[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 140 (Thursday, August 5, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5894-S5918]
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 PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 3684, which the clerk will report.
  The 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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                      Nomination of Eunice C. Lee

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this week the Senate will vote on Eunice 
Lee's nomination to serve on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. If 
confirmed, Ms. Lee would be the only--the only Black woman--and the 
only former public defender to serve on the Second Circuit. With her 
nomination, the Biden administration and Senate Democrats are 
continuing our efforts

[[Page S5895]]

to build a Federal judiciary that looks like America.
  I would like to take a moment or two to discuss Ms. Lee's 
qualifications and what she will bring to the bench--a perspective that 
is sorely needed.
  Ms. Lee has dedicated her entire legal career to public defense work, 
most recently as an assistant Federal public defender with the Federal 
Defenders of New York.
  Graduating from Ohio State University and Yale Law School, Ms. Lee 
began her legal career clerking with the Southern District of Ohio and 
then with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  She then joined New York's Office of the Appellate Defender, where 
she spent more than 20 years advocating for indigent criminal 
defendants at all levels of the New York State court system. During 
that time, Ms. Lee taught and mentored a new generation of lawyers when 
she served as an adjunct assistant professor of clinical law at New 
York University.
  She then joined the Federal Defenders of New York, where she has 
briefed and argued criminal appeals in the Second Circuit, the court to 
which she is now nominated.
  In short, Ms. Lee has dedicated her entire life to upholding the 
Sixth Amendment right to counsel, representing defendants who cannot 
afford to hire a lawyer.
  Now, some of my Republican colleagues have claimed, without any 
evidence, that, as a former Federal public defender, Ms. Lee would be 
biased as a judge in favor of defendants. It is curious to me that 
these concerns of her bias didn't seem to crop up over the decades when 
former prosecutors were nominated to the Federal bench, and for good 
reason. It is as flimsy an argument as it is offensive to the lawyers 
who represent defendants--a representation mandated under the 
Constitution.
  Let's be clear: Both prosecutors and public defenders play essential 
roles in our justice system, and their jobs give them extensive 
courtroom experience, which is something we demand of all judges.
  Additionally, Ms. Lee has made it clear she understands the 
difference between being a lawyer and a judge. As a lawyer, she is an 
advocate; as a judge, an arbiter. At her hearing before the Judiciary 
Committee, Ms. Lee explained that she ``critically recognize[s] the 
importance of [being] a fair decision-maker.''
  What is more, 70 former prosecutors--those are the women and men 
sitting at the other table in the courtroom--in the Southern and 
Eastern Districts of New York, the very prosecutors that she squared 
off with in the courtrooms, have stressed the importance of having her 
perspective as a public defender represented on the Second Circuit.

  In a letter to the Judiciary Committee, these prosecutors wrote: 
``[W]e enthusiastically support Ms. Lee not just because of her 
sterling credentials. We believe that after a career as a public 
defender serving indigent clients in criminal cases, Ms. Lee would 
bring a unique and under-represented perspective to the job of hearing 
and deciding federal appeals.''
  Then they added that Ms. Lee was ``an incredibly talented lawyer and 
public servant, whose career representing the most vulnerable among us 
will bring a critical, unique perspective to the bench.''
  Finally, I want to share a passage from a recent op-ed written by 
Clark Neily, a scholar at the Cato Institute, and Devi Rao, a counsel 
at the MacArthur Justice Center.
  They wrote: ``Judges with a greater diversity of professional 
experience would improve judicial decision-making overall. A judiciary 
with members whose formative professional experiences span the legal 
profession will be best equipped to handle the diverse range of cases 
and issues presented to them.''
  Legal experts across the ideological spectrum agree. Professional 
diversity on the Federal bench is beneficial to our system of justice.
  With Eunice Lee's confirmation, this Senate can continue bringing 
balance to our Nation's courts and elevate a professional perspective 
severely underrepresented today. I will vote for Ms. Lee's nomination, 
and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Let me just add in closing, I want to thank the Members of the 
Senate, both political parties, for proposing nominees to the Biden 
White House for consideration for lifetime appointments to the Federal 
judiciary. They have brought those nominations to the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, where I chair the proceedings, and it is remarkable. The 
women and men who have come to us, prepared to serve, make a lifetime 
commitment to serve our Federal judiciary.
  The diversity in that group is amazing, remarkable, and the quality 
is without exception. Nearly all of them have been found at least 
``well qualified'' unanimously by the American Bar Association--in many 
cases, and certainly in others, very positive reports as well.
  I want to continue bringing these women and men to the floor of the 
Senate. I pleaded even this morning with the majority leader, Senator 
Schumer, who has the toughest job in the world of trying to move all 
the things we want to do onto this calendar and off again. I thank him 
for his cooperation.
  I would like to say a few words on a separate topic.


                          Eviction Moratorium

  Mr. President, I listened carefully to the Senate Republican leader 
this morning, Senator McConnell. I struggle to understand one aspect of 
his speech. He referred to the notion of helping those who are facing 
eviction as some form of socialism.
  What we are doing, of course, is trying to make certain that all of 
these people have a roof over their heads, and some of them are going 
through extraordinarily difficult economic challenges and 
extraordinarily difficult public health challenges.
  The money that we are sending their way is not just for them, 
obviously, but also to benefit the landlords, the people who own the 
property that they occupy.
  Now, that is not unusual for this Congress in the midst of this 
pandemic to step up and help small businesses like landlords who are 
trying to pay their mortgages during this difficult time when they have 
tenants who are going through economic distress. I don't think that is 
socialism.
  It wasn't socialism when we created the PPP program in 2020 on a 
bipartisan basis, with recordbreaking sums of money, to give to small 
businesses to help them through the treacherous times of this pandemic. 
It was just common sense. Our economy was taking a hit, and they were 
too.
  We wanted the day to come when we could deal with this pandemic 
effectively and also that they could return to their businesses. Was 
that socialism, that we would have that kind of an effort? I don't 
think so.
  As a matter of fact, when it came to passing that legislation, it was 
bipartisan and virtually unanimous--President Trump supporting it as 
well as Speaker Pelosi when it all came to pass. I mean, that is an 
indication of bridging the vast political differences in this country 
when an emergency demanded it. I don't think that is socialism.
  When it comes to those tenants who are struggling to get by in these 
difficult times, helping them and the landlords whose property they 
occupy is not socialism; it is what America is all about. It is, of 
course, an involvement of the government, and we all voted for that, 
but it is in a specific context of helping people.
  What the President has now proposed beyond this infrastructure bill 
that we are facing is that we look to other aspects of family life 
where we can help families cut the cost of the basics that they face, 
whether it is childcare or sending a child to college.
  I don't think it is socialistic to say we want 2 additional years of 
education for the graduates of high school in America so they are 
prepared to compete in the 21st century. That is just common sense. 
Socialism? I don't believe it is even close to socialism. It is really 
preparing them for a competitive, entrepreneurial economy and for 
success in life. That, to me, is a noble goal, whatever party is behind 
it.
  When it comes to the debt ceiling of this country, I just hope we can 
find a way to deal with this responsibly. It has always been a 
political football, depending on which party was in power, but to risk 
the possibility of a default on America's debt at this moment in

[[Page S5896]]

our economic history is a dangerous, dangerous undertaking. We need to 
do the right thing. We have to concede the obvious.
  Certainly the previous President, Trump, didn't win any accolades for 
fiscal conservatism. And we have to come together to recognize, whoever 
the President may be, the important thing is that this Nation move 
forward--move forward to our cures for the illnesses that we face but 
also to an economy that is expanded.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.


                               H.R. 3684

  Mr. CARPER. Before the Democratic whip leaves the floor, I just want 
to thank him for raising the three words ``Ohio State University.'' As 
a proud Buckeye for----
  Mr. DURBIN. The Ohio State----
  Mr. CARPER. No, I never say ``The Ohio State.'' We want to be humble. 
But I used to be a Navy ROTC midshipman there for a number of years and 
have great memories of being a part of the student body there and part 
of the Navy ROTC unit.
  Later, I had the opportunity, as my colleague knows, to join forces 
in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1982--one of the largest 
freshman classes ever. It seems like yesterday. He went on to come and 
serve in the Senate, and I went on to serve as Governor.
  One of the things I never thought about as Governor is the job of the 
Governor to nominate people to serve on the courts. I never thought 
about that.
  As it turns out, in Delaware, given the positions we have in 
corporate law and other parts of our economy and business, judicial 
appointments are over-sized. They are really extremely important.
  And while I hadn't given it a lot of thought, I remember I had, I 
think, 45 joint appearances with my Republican opponent when I ran for 
Governor--45 in the year 1992, and not once did anybody ever ask of 
either of us: What would you look for in nominating judges?
  It turned out to be hugely important. I studied economics and got an 
MBA, but I don't pretend to be an expert on legal matters. One of the 
things that I learned--and I felt it was important--was to have a 
judiciary that was diverse and that looked like Delaware. I think the 
same is true here for our country for district court judges, appeals 
courts, and the Supreme Court.
  I wanted to nominate people who were bright and who were smart, and 
intellectually curious. I wanted to nominate people who were hard 
working, who brought a diversity of experiences to the bench. And 
mostly, I wanted to nominate people who were able to make good 
decisions--even tough decisions--and were fair and treated everybody in 
their court before them with fairness.
  The reputation of the nominee whom you referred to, I think she 
checks all those boxes, and I want to thank you for raising her before 
us here today. Thank you.
  We have our colleague from Louisiana here with us today. He has 
worked hard, along with 21 of our colleagues, to try to fashion a 
bipartisan consensus to build on the work of, among others, the 
Environment and Public Works Committee on infrastructure.
  We worked hard in our committee--Shelley Capito, the lead Republican, 
and myself, and 18 others--to report and later to vote on legislation 
on water infrastructure here, drinking water and wastewater sanitation 
legislation. We voted on it a couple months ago after reporting it 
unanimously out of committee. And 89 to 2, the same bill came up here--
89 to 2. And we have used that as one of the building blocks on which 
the bipartisan infrastructure package is fashioned.
  We also have in the Environment and Public Works Committee the great 
support and leadership of our ranking member, Senator Capito, and the 
participation of every single U.S. Senator who gathered input to help 
us fashion legislation in the Committee on water, drinking water, 
wastewater, and roads, highways, bridges, and climate, in order to be 
able to put together a foundation, if you will, under which the Gang 
of--we affectionately call it the Gang of 22--have built this 
infrastructure piece along with the help of the administration and a 
lot of other folks who participated.
  I go back and forth on the train. I literally went home last night to 
Delaware and was back here this morning. I am a bit weary, but I was 
encouraged. So many times over the years, people say to me, as I am 
waiting to catch a train in Wilmington or waiting to catch a train back 
home at the end of the day--people say to me: Why can't you guys just 
work together? Why can't you just work to get stuff done for this 
country?
  I think they would be encouraged by what they would have seen and the 
work of not just the Environment and Public Works Committee but the 
work of the Commerce Committee, the work of the Banking Committee, and 
the work of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--rather 
extraordinary, every one of them. Democrats, Republicans, a couple of 
Independents are all working together to fashion legislation that is 
going to help strengthen our economy and make our economy work better 
and help provide employment opportunities to literally millions of 
people at a time when we need that.
  And, yesterday, I think we had the votes. Correct me if I am wrong. 
But more than a dozen votes we have had this week, and more than a 
score of votes on amendments to this package--this infrastructure 
package. One of the things I love about it is that a bunch of those 
amendments were bipartisan. It wasn't just Democratic amendments or 
Republican amendments. They were amendments we offered together.
  And interestingly enough, we had any number of instances yesterday, 
including late last night, when we didn't have long, dragged out 
debate. We actually voice-voted a number of provisions that were being 
offered to us. The amendments were being offered. I am encouraged by 
that.
  And I note that, tomorrow morning, a lot of us--I am not sure how 
many, but maybe a third of the U.S. Senate, will join together and get 
on a plane--I think an Air Force plane--and we will head for Gillette, 
WY, to say good-bye--say good-bye to a dear friend, and that is Mike 
Enzi.
  I spoke about him on the floor in the last week. So I will be brief 
right here. Mike Enzi would love what we are doing. He would have loved 
to have been a part of this. He was the guy who first taught me about 
the 80-20 rule. The 80-20 rule--when I asked him how Mike Enzi, one of 
the most conservative Republicans we had here in the Senate, and Ted 
Kennedy, one of the most liberal Senators we had here in the United 
States, how could they work together on the Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions Committee and get so much done--and get so much done?
  I will never forget what he said. He gave a speech on the floor here 
when I was presiding as a brandnew freshman Senator, years ago--20 
years ago. He spoke of the 80-20 rule, and I asked him when he finished 
speaking: What is the 80-20 rule?
  And he said: It is the secret to Ted Kennedy and I being successful 
in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee--being so 
successful in taking on legislation and coming up with principled, 
bipartisan solutions.
  And he said: Ted and I agree on 80 percent of the issues that come 
before our committee. We disagree on maybe 20 percent. And what we do 
on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee is we focus on 
the 80 percent where we agree, and we set aside the 20 percent where we 
don't agree to another day. We come back to it, and we deal with that 
later on.

  And it worked for them.
  He would be delighted. My guess is he is tuned in today, somewhere up 
there. But he would be delighted to see that this week the 80-20 rule 
that Mike Enzi epitomized is alive and well on both sides of the aisle. 
I hope that the spirit that has infused our work, leading up to the 
work of our committees--the committees of jurisdiction--providing the 
foundation on which the gang of 20 and the administration went to 
work--my hope is that that spirit of bipartisanship and Mike Enzi's 80-
20 rule will continue to infuse our work here this week into the latter 
part of this evening, and, hopefully, not too late into the evening. 
Maybe we can wrap things up here in short order.
  With that, I am going to yield the floor, and I just want to say to 
everyone who is working hard to make this

[[Page S5897]]

a productive week, a productive mission: I just want to say a real 
thank you, not just to the members of the relevant committees I 
mentioned but to everybody, all the folks who serve here, and 
especially our staff.
  I like to say that people ask me sometimes--and I say this to my 
friend Senator Cassidy from Louisiana, who is a truly brilliant person 
and a great colleague to work with. I would like to say that about 
Senator Thune, with whom I will be joining in a Bible study later again 
today as we join with the Chaplain every day. There are a lot smarter 
people in the U.S. Senate than me, but I am smart enough to hire really 
smart people. They work hard and I work hard, and most days we get a 
lot done.
  For all the staff here in this body and in this building and the 
committee staff out across the Capitol and around the world, we 
especially thank you for your efforts.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.


                         Remembering Mike Enzi

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the 
comments of my colleague from Delaware with respect to Senator Enzi. He 
is absolutely right. Senator Enzi, who will be laid to rest in Wyoming, 
was a wonderful public servant and someone who there weren't any 
pretensions about him. He was a ``what you see is what you get'' type 
of individual, somebody who worked hard every day, was solutions-
oriented, results-oriented, and brought with him a humble spirit and 
demeanor that we all benefited from here, and something that I think 
all of us could aspire to here as well.
  And I was reminded as my colleague from Delaware was speaking, of a 
verse in the Old Testament Book of Micah, where it says:

       He has told you, old man, what is good. And what does the 
     Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and 
     to walk humbly with your God.

  And I think that certainly describes Senator Mike Enzi. And we think 
about him and his family and keep them in our prayers as they prepare 
for that ceremony tomorrow.


