[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 139 (Wednesday, August 4, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5791-S5821]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

       INVESTING IN A NEW VISION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND SURFACE 
                     TRANSPORTATION IN AMERICA ACT

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 3684, which the clerk will 
report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 3684) to authorize funds for Federal-aid 
     highways, highway safety programs, and transit programs, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Schumer (for Sinema) amendment No. 2137, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Carper-Capito amendment No. 2131 (to amendment No. 2137), 
     to strike a definition.
       Carper (for Johnson) amendment No. 2245 (to amendment No. 
     2137), to prohibit the cancellation of contracts for physical 
     barriers and other border security measures for which funds 
     already have been obligated and for which penalties will be 
     incurred in the case of such cancellation and prohibiting the 
     use of funds for payment of such penalties.


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Democratic leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following 
Senator Kelly's maiden speech, that Senators Johnson, Peters, and 
Carper be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each prior to the 
start of the vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               H.R. 3684

  Mr. President, for information of the Senators, the vote scheduled at 
12:15 will likely begin closer to 12:30 p.m.
  As you have seen, as America has seen, the Senate is moving full 
steam ahead on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. Since the 
legislative text of the bill was finalized, the Senate has considered 
eight amendments. Five amendments were led by Senators from the 
Republican minority, and seven amendments have received rollcall votes. 
One amendment offered by the

[[Page S5792]]

uncommon pairing of Senators Warnock and Cruz was adopted yesterday by 
voice vote. Miracles happen even here in the Senate.
  So the Senate is making great progress on amendments, and we are 
going to make further progress very soon. While the specific number of 
additional amendments has yet to be agreed to, I believe we can 
consider another substantial tranche on the floor today. Senators 
should expect multiple rollcall votes this afternoon.


                          Eviction Moratorium

  Mr. President, yesterday afternoon, millions of American families 
were able to breathe a sigh of relief as the Biden administration 
announced an extension of the eviction moratorium that expired last 
month.
  According to the CDC, the new ban on evictions will apply for 60 days 
across regions of the country that are experiencing high levels of 
COVID infections. In total, roughly 90 percent of American renters--90 
percent--will be protected by this order. That is what the head of the 
CDC told me yesterday.
  There are so many individuals who helped make this happen. First, I 
applaud the President--President Biden--and the CDC for taking action 
to protect American families. I want to commend Speaker Pelosi. She and 
I worked closely together to get this done from our first conversations 
with the President at the White House on Thursday, on through the 
weekend and the beginning of this week.
  But I also want to recognize the amazing courage of my colleagues, 
including Representatives Ocasio-Cortez, Jones, and Gomez and, above 
all, Representative Cori Bush.
  Congresswoman Bush knows what it is like to be evicted. She knows the 
pain and fear and indignity of being told to get your things and get 
out. When you lose your home, you lose everything. It is hard to get to 
a job if you have it.
  What do the kids do about school? What if there is a local clinic 
taking care of somebody with a healthcare problem?
  You lose your home and that is it. The roof, literally and 
figuratively, falls in.
  Well, Congresswoman Bush has known this through her own experience, 
and she took her passion and converted it into effective action. I 
salute to her. It is a moment of history that shows when you persist, 
you can get things done. For four nights, she slept on the steps of the 
Capitol, drawing attention to this issue in a way we rarely see from a 
Member of Congress. She made yesterday's announcement possible. So 
amazing credit lies with Congresswoman Bush and the Americans who 
joined her in her righteous cause.
  And, of course, I want to give real credit as well to Senator Brown, 
our chairman of the Banking Committee, who worked hard on this issue 
along with Senator Warren and many others in the Senate.
  While yesterday's announcement by the CDC was very welcome, it is 
only the first step. In the weeks ahead, the administration must 
continue working with State governments to better distribute emergency 
rental assistance that Congress has appropriated at the end of the last 
year. The money is there. We in Congress provided it.
  I want to call out my State of New York, which has done a poor job at 
distributing this money. Two weeks ago, along with housing advocates, I 
called on the State to move things more quickly. A week before that, 
New York State along with South Carolina were the only two States that 
sent out no dollars--no dollars. Some of our localities that didn't 
cede the money to the State have done a better job, like Monroe County, 
where Rochester is. But too much of the money is just sitting up there 
in Albany.
  We need Mike Hine, who is head of the relevant administrative 
department in the State, and all of the State to get that money out 
fast.
  An eviction ban is a good thing. It prevents people from being kicked 
out of their homes. Once the eviction ban ends, if there is not rental 
assistance, we are back in the same boat. We need the States to get 
that money out.
  State governments--my State of New York--must do a better job of 
getting that support out the door and into the hands of Americans who 
need help.
  One other thing, there is not Treasury bureaucracy in the way. States 
like Texas, like Monroe County, have been able to get out a lot of the 
money. The fault lies in the State governments that are not doing this, 
and they have to move.


                Authorization for Use of Military Force

  Mr. President, on another matter, AUMF. Today, the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee will vote on the repeal of the authorization for 
the use of military force in Iraq. This authorization was initially 
passed by Congress in 2002, 19 years ago. It has far outlived its 
usefulness.
  The Iraq war has been over for nearly a decade. An authorization 
passed in 2002 is no longer necessary in 2021. It has been nearly 10 
years since this particular authorization has been cited as a primary 
justification for a military operation, and there is a real danger to 
letting these legal authorities persist indefinitely. Allowing an 
authorization for military force to just lie around forever is an 
invitation to a future administration to use it for any military 
adventurism in the region. Americans, frankly, are sick of endless wars 
in the Middle East.

  Congress simply has to exert more authority over matters of war and 
peace, as we all know the Constitution prescribes. So, this morning, I 
reiterate my strong support for the repeal of the 2002 authorization of 
military force in Iraq. I urge the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 
under the able leadership of Chairman Menendez, to advance the measure 
to the floor.
  I want to thank Chairman Menendez, Senator Kaine, and every 
Republican cosponsor of the bill for working to bring this issue to the 
floor.
  As majority leader, in consultation with Chairman Menendez, I intend 
to bring up the repeal for a vote on the Senate floor later this year. 
Members should be on notice: We are going to vote on this.


                          Judicial Nominations

  Now, Mr. President, finally, judicial nominations. One of our most 
important jobs here in the Senate is to confirm President Biden's 
judicial appointments. The Democratic majority in the Senate is 
committed to swiftly and consistently filling judicial vacancies with 
highly qualified, ideologically mainstream, and professionally and 
demographically diverse jurists. Later this week, the Senate will have 
the opportunity to confirm another judge who meets all three of these 
criteria.
  Last night, I filed cloture on the nomination of Eunice Lee to serve 
on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Since the Second Circuit covers 
my home State of New York and is one of the most important Federal 
courts in the country, it was my honor to have recommended Ms. Lee to 
the White House for an appointment. She will be the fourth circuit 
judge confirmed in the first 7 months of the Biden administration.
  Eunice Lee is not only an excellent lawyer, with sound judgment and a 
jurist's temperament, but she brings the kind of legal experience that 
is all too rare on the Federal bench. Ms. Lee spent her entire career 
in public service, representing criminal defendants who could not 
afford counseling. Once confirmed, she will be the only former Federal 
defender among the active judges on the Second Circuit.
  When I met her, I saw what a caring, compassionate, thoughtful woman 
she was, and I was so glad--so glad--to recommend her to the White 
House, who quickly agreed and has sent her name forward.
  Perhaps the highest compliment paid to Ms. Lee came from a group of 
over 70 former Federal prosecutors from New York. These are the folks 
who most often found themselves on the opposite side of Ms. Lee in a 
courtroom. They called her a ``brilliant, accomplished advocate, who is 
supremely well qualified to serve on the bench.''
  She is a model. She is a model in diversity. You know, we don't have 
very many people of color on our Second Circuit Court of Appeals. I am 
trying to increase that with the nomination of Ms. Lee--Ms. Perez as 
well. Not only is she from a diverse background demographically, but 
she is diverse professionally. To have someone who has been a Federal 
defender up there on the Second Circuit will really expand the breadth 
and width and depth of knowledge that that bench has.
  So I am proud to have recommended her, and I am looking forward to 
confirming this nominee later this week.

[[Page S5793]]

  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The Republican leader is recognized


                           Government Funding

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this morning, the Appropriations 
Committee considered a first partial batch of government funding bills 
for next year.
  I want the Senate to secure bipartisan appropriations through the 
regular process. I want us to fund the government in an orderly fashion 
just like the successful Appropriations Committee work we saw 
throughout Republicans' recent years in the majority.
  We accomplished that because we built a truly bipartisan process. 
Importantly, it began at the beginning. Early in the calendar year, we 
convened bipartisan talks to produce top-line numbers so the 
appropriators would have actual targets. That let good-faith bipartisan 
conversations happen at the subcommittee and committee levels 
throughout the spring and summer, and we got results on a bipartisan 
basis.
  Unfortunately, this year, our Democratic colleagues haven't done 
anything like that. Either our colleagues don't have any big-picture 
plan or they are privately working off the President's partisan budget 
request. There has been no big-picture, bipartisan conversation. The 
Democrats didn't even let the committee vote on top-line allocations, 
which normally happens at the start of a markup.
  Our colleagues' fixation on far-left shiny objects is distracting 
them from basic governance. They are more focused on ramming through 
another reckless, inflationary taxing-and-spending spree than ensuring 
we avoid a stalemate over government funding.
  Now, look, I understand and I appreciate that Senators on both sides 
have worked hard to develop appropriations titles with a lot of good 
content. The problem is bigger picture. When it comes to floor 
consideration, we cannot and will not start planting individual trees 
before we have bipartisan consensus on the shape of the forest.
  Here is what it will take to get a Senate appropriations process back 
on track, two--two--simple things.
  No. 1, Democrats will need to honor the longstanding bipartisan truce 
that provides parity for defense and nondefense spending growth--parity 
for defense and nondefense spending growth--and at a responsible 
overall number that we can all accept. Our men and women in uniform and 
the Nation they defend deserve better than a budget that cuts our 
national defense after inflation and allows adversaries to get an edge.
  No. 2, we must have agreement that we are going to keep longstanding 
bipartisan policy riders in and new poison pill riders out. We need to 
keep foundational mainstays, like the Hyde amendment, right where they 
are, and neither side should throw new wrenches into the process.
  Parity for national and border security and a bipartisan deal on 
policy riders--this is not rocket science; it is a roadmap. We all know 
it very, very well. That is what it will take to move bipartisan 
appropriations bills across this floor, but the majority is behind on 
the homework.


                              Afghanistan

  Now, Mr. President, on a totally different matter, in April, when 
President Biden announced his intention to pull U.S. forces out of 
Afghanistan, he said it was ``time to end the forever wars''--``time to 
end the forever wars,'' said President Biden, but at every stage of the 
rushed and rudderless retreat that has followed, the Biden 
administration's wishful thinking hasn't come within a country mile of 
reality. By any account, the situation in Afghanistan has become worse 
as we have headed to the exits, and we will live with the security, 
humanitarian, and moral consequences for years to come.
  This whole debacle was not only foreseeable; it was, in fact, 
foreseen. Remember what top national security experts were saying 
around the time the President announced his decisions:

       The Taliban is likely to make gains on the battlefield, and 
     the Afghan Government will struggle to hold the Taliban at 
     bay if the coalition withdraws support.

  Administration officials shrugged it off. They downplayed the chances 
that Afghanistan's pro-American government would fall to the pro-
terrorist Taliban, but now that outcome appears all but inevitable.
  The administration literally glossed over the risk of an al-Qaida 
resurgence, but now Secretary Austin is acknowledging al-Qaida could 
reestablish a safe haven and threaten the homeland in less than 2 
years--that is the Secretary of Defense--and even that could be 
optimistic.
  They insisted that over-the-horizon operations would be enough to 
keep terrorists in check, but now, just as the CIA Director warned from 
the start, intelligence gathering is already suffering.
  The administration claimed that resources tied up in the fight 
against terrorists were more urgently needed to counter Chinese 
aggression, but now the manpower demands of this over-the-horizon 
approach have required redeployment of forces to the Middle East and 
pulled an entire carrier group away--away--from China's backyard so it 
can conduct costlier, less-efficient, long-range missions over 
Afghanistan from the Gulf.
  Much of the rhetoric from the President's team has sounded almost 
laughingly--laughingly--naive. The Secretary of State publically 
suggested he thinks he can bribe the Taliban into being a responsible, 
peaceful regime with diplomatic carrots. So that is where we are.
  In 6 months, this administration has taken us from helping local 
partners fight the Taliban to abandoning our partners and pretending 
that a future Taliban government will care about foreign assistance and 
being accepted by the so-called international community.
  The Taliban have already begun paving their way to Kabul with 
innocent blood. Al-Qaida is already rebuilding capabilities to strike 
at our homeland.
  So what on Earth are we doing here? What are we doing?
  Surely, the administration would not consider the fall of Kabul a 
success. Surely, it will not look at the fate awaiting Afghan women and 
girls and say: Mission accomplished. Surely, a terrorist resurgence or 
the assassination of our Afghan partners cannot look to President 
Biden's team like a ``deliberate'' or ``responsible'' exit from 
Afghanistan.
  But these are the predictable results of these terrible decisions: 
the consequences of making enormous changes with no real plan to 
mitigate the risk; the failure to learn from similar mistakes, like the 
disastrous withdrawal from Iraq back in 2011.
  Here in the Senate, it is curious to see that some of our colleagues 
who are the most exercised--the most exercised--about trying to undo 
authorizations for the use of military force are somehow also among the 
quietest--the quietest--when it comes to the unfolding disaster in 
Afghanistan and oversight of ongoing conflicts.
  Make no mistake, whether America is on the ground or over the 
horizon, the war in Afghanistan will continue, and Americans will not 
be safer with the Taliban ruling from Kabul.
  We will not be safer when al-Qaida regains a safe haven and inspires 
a new generation of global jihadists. And we won't be safer when 
coalition partners doubt they can trust our word.
  A strategic disaster is what we are witnessing from top to bottom, 
and a growing risk that this war will end in a victory--a victory--for 
the Taliban and al-Qaida and become a greater threat to the United 
States.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                         Tribute to Nick Rossi

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, around here, it is Members of Congress who 
typically get the spotlight. When we talk about a bill getting passed, 
for example, you usually hear about the

[[Page S5794]]

Members who introduced and pushed for the bill. You don't usually hear 
about the staffers.
  But none of us in Congress works alone. We are supported by dedicated 
staffers who spend long days and oftentimes nights and weekends working 
to serve our constituents and our country.
  Today, I want to talk about one of those staffers, my whip office 
chief of staff who is leaving the Hill after 26 years of government 
service.
  Nick Rossi has been with me since 2013, when I became the ranking 
member of the Commerce Committee. He came on as deputy staff director 
and took over as staff director 2 years later.
  There isn't one thing that we did in my years as Commerce ranking 
member and chair that wasn't at least partially owing to Nick Rossi: 
the 2018 FAA reauthorization; the FAST Act; Coast Guard legislation; 
FCC bills; broadband legislation; spectrum legislation; section 230 
reform legislation, known as SESTA-FOSTA; legislation to reduce the 
number of annoying robocalls; other consumer protection legislation 
like the FTC Consumer Fairness Review Act; legislation to advance 5G; 
and the list goes on.

  Nick came to my staff after an already illustrious career on the 
Hill. He had served as chief counsel at the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
as chief counsel and chief investigator on the Commerce Committee, and 
as staff director on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee.
  But his career in government started much earlier. He actually 
started his government service in the FBI, applying on a whim when he 
couldn't join the U.S. Attorney's Office because of a hiring freeze.
  As is typical for Nick, he graduated first in his class at the FBI 
Academy and then went on to spend 11 years in the FBI as a special 
agent, a supervisory special agent, unit chief, associate legal 
counsel, and media spokesperson.
  That sounds like a lot for 11 years but not so much when you know 
Nick.
  I mentioned that he graduated first in his class at the FBI Academy. 
He also graduated with honors from Notre Dame and from Harvard Law 
School, where he was in the drama society with our colleague Ted Cruz.
  I don't think I have ever asked Nick about any issue and gotten 
anything less than a thoroughly informed answer, whether the subject 
was technically in his area of expertise or not.
  I will never forget when he accompanied me and former Senator Bill 
Nelson to the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead, SD. This 
is a lab where scientists are conducting research in particle physics 
and the expansion of the universe. So it is pretty complicated stuff.
  Well, apparently not to Nick. He was in the car with us, and he was 
throwing out technical formulas and the finer points of physics and 
cosmology with the ease he might use when discussing the lunch menu in 
the Dirksen cafeteria.
  When asked how he knew all this stuff--he definitely didn't major in 
physics, and space wasn't his issue area--he just said it was a hobby. 
Trust Nick to be flirting with particle physics as a hobby.
  But while Nick may often be the smartest person in the room, he is 
also the most humble. He is often the last to speak. He listens. He 
asks questions, sometimes maybe when he doesn't really need to. And he 
gives thoughtful, wise counsel.
  It has been clear over the last few days as staffers across the 
Senate learned that Nick was leaving just how respected his voice is in 
the Senate.
  I have had more than one committee staff director talk to me about 
how he or she learned to run a committee from Nick.
  And I know a lot of senior staffers--inside my office but outside of 
it as well--who will tell you that when they are facing a challenge, 
the first person that they go to to provide a sounding board is Nick.
  And Nick always makes himself available. He is uniformly generous 
with his time and knowledge, and he treats everyone the same, whether 
the individual in question is a staff assistant or a chief of staff.
  He has brought out the best in every team I have seen him work with, 
whether at the Commerce Committee or in the whip office.
  Nick has been chief of staff in my whip office for 2 years--2 very 
eventful years. Through it all, Nick has been a steady presence in the 
whip office and in the Senate. No matter the crisis, Nick is calm and 
collected, and he inspires that calm in others, although I do hear that 
it is a different story when he is watching Notre Dame football. The 
word is that there is a lot of ranting, pacing, and yelling at the TV, 
but I have not observed that.
  Above all, Nick is a character guy, which matters a lot to me. He is 
a man of honor, integrity, and principle.
  I never have to worry that Nick is going to cut corners or bend the 
rules. He is always going to do things the right way, and there is 
nothing more important than that.
  I can't talk about Nick without also mentioning his commitment to his 
family. His pride in his kids always shines through, and just as he is 
never too busy to talk to a staffer who is having a problem, he is 
always ready to take a break from his work to help his daughter Elena 
with her math homework--another subject Nick didn't major in but is, of 
course, really good at--or to build swords and helmets and bows and 
arrows with his son Johnny.
  I am very grateful to his wife Katherine and to Elena and Johnny for 
sharing him with us for all these years.
  And I am very happy that there are fewer late nights in his future so 
that he can get in some more time with his family.
  I realize that Nick may be starting to sound a little superhuman 
here, so let me just say that while he is a man of many talents who has 
not only not successfully repaired the family's microwave and 
dishwasher but is also known for building a balloon arch in the shape 
of a shark for his kids' school, I am reliably informed that he is not 
a good cook.
  And I am pretty sure that ``not'' was bold and underlined.
  But, seriously, Nick is one in a million, and it has been my 
privilege to have him lead the team in the whip office.
  His absence will be sorely felt by me, by my staff, and throughout 
Capitol Hill, and I hope he won't mind the occasional phone call to 
pick his brain on some of the issues that are facing the Senate.
  Nick, thank you for your service, and God bless you in all your 
future undertakings. Wherever you land next, they will be lucky to have 
you.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                               H.R. 3684

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, infrastructure is the physical backbone of 
our country, and it is an example of positive, constructive American 
achievement and accomplishment.
  Unfortunately, this particular bill, in its process, content, 
pricetag, and long-term effects, simply will not serve the country, 
Americans, and particularly Utahns well. It will ultimately be 
detrimental to our economy, to the daily lives of the American people, 
and even in some cases the infrastructure itself.
  Now, I am not saying I don't appreciate the hard work, goodwill, and 
excellent intentions of my colleagues who put many long hours, weeks, 
and months into crafting it; nor am I suggesting that there aren't good 
things in the bill, good things that would benefit deserving people in 
this country.
  As I have said before, the question is not whether or not 
infrastructure is a good and a necessary thing; nor is the question 
whether the bill contains some good things.
  The question is, rather, how much should the Federal Government be 
involved in infrastructure? And if it should, where it should. How much 
should it be spending on it?
  The truth is the particulars of this bill take the scope far beyond 
what should be under the realm of the Federal Government, under the 
domain of the Federal Government, specifically at a price far beyond 
what we can afford and at a time when we are already far into feeling 
the sting of inflation.

[[Page S5795]]

  There is a reason that our Founding Fathers reserved ``numerous and 
indefinite'' powers to the States while providing ``few and defined'' 
powers to the Federal Government. Article I, section 8 of the 
Constitution literally lists the particular powers given to Congress. 
It tells us what they are. And you will notice that infrastructure 
generally is not one of them.
  Now, in some cases it does make sense that the Federal Government is 
involved in some infrastructure. The Interstate Highway System is a 
good example of that. Postal roads, also specifically accounted for in 
article I, section 8, are another example of that.
  This bill, however, includes things like bike paths and 
beautification projects, mass transit systems, surface roads, roads 
that start and stop in one State and are not part of the Interstate 
Highway System--things that, while good and lovely and useful, are a 
far cry from what the Federal Government can and should reasonably and 
successfully oversee. What is more, it does so at an enormous pricetag, 
one that will dig us even deeper and deeper into debt at the expense of 
the American people, both now and further down the road.
  Now, proponents of the bill insist, and will continue to insist as we 
debate this, that the bill is paid for. But, in fact, despite the 
staggeringly large amount of money that it spends--estimated to be $1.2 
trillion in total, the largest amount for a package of this kind in 
history by far--it still does not have a score from the Congressional 
Budget Office.
  Normally we don't vote on, much less pass, something like this 
without a CBO score. We don't have one. And I regret to say that many 
of the so-called pay-fors amount to flimsy budget gimmicks that, in 
reality, do no such thing as pay for the bill.
  So what are these so-called pay-fors?
  Well, let's take the new reporting requirements on cryptocurrency, 
for example, which would allegedly bring in $28 billion. Everything 
about this pay-for is half-baked and unclear.
  How exactly will additional revenue reporting generate new tax 
revenue? And how can you possibly apply stock exchange-style reporting 
requirements to something so different and decentralized as Bitcoin, 
Dogecoin, and other cryptocurrencies?
  At best, this revenue gimmick will fail. At worst, it will hamper 
financial innovation for decades to come.
  Take the mandated sales of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, 
which the bill sponsors claim will produce $6 billion in revenue 
starting 7 years from now. But do we realistically know what the demand 
for oil might be at that time or what can happen in the meantime when 
we might need to use oil in this Strategic Petroleum Reserve?
  What happens when we get 5 years down the road and Congress 
determines that we should hold onto the oil a bit longer until we might 
be able to generate more revenue from the sale?
  What if even more of these sales are congressionally mandated in 
these years, essentially flooding the market and causing the price of 
that same oil to crash?
  Take the pension smoothing component of the bill, which would only 
cause us to lose more money in the long-term and simultaneously 
threaten the solvency of retirement benefits--the retirement benefits 
of millions and millions of American workers.
  Take the rebate rule delay, which so far has never, and may never, go 
into effect. Delaying something that has no set time for implementation 
cannot realistically be predicted to produce $49 billion in savings.

