[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.

                          ____________________