                               Broadband

  Mr. President, as a Senator from a rural State and a member and 
former chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, expanding broadband 
access to rural areas has long been a priority of mine. Given our 
economy's increasing reliance on broadband in the digital age, it makes 
sense, as part of this infrastructure bill, that we are prioritizing 
expanding broadband access to unserved areas.
  But I have to say I am concerned, because a lot of the money 
allocated for expanding access--more than $42 billion--would be 
funneled not through the Federal Communications Commission, where the 
majority of the Government's broadband experience resides, but through 
the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration, or NTIA, which has previously fumbled attempts to bring 
broadband access to more communities.
  Back in 2009, a government stimulus bill allocated $4.7 billion to 
NTIA to expand broadband access in rural and underserved areas. It 
didn't go very well. The Agency struggled with implementation. There 
were serious issues with a number of the projects the Agency approved. 
In fact, 14 projects were either temporarily or permanently halted.
  Other projects resulted in a significant amount of overbuilding, 
meaning that they resulted in the construction of additional broadband 
infrastructure in areas that already had access to reliable broadband. 
A Government Accountability Office report found that the National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration lacked the data it 
needed to determine whether areas were genuinely underserved.
  More recently, just last month, the NTIA called for ``volunteers''--
volunteers--to evaluate grant proposals. That is right. The NTIA has 
called for volunteers to help determine how to allocate the $1.5 
billion Congress has provided to NTIA over the past year to improve 
broadband access.
  Now, we should think long and hard before giving the Agency the 
authority to administer more than $42 billion in grants when it has to 
call on volunteers to help allocate a tiny fraction of that money.
  NTIA simply has not demonstrated its ability to administer a grant 
program of this size and complexity. A much better alternative would be 
to put the Federal Communications Commission in charge of disbursing 
broadband funds.
  In contrast to NTIA which has just 157 employees, the Federal 
Communications Commission employs more than 1,400 people. It has the 
staffing resources it needs in-house to administer this grant program. 
The FCC also, crucially, has the necessary expertise to identify truly 
unserved areas so that Federal dollars go to communities with the most 
significant lack of broadband access.
  I have proposed an amendment to the infrastructure legislation before 
us that would strike the NTIA grant program and redirect that money to 
the bipartisan legislation I have introduced--the Rural Connectivity 
Advancement Program Act.
  The Rural Connectivity Advancement Program Act would mandate that 10-
percent of the net proceeds of any spectrum auctions mandated by the 
Federal Government go to building out broadband networks with the goal 
of strengthening connectivity in rural and Tribal areas. Redirecting 
the proposed $42 billion in grants to this program would allow the 
Federal Communications Commission to administer these funds, which 
would make it more likely that this funding would actually go to meet 
the broadband needs of unserved communities.
  On a related note, I have also introduced an amendment to strike a 
provision of the infrastructure bill that would allow NTIA to make 
changes to the formula that Congress is providing to determine what 
areas of the country are eligible for grants.
  Why is Congress bothering to put funding guardrails in this 
legislation if it is going to allow the NTIA to change them at will?
  As I have said, NTIA lacks adequate expertise when it comes to 
identifying what areas of the country are truly unserved. And I am not 
sure why we give NTIA the authority to change Congress's guidelines and 
possibly further diminish the chances that this grant program will 
deliver on its objective.
  Unfortunately, just yesterday, the Senate voted down an amendment 
offered by the ranking member of the Commerce Committee that would have 
provided critical safeguards should NTIA establish this program. The 
proponents of this legislation have reportedly received assurances from 
the Secretary of Commerce about how NTIA will implement the bill.
  If this bill is enacted, the Secretary should expect close scrutiny 
from the Commerce Committee and be prepared to explain how she will 
prevent a repeat of the Agency's past missteps. As I said, there have 
been problems in the past with government broadband dollars going to 
overbuilding of broadband in areas that already have a substantial 
amount of access, and I am concerned that this bill could result in the 
same problem.
  In addition to the NTIA grant program, the infrastructure bill would 
authorize the Department of Agriculture to improve grant funding of 
areas where 50 percent of the homes lack adequate access to broadband 
services. While this may sound like an appropriate percentage, the 
truth is that a grant for building out broadband in an area where 50 
percent of the homes already have adequate access is likely to result 
in significant overbuilding at taxpayer expense.
  We seem to have forgotten that Federal resources are--or at least 
should be--limited. There are plenty of areas where broadband access is 
almost nonexistent and where there is almost no available broadband 
infrastructure to build on. And those are the first places where we 
need to direct available government funding, which is why I am offering 
an amendment to change the formula to require that proposed grants 
cover an area where at least 80 percent of homes lack broadband access. 
This bipartisan amendment deserves a vote.
  I am also concerned that we are advancing this bill without any of 
the provisions, particularly the broadband components, going through 
regular committee consideration. The Commerce Committee has a long 
history of

[[Page S5898]]

advancing legislation to expand access to broadband services. Rushed 
legislative efforts that bypass the committees of jurisdiction and the 
subject matter expertise that they offer could lead to billions of 
dollars being spent with little to show.
  I am appreciative of the efforts of the bipartisan negotiators who 
crafted this bill. I know they share my goal of targeting broadband 
resources to those most in need. I am very pleased that my 
Telecommunications Skilled Workforce Act amendment received a vote the 
other day and passed the Senate by an overwhelmingly bipartisan margin. 
This amendment would help ensure that we develop the workforce 
necessary to meet the demands of the next generation of mobile 
broadband internet, 5G.
  But I hope--I hope--that we will also have a chance to vote on my 
other amendments--those I just mentioned--and amendments being offered 
by my colleagues. Infrastructure legislation is tremendously important 
to our economy, and we need to take the time to get this legislation 
right. And that means giving Senators, who are not part of the working 
group, adequate time to offer amendments and, hopefully, improve this 
product. We have made some progress on that front this week, and I hope 
to make more before finishing this bill.
  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. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Mark Kelly Maiden Speech

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I just want to say, earlier this week--I 
am almost at a loss for words. I know I normally am not standing where 
I normally stand.
  Earlier this week, you gave your freshman year first speech--your 
first speech--and not everybody was able to hear it. A lot of people 
came up. Democrats and Republicans were here. I just want to say again 
how much I enjoyed it.
  From an old Navy guy to a not-so-old Navy guy, we are very proud of 
your service in uniform and also proud of your service here. I am 
delighted that you are a member of our Environment and Public Works 
Committee. We have done some really good work on this issue. I thank 
you for your help and contribution.


                           Disparity Studies

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I have a couple of unanimous consent 
requests. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a list 
of studies presenting a strong basis of evidence for the conclusion 
that discrimination against minority- and women-owned businesses 
continues to affect the construction, architecture, and engineering and 
related surface transportation contracting markets nationwide.
  These disparity studies contain rigorous statistical analyses to 
determine whether business discrimination based on--whether it is based 
upon race or gender, continues to exist, and a review of these studies 
reveals that the answer, sadly, is a resounding yes, and, therefore, 
the current Disadvantaged Business Enterprise provisions are still 
warranted.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
those disparity studies
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            State and Local Disparity Studies From 2015-2021


                                 Alaska

       Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities 
     Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Study, Final Report & Final 
     Appendices, Prepared by the Alaska Department of 
     Transportation & Public Facilities Civil Rights Office 
     (2020).


                                Arizona

       Arizona Department of Transportation Disparity Study, Final 
     Report, Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2020).
       Arizona Department of Transportation Disparity Study 
     Report, Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2015).


                               California

       Caltrans Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC Research and 
     Consulting for Caltrans Department of Transportation (2016).
       City of Oakland 2017 Race and Gender Disparity Study, 
     Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. (2020).
       LA Metro 2017 Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC Research & 
     Consulting for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan 
     Transportation Authority (2018).
       San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Disparity 
     Study Volumes 1-11, Prepared by Miller Consulting, Inc. 
     (2017).
       Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Availability, 
     Utilization, and Disparity Study for the San Francisco 
     Municipal Transportation Agency, Prepared by Rosales Business 
     Partners LLC (2015).


                                Colorado

       City and County of Denver Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC 
     Research & Consulting (2018).
       Colorado Disparity Study, Final Report, Prepared by Keen 
     Independent Research (2020).


                              Connecticut

       Connecticut Disparity Study: Phases 1-3, Prepared by The 
     Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering for the 
     Connecticut General Assembly and the Government 
     Administration and Elections Commission (2013, 2014, 2016).


                          District of Columbia

       District of Columbia Department of Small and Local Business 
     Development Comparative Analysis: Minority and Women-Owned 
     Business Assessment, Prepared by CRP, Inc (2019).
       District of Columbia Department of Small and Local Business 
     Development Disparity Report Framework and Recommendations, 
     Prepared by CRP, Inc. (2019).
       2015 Disparity Study for Washington Suburban Sanitary 
     Commission, Prepared by MGT of America, Inc. (2016).


                                Florida

       Minority, Women, and Small Business Enterprise Disparity 
     Study for the City of Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida and 
     Blueprint Intergovernmental Agency, Prepared by MGT 
     Consulting Group (2019).
       Palm Beach County Disparity Study, Prepared by Mason 
     Tillman Associates, Ltd. (2017).
       Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, Florida 
     Disparity Study, Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. 
     (2017).


                                Georgia

       Atlanta Housing Authority Disparity Study, Prepared by Keen 
     Independent Research (2017).
       Atlanta Public Schools Disparity Study, Prepared by Keen 
     Independent Research (2017).
       City of Atlanta Disparity Study Summary Report, Prepared by 
     Keen Independent Research LLC (2015).
       Fulton County Small Business Study, Prepared by Keen 
     Independent Research (2016).
       Georgia Department of Transportation Disparity Study, 
     Prepared by Griffin & Strong, P.C. for the State of Georgia 
     (2016).


                                 Hawaii

       Hawaii Department of Transportation 2019 Availability and 
     Disparity Study, Prepared by Keen Independent Research 
     (2020).


                                 Idaho

       I.aho Transportation Department Disparity Study, Prepared 
     by BBC Research & Consulting (2017).


                                Illinois

       Chicago Transit Authority Disparity Study, Prepared by 
     Colette Holt & Associates (2019).
       Illinois Department of Transportation Disparity Study, 
     Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting (2017).
       Illinois State Toll Highway Authority Disparity Study 
     Construction and Construction Related Services, Prepared by 
     Colette Holt & Associates (2015).


                                Indiana

       City of Indianapolis and Marion County Disparity Study, BBC 
     Research & Consulting (2019).
       City of South Bend Disparity Study, Prepared by Colette 
     Holt & Associates (2019).
       State of Indiana Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC Research 
     & Consulting for the Indiana Department of Administration 
     (2015-16).
       State of Indiana Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC Research 
     & Consulting for the Indiana Department of Administration 
     (2020).


                                 Kansas

       City of Kansas City Construction Workforce Disparity Study, 
     Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2019).
       City of Kansas City, Missouri Disparity Study, Prepared by 
     Colette Holt & Associates (2016).


                                Kentucky

       Louisville & Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District 
     Disparity Study, Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. 
     (2018).


                               Louisiana

       City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge Disparity 
     Study, Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2019).
       City of New Orleans Disparity Study, Prepared by Keen 
     Independent Research (2018).
       Recreation and Park Commission for the Parish of East Baton 
     Rouge Disparity Study, Prepared by Keen Independent Research 
     (2019).


                                Maryland

       Business Disparities in the Maryland Market Area, Prepared 
     by NERA Economic Consulting for the State and Maryland and 
     the Maryland Department of Transportation (2017).

[[Page S5899]]

       Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Disparity Study: Volumes 
     I-III, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the Maryland 
     Department of Transportation (2018).


                             Massachusetts

       Business Disparities in the DCAMM Construction and Design 
     Market Area, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the 
     Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset 
     Management and Maintenance (2017).
       City of Boston 2020 Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC 
     Research & Consulting (2021).


                               Minnesota

       2017 Minnesota Joint Disparity Study City of Minneapolis, 
     Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2018).
       2017 Minnesota Joint Disparity Study City of Saint Paul, 
     Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2018).
       2017 Minnesota Joint Disparity Study Hennepin County, 
     Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2018).
       2017 Minnesota Joint Disparity Study Metropolitan Airports 
     Commission, Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2018).
       2017 Minnesota Joint Disparity Study Metropolitan Council, 
     Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2018).
       2017 Minnesota Joint Disparity Study Metropolitan Mosquito 
     Control District, Prepared by Keen Independent Research 
     (2018).
       2017 Minnesota Joint Disparity Study Minnesota Department 
     of Administration, Prepared by Keen Independent Research 
     (2018).
       2017 Minnesota Joint Disparity Study Minnesota Department 
     of Transportation, Prepared by Keen Independent Research 
     (2018).
       2017 Minnesota Joint Disparity Study Minnesota State 
     Colleges and Universities, Prepared by Keen Independent 
     Research (2018).


                                Missouri

       City of St. Louis Disparity Study, Prepared by Mason 
     Tillman Associates (2015).
       Missouri Department of Transportation DBE Availability 
     Study, Prepared by Keen Independent Research (2019).
       Saint Louis County Disparity Study, Prepared by Griffin & 
     Strong P.C. (2017).


                                Montana

       Availability and Disparity Study, Prepared by Keen 
     Independent Research LLC for the State of Montana Department 
     of Transportation (2016).


                                 Nevada

       Nevada Transportation Consortium Disparity Study, Prepared 
     by BBC Research & Consulting for the Regional Transportation 
     Commission of Southern Nevada (2017).


                               New Jersey

       NJ Transit Disparity Study, Executive Summary & Appendix, 
     Prepared by The Roy Wilkins Center for Human Relations and 
     Social Justice, Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, 
     University of Minnesota (2016).


                                New York

       City of New York Disparity Study, Prepared by MGT 
     Consulting Group (2018).
       State of New York MWBE Disparity Study, Volumes I & II, 
     Prepared by Mason Tillman Associates, Ltd. (2016).


                             North Carolina

       City of Asheville, North Carolina Disparity Study, Prepared 
     by BBC Research & Consulting (2018).
       City of Charlotte Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC Research 
     & Consulting (2017). City of Winston-Salem Disparity Study, 
     Prepared by MGT Consulting Group (2019).
       Durham County/City of Durham, North Carolina Multi-
     jurisdictional Disparity Study, Prepared by Griffin & Strong, 
     P.C. (2015).
       Greensboro, North Carolina Disparity Study, Prepared by 
     Griffin & Strong (2018).
       State of North Carolina Department of Administration, 
     Disparity Study Report: Volume I, State Agencies, Prepared by 
     Griffin & Strong, P.C. (2020).
       State of North Carolina Department of Administration, 
     Disparity Study Report: Volume 2, Community Colleges and 
     Universities. Prepared by Griffin & Strong, P.C. (2021).


                                  Ohio

       Cuyahoga County Disparity Study Report, Prepared by Griffin 
     & Strong P.C. (2020).
       2015-16 Ohio Public Authorities Disparity Study, prepared 
     by BBC Research & Consulting for the Ohio Department of 
     Transportation (2016).
       City of Cincinnati Disparity Study, Prepared by Mason 
     Tillman Associates, Ltd. (2015).
       City of Columbus Disparity Study, Prepared by Mason Tillman 
     Associates, Ltd. (2019).


                                 Oregon

       Oregon Department of Transportation DBE Disparity Study 
     Update, Prepared by Keen Independent Research LLC (2019).
       Oregon Department of Aviation, Draft Oregon Statewide 
     Airport DBE Disparity Study, Prepared by Keen Independent 
     Research (2021 ).
       Oregon Department of Transportation Availability and 
     Disparity Study, Prepared by Keen Independent Research LLC 
     (2016).
       The Port of Portland Small Business Program Disparity 
     Study, Prepared by Colette Holt & Associates (2018).


                              Pennsylvania

       City of Philadelphia Fiscal Year 2019 Annual Disparity 
     Study, Prepared by the City of Philadelphia Department of 
     Commerce and Miller\3\ Consulting (2020).
       City of Philadelphia Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Disparity 
     Study, Prepared by Econsult Solutions, Inc. and Milligan & 
     Company, LLC (2019).
       City of Philadelphia Fiscal Year 2017 Annual Disparity 
     Study, Prepared by Econsult Solutions, Inc. and Milligan & 
     Company, LLC (2018).
       City of Philadelphia Fiscal Year 2016 Annual Disparity 
     Study, Prepared by Econsult Solutions, Inc. for the City of 
     Philadelphia Department of Commerce (2017).
       City of Philadelphia Fiscal Year 2015 Annual Disparity 
     Study, Prepared by Econsult Solutions, Inc. and Milligan & 
     Company, LLC (2016).
       Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of General Services 
     Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting 
     (2018).
       Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Disparity Study, 
     Prepared by BBC Research & Consulting (2018).