  Take the $20 billion in future spectrum auctions. While spectrum 
auctions can certainly produce a great deal of revenue, this possible 
future auction may end up never happening. It could have significant 
restrictions on it due to the dynamics of adjacent bands, or it could 
simply produce far less than we are being asked to assume today.
  Finally, take the claim of $205 billion in unused COVID funds. Upon 
further investigation, it includes only roughly $50.2 billion of unused 
COVID funds as a real pay-for.
  The other $150 billion is simply spending that didn't happen because 
the country began to emerge from the pandemic. Many States ended the 
enhanced unemployment benefits that were keeping more people out of 
work, and other States, local communities, businesses, and families 
didn't require as much Federal spending, thanks to their own successes 
and their own resiliency.
  In other words, this other $150 billion is not a pay-for. It is fake. 
It is simply spending or lost revenue that was never realized. And 
whether this bill passes or not, this $150 billion will never be 
realized.
  No, the numbers for these pay-fors do not add up. The math for this 
bill is faulty, to say the least. What is more, much of the massive 
amount that it will be spending will not even be efficient or effective 
spending on infrastructure. Even if this were the role of the Federal 
Government, then we ought to make sure that it spends those funds 
efficiently and effectively.
  But, unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that along with Federal 
dollars come a whole host of Byzantine laws and regulations that 
prevent precisely that, including restrictions imposed by everything 
from NEPA to the Davis-Bacon Act.
  The Davis-Bacon Act artificially inflates labor prices by requiring 
that all federally funded construction projects worth more than $2,000 
pay workers at least the prevailing wage rate on non-Federal projects 
in the same locality. And it has substantially driven up the cost of 
Federal projects, hindered economic growth, wasted taxpayer dollars, 
and hurt unskilled laborers each year. In fact, it is estimated that 
repealing it would save taxpayers $10.7 billion over 10 years.
  NEPA has imposed similar burdens and costs. Signed into law in 1970, 
it was intended to account for the environmental consequences of 
proposed Federal actions or projects. But over the last 50 years, it 
has substantially deviated from its original purpose, morphing into a 
complex, bureaucratic labyrinth; stalling projects from frivolous 
lawsuits and bureaucratic delays; and dramatically increasing the cost 
and timeline of their completion. Sometimes this law stretches projects 
that should take a couple of years to complete into decades.
  At the very least, we ought to reform these costly, ineffective 
regulations--and do so drastically--so that Federal infrastructure can 
be completed better and faster, which is exactly what I proposed in the 
amendment that I put before this body yesterday.
  But this bill, in its current form, is ultimately not good for 
Utahns, and it is not good for the American people. Driving more 
Federal money into infrastructure, unfortunately, means we will pay 
more to build less. We will be paying more to build less. It means less 
money going to steel and concrete in the ground, and a whole lot more 
going to lawyers, accountants, lobbyists, compliance specialists, and 
bureaucratic delays. It means longer and more expensive projects.
  Now, this varies State by State, but in Utah, it is estimated that 
adding Federal dollars to a project increases the overall cost by 20 
percent--sometimes as much as 40 percent. Not only will it mean more 
expensive projects, but more expensive products too.
  Another provision in this bill would impose new fees on dozens of 
chemicals used in countless products and consumer goods in our day-to-
day lives--chemicals found in concrete, wood, plastics, rubber, dyes, 
detergents, drugs, and pesticides for food, just to name a few. So 
every time you buy one of those products--or almost any product, for 
that matter--you will be paying a little bit for this. Only it is not a 
tax; it is a fee, and it is hidden from your view. So the consumer--the 
poor and middle-class taxpayer--doesn't see a tax increase. They just 
see that they are paying even more for everything that they buy.
  Another provision would extend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's ``g-
fees'' for an entire decade. These fees could add thousands of dollars 
to the mortgages of home buyers at a time when that first home is 
increasingly out of reach for many. Utahns can't afford this. Congress 
is supposed to be addressing problems like these, not making them worse 
with sneaky new fees. This comes at a time when Americans are already 
feeling the sharp sting of snowballing inflation.

  Now, this graph highlights some of the problem. It highlights what 
the American people have felt over the last 12 to 18 months. You will 
notice a

[[Page S5796]]

curve sloping sharply upward. Today, inflation is at 5.4 percent, which 
means, on average, the goods you buy today are 5.4 percent more 
expensive and the savings you have responsibly accrued are actually 
worth less.
  And don't forget--the Federal Government's reckless spending has 
exacerbated this trend. Look at how the red has grown, what we see 
here. The red that you see in this chart, these are deficits. Look at 
how it has grown. The red portion of the graph is deficit spending.
  While we surely needed to spend some additional money during the 
COVID pandemic, did we really need to spend this much more, to the 
point where we were borrowing a lot more than we were taking in? You 
know, we borrowed close to $4 trillion last year. Even if you think 
that we did need to spend this much more, wouldn't we try to get our 
country back on track and to discontinue this unfunded spending spree 
that contributes to runaway inflation?
  Look, from gas to groceries and from homes to healthcare, every day, 
it is getting harder for hard-working Americans to afford the basic 
necessities of day-to-day life. Take just a quick look here at everyday 
items. These are not luxury items that we associate with the elite; 
these are things that ordinary people purchase every day. Compared to 
the period of time before the pandemic, not so very long ago, just 16 
months ago, eggs are now 13 percent more expense; milk is 11.3 percent 
more expensive; chicken breast, 11.3 percent more expensive; bread is 
9.4 percent more expensive; and gas is more than 27.5 percent more 
expensive.
  The fact is that packages like this one are not without their effects 
on the people we have taken an oath to represent. At the end of the 
day, it is the American people whose tax dollars we take to pay for 
packages like this. At the end of the day, it is the American people 
who will bear the brunt of the debt we are forcing upon them. At the 
end of the day, it is the American people who will feel the effects in 
every aspect of their daily lives--in their workplaces, their 
communities, and their families--and they should get a say in it.
  They certainly shouldn't have to sign on to something that was made 
known to the American people at 10 p.m. on Sunday night. Those who 
drafted this legislation had 4 months to review it and 4 months to get 
to know it. The American people shouldn't be asked to pass this in 4 
days.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.


           Amendment Nos. 2146 and 2210 to Amendment No. 2137

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be called up to the substitute and be reported by number: 
Wicker No. 2146 and Kennedy No. 2210; further, that upon disposition of 
the Johnson amendment, the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in 
the order listed, with no amendments in order to the amendments prior 
to a vote in relation to the amendments, with 60 affirmative votes 
required for adoption of the Kennedy amendment, 5 minutes for debate 
for Senator Wicker and 2 minutes for debate for opponents before the 
Wicker vote, and 4 minutes for debate equally divided before the 
Kennedy vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2146 to Amendment No. 2137

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for Mr. Wicker, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2146 to amendment No. 2137.

  The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To provide that the Administrative Procedures Act shall apply 
      to actions taken by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 
 Communications and Information in carrying out the Broadband Equity, 
                    Access, and Deployment Program)

       On page 2081, strike line 3 and all that follows through 
     ``(3)'' on line 7 and insert the following:

     Act''); and
       (2)


                Amendment No. 2210 to Amendment No. 2137

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for Mr. Kennedy, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2210 to amendment No. 2137.

  The amendment is as follows

  (Purpose: To provide emergency assistance for disaster response and 
recovery, and for other expenses, directly related to Hurricanes Laura, 
                            Delta, and Zeta)

        At the end of division I, add the following:

     SEC. 90009. EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE THROUGH THE COMMUNITY 
                   DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM.

       (a) In General.--In addition to amounts otherwise 
     appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury of the United 
     States not otherwise appropriated, there is appropriated to 
     the ``Community Development Fund'', for necessary expenses 
     related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, and 
     restoration of infrastructure, housing, and economic 
     revitalization in areas in States for which the President 
     declared a major disaster under title IV of the Robert T. 
     Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1974 
     (42 U.S.C. 5170 et seq.) related to Hurricanes Laura, Delta, 
     and Zeta, $1,100,000,000, to remain available until expended, 
     for activities authorized under title I of the Housing and 
     Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.).
       (b) Deposit of c-band Spectrum Auction Proceeds in 
     Treasury.--Section 309(j)(8) of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``and (G)'' and 
     inserting ``(G), and (H)'';
       (2) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``and (G)'' and 
     inserting ``(G), and (H)''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(H) C-band auction proceeds.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (A), and except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     of the proceeds (including deposits and upfront payments from 
     successful bidders) from the use of a system of competitive 
     bidding under this subsection to award licenses in the band 
     of frequencies between 3700 megahertz and 3980 megahertz 
     (designated by the Commission as `Auction 107'), 
     $1,100,000,000 shall be deposited in the general fund of the 
     Treasury and used for emergency assistance under section 
     90009(a) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.''.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.


                             Infrastructure

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because I note 
the Democrats being so eager to move to their reckless tax-and-spending 
spree, and it is something I absolutely oppose. If we pass a bill of 
that magnitude, the American people will be paying more in taxes, will 
be paying more in the cost of living, and it will continue to impact 
the American people in a very negative way.
  Right now, the Senate is debating a separate bill, an infrastructure 
bill, and, in fact, the bills are not completely separate. It would be 
nice if they were, but they are not. The reason they are not separate 
is because Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, has made it 
abundantly clear that any bipartisan infrastructure bill that is passed 
here in this Senate won't see the light of day in the House of 
Representatives unless and until, as she has said, the Senate also 
sends her a multitrillion-dollar reckless tax-and-spending bill. 
According to one nonpartisan group, that bill could cost up to $5.5 
trillion over the next 10 years.
  Now, Nancy Pelosi has said time and time again that there will not be 
one penny for roads, not one penny for bridges, not one penny for 
airports or ports until she gets the reckless tax-and-spending bill 
that she is demanding. It wasn't a negotiation; it was a hijacking. And 
Nancy Pelosi isn't just a hijacker; she is also an arsonist. What she 
is proposing is going to pour jet fuel on the fire of inflation that is 
currently ravaging the country.
  The flame was lit months ago when Democrats borrowed $2 trillion 
under the name of COVID relief. But just look at the economic 
projections before the bill became law. Some people failed to predict 
the inflation. The Federal Reserve failed to predict it. The White 
House budget office said: Oh, no, we won't get inflation. The 
Congressional Budget Office said no. There were Democratic economists, 
though, who warned that it would happen, and Republicans pointed out 
clearly that it was going to happen, and that is what has happened now. 
Democrats refused to listen. They borrowed and spent an additional $2 
trillion, and inflation has gone up every month since.
  Core inflation is now the fastest and highest it has been in 40 
years. Who are the victims of this? Well, they are people who are on 
fixed incomes; they are seniors; they are working families trying to 
get by. Now it costs $25 more every time you fill up your vehicle with 
gasoline. If you fill up a truck in Wyoming, it could be even more than

[[Page S5797]]

that compared to the fill-ups of Inauguration Day. If you go to the 
grocery store now, it is about $25 more for the weekly trip to the 
grocery store. So you are talking $25 extra a week in gas, $25 extra a 
week in groceries; $50 extra a week, which comes to $2,500 annually for 
a hard-working family in America because of the inflation Joe Biden and 
the Democrats have brought upon us.
  Of course, this kind of inflation slows our economic recovery. I just 
found out last week that economic growth is significantly below what 
economists had predicted it should be at this point. It does seem the 
Democrats still haven't learned basic economics. Now they want to make 
the same mistake all over again, even at a higher level. They want to 
borrow and spend trillions more.
  Last week, we found out that the previous Democratic bill gave $800 
million to prisoners behind bars. Now, Tom Cotton and I came to this 
floor, and we tried to stop the Democrats from giving our taxpayer 
dollars to prisoners currently behind bars. We specifically warned it 
would happen as stimulus checks were sent out around the country. We 
tried to stop this as part of the Democratic spending bill, but all 50 
Democrats, every one of them supported direct checks to prisoners 
behind bars. The senior Senator from Illinois came to the floor and 
gave a speech defending it. He implied it would be racist not to give 
free money to people behind bars
  Every one of the 50 Democrats put $800 million of American taxpayer 
dollars on the credit card and sent checks to prisoners behind bars. 
This means more debt and more inflation for law-abiding citizens in 
exchange for money to criminals. It tells the American people all we 
need to know about the priorities of the Democratic Party.
  Now Democrats want another round of payoffs. This payoff is even more 
expensive than the last one. Democrats are promising payoffs to all 
their favorite groups: climate activists, leftwing professors, trial 
lawyers, and union bosses. This bill, this reckless tax-and-spending 
bill, includes one liberal priority after another.
  Even as we face the worst border crisis in the last two decades, 
Democrats are now promising amnesty and citizenship and voting rights 
for millions of illegal immigrants. Once they get amnesty, then they 
can get all the other Democratic payoffs as well. This is going to lead 
to an additional tidal wave of illegal immigration, and all of this has 
a price tag, and someone has to pay.
  Democrats tell nice stories, and Republicans do the math. This bill 
is so expensive, the Democrats will have to go after every working 
family in America in order to pay for it. One way or another, every 
working American will end up paying for this. There is not some rich 
person who is going to be able to pay for all of this. There aren't 
enough rich people on Earth to pay for this level of spending.
  Democrats are going to go after the majority of the people in this 
country, and, of course, that is the middle class. That is exactly what 
they intend to do with this bill because this bill is going to raise 
taxes on family farms and ranches.
  According to the accounting firm Ernst and Young, this bill, this 
spending bill that Nancy Pelosi is demanding go from the Senate to the 
House before any infrastructure bill is passed, would eliminate 80,000 
jobs over 10 years. The bill would raise taxes on small businesses, 
which are already struggling to stay open because of Democratic 
policies. Anyone who sells their home will pay thousands and thousands 
more in taxes.
  Now, this is also going to include a carbon import tax, which will 
drive up prices even higher.
  The bill would be a socialist takeover of our economy--more taxes, 
more spending, more debt, more government eating into people's 
paychecks and eating into their savings. There is not a single 
Republican in the House or in the Senate who is going to support this 
reckless tax-and-spending spree.
  We need to stop this freight train to socialism. We don't have a 
taxing problem in this country; we have a spending problem. Inflation 
is already high enough. We know what the cause is. We know it is the 
cause of the excessive Democratic spending, and this is going to make 
it worse. Families across this country are struggling right now to make 
ends meet. Family businesses are struggling to stay open. It is time to 
stop this reckless tax-and-spending spree.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Senator from Arizona.


                             Maiden Speech

  Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, it is an honor to rise today to deliver my 
maiden speech.
  Nine months ago, the people of Arizona trusted me with a great 
responsibility: to represent them in the U.S. Senate; to do so during a 
pandemic that has challenged every one of us, taken loved ones too 
soon, and battered our economy; and to fill the remaining years of 
Senator John McCain's sixth term.
  Each day since then, I have gone to work for the people of Arizona, 
striving to fulfill that responsibility, undeterred by the challenges 
we have in front of us because that is what Arizonans have done over 
the last year and a half--protecting their families from this virus, 
keeping themselves and their businesses afloat, and looking out for 
their neighbors.
  Arizonans have faced down this virus and the economic fallout that 
came with it with determination. And I came here to have their backs 
and to work towards a brighter future for our growing State because we 
can't just rebuild our economy the way it was before. We have to 
reinvent it and create the jobs of the future, good-paying jobs that 
you can actually raise a family on. It is a long to-do list. But, hey, 
I am used to those.

  The checklist for flying the Space Shuttle stands about 6 feet tall. 
The Senate, though, is not NASA. It doesn't move as fast. And it is not 
the U.S. Navy, either, where everyone works together toward a common 
goal.
  But my wife, Gabby, taught me a thing or two about how to listen and 
how to find common ground. Now, she loved representing Arizona in 
Congress, and no one works harder than she does. Now, neither of us 
expected that it would be me serving here in the U.S. Senate. I might 
have been the astronaut, but it turned out that she is the one who 
would nearly lose her life serving our country.
  I am so proud of her and of her relentless positivity that she brings 
to her continued rehabilitation. It inspires me each and every day. I 
could not do this without her support or the support of my daughters, 
Claudia and Claire, or my first grandchild, Sage, who was born in May. 
Maybe, I am not so sure about her support; she is only 2 months old.
  But in my first days here, I spoke to Republicans and Democrats to 
work on emergency COVID relief. For so many Arizonans, the relief we 
got passed was a lifeline--the difference between bankruptcy and 
keeping the lights on, between losing their small business and paying 
their employees. I have heard that countless of times as I have 
traveled across the State.
  In March, on my 100th day in the Senate, I spoke with a group of 
Arizonans to understand how COVID-19 was impacting them and their 
families. One of those conversations really stuck with me, and I want 
to take a second to tell you about Susana Andrade.
  Prior to the pandemic, Susana worked in a school cafeteria in South 
Phoenix. Her husband worked as a landscaper. When the pandemic spiked 
in Arizona, her husband's work slowed down and the school closed. But 
Susana and her coworkers kept going to work. The school was continuing 
to offer meals for pickup for students and families who needed them, 
and a lot of them needed these meals. She told me that they initially 
were just offering breakfast and lunch, but then they added dinner and 
a snack because the demand was just so high.
  Susana and her coworkers knew how hard the pandemic had hit the 
community, how many folks were out of work. There were students who 
wouldn't eat if they weren't there to make the meals. So she kept going 
to work, making and packing meals for students and their families.
  And, then, in February, she and her entire family got sick with 
COVID. She couldn't go to work for weeks, and she and her family 
struggled to pay their bills that month while they tried to recover.
  Now, Susana's story has stuck with me over the last year. Here is a 
hard-

[[Page S5798]]

working Arizona family doing everything right, who just got knocked off 
their feet. At the same time, Susana embodies the best of what we saw 
during this awful pandemic: neighbors and parents making tremendous 
sacrifices to help one another get through this.
  I spoke to Susana recently. She told me that days after we spoke in 
March, she and her family received their stimulus checks, and it made 
such a big difference in their lives. But she is still now living 
paycheck to paycheck, working two jobs, trying to provide for her 
family to just get ahead.
  I understand that. Growing up, my mother worked both as a secretary 
and a waitress at the same time. When my brother and I were in middle 
school, she decided to become a police officer, like my dad. But she 
had to pass this physical fitness test, which was designed for men. But 
my mother was not discouraged. She wasn't discouraged by that or by the 
fact that, if she would pass, she would become one of the first female 
police officers in our home town. In fact, I think she liked that. That 
was my mom for you.
  But I knew that she believed that the increased and steady salary 
would help our family. My mother wanted to give my brother and me every 
opportunity to succeed. She showed us what we could achieve by having a 
goal and a plan and working hard at it.
  I am here because of a good public education and because of the 
opportunity that my parents created for me to serve our country and 
pursue my dreams. But for so many families, it is becoming harder to 
get ahead, and the pandemic only made this more difficult. Businesses 
shuttered, savings drained, and debt and bills piled up.
  What every parent wants--what my mom wanted--is to be able to work 
hard and give their children a future filled with opportunity.
  That is why the most important responsibility we have here is not 
just to rebuild our economy but to reinvent it for the future. And 
doing that starts with infrastructure: roads, bridges, water, the power 
grid, high-speed internet. And it is not just in big cities but in 
rural and small towns, in smalltown Arizona and Tribal communities. 
That is the item on our checklist now.
  Arizona is facing a severe drought that requires us to improve our 
water infrastructure and increase or resiliency.
  Schoolbuses on the Navajo Nation cost three times as much to maintain 
because so many of the roads are unpaved.
  I-10, which runs through the center of our State, between Tucson and 
Phoenix, has not been expanded in years. A signal accident can cause 
delays for hours. That happens almost every day.
  It is clear that Arizona will benefit from upgrading and modernizing 
our infrastructure. That is why, for the past few months, I have been 
working with a group of Republicans and Democrats to come to an 
agreement on a historic investment in our infrastructure. I advocated 
for Arizona's priorities, and we worked together to find common ground 
and work out our differences. And now we are on the verge of passing it
  This is going to fix roads and bridges, improve Tribal water and 
transportation infrastructure, expand affordable high-speed internet 
access, and make Arizona more resilient to drought and wildfires.
  I have been determined to deliver these infrastructure investments 
that Arizona needs to continue to grow. We want to grow, and we want to 
attract new and innovative companies to our State because Arizona's 
prosperity depends on continuing to create new, high-paying jobs, 
including growing our tech sector.
  Now, one of the biggest success stories of our growing tech sector is 
an industry that actually produces something physically small, 
microchips.
  Microchips go in everything, from our phones and appliances and cars 
to computers, but also the most sophisticated fighter jets and missile 
systems.
  There is currently a global shortage of microchips, and the truth is, 
today, just 12 percent of them are manufactured here in the United 
States. It used to be 40 percent. Many foreign competitors, including 
China, are investing heavily to try to dominate this industry.
  Now, Arizona does manufacture a lot of microchips. It already employs 
about 30,000 people in good-paying jobs in this industry, and it is 
poised to grow. We recently announced investment plans from Intel and 
the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. Arizona can lead the 
way as we restore more microchip manufacturing and development to 
American soil.
  That is the goal of this $52 billion plan that I spent months working 
on with Senators Cornyn and Warner, to create new advanced 
manufacturing facilities, or fabs, in places like Arizona. I made it my 
mission to get this passed through the Senate because it is important. 
It is important to our economy, and it is important to our national 
security, ensuring that our supply chain for something so critical does 
not depend on adversaries like China.
  Transformational investments such as this will create thousands of 
high-paying jobs, and we got it passed through the Senate, Republicans 
and Democrats working together.
  Now, we must continue working on this checklist, getting Arizonans 
the skills they need for these new jobs. For some, that will mean 
getting a college degree in science or engineering.
  Arizona is home to three world-class universities that are leaders in 
research and innovation. We must continue to educate the best 
scientists and engineers in the world. That is the only way we are 
going to stay ahead.
  At the same time, we know that about a third of students who graduate 
from high school will not pursue a
4-year degree. Now, that doesn't mean that they can't be set up for 
success in the 21st century economy, and we need to make sure that they 
are.
  Advanced manufacturing facilities, like the microchip fabs that I 
mentioned earlier, for those we need well-trained semiconductor 
processors, and we need electricians, and we need HVAC technicians. 
These are good-paying careers for those who get the skills and training 
that they need.
  And right now, a lot of young Arizonans are getting those skills 
through our community college system.
  At Pima Community College's downtown campus in Tucson, they have a 
new Automotive Technology and Innovation Center that I visited last 
month. Their students are learning how to operate the software that 
automatically controls drills and lathes and milling machines and 3D 
printers and other tools. They can be trained not just in traditional 
automotive technology but in electric vehicles as well.
  Arizona is becoming a center for innovative electric vehicle 
manufacturers. So why shouldn't we be getting these students the skills 
they need for this technology right now?
  Pima Community College's chancellor, Chancellor Lambert, calls this 
much needed approach ``moving at the speed of business.'' What he means 
is our education system must meet the demands of today's workforce, and 
that has to be the case not just in major metro areas but in rural 
Arizona, as well, and in rural America.
  At Yavapai College in Northern Arizona, they just opened a new 
Skilled Trades Center in Clarkdale, where they will train a new 
generation of construction workers and plumbers and electricians and 
HVAC technicians.
  I could not be more impressed with Arizona's community college 
system.
  Yavapai College is also taking advantage of partnerships with 
companies to set students up with opportunities that prepare them to 
immediately enter the workforce in industries like mining.
  Moving at the speed of business, that is how we are going to prepare 
hard-working young students to get these good-paying jobs. It is also 
how we are going to outcompete and outinnovative other countries like 
China, having a talented workforce that can fill the jobs of the future 
and develop cutting-edge technologies that are critical not just to our 
economy but to our national security as well.
  Now, these are issues that I know Republicans and Democrats agree on.
  And even on tough issues, I believe that we can also find common 
ground. We have had crisis after crisis at our border, each a result of 
decades of failure in Washington to adequately address border security 
and fix our broken immigration system.
  Senator Portman and I have introduced bipartisan legislation that 
would require the Department of Homeland Security to finally develop a 
plan to

