[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 138 (Tuesday, August 3, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5690-S5699]
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 Senator from Vermont.


                               Wealth Gap

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, as a former mayor, I have a sense as to 
how important physical infrastructure--roads, bridges, water systems, 
wastewater plants--are, and I am delighted that we are finally 
beginning to address our long-neglected physical infrastructure. That 
is enormously important.
  But I will tell you what is even more important, and that is to 
address the human infrastructure, the needs of the

[[Page S5691]]

working class of this country, the middle class of this country, the 
low-income people of our country, whether they are Black or White or 
Latino or Native American, Asian American--needs that have been 
neglected for decades.
  It is no secret to the American people that, for a very long time, 
the U.S. Congress has paid keen attention to the needs of the people on 
top. Yet we have turned our backs on millions of people who are 
struggling to put food on the table, to take care of their kids, to 
take care of their parents. And on top of that, obviously, we have 
ignored the great existential crisis of our time, and that is climate 
change.
  And the result of all of that is that, today, the gap between the 
very, very rich and everybody else is wider than it has been in 100 
years. Today, you have two people--two people--who have more wealth 
than the bottom 40 percent. And for many of our billionaire friends, 
apparently they are increasingly unconcerned about what happens here on 
Earth because they are off in outer space. But some of us who go home 
every weekend to our States and our districts, we kind of are worried 
about what is going on down on Earth and the needs of working families.
  So, Mr. President, as you know, as soon as we address this bipartisan 
physical infrastructure bill, we are going to move toward what I 
consider to be one of the most consequential pieces of legislation for 
working families since FDR, the New Deal, and the Great Depression. And 
we are going there and addressing the needs of working families because 
we understand that real wages for workers have not gone up in 50 years. 
An explosion of technology, an explosion of worker productivity, and 
yet, in real inflation accounted-for dollars, many workers today are 
not making a nickel more than they did 50 years ago.
  We are going forward on the reconciliation bill to address the needs 
of the working class because, in the richest country in the history of 
the world, it is unacceptable that half of our people are living 
paycheck to paycheck. They go to work, and at the end of the week they 
have got nothing in the bank, and maybe they are even further behind 
because they can't afford their healthcare needs, the rent, and the 
educational costs of their children.
  We are going to go forward and pass this legislation because the time 
is long overdue for the U.S. Congress to begin to make sure the 
American people understand that our job is not just to represent the 
corporate elites and wealthy campaign contributors but to address the 
needs of the struggling men and women of our country.
  On top of all of that, it would be incomprehensible to the people of 
our country who turn on the TV and they see the west coast burning; 
they see the drought in the Midwest; they see the floods all over 
Europe; Australia on fire--it would be incomprehensible and a real 
crime against future generations if we did not finally address, in a 
significant way, the existential threat not only to our country but to 
the world in terms of climate.
  And I wanted to talk a little bit about some of the work that the 
Budget Committee has done and what is going to be in that 
reconciliation package because my friends here in the media are very 
concerned about process, which is fine, but the American people want to 
know: Hey, what is the Congress going to do for me? What is it going to 
do to improve my life, my children's lives, my parents' lives? What are 
we going to do to save the planet?
  For a start, we understand that it is absolutely imperative to end 
the obscenity of some of the wealthiest people in this country and the 
largest corporations, in a given year, not paying a nickel in Federal 
income taxes.
  So what we have seen in the pandemic, what we have seen in recent 
years is the very, very wealthiest people becoming phenomenally richer. 
And then there are studies that are coming out that show that, in a 
given year, some of the very wealthiest people in this country--multi, 
multibillionaires--are not paying a nickel in Federal income tax.
  At a time when corporate profits are soaring, we are seeing many 
major corporations, making billions a year, also not paying a nickel in 
Federal income tax. And we are also seeing the pharmaceutical industry, 
which is enormously profitable, which charges our people the highest 
prices in the world for the prescription drugs that we desperately 
need--we are seeing a situation where they can charge us anything they 
want because of the power of their lobbyists and their campaign 
contributions. And we are going to put an end to that as well because 
we are going to demand that Medicare start negotiating prescription 
drug costs with the pharmaceutical industry.
  So my Republican colleagues say: Well, they are going to be raising 
taxes.
  Yes, we are going to be raising taxes on billionaires and on large, 
profitable corporations, and we are going to demand that the 
pharmaceutical industry stop ripping us off. But we are adhering to 
President Biden's belief, which I share, that nobody earning less than 
$400,000 a year should pay a nickel more in taxes. We are going to do 
exactly what the American people want us to do and tell the billionaire 
class that they are going to have to start paying their fair share of 
taxes.
  What else are we going to do, and what are we going to use that money 
for? We are going to use that money to start protecting the needs of 
our children, working families, and the elderly.
  I think many Americans now see what public policy can mean in their 
lives because we are providing a $300-a-month check per child. The 
United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any 
major country on Earth. That is a disgrace, and it should be 
unacceptable to every Member of the Senate. Well, we are going to end 
that.
  I am very proud to say, Mr. President, as I know you know, that as a 
result of the 1-year child tax credit extension, $300 per child, we 
have reduced childhood poverty in America by 61 percent. Parents all 
over--in Vermont, California--now have the ability to start taking care 
of their children. Our job in reconciliation is either to make that 
$300 a month permanent, which I would like to see, or at the very least 
extend it for a number of years.
  Furthermore, in the United States of America, every person in this 
Chamber should be disgusted by the dysfunctionality of our childcare 
system. This is not 1950. Mom is going out to work. Dad is going out to 
work. And they demand quality, affordable childcare, which does not 
exist today.
  What we say and what our goal is, is that no working family in this 
country should be paying more than 7 percent of their income for 
childcare. On top of that, we are going to make pre-K education for 3- 
and 4-year-olds free. Yes, that is right--free. We are going to do what 
other industrialized countries do and understand that the most 
important investment we can make is in the little children.
  By the way, when we do that, we are going to allow well over a 
million women to go back to work because they no longer have to stay 
home because of lack of affordable childcare.
  It is a bit embarrassing that our great country is the only major 
country on Earth not to guarantee paid family and medical leave. 
Imagine that. Every other country in the world, virtually, does that. 
In America, I have met with women, low-income women, who give birth, 
and then they have to go back to work in a week or two because they 
don't have the money to stay home. We are going to end that. We are 
going to have, as a nation, guaranteed paid family and medical leave.
  We are going to address the reality that many of our younger people 
are unable to obtain the good-paying jobs that are out there because 
they lack the higher education.
  Now, I myself will go further than this bill is going to go. I think 
time is long overdue to make public colleges and universities tuition-
free and cancel all student debt. That is not what is in this bill. But 
what is in this bill says that, at the very least, every American will 
have the right to get 2 years of community college, and they can use 
that to get the training they need, to get the good jobs. Maybe it is 
nursing. Maybe it is something else. But they will also get the credits 
they need so they can transfer into a 4-year school, making a big step 
forward in getting young people the ability to get the training they 
need and the education they need to obtain the good-paying jobs that 
are out there.