                               Tennessee

       Business Market Availability and Disparity Study Shelby 
     County Schools Board of Education, Prepared by MGT Consulting 
     Group (2017).
       City of Chattanooga, Tennessee Disparity Study Final 
     Report, Prepared by Griffin & Strong P.C. (2019).
       City of Memphis, Tennessee Disparity Study, Prepared by 
     Griffin & Strong P.C. (2016).
       Metro Nashville, Tennessee Disparity Study, Prepared by 
     Griffin & Strong P.C. (2018).
       Shelby County Disparity Study, Prepared by Mason Tillman 
     Associates, Ltd. (2016).


                                 Texas

       Availability and Disparity Study, City of Dallas, Texas, 
     Final Report, Prepared by MGT Consulting Group (2020).
       Business Disparities in the Austin, Texas Market Area, 
     Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the City of Austin, 
     Texas (2015).
       Business Disparities in the San Antonio, Texas Market Area, 
     Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for the City of San 
     Antonio (2015).
       Business Disparities in the Travis County, Texas Market 
     Area, Prepared by NERA Economic Consulting for Travis County, 
     Texas (2016).
       City of Fort Worth, Texas, Disparity Study, Prepared by 
     Colette Holt & Associates (2020).
       Disparity Study for Corpus Christi and CCRTA, Prepared by 
     Texas A&M University South Texas Economic Development Center 
     (2016).
       Minority- and Women-owned Business Enterprise (MIWBE) 
     Program Disparity Study for the San Antonio Water System, 
     Prepared by MGT of America (2015).
       Texas Department of Transportation Disparity Study, 
     Prepared by Colette Holt & Associates (2019).


                                Virginia

       Commonwealth of Virginia Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC 
     Research & Consulting (2020).
       City of Virginia Beach Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC 
     Research & Consulting (2018).


                               Washington

       City of Tacoma Disparity Study, Prepared by Griffin & 
     Strong P.C. (2018).
       Port of Seattle Disparity Study, Prepared by Colette Holt & 
     Associates (2019).
       Sound Transit Disparity Study, Prepared by BBC Research & 
     Consulting (2020).
       State of Washington Disparity Study, Prepared by Colette 
     Holt & Associates (2019).
       Washington State Airports Disparity Study, Prepared by 
     Colette Holt & Associates (2019).
       Washington State Department of Transportation Disparity 
     Study, Prepared by Colette Holt & Associates (2017).


                               Wisconsin

       Madison Public Works Disparity Study, Prepared by Keen 
     Independent Research for City of Madison, Wisconsin (2015).


                         Electric School Buses

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I have a second unanimous consent request 
I want to mention, and that is a request to have printed in the Record 
letters of support for electric school buses.
  I would ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record two 
letters--one from three American school bus manufacturers, and another 
from 125 nonprofit foundations, businesses, health and scientific 
organizations, and advocacy groups--in support of investments in 
electric school buses in this bipartisan package.
  Both letters highlight the fact that no other school bus technology 
manufactured today reduces more emissions than electric vehicle school 
buses; and both letters highlight that investments in electric school 
buses would drive the demand for new electric buses and promote cost 
parity between electric school buses and older technologies.
  The message from these diverse groups to Congress is clear: Investing 
in electric school buses supports American workers and American 
manufacturers. Not only that, it cleans up our air, protects our kids 
and our planet on which we live

[[Page S5900]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    July 27, 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 are writing to urge funding for a transition to electric 
     school buses as part of the bipartisan infrastructure package 
     being developed on Capitol Hill.
       Over the past 15 years much has been accomplished in 
     reducing emissions from older school buses using the Diesel 
     Emission Reduction Act of 2005. Newer buses are available 
     with propane, CNG and electric powertrains which reduce 
     emissions by as much as 100 percent compared with school 
     buses manufactured prior to the enactment of DERA.
       The focus of these programs has been in reducing emissions 
     of priority pollutants like nitrogen oxides (NOX) 
     and particulate matter (PM) but today there is serious 
     concern about carbon emissions. These have not been the focus 
     of earlier programs. We believe the technology that provides 
     the best opportunity to achieve both clean air and carbon 
     reduction is electric vehicle technology. School buses are an 
     ideal platform for electric drive because they have a duty 
     cycle that is highly compatible with electrification, they 
     start and end the day at the same location (simplifies 
     charging infrastructure needs), and enjoy a design that 
     allows for installation of large battery packs. They do not 
     have range issues as they drive daily the same well-
     established routes that are well within the battery capacity 
     available on the bus. Electric school buses have been in 
     daily use since 2015, accumulating millions of miles. They 
     are reliably and dependably deployed in school districts 
     across the country and we as manufacturers and end users of 
     them can affirm that we are ready to meet the increased 
     demand. This technology is here and ready to go.
       Electric school buses are being rapidly introduced but 
     remain more expensive than even some of the other clean 
     vehicle options. Manufacturers believe that a major Federal 
     investment will assist in driving down the cost through 
     economies of scale that result from high volume manufacture. 
     Such an investment would make electric school buses cost 
     competitive with other platforms in allowing greater adoption 
     of a technology that achieves zero emissions of harmful 
     pollutants and greenhouse gases.
       In addition to the health and climate benefits for school 
     children and their communities, it would also create many 
     well-paying domestic jobs in engineering, manufacturing, and 
     sales.
       Accordingly, we believe that Congress should include 
     substantial Federal funding for clean school buses and that 
     not less than half of that funding should go exclusively to 
     electric buses. We understand that some communities want to 
     use older technologies. If Congress decides to make some 
     portion of funding available for these older technologies, we 
     strongly support making it available for electric buses as 
     well and its related infrastructure to allow for the fastest 
     possible deployment of zero emission vehicle technology.
           Sincerely,
     Blue Bird Corporation.
     IC Bus, a Navistar Company.
     Thomas Built Buses.
                                  ____

                                                    July 27, 2021.
       Dear Majority Leader Schumer and Minority Leader McConnell: 
     We, the undersigned organizations, representing millions of 
     members and companies, strongly support ensuring that the 
     full $7.5 billion in school bus funding goes towards school 
     districts to purchase electric school buses and install the 
     necessary charging infrastructure, as laid out in the memo by 
     Brian Deese explaining the Bipartisan Infrastructure 
     Framework. The 475,000 school buses that carry 25 million 
     children to school every day are some of the oldest 
     technology on the road. Due to their short routes, school 
     buses are frequently on the road for 15-20 years. Diesel 
     exhaust is a known carcinogen which directly and 
     disproportionately impacts the kids and drivers of these 
     buses. Reduced pollution from bus emissions has been shown to 
     decrease incidences of asthma, bronchitis, and pneumonia and 
     also decreases absenteeism. Eliminating emissions from buses 
     should have even stronger effects.
       Fortunately, electric school buses are available from 
     several domestic manufacturers and are being integrated into 
     school bus fleets across the country. The significant 
     investment that the government is planning to make in school 
     buses is critical and 100% of this funding should be spent to 
     help school districts to acquire these zero emission 
     technologies. We particularly support ensuring that 
     communities most impacted by air pollution are prioritized in 
     the application process.
       We oppose any funding going to fossil fuel buses as these 
     buses do not eliminate tailpipe pollution, CNG and propane 
     buses are already cost competitive with diesel, and all new 
     buses purchased today will be on the road for 15-20 years, 
     thus ensuring long term dependence on fossil fuels. The news 
     story that broke last night shows that the bipartisan group 
     of Senators working on this legislation is planning to use 
     half of the school bus money to buy new fossil fuel buses for 
     school districts, which undermines our climate goals and 
     doesn't support the growth of the domestic EV bus industry. 
     As the climate crisis is worsening, and our kids are 
     breathing polluted air, we need to rapidly transition to 
     electric buses. The government's role is to help in that 
     transition. Even allowing one third of these funds to 
     purchase buses that run on CNG, propane, and biofuels (which 
     are blended in small volumes into gasoline and diesel) would 
     lock in up to 7.5 billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions, 
     up to 88 billion pounds of carbon monoxide pollution, and up 
     to 12.5 million pounds of NOX, not to mention installing 
     fueling infrastructure that will be stranded assets as these 
     school districts move to electrification down the road.
       Please ensure that all federal funding for school buses is 
     for electric buses that will both mitigate climate change and 
     reduce dangerous air pollution. We have an opportunity to 
     invest in a domestic industry, promote more good-paying jobs, 
     train more workers to be on the cutting edge of 
     transportation technologies, and reduce asthma attacks and 
     other respiratory ailments for our nation's school children. 
     We sincerely hope that Congress seizes this chance to make a 
     difference and puts $7.5 billion into electric school buses.
           Thank you,
       Union of Concerned Scientists; 350Brooklyn; 350NYC.org; 
     Acadia Center; Allergy & Asthma Network; Alliance for Clean 
     Energy New York; Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments; 
     American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE); 
     American Federation of Teachers; American Lung Association; 
     American Thoracic Society; AMPLY Power; Association of 
     Schools and Programs of Public Health; Asthma & Allergy 
     Foundation of America--Michigan Chapter; Azul.
       Black Millennials 4 Flint; Boulder Valley School District--
     Safe Routes Unit; Bus-2-Grid Initiative; Cedar Lane Unitarian 
     Universalist Church Environmental Justice Ministry; Center 
     for Biological Diversity; Ceres; ChargePoint; Chesapeake 
     Climate Action Network Action Fund; Children's Environmental 
     Health Network; Chispa Arizona; CHISPA Florida; Chispa LCV; 
     Chispa Maryland; Chispa Nevada; Clean Energy Action; Clean 
     Energy Works; CleanAirNow; CLEER; Climate for Health, 
     ecoAmerica; Climate Hawks Vote.
       Climate Law & Policy Project; Climate Reality Project; 
     Coltura; Detroiters Working for Environmental Justice; Dream 
     Corps Green For All; Drive Electric RVA; Earth Ethics, Inc.; 
     Earthjustice; EarthKind Energy Consulting; EcoMadres; Elders 
     Climate Action; Elected Officials to Protect America; 
     Electric Bus Newsletter; Electrification Coalition; Electrify 
     America; Empower our Future--Colorado; Environment America; 
     Environmental Defense Fund; Environmental Law & Policy 
     Center; Evergreen Action.
       EVgo; EVHybridNoire; Faith Alliance for Climate Solutions; 
     Forth; Fresh Energy; Generation180; Georgia Interfaith Power 
     and Light; GreenLatinos; H.A. DeHart & Son; Health Care 
     Without Harm; Highland Electric Fleets; Hoosier Environmental 
     Council; Illinois Environmental Council; Indivisible Howard 
     County MD; Interfaith Power & Light; League of Conservation 
     Voters (LCV).
       Lewinsville Faith in Action; LION Electric; Long Island 
     Progressive Coalition; Los Angeles County Electric Truck & 
     Bus Coalition; Los Angeles IBEW 11 & National Electrical 
     Contractors Ass.; Madison Area Bus Advocates; Maryland 
     Legislative Coalition; Medical Society Consortium on Climate 
     & Health; MI Air MI Health; Mi Assoc for Pupil 
     Transportation; Michigan Clinicians for Climate Action; 
     Mobilify Southwestern Pennsylvania; Moms Clean Air Force; 
     Mother's & Others For Clean Air; Mothers Out Front.
       National Consumer Law Center; Natural Resources Defense 
     Council; New Mexico Interfaith Power and Light; New Urban 
     Mobility Alliance (NUMO); New York City Environmental Justice 
     Alliance; New York Lawyers for the Public Interest; New York 
     League of Conservation Voters; New York Public Interest 
     Research Group; New Yorkers for Clean Power; O.U.R.S. 
     (Organized Uplifting Resources & Strategies); Pacific 
     Environment; Peoples Climate Movement--NY; Plug In America; 
     Proterra; Raise Green.
       Renew Puerto Rico; Respiratory Health Association; Rhombus 
     Energy Solutions, Inc.; Rivian; RMI; Save the Sound; Sierra 
     Club; Sierra Club DC Chapter; Southern Alliance for Clean 
     Energy; Southern Environmental Law Center; Southwest Energy 
     Efficiency Project; The Center for Transportation & the 
     Environment (CTE).
       The Greater Prince William Climate Action Network; The 
     Mobility House; The Reno + Sparks Chamber of Commerce; 
     Transportation for America; Tri-State Transportation 
     Campaign; U.S. PIRG; Ulupono Initiative; United Methodist 
     Women; United We Stand of New York; Virginia Conservation 
     Network; Voices for Progress; Zero Emission Transportation 
     Association.


                              Environment

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to point out I like to work 
out. I showed up at Pensacola at the age of 21 right out of Ohio State, 
invited by the Navy as a midshipman. Before they put us in airplanes, 
as you may recall, they put us through some really rigorous

[[Page S5901]]

conditioning. So I worked out, like, 6, 7 days a week then, and I come 
pretty close to that today.
  And a couple of days a week I like to run. I always like to run 
outside. And all this work we were doing this last week--we were doing 
a lot of work not only on the Senate floor, but behind the scenes on 
electric school buses, to make sure that we would be able to provide 
funding for a lot of them going forward.
  And one morning, I went out running, and it was still almost dark, 
and I was almost run over by two electric buses, and I said: Don't 
worry, I am on your side. And I had a nice chat with a couple of 
drivers.
  So I came here to present this message and these unanimous consent 
requests today.
  I also wanted to say that we did get to work yesterday--Democrats and 
Republicans working together. A bunch of amendments were adopted; one 
or two not. But it was a good spirit last night, well into the night, 
and good work has been done and has continued in through the evening 
and again this morning on both sides of the aisle to find some 
additional compromises.
  I am told that several amendments are ready to be brought to the 
floor. I would just say to my colleagues: Bring them. If you got 
something you think is ready for prime time, whether it is Democrat or 
Republican, and it is a combined bipartisan amendment, bring it. Let's 
hear about it. Let's have a chance to discuss it and to vote on it.
  We could be up late into the night. We are going to be up really 
early in the morning. I think there is a 7 o'clock flight, maybe out of 
Andrews. At least we leave from here to Andrews to go catch a 7 o'clock 
flight to attend the memorial service for Senator Enzi in Wyoming 
tomorrow.
  I think we would be smart not to stay up half the night, and do as 
much as we can this morning, and then--oh, it is noon, high noon. Get 
started now. I think we will be glad that we did.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Remembering Richard Trumka

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise today with some sad, some horrible 
news about the passing of a great friend, Rich Trumka, who left us this 
morning.
  The working people of America have lost a fierce warrior at a time 
when we needed him most. Just yesterday, Rich was lending his support 
to the striking miners in Alabama.
  Following in his father's footsteps, he worked in the mines. He went 
to Penn State, earned his law degree. He didn't practice. He didn't go 
to some fancy place. He went right to work for the United Mine Workers, 
which he lead for so many years, and then he became head--first, 
secretary-treasurer--of the AFL-CIO.
  He had in his veins and every atom of his body the heart, the 
thoughts, the needs of the working people of America. He was them. Rich 
Trumka was the working people of America. He never had any airs. He 
never put it on, and he cared about his fellow workers so.
  He was a great leader. He knew that the labor movement and working 
people had to expand and be diverse. One of his passions as a labor 
leader was immigration reform, which I talked to him about repeatedly 
because they were working people, too, no matter where they came from 
or what they looked like.
  It is just horrible news. I will have more to say about it later, but 
I wanted to inform my colleagues that we have just lost a giant, and we 
need him so.
  We will remember him forever, and his memory will, I know, importune 
all of us to do more, even more, for the working people of America, who 
Rich Trumka so dearly and deeply loved.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I just wanted to lend words and support 
to what Majority Leader Schumer just said about Rich Trumka.
  I send my prayers and love to Barbara, his family, and everyone in 
the labor movement.
  What a strong, vibrant, committed leader. We have worked together on 
so many different issues, and it was always about: Is this going to 
create good-paying jobs? Are workers going to be able to have their 
voice in the workplace? Is their standard of living going to increase? 
What are we doing for folks? Are we bringing jobs home? Are we creating 
jobs here? What are we doing for the backbone of our country, which are 
working men and women?
  So I just want to indicate my profound sadness and shock and my love 
and support for all of those who I know are very sad and grieving at 
this moment.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                               H.R. 3684

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight an important 
component of the bipartisan infrastructure legislation that we are now 
debating. This legislation includes new investments that will help 
communities in Michigan and across the country address the serious risk 
posed by severe flooding, shoreline erosion, and other natural 
disasters.
  As a result of climate change, we are continuing to experience an 
increase in the frequency and intensity of severe weather events. In 
June, Southeast Michigan faced yet another severe flooding event that, 
tragically, led to two deaths, damaged small businesses and thousands 
of homes, and devastated families.
  The Federal Government has spent many billions of dollars to help 
respond to and recover from disasters. However, until very recently, we 
chronically underinvested in mitigating the effects of disasters before 
they occur, despite the fact that it protects lives, safeguards 
property, and saves taxpayer dollars. In fact, studies show that every 
dollar invested in hazard mitigation or prevention saves as much as $6 
for the taxpayers.
  This package provides critical investments to a number of mitigation 
programs, but I want to highlight just one in particular, the STORM 
Act. Last year, I authored bipartisan legislation to create a new 
revolving loan program to be overseen by the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, or FEMA. In January of this year, that bill was 
signed into law, establishing a new program to help our communities 
tackle this rising threat.
  As the Senate crafted this important bipartisan infrastructure 
package over the past few weeks, I was able to work with my colleagues 
to secure $500 million in initial funding for this program, the first 
Federal investment that will kick-start loans for communities all 
across our country to begin addressing this serious problem.
  With this downpayment, States will receive funding to create 
revolving loan funds to support local government investments in hazard 
mitigation projects that will help reduce natural disaster risk. The 
low-interest loans provided by this program will offer critical 
resources to cash-strapped local communities. Over time, repayment of 
those loans at an extremely low interest rate will provide States with 
a self-sustaining fund that they can use to continue improving 
resilience in other localities.
  Because the revolving loan funds are managed at the State level, each 
State will have the authority to prioritize funding for the projects 
with the greatest need, rather than having the Federal Government make 
those decisions. This flexibility will allow States to focus on 
protecting vulnerable communities that are particularly hard hit by 
extreme weather events.
  Additionally, unlike other mitigation programs, the STORM Act is the 
first program to allow States to invest in projects to mitigate 
shoreline erosion, rising water levels, and severe rainfall that can 
wreak havoc on public and private property alike. This is especially 
important for my home State of Michigan, where Great Lakes communities 
have endured flooded campgrounds, streets, and basements because of 
storm water drainage issues; boating problems due to submerged 
structures; and the destruction of beaches and homes from high water 
levels.