[[Page S5799]]

handle increases at the border, to take the politics out of this, no 
matter which party controls Congress or the White House, and to provide 
dedicated funding to carry out that plan and ensure a secure, humane 
process at the border. Finding common ground on issues like this is 
hard, but it is important.
  Like many of you, like many of my colleagues, I spent years admiring 
the way the late Senator John McCain represented Arizona in the U.S. 
Senate. But my first impressions of John McCain were not of him as a 
Senator but of his service in the Navy. He was a hero of young naval 
aviators like me--an example of how to serve your country honorably and 
bravely, including in the impossible circumstance of being shot down 
and captured.
  His legacy means so much to the State of Arizona, and it lives on 
through his children and his wife, Cindy, whom I am so grateful to have 
here today in the Gallery.
  Thank you.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  His legacy, it is something that cannot be matched, but it is what 
inspires me serving in this Senate seat. And it is his example of 
bipartisanship, of independence that continues to demand more of us. So 
I am going to continue focusing on delivering results, on beating this 
virus, and reinventing our economy for the future so that hard-working 
Arizonans have every opportunity to succeed.
  Arizonans sent me here to have their backs, and that is what I intend 
to do.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  (Applause, Senators rising.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                               H.R. 3684

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, there are a lot of folks gathering around 
our new Senator from Arizona, congratulating him, commending him on his 
speech.
  I said to him--I am Navy. We have got a bunch of military people that 
serve here: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. But in the Navy, when 
somebody does an especially good job, we say ``Bravo Zulu.'' And that 
was an exceptional, exceptional address.
  We are delighted to be joined by Cindy McCain.
  Before I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin for his amendment, the 
theme that we just heard from our new Senator from Arizona really 
focuses on preparing, through the groundwork, plowing the field in 
anticipation of creating jobs. And we do that in a lot of ways. He has 
mentioned a bunch of them in terms of technology jobs and so forth.
  One of the other ways is what we are doing with the legislation 
before us today, and that is investing in our infrastructure broadly, 
not just roads, highways, and bridges; not just waterworks; not just 
broadband; not just surface transportation. All of the above. All of 
the above.
  So it is a great way to start our day today.
  With that, I yield the floor. I think the gentleman, our colleague 
from Wisconsin, has some comments that he may want to make, unless the 
leader wishes to go next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.


                           Amendment No. 2245

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise to speak to my amendment that is 
completely germane to the discussion of infrastructure. I can't think 
of more important infrastructure that would actually secure our 
homeland from a variety of threats.
  But as I have always said, coming from a manufacturing background, 
the first step in solving a problem is admitting you have one, and 
right now this administration is in a complete state of denial 
regarding the crisis that is on the border.
  This crisis has been growing. It is not a seasonal surge; this is a 
growing problem. This has been a growing problem, and I have my chart 
here that demonstrates that.
  Here is January. This is when President Biden came into office. You 
can see the enormous surge of the crisis he created. Vice President 
Harris went down to Central America looking for the root cause of this 
crisis. She only would have had to walk into the Oval Office and look 
at President Biden because President Biden is the root cause of this 
crisis.
  It is his policies, the dismantling of successful policies from the 
previous administration that had stemmed the flow, that had largely 
secured our border until this President took office and reversed all 
that progress. It is a real shame.
  Let me just give you the numbers because you have to describe the 
problem. This has been growing. For the last 4 or 5 months, in 
particular, we have been averaging, first, almost 6,000 and now over 
6,000 apprehensions per day--6,000. In June it was 6,249. In July it 
will probably be over 6,500. There have been weeks we believe it is 
over 7,000 people per day coming in and being apprehended at the 
border.
  Now, that doesn't even count the 750 to 1,000 known got-aways. DHS is 
now--or CPP, at least, is now estimating that is going to result in 
about 269,000 people coming into this country that we know they came 
in; we just couldn't catch them. This also doesn't even describe or 
enumerate how many unknown got-aways.
  So, again, the fact of the matter is, from January through July, 
approximately 1.3 million people have been apprehended coming into this 
country without documentation. About 173,000 of those individuals have 
been released in the interior, either with a notice to appear or, even 
worse, a notice to report. If you multiply that times 2, that is 
346,000 people dispersed to all points of America.
  DHS, this administration, is not notifying the States, not notifying 
the cities that these individuals, apparently claiming asylum, are 
coming into communities near you. You add that to the 269,000 estimated 
known got-aways, that is over 600,000 people just this year. That is 
larger than the population in the State of Wyoming. It is approaching 
the population of the State of Vermont.
  And, again, this is while we have the title 42 restrictions in place. 
Probably about 900,000 people in the first 7 months had been returned 
under title 42. If the administration ends that program, imagine the 
surge.

  Now, there once was a time when securing the border was a nonpartisan 
issue. Senator McCain led the charge. In 2006, this body passed, on a 
vote of 80 to 19, the Secure Fence Act, which was going to build about 
700 miles of fence. In the end, only 36 miles was double-layer fencing; 
the rest was pretty ineffective, as we have seen.
  But voting for that bill was President Biden, President Obama, 
Senator Carper, Secretary of State Clinton, Senator Feinstein, Senator 
Schumer, Senator Wyden, Senator Stabenow. This was a bipartisan effort 
to secure our border. But somewhere between 2006 and 2021, this has 
become a partisan issue.
  Now, what is absurd is, in the last administration, again, we pretty 
well solved the problem, had allocated about $10 billion to build the 
fence. It has all been contracted. It has all been paid for. We have 
built about 453 miles of the 738 miles that was contracted for; 285 
miles remain unbuilt.
  An exit report by Senator Lankford shows that we have spent about $2 
billion getting out of those contracts--$2 billion to not build the 
wall. It is costing us $3 million a day just to guard the steel fencing 
that is lying there not being used.
  So my amendment is very simple. It is very common sense. It says, 
please, let's recognize fences work. Certainly, Congress recognized it 
when we put a double layer around the people's House for a number of 
months, spent hundreds of millions of dollars on that security effort.
  So let's not waste the taxpayers' money. Let's recognize walls work. 
We need to complete the 285 miles of wall that will help secure our 
border, that will help secure our homeland, and that will help keep 
Americans safe.
  It is a very simple amendment. Let's hope it is not a partisan 
result.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise to oppose the Johnson amendment. 
This measure would force continued payment of government contractors to 
build an ill-conceived border wall.
  Most of these funds were never intended for this purpose. More than 
$10 billion was redirected from the Department of Defense, and these 
funds were intended for military installations and functions such as 
schools for military

[[Page S5800]]

children and National Guard equipment.
  The Biden administration is conducting a comprehensive review of 
these contracts, led by the Department of Defense and Homeland 
Security. DHS has recently announced that they will continue work on 
certain commonsense projects on the southern border to address life, 
safety, environmental, and operational considerations. These decisions 
will be guided by what is best for our national security, not well-
connected government contractors profiting off of hard-earned taxpayer 
dollars.
  We need to move forward with smart, bipartisan investments that 
secure both our southern and our northern borders, and we must not look 
backward at the former administration's boondoggle.
  I urge my colleagues to vote no on the Johnson amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, in quick response, the prior 
administration's--what the good Senator claimed a ``boondoggle'' 
worked.
  During this comprehensive review by this administration--again, this 
administration is the root cause of this problem; they caused this--the 
problem is growing worse. It is not getting better.
  Congress, by supporting a double layer of fence around this Capitol 
for months, spent hundreds of millions of dollars keeping us safe and 
secure, recognizes that fencing and walls work.
  Again, this fencing has been paid for. This wall has been paid for. 
Two billion dollars will be wasted. Three million dollars a day will be 
wasted. This is just common sense, and it will improve the security of 
this Nation.
  And, again, in 2006, this was a bipartisan type of effort. Building 
700 miles of fence was bipartisan: 80 to 19. It should be bipartisan 
today. I am urging my colleagues, let's finish building this wall. 
Let's not waste billions of dollars in taxpayer money.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
Senate for several minutes on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. I am 
the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Appropriations for Homeland 
Security. The President's budget request included a rescission of $2 
billion that we, as Members of this body, put, enacted, as the 
gentleman from Wisconsin has clearly illuminated.
  And, at the same time, we are having a tremendous problem at our 
southern border. We all know this. We don't have the July numbers out 
yet, but we know that apprehensions are going to be in excess of over 
200,000 in 1 month.
  The July numbers also indicate that the number of unaccompanied 
children is the largest ever encountered in 1 month.
  There are currently now over 150 miles of wall system projects that 
we as Congress legally funded that are now in jeopardy of being 
canceled. When you go to the border, you see millions of dollars' worth 
of steel slats lying on the ground that were to be constructed until 
President Biden canceled those projects. Do you know who else sees 
those border walls on the ground? Human traffickers. Drug smugglers.
  I have, as we all have, been to the southern border several times. 
Customs and Border Patrol agents have told us that a border wall is a 
necessary part of a system to stop the flow of illegal immigration and 
illicit drugs.
  The border wall is infrastructure. It is infrastructure to keep 
America safe. It is infrastructure to keep drugs out of this country. 
It is infrastructure to control illegal immigration.
  I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Johnson amendment to prohibit 
the cancelation of contracts to build the border wall.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, over the years, I have made any number of 
trips to our Nation's southern border. I have also traveled extensively 
throughout Central America--and sometimes with the author of this 
legislation--with many colleagues, Democratic and Republican. One of 
the people who have been to that part of the world more than me is a 
guy who used to serve here in the Senate--later, Vice President--and 
that is our President, Joe Biden.
  There is a verse in Scripture in the New Testament, Matthew 25, which 
speaks to the least of these, and one of the things: When I was hungry, 
did you feed me? When I was naked, did you clothe me? When I was 
thirsty, did you get me to drink? When I was a stranger in your land, 
did you welcome me? Did you welcome me?
  To the extent we have looked out for the least of these, then we have 
a brighter future.
  But anyway, the reason I raise that, we have this moral imperative to 
look out for the least of these, and that includes people who end up on 
our borders looking for safe haven. The reason why so many people 
continue to come to our borders from Central America--especially 
Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador--is because they live lives in 
fear; deprived of economic opportunity and hope; corruption, crime. You 
know, if any of us lived there with our families, we would want to get 
out of there, too, and find a place to go to with a brighter future.
  As a former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, border 
security is enormously important. We need secure borders; no question 
about that. There are a whole bunch of force multipliers which help 
provide more secure borders, including barriers--including barriers--
and I have supported them. So has the Senator, who is also a former 
chairman of the committee. We have traveled in that part of the world 
together.
  One of the things we fully agree on is what I just said. We can spend 
the next, you know, year, 5 years, 10 years securing our border. That 
is important. But if we don't address those root causes of why people 
are coming here, 10, 20 years from now, they will still be coming. They 
will still be coming. We have to be smarter than that.
  This is a shared responsibility; it is not all on the United States. 
I said to my colleague from West Virginia, I like to use the example of 
Home Depot, which Ron Johnson, Senator Johnson, heard me use more than 
a few times. Home Depot--their ad line is ``You can do it. We can 
help.'' In these countries we are getting all this immigration flow 
from, they can do it, but we can help.
  One of the things we set up was something called the Alliance for 
Prosperity a number of years ago, with Democratic and Republican 
support--I think with support of certainly then-Vice President Biden 
and Senator McCain, the late John McCain. Among the things that we need 
to focus on and we are doing under the Alliance for Prosperity are, 
one, addressing crime and violence; two, addressing corruption; and 
three, economic hope and opportunity. Those are the three buckets. We 
put money in those buckets, the expectation is that those three 
countries put even more money in those buckets, matching us 2, 3, 4, 5 
dollars for every dollar that we put up. There are other countries that 
we have an expectation for them to help. There are private businesses; 
there is an expectation for them to help. Nonprofits. There is an 
expectation for all. This is a shared responsibility.

  As the place where all these illegal drugs are coming from, moving 
those drugs through these three countries--we have some moral 
responsibility to do something to help the situation down there, not 
just at the border.
  So with that in mind, I am not going to support this amendment. But I 
would just note, I always look for common ground. The author of the 
amendment knows full well--I have heard him talk about it eloquently, 
about the need to go after root causes. For as long as we have been 
working on this issue, all those years, we have needed to work on root 
causes, and we still do today as well.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I need to respond quickly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are now 2 minutes equally divided before 
a vote on the Johnson amendment.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I need to respond quickly.

[[Page S5801]]

  Senator Carper was talking about root causes. The root cause of the 
instability--the primary cause of the violence in Central America is 
Americans' insatiable demand for drugs. If you solve that problem, you 
solve the root cause of the problem, and you won't have the violence.
  But the root cause of this current crisis--because it was already 
solved--the root cause of this current crisis is President Biden's 
policies. President Biden is the root cause. So if you want to fix 
this, we can fix it. Secure the border. Go back to the policies that 
worked. We are not going to be able to fix Central America until we end 
our insatiable demand for drugs.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, colleagues, in about 48 hours, about a 
third of the Senate is going to be on an airplane heading for Gillette, 
WY, and we are going to go and say goodbye to our friend and colleague 
Mike Enzi.
  I will never forget where I was sitting about, I don't know, 20 years 
ago as the Presiding Officer, and Mike Enzi was literally standing 
almost right where you are, talking about the 80-20 rule and why they 
were so successful in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee. Senator Kennedy and Mike Enzi--Democrat, Republican--how 
they were able to find common ground and get stuff done: the 80-20 
rule.
  I said to Mike Enzi that day: What is the 80-20 rule?
  He said: About 80 percent of the stuff, Ted and I agree on, and about 
20 percent, we don't. What we do is we focus on the 80 percent where we 
agree.
  There is common ground here. I think that the Senator from Wisconsin 
knows what it is. And I would ask that in addition to talking about our 
differences, let's talk about where we agree, and let's do good work 
there.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2245

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. JOHNSON. 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 proceeded to call the roll
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).
  The result was announced--yeas 48, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 298 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     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
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--49

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Graham
     Inhofe
     Sasse
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 
49.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2245) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.


                           Amendment No. 2146

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I offer today what should be considered a 
friendly amendment to the broadband section of this infrastructure 
bill.
  Why is it a friendly amendment?
  Because by using the Administrative Procedure Act, which my amendment 
would provide, it would save billions of dollars in broadband build-out 
funds. It would provide for consumer input, stakeholder input, local 
and State government input into NTIA--the Agency that will be in charge 
of this broadband build-out. And also because it will not delay the 
broadband build-out in any way.
  Now, as written today, the broadband section waives the 
Administrative Procedure Act. The Wicker amendment would simply strike 
that waive and make the Administrative Procedure Act apply to the 
broadband section as it applies to so many big programs that are 
enacted.
  If we pass this amendment, here will be the timeline: Let's assume 
the President doesn't get around to signing this bill until October 1. 
I would expect the President would sign it earlier than that, but let's 
assume that he does that. There will be 30 days of notice, 30 days of 
public comment after the notice is published, a review of those 
comments, which could take 30 to 40 days. At that point the regulations 
are published and, after 30 days, they go into effect.
  So by my calculations, assuming the President is very, very late in 
signing the bill, the act and the regulations under the Administrative 
Procedure Act would be done by February 7.
  Now, what we all know--what everyone in this Chamber knows--is that 
we have to wait on the FCC maps, and they will not be ready until the 
earliest--until the earliest--by spring of next year, and that is--that 
is very, very optimistic.
  So we have time to do it right, to get public input, to have people 
who have already experienced this come to the Agency and say: You might 
want to do it this way; or: You might want to avoid doing it that way 
because here is our experience.
  We did this one time before, and it was only $4.7 billion. This is 
$42 billion. That was the BTOP program, which was enacted in 2009.
  We skipped this. We gave it to an Agency which is going to have it 
this time, the NTIA--a staff of only 157 people--to monitor back then 
$4.7 billion; this time it is $42 billion.
  Here is what we learned about the BTOP program, which is an awful lot 
like this one: When Congress asked NTIA to administer this, the results 
were deeply troubling.
  Let me quote the inspector general, let me quote the Stanford 
Institute for Economic Policy, and the Phoenix Center. Their own 
inspector general found that the Agency faced significant challenges in 
managing the size and complexity of the program. It is a program a 
tenth the size of what we are talking about today.
  The Stanford Institute said NTIA's mechanism for selecting projects 
was incoherent. NTIA, had they adopted more a reasonable framework, 
many more households could have been connected with the same money, or 
the same number of connections could have been realized for a fraction 
of the cost, because they didn't do what I am advocating today.
  The Phoenix Center, an independent think tank, said they found no 
positive effect on home broadband adoption from the BTOP program.
  My fellow colleagues, years from now, when someone realizes we have 
wasted billions of dollars on this build-out, I would want, and I think 
my colleagues would want, to say: Well, I voted yes on the Wicker 
amendment to take the extra 130, 140 days to hear what went right and 
what went wrong in the past and to make sure we get it right.
  No Senator has worked harder than I have on broadband build-out. I 
want this program to succeed. This is a way to make sure we spend the 
money correctly, to make sure we do it right.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
an article dated August 3, just yesterday, from the National Journal.
  It says: ``How $65 billion for broadband infrastructure could fall 
short.''
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at this 
point
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S5802]]

  


               [From the National Journal, Aug. 3, 2021]

     How $65 Billion for Broadband Infrastructure Could Fall Short

                         (By Brendan Bordelon)

       The $65 billion set aside for high-speed internet in the 
     Senate's bipartisan infrastructure deal is just a small piece 
     of the bill's $550 billion in new spending. But don't call 
     the plan unambitious.
       ``It's the biggest broadband bill in the history of the 
     country,'' said Gigi Sohn, a fellow at the Georgetown Law 
     Institute for Technology Law & Policy and a former Democratic 
     official at the Federal Communications Commission.
       ``Would I have preferred more money for deployment? Yeah,'' 
     said Sohn. ``I would like to see $100 billion rather than $65 
     billion. But this is a bipartisan bill, and I think that is 
     super important to remember and appreciate.''
       Some of those billions are earmarked for a tribal 
     connectivity fund, `middle-mile' broadband deployments rural 
     telemedicine, distance learning, and other discrete 
     provisions. But the heart of the Senate's broadband 
     infrastructure deal is a $42 billion pot of money for state 
     and territorial governments, which will have to convince 
     Washington that their plan to build out high-speed internet 
     to rural and underserved regions will work before receiving 
     federal grants.
       But there's a catch. While that money will be set aside 
     immediately after the legislation is signed into law, the 
     bill stipulates that no funds can be sent to states until 
     after the FCC fixes its much-maligned set of national 
     broadband maps showing where coverage exists and where it 
     doesn't.
       The latest FCC estimate suggests that around 14.5 million 
     Americans now live in regions without access to broadband. 
     But other estimates have come in much higher, and the 
     persistence of inaccurate maps means no one really knows for 
     sure.
       Lawmakers and policy experts alike had mulled whether it 
     made sense to move ahead on broadband funding despite not 
     knowing how much money is needed or where to put it. In the 
     end, however, the increasing importance of high-speed-
     internet access in a pandemic-stricken world--and the 
     unlikely chance that Congress can summon the energy and 
     bipartisanship needed to address the question at a later 
     date--pushed the Senate to act.
       ``To wait would make the perfect be the enemy of the very 
     good,'' said John Horrigan, a senior fellow at the Benton 
     Institute for Broadband and Society. ``If you're going to not 
     act until you have the best data, it's going to take a long 
     time for you to act.''
       The FCC will not say when it expects to finish the new, 
     more accurate maps. But so far the commission hasn't even 
     completed the necessary procurement and contracting efforts. 
     And most telecom experts believe the maps won't be ready for 
     prime time until next year at the earliest.
       ``It's going to be a couple of years before really 
     substantial amounts of money start being dug into the ground 
     and strung up on telephone poles,'' said Doug Brake, the 
     director of broadband and spectrum policy at the Information 
     Technology and Innovation Foundation.
       A lack of accurate maps could further slow broadband 
     deployment by making it hard for states to formulate their 
     own plans. Even once the FCC maps are completed, it will take 
     time for state governments to digest their findings, 
     determine where and how to spend federal dollars, and submit 
     those plans to Washington for approval.
       Some states are taking matters into their own hands. In 
     2020, Georgia partnered with LightBox, a commercial real-
     estate-data provider, to publish their own statewide 
     broadband map. And there's a surge of interest from other 
     states--Pennsylvania and Maine are already working on their 
     own maps, and Caroline Stoll, the head of sales and strategic 
     partnership at LightBox, said the company is in talks with 
     several more states looking to replicate Georgia's map.
       ``It is a very, very good use of time and resources by the 
     states to develop their own map,'' said Sohn.
       Beyond a lack of maps, there are other potential pitfalls 
     in the Senate's plan to fund broadband infrastructure. Recent 
     efforts by the federal government to finance high-speed-
     internet projects have been conducted through reverse 
     auctions run by the FCC. The new plan puts individual states 
     in charge of their buildouts, allowing for greater 
     experimentation with funding structures and broadband 
     technologies--states can decide whether to pursue primarily 
     wired or wireless options, for example. But it could also 
     open the door to overbuilding and waste.
       Scott Wallsten, the president of the Technology Policy 
     Institute, said the decision to put states in the driver's 
     seat ``is going to tremendously reduce the efficiency of the 
     program.''
       ``The most efficient way to allocate the money--the way you 
     get the biggest bang for the buck--is a reverse auction,'' 
     said Wallsten.
       Gregory Rosston, the director of the public-policy program 
     at Stanford University and a former FCC economist, said he 
     expects state efforts will be spotty, with some doing a good 
     job of planning buildouts while others fall short. He also 
     worried that state broadband plans will be ``much more 
     subjective and subject to influence than a more centralized, 
     transparent system.''
       And Brake has issues with the $100 million minimum that 
     each state is slated to receive for high-speed internet. He 
     said that smaller, denser states like Connecticut may not 
     need that much money to provide complete coverage to its 
     citizens.
       ``To get something through the Senate, that's kind of the 
     price of doing business,'' said Brake. ``Everyone's got to 
     get something.'' Still, Brake said the Senate's 
     infrastructure deal is a marked improvement from recent 
     proposals like the BRIDGE Act, which would've ignored the 
     lack of broadband maps and divvied up federal funds through 
     imprecise metrics like raw population and the percentage of 
     rural or low-income citizens.
       ``I think it could be potentially more efficient if this 
     was sort of run through a single process within the federal 
     government,'' Brake said. ``[But] it's improved a lot in this 
     new version.''