[[Page S5692]]

  Mr. President, I know that you are aware that right here in this 
country, right here on Capitol Hill, Washington, DC, you have people 
sleeping out on the street, and they are sleeping out on the street in 
every State in this country. In fact, we have almost 600,000 people 
sleeping out on the streets of the wealthiest country in the history of 
the world. Well, this legislation will create millions of jobs in 
housing and in other areas because we are going to build the lower 
income and affordable housing that we need.
  It is not only homelessness. You have 18 million households spending 
50 percent of their limited incomes on housing. We need to build low-
income and affordable housing, and when we do that, we will create a 
heck of a lot of good-paying jobs.
  Just today, I talked to a gentleman whose wife is very, very ill and 
who is having a hard time affording the home healthcare that he is 
paying for.
  We are an aging society, and whether people have severe disabilities 
or whether they are just getting old, people would rather stay at home 
in many cases rather than be forced into nursing homes. What our 
legislation will do is significantly improve home healthcare in this 
country and make sure that those people who provide that important 
service, difficult service, are adequately compensated.

  I know that many of my Republican colleagues don't believe that 
climate change is real, don't believe that we should do anything about 
it, but they are dead wrong. And we cannot go home and look our 
children and grandchildren in the eye knowing what we know, knowing 
that in many ways, the climate crisis turns out to be worse than what 
scientists predicted it would be.
  Climate ordinarily changes over thousands of years, hundreds of 
years. We are seeing the change in climate with our own eyes year by 
year. It is frightening. And if people think that the forest fires in 
Oregon, California, Montana, and elsewhere are an aberration, that they 
are once-in-a-lifetime, you are wrong. Everything being equal, we will 
see worse in years to come.
  The truth is, what makes this crisis so difficult, we can't solve it 
alone. We are going to have to work with China and India and Europe. We 
have to bring the world together to save this planet for our kids and 
future generations.
  This legislation takes an important step forward. It doesn't go as 
far as it should, but it is a major step forward in transforming our 
energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and 
sustainable energy.
  I know we will be hearing from my Republican colleagues who are very 
upset that this will be a partisan bill, which it will be, but let me 
remind them that they use the so-called reconciliation process recently 
in two areas--two areas.
  No. 1, they thought it important to go forward in a partisan way, 
without Democratic support, for the enormously important goal of giving 
massive tax breaks to billionaires and large corporations. That is how 
they used the reconciliation process.
  Well, we have a little different idea. We are going to use the 
reconciliation process and the 50 votes we have with the Vice President 
to protect the working families of this country, not the billionaire 
class.
  The other effort that they made in terms of reconciliation was to 
try--and they came within one vote of doing it; the late John McCain--
they would have thrown up to 30 million Americans off of healthcare by 
ending the Affordable Care Act.
  So they have used reconciliation, and we will use it, except we are 
going to use it to protect ordinary Americans--the children, the 
elderly, the sick, and the poor--rather than just the very wealthy or 
the pharmaceutical industry.
  We are now in the midst of a debate over the physical infrastructure, 
the bipartisan bill--very important. We need to rebuild our roads and 
bridges, but more important is the need to address the crises facing 
working families all over this country. When we go forward and do that, 
when we protect our children and the elderly and the environment, we 
are going to create millions of good-paying jobs, put people to work 
rebuilding this country in a way that is long, long overdue.
  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. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Coronavirus

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to talk about 
where our country is in the fight against coronavirus.
  The simple message on the coronavirus is this: Vaccines work. The 
single most important thing you want to do to protect yourself and to 
protect your family is to get vaccinated. That is the only message we 
ought to be sending out.
  I am a doctor. I have been vaccinated. My wife has been vaccinated. 
Our kids have been vaccinated. There is overwhelming evidence that 
vaccines are highly effective against serious illness.
  Yet we are talking about this issue today because of the chaos and 
the confusion that have come about due to messaging coming out of the 
White House and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That is 
why, with limited floor time during this important debate on spending, 
I come to the floor today to discuss this specific issue.
  President Biden and the CDC ought to be found guilty of medical 
malpractice for the comments that they have been making. Back in May, 
the Centers for Disease Control said, and the President repeated it at 
the White House, that if you have been vaccinated, if you have been 
fully vaccinated, you don't need to wear a mask either indoors or 
outdoors. Now they are saying that even if you have been fully 
vaccinated, you need to wear a mask again indoors.
  At a time when we are trying to encourage people to get vaccinated, I 
ask, how is this going to help someone who hasn't been vaccinated, 
encourage them to get vaccinated if you are telling them that even if 
you get vaccinated, you still have to wear a mask?
  This flip-flopping in policy is why Americans, I think, are very 
worried and concerned and somewhat anxious about the activities of this 
administration. They are wondering: What comes next--flip-flop on 
masks? Is this administration going to flip-flop on lockdowns, on 
shutdowns, on closing schools?
  People say: Oh no, don't worry about that.
  Well, Mr. President, let me tell you, just this past weekend, Randi 
Weingarten--she is the head of one of America's biggest teachers 
unions, the American Federation of Teachers--she refused to commit to 
in-person learning this fall, this coming school year.
  The president of America's biggest teachers union refused to commit 
to in-person learning this fall. So the American people have every 
right to be concerned and anxious and angry with the communications 
coming out of this administration and the directives this week. Parents 
are angry that kids have already lost too much.
  And think about this: Now Nancy Pelosi is requiring fully vaccinated 
Members of the House of Representatives to wear masks or they will be 
charged a fine. She has even threatened--threatened--to tell the 
Capitol Police to arrest staff members--fully vaccinated staff 
members--who aren't wearing masks. These are people who have been 
vaccinated.
  At the same time, the Biden administration is throwing our southern 
border wide open to 180,000 illegal immigrants a month, with almost 
every disease known to man. We are talking about people who are 
undocumented and unvaccinated.
  When I went to the border earlier this spring, our border agents told 
me that they had arrested people from 50 different countries. Of 
course, these people are all coming from places where vaccination rates 
are much lower than they are in our country.
  Since the start of the pandemic, more than 8,000 Border Patrol 
officers have tested positive for coronavirus. Thirty-two of these 
agents have died. When I visited the border, roughly 1 in 10 of the 
unaccompanied children in custody had tested positive, and they were 
intermingled with others who had tested positive and those not tested