[[Page S5902]]

  Funding for the STORM Act, along with other mitigation funds provided 
in this legislation, will help transform our country into a more 
resilient nation and save us money in the long run. I urge my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this critical investment in 
mitigation and enacting the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Survivors' Bill of Rights Act

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am reintroducing the Survivors' Bill 
of Rights in the States Act of 2021. This measure, which Senator 
Shaheen has joined me in sponsoring, builds on an initiative on which 
the two of us worked together in 2016.
  Entitled the ``Survivors' Bill of Rights Act,'' that earlier 
legislation cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee in June of 2016, 
during my tenure as its chairman. The House of Representatives 
introduced a similar package of rights some months later, and that 
version was enacted in the fall of 2016 with my strong support.
  The 2016 statute provides very important rights for victims of sexual 
violence, but that act only accomplishes those cases that are Federal. 
Such rights include, for example, the right to know the results of your 
forensic exam, the right to have evidence preserved for a certain 
period, and lastly, the right to notice before your forensic kit is 
destroyed.
  A young sexual assault survivor, Amanda Nguyen, who advocated for 
these rights at the Federal level, now is leading the effort to 
persuade other jurisdictions to adopt the same rights for all sexual 
assault victims. One of those jurisdictions is my home State of Iowa, 
which this summer adopted a package of rights that is closely modeled 
after the Federal Survivors' Bill of Rights.
  I want to take the opportunity to again thank Amanda, who arrived in 
my office 6 years ago and convinced me of the importance of working 
with her on this important initiative. Amanda also later testified 
before the Judiciary Committee, not once but twice, at my invitation, 
about the importance of protecting the rights of victims of sexual 
violence in our criminal justice system.
  Amanda worked with Senator Shaheen on this same legislation, as well 
as this Senator, and I am pleased to partner with Senator Shaheen again 
in introducing today's measure that will hopefully affect more States 
adopting this legislation.
  This bill that we sponsored, then, gives each State a financial 
incentive to adopt new rights for survivors in all sex crime cases, 
modeled on the same rights that victims in Federal cases now enjoy. 
Each State that extends these same rights to survivors of sexual 
violence would then be eligible to receive a Federal grant under the 
legislation that we have introduced. The amount of each State grant 
would be calculated based on the formula that is used to calculate STOP 
grant funding to States under a program that is authorized by the 
Violence Against Women Act.
  Finally, this measure that we have introduced would authorize $20 
million annually for each of the next 5 fiscal years to support the 
implementation of the new grant program established by this bill.
  Once again, I want to thank Senator Shaheen for joining me in leading 
this legislation and for her commitment to working to increase 
protections for victims of sexual violence.
  I also want to thank the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence for 
working with us on the bill's development.
  Finally, I thank Congresswoman Jackie Speier and Congressman Kelly 
Armstrong for initiating this measure in the other Chamber.
  I urge my colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this bipartisan, 
bicameral legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Indiana.


                              The Economy

  Mr. YOUNG. Mr. President, when I first ran for Congress in 2010, 
then-Vice President Biden was on a ``recovery summer'' tour. You see, 
on the heels of a trillion-dollar stimulus package, he argued millions 
of jobs would magically appear.
  Happy days are here again.
  When that summer ended, the unemployment rate was 9.4 percent, and 
280,000 jobs vanished. If ever there was a show that did not deserve a 
sequel, this was it. But that is exactly what the American people are 
living through right now.
  When they passed their $1.9 trillion ``son of stimulus'' package 
earlier this year, the President and his friends in Congress promised 
millions of jobs and another summer of recovery. Like the original, 
this sequel is a flop. That is because, once again, our friends across 
the aisle are confusing taxpayer priorities with a liberal wish list.
  I see at home the cost of living is rising for Hoosier families and 
job creators. You take a trip to my hometown grocery in Greenwood, IN, 
the cost of steak and chicken and bread have all increased. Across the 
board, the cost of putting food on the table has gone up over 5 percent 
since last year.
  It is not just groceries. The cost of gas and energy and housing and 
household goods are at historic highs, all while America endures a 
nationwide crime wave and our borders are overrun.
  Now, I know my Democratic colleagues don't want to use the I-word, 
but let's call it what it is: Inflation. Taxation without legislation. 
And inflation is at its highest level since 2008.
  We know they want to raise taxes on Americans, including those in the 
middle class, but this is probably not what Democrats had in mind.
  But the President, evidently, he is not worried. He says the rising 
cost of living is only temporary. It is transitory.
  Look, this is easy for him to say. His pocketbook isn't impacted by 
inflation. He isn't buying groceries at the local grocery store or a 
new fridge for the White House. He is not gassing up the Presidential 
limousine. Maybe that explains why he is urging Congress to spend 
another $3.5 trillion taxpayer dollars--$10 billion here for 
environmental justice, $174 billion there for electric cars, a massive 
expansion of Medicare and Medicaid, and trillions more in taxes on 
American families as we emerge from a global pandemic.
  Trust me, I can tell you, Hoosiers don't want any of that, nor do the 
majority of the American people: no more trillion-dollar tax-and-spend 
rescue plans. They aren't rescuing Americans; they are raising their 
cost of living.
  Don't take it from me. Take it from Larry Summers, President Obama's 
economic adviser. He is warning President Biden about inflation--has 
been for a number of months. In fact, he described recent fiscal 
macroeconomic policy, including the last round of nearly $2 trillion in 
stimulus as ``the least responsible fiscal macroeconomic policy we've 
had in the last 40 years.'' With friends like these--but, you know, he 
speaks the truth.
  I wish the President would listen to Secretary Summers. He certainly 
won't listen to us. We are not arguing for inaction, though. In fact, 
we are willing to collaborate. We know there is need for targeted and 
responsible government spending tied to actual results on core 
infrastructure, on workforce training, on cutting-edge technology.
  We just believe that every taxpayer dollar is a sacred trust, and we 
should treat it accordingly. If we are going to invest it, the American 
people better see returns. What they are seeing in the Democrats' $3.5 
trillion budget proposal is a rerun of a failed trillion-dollar tax-
and-spend spectacle from just a decade ago.
  Now, the final act of that show, by the way, was not recovery. It was 
the American people handing control of the House of Representatives 
over to the Republican Party. The President

[[Page S5903]]

should keep that in mind. The President should keep that in mind.
  I yield the floor
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                       Remembering Richard Trumka

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I rise with--I don't know if I ever 
actually said this on the Senate floor--I rise with a heavy heart 
because of the death earlier today of a longtime friend, Rich Trumka, 
who was the longtime President of the National AFL-CIO.
  I call him a friend because my wife Connie--who is in the Gallery 
with our grandson Clayton. My wife Connie and I have walked picket 
lines with Rich Trumka, done rallies with Rich Trumka, and spoken on 
behalf of workers with Rich Trumka.
  He was a son of our part of the country--Pennsylvania, West Virginia, 
Ohio. He was a coal miner, not just the son of a coal miner. I believe 
he once told me he was the grandson of a coal miner, but he was a coal 
miner early in life.
  He embodied the soul of the labor movement. He understood workers. He 
was for them and of them in ways that are unusual in America in the 
21st century.
  He understood and lived and fought for the dignity of work, the idea 
that hard work should pay off for everyone. He understood what a woman 
from southern West Virginia said to me some weeks ago at a ``Dignity of 
Work'' hearing in the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee 
that I chair. She said the words ``working'' and ``poor'' should not be 
in the same sentence. Think about that. The words ``working'' and 
``poor'' should not be in the same sentence.
  Rich Trumka understood the dignity of work. When you work hard--
whether you punch a clock or swipe a badge or work for salary or work 
for tips or take care of children or grandchildren or children or 
grandparents--that hard work should be rewarded; that no one who works 
hard should not have a decent standard of living.
  Few in this country have done more for workers than Rich. Giving 
workers a voice has been his life's work. From his days in the mine, 
when he was an outspoken advocate for trade unionism, he understood it 
was unions; that carrying a union card was about empowering workers. If 
you join a union; you make better wages; you get better benefits; you 
get health insurance; you have more power over your schedule. You have 
a safety net often when tragedy strikes. Rich understood that. He 
understood that unions helped build careers and provide for families.

  Our hearts are with Barbara, his wife, and their son and with all the 
workers around the country. I can't even imagine how many workers Rich 
Trumka touched.
  I looked at the impact of just the work he did with me, let alone 
with so many in this body; the work he did fighting for pensions, and 
with his support--leading the charge, really--a million families in the 
United States--more than a million families--had their pensions 
restored back in March when we passed the American Rescue Plan.
  He understood the importance of the child tax credit. He understood 
the importance of the Affordable Care Act. He understood the importance 
of protecting the right to organize, which 47 Senate Democrats are 
cosponsors of. He was even, yesterday, on a call with workers in 
Alabama, helping to encourage them to organize. He knew that his job as 
a labor leader was to represent the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds 
of thousands of members and their families but to always try to recruit 
new people to join the labor movement, and he knew that it was an 
uphill fight because of the way the system is rigged toward 
corporations and toward employers.
  He would say, if he were here, how important it is to carry on with 
or without him, carry on his life's work by standing in solidarity with 
all the men and women of the labor movement, who built the strongest 
middle class the world has ever seen.
  We see that middle class shrinking day by day, slowly shrinking, and 
the reason is because we see the number of union members shrinking. He 
knew the way to turn that around was the Protecting the Right to 
Organize Act. He knew the way to turn that around was to get more 
people organized, to give them the option.
  Half of America would like to join a union, surveys say--at least 
half--if they had the opportunity. Most don't because of the outmoded, 
outdated, rigged-against-them labor laws in this country, but Rich 
understood that. He understood people staying in the middle class. The 
union card helped people join the middle class, expand the middle 
class.
  Also, one other point is, I thought of what Rich Trumka did. One of 
the things I worked most of my career on is a better fair trade policy. 
I voted against every single trade agreement that came in front of me 
until 2 years ago, and that is because Rich Trumka played a major role 
in changing NAFTA, in changing the USMCA, the United States-Mexico-
Canada Agreement, and put in language that Senator Wyden and I worked 
on that will put workers at the center.
  The way that Rich Trumka understood government is, if you put workers 
at the center of our policy--workers at the center of our trade policy, 
workers at the center of our tax policy, workers at the center of 
everything we do here; call it dignity of work; call it putting workers 
at the center--if you do that, everything right will flow from there. 
We will have a more just society. We will have a more prosperous 
society. We will have more opportunity for our children. That is what 
Rich Trumka was. That is what he stood for. That is what he was all 
about. That is the fight that we need to carry on on his behalf and in 
his memory.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The Senator from Nevada.
  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, before I begin, I want to take a moment to 
acknowledge the passing of Richard Trumka, just as my colleagues have 
been speaking of him so wonderfully.
  You know, during his time leading the AFL-CIO, he was a tireless 
defender of workers and the rights of working Americans all across our 
country. He recognized the capability of what Americans--of what they 
could achieve by working together. He fought fiercely to help build 
something better for our country and for our country's workforce.
  My thoughts are with his family and his loved ones


                               H.R. 3684

  Mr. President, let us all take inspiration and lessons from the trail 
that he blazed, which is why I rise today to discuss a bill that would 
also help to build something better for our country as well as our 
country's workers: the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
  This bipartisan bill is an opportunity for the U.S. Senate to make a 
major investment in our communities, in our States, in our country. The 
goal of the G-22 bipartisan working group, which I was proud to join 
earlier this year, has been to develop bold, comprehensive legislation 
that will make a real, meaningful difference in people's lives, and 
now--now--we are close to seeing that goal achieved.
  This bill has been years in the making. During my time in Congress, 
we have gone from one infrastructure week to the next with never much 
to show for it until now.
  It is not hyperbole to say that our bipartisan bill will be the most 
significant investment in American infrastructure since we built the 
Interstate Highway System. I know that for my State, for Nevada, these 
investments--well, they are going to make a real difference because 
this bill takes steps to support our traditional infrastructure: our 
roads, our bridges, our rail, our transit.
  You know, in Nevada, there are over 1,000 miles of highway in our 
State that are in need of repair and well over two dozen of Nevada's 
bridges that need to be restored. We have all experienced driving on 
cracked roads and broken-down bridges. We know the toll it takes. And 
this degradation--it poses serious safety concerns. It increases 
commute times. It costs Nevada drivers hundreds each year in costs, 
maybe thousands, due to poor conditions. And now, right now, we have an 
opportunity to make critical upgrades and repairs both for those who 
call the Silver State home and for the millions--millions--of travelers 
that visit us from far and wide.

[[Page S5904]]

  Our bill would also provide funding to expand our roads, bridges, and 
highways in Nevada and across the whole country, from the Presiding 
Officer's State of Maine all the way down to us in Southern Nevada.
  As a member of the group who negotiated this bipartisan legislation, 
I am proud that our bill provides flexible funding to States and 
communities to address their unique challenges. In Nevada, that means 
meeting the needs of a growing population and making our State 
accessible to visitors who contribute to our economy and support our 
job-creating businesses. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--
well, it meets that need by providing growing Western States like mine, 
Nevada, critical funding for surface transportation investments.
  The bill would also make significant investments in accessible public 
transport and rail systems to ease travel for people in our cities and 
to connect our rural and suburban communities to our urban cores.
  Through the bill's investment in western water systems, we can 
transport water across communities to better meet needs swiftly and 
develop important water recycling and reuse projects that will go a 
long way to providing greater access to water--something especially 
needed in my State and so many others as we deal with the current 
historic drought conditions.
  But beyond traditional infrastructure investments, this bill is also 
forward-thinking in its scope and in its intent. The Infrastructure 
Investment and Jobs Act--well, it just doesn't invest in solutions to 
our current problems; it will help invest in the success of our 
Nation's future and our ability to overcome emerging problems through 
energy and cyber security infrastructure, like my Cyber Sense Act, 
bipartisan legislation that is included in this legislation to ensure 
the cyber security of technologies used in our bulk power system.
  You know, in addressing these emerging challenges, it took hard work, 
and it took compromise--exactly what our constituents expect of us but 
which Congress far too often fails to deliver.
  Many of you know that the process of bringing this bill together 
involved numerous meetings, long hours, and many discussions across 
party lines on all the issues involved. I was proud to take part in 
helping put this bill together because I wanted to be the voice at the 
table for Nevadans, that voice at the negotiating table that they need 
me to be, and I wanted to make sure that we addressed the issues 
important to our State. I am here to say that this bill does just that.
  This bill includes investments that will uniquely benefit Nevada now 
and for years to come by increasing access to broadband, by upgrading 
our State's airports--two sections of the legislation that I took a 
leading role in drafting.
  I don't have to tell anyone, but fast, reliable access to the 
internet--it is critical for all of our daily lives, and it has been 
for decades. The pandemic--well, it only put a spotlight on our 
current digital divide and the challenges that far too many Americans 
face getting connected.