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I don't want this program to fall short; I 
want it to succeed. This amendment gives us a chance to get the money 
right, to take the extra time that we are going to have to take anyway 
to get the maps right. It is a good government amendment, a friendly 
amendment, and I urge bipartisan adoption of it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. KING. Mr. President, with all due respect to my friend from 
Mississippi, I don't consider this a friendly amendment. I consider 
this a major departure from the agreed-upon structure of this broadband 
section of the bill that we are talking about.
  This, as we all know, was a heavily negotiated bill. There are 
provisions in it that I don't like. There are provisions in it that I 
wish were there that aren't there because of the negotiation.
  This provision, which appears innocent, to reinsert the 
Administrative Procedure Act into this process would bureaucratize the 
process, slow it down, and would not assist in the process.
  Here are some points that I think need to be made:
  The first is I consider the broadband section one of the crown jewels 
of this entire bill. And the fact that it is structured in such a way 
that the grants will go to the States and the States will decide how 
best to administer those programs because of their knowledge of their 
needs in their States--yes, they are going to use maps--updated maps, I 
should say--from the FCC, but this is, really, a State-driven process.
  The Administrative Procedure Act is principally a regulatory process, 
and we are not talking about a regulatory process here. We are not 
talking about the issuance of a lot of long and detailed regulations. 
We are talking about a grant program to States, and so the burdensome 
administrative requirements of the APA are really not necessary in this 
case because it is not a regulatory process.
  There is already significant oversight built into the statute. There 
are 68 pages that have all kinds of requirements for public notice, 
filing online, public disclosure, comment, and involvement of 
communities of other providers, of all of those interested parties in 
this process. So it is not like it is some kind of closed process.
  There is no doubt that this will slow down the process. There is no 
doubt that this would restrict the ability of the NTIA to tailor 
programs to fit individual States.
  As I said, that is one of the beauties of this whole provision, is 
that it has the flexibility to meet the needs of States as they define 
them. It would hamper that State flexibility, and it would make it more 
difficult for the States to follow through on a timely basis to make 
this tremendously important.
  Where the Senator and I agree--and I know how hard he has worked on 
this, as have I. This is, I think, one of the most important things 
that we can do in this bill, to get Americans connected. I don't need 
to make that argument. Everyone in the Chamber knows that.
  The other piece, unfortunately, that this amendment would do would be 
enable and, in fact, invite lawsuits. There would, undoubtedly, be 
challenges to the regulations, challenges to the--if indeed the APA 
said you have got to do this by regulation, you are building a whole 
new bureaucratic process, and the bill already provides for the kinds 
of protections that the Senator is talking about.
  So I think this is an unnecessary amendment. I certainly, as one of 
those

[[Page S5803]]

who worked on the negotiation of the bill, don't consider it a friendly 
amendment, and I believe that it is a major change in the agreement 
that would not have been agreed to in the negotiation; and I hope my 
colleagues across the aisle who have supported this agreement will 
oppose this amendment because it is not something that was in the 
negotiation and it would not have been accepted by those who were 
negotiating it on this side of the aisle.
  So with that, I strongly oppose this amendment. It is a--I don't 
think I can say it. It makes this a bureaucratic process that is 
unnecessary, will only slow and impede the distribution of these 
desperately needed funds to connect the people of America.
  I yield the floor.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2146

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the Wicker 
amendment, No. 2146.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. 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 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 43, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 299 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

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

                                NAYS--55

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Graham
     Inhofe
       
  The amendment (No. 2146) was rejected
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Rosen). Under the previous order, there 
will now be 4 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote 
relating to the Kennedy amendment No. 2210.
  The Senator from the Louisiana.


                           Amendment No. 2210

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, with respect to my amendment, I offer 
it on behalf of myself and Senator Cassidy.
  The last 18 months have been challenging for Louisiana. First, there 
was Hurricane Laura. Then there was Hurricane Delta. Then there was 
Hurricane Zeta. The hurricanes alone did about $25 billion of damage. 
Then we had the historic freezes. Then we had historic flooding. The 
total amount of damage was $47.1 billion.
  My people are tough, but they are tired. This amendment would 
appropriate $1.1 billion in community development block grants to help 
my people recover.
  I bring you a problem but also a solution. Thanks to the efforts of 
Senator Cantwell and Senator Schatz and myself, 3 years ago, we 
convinced the FCC not to give away the spectrum auction, which belongs 
to the American people, and instead to auction it off. There is now $80 
billion sitting in Treasury. The money for these block grants would 
come from that $80 billion in cash.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Madam President, we all agree that responding to natural 
disasters is a core Federal responsibility. But, unfortunately, this 
unprecedented amendment would take funds from the Federal 
Communications Commission's spectrum auction revenues to pay for 
disaster relief.
  The spectrum auction revenues my colleagues seeks to reallocate are 
intended to help expand high-speed internet in the United States. All 
Americans, no matter where they live, should have access to the 21st 
century economy.
  We can't pick winners and losers when it comes to natural disasters. 
The process should be set in law, which is something my colleague from 
Hawaii, Senator Schatz, has been working on for years.
  I support disaster relief, but this is not the way to do it.
  My heart goes out to all Americans impacted by natural disasters, not 
just those affected by hurricanes but also devastating wildfires and 
flooding caused by climate change. I am committed to ensuring they 
receive the assistance they need, but we need a comprehensive solution.
  I would like to yield time to my colleague from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, first, let me offer to work with both 
Senators from Louisiana to secure the funding that their State so 
desperately needs, in my capacity as ranking member of the 
Transportation, HUD Appropriations Subcommittee.
  Louisiana has been particularly hard hit, experiencing three 
hurricanes almost back to back, and, certainly, the need for disaster 
assistance is clear. But we also have other States that have been 
affected: Alabama, California, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Oregon, Puerto 
Rico--a Territory, not a State, obviously. But they need help too.
  What I would propose is that we work together on an emergency 
disaster supplemental that will take care of all these needs, including 
the needs of the people in hard-hit Louisiana.
  I pledge my personal help and support to both of my colleagues and 
friends from Louisiana to bring this about.
  Finally, let me just say, I am surprised that the administration has 
not submitted a request for supplemental disaster assistance. And I 
look forward to see--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time has expired.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2210

  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  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 19, nays 79, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 300 Leg.]

                                YEAS--19

     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Burr
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cramer
     Cruz
     Ernst
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Kennedy
     Ossoff
     Rubio
     Scott (FL)
     Sullivan
     Tuberville
     Warnock

                                NAYS--79

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Markey
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Graham
     Inhofe
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas are 19, the nays are 79.

[[Page S5804]]

  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, this amendment is rejected.
  The amendment (No. 2210) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                          Eviction Moratorium

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, after many weeks of uncertainty and 
distress, millions of Americans can--for now--let go of the fear of 
losing their homes and the roofs over their head. Last night, the Biden 
administration announced a new 60-day Federal eviction moratorium. I 
certainly support that decision.
  I want to thank all those who insisted that we do something, 
especially U.S. Congresswoman Cori Bush, of Missouri, who knows the 
trauma, personally, of being without a home, having been a victim of 
eviction in her life. Representative Bush camped out outside on the 
Capitol steps for 5 nights. She slept on the steps of this building so 
that some of the most vulnerable people in America would be able to 
sleep with a roof over their heads while we were made sure the law 
caught up with our intentions.
  I also want to thank my fellow Democratic Senators, especially 
Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren, who pushed for a fair and just 
solution to avoid what would have been an entirely preventable tragedy 
for families who already lost so much in this pandemic.
  As many as 11 million Americans have fallen behind on their rent 
during this pandemic because of job losses and other misfortunes.
  Let me tell you about one of them. Patricia Vasquez. She lives in 
Chicago's Little Village neighborhood. She told her story to the 
Chicago Sun-Times. By the time Patricia Vasquez received an email on 
July 23 telling her that she qualified for help from Chicago's 
Emergency Rental Assistance Program, the gas to her apartment had 
already been cut off because of an overdue $1,400 bill. She had sold 
some clothes and jewelry to pay the electric bill and keep the lights 
on, and she was 6 months behind in rent.
  The Federal eviction moratorium will enable people like Patricia to 
avoid homelessness while they wait for emergency assistance to reach 
them.
  Between the bipartisan CARES Act that Congress passed in December and 
President Biden's American Rescue Plan, Congress has provided State and 
local governments more than $46 billion in emergency rental assistance 
to help families pay their landlords. Unfortunately, many States and 
localities have been slower than expected in getting that money to the 
people who need it. So far, only $3 billion of the $46 billion has 
reached tenants and landlords.
  To punish renters who have already lost so much for delays over which 
they have no control and to evict them with the Delta variant tearing 
the country apart would be unfair, unconscionable, and, in many cases, 
deleterious to public health. It would harm our efforts to bring this 
virus under control for good.
  Fortunately, in recent weeks, many cities and States have made 
progress in getting the help out to the people who need it. That 
includes the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois.
  The CDC's new eviction moratorium is only a first step. It is 
imperative that all State and local governments step up their efforts 
to get Federal relief to the families who need it and the landlords as 
well. This pandemic has caused enough pain. Redtape can't be allowed to 
deepen that pain for everyone.


                              Immigration

  Madam President, I would like to address another issue that comes up 
on the floor quite regularly, usually from speeches on the other side 
of the aisle.
  I heard one of my colleagues in the Senate on the Republican side who 
is a personal friend talk about it today--and he is not the only one--
and it is, of course, the issue of immigration. I have been involved in 
this issue for a long time.
  I can recall when I was first elected to the Senate, I got a phone 
call from Ted Kennedy. He said: I heard you are going to be on the 
Senate Judiciary Committee.
  I said: That is right.
  He said: Can I ask you to be a member of my Immigration Subcommittee?
  Well, how do you say no to Ted Kennedy, to start with? I was 
fascinated by the invitation. I got involved in the immigration debate 
then and over the years.
  At one point, I joined three other Democratic Senators and four 
Republican Senators--the so-called Gang of 8--and tried to sit down and 
fix this broken immigration system. We actually wrote a bill, a good 
bill. It passed here on the floor of the Senate with 68 votes.
  Senator McCain was one of the contributors to it. Senator Flake of 
Arizona was also one of them--Senator Graham of South Carolina, Senator 
Rubio of Florida, Senator Schumer, Senator Bennet, Senator Menendez. We 
put our hearts and souls into that effort and put it together and 
brought it to the floor of the Senate and it was enacted into law.
  Comprehensive immigration reform--I should say, it passed the Senate. 
It failed to become enacted into law because the House of 
Representatives, under Republican control, wouldn't bring it up for 
debate, let alone a vote. That was an unfortunate missed opportunity.
  It just comes down to this. We have not passed a significant 
immigration bill in the United States of America in 35 years. Everyone 
but everyone concedes that our immigration system is broken. There are 
parts of it that are just fundamentally unfair. There are parts of it 
which do not serve our Nation. There are certain things we ought to all 
agree on, Democrats and Republicans. Let me give you three that I think 
are the starting points.
  First, we need a safe and secure border. I want to know who is coming 
into America and what they are bringing. In the age of terrorism, in 
the age of drugs, I want to know who is coming in and what they are 
bringing. Yes, we need border security.
  Secondly, we should never knowingly allow a dangerous person to come 
into this country, period. If someone is here without legal protected 
status and they are dangerous to us, they are gone--no ifs, ands, or 
buts about it
  The third point is an important one as well. We cannot allow everyone 
in the world who wants to come into the United States to arrive 
tomorrow. It just won't work. We have to have an orderly process, and 
we ought to show some caring and humanitarian instinct in that process, 
too, whether it is a refugee or asylee. These are people who 
desperately need some safe place to be, and the United States has often 
opened its doors since World War II to show that kind of kindness. Our 
generation should do the same.
  Now, there are those who come to the floor and say: Because so many 
people want to come into the United States, it is a mistake for us to 
give anybody legal status in this country because it is a green light. 
It is an incentive for even more to show up.
  That argument, I think, is not strong, and here is why. Each year, 
the orderly legal process in America makes 1 million new Americans from 
immigrants. It happens every year. These people are following the law, 
every letter of it, to become legal permanent residents in America. So 
to say we are going to cut them off and no longer allow them to become 
citizens makes no sense.
  Secondly, immigrants are a critical part of America. When my farmers 
come to me and tell me how desperately they need farmworkers, and they 
don't have enough immigrants to fill them, my natural reaction is, why 
don't you go to the Americans who live near your farms? And they say: 
Senator, we do. Nobody wants to do that backbreaking work of picking 
fruit or vegetables and all the hard labor that goes with it. We need 
immigrants to do it.
  Two million people in our country pick our crops, 2.4 million. Did 
you know half of them are undocumented? That is a fact. They have come 
to this country and get paid to do the worst, hardest work you can 
imagine.
  Go to a meat processing plant or a poultry processing plant--you pick 
it--anyplace in the United States and look at the workforce that comes 
out of that gate at the end of the day. The majority of them--well, I 
should say 40 percent across the Nation--40 percent of them are 
immigrants who are working in that field; tough, dangerous, hot, hard 
work. They do it because others

[[Page S5805]]

aren't lining up to do it in their place. That is part of America 
today. Immigrants are a critical element.
  I might add one other element which is timely. Think of all the times 
we tune into the Olympics and look at the people who make us just beam 
with pride, with ``USA'' written across their chest on uniforms, who 
are winning these medals and competing on behalf of us, the United 
States, in the Olympics.
  Suni Lee of Minnesota, who is she? Well, it turns out that she is a 
child of a Hmong family. The Hmongs, you remember from the Vietnam era, 
were a people who were killed because they sided with the United 
States, and they were caught in the crossfire of war. Many of them 
settled in the United States, many in the State of Minnesota.
  Here is this young woman, this daughter of refugees who is making us 
so proud as she stands on the podium crying her eyes out with ``USA'' 
written on her uniform, proudly holding that gold medal. We cheer her 
on.
  Yet when it comes to the U.S. Senate, there are no cheers from some 
quarters. These are immigrants. Many people look at them negatively. I 
am not one of those people.
  There has to be a better way. There has to be a humane way for us, 
this Nation of immigrants, for us to be able to have a system that is 
fair, that really is based on the three principles I mentioned: border 
security, no dangerous persons, and we have got to have an orderly 
process to come up with.
  We are going to see in the next few days, I am sure, debate on the 
budget resolution. It is going to be, in some part, a debate on 
immigration policy. I am certainly ready for it. I hope my colleagues 
are too. I hope that they will keep an open mind to a process of 
creating a new immigration policy in America that really reflects our 
values, that is fair to the people who seek to be part of our future, 
and that recognizes the great heritage which the immigrants have 
brought to this country. I hope those people who are on the other side 
who don't feel as I do will take the time to meet some of these 
immigrant people.
  Meet my Dreamers. These young people who I first started championing 
20 years ago have lived lives in the shadow of doubt for decades. They 
were told they were undocumented; they could be deported at any moment; 
and yet they soldiered on. They worked hard. They went to school. They 
have done remarkable things, becoming doctors and nurses and teachers 
and entrepreneurs and even members of our military. They are amazing. 
They never let me down. They are just terrific young people. I think 
they deserve a chance to become part of America's future.
  I think they have earned it, and I think we ought to have that kind 
of attitude in our minds when we talk about the role of immigrants in 
the future of America.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I didn't come to the floor to speak on 
this matter, but listening to the comments of my friend from Illinois 
about the contributions made by immigrants to our country, I 
wholeheartedly agree with him about that.
  Really, when I think about immigration, I think it is really sort of 
the secret sauce to American success. It is the notion that you can 
come from anywhere, with virtually nothing, and you can legally 
immigrate to the United States and you can begin to get one of those 
very difficult jobs working in the fields, working in a meatpacking 
plant, or someplace else and begin your climb toward the American 
dream.
  That, to me, is one of the crown jewels of our country. It is what 
makes us different. You look at other countries around the world; they 
don't welcome immigrants. They shun immigrants, and their economies and 
their countries suffer for it.
  Let me just say, I agree with the Senator from Illinois about the 
contribution of immigrants. I listened very carefully as a border State 
Senator. My State is 40 percent Hispanic. I am sure the Senator from 
Nevada has a large Hispanic population. They are part of us. They are 
part of our great Nation and make tremendous contributions.
  The Hispanics in my State are patriots. They volunteer in 
disproportionate numbers to serve in the military. They work at jobs 
that are very difficult. They are very tight-knit families. They are 
people of faith. They believe in hard work and, most fundamentally, 
they believe in the American dream.
  But I don't think it does any tribute to their contributions or their 
sacrifices to say that people can come to this country without 
complying with our laws.
  I also join in the Senator's frustration at our inability to get 
anything substantially done in this space, but I don't think it is good 
enough for us to complain about how hard it is. We are all volunteers. 
What we have to do is do the hard work, and we have not done it since I 
have been here. We have not done the hard work to try to build that 
consensus in order to pass meaningful immigration reform, and we need 
to do that. It is on us. We can't blame somebody else. We are the ones 
responsible. We haven't done it, and we need to do it.
  But I would just point out, and the Senator from Illinois knows this, 
that my State has a 1,200-mile border with Mexico. This is ground zero 
for the humanitarian crisis that is currently appearing at the border. 
The Biden administration reversed a lot of the policies of the previous 
administration without having an alternative plan in place, and it was 
interpreted as laying out the welcome mat for anybody and everybody who 
wanted to come to the United States. That is why we are seeing these 
unprecedented numbers, or at least numbers we haven't seen for 20 
years, in people trying to stream across the border into the United 
States.
  I know that there is a lot of debate about, well, should we have 
physical barriers at the border? The truth is, the experts, the Border 
Patrol, have told all of us that, yes, you have to have physical 
barriers in some hard-to-control places, but you also need technology, 
and you need boots on the ground because this is not just about people 
immigrating to the United States; this is about the drugs that killed 
93,000 Americans last year alone, most of which come across the 
southern border--cocaine, meth, fentanyl, heroin, just to name a few. 
When we see the current crisis at the border because of this reversal 
of the previous administration's policies without any alternative plan 
in place, this is an open invitation to the cartels to take advantage 
of the circumstances.
  What it means, as a practical matter, when so many people come across 
at the same time, which is what is happening now, including tens of 
thousands of unaccompanied children, the Border Patrol, which is the 
law enforcement officials who are given the mission of securing our 
border--they have to leave the frontline of the border to go change 
diapers and clean and feed these kids because there is simply not 
enough personnel there in order to handle this flood of humanity.
  What happens when they leave the frontlines? Well, in one sector, the 
Border Patrol Chief told me 40 percent of their agents had to leave the 
frontlines, which then was a green light for the drug components, the 
drug smugglers, to bring the poison that killed 93,000 Americans in the 
United States last year alone across the border.
  These criminal organizations are very sophisticated. They know 
exactly what they are doing. They know exactly how to exploit the 
vulnerabilities in our law, which is why they also have understood that 
if you flood tens of thousands--in 1 month alone, nearly 200,000--of 
people across the border, that you are going to overwhelm the system, 
and that if you coach the migrants to make a claim of credible fear of 
persecution, that you might just be put into our asylum system, which 
then has about 1.3, I think, million cases backlogged in our 
immigration courts, which means we are forced to give you a notice to 
appear at a future hearing so you can present your case in front of an 
immigration judge, and maybe, just maybe, you can make your case. As a 
practical matter, only about 10 percent of the people who do appear in 
front of an immigration judge are able to meet the legal criteria for 
asylum.
  But here is how the cartels, how the transnational criminal 
organizations, have figured out how to exploit our