[[Page S5693]]

positive. They were all crammed in like sardines, and the testing 
occurred only when they were getting ready to be released and then sent 
all around America, spreading the coronavirus wherever they went.
  And it is interesting to listen to Democrats in the national media 
and on the Hill who want to blame Republicans for any vaccine hesitancy 
that is out there. Well, let me set the record straight on that.
  Republican elected officials have gone out of our way to encourage 
vaccinations. It is the responsible thing to do. I have traveled from 
one vaccination site to another all around the State of Wyoming; made 
public service announcements with other doctors and doctors who are 
members of the Doctors Caucus in Congress, in the House and the Senate; 
made public service announcements; put them out on videos and sent them 
around the country.
  The truth is that there are a large number of Democrats who are still 
unvaccinated. Forty percent--forty percent--as of today, of New York 
City public school employees have not been vaccinated, and it is ready 
for the school year to start. And yet we don't have a commitment from 
the head of the teachers union to have in-person learning this year. 
Forty percent of the public hospital workers in New York City are 
unvaccinated. Forty-one percent of Chicago residents are not 
vaccinated. If you take a look, city by city--Democrat-run cities--a 
high percentage of people are not vaccinated, and yet President Biden 
and the Senate majority leader continue to point fingers.
  It does seem to me that Democrats have utterly failed to communicate 
a clear message to get the American people vaccinated. In fact, I think 
Democrat politicians have been a big part of the problem from the 
beginning.
  Early on, when the vaccine was currently being developed, people were 
hoping for a vaccine. We saw the Vice Presidential debate--57 million 
people watching--and then, at the time, Vice Presidential candidate, at 
the time Senator Harris, now Vice President Harris, said she would not 
get a vaccine developed under the Trump administration.
  She said: ``If Donald Trump tells us we should take it, I'm not going 
to take it.''
  Before Democrats point the finger at Republicans, they should get 
their own cities vaccinated.
  There is much more to talk about.
  There have been many mistakes made by this administration and 
Democrats over the last 6 months, but it is no coincidence that, over 
the last 3 months, we have seen a historic drop in national optimism. A 
majority of the country says America is now on the wrong track. Just 
one in three Americans is satisfied with the way things are going in 
this country. Fully, only one in five Americans has switched from 
optimistic about our future to pessimistic about our future in just 3 
months.
  Fully, one in five Americans flipped on their thoughts on the 
direction of the country, and it is easy to see why. They see inflation 
eating away at their paychecks. They see Democrats piling up debt on 
our kids and grandkids. They see their taxes are about to go up again. 
They see an open southern border. They see rising crime in Democrat 
cities. And independent voters are running away from Democrats as fast 
as they can.
  It is time for Democrats to get the message. We want to get the virus 
behind us. The answer is not open borders. The answer is not more flip-
flops, and it is not more mandates on the American people.
  It is time for the Democrats to stop pointing fingers. The school 
year returns in just a matter of weeks. Every school in America must be 
open. It is time for Democrats to follow the science. No more flip-
flops, no more mandates, no more lockdowns--no more excuses


                      Nomination of David Chipman

  Madam President, I come to the floor, at this point, to oppose the 
nomination of David Chipman as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, 
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
  David Chipman is an anti-gun extremist who would politicize one of 
the world's greatest law enforcement Agencies, the ATF. If confirmed, 
he would be the most radically anti-gun Director in ATF history.
  David Chipman's views are completely out of touch with those of the 
American people. He opposed the Supreme Court case that struck down 
Washington, DC's ban on handguns, the Heller case. He was party to a 
legal brief in the case which said the Second Amendment, he said, only 
protects militias. He supports bringing back the 1994 assault weapons 
ban, which President Biden often brags that he wrote. Congress let that 
ban expire because there was never any proof that it brought down 
crime.
  During his hearing with the Judiciary Committee, Senator Cotton 
specifically asked Mr. Chipman to define what an ``assault weapon'' is.
  Mr. Chipman said: ``An assault weapon would be whatever Congress 
defines it as.''
  Senator Cotton went on to ask Mr. Chipman for his own definition of 
an ``assault weapon.''
  He said: ``Any semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable 
magazine above a 22.''
  Well, as Senator Cotton rightly pointed out, this would ban most 
sporting rifles in America. If David Chipman made our gun laws, most 
sporting rifles would be banned. States could ban handguns. Private gun 
sales would be illegal.
  These views are completely out of touch with the views of more than 
100 million Americans who are law-abiding gun owners.
  Worst of all, David Chipman does not have the character and integrity 
to lead the ATF. He has repeatedly mocked gun owners and impugned 
people's motives for owning a gun.
  David Chipman said: Gun ownership ``is a way you can act patriotic 
without having to'' serve in the military.
  He said: ``I [would] compare gun ownership . . . to the same reason 
Americans might want a muscle car.''
  This is not why people buy guns. The American people buy guns to 
protect themselves and to keep their families safe.
  The American people are buying guns by the millions right now because 
they are afraid of Democrats' gun control policies, and they are afraid 
of crime in Democrat cities.
  Last year, Democrats cut $1 billion in police funding across America, 
and as a result, we saw the largest increase in murder in 60 years. In 
response, the American people bought more than 20 million guns, 
including 8 million guns by first-time gun owners--first-time gun 
owners--because they realized they weren't able to be protected when 
those are trying to defund the police. Gun ownership is still going up 
because the Democrats are still defunding police, and Democrat cities 
are in chaos.
  We don't need an ATF Director who mocks nearly half of the country.
  Recently, we found out another serious concern about Mr. Chipman's 
character. According to media reports, multiple ATF agents say David 
Chipman was accused of making racist comments about African Americans. 
I won't repeat them here. The comments are of great concern. According 
to the reports, the racist comments were reported to the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission, and a complaint was filed against 
him.
  Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have called for another 
hearing in light of this new information that has come out. I commend 
my colleagues for their due diligence.
  Yet I don't think another hearing is necessary. What is necessary is 
for President Biden to withdraw this nomination. There are plenty of 
qualified Democrats out there who could be nominated to do this job.
  The men and women of the ATF deserve a leader with integrity and with 
respect for the Second Amendment to our Constitution. More than 100 
million legal gun owners in this country deserve it, too.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Sinema). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


           Amendment Nos. 2140 and 2300 to Amendment No. 2137

  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that the

[[Page S5694]]

following amendments be called up to the substitute and be reported by 
number: 1, Duckworth, No. 2140; 2, Cruz-Warnock, No. 2300; further, I 
ask unanimous consent that at 3:45 p.m., the Senate vote in relation to 
the amendments with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to a 
vote in relation to the amendments, with 60 affirmative votes required 
for adoption, and 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the 
votes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2140 to Amendment No. 2137

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for Ms. Duckworth, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2140 to amendment No. 2137.