  During COVID-19, many Nevadans went online, well, to conduct 
business, to seek medical care, or pursue education, but our State's 
broadband disparity limits many Nevadans, from rural and Tribal 
communities to our underserved areas and our large cities, from using 
or even having the most basic of internet services.
  The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is going to bring 
broadband to communities that have long gone without access. It makes 
an unprecedented investment in building out broadband infrastructure. 
Never before has Congress taken such a bold step to get all Americans 
connected. Our bill includes over $42 billion for State broadband 
deployment grants to connect unserved and underserved communities to 
high-speed internet.
  Finally, we will tackle the ``last mile'' challenges that have 
plagued so many of our communities for years. This bipartisan 
legislation also includes my Middle Mile Broadband Deployment Act, 
which I drafted to fund critical broadband infrastructure that connects 
internet carriers to local networks and community institutions that 
will serve as a launching-off point and connector for getting broadband 
out to all households in their areas. It would also make the cost of 
broadband more affordable to Nevada families, providing low-income 
households support to help pay for this service via the new 
infrastructure that we are building.
  Initial estimates are that our bipartisan legislation will make 
broadband access accessible to more than 120,000 Nevadans who currently 
lack it, and it will provide subsidies to about a quarter of our 
State's residents most in need so that they can afford it. Through this 
bill, we are taking steps to get Nevadans connected for success in the 
21st century and beyond.
  The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act--well, it is also going to 
help support a key industry in the Silver State: travel and tourism. It 
does so by providing much needed funding for airports to expand and 
upgrade their terminals and facilities. As we prepare for a 
postpandemic world, these critical investments will allow us to bring 
in travelers and tourists in even greater numbers. As they come, these 
visitors will support our State's local businesses; they will boost our 
communities and our economy.
  As chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Tourism, Trade, and Export 
Promotion, I made it my priority to fight for Nevada's travel, tourism, 
and hospitality economy as a member of the G-22, and I will continue to 
do so.
  In addition to securing robust funding for our airports, I am also 
proud that this legislation includes my bipartisan TOURISM Act, which 
requires the Department of Transportation to update its national travel 
and tourism infrastructure strategic plan to develop an immediate-term 
and long-term strategy to use the infrastructure investments that we 
make today--that we are going to make, this week, possible--to revive 
the travel and tourism not just in Nevada but, of course, all across 
this Nation as we come out of a deadly pandemic.
  Through the investments provided in this bill, Nevada's travel and 
tourism industry and hopefully all of our tourism can soar once more. 
To make all of these things happen, this bill, our bill, invests in 
creating jobs, jobs that will help repair and strengthen our 
infrastructure and jobs that will build our country's new foundation.
  With the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we can rebuild; we 
can revamp; we can work through all of our infrastructure. Through 
that, we will create good-paying jobs, and we will improve the lives of 
hard-working families and communities all across this country.
  I urge all of my colleagues to choose to make this investment with 
us. Join us, please, in investing in our families and investing in our 
communities and investing in our States and in our country's future.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Clean School Bus Program

  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, for almost two decades, I have worked on 
policies to clean up dirty diesel engines, especially our Nation's 
schoolbuses.
  And our Presiding Officer--as am I, a recovering Governor--has 
thought a lot over the years about schools and education and more than 
a little bit about schoolbuses and how to get kids where they need to 
go to get educated.
  During a normal school year, I am told that more than 25 million 
American children--more than 25 million American children--ride a 
schoolbus every day--at least every schoolday to school.
  Ninety-five percent of these buses are powered by diesel fuel; and 
the majority are old, dirty engines that pollute the air, in many cases 
make our kids sick, and impact our climate.
  When we clean up schoolbuses, it is a win-win situation. Our kids get 
healthier air to breath, our businesses get the message that it is time 
to invest right here in America on the latest and cleanest 
technologies, and we add to our toolbox for tackling the challenge of 
climate change.
  Electric schoolbuses make this win-win possible. Schoolbuses have a 
set

[[Page S5905]]

route and can be predictably recharged. Schoolbuses, unlike other 
heavy-duty vehicles, do not often travel more than 150 miles a day and, 
therefore, do not have the range issues with current battery 
technology.
  However, electric schoolbuses today are expensive compared to diesel 
buses; and, too often, buying an electric schoolbus is hard for schools 
that are already strapped for cash, especially schools that serve low-
income and minority populations.
  The EPA Diesel Emission Reduction Act, known as DERA--the original 
cosponsors of whom were George Voinovich of Ohio and yours truly--helps 
schools replace dirty diesel engines with all types of technologies, 
including electric vehicles.
  With the death of George Voinovich, gosh, close to a decade ago, Jim 
Inhofe, a colleague from Oklahoma, has taken up the torch from our good 
friend George to champion through the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, 
the focus of replacing dirty diesel engines, including for schoolbuses.
  However, the DERA program is woefully underfunded and is not 
structured specifically to meet school needs. DERA also does not 
prioritize low-income schools, nor provide funds specifically for 
electric schoolbuses.
  With a new EPA Clean School Bus program, we can build on the lessons 
learned from the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act and help make it easier 
for schools to buy zero-emitting schoolbuses and other schoolbuses to 
meet emission standards.
  Through this new Clean School Bus program, we also will use the 
Federal purchasing power to increase the demand for electric 
schoolbuses, buses that are manufactured here in America in places, 
among others, like Georgia, which, in turn, will bring down the overall 
cost of schoolbuses for everybody.
  Here is what the clean schoolbus language in this legislation does. 
The Clean School Bus program amends the EPA Clean School Bus program 
that was originally authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, but 
never funded by Congress or implemented by EPA 16 years ago. EPA is 
authorized to create a national program to fund the replacement of 
existing schoolbuses with zero-emitting schoolbuses and other clean 
schoolbuses through grants and rebates.
  The Clean School Bus program places a priority on schools that serve 
low-income students, are on Tribal lands, or are located in rural 
areas, and the program can fund up to 100 percent of the cost of a new 
schoolbus.
  The legislation provides $5 billion in funding for this new Clean 
School Bus program over 5 years, with $2.5 billion allocated 
exclusively for zero-emission schoolbuses. The remaining $2.5 billion 
can be used on buses that run on liquefied natural gas, compressed 
natural gas, on hydrogen, propane, or biofuels, and can be used for 
zero-emission schoolbuses.
  My Environment and Public Works Committee staff and I, along with the 
administration, worked hard to make sure that zero-emitting schoolbuses 
had dedicated funding in this program and would be eligible for all 
program funding. This agreement does just that.
  I expect EPA to work to implement this program in a way that focuses 
on pushing zero-emission technology out into the market. Technology 
that uses fossil fuels is readily available and economic today and 
should not be broadly subsidized by taxpayer dollars.
  My hope is that this is just a down payment, and that Congress will 
invest in the future even more in zero-emitting schoolbuses. Our kids 
and our climate can't wait. They deserve it, and we need to deliver it 
to them.
  With that, I yield the floor to the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                             Climate Change

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, on January 27 of this year, the Biden 
administration put out a wide-ranging Executive order on tackling 
climate change. Tucked in that Executive order was a line directing 
Secretaries of Agriculture, the Interior, and Commerce to develop a 
plan to conserve at least 30 percent of our lands and waters by 2030. 
This plan is commonly referred to as the ``30 by 30.''
  To reach the Biden administration's goal of 30 percent of the land in 
conservation by 2030, the Federal Government will have significant work 
ahead of them to accomplish that.
  This is what 30 percent means. Thirty percent of the land would mean 
that we will need 440 million additional acres in permanent 
conservation.
  To put 440 million acres of land into perspective, it is the 
equivalent of taking the State of Iowa and putting all of Iowa's land 
into permanent conservation. But that is still not enough to get to 440 
million acres. You would repeat that 11 more times to reach the Biden 
administration's goal of 30 percent of the land in conservation by 
2030.
  This is not really an attempt at conservation; it is an attempt at 
confiscation, even though the confiscation would be rewarded, 
presumably, by annual payments from the Federal Government. Between the 
30 by 30 land grab and the Waters of the U.S. rewrite, it is clear that 
this administration simply does not understand rural America. If they 
did understand, then they would realize that farmers are the first and 
best conservationists because it is good for their pocketbook and good 
for the environment.
  If the United States decides to go forward with the 30 by 30 plan, we 
already know what will happen. This rhetoric empowers our Nation's corn 
and soybean competitors to increase their output
  Now, Brazil is the best example of our corn and soybean competitors, 
so let's look at Brazil. This week, the Brazilian House of 
Representatives advanced a bill that their President, President 
Bolsonaro, supports, that allows the squatters on public lands in the 
Amazon rainforest to more easily receive deeds to their properties. 
Now, there is nothing wrong with deeds to property, but what this is 
going to do is allow squatters to burn the forest to plant corn and 
soybeans.
  Let me tell you how significant this burning is, and this was a few 
years ago that I read this. I read something from the astronauts in our 
space station circling the globe. They said there were two significant 
things that stand out on the Earth's surface when you look down: No. 1 
is the Great Wall of China, and No. 2 is the smoke coming from the 
burning of the rainforest.
  Now, Brazil has already plowed under more than half of the Cerrado, 
which is tropical savanna. The Cerrado is a vital storehouse for carbon 
dioxide that has been disappearing at rates faster than even the Amazon 
rainforest.
  If we tie the hands of American farmers, our competitors, like the 
ones in Brazil, will continue to meet the needs of a growing, hungry 
world. By 2050, the world population will grow to 9 billion people, and 
we are going to have to feed them.
  I don't think the United States should cede our leadership in 
production agriculture to other countries that already have poor 
environmental standards. So what you are saying is, in this Cerrado, 
where the carbon is already sequestered for millennia, that somehow we 
ought to have a policy here to store more carbon by more conservation 
to let them plow up more in Brazil.
  The 5-year farm bill already does a great job of encouraging farmers 
and landowners to preserve fragile lands, enhancing environmental 
benefits for all Americans. These farm bill provisions are referred to 
as ``working lands programs''--programs like the Environmental Quality 
Incentives Program that goes by the acronym EQIP, or the Conservation 
Stewardship Program we call CSP. These programs provide incentives to 
help producers adopt management practices on their ground that allows 
the land to stay in production while improving environmental outcomes.
  If the Biden administration focuses on these longtime conservation 
programs, my speech today would be praising those efforts; but, 
instead, this administration has proposals that take productive 
farmland out of production, placing the U.S. at a competitive 
disadvantage.
  We have learned from the Conservation Reserve Program--the CRP we 
call it in agriculture--the CRP program we have had around for decades. 
About 24 million acres is in CRP now. But we learned a lesson from the 
early days of CRP that if you take too much land out of production in a 
certain area, it hurts the small business people who either serve 
farmers after the products leave their farm or serve farmers with input 
into agriculture.

[[Page S5906]]

  So later on, we had to put a requirement that no more than 25 percent 
of one county can be put into the CRP. Even in doing that--we have 
counties in southern Iowa that have 25 percent of their land in CRP--
and we know even there that with the limit of 25 percent, we still have 
lost a lot of small business people who work with farmers, and we ruin 
the small communities of States that have that problem.
  So I would be praising these efforts if this is what the 
administration was satisfied with, but, instead, they have these 
proposals to take productive farmland out of production and putting our 
competitors in a financial advantage.
  These ideas also make it harder for new and beginning farmers to 
compete on rental rates and gain access to land--another lesson we 
learned in the years `13, `14, and `15. We changed it in the 2018 farm 
bill, but what we learned in `13, `14, and `15, is when the Government 
is paying more for farmers to take their land out of production than is 
the going rate for cash rent in those areas, when the government 
becomes an unfair competitor and pays more, then the farmer landlords 
put their land in the CRP. Then those farmers that were farming that 
land can't farm it anymore because they can't afford to compete with 
what the Government is paying.
  Now, there is a limit that cash rent from the Government can't be 
more than 80 percent of the average cash rent in a particular county. 
So we have kind of overcome that problem. But if you pay farmers now to 
put 30 percent of the land out of production, you are going to lose a 
lot of farmers that are cash renters, and we shouldn't be having the 
Government be an unfair competitor against the farmers that pay cash 
rent.
  So these farmers understand how conservation and sustainable 
agriculture affects productivity and generational prosperity. It is 
important for us to leave the land better than we found it for our 
children and grandchildren.
  So far the Biden administration has said their 30 by 30 plan focuses 
on voluntary measures. Well, farmers can make a choice to do it or not, 
but to get to 440 million additional acres in conservation, you would 
be foolish to think that voluntary measures are going to get to the 
goal this administration wants.
  Instead of focusing on taking more land out of production 
agriculture, let's work on a strategy that allows farmers to continue 
to farm their land while improving environmental outcomes.
  I yield the floor.


                       Remembering Richard Trumka

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I came to the floor today to make 
remarks in support of the bipartisan infrastructure modernization plan. 
But before I do that, I do want to take a moment to remember a real 
giant of the American working people, and that is Richard Trumka, the 
head of the AFL-CIO, who is somebody who got up every single morning 
thinking about how to make life better for working people in America.
  He was passionate about it. He was a fellow Marylander. We are going 
to miss him, but I know that we will continue to be inspired by his 
example and his understanding that when working people ban together to 
form a union, that is the best way for them to be able to bargain for 
better wages and better benefits and a better retirement and a better 
life.
  So I know that we will all carry on in his memory. And as we take up 
this bill to modernize our infrastructure, it was something that he 
worked with us on to ensure that as we modernize our infrastructure, we 
also create good-paying jobs. And I do think that this bill will 
modernize our infrastructure and generate millions of good-paying jobs 
for the American people.


                             Infrastructure

  Mr. President, it was just about 6 months ago that I came to the 
floor to urge my Senate colleagues to heed the call of the American 
people and pass the American Rescue Plan. At that time, the country was 
being ravaged by the COVID-19 pandemic. The economy was in a slump. The 
country was hurting, and the American people were hurting.
  The American Rescue Plan was designed to accelerate the deployment of 
vaccines to defeat the pandemic, to extend a hand to those who have 
been hardest hit, and to boost an economic comeback. We knew we had to 
be bold, we had to be quick, and we had to be decisive in our actions 
or risk a drawn out recovery and a weakened public health response.
  That legislation, the American Rescue Plan, promised immediate action 
to meet the urgency of the moment, and that is exactly what it did. 
Thanks to the American Rescue Plan, we jump-started the deployment of 
the coronavirus vaccines in faster and fairer ways, distributed around 
the country. Thanks to the American Rescue Plan, millions of American 
households received a new round of direct payments, bringing their 
total relief payment--including the December relief bill--up to $2,000 
per person.
  The American Rescue Plan also expanded the child tax credit to cut 
child poverty nearly in half this year, with millions of American 
families receiving up to $300 each month for each child. And because of 
the American Rescue Plan, State and local governments are receiving the 
direct funding they need to keep frontline workers on the job and 
continue essential benefits to lift up our communities.
  And thanks to the American Rescue Plan, we secured Federal funds to 
keep restaurants and small businesses afloat, assist children with 
disabilities, get our kids back in school more quickly and more safely, 
bolster childcare, and help more people get connected to the internet 
during this time when we had to experience so much social distancing, 
and much more.
  That plan was a victory. It was a victory for our families, for our 
workers, for small businesses, for communities, and for the country. 
And while we know we have more work to do to defeat the Delta variant 
of the virus, today, more than 70 percent of the adult population has 
gotten at least one shot of the COVID-19 vaccine. And last quarter, our 
economy grew at an annualized rate of 6\1/2\ percent, and our gross 
domestic product rose for the first time from the beginning of the 
pandemic to the point where it had been before that started.
  Thanks to the American Rescue Plan and the resilience of the American 
people, we are building back from this crisis. But while building back 
is good, it is not good enough. As President Biden has said, we need to 
not just build back but build back better. And building back better 
means not only growing our economy bigger and faster but providing for 
more inclusive growth and more shared prosperity. We cannot accept an 
economy where the already-rich grow ever richer while everyone else is 
running in place or falling behind. A rising tide must lift all boats, 
not just the yachts.