[[Page S5806]]

laws: Because we have to release people and give them a notice to 
appear because of the sheer volume, most of them don't show up for 
their court hearing. So they have succeeded because of the gaps in our 
law, not because of a lack of a physical barrier along the border. They 
are turning themselves in to the Border Patrol and making this claim of 
asylum because they know that they will more than likely succeed in 
making their way into the United States.
  I don't care how many times the Vice President goes to Central 
America or talks about root causes of illegal immigration. I don't care 
how many times Director Mayorkas tells Cubans: Don't come to America 
because of the danger of coming overseas into our country. These 
organizations are smart. They are whispering in the ear of these 
migrants. They are saying: If you will pay us enough money, we will get 
you to America. And these migrants watch TV. They watch cable TV. They 
take phone calls and get emails from their friends and relatives in the 
United States. They know that this statement ``don't try to come to 
America'' is just completely inconsistent with what is happening on the 
ground.
  So I don't think it does us any good to complain about how hard our 
job is or how many times we have failed to get the job done. What I am 
really concerned about right now is that the majority whip, who is also 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has basically told us he is going 
to give up on a bipartisan immigration reform bill, and they are going 
to try to jam this through on a purely party-line vote in this 
reconciliation bill, otherwise known as the reckless tax-and-spending 
spree.
  Now, I don't expect that the Parliamentarian will allow them to do 
that under the rules of the Senate. This would completely circumvent 
the rules of the Senate, which require, on matters of substantive 
legislation, 60 votes to close off debate, the so-called filibuster 
rule.
  But I couldn't resist responding to the majority whip's--the Senator 
from Illinois--statements about how hard our job is. I don't think it 
does us much good to come here and say: This is really hard. This is 
really hard.
  Our constituents expect us to fix it, and we know how to do it if we 
will just do our job


                               H.R. 3684

  So, Madam President, on the bipartisan infrastructure bill now before 
the Senate, I am glad to see that the majority leader, Senator Schumer, 
is allowing amendments to be presented from folks on both sides. 
Senator Schumer had given us an artificial deadline to finish the bill, 
but he has also told us we are not going home until we do so, and we 
take him at his word. But I hope he will continue to allow this process 
to play out, no matter how long it takes, until this legislation is 
ready to be voted on. That is principally because the process that 
brought this bill to the floor did not involve the regular, normal 
hearings and markups across multiple Senate committees. That is 
certainly not a criticism of the bipartisan group who has gotten us to 
where we are; it is really just a statement of the dysfunction of the 
legislative process in the Senate these days. But the fact is, the vast 
majority of the Senators in this Chamber did not have a hand in 
crafting this legislation even though it will impact every single 
community across the country.
  I believe the bipartisan group worked in good faith to get us to the 
starting gate. Now it is time to allow every Senator, representing 
every State in the country, to weigh in and offer improvements to the 
bill. I have said from the beginning that an open amendment process 
will be critical to the success of this legislation, and that is 
especially true when it comes to paying for this legislation.
  We are waiting for the Congressional Budget Office, the official 
scorer, to tell us what the costs will be and whether we have been 
successful in offering offsetting pay-fors. One budget expert at the 
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has already forecasted a 
discouraging score. He estimated the bill would only raise about $208 
billion--less than half of the new spending in the bill.
  But it is important for all of us to realize we are also 
reauthorizing the expiring surface transportation bill, which is 
ordinarily financed by the highway trust fund, and it is going to 
require another $118 billion to shore that up because the White House 
has taken off the table any other pay-fors that would include a user 
fee on electric vehicles or indexing the gas tax or other ideas that 
would fill in that gap. So another $118 billion of borrowed money is 
going to be necessary to fill that gap. I don't think any of us regard 
that as a good outcome. Maybe it is the best we can do under the 
circumstances.
  But as it stands now, our debt to GDP, our debt to our gross domestic 
product ratio, is at the highest level it has been since World War II. 
In other words, we fought a world war to defeat imperial Japan and Nazi 
Germany, and we didn't ask how much it cost; we did what we had to do. 
We did the same thing when it came to COVID, which was a domestic 
equivalent, I think, of war, defeating the virus and shoring up our 
economy.
  Our country has invested a huge amount of money in the war against 
COVID-19, and now is not the time to double down on out-of-control 
spending for a nonemergency matter. We need to find responsible ways to 
finance these new expenses, and I hope we will have an opportunity to 
vote on a range of amendments to that end.
  I have been proud to work with Senator Padilla, our new Senator from 
California, a Democrat, to offer an amendment that would provide more 
funding for a variety of infrastructure projects, including roads, 
bridges, and public transit. What it does is it gives State and local 
leaders more authority when it comes to identifying and investing in 
the greatest needs of their States and their communities. And here is 
the kicker: It does so without increasing the deficit one penny. That 
is because it gives State and local leaders the ability to spend COVID 
relief funding that they already have on infrastructure projects that 
might otherwise be neglected. They are not required to do so, but our 
amendment would allow them to do so rather than to claw that money back 
when the appropriation sunsets or to put guardrails on it and say you 
can only use it for some prescribed uses, which, frankly, they have 
more money to spend than they know what to do with when it comes to 
those authorized uses.
  As folks hunkered down in their home to slow the spread of the virus, 
the change in travel patterns hurt more than airlines and hotels; it 
put a serious dent in State and local transportation budgets in all of 
our States. State departments of transportation are facing an estimated 
$18 billion in shortfalls through 2024. Leaders across the country have 
had to delay or cancel critical transportation projects because of a 
lack of funding, and it is unclear when those projects may get back on 
track.
  I might say that one of the things we have seen with the eviction 
moratorium expiring is that $46 billion of money we appropriated last 
year still hasn't gotten to the intended beneficiary, to the people who 
are trying to pay their rent but can't pay their rent. So we have a 
huge problem, logistical problem, in voting on money and actually 
getting it to the intended beneficiary. That is true in COVID-19. That 
is true in disaster relief. The type of thing that Senator Padilla and 
I are suggesting is to take money that is already in the hands of the 
State and local governments and let them use it so they can do it 
quickly on investments which will last and endure rather than just 
spend it on operating expenses.
  There is an urgent need for more transportation funding, and that is 
exactly what our amendment would provide. There is no mandate, as I 
said, that it be spent for a single transportation project. If a city 
or a State or a county has plans to use their funds on pandemic-related 
expenses, those plans will not be interrupted or called into question. 
It simply provides our local leaders what they have asked each of us 
for most, and it starts with flexibility.
  If a city is experiencing a spike in COVID cases and needs to use 
Federal funding to buy additional ICU bedspace or hire new healthcare 
workers, they can and they should move forward with those plans. This 
is not about cutting resources that are needed. But we

[[Page S5807]]

know that many States and localities simply don't have enough 
qualifying expenses to use the money that they have been given. They 
are looking for ways to spend the dollars they already have as given to 
them in the CARES Act and the American Rescue Plan.
  That is not to say they don't want this funding; they just want to be 
able to use it consistent with the guardrails that Congress has 
provided, and that is what our amendment will allow.
  The broad support for this amendment is a testament to the importance 
of these changes. Our amendment has been endorsed by two dozen 
organizations that represent a diverse range of stakeholders, from the 
National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the 
Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations--all of which 
advocate on behalf of cities across the country.
  We have also received endorsements from the American Road & 
Transportation Builders Association, which represents all facets of the 
transportation construction industry, as well as the American Public 
Transportation Association. It also includes organizations that 
advocate for safer roads, like the American Traffic Safety Services 
Association.
  I have been pleased to find common ground with Senator Padilla and 
our colleagues on both sides of the aisle to help build support for 
this amendment and, I think, actually enhance the work done by the 
bipartisan negotiating group.
  This is not something they were able to get done in that negotiating 
group--they have told me--even though it was a subject of discussion. 
So now it is a chance for the rest of us, on a bipartisan basis, to 
weigh in and make this bill better.
  Throughout the process, we have made adjustments so States with 
unique, but no less important, infrastructure needs can put this 
funding toward those uses. We are in the process of making some final 
tweaks to ensure that we receive broad bipartisan support, as well as 
that of the White House, and I hope we will have a vote on this 
amendment on the Senate floor soon.
  Our amendment will empower local officials to make the best decisions 
for their communities and ensure that taxpayers get the most bang for 
their buck with these relief funds that have already been appropriated; 
and then, if we do not authorize their use in the manner I have 
described, will likely be spent on annual or reoccurring expenses 
rather than on something that will endure for a long time, like 
infrastructure.
  So I hope our amendment will come to a vote in the Senate very soon. 
There is no reason--there is no reason--to rush the amendment process 
and to cut off good amendments for a vote or consideration that will 
actually improve this legislation. There are a lot of great ideas out 
there to strengthen this bill, to maximize the impact of every dollar, 
and pay for these investments responsibly.
  So let me just close by saying I appreciate the hard work that has 
gone into this bill so far, and I hope we will continue to have more 
opportunities to improve it as the amendment process goes forward.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The junior Senator from North 
Dakota.
  Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, I want to take some time to share some 
of my thoughts on this Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that we 
are debating today, and I wasn't intending to speak specifically to the 
amendment Senator Cornyn just brought up, but I just can't resist 
saying: Man, I wish you well.
  I think when--a bipartisan solution, like Senator Cornyn and Senator 
Padilla have come up with, to provide flexibility to our Governors and 
our communities just makes all the sense in the world.
  So I am looking forward to voting yes, and I hope we can get a 
resolution that allows at least 59 of my closest friends to do the 
same.
  I want to start out by thanking Senators Portman and Sinema for 
providing such incredible leadership, and to the group of bipartisan 
Senators who negotiated and coordinated this incredible effort.
  I also want to thank Senator Capito, who is managing, of course, this 
floor process, along with Environment and Public Works Committee 
Chairman Tom Carper. The progress that they have made on this issue 
with the administration earlier this year, paired with the excellent 
leadership that they provided the committee, really exemplifies what is 
possible when we work together, and it has allowed us to get to this 
point.
  Reviving America's roads and bridges is a longstanding national 
priority of Congress, and is one that has taken us too long to address. 
We need reliable, accessible infrastructure to operate locally and to 
compete globally; and as it currently stands, the bill before us is 
well positioned to meet that exact need.
  The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act isn't perfect--no bill 
ever is--but it makes historic investments in assets that will benefit 
every American for many, many years.
  I applaud the group for using the surface transportation bill that we 
unanimously passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee as 
the foundation for this bill. As the lead Republican on the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, I know how much time 
and effort both sides of the aisle have put in to surface 
transportation reauthorization. The end result reflected the good work 
we accomplished, and it was the perfect building block for the package 
that is before us.
  As you know, I was not an original part of this bipartisan 
negotiating group. However, when I was approached for my input, I made 
my top priorities clear:
  One, keeping the permitting reforms in our bill--permitting reforms 
like the one-agency decision that was a rule that President Trump put 
into place, that President Biden removed his first day in office. It is 
codified in this bill for surface transportation;
  Prioritizing dedicating funding to States and to their departments of 
transportation as part of the traditional formula for distribution;
  Limiting the expansion of urban transit programs; and
  Including the bipartisan bill that Senator Lujan and I introduced to 
clean up orphaned and abandoned oil and gas wells.
  I was glad to see these provisions, as well as our committee's 
Drinking and Wastewater Infrastructure Act, in the bill.
  I also appreciate the use of unspent COVID-19 relief funds to help 
pay for these priorities rather than being used for paying people to 
not work and adding fuel to the fire of inflation. This does just the 
opposite.
  I thank my colleagues for asking for my opinion, and I am even more 
grateful that they listened and included these provisions in our final 
product.
  Infrastructure has been a priority for Congress because it is a 
priority for our constituents. America cannot succeed without a robust 
infrastructure from one coast to the other and all the places, like 
North Dakota, in between. We need roads and bridges to go from farm to 
town and from town to city, from city to city, and State to State.

  We use ports and waterways and railroads to move the products that we 
produce to places they could otherwise never get to. We use rail and 
air to connect with family and friends and other business associates 
around the world. And we use broadband connectivity to facilitate 
transactions, both personal and business.
  Infrastructure is foundational to our way of life, and it is the 
constitutional responsibility of the Federal Government to facilitate 
interstate commerce, including the movement of goods and services along 
our highways and byways and waterways and railways.
  Rural States, like North Dakota, know this better than most. In fact, 
Rugby, ND, is literally the geographical center of the North American 
continent. We are landlocked, and we rely on our transportation 
infrastructure to get where we need to go and, more importantly, to 
move the products that we produce to where they need to get.
  For example, North Dakota is the top producer of durum wheat, which 
gets ground into semolina flour, which becomes the main ingredient in 
pasta. The wheat goes from the field to a grain elevator by a farm 
road, to a mill by rail, and to a processing plant by both, and then it 
goes anywhere from a

[[Page S5808]]

grocery store in California to a restaurant in New York, or perhaps 
overseas to a market far away.
  And just like every other commodity we produce, it requires a 
reliable infrastructure system that is safe and sufficient for every 
single mile on the journey.
  The United States needs rural America, and rural America needs 
infrastructure. The personal needs it fulfills and the economic 
benefits it delivers are obvious. Rather than investing trillions of 
taxpayer dollars on government handouts to people to not work, we can 
spend money on putting people to work, revitalizing a system that 
directly benefits all of us, and that is what the plan before us would 
help accomplish.
  It is not perfect--no bill is, as I said--and there are parts of it 
that I don't support, but there are parts, I know, that some of my 
colleagues do not support, even though they are top priorities for me.
  Our Founding Fathers intended for Congress to collaborate and find 
common ground. Those are functions of our system; they are not a side 
effect. It is easy to imagine if every Founder had demanded to get 
everything they wanted and nothing else, well, then we would have had a 
king, and we may not have had the system of cooperative Federalism that 
we do today. And if enough of them believed that doing nothing is 
better than getting 80 or 90 percent of what they wanted or--then our 
more perfect Union would never have gotten started and had a chance to 
become that.
  The inability to meet in the middle is not an excuse for inaction, 
especially when it comes to addressing not just the pressing needs of 
the American people here at home, but also protecting our standing as a 
country on the world stage.
  We understand how important infrastructure is, but so does China, so 
does Russia, so do all of our adversaries who would like to see us 
continue to fall behind. The Chinese Communist Party would love to see 
America's roads and bridges crumble. They would be happy to let 
infrastructure get in the way of American production and allow for them 
to meet the needs of the global economy in our absence.
  The bill that we have before us gives us an opportunity to help stop 
that from happening.
  Now, while I am all for working across the aisle, that doesn't mean I 
will support bills that I fundamentally disagree with, like the $3.5 
trillion-plus spending bill that Senate Democrats plan to cobble 
together after we finish this bipartisan infrastructure bill.
  I oppose the Democrats' reckless tax-and-spend agenda, and I will 
join each of my Republican colleagues in opposing it and offering 
amendments to change its harmful outcomes.
  That bill is completely separate from the bipartisan infrastructure 
bill that we are talking about today. They are not tied together, 
despite what rhetoric there may be otherwise. Both should be considered 
on their own merits separately.
  What a shame it would be for Democrats to offer the American public a 
glimpse of bipartisanship and cooperation to only do an about-face and 
hold it hostage while they jam through a massive tax increase and 
growth of the Federal Government, adding to inflation.
  I hope my colleagues will choose to build on this bipartisan success 
and resist the urge to follow the partisan whims of their political 
base.
  As it stands, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act would be a 
significant win for our country. I know it would be for my State. So 
far we have avoided adding poison pills or derailing the process, and I 
urge my colleagues to keep it that way.
  North Dakota needs safe and sufficient infrastructure. America needs 
safe and sufficient infrastructure. And the world needs the United 
States to have safe and sufficient infrastructure.
  I urge my colleagues to keep the negative parts of the bill in 
perspective and to appreciate the opportunity we have today to make a 
difference for our constituents.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. ROMNEY. Madam President, the remarks of my colleague from North 
Dakota have inspired me to stand and join him; and also the fact that 
we are in a room of great significance and silence reigns, and I hate 
just to fill it with words, but I think the topic we are talking about 
is extremely important.
  I appreciate the good Senator's support and effort in helping craft 
this legislation--this bipartisan legislation to improve our 
infrastructure in our country.
  I also salute the leadership on both sides of the aisle for allowing 
a robust amendment process.
  There is no question but that there are many opportunities to improve 
the legislation as written. The chance for our colleagues to offer 
adjustments and improvements is a part of our tradition and a good part 
of our tradition.

  I would concur that we do need to upgrade our infrastructure. I think 
most Americans who have experienced our infrastructure would come to 
the same conclusion. Too often, our roads are in need of repair. Many 
times, we have communities that are not connected with high-speed 
travel opportunities from one part of the city to another. Our transit, 
in some cases, is old, slow, and does not reach communities that need 
it.
  Our rail system, particularly in the northeast, which is an important 
corridor for travel, is way out of date. Some people know you can drive 
between some cities. Where there are trains, you can drive faster than 
you can take the train.
  We have structurally deficient and dangerous bridges, in some cases, 
that need to be repaired. So I think there is general agreement on both 
sides of the aisle that we need to improve our infrastructure.
  It is known by people in this country, and I think particularly 
brought home to us, if you travel in other countries and see what they 
are doing and then you compare where we are--you would think: Boy, we 
used to lead the world in these things, and now we are not. And it is 
having an impact on our productivity as a nation because of additional 
travel time necessary for us to get to and from work as well as other 
endeavors.
  If that is going to happen, we have only two options right now and 
probably for the indefinite future. Right now, we have a circumstance 
where my party is in the minority--not by much. We are basically tied 
here in the Senate, although the tie is broken by the Vice President. 
So the Democrats have the majority in the Senate, in the House, and, of 
course, with the White House. Given that circumstance, it is possible 
for the Democrats to write an infrastructure bill all by themselves and 
simply pass it through a process known as reconciliation. That is one 
option.
  The other option is to work together on a bipartisan basis, where we 
craft a better bill with the input of Republicans and Democrats. That 
is the option that is before us now.
  There is not a third alternative, which is Republicans only draft the 
bill. I would love that alternative, but it is just not available to us 
because we don't hold the House, the Senate, and the White House. So we 
have two options. Do we want our Democrat colleagues to draft a bill 
all by themselves or do we want to work together with Republicans and 
Democrats and fashion something that is bipartisan.
  Now, I note that when you work in a bipartisan basis, there are some 
things the Democrats will want to include that we Republicans would 
rather not have there, and it is obvious that that is the case. I am 
sure that is the case for Democrats as well. They will see things that 
we have included that they just as soon would not have there. And it is 
very easy for either side--or both sides, rather--to point out the 
things in the bipartisan bill that they don't like and to attack it as 
not being fully in conformity with their views. But that is the nature 
of two parties working together.
  Now, some would say: We could do better. Let's have another 
alternative, a different bipartisan approach.
  My answer is: Go at it. Have at it.
  No one is keeping people from working together if they want to come 
up with a better piece of legislation. Boy, I would be anxious to see 
what it is. But in order to get a bill passed, it must be acceptable to 
Democrats and Republicans. And that is unless, in my party, we are able 
to have Republicans

[[Page S5809]]

in the majority in the House and the Senate, and the White House, which 
we don't have at this stage.
  So, again, the alternative is, if you can come up with a better 
bipartisan bill, do it. Two, amend it as you feel appropriate--and I 
think there are good amendments that are coming forward that I have 
supported and will support going forward. But we must not let the 
desire for perfection on the part of people like myself overcome the 
desire to have a good bill ultimately reached.
  I think it is actually counterproductive for either side to take 
attack shots at the items in the bill they don't like. Instead, bring 
forward amendments. See if you can improve the bill. If you can't do 
that, come up with a bill that has bipartisan support, because that is 
the only alternative we face, other than a bill drafted exclusively by 
Democrats.
  I, for one, think this bill is a good bill, on balance. It will be 
good for my State. I think it will be good for every State. We will get 
an upgrade--a badly needed upgrade--in the infrastructure of this 
country.
  Again, is it ideal, perfect? Far from it, but it is a big step 
forward and one heck of a huge step of advantage relative to having one 
party alone write a piece of legislation. I think it is fair to say if 
Democrats alone write an infrastructure bill, my State of Utah won't be 
real happy by the time it is done.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Madam President, I am here on the floor today to speak 
in support of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which is the 
bipartisan legislation that is before the Chamber that will make 
historic investments in our Nation's core infrastructure, and I am 
pleased to follow my colleague and friend from Utah, Senator Romney, 
who was one of those whom I worked with to help negotiate this package.
  This is historic legislation that provides $550 billion in new 
Federal investments over the next 5 years to respond to the needs that 
are facing our country. This bill will rebuild crumbling roads and 
bridges and tunnels across the country. It will provide clean drinking 
water in homes and address harmful contaminants. It will increase 
connectivity in our communities to bring broadband to even the most 
rural parts of our country. It will prioritize sustainable solutions to 
improve our infrastructure systems for future generations. And it will 
combat climate change by making the monumental investments in our clean 
energy grid and electric vehicle infrastructure that we must make.
  Now, this bill was a long time in the making, as I am sure my 
colleague from Utah would agree. Over the past 3 months, there have 
been many late nights, early mornings, and countless conversations 
about how to make the best use of this opportunity to invest in our 
Nation's infrastructure.
  I very much appreciate the continued good faith and negotiations from 
lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and the White House and the 
leadership of Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Rob Portman to deliver this 
bipartisan infrastructure agreement. I also appreciate the work of the 
chairs and ranking members of relevant Senate committees who laid the 
foundation for so much of the bipartisan work that has gone into this 
bill, as well as the leadership of both parties for giving us the space 
and time to get this agreement to the floor
  Now, I could spend all day talking about the many aspects of this 
legislation that meaningfully invest in our communities and in our 
country, but today I want to specifically talk about two key areas that 
I worked on. Both of these issues, water and broadband, speak to the 
critical needs in New Hampshire and across the country.
  Water and wastewater infrastructure is one of the major investments 
we make in this bill, with $55 billion invested in this area. Now, no 
parent should have to worry about the safety of their family's water 
when they turn on the tap, but, unfortunately, as most of us know, this 
is not the case for too many Americans, because compromised water 
supplies, due in part to our rundown water infrastructure, is an issue 
across this country and in some places in New Hampshire.
  This was a problem for decades before the pandemic hit, but looking 
at a crisis like COVID-19 has illustrated just how basic and essential 
clean and safe drinking water is for our communities. Righting this 
wrong starts with investing in our water systems, which have been 
severely underfunded for too long.
  According to the Environmental Protection Agency, drinking water 
utilities will need to invest $472.6 billion over the next 20 years in 
order to provide safe and sufficient drinking water to the American 
public. Well, fortunately, we have a big chunk of that as a down 
payment in this proposal. And earlier this year, the Senate passed 
overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan vote, the Drinking Water and Wastewater 
Infrastructure Act. That bill makes a historic investment in our water 
infrastructure through authorizations. And in addition to putting 
significant funding toward that effort, the bipartisan infrastructure 
package before us includes $15 billion to replace lead service lines, 
which is a huge public health priority, and it is an issue that has 
long plagued communities across this country.
  Another real public health concern that is addressed in this bill is 
the presence of per- and polyfluoralkyl substances, or PFAS, in our 
water supplies. Preventing exposure, cleaning up contaminated sites, 
and understanding the full scope of the health implications associated 
with these chemicals is critical for so many affected by PFAS in their 
water.
  As I have heard again and again from New Hampshire families, 
discovering that you have been drinking contaminated water can produce 
a range of emotions from anger and fear to guilt. That is what I heard 
from so many parents who had children at the former Pease Air Force 
Base, where they were in childcare, and parents thought they were safe 
in those childcare centers. But they found out that they had been 
drinking water contaminated with PFAS. That contamination at the former 
Pease Air Force Base forced the city of Portsmouth to shut off three 
drinking water wells in 2014. The contamination was created by the use 
of firefighting foam by the Air Force when Pease was an Air Force base.
  One of those wells that was shut down, the Haven well, has just come 
back online this week, after 7 years. It was inoperable for 7 years.
  PFAS contamination surrounding the Saint-Gobain manufacturing plant 
in Merrimack, NH, and in areas around the Coakley Landfill Superfund 
site in the Seacoast create an ongoing worry for Granite State families 
also because of PFAS contamination. So you can imagine what those 
parents felt like when they found out that their children had an 
elevated level of PFAS in their bloodstream, and they didn't really 
understand what that meant.
  I remember talking to one mother who told me she had taken her 
daughter to Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center for her health exam, and 
she talked to the doctor about the elevated levels of PFAS in her 
blood. She said: The doctor didn't know what I was talking about, 
because this is an emerging contaminant.
  But thanks to the work of so many of those affected--people like 
Andrea Amico in Portsmouth, who helped found a group called Testing for 
Pease, and folks involved with the Merrimack Citizens for Clean Water--
they have raised awareness and worked to find solutions to clean up our 
drinking water. We owe it to them, to all of those families affected by 
PFAS and contaminated water supplies, a serious commitment to stop this 
problem where it starts and to give them the peace of mind that they so 
deserve. The comprehensive measures to address our water infrastructure 
that are contained in this historic bill will help do just that.
  Now, water infrastructure is a serious issue that New Hampshire 
shares with many other States throughout the country. Like water, 
another shared issue is access to broadband or high-speed internet 
service.
  The challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic--just as I highlighted the 
challenge of not having enough access to clean water--highlighted just 
how important it is for our communities to have fast and reliable 
access to the internet. Whether we like it or not, we live in a digital 
world. We all relied on that digital world more than ever during the 
COVID crisis so that our kids could go to school, so our grandparents 
and families could keep their medical

