, Senator Kelly to
direct the U.S. Department of Transportation to conduct a highway user
cost allocation study, that we are going to vote on here in just a
minute or two.
A cost allocation study helps determine the costs in terms of road
use and damage that are attributable to the different types of vehicles
that use our roads. This study will evaluate vehicle weights and miles
that are traveled in each class to determine the use and damage done to
roads, and then compare them to the amount paid in user fees to the
Highway Trust Fund.
My colleagues know the Highway Trust Fund has been spending more than
it collects for nearly two decades, and as we look to equitably address
this growing shortfall, this study will help us better understand the
extent to which different roadway users benefit from roads and how they
should fairly contribute to the upkeep of those roads, highways, and
bridges.
This cost allocation will help Congress ensure that our vehicles pay
their fair share. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this very
worthy amendment.
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. CARPER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Order of Business
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following
amendment be called up to the substitute and be reported by number: No.
1, Lee No. 2255, substitute; further, that following the vote on
amendment 2181, the Senate vote in relation to the Lee amendment with
no amendments in order to the amendment prior to a vote in relation to
the amendment, with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption, and 5
minutes for Senator Lee and 1 minute for myself for debate prior to the
vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 2255
(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for Mr. Lee,
proposes an amendment numbered 2255 to amendment No. 2137.
(The amendment is printed in the Record of August 2, 2021, under
``Text of Amendments.'')
Order of Business
Mr. CARPER. As a result of this agreement, there will be two rollcall
votes at 11:45 a.m. The first vote would be on the Lummis-Kelly
amendment No. 2181. The second vote would be on the Lee amendment No.
2255. We continue to work on scheduling additional votes following the
caucus lunches.
Vote on Amendment No. 2181
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question occurs
on agreeing to the Lummis-Kelly amendment No. 2181.
Ms. LUMMIS. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Inhofe).
The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 3, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 294 Leg.]
YEAS--95
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blackburn
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Braun
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cornyn
Cortez Masto
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Duckworth
Durbin
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Grassley
Hagerty
Hassan
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Johnson
Kaine
Kelly
Kennedy
King
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Lujan
Lummis
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Paul
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Rubio
Sanders
Sasse
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NAYS--3
Hawley
Lee
Scott (FL)
NOT VOTING--2
Graham
Inhofe
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Sinema). On this vote, the yeas are 95,
the nays are 3.
Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2181) was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Amendment No. 2255
Mr. LEE. Madam President, infrastructure is important. We all need
it. We rely on it to get to and from our homes, to and from work. We
rely on it for our day-to-day needs. It has to be there. Not all of it
has to be Federal, and what is Federal can be made more efficient. My
amendment today is directed at exactly that set of objectives.
It would finally resolve the fiscal insolvency of the highway trust
fund and give Americans a tax cut. It would allow Americans to pay less
and Federal, State, and local governments to build more. Pay less,
build more--that is the emphasis of this entire amendment. We should
pay less for what we need, and we should build more of it.
Specifically, my amendment would transfer $120 billion in unused
COVID-19 funds to the highway trust fund. It returns the scope of the
highway trust fund dollars so that they can be used only for projects
on the Interstate Highway System. This was, after all, why the gasoline
tax was created, and it ought to be what we use it for today. After
all, most roads are not interstate, and most systems are not the
Interstate Highway System. The Federal Government doesn't need to do
all of it.
And, in fact, what we find is that, when States and localities do
infrastructure, they can do so more efficiently, far less expensively
as a result of the Byzantine labyrinth of Federal regulations that you
have to comply with as soon as you are doing any kind of a road project
that involves even a single dollar of Federal funds. My amendment also
requires a 5-year plan to pay off all of our highway trust fund's
outstanding obligations.
And, on day one, my amendment reduces the fuel tax from 18.4 cents to
7 cents on gasoline and the diesel tax from 24.3 to 8.3 cents to keep
pace with the current spending needs of the Interstate Highway System.
We also can't forget the burdensome Federal regulations and
intervention that balloon the costs of our country's infrastructure
projects. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has estimated that
Federal regulations and intervention cost American consumers and
businesses nearly $2 trillion annually. We know that, within Federal
infrastructure projects, there are a multitude of Federal regulations
that drive up the cost of each project by as much
[[Page S5690]]
as 20 percent, in many cases more like 30 percent, and I am told, in
some cases, even more than that.
Ultimately, we drive up infrastructure costs when we make the
projects Federal. It doesn't need to be this way, because most of these
are not Federal projects. That is why my amendment also addresses two
key regulatory challenges in our infrastructure context.