  President Biden has laid out two important pieces to advance the 
better part of the Build Back Better agenda. One is the American Jobs 
Plan, and the other is the American Families Plan. Both of these plans, 
and more, are key to building an economy that works for everyone and 
not just those who are already at the top.
  The bipartisan infrastructure plan that we are considering now 
contains many elements of the Biden American Jobs Plan. And while I 
wish it included even more, it is a very important start, and I 
strongly support it.
  And I appreciate the bipartisan cooperation that helped advance this 
plan, including the efforts of the Presiding Officer. These combined 
efforts have produced a plan that will make key investments in 
virtually every part of our infrastructure.
  It will include investments in our transit systems and railways and 
help repair our roads and bridges and tunnels and more. It makes the 
largest investment in clean drinking water and wastewater 
infrastructure in American history. And, very importantly, this 
legislation includes essential investments to build the backbone of the 
modern 21st century economy, including funds to expand broadband so we 
can bridge the digital divide and funds to start building out our clean 
energy grid and the deployment of electric charging stations.
  I was proud to work with my colleague and friend from Maryland, 
Senator Cardin, to secure some key elements that will directly support 
our home State of Maryland and the people

[[Page S5907]]

who live there. I would like to take a moment to discuss the impact of 
this legislation here in Maryland, starting with the funds that it 
provides to repair and restore our roads, our bridges, and our tunnels.
  Under this plan, the State of Maryland will receive $4.1 billion for 
Federal highways and $409 million for bridge replacement and repairs 
over the next 5 years. These funds will be absolutely vital as we work 
to restore 273 bridges and over 2,000 miles of Maryland highways that 
are in poor condition and in desperate need of repair.
  This plan also makes a historic investment in public transit and rail 
systems in Maryland and the DMV area. Maryland will receive $1.7 
billion over 5 years to improve public transportation options across 
our entire State.
  And this legislation will make an important down payment on our 
Amtrak passenger rail systems by addressing the big repair backlog 
along Amtrak's Northeast Corridor and by supporting projects like the 
B&P Tunnel in Baltimore, which is used by 9 million travelers every 
year but has faced challenges of structural deterioration and fire 
safety concerns for far too long. Restoring this tunnel could slash the 
time it takes to get from Baltimore to Washington down to just 30 
minutes and create 30,000 jobs. And it is a shining example of the type 
of projects that could be funded by this bill and we expect will be 
funded by this bill.
  As you know, we are not just talking about heavy rail. This plan also 
authorizes transit monies and, importantly, it continues the $150 
million annual Federal contribution to the Washington area Metro 
system, known as WMATA. We call it the Nation's Metro system.
  This bill will extend the Federal authorization of $150 million for 
another 8 years. This is especially important since that authorization 
has now expired. It is also important because this new version includes 
provisions to strengthen WMATA's inspector general's authority in order 
to improve oversight and passenger safety. It is a big win for 
passengers and transit employees alike, and I am delighted to see that 
8-year authorization in this bill.
  That is good news for this part of the region and for this part of 
Maryland that is covered by WMATA, but in the Baltimore area, many 
residents don't have easy access to accessible, affordable transit that 
can get them where they need to go around the city or the region when 
they need to go there. That is why we also secured a provision in this 
bill to keep alive future Federal funding for the Baltimore Red Line 
Metro system.

  This is a project that had been years in the making, and, if 
completed, would boost jobs and economic growth, reduce travel times in 
the Baltimore region, alleviate congestion, and reduce air pollution. 
The Maryland delegation fought for years to get this project to the 
front of the line, and, in 2015, we were pleased to secure $900 million 
in Federal funds for the Baltimore Red Line project.
  But then something happened. The Maryland Governor pulled the plug on 
the entire Red Line project, turning down the jobs and improved 
transportation network for the Baltimore area. Other cities and regions 
around the country were celebrating when they got those funds instead 
of Baltimore. Senator Cardin and I have not given up. And while the 
Federal Government cannot, by itself, bring this project online, this 
bill states that the Federal Government is still a willing partner on 
the Red Line when State and local officials signal that they are ready 
and willing to move forward again.
  At the end of the day, the transportation investments made in this 
bill will facilitate people and products moving more quickly throughout 
their regions and throughout the country. It invests in airports and 
ports, including $17 billion in ports like the Port of Baltimore and 
others around the country.
  This funding will benefit our port, the Port of Baltimore, which is a 
key asset in our State and a powerful engine for economic and job 
growth. It is currently a hub for 15,000 jobs, with room for growth 
that can be fueled by this bill.
  I was pleased to join others in welcoming our Secretary of 
Transportation, Pete Buttigieg, to Baltimore just last week where he 
underscored the Department's commitment to investing in our ports and 
the men and women who work there. This legislation helps us make good 
on that commitment.
  I partnered with colleagues over the years to secure over $500 
million in Federal funds for that port, including funds to dredge 
channels in the Chesapeake Bay and the Baltimore Harbor so that they 
are deep enough to accommodate the biggest ships.
  Speaking of the Chesapeake Bay, every Marylander knows that the 
health of the bay is deeply bound to Maryland's local economy and 
Maryland's environmental well-being, and I am pleased that we secured 
$238 million in funding for the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program to help us 
meet the pollution reduction targets that are spelled out in the most 
recent multistate Chesapeake Bay agreement as part of this legislation.
  While this legislation provides important investments to modernize 
the infrastructure for this century, we, the Federal Government, should 
also take responsibility to help eliminate some of the past projects 
that, rather than helping unite communities, divide them and harm them. 
And there is no clearer example of such a project than what is known as 
the ``highway to nowhere'' in West Baltimore.
  As many Marylanders know, the ``highway to nowhere'' was a project 
conceived in the 1960s as a way to link Baltimore with the growing U.S. 
Interstate Highway System. Instead, it tore West Baltimore apart. 
Developers started dividing up the community to make room for the 
highway, residents were evicted from their homes, businesses were shut 
down, and a Black community was split down the middle by that ``highway 
to nowhere.'' It is estimated that 971 houses and 62 businesses were 
destroyed, and over 1,500 residents were displaced.
  And that has been the story of several other Federal infrastructure 
projects from the 1960s, projects that too often place pavement over 
people. I am pleased that this bipartisan plan makes at least an 
initial down payment for the first time to put Federal dollars toward 
removing harmful infrastructure projects like the ``highway to 
nowhere'' so we can reconnect these communities and make them whole.
  This provision was based off a pilot program I authored in 2019. I 
want to thank my colleagues, Senator Cardin and Senator Carper, for 
helping make this vision a reality, and President Biden for including 
it as part of his American Jobs Plan. While we didn't get the full 
amount of funds that we would like, this is a very important first 
step.
  As we dismantle some of the harmful legacy from the 1960s and 20th 
century projects, we must build out and meet the new needs for the 21st 
century, like universal, affordable access to high-speed internet.
  I am very pleased that Maryland will receive a minimum of $100 
million from this legislation to help provide broadband coverage across 
the State, including providing access to the at least 148,000 
Marylanders who currently lack it--they are not connected--and it would 
provide over 1 million Marylanders access to the affordability 
connectivity benefit plan to help lower income families afford internet 
access. It doesn't do you much good to be connected to the internet if 
you can't afford to use it.
  This bill also will make important progress, a first step, toward 
building out clean energy grid and a network of charging stations to 
facilitate long-distance travel and provide convenient charging options 
for electric vehicles.
  In short, and for all of these reasons, this bipartisan bill is an 
important step to helping us build back better and stronger than before 
the pandemic.
  That work starts here with this bill, and I strongly support it. But 
while that work starts here, it does not stop or end here.
  To pass this legislation and then call it quits would be to leave a 
big part of our job undone. We still have urgent work to do in our 
mission to enact all of President Biden's Build Back Better agenda and 
address the profound challenges facing our communities that have been 
exacerbated by this pandemic.
  While this bill provides important downpayments in many areas, it 
does not do everything we need to do. That

[[Page S5908]]

is especially true when it comes to infrastructure in the area of clean 
energy. We need to make sure we take up the other big pieces of the 
clean energy agenda in President Biden's American Jobs Plan and other 
proposals that many of us have put forward here in this body, including 
the clean energy standard, including a clean energy accelerator 
financing system, and many other provisions, in order for us to be true 
to the science and really confront the climate crisis that is upon us.
  And as we take those next steps to fully modernized our physical 
infrastructure, we also have to dramatically expand opportunities for 
every child and every family and every worker in America. Much of that 
is laid out in President Biden's American Families Plan, including 
universal access to early education so every single child, regardless 
of ZIP Code, has a chance and a good start in life; making workforce 
training more affordable and college more affordable, whether it is 2 
years of community colleges or more.
  And we also have to make sure that we continue to provide support for 
families in the form of affordable childcare and, very importantly, 
extend the child tax credit payments that so many families are now 
receiving up to $300 a month. That ends at the end of this year if we 
don't extend it.
  While it is always a good thing to reduce child poverty in America--
and that reduces it by about half--that would only be true to the end 
of this year. We need to finish the job and keep going.
  We also need to reduce the costs that are squeezing the pocketbooks 
of every American family. We need to reduce the skyrocketing costs of 
prescription drugs. We need to reduce the costs of childcare. We need 
to make sure that families don't have to spend more than 8.5 percent of 
their budget on their annual healthcare premiums. And we need to 
provide more security for everybody, including our seniors, by 
expanding Medicare coverage to cover dental and vision and hearing 
needs.
  Those are just some of the additional things that we need to do as 
part of the American Families Plan and as part of passing the overall 
Build Back Better agenda.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to do all of that. But 
every journey begins with a big step, and this is a very important big 
step forward on that Build Back Better agenda.
  So I am pleased to join many of my colleagues, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this bipartisan infrastructure modernization bill 
as part of a very important first step to implement the Build Back 
Better agenda and make sure that we truly build an economy that works 
for every American.
  I yield the floor
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wyoming.


                              The Economy

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President. I come to the floor today to comment 
on statements made by the majority leader earlier today on this Senate 
floor, and he made those after President Biden, this morning, signed 
another expensive Executive order relating to climate change.
  The President at the time said it was his goal of making half of all 
new cars emission-free in less than a decade. In practice, that means 
making half of all new cars electric.
  Well, after the President signed his Executive order, the majority 
leader came to the floor, and he talked about his own plans to give 
more of American taxpayer dollars to the manufacturers and purchasers 
of electric vehicles.
  He said:

       [W]e hope to add large parts of the plan.

  Well, where does he want to add it? Well, he wants to add it to the 
reckless Democrat tax-and-spending plan.
  The American taxpayers are already giving billions and billions of 
taxpayer dollars to electric vehicle manufacturers and owners. Electric 
vehicle makers have been given free tax dollars for 30 years. The truth 
is, electric car buyers don't need more taxpayer money. They have 
plenty of their own.
  Today, the market for electric vehicles is very well established. 
There are more than a million electric vehicles on the road today. They 
are being made by everyone: General Motors, Mercedes-Benz, U.S. 
manufacturers, foreign manufacturers. They are being made all around 
the world.
  In fact, the U.S. Energy Information Administration projects that 
sales of light-duty electric vehicles is going to reach 4 million by 
the year 2025. Electric vehicle makers are doing just fine.
  They are also receiving free money from just about every State. So 
who benefits from these taxpayer handouts to electric vehicle makers 
and users?
  Well, customers are usually wealthy. They don't need more money.
  Now, seniors on fixed incomes, certainly in Wyoming, are not trading 
in their cars for expensive electric vehicles. Middle-class families 
who are trying to make ends meet are dealing with inflation that is 
hitting them every day under the Biden economy. They are not going out 
to buy expensive new electric vehicles. Seniors and middle-class 
families are hurting right now because of inflation hitting them when 
they buy gas, when they buy groceries, when they buy other goods. And 
this is, of course, triggered by massive Democrat spending, including 
the borrowing and spending that has occurred under the last 
coronavirus--the so-called coronavirus relief bill.
  So Democrats aren't looking out for them under the proposal. Oh, no.
  Nearly 80 percent of tax credits for electric vehicles go to 
households that earned at least $100,000 a year. Let me repeat that. 
Nearly 80 percent of the tax credits for electric vehicles go to 
households that have earned over $100,000 a year, not to mention the 
fact that these drivers don't pay for the use and the abuse that occurs 
to the roads from them driving on the roads. The rest of us do. Anybody 
who puts gasoline in their car pays the gas tax. It goes to the highway 
trust fund. It goes to repair damage done to the roads.
  We are in a debate over infrastructure. Electric vehicles, no gas 
tax--that is the ordinary source of funding to do repair of our roads 
and our highways.
  Now, even though a Tesla puts as much wear and tear on the road as a 
Ford Focus, the Tesla driver pays next to nothing to fix the roads. 
They contribute nothing to the highway trust fund--one more Democrat 
giveaway to the rich.
  Electric vehicle owners don't need our tax dollars. They have enough. 
They should pay fair share for the use and abuse that they do to the 
roads on which they drive.
  That is why I have introduced legislation called the ELITE Act. It 
stands for End Lavish Incentives to Electric Vehicles. We need to make 
sure to end these incentives to electric vehicles. The bill would end 
the billion-dollar giveaways to electric vehicle makers.
  According to the Manhattan Institute, my bill would actually save 
taxpayers $20 billion. At a time when middle-class families are hurting 
from inflation caused by Democrat spending, it is unconscionable that 
Democrats want to raise taxes to give more handouts to the rich. It is 
certainly bad economics, and it is bad news for hard-working American 
taxpayers.
  Rather than increasing the giveaways, we should be bringing them to 
an end. We should stop this wasteful waste of taxpayer dollars. Any 
waste of taxpayer dollars is wrong, and this is certainly a case where 
taxpayer dollars are not necessary to be spent.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam 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.
  The Senator from Connecticut.