[[Page S5810]]

appointments, and so our businesses could stay afloat. Of course, even 
before the pandemic started, the digital divide created an equity issue 
that deepened disparities in education, health, and business.
  If you live in a community in northern New Hampshire, how can you 
attract business to your community if you don't have access to high-
speed internet, if the business can't open a website and tell people 
what they do?
  Just last month, I met with representatives from several towns in 
southwestern New Hampshire, another part of our State where they have 
been struggling to bring high-speed internet service to their 
residents. Due to their rural nature, these towns and others like them 
are unable to attract a provider to work with them. About a quarter of 
those that live in these towns are considered unserved and far more are 
underserved.
  At that session, I talked to a woman named Molly Miller. She is a 
telecommunications committee member from Hancock, NH, a town with about 
1,600 residents. She talked about the challenges that her family had 
experienced trying to work and do school from home during the pandemic. 
She said everyone had to disconnect while her youngest son was 
participating in college classes, and she shared a story about her 
son. She said: He was unable to turn in his final exam from one of his 
courses because the file was too large. He couldn't print it because 
they didn't have enough speed--download speed in their house. By the 
time he made it to the library to print out the file, it was too late. 
His exam was not accepted.

  That is just the kind of everyday challenges that families, who don't 
have access to high-speed internet, face. And broadband access isn't a 
partisan priority. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle recognize the 
need for significant investments to ensure that all of our workers, our 
students, and our families are able to connect to the critical 
resources that are provided by the internet.
  This infrastructure bill commits $65 billion to bring high-speed 
internet to communities in New Hampshire and all across the country. 
These bold investments are what we need to create jobs, to enhance the 
safety of our infrastructure networks, and to improve this Nation's 
competitiveness.
  Now, had I written the bill before us on my own, I am sure, like 
everyone in this Chamber, it would have included different priorities 
than what is before us in some cases. But, as we know, that is not how 
the give and take of negotiations work. It is not how compromise works. 
You give and you get. And the fact is that New Hampshire and the United 
States are going to get a whole lot in this infrastructure package.
  We also know that legislation that has broad bipartisan support 
stands a better chance at lasting longer without threats of being 
repealed or reversed. President Biden supports this package, and we 
have received strong support across the aisle through the procedural 
votes that we have had so far.
  I am proud to have worked with my colleagues to help craft this 
bipartisan bill, and over the coming days, I know that I will work with 
even more people in this Chamber as we try and move this legislation 
through the Senate. Thank you. I look forward to a strong, positive 
vote by the end of this week.
  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. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Cattle Ranchers

  Mr. HAWLEY. I rise today, Mr. President, to talk about the challenges 
facing the cattle ranchers in my State and across the country, 
challenges not just to their day-to-day operations but to their very 
livelihoods, and I rise today to talk about what we can do about it.
  I have a simple message: We can take action today that will work and 
we can take action that will make a difference and we should take it 
now.
  The situation that faces our cattle ranchers in Missouri and around 
the country, and, for that matter, many other livestock producers, is 
very, very serious, and the situation is, frankly, untenable. Let me 
tell you what I am talking about.
  Just in the last year, the cost to consumers for beef has increased 
by double digits. That is year-on-year, from 2019 to 2020, a double-
digit increase. What has happened, though, to cattle ranchers, to those 
who actually raise the beef, who raise the cattle, and then sell it to 
market? The price for them, has it gone up? No, it has gone down. In 
fact, over the last decade, cattle ranchers have seen their share of 
profits decline by double digits.
  So what is happening here? Cattle ranchers are getting less, much 
less, in some instances--and, by the way, so are other producers of 
livestock--and yet the cost to consumers is going up. Somebody is 
getting wealthy in this transaction, and that ``somebody'' is the 
packers, the processing companies.
  In America today, our meat processing supply chain, equipment--the 
entire apparatus--is owned by just a small handful of companies.
  Here is what I am talking about: Four companies--four--together 
control over 80 percent of this country's beef processing operations, 
80 percent. Even more remarkably, three of the giant meatpacking 
companies control 63 percent of pork producing, 46 of beef packing, 38 
of poultry producing. That is just three of them. And two--two--are 
based in Brazil and China. So you have got four major packers that 
control 80 percent of the market, two of them based overseas.
  This market concentration is squeezing out the farmers and the 
ranchers. It is enriching the packers, and it is ultimately hurting 
consumers. So I say, again, in this system, the only people who seem to 
win are the monopolists. We have got to do something about it.
  It is made even worse--the situation--by the fact that these same 
monopoly packers have been found guilty or otherwise pled to criminal 
violations, criminal uses of their monopoly status.
  For example, Pilgrim's Pride, a subsidiary of a Brazilian-owned 
company called JBS, received $107 million in criminal fines for price-
fixing in chicken markets. JBS separately paid out at least three 
multimillion-dollar settlements over the past year, while Smithfield, 
which is owned by China, has paid $83 million to settle pork price-
fixing allegations.
  So here we have these monopoly companies, two of them foreign owned, 
that are controlling the meat processing industry, controlling the 
entire supply chain, squeezing American farmers and ranchers, raising 
prices on consumers, and committing criminal violations while they do 
it.
  Now, many have called, including me, for antitrust investigations. 
Some have called, including me, for antitrust prosecution. And I stand 
behind those positions.
  But I am here today to say that we must do more. And, specifically, 
it is time for this administration, the Biden administration, to do 
more because they have the tools to do so at their disposal.
  Under Federal law, the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, has the 
authority to refuse to provide or to withdraw inspection services from 
any of these monopoly packers or anyone who is reasonably connected to 
them who has been convicted of a felony or any other act or 
circumstance that indicates a lack of integrity as it concerns public 
health.
  That is a broad grant of authority. What it means is that USDA could, 
right now, begin to suspend the inspection services for these monopoly 
companies, to say to these companies: We are not going to allow 
inspections to go forward; we are not going to allow your production to 
go forward until you come to the table and agree to resolve and desist 
any criminal misconduct and to get a better deal to ranchers and 
farmers across this country.
  This authority is already existing under Federal law. I want to be 
clear. It is already on the books. It is already provided for by 
Federal statute. And our ranchers and our farmers need it to be used, 
and they need it to be used now.
  So, today, I am calling on the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, 
to invoke these authorities, say to the major monopoly companies that 
USDA

[[Page S5811]]

will suspend inspection services until they come to the table, until 
they open their books, until our cattle ranchers and our farmers in 
Missouri and across this country get relief.
  I am making that request to the Secretary of Agriculture today. I 
hope that he will act today because our farmers and our ranchers 
deserve relief today, and they deserve our help and our support as they 
work to protect the life that they lead, the life that is the backbone, 
in many ways, of this country, and as they continue their noble work of 
feeding the world.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                           Order of Business

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be called up to the substitute and be reported by number: 
Peters-Rounds, 2464; Lankford, 2233; Cardin-Wicker, 2478; Daines, 2449; 
and Scott, 2338, CBO inflation verification; further, that at 4:15 p.m. 
today, the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order 
listed, with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to a vote 
in relation to the amendments, with 60 affirmative votes required for 
adoption of the amendments listed, with up to 4 minutes equally divided 
prior to the first four votes and up to 7 minutes for Senator Scott of 
Florida and 2 minutes for opponents prior to the Scott vote.
  Mr. President, let me amend that request to 4:25--not 4:15 but 4:25. 
I ask unanimous consent to make that modification.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2464 to Amendment No. 2137

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendments by 
number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for Mr. Peters, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2464 to Amendment No. 2137.

  The amendment is as follows

   (Purpose: To modify certain provisions relating to cybersecurity)

        In section 40121(b)(1) of subtitle B of title I of 
     division D, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), strike 
     ``consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and'' 
     and insert ``coordination with the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security and in consultation with''.
       In section 40121(c) of subtitle B of title I of division D, 
     in the matter preceding paragraph (1), strike ``consultation 
     with the Secretary of Homeland Security and'' and insert 
     ``coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in 
     consultation with''.
       In section 40122(b) of subtitle B of title I of division D, 
     strike ``consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security 
     and'' and insert ``coordination with the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security and in consultation with''.
       In section 40122(c) of subtitle B of title I of division D, 
     in the matter preceding paragraph (1), strike ``consultation 
     with the Secretary of Homeland Security and'' and insert 
     ``coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in 
     consultation with''.
       In section 40124(b) of subtitle B of title I of division D, 
     strike ``consultation with the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security,'' and insert ``coordination with the Secretary of 
     Homeland Security and in consultation with''.
       In section 40125(b)(1) of subtitle B of title I of division 
     D, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), strike 
     ``consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and'' 
     and insert ``coordination with the Secretary of Homeland 
     Security and in consultation with''.
       In section 40125(d)(1) of subtitle B of title I of division 
     D, in the matter preceding subparagraph (A), strike 
     ``consultation'' and insert ``coordination''.


                Amendment No. 2233 to Amendment No. 2137

  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for Mr. Lankford, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2233 to Amendment No. 2137.

  The amendment is as follows

  (Purpose: To prohibit Federal funding for any entity that fails to 
            enroll in and comply with the E-Verify Program)

        At the appropriate place in division I, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. ___. E-VERIFY COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT.

       (a) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, Federal assistance, grants, subgrants, contracts, and 
     subcontracts authorized under this Act may only be awarded to 
     entities that have enrolled in, and maintain compliance with 
     all statutes, regulations, and policies regarding the E-
     Verify Program described in section 403(a) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1324a note).
       (b) Requirement.--Any entity that has not previously 
     enrolled in, or had enrolled but did not maintain compliance 
     with all statutes, regulations, and policies regarding, the 
     E-Verify Program shall enroll in and certify compliance with 
     such statutes, regulations and policies before being eligible 
     to receive any Federal assistance, grants, subgrants, 
     contracts, or subcontracts authorized under this Act.


                Amendment No. 2478 to Amendment No. 2137

  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for Mr. Cardin, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2478 to Amendment No. 2137.

  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')


                Amendment No. 2449 to Amendment No. 2137

  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for Mr. Daines, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2449 to Amendment No. 2137.

  The amendment is as follows

    (Purpose: To provide additional funds for post-fire restoration 
 activities and restoration activities carried out using good neighbor 
                              agreements)

        Beginning on page 1799, strike line 13 and all that 
     follows through page 1800, line 10, and insert the following:
       (15) $300,000,000 shall be made available for post-fire 
     restoration activities that are implemented not later than 3 
     years after the date that a wildland fire is contained, of 
     which--
       (A) $125,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary 
     of the Interior; and
       (B) $175,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary 
     of Agriculture;
       On page 1800, line 11, strike ``(17)'' and insert ``(16)''.
       On page 1800, line 17, strike ``(18)'' and insert ``(17)''.
       On page 1816, strike lines 1 through 12 and insert the 
     following:
       (2) $300,000,000 shall be made available to provide to 
     States and Indian Tribes for implementing restoration 
     projects on Federal land pursuant to good neighbor agreements 
     entered into under section 8206 of the Agricultural Act of 
     2014 (16 U.S.C. 2113a) or agreements entered into under 
     section 2(b) of the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004 (25 
     U.S.C. 3115a(b)), of which--
       (A) $60,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary of 
     the Interior; and
       (B) $240,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary 
     of Agriculture;
       On page 2568, line 12, strike ``$905,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$925,000,000''.
       On page 2568, line 15, strike ``$337,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$341,000,000''.
       On page 2568, line 17, strike ``$142,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$146,000,000''.
       On page 2568, line 18, strike ``$142,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$146,000,000''.
       On page 2568, line 20, strike ``$142,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$146,000,000''.
       On page 2568, line 22, strike ``$142,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$146,000,000''.
       On page 2570, line 19, strike ``$1,055,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$980,000,000''.
       On page 2570, line 23, strike ``$327,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$312,000,000''.
       On page 2570, line 25, strike ``$182,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$167,000,000''.
       On page 2608, line 17, strike ``$2,115,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,095,000,000''.
       On page 2608, line 21, strike ``$587,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$583,000,000''.
       On page 2608, line 23, strike ``$382,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$378,000,000''.
       On page 2613, line 18, strike ``$696,200,000'' and insert 
     ``$771,200,000''.
       On page 2613, line 23, strike ``$552,200,000'' and insert 
     ``$567,200,000''.
       On page 2613, line 24, strike ``$36,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$51,000,000''.
       On page 2614, line 1, strike $36,000,000 and insert 
     ``$51,000,000''.
       On page 2614, line 3, strike ``$36,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$51,000,000''.
       On page 2614, line 4, strike ``$36,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$51,000,000''.


                Amendment No. 2338 to Amendment No. 2137

  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for Mr. Scott of 
     Florida, proposes an amendment numbered 2338 to Amendment No. 
     2137.

  The amendment is as follows

 (Purpose: To prohibit funds from being disbursed or obligated if the 
   Congressional Budget Office determines that such disbursement or 
          obligation would result in an increase in inflation)

        At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. _____. INCREASES IN INFLATION.

       (a) In General.--None of the funds made available by this 
     Act may be disbursed or obligated unless the Congressional 
     Budget Office certifies, not later than 45 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, that such funds would not 
     result in an increase in any fiscal year to the baseline 
     forecast for the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers in 
     the most recent 10-year economic outlook publication of the 
     Congressional Budget Office.
       (b) Result of Increase.--If the Congressional Budget Office 
     does not make the certification under subsection (a), the 
     funds

[[Page S5812]]

     shall be transferred to the general fund of the Treasury to 
     be used only for deficit reduction.


                           Amendment No. 2464

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the 
Peters-Rounds amendment, No. 2464.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise to urge adoption of the Peters-
Rounds amendment, No. 2464.
  I first want to thank Chairman Manchin and Ranking Member Barrasso of 
the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for working with me on this 
amendment. I would also like to thank Senators Rounds, Portman, and 
Warner for joining me in offering this amendment.
  It is very straightforward. It simply would align several cyber 
security provisions for the Department of Energy in this infrastructure 
legislation with existing law. It would require the Department of 
Energy, the sector risk management Agency for the energy sector, to 
coordinate with the Department of Homeland Security on cyber security 
efforts.
  DHS is the lead Federal Agency for cyber security, and they have a 
central role to play in working across the government to strengthen our 
cyber defenses. As we have seen from the damaging SolarWinds and 
Microsoft Exchange attacks, a whole-of-government approach is necessary 
to protect critical infrastructure.
  This amendment will ensure that there is a comprehensive approach 
that effectively coordinates our cyber security protections for 
critical infrastructure across all sectors. It reduces duplication of 
efforts and helps protect our Nation from the persistent threat posed 
by cyber attacks.
  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this straightforward, 
bipartisan amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise to support the Senator's motion and 
the amendment. This is a case where we are trying to eliminate the 
silos within the Federal Government. When it comes to cyber security, 
this is a really good example of one where you have multiple Agencies 
trying to work together.
  This makes it very clear that it is not just a matter of discussing 
or consulting but, rather, that it will be a coordinated effort. It 
recognizes once again that the Department of Homeland Security and the 
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency are taking the lead 
role.
  With that, I would offer my full support as well.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I yield back all remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2464

  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2464.
  Mr. PETERS. I would 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 96, nays 2, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 301 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     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 (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--2

       Cornyn
     Whitehouse
       

                             NOT VOTING--2

       Graham
     Inhofe

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). On this vote, the yeas are 96, the 
nays are 2.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2464) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4 
minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to the vote in relation to 
Lankford amendment No. 2233.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask the clock not start running right 
away. Senator Capito and I want to just raise an issue with the Chair 
and our colleagues.
  That last vote took about 50 minutes--50 minutes--and they are 
getting longer, not shorter.
  And Senator Capito and I want to use this as an opportunity just to 
start a conversation amongst our colleagues, see if we can't do better 
than that, maybe a lot better than that.
  So start thinking about it, and we would be interested to hear from 
you.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I would just like to add my voice with the chairman of the EPW 
Committee.
  I think, in consideration of everybody's time, we have got four more 
amendments and maybe more. We could roll through these if we would just 
be concise with the time and come in and vote on time.
  So if we don't, we might look for more punitive measures; right, Mr. 
Chairman?
  Mr. CARPER. You never know. We might do some voice votes. That would 
be good.
  All right. We thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 2233

  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, I have an amendment that we are 
calling up. It is a very straightforward amendment.
  This deals simply with how we handle E-Verify. The E-Verify system is 
very simple and straightforward. It has been used all over the country. 
It is a nonpartisan issue that we have used for decades now.
  It verifies whether the people that we are actually hiring, and all 
this purchasing that we are doing, this massive billions of dollars 
will actually be--the simple, straightforward piece of it is, we are 
putting billions of dollars into our economy right now. We are doing a 
lot of infrastructure with this bill.
  The promise should be that we are not just buying American, but we 
are actually hiring Americans as well. This is a bipartisan issue, 
quite frankly.
  President Biden, just today, released a statement that this is a 
once-in-a-generation investment in our infrastructure and will create 
good-paying union jobs, repairing our roads and bridges, replacing lead 
pipes, building energy transmission lines.
  It invests in clean energy, manufacturing, and zero-emission 
vehicles, ensuring that the jobs in the clean energy industry are good-
paying, quality American jobs. That is a great promise to be able to 
make, and it is a great statement to make.
  What this amendment does is to make sure it actually is American 
jobs. We know there is a tremendous pull factor with the American good-
paying jobs that are out there. This E-Verify requirement puts in 
place, both for the contractors and subcontractors, they will actually 
be American citizens.
  So, with that, I ask support for this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, if you like Federal mandates, here is 
one.
  Senator Lankford wants a Federal mandate to require that anyone who 
receives a grant from this bill has to sign up for E-Verify.
  Well, what does that mean?

[[Page S5813]]

  It means a school district in my home State that ended up getting a 
grant under this bill for energy-efficient improvements, renewable 
energy improvements at public school facilities would now be required 
by the Lankford amendment, the Federal mandate, to have E-Verify to 
check out the cafeteria workers in the school district. Is that what we 
really want to do?
  Well, how good is E-Verify? Some States have done it voluntarily. 
Eight of them have done it for all or most employers. You think if you 
run all these employees through the E-Verify process, how good is it?
  Well, I can tell you how good it is. Do you know how many illegal 
aliens you find when you go through E-Verify? One percent. One percent.
  So he is creating a Federal mandate and regulations on districts that 
are just trying to get energy improvements and reduce their costs and 
putting in an E-Verify requirement to get those illegal aliens.
  Well, it turns out that isn't the situation at all. It is a mandate 
that is unnecessary. I beg my colleagues to give these school districts 
and others no more redtape but less redtape.
  Please oppose the Lankford amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, are there any of my 2 minutes left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nineteen seconds remaining.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, this is not just a mandate; this is 
just a statement, if we are going to put American tax dollars in place, 
that we are actually hiring Americans to do it.
  If we are going to build America, let's also hire Americans in the 
process. That shouldn't be inconsistent with our basic values.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2233

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Hearing none, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 2233.
  Mr. DURBIN. 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 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 53, nays 45, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 302 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

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

                                NAYS--45

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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Graham
     Inhofe
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 53, the nays are 
45.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2233) was rejected.