  The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To require recipients of all stations accessibility grants to 
adopt plans to pursue public transportation accessibility projects that 
        provide accessibility for individuals with disabilities)

        On page 2690, line 11, insert after ``et seq.):'' the 
     following: ``Provided further, That an eligible entity that 
     receives a grant under this heading in this Act shall adopt a 
     plan under which the entity commits to pursuing public 
     transportation accessibility projects that: (1) enhance the 
     customer experience and maximize accessibility of rolling 
     stock and stations or facilities for passenger use for 
     individuals with disabilities, including accessibility for 
     individuals with physical disabilities, including those who 
     use wheelchairs, accessibility for individuals with sensory 
     disabilities, and accessibility for individuals with 
     intellectual or developmental disabilities; (2) improve the 
     operations of, provide efficiencies of service to, and 
     enhance the public transportation system for individuals with 
     disabilities; and (3) address equity of service to all riders 
     regardless of income, age, race, or ability, taking into 
     account historical and current service gaps for low-income 
     riders, older individuals, riders from communities of color, 
     and riders with disabilities:''.


                Amendment No. 2300 to Amendment No. 2137

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for Mr. Cruz, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2300 to amendment No. 2137.

  The amendment is as follows

   (Purpose: To designate additional high priority corridors on the 
                        National Highway system)

       Beginning on page 440, strike line 19 and all that follows 
     through page 443, line 14, and insert the following:
       (a) High Priority Corridors.--Section 1105(c) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
     (Public Law 102-240; 105 Stat. 2032; 133 Stat. 3018) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking paragraph (84) and inserting the following:
       ``(84) The Central Texas Corridor, including the route--
       ``(A) commencing in the vicinity of Texas Highway 338 in 
     Odessa, Texas, running eastward generally following 
     Interstate Route 20, connecting to Texas Highway 158 in the 
     vicinity of Midland, Texas, then following Texas Highway 158 
     eastward to United States Route 87 and then following United 
     States Route 87 southeastward, passing in the vicinity of San 
     Angelo, Texas, and connecting to United States Route 190 in 
     the vicinity of Brady, Texas;
       ``(B) commencing at the intersection of Interstate Route 10 
     and United States Route 190 in Pecos County, Texas, and 
     following United States Route 190 to Brady, Texas;
       ``(C) following portions of United States Route 190 
     eastward, passing in the vicinity of Fort Hood, Killeen, 
     Belton, Temple, Bryan, College Station, Huntsville, 
     Livingston, Woodville, and Jasper, to the logical terminus of 
     Texas Highway 63 at the Sabine River Bridge at Burrs Crossing 
     and including a loop generally encircling Bryan/College 
     Station, Texas;
       ``(D) following United States Route 83 southward from the 
     vicinity of Eden, Texas, to a logical connection to 
     Interstate Route 10 at Junction, Texas;
       ``(E) following United States Route 69 from Interstate 
     Route 10 in Beaumont, Texas, north to United States Route 190 
     in the vicinity of Woodville, Texas;
       ``(F) following United States Route 96 from Interstate 
     Route 10 in Beaumont, Texas, north to United States Route 190 
     in the vicinity of Jasper, Texas; and
       ``(G) following United States Route 190, State Highway 305, 
     and United States Route 385 from Interstate Route 10 in Pecos 
     County, Texas, to Interstate 20 at Odessa, Texas.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(92) United States Route 421 from the interchange with 
     Interstate Route 85 in Greensboro, North Carolina, to the 
     interchange with Interstate Route 95 in Dunn, North Carolina.
       ``(93) The South Mississippi Corridor from the Louisiana 
     and Mississippi border near Natchez, Mississippi, to 
     Gulfport, Mississippi, shall generally follow--
       ``(A) United States Route 84 from the Louisiana border at 
     the Mississippi River passing in the vicinity of Natchez, 
     Brookhaven, Monticello, Prentiss, and Collins, Mississippi, 
     to the logical terminus with Interstate Route 59 in the 
     vicinity of Laurel, Mississippi, and continuing on Interstate 
     Route 59 south to the vicinity of Hattiesburg, Mississippi; 
     and
       ``(B) United States Route 49 from the vicinity of 
     Hattiesburg, Mississippi, south to Interstate Route 10 in the 
     vicinity of Gulfport, Mississippi, following Mississippi 
     Route 601 south and terminating near the Mississippi State 
     Port at Gulfport.
       ``(94) The Kosciusko to Gulf Coast corridor commencing at 
     the logical terminus of Interstate Route 55 near Vaiden, 
     Mississippi, running south and passing east of the vicinity 
     of the Jackson Urbanized Area, connecting to United States 
     Route 49 north of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, and generally 
     following United States Route 49 to a logical connection with 
     Interstate Route 10 in the vicinity of Gulfport, Mississippi.
       ``(95) The Interstate Route 22 spur from the vicinity of 
     Tupelo, Mississippi, running south generally along United 
     States Route 45 to the vicinity of Shannon, Mississippi.
       ``(96) The route that generally follows United States Route 
     412 from its intersection with Interstate Route 35 in Noble 
     County, Oklahoma, passing through Tulsa, Oklahoma, to its 
     intersection with Interstate Route 49 in Springdale, 
     Arkansas.
       ``(97) The Louie B. Nunn Cumberland Expressway from the 
     interchange with Interstate Route 65 in Barren County, 
     Kentucky, east to the interchange with United States Highway 
     27 in Somerset, Kentucky.
       ``(98) The route that generally follows State Route 7 from 
     Grenada, Mississippi, to Holly Springs, Mississippi, passing 
     in the vicinity of Coffeeville, Water Valley, Oxford, and 
     Abbeville, Mississippi, to its logical connection with 
     Interstate Route 22 in the vicinity of Holly Springs, 
     Mississippi.
       ``(99) The Central Louisiana Corridor commencing at the 
     logical terminus of Louisiana Highway 8 at the Sabine River 
     Bridge at Burrs Crossing and generally following portions of 
     Louisiana Highway 8 to Leesville, Louisiana, and then 
     eastward on Louisiana Highway 28, passing in the vicinity of 
     Alexandria, Pineville, Walters, and Archie, to the logical 
     terminus of United States Route 84 at the Mississippi River 
     Bridge at Vidalia, Louisiana.
       ``(100) The Central Mississippi Corridor, including the 
     route--
       ``(A) commencing at the logical terminus of United States 
     Route 84 at the Mississippi River and then generally 
     following portions of United States Route 84 passing in the 
     vicinity of Natchez, Brookhaven, Monticello, Prentiss, and 
     Collins, to Interstate Route 59 in the vicinity of Laurel, 
     Mississippi, and continuing on Interstate Route 59 north to 
     Interstate Route 20 and on Interstate Route 20 to the 
     Mississippi-Alabama State border; and
       ``(B) commencing in the vicinity of Laurel, Mississippi, 
     running south on Interstate Route 59 to United States Route 
     98 in the vicinity of Hattiesburg, connecting to United 
     States Route 49 south then following United States Route 49 
     south to Interstate Route 10 in the vicinity of Gulfport and 
     following Mississippi Route 601 southerly terminating near 
     the Mississippi State Port at Gulfport.
       ``(101) The Middle Alabama Corridor including the route--
       ``(A) beginning at the Alabama-Mississippi border generally 
     following portions of I-20 until following a new interstate 
     extension paralleling United States Highway 80, 
     specifically--
       ``(B) crossing Alabama Route 28 near Coatopa, Alabama, 
     traveling eastward crossing United States Highway 43 and 
     Alabama Route 69 near Selma, Alabama, traveling eastwards 
     closely paralleling United States Highway 80 to the south 
     crossing over Alabama Routes 22, 41, and 21, until its 
     intersection with I-65 near Hope Hull, Alabama;
       ``(C) continuing east along the proposed Montgomery Outer 
     Loop south of Montgomery, Alabama where it would next join 
     with I-85 east of Montgomery, Alabama;
       ``(D) continuing along I-85 east bound until its 
     intersection with United States Highway 280 near Opelika, 
     Alabama or United States Highway 80 near Tuskegee, Alabama;
       ``(E) generally following the most expedient route until 
     intersecting with existing United States Highway 80 (JR Allen 
     Parkway) through Phenix City until continuing into Columbus, 
     Georgia.
       ``(102) The Middle Georgia Corridor including the route--
       ``(A) beginning at the Alabama-Georgia Border generally 
     following the Fall Line Freeway from Columbus, Georgia to 
     Augusta, Georgia, specifically--
       ``(B) travelling along United States Route 80 (JR Allen 
     Parkway) through Columbus, Georgia and near Fort Benning, 
     Georgia, east to Talbot County, Georgia where it would follow 
     Georgia Route 96, then commencing on Georgia Route 49C (Fort 
     Valley Bypass) to Georgia Route 49 (Peach Parkway) to its 
     intersection with Interstate Route 75 in Byron, Georgia;
       ``(C) continuing north along Interstate Route 75 through 
     Warner Robins and Macon, Georgia where it would meet 
     Interstate Route 16, then following Interstate Route 16 east 
     it would next join United States Route 80 and then onto State 
     Route 57;
       ``(D) commencing with State Route 57 which turns into State 
     Route 24 near