                       Remembering Richard Trumka

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Before I begin the remarks that brought me here 
today, I want to say a word about Richard Trumka, a hero to all of us 
who care about working people and a good friend to many of us.
  I am proud to call him a friend and proud to have been with him as an 
ally in causes and principles that are so important to the present of 
America and the future of America. I am proud to have been with him on 
picket line and platform, to have stood with him and behind him in 
supporting the rights of working men and women to decent pay, fair 
treatment, and safety on the job.
  He came from America, and he never forgot where he came from. His 
life is

[[Page S5909]]

a lesson to so many of us who seek to emulate his devotion to the 
public interest.
  As a leader of the labor movement, his life also reminds us that 
unions count; that collective bargaining means something; that the 
rights of working men and women succeed because they come together in 
unions, and we ought to respect those unions and listen to them and 
champion their right to represent fairly and freely and to organize men 
and women on their jobs.
  So we will miss Richard Trumka, but his legacy is going to be an 
inspiration to all of us--certainly to me--in fighting even harder for 
the great convictions, sense of conscience, the wonderful heart and 
spirit that embraced people who disagreed with him. A life's lesson for 
all of us.
  (The remarks of Mr. Blumenthal pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2654 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.''
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, let me say a word of support for the 
Senator from Connecticut as well as the Senator from New Jersey. I 
couldn't agree with them more. There is no reason why this 
information--full disclosure of this information--has not been made 
known first to the families but certainly to the people of this country 
at this moment in history, 20 years after that terrible tragedy. It is 
time for the truth to be known.
  I support your efforts completely, Senator Blumenthal, and I will 
help you in any way that I can.


                       remembering richard trumka

  Madam President, when I grew up in East St. Louis, IL, I knew I was 
from a railroad family because, well, both Mom and Dad worked for the 
railroads. I knew we had a pretty comfortable life. I have come to 
learn that we weren't by any means rich, but we did well enough--two 
older brothers and myself. I knew that my mom and dad worked for a 
railroad, and eventually all of us in the family did in some capacity.
  I also knew that we were a union family, and I didn't realize until 
much later in life a couple facts: No. 1, there were a lot of families 
around us who weren't that lucky. We were fortunate to be a union 
family. Secondly, what the union did for my family in East St. Louis, 
IL, it did for millions of families across America throughout our 
history. Those labor unions could stand up and fight for people who 
couldn't fight alone and have a chance to win.
  I have a healthy respect for unions. I believe that, more than any 
other force in American history, the American labor movement, the union 
movement, created the middle class in America. I am living proof of 
that. My mom and dad had eighth grade educations. My mother was an 
immigrant to this country. But hard work, a good work ethic, and a 
strong support of a labor union gave them a chance to earn a decent 
living on a safe job and to raise a good family.
  I reflect on that at this moment because we have lost one of the 
pillars of the union movement in the United States of America, Richard 
Trumka.
  What an amazing biography. I used to think back. I had heard he was 
the son of immigrants, and I knew that he worked in the coal mines, but 
then I knew he also went to law school, and he became head of the AFL-
CIO, the largest gathering of unions in our country.
  If you ever met him, with his little brush mustache and the gruff way 
about him, you knew he was no pushover. How could you be a pushover and 
head of the United Mine Workers union which he was at a very early age? 
How could you be a pushover and be head of a national labor 
organization like the AFL-CIO? He did that, and he was an amazing 
advocate for the women and men whom he represented in the labor 
movement.
  I can't even start to count the number of meetings that I attended 
with Richard Trumka. When we wanted labor's voice, we called Richard 
Trumka, and we knew that when that door was closed, he was going to be 
brutally honest with us. He would spend a few minutes thanking us, and 
then he would spend the rest of the meeting telling how we needed to do 
better: The working families of America were expecting us to stand up 
and fight for them. And he took no prisoners when he went through the 
roster and the rollcall of how people had voted and where they stood on 
union issues. It was an amazing performance by a man who had the 
credentials to deliver it, a man who was part of the labor movement 
from working in those coal mines, and a man who had developed the 
skills and talents at law school and beyond to be able to fight for 
those men and women.
  It is stunning to think that we lost him today at age 72. That is way 
too young. He did such an amazing job as the son of a coal miner 
himself. You never had to ask ever which side Rich Trumka was on--ever.
  I have got to be honest with you. There are some people who are 
fighting for causes in Washington, DC, because there is a paycheck at 
the end of the day, but there are some people who are fighting for 
causes who couldn't give a damn about a paycheck. They are there 
because they believe it. Trumka was one of those people. He was 
fighting for working people across the United States night and day, 
endlessly, 24/7. He was on the side of workers who built America's 
roads and bridges and of the men and women who were not in the labor 
movement but trying to become part of it. He fought for the men and 
women who kept our powerplants running and our schools, homes, offices 
running.
  He always asked for one basic thing: respect and fairness for working 
men and women.
  He was with me on the Dream Act. He understood, as the son of 
immigrants, that immigrants are a vital part of this country, and they 
should be for years to come.
  Trumka was on the side of growing this American economy the right 
way, not from the top-down, not trickle-down, but from the bottom-up. 
He believed, growing up in Pennsylvania and the life that he led, that 
it was critical that we be there for families when they made the basic 
decisions about whether or not they were going to buy a new home, buy a 
new car, be able to pay for their kids to go to college. He believed, 
as my old friend Paul Wellstone would say, ``We all do better when we 
all do better.''
  He was a giant who led the labor movement in America through one of 
the most challenging periods in our history, when his leadership was 
needed the most.
  It is on us now--isn't it?--those of us who think about Rich and what 
he said to us so many times privately, publicly. The responsibility 
that we have is to stand up for the men and women who work in this 
country who don't have a voice otherwise. Our responsibility is to give 
those in the labor movement the respect they deserve for fighting for 
the right cause.
  My wife Loretta and I send our condolences to Rich's wife Barb and 
their son and family.
  I understand that he was with his grandson when he was stricken this 
morning. As a grandfather, I will tell you it is a happy moment when 
you are with your grandkids, and that is the way it should have been 
for Rich.
  President Trumka's friends, his sisters and brothers in the labor 
movement, and to all the families to whom Rich Trumka devoted his life, 
they and we have lost a true champion.
  America is better for Rich Trumka having lived and been part of 
fighting for those who worked to make America a great nation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I am here to honor the memory of my 
friend and the friend of every working person in America, Rich Trumka.
  We lost Rich this morning, and all I kept thinking is the kind of man 
we have lost and what that means to all of us.
  Rich was real. He was a third-generation coal miner who rose to 
become the president of the United Mine Workers and the president of 
the American Federation of Labor. Rich was also a hunter, and he had 
the patience of a hunter--the planning, the long hours, sometimes long 
days, but always on his target. And Rich was a fighter He was 
relentless. When Rich got in a fight, Rich never gave up. Might not 
plan every one of those fights, at least not the first time out, but he 
never gave up.

[[Page S5910]]

  From his growl to his laughter, Rich was real all the way through. He 
lived his heart every single day. He was always Rich.
  Back during the financial crash in 2008, 2009, we were trying to 
build an idea for a consumer agency to make sure that people wouldn't 
get cheated next time around the way they had been, and what led up to 
that crash. Rich was there, and he was there because he had seen 
firsthand what it is like. He had seen his brothers and sisters in the 
labor movement, who had lost their homes, had lost their jobs, and seen 
their pensions disappear because a handful of greedy banks and feckless 
regulators had permitted the rich and powerful to take over our 
government and to take over our economy, and they brought that economy 
to its knees. It fell hard on working people, and Rich was determined 
that would not happen again.
  I remember the day when President Obama announced that they were 
ready to lay out the first--first outlines of what the financial 
response should look like, what kind of laws we should pass here in 
Congress in order to make sure that this didn't come again. And there 
were a bunch of folks who were invited to the White House. I was 
invited. It was my first time there. I am looking around--wow.
  And a bunch of people crowded, and all we cared about was: Hand us 
the list. I want to see what is on it. Is there a consumer agency on 
this?
  And we get in our assigned seats, and I am sitting on these tiny, 
little chairs, jammed together so they can get as many people as 
possible. And Rich, who was a man of considerable size, is sitting 
directly behind me, kind of mashed up against the back of my chair and 
leaning out, and we were on the aisle, both of us, and furiously going 
through it to see what is there.
  And, sure enough, the White House had said there is going to be a 
consumer agency, or at least that is what they are going to ask for.
  So I am smiling. I turn and I say: See this? You see this?
  And he said: Yeah.
  And I said: You know, it makes me a little nervous for you to be 
right behind me here.
  And he leaned over and he whispered in my ear and he said: I will 
always have your back, Elizabeth.
  And I reached back, patted him on the leg.
  And it was true. I never got in a fight for working people that Rich 
Trumka wasn't already there, that he was already in that fight, that he 
already saw what was happening to working people on the ground, and 
what it was that we needed our government to do by way of response.
  Rich fought for decades for working people. It was his true north. He 
never varied from that. He never wanted anything for himself. All he 
wanted to do was to see workers get more power so that they were 
playing on a level playing field, to see workers be able to work in 
safe conditions, to see workers get a chance to build some real 
security for themselves and for their families.
  Rich measured everything that came his way against that test: What is 
it going to do for working people? And if you could show him this is 
going to help working people, Rich was in it all the way.
  During COVID-19, Rich was here back and forth and back and forth, 
trying to push this government to get more workers' safety in place, 
more regulations that were going to protect people so people weren't 
out there dying trying to do their jobs.
  Rich was there, trying to protect the economic security of workers, 
people who had been laid off, people who had been shut out of the 
workplace. It was Rich who helped lead the charge, watch out for 
working families.
  He didn't need the glory. He didn't need the spotlight, but, boy, he 
was in there pushing in the way that only Rich Trumka could do it.
  Rich understood that when we put workers at the center of our 
policies, then families win; when we put workers at the center of our 
policies, then our economy wins; when we put workers at the center of 
our policies, then our Nation wins. That is how Rich lived, and that is 
how Rich died.
  To Rich's family, I am so sorry for your loss. For Rich's brothers 
and sisters in the labor movement, I am so sorry for your loss. Rich is 
gone, and that is a hard blow to you and to our whole Nation, and this 
is the moment to honor Rich's legacy not just with words, but by 
staying in the fights that Rich led us on, by staying in the fights 
relentlessly for workers' rights.
  We are going to miss Rich.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                             Infrastructure

  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, since last March, State and local 
governments have received about a half trillion dollars in Federal 
funding to bolster their fight against COVID-19. Leaders in my State 
have used this funding to cover the mounting costs of expenses at the 
start of the pandemic. It enabled them to stand up testing, increase 
bed space for ICUs and hospitals, and provide grants to small 
businesses without the fear of cutting other critical services.
  As time has gone on, the battle against this virus has shifted, and 
so have the needs of my State and our local communities. Many simply 
don't have the continued need or even opportunity under the guardrails 
Congress imposed to spend this money within the set timeline.
  That is especially true in some of the rural parts of my State or 
places where COVID numbers are, thankfully, low. Qualifying pandemic-
related expenses are few and far between in some of those places, as 
strange as that may sound here in Washington, DC.
  I have heard from State and local leaders who are frustrated by the 
strict rules on the funding. They have needs, but somehow the 
limitations that Congress has put on their access to the money are 
stifling their ability to deal with priorities that they have at the 
local level.
  They are able to use these dollars on some of the tough financial 
dealings of the pandemic, but not all. One of the greatest needs they 
have is to deal with infrastructure. When folks hunkered down at home 
to stop the spread of COVID-19, State and local transportation budgets 
took a big hit. As a result, many infrastructure projects ended up on 
the chopping block.
  In 2020, States and cities across the country delayed or canceled 
transportation improvement projects totaling about $12 billion. Many of 
these projects are still in limbo. Without sufficient funding, there is 
no timeline when that planned construction might actually begin.
  For months now, there has been a clear need to bridge the gap. Back 
in March, nearly three dozen organizations wrote to Treasury Secretary 
Yellen urging her to make transportation infrastructure an eligible 
expense. They said the pandemic had impacted every State and community 
differently, and they wanted and asked for flexibility. They said that 
flexibility will be critical to ensuring funds are used expeditiously 
and with maximum impact.
  I have gotten the same sort of requests from the people I represent 
in Texas, so I drafted an amendment to this legislation to provide that 
flexibility. Thankfully, I found a partner in Senator Alex Padilla of 
California, and our bipartisan amendment, which will, I believe, when 
we vote on it, receive broad bipartisan support. I am hopeful we can 
vote on that amendment sometime later today.
  This amendment puts decision-making power at the local level and 
gives these leaders more flexibility to invest in the most critical 
projects for their communities, whatever those might be. In some 
places, that may still mean pandemic-related expenses.
  The Delta variant has thrown us a curve ball, to be sure, and is 
surging in some places, and leaders in those areas are going to 
continue to use this funding to bolster the fight against the virus.
  But this change doesn't interfere with those plans in any way, 
because what Senator Padilla and I propose is to make that strictly an 
option--not a mandate, but an option--so leaders at the State and local 
level can decide what fits their particular need.
  It simply gives States and localities that aren't facing a mountain 
of COVID-related expenses the ability to invest this funding in--you 
guessed it--infrastructure projects, something that the bill we are 
currently considering is designed to do.

[[Page S5911]]

  But one of the things I have noticed since I have been in the Senate 
is, frequently, we will appropriate money, and it takes not just 
months, but sometimes years to get to the intended beneficiary. I know 
the Presiding Officer has seen with me the fact that we appropriated 
$46 billion to prevent evictions for people that can't pay their rent, 
and yet that money has simply not made its way to the intended 
beneficiaries in a timely and expeditious way. Hopefully, that will 
improve. But this is money that is available immediately to our local 
and State officials to use now.
  This infrastructure bill, to the credit of the bipartisan 
infrastructure negotiating committee, I think, has some good, very 
positive elements to it. But the truth is, what we are doing in this 
bill probably will not flow quickly to local jurisdictions in our 
States, like the money that they already have but are handcuffed from 
using for infrastructure purposes.
  Whether it is widening highways, constructing bridges, extending 
railways, or expanding access to broadband, the list of new qualifying 
expenses is a long one. As I said, there is simply no requirement 
that they spend a penny on infrastructure if they don't want to or if 
they think they need to hold more of this money that the Federal 
Government has appropriated in reserve. All we are doing is simply 
giving them the freedom to use these Federal dollars on these projects 
if that makes sense for these communities.

  Senator Padilla and I have worked with our colleagues to make some 
changes that support a vast array of infrastructure projects. We added 
additional qualifying infrastructure projects to ensure unique, but no 
less important, needs in the various States are eligible.
  The White House initially raised concerns about the amount of funding 
that we might authorize under our amendment, and worried it would take 
away from necessary COVID-19 expenses. Well, Senator Padilla and I have 
worked with the White House, and I believe we have come up with a good-
faith resolution of their concerns and our interest in getting this 
money to be available.
  Under our amendment, up to 30 percent of the unspent COVID-19 funds 
would be available to the States and local government for 
infrastructure projects. It is difficult to quantify exactly how much 
of the money will be spent on infrastructure projects because, as I 
said, the States and local governments are not required to spend a 
penny of that money on infrastructure.
  But should they wish to do so, and should local conditions permit, 
this will open up tens of millions of dollars for infrastructure 
projects in communities across the country. This can help critical 
projects that were delayed by the pandemic get back on track and put 
this funding toward its intended purpose, the very purpose we are 
debating right now, to both alleviate the burden of the pandemic on 
cities and States, as well as to refurbish and expand our critical 
infrastructure, including broadband.
  So this isn't just a win for our local communities; it is a win for 
taxpayers too.
  Here is something that may be a little unexpected: The cost of this 
amendment is zero. It is nothing because the money has already been 
appropriated and already been scored on previous COVID-19-relief acts. 
All it does is it removes the handcuffs from the local jurisdictions 
and allows them to meet their needs based on their best judgment. So 
this does not increase the deficit and does not add to the debt.
  This amendment has been endorsed by more than two dozen organizations 
representing a diverse set of stakeholders. The National Governors 
Association--which, as you know, is a bipartisan group of Governors--
has endorsed this amendment. The U.S. Conference of Mayors and a long 
list of organizations have thrown their support behind this commonsense 
change.
  This will give communities in Texas and Nevada and all the other 
States the ability to use pandemic-relief funding when and where it is 
needed most.
  They know the needs of their communities far better than we do 
sitting here in Washington, DC. And I hope this amendment will be 
adopted to give these leaders greater decision-making flexibility.
  I want to thank Senators on both sides of the aisle who have worked 
with Senator Padilla and myself on this amendment. And, later today, I 
hope we will receive broad, bipartisan support for this amendment. And 
I anticipate we will, because I know the circumstances in my State 
dealing with my constituents is really no different when it comes to 
giving flexibility and access to those Federal COVID-19 dollars, that 
the story is probably largely the same in whatever State you represent.
  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. WARNOCK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                       Remembering Richard Trumka

  Mr. WARNOCK. Madam President, before I begin, I want to take a moment 
to pause and remember an effective leader in the labor movement and a 
real champion for working families, Richard Trumka.
  Richard Trumka believed in the dignity of work, and he also believed 
in the dignity of workers and that they should share in the prosperity 
they provide for others.
  His family is in my prayers as we remember and honor his legacy as a 
vital leader in the labor movement and in the larger quest to make us a 
more just society, providing opportunity for all of us.