                           Amendment No. 2478

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the 
Cardin amendment No. 2478.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of amendment 
No. 2478, which would make permanent and expand the Minority Business 
Development Agency, or the MBDA, which is the only Federal Agency to 
focus exclusively on the needs of minority businesses.
  This amendment is based on the Minority Business Resiliency Act, 
which I introduced in April, and the language is identical to what was 
passed out of the Commerce Committee earlier today by a voice vote.
  I want to thank Senator Wicker and Senator Cantwell of the committee 
for their help in getting this to the floor. I also want to thank 
Senator Tim Scott, Senator Cornyn, and Senator Baldwin, who were also 
cosponsors of this amendment, for helping us reach this moment.
  This amendment will give the Agency the resources and leadership 
necessary to help underserved entrepreneurs overcome historical 
barriers to small business ownership, innovate and start and grow 
successful businesses, and create jobs.
  This Agency will also partner with Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities and other minority-serving institutions to reach rural 
minority business enterprises and create a regional network supporting 
entrepreneurial education and help to coordinate Federal resources in 
service of minority business enterprises.
  Last year, the MBDA programs and services helped minority businesses 
secure nearly $8 billion in contracts and capital, and created nearly 
12,000 jobs.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the 
Record a letter from 17 stakeholders in support of this amendment, 
which includes the Small Business Majority, U.S. Black Chamber, and 
U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                   August 4, 2021.
     Hon. Chuck Schumer,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Schumer and Minority Leader McConnell: 
     We write you in strong support of Amendment #2478, which 
     would codify the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) 
     at the Department of Commerce. As the leaders in the small 
     business and minority business communities, we hope our 
     unified support represented by the signatures below will urge 
     your fellow Senators to include this language in the 
     Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. We urge you to 
     support this Amendment.
       The link between infrastructure, revitalized manufacturing, 
     and technical assistance to the minority entrepreneur 
     community cannot be overstated, and we strongly encourage 
     building a strong national support system through MBDA to 
     ensure minority participation in infrastructure investment.
       This amendment, which is based on the bipartisan Minority 
     Business Development Act of 2021, will support the expansion 
     of Minority-owned Business Enterprises (MBEs) and bolster the 
     country's economy. Moreover, it will ensure that the 
     infrastructure investments made in the legislation can 
     utilize and support America's minority-owned businesses.
       Prior to the Coronavirus pandemic, MBEs consisted of 30 
     percent of the country's 28.6 million small businesses, 
     contributed nearly $1.5 trillion in annual gross receipts and 
     employed over 7.2 million Americans. Despite these 
     significant figures, MBEs stand disproportionately 
     disadvantaged as evidenced by challenges with access to 
     capital and collateral, lower credit scores, and less access 
     to technical assistance services.
       Created under President Nixon by executive order, the MBDA 
     has been a significant resource in reducing market and 
     capital access challenges while growing the number of MBEs. 
     In 2020 alone, the MBDA assisted MBES in attaining over $7.8 
     billion in contracts and capital, with 10% of contracts made 
     in the manufacturing sector and another 15% made in the 
     utility and construction sector. Overall, the MBDA assisted 
     MBEs at the height of the pandemic to retain or create over 
     27,000 jobs.
       Despite MBDA's progress, the pandemic's economic downturn 
     has amplified the need to invest in services for underserved 
     and minority small business owners--particularly those within 
     Women, People of Color, and Tribal markets. MBEs 
     overwhelmingly are concentrated in industries that remain 
     susceptible to economic disruption, such as personal and 
     laundry services, and retail. As the nation experiences a 
     resurgence of Coronavirus cases, these fragile markets face 
     near-fatal consequences.
       We urge lawmakers to support this amendment as it will 
     strengthen and establish the MBDA into federal statute. This 
     critical bipartisan proposal, introduced by Senators

[[Page S5814]]

     Ben Cardin (D-MD), Tim Scott, (R-SC), Roger Wicker (R-MS), 
     and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) would increase MBDA's fiscal year 
     2021 budget to further safeguard MBEs from the devastating 
     inequities brought on by the health crisis and promote a 
     diverse entrepreneurial pipeline by establishing a process 
     for the Minority Business Development Center Program to 
     expand its regional coverage to reach MBEs in rural areas.
       During this time of economic emergency, we believe now is 
     the time for Congress to pass equitable and targeted 
     legislation that will benefit underserved and rural markets 
     and encourage underserved and rural markets enterprise 
     formation. This amendment achieves that while strengthening 
     the infrastructure package more broadly.
       We commend your work on ensuring that all small businesses 
     receive the resources necessary to withstand the current 
     economic downturn, as well as grow now and into the future. 
     We urge you to reach out directly to John Stanford 
     ([email protected]) with any questions or comments.
       Thank you for your consideration.
       Airport Minority Advisory Council (AMAC), Asian/Pacific 
     Islander American Chamber of Commerce & Entrepreneurship 
     (National ACE), Association for Enterprise Opportunity (AEO), 
     Association of Women's Business Centers (AWBC), Gusto, Local 
     Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), National Association 
     of Latino Community Asset Builders (NALCAB), NextGen Chamber 
     of Commerce, Pacific Community Ventures, Page 30 Coalition.
       Prosperity Now, Small Business Majority, Small Business 
     Roundtable, US Black Chambers, Inc., US Hispanic Chamber of 
     Commerce, Virginia Asian Chamber of Commerce, Women Impacting 
     Public Policy (WIPP).

  Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I understand that we may be able to do 
this by a voice vote, so I would ask unanimous consent that after my 
colleagues have had a chance to speak, we can vitiate the 60-vote 
requirement.
  With that, I yield to my colleague from Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I do appreciate the Senator from 
Maryland joining on this. Everything he said about the committee action 
today in the Commerce Committee is exactly correct. I subscribe to 
every statement that he made. I couldn't improve on it. I urge a 
``yes'' vote, and I am indeed hopeful we can vitiate the rollcall vote 
and save some time by voicing this one.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. We have cleared this with both the Democrats and the 
Republicans for managing the bill, and I would ask unanimous consent to 
vitiate the 60-vote requirement on the Cardin-Wicker amendment No. 
2478.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2478

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
No. 2478.
  The amendment (No. 2478) is agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2449

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 4 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to Daines 
amendment No. 2449.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Madam President, there is funding in this bill for a 
complex program that would lead to very few actual forest projects, and 
I fear it will only function as a shell for programs like the Climate 
Conservation Corps.
  And to be good stewards of our forests, we need to be good stewards 
of our limited resources. This amendment does that by redirecting these 
funds to higher priority accounts, like Good Neighbor Authority and 
post-fire treatment.
  Good Neighbor Authority has routinely enjoyed very bipartisan support 
in this body and has proven to be one of the most effective forestry 
tools. Given recent past and present wildfire seasons, redirecting 
funds to post-fire treatment just makes sense.
  It is early August, and Montana is on fire. There are nearly 300,000 
acres burning across our State. We need to manage our forests before 
they manage us. And in order to do so, we need to invest in higher 
priority accounts, and my amendment would do just that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I rise in opposition to the amendment, 
and I will explain my reasons.
  Senator Daines' amendment seeks to alter the funding levels of 
provisions in the Energy Infrastructure Act as reported out of the 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Specifically, the amendment 
cuts funding for hiring veterans and Native youth to do fire prevention 
projects and directs that funding to postfire rehabilitation projects 
and to States that carry out projects on Federal land.
  We are supportive of both postfire projects and States doing work on 
Federal land. That is why we funded these programs at unprecedented 
levels in our bill. However, we also support funding for veterans and 
Native youth. So I do not believe it is appropriate to cut the funding 
for this program.
  So I urge my colleagues to please vote no on this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, we have had two votes in this tranche; 
first vote about 50 minutes from start to close and the second vote 
about 25 minutes.
  We are going to propound a unanimous consent request--and I am 
tempted to do it right now--to try to figure out what would be 
reasonable. My sense is that maybe 15 minutes would be reasonable but a 
real 15 minutes, and we will start with that.
  Mr. WICKER. Hear! Hear!
  Mr. CARPER. Any objection?
  A SENATOR. Without objection.
  Mr. CARPER. All right. Madam President, I would ask that we make it a 
15-minute vote, a real 15-minute vote.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2449

  Is there further debate?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  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. 303 Leg.]

                                YEAS--48

     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
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--50

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     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

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Graham
     Inhof
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). 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. 2449) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 327

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, our Nation is nearly $30 
trillion in debt. That is $233,000 in debt for every American family.
  The American people are already feeling the pressure of rising 
inflation thanks to reckless government spending. And, make no mistake 
about it, inflation is a tax, a tax that hurts our

[[Page S5815]]

families on low and fixed incomes the most.
  I am hearing it from families across Florida who are worried. I heard 
from a dad in Jacksonville with three kids who is helping to 
temporarily take care of two other kids because their father is out of 
work. As a result of having five kids in his home, he has started 
working a second job to pay for all of the groceries that are rapidly 
increasing in price. His second job is driving Uber, and that is less 
and less profitable by the day because of the rising price of gas.
  Over the weekend, the suspension on the Federal debt ceiling expired. 
That leaves Congress with two choices: Continue this reckless, wasteful 
spending with no accountability to the American people, or start making 
the tough choices to put our Nation on a successful path.
  I know we can make the right choices and start moving America in a 
better direction. That is exactly what I did when I was Governor of 
Florida. Our State was on a bad path. I had to make difficult choices, 
but I paid down one-third of State debt, all while cutting taxes 100 
times. It can be done.
  Washington's choice to keep raising or suspending the debt ceiling is 
like raising the limit on your credit card, month after month, with 
absolutely no plan to pay it off. It is irresponsible, and it is no way 
to operate. You would never run your business or family the way 
Washington runs. It is wasteful and dysfunctional.
  I came to Washington to rein in this exact type of dysfunction. We 
have to get our debt and spending under control. We need to make 
Washington work for families in Florida and all across the Nation. That 
is why I am leading my colleagues in a proposed rule change that would 
require every piece of legislation passed by a Senate committee to 
include a report on how it will impact inflation.
  It is very simple. When legislation, directly or indirectly, raises 
the cost of living or raises taxes on American families, families 
deserve to know.
  Too many in Washington believe the lie that inflation is impossible, 
debt doesn't matter, and spending has no consequences. That is why this 
rule change is needed.
  This rule change is to protect that father in Jacksonville who is 
struggling to get by. It is to protect those living on fixed incomes, 
low-income earners, and small businesses that can't absorb cost 
increases.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules be 
discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed 
to S. Res. 327. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed 
to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the unanimous 
consent request from the Senator of Florida.
  The amendment before us would change the Standing Rules of the Senate 
and require additional reporting requirements regarding inflation, a 
change which would substantially increase the administrative burden on 
committees and staff and the process on the floor.
  We already have significant tools at our disposal to evaluate 
economic indicators. We have economists at the Department of Labor, 
Treasury Department, Congressional Budget Office, Federal Reserve, and 
other Federal offices regularly consulting with Congress on issues 
about inflation and other economic indicators. This is totally 
unnecessary.
  For these reasons, I oppose this resolution and the request for 
unanimous consent. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Florida.


                           Amendment No. 2338

  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, while I am disappointed that my 
colleague won't accept this measure, we do need to start doing 
something about inflation, and we can do that today with the 
infrastructure spending bill.
  We can all get behind real infrastructure--like roads, bridges, 
airports, and seaports--but we have to acknowledge that $1.2 trillion 
is a massive amount of taxpayer dollars, and we have to know exactly 
how this will impact families.
  I have been told by supporters of this infrastructure bill that it 
will not cause inflation. I will not support anything that increases 
inflation on American families. I have an amendment to the 
infrastructure package that will require the Congressional Budget 
Office to certify that the spending in this bill will not increase 
inflation on the American people.
  If CBO does not certify that the spending authorized and appropriated 
in the bill would not increase inflation, my amendment would prohibit 
the funding from being obligated or spent, and the funds would instead 
be transferred to the Treasury Department for deficit reduction.
  I hope that everybody will get behind this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there time in opposition?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield back my time.
  Mr. CARPER. Yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is yielded back.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2338

  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. LANKFORD. 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 proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Inhofe), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).
  The result was announced--yeas 42, nays 55, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 304 Leg.]

                                YEAS--42

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

                                NAYS--55

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Graham
     Inhofe
     Rounds
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Van Hollen). On this vote, the yeas are 
42, the nays are 55.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S5815, August 4, 2021, third column, the following 
appears: The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Van Hollen). On this vote, the 
yeas are 52, the nays are 45.
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: The PRESIDING 
OFFICER (Mr. Van Hollen). On this vote, the yeas are 42, the nays 
are 55.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2338) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, Senator Capito and I have a couple of 
comments we would like to offer before we start on this amendment with 
Senator Lee, and that is we have consulted with both leaders, with 
Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell. They are in agreement that 15 
minutes firm is the vote.
  So when we start this vote, folks have 15 minutes to get here after 
we start the vote to vote, and if they are not here, they are too late.
  So that is the idea. We have spent way too much time waiting for 
people. We have three amendments lined up, and we are going to vote 
them and be punctual.
  Senator Capito.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  I am in full support of using the 15-minute deadline that we have 
anyway and actually enforcing this.

[[Page S5816]]

  There is a lot of interest in this bill, as there should be. There 
are a lot of amendments pending. We want to get as many Members in--and 
have their amendments in the queue--as we possibly can.
  But if people don't come down and vote and show courtesy to 
everybody, I said in my last statement we are going to go to punitive 
measures. I am not sure voting within the allotted time is really a 
punitive measure, but that is what we are aiming for, and I am fully 
supportive of that.
  Mr. CARPER. Thank you.
  I would just ask any staff and Members who are watching, staff, let 
your Senators know it is 15 minutes, and that is it.


           Amendment Nos. 2279 and 2358 to Amendment No 2137

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be called up to the substitute and be reported by number: 
No. 1 is Lee No. 2279; No. 2 is Rosen No. 2358; further, that the 
Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed, with no 
amendments in order to the amendments prior to a vote in relation to 
the amendments, with 60 affirmative votes required for the adoption of 
the Lee amendment listed and with up to 4 minutes, equally divided, 
prior to each vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2279 to Amendment No. 2137

  (Purpose: To establish a project delivery program under the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for water storage infrastructure 
projects.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for Mr. Lee, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2279 to the amendment No. 
     2137.

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of August 2, 2021 under 
``Text of Amendments.'')


                Amendment No. 2358 to Amendment No. 2137

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

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for Ms. Rosen, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2358 to amendment No. 2137.

  The amendment is as follows

   (Purpose: To modify a provision relating to providing support for 
activities to increase the resiliency of the National Highway System to 
              mitigate the cost of damages from wildfires)

        On page 60, line 22, insert ``wildfires,'' after 
     ``flooding,''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, in reference to my amendment No. 2279, this 
is what we are trying to deal with here.
  In order to help expedite the review of projects that are subject to 
NEPA, Congress authorized in the FAST Act for States to assume the 
duties of conducting the NEPA analysis.
  For example, the Federal Highway Administration has entered into 
agreements with seven States--including Alaska, Arizona, California, 
Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Utah--to assume this responsibility with 
great success, providing an opportunity for States to leverage their 
unique understanding of their own States in order to better carry out 
NEPA's requirements.
  To build on this success, Congress should look to expand the ability 
of States to partner with the Federal Government for these types of 
reviews in their States' water infrastructure projects.
  My amendment would require the Department of the Interior to set up a 
program similar to the existing Surface Transportation Project Delivery 
Program so that any State may voluntarily assume the Agency's NEPA 
responsibilities for their water storage infrastructure projects.
  As I said just a moment ago, States already have a history of 
successfully conducting this work in the transportation space.
  In 2020, for example, California conducted 33 environmental 
assessments, 32 findings of no significant impact, 2 environmental 
impact statements, 3 records of decision, and the list goes on and on.
  In just the last half of 2020 alone, Arizona conducted over 50 
categorical exclusion analyses. These are clearly roles that States are 
able and excited to handle.
  In fulfilling these responsibilities, States would be subject to the 
same rigorous environmental requirements as their Federal partners, 
employing the very same standards. Just as projects led by Federal 
Agencies can be halted due to insufficient NEPA analysis, States would 
also be held to the same standard.
  With much of the West experiencing severe drought, with dire 
consequences, allowing States to aid the Federal Government in NEPA 
review in order to expedite water storage infrastructure projects is 
not just common sense, it is a necessity. It is a matter of survival.
  I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 2279.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by our colleague from Utah.
  This amendment would undermine the National Environmental Policy Act, 
also known as NEPA, by allowing States to assume responsibility for 
undertaking complex reviews of Federal action. These are reviews that 
Congress vested explicitly in the Federal Agencies that permit or 
license projects that could adversely affect our environment.
  NEPA is designed to ensure that Federal Agencies consider major 
actions carefully to ensure those decisions do not unduly impact water 
quality, endangered species, community well-being, air quality, and 
other environmental resources.
  NEPA is a critical analytical tool that ensures that Federal decision 
makers are better informed and that the affected community has an 
opportunity to engage and be heard.
  Today, as the world is in the midst of a sixth great extinction 
event, and climate change is having ever greater impacts on our natural 
world, we should be making decisions more carefully than ever, not just 
to improve outcomes but also to avoid wasting money on projects that 
are not resilient to withstand climate change.
  This amendment would instead turn over responsibility for that 
critical analysis to the States.
  The bill before us includes many environmental deregulatory 
provisions--more, in fact, than many of us would prefer. However, it 
has been drafted in the spirit of bipartisan compromise.
  This bill, as drafted, includes provisions to set deadlines for 
project review schedule in order to reduce project review timelines. It 
provides or expands categorical exclusions from NEPA. It also 
permanently authorizes the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering 
Council.
  Unlike these provisions, which were the product of committee 
deliberation and compromise, the amendment that our friend from Utah 
has offered would significantly alter the process for Federal 
environmental review without any committee deliberation on such major 
changes.
  These sweeping changes are inappropriate and unwarranted, and I urge 
our colleagues to join me in voting no.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for an 
additional 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is important to remember these are the 
exact same standards that would apply. We do this all the time in other 
areas. Federal regulatory Agencies, on a continual basis, with the 
blessing of Congress, are given authority to carry out a Federal 
program.
  In fact, we already do this with NEPA in the context of the Federal 
Highway Administration.
  This works. States are competent. It is a matter of expanding the 
human resources to which we have access.
  These are the exact same standards. There is no environmental threat. 
This would just allow this stuff to get done faster.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2279

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
2279.
  Mr. LEE. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is 
necessarily absent.

[[Page S5817]]

  

  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 47, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 305 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

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

                                NAYS--50

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

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Graham
     Inhofe
     Sanders
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for adoption, the 
amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2279) was rejected.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How long did that 
last 15-minute vote take?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. While the vote was scheduled for 15 
minutes, it took 37.
  Mr. CARPER. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
rollcall votes be 10 minutes in length.
  Mr. CARPER. I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is heard.


                           Order of Procedure

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, let me just take a minute from Senator 
Capito to explain what is going on. OK?
  So lined up right now, we are going to do three voice votes. 
Negotiations are going forward on an amendment from Senator Schumer, 
related to the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction. And after that, I 
think the last vote will be that of Senator Fischer, and we will be 
done.
  And the reason why that is delayed is in order to provide time for 
negotiation to occur on the Schumer amendment with the Commerce 
Committee, and I think we are just about resolved.
  I don't like it. It is what it is.
  I just want to thank all for your patience. We are close to the end.
  I would just ask, when we ask for a voice vote on the amendment from 
Senator Jacky Rosen, that we get a voice vote. And I would ask that 
when we ask for a voice vote on the Carper-Inhofe amendment, we get a 
voice vote. And beyond that, we will be halfway home, halfway home.
  So thank you for your patience. We are almost there.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 4 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to--
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, let me have order. Let me have order, 
please.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Order.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
amendments be called up to the substitute and be reported by number: 
Carper-Inhofe 2564, Bennet-Hoeven 2548; further, that the Senate vote 
in relation to the amendments in the order listed, with no amendments 
in order to the amendments prior to voting in relation to the 
amendments, with up to 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 2564 to Amendment No. 2137

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the 
amendments by number.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for himself and 
     others, proposes an amendment numbered 2564 to amendment No. 
     2137.

  The amendment is as follows

  (Purpose: To improve provisions relating to appropriations for the 
                          Corps of Engineers)

       On page 2486, line 14, strike ``Provided'' and all that 
     follows through ``proviso:'' on line 21 and insert the 
     following: ``Provided further, That of the amount provided 
     under this heading in this Act, $2,500,000,000 shall be for 
     construction, replacement, rehabilitation, and expansion of 
     inland waterways projects: Provided further, That section 
     102(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public 
     Law 99-662; 33 U.S.C. 2212(a)) and section 109 of the Water 
     Resources Development Act of 2020 (Public Law 116-260; 134 
     Stat. 2624) shall not apply to the extent that such projects 
     are carried out using funds provided in the preceding 
     proviso: Provided further, That in using such funds referred 
     to in the preceding proviso, the Secretary shall give 
     priority to projects included in the Capital Investment 
     Strategy of the Corps of Engineers:''.
       On page 2487, lines 9 through 11, strike ``or section 1135 
     of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 
     99-662; 33 U.S.C. 2309a),'' and insert ``section 1135 of the 
     Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-662; 
     33 U.S.C. 2309a), or section 165(a) of division AA of the 
     Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-
     260),''.
       On page 2489, line 9, insert ``Provided further, That in 
     selecting projects under the previous proviso, the Secretary 
     of the Army shall prioritize projects with overriding life-
     safety benefits: Provided further, That of the funds in the 
     proviso preceding the preceding proviso, the Secretary of the 
     Army shall, to the maximum extent practicable, prioritize 
     projects in the work plan that directly benefit economically 
     disadvantaged communities, and may take into consideration 
     prioritizing projects that benefit areas in which the 
     percentage of people that live in poverty or identify as 
     belonging to a minority group is greater than the average 
     such percentage in the United States, based on data from the 
     Bureau of the Census:'' after ``purpose:''.
       On page 2496, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following:

                 general provisions--corps of engineers

       Sec. 300.  For projects that are carried out with funds 
     under this heading, the Secretary of the Army and the 
     Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall 
     consider other factors in addition to the benefit-cost ratio 
     when determining the economic benefits of projects that 
     benefit disadvantaged communities.


                Amendment No. 2548 to Amendment No. 2137

  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for Mr. Bennet and 
     Mr. Hoeven, proposes an amendment numbered 2548 to amendment 
     No. 2137.