[[Page S5695]]

     Milledgeville, Georgia would then bypass Wrens, Georgia with 
     a newly constructed bypass, and after the bypass it would 
     join United States Route 1 near Fort Gordon into Augusta, 
     Georgia where it will terminate at Interstate Route 520.''.
       (b) Designation as Future Interstates.--Section 
     1105(e)(5)(A) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
     Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240; 109 Stat. 597; 
     133 Stat. 3018) is amended in the first sentence--
       (1) by inserting ``subsection (c)(84),'' after ``subsection 
     (c)(83),''; and
       (2) by striking ``and subsection (c)(91)'' and inserting 
     ``subsection (c)(91), subsection (c)(92), subsection 
     (c)(93)(A), subsection (c)(94), subsection (c)(95), 
     subsection (c)(96), subsection (c)(97), subsection (c)(99), 
     subsection (c)(100), subsection (c)(101), and subsection 
     (c)(102)''.
       (c) Numbering of Parkway.--Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of the 
     Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
     (Public Law 102-240; 109 Stat. 598; 133 Stat. 3018) is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking the fifteenth sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``The route referred to in subsection (c)(84)(A) 
     is designated as Interstate Route I-14 North. The route 
     referred to in subsection (c)(84)(B) is designated as 
     Interstate Route I-14 South. The Bryan/College Station, Texas 
     loop referred to in subsection (c)(84)(C) is designated as 
     Interstate Route I-214.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following: ``The route 
     referred to in subsection (c)(97) is designated as Interstate 
     Route I-365. The routes referred to in subsections 
     (c)(84)(C), (c)(99), (c)(100), (c)(101), and (c)(102) are 
     designated as Interstate Route I-14. The routes referred to 
     in subparagraphs (D), (E), (F), and (G) of subsection (c)(84) 
     and subparagraph (B) of subsection (c)(100) shall each be 
     given separate Interstate route numbers.''.

  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, unless someone else wishes to speak at 
this time, 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. TOOMEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the Duckworth 
amendment, 2140, and I want to talk about that briefly.
  First of all, I think there is probably very broad support in this 
Chamber, and I certainly support the idea that local transit agencies 
meet ADA standards wherever it is possible to do so.
  Of course, transit agencies got a truly massive, staggering amount of 
money over about a 12-month period ending in March--so much so that, 
cumulatively, they are sitting on something very close to $40 billion 
that they just weren't even able to spend.
  But despite all that, we dramatically increased the annual run rate 
of the Federal Government's contribution to transit agencies; and then 
on top of that, the bipartisan negotiators agreed to a big, one-time 
plus-up above and beyond all the money that was sent to these transit 
agencies over the last year.
  In the course of these discussions, included for transit agencies was 
a nearly $2 billion funding request to the Senator from Illinois--the 
junior Senator from Illinois--specifically for ADA upgrades at big city 
transit systems.
  To my knowledge, it is the first time that the Federal Government has 
ever specifically appropriated substantial sums of money--nearly $2 
billion this time--for the purpose of improving, upgrading big city 
transit systems, in part, perhaps, because, of course, transit systems 
have their own sources of money, their own States that can provide 
them.
  But, anyway, that was--this agreement was struck. Now, in the course 
of working out the terms and the details and negotiating over the 
language which would accompany this unprecedented funding for ADA 
upgrades, you know, there were negotiations. That is the nature of this 
process. So we asked for certain changes in the language that was 
initially proposed. Some of those requests were rejected, some were 
adopted, and that is how we got to a deal.
  And one of the changes that was adopted was an agreement that this 
amendment--this planning mandate requirement that is contemplated in 
the amendment from the Senator from Illinois, that plan would be 
dropped.
  If we were to go ahead and now adopt this amendment, it would 
completely violate the deal that was struck.
  Now, let me just briefly explain why we requested that that language 
be dropped. The amendment stipulates, among other things, that as a 
condition of receiving this nearly $2 billion that this agreement 
offers to transit agencies for this specific purpose--as a condition, 
it said a transit agency must commit to a new Federal race, age, and 
income equity mandate.
  This is a quote:

       . . . equity of service to all riders . . . taking into 
     account historical and current service gaps . . .