One, it reforms the NEPA process to ensure projects are given certain
timelines and not stalled out by frivolous lawsuits. It reforms NEPA so
that our infrastructure money actually goes to NEPA rather than
resulting in endless delays brought about by NEPA and NEPA-related
litigation.
Two, it repeals the Davis-Bacon wage requirements that artificially
increase the labor costs beyond what the market demands--labor costs
that are especially important and hard felt right now given the labor
shortage.
The Senate has a choice today. You can choose to pay less and build
more. You can offer Americans a tax cut--a tax cut that will affect
poor and middle-class Americans most acutely, most immediately, most
directly--and it will also simultaneously provide long-term solvency to
the highway trust fund and lower the costs of our Nation's
infrastructure projects.
Or, alternatively, if you don't want to vote for this, you can choose
our current path, which is to continue to saddle the American people
with debt, more inflation, financial insolvency, and more inevitable
taxes. You can also vote against it and choose to continue the current
practice of allowing for endless, needless, pointless delays in our
infrastructure projects that really harm Americans.
Look, at the end of the day, we just want more of our tax dollars
going into funding steel and concrete to go into the ground so that
America's moms and dads can spend less time stuck in gridlock traffic
and more time with their families. The choice seems very clear to me.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment to build more
and pay less.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to address the
Senate for 2 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. CAPITO. Madam President, I have great respect for my colleague
from Utah, but I am in firm opposition to his amendment.
It would completely undo months of hard work, bipartisan hard work.
The two major bipartisan infrastructure bills that Chairman Carper and
I and the EPW Committee passed unanimously would be totally undone
here. The bipartisan gang spent months carefully and considerably
negotiating this agreement with the White House. All of these
meaningful investments that I talked about yesterday would be gone: the
new bridge program--gone; supplemental funding for the Appalachian
Development Highway System--gone; broadband funding needed to help
close the digital divide--gone.
We have come too far to throw all of this bipartisan work away on
this substitute. Time is of the essence. Let's give our States the
certainty that they need.
By the way, there is permitting reform in this bill, right here, as
we look at it. Let's get this across the finish line. So I would urge
my colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
Thank you
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I, too, rise in opposition to Senator
Lee's amendment.
This amendment does not reform the Federal-aid highway system as we
know it; it dismantles it. It eliminates the Federal funding that each
of our States relies on to build, repair, and to maintain our Federal
highways. It would strike the entire surface reauthorization in this
bill before us and replace it with an interstate highway-only bill with
top-line funding of less than $20 billion over 5 years.
At a time when we already have some 45,000 structurally deficient
bridges in our Nation, this amendment would leave American travelers at
risk due to serious disinvestment.
Senators have come together, Democrats and Republicans, to bring this
infrastructure bill to the floor because we recognize that States are
in need of serious investment to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure.
This is not a partisan issue. On the Environment and Public Works
Committee, where Senator Capito and I lead, we voted unanimously to
advance a highway bill out of committee on a unanimous vote--20 to
nothing. That bill increases the top-line funding for our highway
Federal programs by 34 percent to a little over $300 billion--the
highest amount of highway funding ever authorized by this Congress--and
it is much needed.
Senator Lee's amendment would go in the exact opposite direction,
unfortunately. It would reduce the funding in our bill to less than $20
billion. That is a cut of about 95 percent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Vote on Amendment No. 2255
The question is on agreeing to Lee amendment No. 2255.
Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
Inhofe).
The result was announced--yeas 20, nays 78, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 295 Leg.]
YEAS--20
Barrasso
Blackburn
Boozman
Braun
Cornyn
Cotton
Cruz
Daines
Ernst
Grassley
Hagerty
Johnson
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Lummis
Paul
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
NAYS--78
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Brown
Burr
Cantwell
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Collins
Coons
Cortez Masto
Cramer
Crapo
Duckworth
Durbin
Feinstein
Fischer
Gillibrand
Hassan
Hawley
Heinrich
Hickenlooper
Hirono
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Kaine
Kelly
King
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lujan
Manchin
Markey
Marshall
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Murray
Ossoff
Padilla
Peters
Portman
Reed
Risch
Romney
Rosen
Rounds
Sanders
Schatz
Schumer
Scott (SC)
Shaheen
Shelby
Sinema
Smith
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Tuberville
Van Hollen
Warner
Warnock
Warren
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden
Young
NOT VOTING--2
Graham
Inhofe
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 20, the nays are
78. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
The amendment (No. 2255) was rejected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
____________________