  The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a Joint 
           Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership program)

        At the end of title VIII of division D, add the following:

     SEC. 408_____. JOINT CHIEFS LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PARTNERSHIP 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Chiefs.--The term ``Chiefs'' means the Chief of the 
     Forest Service and the Chief of the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service.
       (2) Eligible activity.--The term ``eligible activity'' 
     means an activity--
       (A) to reduce the risk of wildfire;
       (B) to protect water quality and supply; or
       (C) to improve wildlife habitat for at-risk species.
       (3) Program.--The term ``Program'' means the Joint Chiefs 
     Landscape Restoration Partnership program established under 
     subsection (b)(1).
       (4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.
       (5) Wildland-urban interface.--The term ``wildland-urban 
     interface'' has the meaning given the term in section 101 of 
     the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6511).
       (b) Establishment.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish a Joint 
     Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership program to improve 
     the health and resilience of forest landscapes across 
     National Forest System land and State, Tribal, and private 
     land.
       (2) Administration.--The Secretary shall administer the 
     Program by coordinating eligible activities conducted on 
     National Forest System land and State, Tribal, or private 
     land across a forest landscape to improve the health and 
     resilience of the forest landscape by--
       (A) assisting producers and landowners in implementing 
     eligible activities on eligible private or Tribal land using 
     the applicable programs and authorities administered by the 
     Chief of the Natural Resources Conservation Service under 
     title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C. 3801 et 
     seq.), not including the conservation reserve program 
     established under subchapter B of chapter 1 of subtitle D of 
     that title (16 U.S.C. 3831 et seq.); and

[[Page S5818]]

       (B) conducting eligible activities on National Forest 
     System land or assisting landowners in implementing eligible 
     activities on State, Tribal, or private land using the 
     applicable programs and authorities administered by the Chief 
     of the Forest Service.
       (c) Selection of Eligible Activities.--The appropriate 
     Regional Forester and State Conservationist shall jointly 
     submit to the Chiefs on an annual basis proposals for 
     eligible activities under the Program.
       (d) Evaluation Criteria.--In evaluating and selecting 
     proposals submitted under subsection (c), the Chiefs shall 
     consider--
       (1) criteria including whether the proposal--
       (A) reduces wildfire risk in a municipal watershed or the 
     wildland-urban interface;
       (B) was developed through a collaborative process with 
     participation from diverse stakeholders;
       (C) increases forest workforce capacity or forest business 
     infrastructure and development;
       (D) leverages existing authorities and non-Federal funding;
       (E) provides measurable outcomes; or
       (F) supports established State and regional priorities; and
       (2) such other criteria relating to the merits of the 
     proposals as the Chiefs determine to be appropriate.
       (e) Outreach.--The Secretary shall provide--
       (1) public notice on the websites of the Forest Service and 
     the Natural Resources Conservation Service describing--
       (A) the solicitation of proposals under subsection (c); and
       (B) the criteria for selecting proposals in accordance with 
     subsection (d); and
       (2) information relating to the Program and activities 
     funded under the Program to States, Indian Tribes, units of 
     local government, and private landowners.
       (f) Exclusions.--An eligible activity may not be carried 
     out under the Program--
       (1) in a wilderness area or designated wilderness study 
     area;
       (2) in an inventoried roadless area;
       (3) on any Federal land on which, by Act of Congress or 
     Presidential proclamation, the removal of vegetation is 
     restricted or prohibited; or
       (4) in an area in which the eligible activity would be 
     inconsistent with the applicable land and resource management 
     plan.
       (g) Accountability.--
       (1) Initial report.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
     of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to 
     Congress a report providing recommendations to Congress 
     relating to the Program, including a review of--
       (A) funding mechanisms for the Program;
       (B) staff capacity to carry out the Program;
       (C) privacy laws applicable to the Program;
       (D) data collection under the Program;
       (E) monitoring and outcomes under the Program; and
       (F) such other matters as the Secretary considers to be 
     appropriate.
       (2) Additional reports.--For each of fiscal years 2022 and 
     2023, the Chiefs shall submit to the Committee on 
     Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry and the Committee on 
     Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Agriculture 
     and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
     Representatives a report describing projects for which 
     funding is provided under the Program, including the status 
     and outcomes of those projects.
       (h) Funding.--
       (1) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out the Program 
     $90,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 and 2023.
       (2) Additional funds.--In addition to the funds described 
     in paragraph (1), the Secretary may obligate available funds 
     from accounts used to carry out the existing Joint Chiefs' 
     Landscape Restoration Partnership prior to the date of 
     enactment of this Act to carry out the Program.
       (3) Duration of availability.--Funds made available under 
     paragraph (1) shall remain available until expended.
       (4) Distribution of funds.--Of the funds made available 
     under paragraph (1)--
       (A) not less than 40 percent shall be allocated to carry 
     out eligible activities through the Natural Resources 
     Conservation Service;
       (B) not less than 40 percent shall be allocated to carry 
     out eligible activities through the Forest Service; and
       (C) the remaining funds shall be allocated by the Chiefs to 
     the Natural Resources Conservation Service or the Forest 
     Service--
       (i) to carry out eligible activities; or
       (ii) for other purposes, such as technical assistance, 
     project development, or local capacity building.


                           Amendment No. 2358

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 4 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to a vote in 
relation to the Rosen amendment No. 2358.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, last summer, the United States saw up close 
the horrific damage that wildfires can do to our communities. In 2020, 
nearly 300,000 acres in Nevada burned to the ground. Right now, the 
Tamarack fire is devastating the Nevada-California border and local 
communities.
  These natural disasters have done real, lasting damage to our 
Nation's highways, causing cracks, potholes, and, in some cases, 
literally melting the roads that we drive on.
  My colleague Senator Risch and I offer this bipartisan amendment to 
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which would add wildfires 
as a specified damage for which Federal assistance from the National 
Highway Performance Program may be used to rebuild our highways.
  This will provide support to increase the resiliency of the national 
highway system, helping to mitigate the cost of the damages.
  I ask all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate?
  Mr. CARPER. I rise in support of this amendment. I hope we will get 
everybody to vote for it. Let's do a voice vote so we can move on.
  Mrs. CAPITO. I am in support also as a ranking member.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2358

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Hearing no further debate, the 
question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2358) was agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.


                           Amendment No. 2447

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise now to discuss my amendment with 
Senators Inhofe, Wicker, and Duckworth.
  This amendment makes several changes to the appropriations section of 
the substitute in the section that funds the Army Corps of Engineers.
  In WRDA 2020, Senator Barrasso and I heard multiple times about the 
struggles of small, rural, and economically disadvantaged communities 
in meeting project cost shares. These projects range from aquatic 
ecosystem restorations to flood control and new levees. Yet because the 
Corps is required to cost share the work, these small, rural, and poor 
communities never get the assistance they need.
  Last year, Senator Barrasso and I created a cap authority that allows 
the Corps to pay for full expense of these projects to help these 
disadvantaged communities finance the infrastructure the community 
needs.
  This amendment also makes clarifying changes to the inland waterways 
funding. In addition to a technical correction, it makes clear that the 
funding provided in this act must be prioritized for projects on the 
Capital Investment Strategy Report, the guiding document for the Corps 
inland waterways projects.
  Finally, this amendment makes sure that inland flooding projects are 
prioritized for economically disadvantaged communities and life-safety-
related projects. This supports equity for disadvantaged communities 
while prioritizing projects with the highest need.
  This is a good bill. It is a good amendment, and these small tweaks 
make it stronger.
  I urge my colleagues to support our amendment and hope that we might 
do so unanimously.
  Senator Inhofe would be here. He is in Oklahoma with his family right 
now. I think some would understand that. He urges us to support this as 
well.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further debate?


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2564

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment No. 2564.
  The amendment (No. 2564) was agreed to.
  Mr. CARPER. With that, Mr. President, I would suggest the absence of 
a quorum, waiting for the arrival of Senator Bennet, who will be here 
momentarily.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Under the previous order, there will now be 2 minutes of debate 
equally divided prior to a vote in relation to Bennet-Hoeven amendment 
2548.

[[Page S5819]]

  



                           Amendment No. 2548

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I rise to speak about Bennet-Hoeven 
amendment 2548.
  Our amendment would formally establish the Joint Chiefs Program at 
USDA. I know a lot of people haven't heard of this initiative, but it 
is really, really important.
  As I have said on this floor before, in Western States like Colorado 
and North Dakota, our forests and our grasslands are as important to 
our economy as the Lincoln Tunnel or the Brooklyn Bridge are to New 
York, but they haven't received nearly enough investment over the 
years. The result is that we have people on the ground across the West 
who are working with incredibly constrained resources. But, despite 
their best effort, there is a lot of important work to maintain the 
health of our forests and grasslands that they are unable to do. The 
consequences of this have been terrible in the West.
  In Colorado, we had the three largest wildfires in our history last 
year. The fires were still burning when the snow fell, for the first 
time. That has never happened in anyone's memory.
  As we consider this infrastructure bill tonight, one of the major 
east-west corridors in America is closed because of mudslides that 
poured down the burn scar from the wildfires last year. Now I-70 may be 
closed for weeks.
  We need to deal with this on the front end, and that is why the Joint 
Chiefs Program matters. At USDA, the Forest Service works mostly on 
public lands, while the Natural Resources Conservation Service supports 
efforts on private lands. Joint Chiefs allows them to work in a 
collaborative way.
  I thank Senator Hoeven for his support, and I hope we will vote for 
this on voice vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the Senator from 
Colorado on this Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership Act. I 
appreciate his leadership.
  There are several points I want to make here before we vote, and that 
is, this program is very popular with landowners, and I think that is 
important. This is a very popular program with landowners. It is 
completely voluntary, a voluntary program. We have chatted with CBO. It 
does not score, so it does not have a score. Again, both the majority 
and minority on Ag agree and support this legislation. So, again, it is 
farmer-friendly, rancher-friendly, and popular with landowners.
  I thank the Senator from Colorado, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on this 
amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2548

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2548) was agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.


           Amendment Nos. 2164 and 2570 to Amendment No. 2137

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, colleagues, I ask unanimous consent that 
the following amendments be called up to the substitute and be reported 
by number. The first of those is Fischer, 2164, with Cortez Masto--is 
that correct? Yes--and the second is Schumer, 2570; further, that the 
Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed, with no 
amendments in order to the amendments prior to a vote in relation to 
the amendments, with up to 2 minutes equally divided prior to each 
vote.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.


                Amendment No. 2164 to Amendment No. 2137

  The clerk will report the amendments by number.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for Mrs. Fischer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2164 to amendment No. 2137.

  The amendment is as follows

(Purpose: To promote transparency by requiring the establishment of an 
online interactive map displaying the locations of broadband deployment 
          projects that are funded by the Federal Government)



 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  On page S5819, August 4, 2021, second column, the following 
appears: (Purpose: To promote transparency by requiring the 
establishment of an online interactive map displaying the location 
of broadband deployment projects that are funded by the Federal 
Government)
  
  The online Record has been corrected to read: (Purpose: To 
promote transparency by requiring the establishment of an online 
interactive map displaying the locations of broadband deployment 
projects that are funded by the Federal Government)


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 


        At the appropriate place in division F, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 60___. BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT LOCATIONS MAP.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Broadband infrastructure.--The term ``broadband 
     infrastructure'' means any cables, fiber optics, wiring, or 
     other permanent (integral to the structure) infrastructure, 
     including wireless infrastructure, that--
       (A) is capable of providing access to internet connections 
     in individual locations; and
       (B) is an advanced telecommunications capability, as 
     defined in section 706(d) of the Telecommunications Act of 
     1996 (47 U.S.C. 1302(d)).
       (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Communications Commission.
       (3) Deployment locations map.--The term ``Deployment 
     Locations Map'' means the mapping tool required to be 
     established under subsection (b).
       (b) Establishment of Deployment Locations Map.--Not later 
     than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the 
     Commission shall, in consultation with all relevant Federal 
     agencies, establish an online mapping tool to provide a 
     locations overview of the overall geographic footprint of 
     each broadband infrastructure deployment project funded by 
     the Federal Government.
       (c) Requirements.--The Deployment Locations Map shall be--
       (1) the centralized, authoritative source of information on 
     funding made available by the Federal Government for 
     broadband infrastructure deployment in the United States; and
       (2) made publicly available on the website of the 
     Commission.
       (d) Functions.--In establishing the Deployment Locations 
     Map, the Commission shall ensure that the Deployment 
     Locations Map--
       (1) compiles data related to Federal funding for broadband 
     infrastructure deployment provided by the Commission, the 
     National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 
     the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and 
     Human Services, the Department of the Treasury, the 
     Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Institute of 
     Museum and Library Sciences, and any other Federal agency 
     that provides such data relating to broadband infrastructure 
     deployment funding to the Commission, including funding 
     under--
       (A) this Act;
       (B) the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act 
     (Public Law 116-136);
       (C) the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 
     116-260);
       (D) American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-2); or
       (E) any Federal amounts appropriated or any Federal program 
     authorized after the date of enactment of this Act to fund 
     broadband infrastructure deployment;
       (2) contains data, with respect to each broadband 
     infrastructure deployment program, relating to--
       (A) the Federal agency of jurisdiction;
       (B) the program title; and
       (C) the network type, including wired, terrestrial fixed, 
     wireless, mobile, and satellite broadband infrastructure 
     deployment;
       (3) allows users to manipulate the Deployment Locations Map 
     to identify, search, and filter broadband infrastructure 
     deployment projects by--
       (A) company name;
       (B) duration timeline, including the dates of a project's 
     beginning and ending, or anticipated beginning or ending 
     date;
       (C) total number of locations to which a project makes 
     service available; and
       (D) relevant download and upload speeds; and
       (4) incorporates broadband service availability data as 
     depicted in the Broadband Map created under section 802(c)(1) 
     of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 642(c)(1)).
       (e) Periodic Updates.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission shall, in consultation with 
     relevant Federal agencies, ensure the Deployment Locations 
     Map is maintained and up to date on a periodic basis, but not 
     less frequently than once every 180 days.
       (2) Other federal agencies.--Each Federal agency providing 
     funding for broadband infrastructure deployment shall report 
     relevant data to the Commission on a periodic basis.
       (f) No Effect on Programmatic Missions.--Nothing in this 
     section shall be construed to affect the programmatic 
     missions of Federal agencies providing funding for broadband 
     infrastructure development.
       (g) Nonduplication.--The requirements in this section shall 
     be consistent with and avoid duplication with the provisions 
     of section 903 of division FF of the Consolidated 
     Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260).
       (h) Funding.--Of the amounts appropriated to carry out this 
     division under this Act, $10,000,000 shall be made available 
     to carry out this section.


                Amendment No. 2570 to Amendment No. 2137

  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Delaware [Mr. Carper], for Mr. Schumer, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2570 to amendment No. 2137.

  The amendment is as follows

    (Purpose: To establish safety standards for certain limousines)

       At the appropriate place in division B, insert the 
     following:

     SEC. ____. LIMOUSINE COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL SAFETY 
                   STANDARDS.

       (a) Limousine Standards.--

[[Page S5820]]

         (1) Safety belt and seating system standards for 
     limousines.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall prescribe a final 
     rule that--
       (A) amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Numbers 
     208, 209, and 210 to require to be installed in limousines on 
     each designated seating position, including on side-facing 
     seats--
       (i) an occupant restraint system consisting of integrated 
     lap-shoulder belts; or
       (ii) an occupant restraint system consisting of a lap belt, 
     if an occupant restraint system described in clause (i) does 
     not meet the need for motor vehicle safety; and
       (B) amends Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 207 
     to require limousines to meet standards for seats (including 
     side-facing seats), seat attachment assemblies, and seat 
     installation to minimize the possibility of failure by forces 
     acting on the seats, attachment assemblies, and installations 
     as a result of motor vehicle impact.
       (2) Report on retrofit assessment for limousines.--Not 
     later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, 
     the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a 
     report that assesses the feasibility, benefits, and costs 
     with respect to the application of any requirement 
     established under paragraph (1) to a limousine introduced 
     into interstate commerce before the date on which the 
     requirement takes effect.
       (b) Modifications of Certain Vehicles.--The final rule 
     prescribed under subsection (a)(1) and any standards 
     prescribed under subsection (b) or (c) of section 23015 shall 
     apply to a person modifying a passenger motor vehicle (as 
     defined in section 32101 of title 49, United States Code) 
     that has already been purchased by the first purchaser (as 
     defined in section 30102(b) of that title) by increasing the 
     wheelbase of the vehicle to make the vehicle a limousine.
       (c) Application.--The requirements of this section apply 
     notwithstanding section 30112(b)(1) of title 49, United 
     States Code.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in 
relation to the Fischer amendment, No. 2164.
  The Senator from Nebraska.


                           Amendment No. 2164

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Carper and Senator 
Capito for the work they have been doing here on the floor. I 
appreciate their diligence in trying to get amendments up.
  I am glad to offer this bipartisan amendment with my colleague from 
Nevada. It would promote transparency among all Federal funding avenues 
for broadband infrastructure deployment.
  Right now, funding is divided among several Agencies: FCC, NTIA, 
USDA, HHS, Treasury, and many others. Some of these programs have 
detailed maps of where funding is going, but some do not. Even when 
there are maps, it still requires searching through several web pages 
and sources to find out what you are looking for, if you can find it at 
all.
  Without a clear picture of where the funding is going, it will be 
increasingly difficult to avoid duplication and distribute resources 
where they are needed the most. So our amendment would create an online 
mapping tool through an interagency process so we can view the latest 
progress of all of these deployment projects in one place. I would urge 
adoption of the amendment.
  Thank you.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I join my colleague from Nebraska in 
support of this bipartisan amendment.
  Transparency around broadband is so important for all of our 
communities, and it fits with, I think, what we are all doing to 
address our broadband needs across the country and trying to ensure we 
are bringing broadband into the communities most in need. So I urge my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I understand there has been a request--let 
me ask the Senator.
  I understand there has been a request for a recorded vote. Can you 
confirm that or not?
  Mrs. FISCHER. A recorded vote would be fine.
  Mr. CARPER. All right. Then it will be a recorded vote.
  Let me ask our colleagues: 10 minutes; is that OK? Ten minutes from 
start to finish, and that is it. And the last amendment will be 
Schumer. All right? Let's do this in 10 minutes, OK?


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2164

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment.
  Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Menendez) is necessarily absent.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 306 Leg.]

                                YEAS--95

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     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
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lee
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Markey
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Merkley
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Blunt
     Graham
     Inhofe
     Menendez
     Toomey
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. On this vote, the yeas are 95, the 
nays are 0.
  The amendment (No. 2164) was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 2570

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, there 
will be 2 minutes of debate, equally divided, prior to the vote in 
relation to the Schumer amendment, No. 2570.
  The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise in support of this amendment. 
It is a bipartisan amendment with Senator Wicker. And this is about 
just giving basic safety regulations to those superlong, stretch 
limousines.
  The reason why Senator Schumer and I care about this, there was a 
horrible, horrible incident in Upstate New York, in Schoharie, where 20 
people were killed. In that 1 limousine, 17 passengers: 4 young women 
from the same family--a mom lost 4 daughters--and 2 recently married 
couples. They hired the limousine to go safely to a birthday party.
  This cannot continue.
  And I yield to Senator Wicker.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I, too, rise in support of this amendment. 
It is in response to a tragic automobile accident that affected a 
number of families.
  I want to thank Senator Schumer's staff for working with me, the 
ranking member, and the chair of the Commerce Committee to get this 
language correct. It is in good shape. I entirely agree with the junior 
Senator from New York.


                       Vote on Amendment No. 2570

  Mr. CORNYN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).
  The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 39, as follows:

[[Page S5821]]

  


                  [Rollcall Vote No. 307 Legislative]

                                YEAS--58

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Cramer
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hyde-Smith
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Thune
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--39

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Marshall
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Blunt
     Graham
     Inhofe
  The amendment (No. 2570) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). The majority leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, before I close, I have some brief 
remarks.
  First, on the bill that just passed, let me thank my colleagues for 
passing this very important bill.
  It stems from the fact that, in 2018, 20 lives were lost in a tragic 
limousine accident in Schoharie, NY. The families came from the small 
city of Amsterdam, the people. They had done just the right thing. It 
is a group that went out. They knew they might be enjoying themselves, 
and so they hired a big, long stretch limo. Unfortunately, as the limo 
came down the hill in Schoharie, it crashed, and 20 people died.
  I met the families. These were young people in the prime of life. I 
met one mom. She lost four daughters--four daughters--in this crash. 
This community of Amsterdam and these families have endured endless 
tragedy.
  But instead of cursing the darkness, they have lit a candle, and they 
are pushing for the fact that there is a hole in regulation. We 
regulate trucks, and we regulate smaller limos, but when it is a large 
limo, and they are not sure what it is classified as, then there is 
virtually no regulation. This legislation fills that hole. The accident 
was preventable.
  There was another accident on Long Island--four young women in the 
prime of life killed in the same way. That was preventable.
  Now Congress finally has the opportunity to address the gaps and 
loopholes that have allowed limousines to escape the basic safety 
standards that cover other vehicles.
  My amendment--and that with Senator Gillibrand--would ensure that 
limousines meet minimum safety standards. It mandates seatbelts and 
seat safety standards, and it will save lives. So I thank my colleagues 
for supporting this amendment.
  It is a beautiful thing what these families are doing. The hole in 
their heart will never go away. The hole in the heart of the whole city 
of Amsterdam, which lost so many of their vital young men and women, 
will never go away. But instead of cursing the darkness, they are 
lighting the candle, and, tonight, the candle was lit thanks to the 
bipartisan cooperation we have here. So I thank my colleagues.


                               H.R. 3684

  Mr. President, now on the matter of today, the Senate is making 
really good progress, really good progress. As you know, I had 
promised, when we opened up our two-track process, that we would be 
fully bipartisan in the amendment process as we move forward on the 
bipartisan infrastructure bill. Well, I think no one can deny that we 
have kept our word here in the Democratic majority.
  So far, the Senate has considered 22 amendments on this bipartisan 
piece of legislation, 15 of them today. That is more amendments than 
probably happened in many months when we were in the minority. Of those 
amendments, 12 have been agreed to--5 by voice vote, 7 by rollcall; 10 
were not agreed to; 13 of those 22 amendments--more than half--were 
sponsored by Republicans. So, clearly, we have shown a willingness to 
allow Members who are not part of the bipartisan group to have input 
into this important bill.
  Tomorrow, we will continue to consider amendments, and then, 
hopefully, we can bring this bill to a close in the very near future.
  So the Chamber is working as Members on both sides of the aisle have 
wanted it to. I am proud of what we have been able to do today and hope 
we can continue tomorrow in that vein

                          ____________________