  This is politically correct virtue signaling. This is people claiming 
that transit agencies are somehow racist, and that we have got to--I 
don't know--we have got to make sure that escalators are not racist.
  It doesn't take a very fertile imagination to think about how this 
language could be used to impose a host of new requirements on 
agencies. You could have bureaucracies here micromanaging who knows 
what--route planning, fair pricing, frequency of service--out of some 
presumed systemic racism in transit agencies.
  If we adopted this, then decisions by transit agencies that should be 
guided by cost and ridership issues would end up being influenced by 
wokeism.
  Now, I think the people who run transit agencies are good and decent 
people who care about their communities. They are trying to do the best 
they can. They have now got staggering amounts of money with which to 
do it, but they don't need to be second-guessed by social engineers who 
are insisting that their agency is rife with racism.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote, and I want to stress that the ``no'' vote on 
this amendment doesn't reduce spending for ADA compliance by a dime. 
That is not what this is about. This is about avoiding a ``woke'' 
planning mandate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to the vote in relation to 
Duckworth amendment No. 2140.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment is pending.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Madam President, last week, our Nation marked the 31st 
anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. More than three 
decades have passed since President George H. W. Bush signed the ADA 
into law and proudly declared ``[L]et the shameful wall of exclusion 
finally come tumbling down.''
  This past week was a time for celebration and reflection on the 
progress we have made over the last 30 years. Yet, when it comes to the 
ADA's guarantee of equal access to public transportation for people 
with disabilities, many transit and commuter rail systems continue to 
fall short.
  This amendment is not racist. This amendment does not call any 
particular Agency racist. In fact, what this amendment does--the 
substitute amendment includes $1.75 billion to expedite accessibility 
upgrades at existing legacy rail fixed guideway public transportation 
systems. My amendment simply ensures that recipients of these critical 
Federal resources fully consider the goals and requirements of the ADA 
and develop a plan to maximize accessibility across their systems.
  This is common sense and good government. It ensures accountability 
that taxpayer dollars are used to fulfill promises made decades ago and 
are used wisely, with maximum effectiveness
  Thirty years after we committed to a goal of inclusive and equitable 
transportation, transit operators should be held accountable for 
meaningful accessibility upgrades. It is not enough for grant 
recipients to add cosmetic upgrades and pat themselves on the back. 
Disabled commuters deserve the accessibility that others take for 
granted.
  This is not a partisan issue. I call on every Member in this Chamber 
to stand with me in supporting equity for people with disabilities and 
supporting good stewardship of taxpayer dollars
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. TOOMEY. May I be recognized for 2 minutes in opposition?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute.
  Mr. TOOMEY. One minute.
  Well, listen, I just want to stress to my colleagues here that 
defeating this amendment does not prevent one dime from going to 
transit agencies for the purpose of upgrading their stations to

[[Page S5696]]

comply with the ADA. All it does is prevent a mandate for a ``woke'' 
planning provision that was dropped in the negotiations on this bill, 
so I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 
minute in support of the Duckworth amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I rise in support of Senator Duckworth's 
amendment. This amendment will ensure that recipients of funding to 
make systems more accessible have a plan in place to comply with the 
Americans with Disabilities Act.
  Individuals with disabilities rely on public transit to get where 
they need to go, whether that is to go to work or to go to school or 
simply go about their daily lives. It is past time to upgrade all of 
our transit stations to provide access to everyone who needs a ride.
  I support this amendment by Senator Duckworth. I urge all of our 
colleagues to join me in voting yes.
  I yield the floor.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2140

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2140.
  Mr. CARPER. 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 48, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 296 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--50

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Graham
     Inhof
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). On this vote, the yeas are 48, 
the nays are 50.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2140) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 2300

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the 
Cruz-Warnock amendment, No. 2300.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Georgia, 
Senator Warnock, for leading this amendment with me.
  The amendment is simple and straightforward: designating future 
Interstate 14 across Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and 
Georgia. The amendment does not have any cost associated with it; 
rather, it is a first step in the process of upgrading this system of 
roads to add freight capacity and connect strategic military 
installations across our States.
  In Texas, our part of I-14 will be expanded to the west so that it 
will serve San Angelo, Goodfellow Air Force Base, Midland-Odessa, and 
the Permian Basin. It will connect with I-20 at Midland-Odessa, which 
runs westward to connect with I-10 and leads to El Paso and Fort Bliss. 
This will complete the linkage between six military facilities across 
three States, which is critical for economic development and national 
security.
  I would like to add that this amendment has the support of the 
departments of transportation in Texas, in Louisiana, in Mississippi, 
in Alabama, and in Georgia, as well as untold numbers of local leaders 
and coalitions of businesses and local governments.
  So, again, I want to thank my colleague Senator Warnock for leading 
this bipartisan amendment with me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. WARNOCK. Mr. President, I am grateful for the opportunity to 
partner with my colleague from Texas on this infrastructure 
development, and I ask for the support of all of my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate for 1 minute on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise in support of this bipartisan 
amendment in the spirit in which it has been offered.
  The amendment will designate five different States--Texas, Louisiana, 
Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia--as the future Interstate 14 
corridor. The sponsors state that this would really be integral for 
economic development support, to support tourism and also provide an 
important link to our military facilities.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the Cruz-Warnock amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware
  Mr. CARPER. Could I have the attention of our colleagues. In addition 
to the meritorious points that have been made by the sponsors of this 
legislation and the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee--Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate 
out of order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, anytime these two Members get together and 
offer legislation, how could any of us say no? Maybe we could get a 
voice vote; I don't know. We will see.
  Thanks very much. Congratulations. You bring joy to this place.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for a voice vote. Does the 
gentleman from Texas mind getting a voice vote?
  Mr. CRUZ. Mr. President, a voice vote would be fine if it would be 
fine procedurally.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
60-vote hurdle.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. There we go.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2300

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, 
No. 2300.
  The amendment (No. 2300) was agreed to.
  Mr. CARPER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               H.R. 3684

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as we all know by now, a bipartisan group 
of Senators worked with the White House over the last several weeks to 
negotiate a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill, and I know a lot of hard 
work went into it, a lot of late nights, and I want to thank all of our 
colleagues who have made a positive contribution in this debate and 
discussion. It is particularly important at this time, I believe, that 
we do these things on a bipartisan basis, if we can.
  After much anticipation, we finally received the text Sunday night, 
and a lot of what we expected to see, we saw, like funding for roads, 
bridges, ports, waterways, airports, and broadband. But what we didn't 
see were adequate

[[Page S5697]]

pay-fors for the bill. For example, we learned after the bill was 
announced that it would be essentially a supplemental to the current 
infrastructure bill, which would require another $118 billion in 
general revenue to fill the gap left because of the inadequacy of the 
highway trust fund funding.
  Now, we have all known that that is a problem. We had to use general 
revenue the last time we did a highway bill. But that hasn't really 
been part of the discussion, and I think, once people begin to see an 
additional $118 billion in borrowed money in order to pass this bill, 
it causes significant concern.
  I guess the other part of it is that this bill seems to be moving at 
warp speed. Under normal circumstances, an infrastructure bill would go 
through a long and arduous subcommittee process. And I know that the 
Environment and Public Works Committee has passed a highway bill 
reauthorization twice unanimously, once under Democratic leadership and 
once under Republican leadership. So that is a positive sign. But this 
is really a huge amalgam of legislation that, frankly, only about 20 
percent of the Senate is intimately familiar with.
  Ordinarily, in a committee, both sides would debate the bill in 
hearings, markups, evaluate the cost, and offer amendments before we 
get to this process, but now we know that has not happened. Frankly, I 
think that is unfortunate because I think our committees are not 
operating the way they should, which, in turn, I think helps us produce 
a better, more thoughtful product.
  We simply skipped the normal steps that would allow Members to raise 
concerns about the bill long before we got here and offer changes to 
improve it. So, as I have said before and I know others have said as 
well, I hope the majority leader will offer ample time and 
opportunities for Members on both sides of the aisle to debate and 
amend this legislation. A robust amendment process is essential.
  Over the last few days, I have been working with colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to identify new pay-fors that could be adopted as 
amendments. We have come up with some, I think, promising ideas, and I 
hope these ideas can receive a vote on the Senate floor this week.
  For example, I have worked with Senator Padilla, the Senator from 
California, to offer one bipartisan amendment to fund infrastructure 
projects in communities across the country without increasing the debt. 
Our amendment would simply give the State and local governments the 
flexibility to use unspent COVID-19 funding on infrastructure projects. 
It would eliminate the sunset on the use of those funds, and it would 
take the guardrails off that say you can only use that money for COVID-
19 because, to be honest, the States and counties and cities have more 
money than they know what to do with, at least constructively. I think 
we all would have an interest in making sure that money is spent well 
on long-term projects.
  What I just said is not necessarily a criticism of the bills that we 
passed together on a bipartisan basis. We were in the midst of a 
pandemic, and we were all operating in an emergency situation, trying 
to do the best we could. But we didn't know how long this virus would 
last, how long it would take to get a vaccine, and how long the 
negative impact on our economy would last.
  Frankly, we overshot the mark, I think, in some aspects of the bill, 
thus leading to the surplus of funds at many of our State and local 
governments.
  Right now, there are limits on how that money could be spent. 
Qualifying expenses include things related directly to the pandemic, 
like COVID-19 testing sites, vaccines, PSAs, and additional bed space 
for hospitals.
  But this funding can't currently be used for expenses unrelated to 
the pandemic or items that were previously included in a budget. They 
must be new, pandemic-related expenses.
  As I said, in theory, at the time we did this, it made a lot of 
sense. After all, this funding was meant to bolster the fight against 
COVID-19 in communities across our country.
  But not every community and not every State has the need for these 
types of projects. In many places, the most urgent needs aren't related 
to the pandemic, but, rather, the failing infrastructure.
  The pandemic interrupted infrastructure improvements across the 
country and forced many officials to put these projects on the back 
burner. Repairs, maintenance, and construction projects were put on 
hold until there was enough funding to get things back on track.
  I have heard from State and local leaders in my State who are 
frustrated by the lack of flexibility--by the handcuffs, frankly--on 
their use of the Federal funding they have already received. They want 
the option, not the mandate. They want the option to use this money 
when and where it is needed most, but right now, as I said, their hands 
are tied.
  Many States and localities have relief funds on hand but no 
necessary, qualifying expenses. They have to look at this big balance 
in their accounts knowing they won't be able to spend it on the 
greatest needs of their communities. Frankly, they are frustrated, 
because I heard from them.
  That is especially the case in rural America. In places where COVID-
19 numbers are low, leaders don't have the need or the opportunity to 
spend this money within the set timeline for the purposes that Congress 
has dictated. They don't need the full range of pandemic-related 
resources that might be necessary in other high-density urban areas 
with higher case counts.
  The amendment Senator Padilla and I have offered would give leaders 
in rural areas alike the option of spending the funding on necessary 
infrastructure projects. This does not touch the negotiation between 
the White House and so-called G-20, the bipartisan group of Senators 
who came up with the substitute bill, which is the base bill that we 
are now debating. This would be in addition to it.
  And, frankly, this would be the most efficient way to fund many 
infrastructure projects in our States and communities because, as we 
know, once Congress appropriates money, frequently, it takes years 
before that money makes its way to the need. Well, this could mean 
widening a highway, making safety improvements on a bridge, expanding 
broadband access. Urban areas could even use these funds for public 
transit improvement systems.
  State and local leaders know the needs of their communities best, and 
they should have the flexibility to spend this money where it is needed 
most. The key here is flexibility.
  Here is the other benefit. It doesn't cost another dime. This is 
money that we have already spent and already sent to the States, so the 
score is a big zero.
  How many times do we have the opportunity here to do something big 
and important that doesn't run up the debt or deficit or cost us a lot 
more money?
  So the key here is flexibility. Our amendment doesn't place a 
requirement or mandate on State and local governments to spend this 
funding on anything.
  Any place that has new COVID expenses to cover can and should use 
this funding for that purpose, no questions asked. This simply gives 
leaders at the local and State level the option to spend those relief 
funds on urgent infrastructure projects that might otherwise go 
unfunded or that might not be funded for years to come.
  I still remember President Obama, at one point after the Great 
Recession in 2008 and the recovery, when he talked about shovel-ready 
projects. He said: Well, I guess shovel-ready doesn't really mean 
shovel-ready.
  The truth is, we have seen it time and time again. Congress 
appropriates money to State and local governments, and it literally 
takes years before the money gets to the intended target. This short-
circuits that project because the States and local governments already 
have that money and they can spend it for this purpose if we will pass 
this amendment.
  I am not alone in thinking this is a good idea. Back in March, nearly 
three dozen organizations wrote a letter to Secretary Yellen urging her 
to make transportation infrastructure an eligible expense. They talked 
about the impact of COVID-19 on transportation revenues and noted that, 
last year, 18 States and 24 localities announced delays or 
cancellations of transportation improvement projects totaling more than 
$12 billion.
  These same three dozen organizations noted the pandemic has impacted 
every State and community differently, thus the key flexibility. They

[[Page S5698]]

said flexibility will be critical to ensuring funds are used 
expeditiously and with maximum impact. That is really what we are 
talking about here.
  Secretary Biden's own Transportation Secretary suggested as much. In 
testimony before Congress, Secretary Buttigieg said the American Rescue 
Plan ``has some flexibility in it'' that he thinks could be used ``to 
support road budgets that have been impacted.''
  States and cities shouldn't just be able to spend this money. They 
should be able to invest it in projects and resources our communities 
need the most.
  This is simply a commonsense change both sides should be able to get 
behind. It ensures money that has already gone out the door will be 
used before it expires. It puts decision-making at the local level and 
gives leaders more flexibility to decide how to use this Federal 
funding on their most urgent needs; and it does so, as I said, without 
increasing the national deficit at all.
  This amendment has earned the support of a broad range of 
organizations across the country, and I am proud to have worked with 
Senator Padilla to craft this amendment in a way that both sides can 
get behind it. In the coming days, I hope this will be one of many 
amendments that will receive a vote on the Senate floor, perhaps as 
early as today.
  We have to ensure infrastructure investments are made fairly and paid 
for reasonably, and a robust amendment process is the only way to get 
there.
  I would just add in closing, some of my colleagues have said that 
they support this amendment, but they would be inclined to vote against 
it because they feel like this somehow violates the agreement that 
the bipartisan negotiating group had with the White House. But as I 
described it, it doesn't touch--it does not touch that underlying 
substitute bill.

  What it does is it unleashes these funds in States like Connecticut, 
Michigan, West Virginia, Texas. And it lets our State and local leaders 
figure out, if they can't use these funds, if they don't need these 
funds for COVID-19, how they can use them in a way that will have the 
biggest, most significant economic impact on the infrastructure in 
their States.
  I hope my colleagues who somehow believe that they have sworn a blood 
oath with the White House not to support any amendments that change the 
underlying substitute--I don't know why we are voting on amendments, 
unless it is to change the underlying substitute because that is our 
Constitutional function. It is somehow a parallel universe in which the 
White House--a different branch of government--is telling the Senate 
what amendments we can and cannot pass.
  As we all know, that is not the way the Constitution is written. The 
Constitution said it is our prerogative, as Senators representing our 
States, to vote on policies that we think are best for our States and 
for the country.
  Yes, the President has an important role, but his role is to veto it 
if he doesn't like it, not rewrite it, not to tell us what amendments 
we can vote on or not vote on. That is a perversion of the 
constitutional system.
  I think, for matters of institutional integrity and pride, Senators 
would be very jealous about guarding their authorities under the 
Constitution rather than delegating these to the administration.
  I expect this is going to be a long road. We have already heard 
Speaker Pelosi say she is not going to pass this bill once the Senate 
passes it until she has a chance to pass the $3.5 trillion-plus 
reconciliation bill at the same time. This is going to be a very bumpy 
process.
  But the idea that we cut off access that our States and local 
government have to hundreds of billions of dollars of unused funds to 
do, in their discretion, what they think needs to be done--not a 
mandate, but, rather, a permission to do so. To turn down this 
opportunity to get this money where it is needed most in these big 
impact infrastructure projects makes no sense to me. I would encourage 
all our colleagues to support this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the bill in front 
of us.
  For a long time, the people in Michigan have been waiting. For years, 
they have been told it is ``infrastructure week.'' Unfortunately, for 
all the talk, Michigan's infrastructure remains weak.
  This lack of investment has real cost for our businesses and our 
communities and our families. I am thinking of the single mom who 
drives to work every day and can't afford to keep making car repairs 
caused by massive potholes, an everyday occurrence.
  I am thinking of the small business whose deliveries keep being 
delayed because of the weight limits on a nearby bridge.
  I am thinking of the farmer who wants to harness the power of 
precision agricultural to include his bottom line. Unfortunately, he 
can't because his internet is too slow.
  And I am thinking of that farmer's children, who need the internet to 
keep up with their school work, but struggle to find a good connection.
  I am thinking of all the folks who would love to choose electric the 
next time they buy a car, but worry about finding a charging station.
  And I am thinking of the kids in Flint and families across the 
country, who should never have to worry that the water coming out of 
their kitchen sink is unsafe after traveling through lead pipes or 
becoming contaminated by PFAS.
  All these folks want some investment in that infrastructure. And now, 
1,656 days after President Trump was sworn in and promised swift action 
to rebuild our infrastructure, President Joe Biden, working with a 
hard-working group of Democrats and Republican Members in the Senate, 
is leading us to get this done.
  My colleagues on both sides of the aisle and their hard-working staff 
members deserve to take a bow. This legislation is chockful of 
bipartisan wins that will strengthen our country from Seattle to 
Saginaw, to Sarasota, and communities of every size in between.
  This legislation isn't just going to finally fix our cracking roads 
and crumbling bridges and spotty internet; it is going to create good 
jobs, tackle the climate crisis, help us remain competitive with other 
countries around the world that aren't sitting around waiting for us to 
catch up.
  As a Michigan driver, one of the parts I am most excited about is the 
money to fix our roads and bridges.
  Hey, Governor Whitmer, now you can get some help to fix those roads.
  And because we are the Great Lakes State, transportation in Michigan 
doesn't just mean trucks and trains and cars. This bill uses $11.7 
billion to modernize infrastructure, such as the aging Soo Locks--so 
critical to our economy, for the country, and for the Great Lakes 
region.
  And it includes $1 billion for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative 
to clean up contamination, restore wetlands, and fight invasive 
species.
  I want to thank my partner and cochair of the Great Lakes Restoration 
Caucus, Senator Portman, for working on this. That is the single 
largest investment ever made in the Great Lakes Initiative.
  This will make a big dent in resolving areas of concern, like the 
Detroit River and the Rouge River, which were polluted decades ago.
  While we are on the subject of water, it is way past time for 
Michigan families and families across the country to feel confident 
that the water coming from their taps is safe to drink, and this bill 
takes critical steps toward achieving just that. It includes $15 
billion to replace lead pipes, and another $10 billion to tackle the 
PFAS contamination that plagues our communities all over Michigan, as 
well as the country.
  Healthy families and a healthy economy also require high-speed 
internet. We are in 2021. The past 18 months proved that as our whole 
lives moved online. We saw all of the gaps in high-speed internet 
services across the country. So I am very pleased that this bill 
includes $65 billion to ensure that folks can get connected whether 
they live a block from Gratiot Avenue or 25 miles from Highway 31.
  This bill also takes action to change the trajectory of the climate 
crisis and invest in more resilient infrastructure. It invests in 
charging infrastructure so that folks who have been thinking

[[Page S5699]]

about buying that new F-150 Lightning or a Chevy Volt or a Jeep 
Wrangler can make the leap to electric with confidence. We can't wait 
any longer because China certainly isn't waiting.
  Because this legislation also includes my Make It in America Act that 
I introduced with Senator Braun, the American taxpayer dollars we will 
be investing will go to American manufacturers and American workers. It 
adds new guardrails so that Federal Agencies can't buy products made in 
Mumbai instead of Monroe, MI, when those products are available in 
Michigan. It also calls for products purchased by Federal Agencies to 
be incorporating more domestic content. It makes the Made in America 
Director and the Made in America Office a permanent part of the Office 
of Management and Budget. That will ensure that American workers and 
American jobs receive preference regardless of who sits in the Oval 
Office.
  This legislation doesn't just benefit big companies; it also calls 
for Agencies to use the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which is 
extremely effective in Michigan and across the country. That means 
small- and medium-sized manufacturers will have more opportunities to 
sell their products to the Federal Government and provide materials for 
federally funded infrastructure projects, including all those roads and 
bridges we will be rebuilding.
  I have often said of the farm bill that it has Michigan on every 
page. I have got to say this bill comes pretty darned close.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, to invest in 
America, and to finally get Infrastructure Week translated into action.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from New Jersey.

                          ____________________