                               Healthcare

  Madam President, I am back on the floor of the Senate because I 
believe that healthcare is a human right, and it is certainly something 
that the richest Nation on the planet can afford to provide for all of 
its citizens.
  I have come to the Senate floor with the same message week after week 
because I think it is vital and important. With all of the incentives 
on the table for my home State of Georgia to expand Medicaid, it is 
past time for Georgia and the other 11 nonexpansion States to finally 
expand Medicaid.
  My home State of Georgia has the opportunity to provide affordable 
healthcare to 646,000 people who could qualify. Instead of allowing 
Georgians to continue to suffer and be cut off from care while 
politicians are playing games, I introduced the Medicaid Saves Lives 
Act. This is legislation that would provide people in States like mine 
that have not expanded Medicaid an alternative path to health coverage.
  In the richest country in the world in 2021 and amid a once-in-a-
century pandemic that has both illuminated and exacerbated the 
consequences of longstanding disparities in healthcare, too many 
Georgians are still struggling to get what they deserve and what is 
already available if we would just expand Medicaid.
  And for far too many, access to affordable, reliable, and continuous 
healthcare is quite literally the difference between life and death.
  We do policy here, but we can only do policy in an effective manner 
when we keep in front of us the human faces behind the policy we would 
create or the consequences for real people when we fail to do what we 
were sent here to do.
  So I want to share the story and remember the life of a Georgian who 
fought to expand Medicaid. She and other Georgians live in the coverage 
gap. She advocated for herself and others like her.
  This is Lorie Davis and her husband Bob, both from Covington, GA. 
Lorie was one of our heroes. She spent much of her life serving her 
neighbors as a trauma nurse at the Grady Memorial Hospital. I have been 
to that hospital time and time again as a pastor and now as a Senator. 
I have seen firsthand the important work that they do.
  She was a trauma nurse there at Grady, and while working as a 
healthcare professional in Georgia, Lorie was diagnosed with pelvic 
adhesive disease. The chronic pain associated with this condition 
eventually pushed her to leave the nursing profession.
  After that, while also working to manage her own chronic condition, 
Lorie struggled to maintain steady employment in the restaurant 
industry--a

[[Page S5912]]

healthcare professional no longer able to serve in her profession as a 
trauma nurse, working as hard as she can, as hard as she could in the 
restaurant industry.
  She believed in working. She understood the dignity of work. But 
while working, she could not afford health insurance. She made too much 
to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford other insurance plans. 
And while in this limbo, Lorie had to wait many years for her Social 
Security disability claim to be adjudicated. She finally qualified for 
benefits in 2017, but even then, she was unable to qualify for Medicaid 
because of her and Bob's combined marital income. This left Lorie in 
the coverage gap, unable to purchase coverage because it was 
financially out of reach.
  Lorie went without health insurance for years, relying on her own 
medical training and free healthcare clinics to treat her chronic 
condition--a trauma nurse who had cared for others, unable to receive 
any care.
  Then, in August of 2020, Lorie began feeling ill, and her condition 
got noticeably worse. Fearful of costs, she delayed seeking healthcare. 
Unable to follow the advice that she, no doubt, had provided to other 
patients: Seek healthcare early. Many things are preventable if you can 
get there earlier rather than later. She was not able to follow her own 
advice. But I want us to think about that. She put off seeking the care 
she needed because she was afraid she would not be able to afford it.
  As Members of this body, we should be ashamed that in the richest 
Nation in the world, a country with all of our resources, with all of 
our medical technology, that some citizens would choose not to seek 
treatment even when they know better because they fear they cannot 
afford the pricetag of lifesaving care. That is Lorie's story.
  The next month, in September of 2020, Lorie was admitted to the 
hospital with pneumonia. And while there, she learned, sadly, that she 
had lung cancer, a treatable condition had she received an earlier 
diagnosis.
  Put together, it was too much. On September 17, 2020, Lorie passed 
away.
  This is the human face of our public policy. These are the tragic 
casualties of the games that politicians play.
  As a pastor, I am praying for Lorie's family as they mourn her 
unspeakable and, perhaps, unnecessary loss and the legacy she left 
behind.
  As a Senator who believes that healthcare is a human right, a sacred 
obligation, I refuse to stop fighting until Georgians, like Lorie 
Davis, have access to the care that they need when they need it.
  Like Lorie, who advocated Members of this body for healthcare during 
her lifetime, I am committed to gaining ground in this fight to improve 
access to healthcare for Georgians in every corner of the State. She 
can no longer speak. We must be her voice.
  She is not the only one. There are millions of hard-working people 
all across our country who went to school, played by the rules, and 
they don't have access to lifesaving care, costing them their lives and 
costing us more money.
  So we need to pass the Medicaid Saves Lives Act. It is not just the 
name of a bill; it is actually true, Medicaid saves lives.
  Until we get this done, I am going to keep lifting up Lorie's story 
and the stories of others who would benefit from this lifesaving 
legislation.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                               H.R. 3684

  Mr. TOOMEY. Mr. President, I want to address an opportunity that we 
have in this body to fix a flaw in a provision in this infrastructure 
bill.
  I want to thank my colleague from Oregon and our colleague from 
Wyoming. The three of us have been working on this, and I really hope 
we get this done. I am going to insist on having a vote on this.
  Let me just give a little context here. So we are all aware of this 
new category of assets some describe as currencies, which are also 
called cryptocurrencies. And this is a fascinating development. 
Actually, some have been around for some time now, but they have come 
into the public eye in a much, much bigger way in recent years--very 
recent years.
  And while sometimes we think of this as some kind of unit of value 
that is traded and has some pretty spectacular volatility sometimes, 
for me, while that is very interesting, what is much more interesting 
is the underlying technology and what that might make possible. I am 
still trying to understand. I am still on a steep learning curve about 
all the possibilities of the distributed ledger technology, the 
methodology by which cryptocurrencies can be exchanged without an 
intermediary. There is no bank that the money has to go through.
  It is an amazing and fascinating technology where individuals 
scattered around the globe actually validate the legitimacy of a 
transaction and it becomes immutable. And there is a permanent record 
in some cases. There are other models where it is different. But this 
is an amazing technology. It has tremendous potential.
  We had a hearing in the Banking Committee just last week, at my 
request--the chairman agreed to a hearing--where we talked about some 
of the use cases for this underlying technology, and we heard some 
amazing things.
  So the most common activity now is trading in these digital 
currencies, whether it is Bitcoin or Ethereum or others. There are 
many, many of them. And that is the biggest single activity, but there 
are very, very important and interesting additional use cases that are 
occurring.
  One of the things that I am fascinated by is the potential to have 
this dispersed mechanism for validating ownership. Think of all the 
amount of time and money and effort we spend on all kinds of 
transactions where, ultimately, we are trying to validate someone's 
ownership: the title to their house, the title to their car, your 
ownership of the stocks that you bought from your broker.
  We have developed very expensive, actually, and sometimes time-
consuming processes by which we do this. This can all be done on a 
blockchain. This can all be done almost instantly, at almost no cost, 
and I think that this is the direction that we are going to be heading 
in.
  That is just one example. There is another whole category that is 
fascinating to me, which is what people refer to as programmable money.
  Think about it, programmable money; what is that? Well, here is a 
great example that we heard at our hearing from a witness who works for 
a company that actually provides these kinds of services. But here is 
an example. You know, one of the things that has always been a 
challenge is, how do you ensure that, say, a person who has a copyright 
is properly compensated when that copyright is used in one form or 
another?
  I used to have a restaurant. And when we played music in the 
background to create a certain ambiance in our restaurant, how do you 
make sure that the people who have the copyright on those songs gets 
paid properly for that? I will tell you, it is a terrible system. It is 
completely arbitrary, and there is no precision to it. There is no way 
to monitor it.
  Well, how about an idea where you have a programmable capability 
where, if I listen to a music app on my iPhone, for every second of a 
particular artist's music I listen to, it automatically sends a 
corresponding tiny fraction of some currency to the person who owns 
that copyright? That is completely doable in the context of this kind 
of technology.
  I just mention these two things just to provide a little, tiny 
glimpse and illustration of the kinds of amazing things that I think 
this underlying technology is capable of, and it is likely going to 
change the way we do an awful lot of things in the coming years.
  I say that as background because in this legislation, there is a very 
reasonable intent, but I think the drafting doesn't get it quite right. 
The intent is to say: for those exchanges, for those places where 
people go to buy and sell cryptocurrencies--and there are centralized 
exchanges where that happens every day in huge, huge volumes--we want 
to require these exchanges to have the same kind of reporting 
requirements that a conventional broker would have when a security is 
bought.

[[Page S5913]]

So, in other words, we want the folks who run the exchange to report 
the name, some identifying number--maybe it is a Social Security 
number--the dollar amount. And all of this is because people buying and 
selling these cryptocurrencies are generating capital gains and losses. 
It is an asset. If you sell it later after a gain, you should have to 
pay a capital gains tax on that asset, depending on how long you have 
held it. If you have lost money on it, then you ought to be able to 
take that loss against gains that you may have elsewhere.
  It is completely reasonable to have a provision that requires the 
reporting of the transaction. That, I think, is the intent of this 
legislation. But, unfortunately, the way it got drafted, to my reading, 
and to--I am certainly not alone; I think this is almost universally 
acknowledged--the language would impose this reporting requirement on 
people involved in the cryptocurrency world who don't even have the 
information about the person making the purchase or the sale.
  So, for instance, it might very well be interpreted to impose this 
reporting requirement on the miners, the people who are involved in the 
arithmetic process by which you validate transactions. They don't even 
know the names. They have a numerical representation of the 
transaction. They don't know who is buying it. They have no idea. They 
have no way of knowing. So it is not a reasonable--not an even slightly 
reasonable burden to impose on them.
  That is one little example of how badly flawed this language is. It 
wasn't intended that way. The good news is, it can be fixed. And 
Senator Wyden and Senator Lummis and I have come up with language that 
fixes this problem. It would make sure that the reporting requirement 
on a centralized exchange, the folks running that who have this 
information, would, in fact, have to report it. They don't right now. 
There is no statute. There is no regulation that requires that. This 
would require the reporting.
  And the industry is fine with that. They recognize that they should 
have to report this. But they also recognize that it should only be 
imposed on people for whom it makes sense, right? The people who 
actually have that information. So our amendment addresses this. It 
fixes this. It solves this problem. I think it achieves the intent. And 
we are having a little trouble getting the ability to offer this as an 
amendment here on the Senate floor on this bill.
  I am not here to ask that we simply adopt it by acclamation. I 
welcome debate and welcome a vote, but we ought to be able to have a 
vote. We absolutely should have this debate and have a vote before we 
go ahead and impose this requirement. And if we were not to adopt this 
amendment, then we could be doing a lot of damage. We could have a very 
chilling effect on the development of this technology, and that is what 
I am most concerned about. That is what I want to avoid.
  This technology is very, very exciting. It has tremendous potential. 
And the last thing we should do is allow a flawed drafting exercise to 
have this chilling effect on the further development of this 
technology.
  I see the Senator from Oregon is here on the floor, and I want to 
thank him for his leadership on this effort, for his work. He and I, I 
think, have a very similar way of viewing this. And if he would like to 
make some comments, I will yield some time to him
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank my colleague, and I will be brief.
  As Senator Toomey has indicated, he and Senator Lummis and I have an 
amendment to the infrastructure bill dealing with cryptocurrency and 
taxes. And I am going to go into some of the philosophical 
underpinnings of what we are doing, but I want to note something at the 
outset.
  Our amendment, this bipartisan amendment, ought to be accepted when 
the author of the underlying provision has said publicly he will vote 
for it if the Senate gets a chance to vote, as Senator Toomey and I 
have indicated.
  So let me just outline a couple of fundamental propositions about our 
proposal and start with one that ought to bring the U.S. Senate 
together. People avoiding taxes they owe on money through 
cryptocurrencies is a serious issue. It is fundamentally unfair to 
every working person whose taxes come straight out of their paycheck.
  Now, my view is the Senate needs to make sure that new rules 
addressing this tax avoidance ensure that it is possible to run down 
the crooks, have strong tax enforcement, while leaving a clear field 
for an innovation here at home.
  We want that innovation here. The fact is, when you don't innovate 
someplace, it goes somewhere else. We want it here at home.
  Without our amendment, this bipartisan amendment, it seems to us that 
essentially the whole notion of dealing with tax avoidance somehow is 
going to get lost in approaches for the brick-and-mortar rule. And, as 
I said, those rules run the very real risk of chilling innovation in 
the digital economy and driving the core innovations in crypto to 
places far beyond the reach of the U.S. Treasury and other law 
enforcement.
  So two sentences about what we do in our amendment: We want it stated 
the tax enforcement rules should focus on the companies that deal with 
buying, selling, and trading cryptocurrencies. These rules don't need 
to sweep up other uses of blockchain technologies that have nothing to 
do with tax avoidance.
  Senator Toomey and I serve on the Senate Finance Committee. I am the 
chair; Senator Toomey, a senior member. We have been struck by how many 
people in that space--the various aspects of blockchain technologies--
don't even have the tax documents that they would have to file, 
normally, if they were one of these big crypto exchanges.
  Now, the fact is, making changes in both tech and tax policy is hard 
work that takes time. When I wrote the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination 
Act that ensured that the rules online and the rules offline would be 
the same, we had hearings; we had debates; we focused on the issues and 
produced bipartisan legislation.
  The Senate is going to debate these issues further in the months and 
years ahead. As the chairman of this committee, I am open to working 
with anybody who wants to show that tough, effective tax enforcement 
and promoting innovation is not mutually exclusive. Smart policy--smart 
targeted policy--will get you both.
  Our amendment simply says that nobody can use crypto to avoid paying 
the taxes they owe, and anybody acting as a broker in the 
cryptocurrency industry must comply with reporting requirements, the 
same as brokers in every other industry. That is because they are 
brokers. They are not the people who Senator Toomey and I have been 
concerned about with going to be swept up in this treatment of crypto 
exchanges and the like.
  We advocate a smart, targeted approach and we make sure that 
reporting requirements, just like brokers in every other industry, are 
complied with. That is the kind of policy in the crypto area that lays 
the foundation for future debates.
  What Senator Toomey and I are doing is very focused in one specific 
area: Making sure we come down hard on tax avoidance by brokers and 
people in crypto exchanges, but we also make sure we are not 
discouraging innovation in other areas.
  This is going to be a debate that is going to play out over the 
years, but when the author of the provision in the bipartisan proposal 
on crypto, the author of the underlying provision in the legislation in 
front of us today, has publicly said in the last few hours he will vote 
for what Senator Toomey, Senator Lummis, and I have developed, we 
certainly ought to get a vote. My own view is it ought to be accepted 
by this body.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. TOOMEY. Reclaiming my time.
  I want to thank my colleague from Oregon for his thoughtful 
leadership on this.
  I thank the Senator from Wyoming. Senator Lummis, is on her way down. 
She is going to join us, as she has been an integral part of this 
effort to just correct this.
  This is a big deal in a number of respects. I would point out--I want 
to stress, right now there is no statutory reporting requirement in 
this whole space. There is no regulatory requirement. I don't think you 
could have a regulatory requirement without a statute authorizing it.

[[Page S5914]]

  So this is a big deal. It would require the companies operating these 
exchanges to report this financial information so that it dramatically 
enhances the likelihood that capital gains taxes would be collected. 
This provision scores as a source of revenue because it increases the 
likelihood of compliance.
  I don't know why anyone would object. I am not aware of any objection 
of the substance of this on my side of the aisle. I know Senator Wyden 
has like-minded folks on his side of the aisle.
  It is really important that we not overreach, that we not do this 
wrong. We have not gone through the ordinary process for developing tax 
legislation. Tax legislation is notoriously complicated and difficult 
to get exactly right and prone to unintended consequences.
  Normally, we have hearings in the Finance Committee. We get input 
from all kinds of experts. We make drafts. We circuit the drafts. It is 
a long process to make sure you get it right. This has gone through 
none of that, zero.
  What we are trying to do is say let's restrict this to where it 
belongs, let's clean this up the best we can.
  You know what?
  This space is changing. A year from now, there will be new 
innovations we haven't thought of, that probably nobody has thought of, 
and we will probably have to go back and revisit this. What we wouldn't 
want to do--shouldn't want to do--is have an overly broad mandate, a 
reporting requirement on people who can't possibly comply with it 
because they don't have the information. We wouldn't want to impose 
that and have a stifling impact on the development of a really, really 
exciting and potentially powerful new technology. That is what this is 
about.
  As I said earlier, I am going to insist on having a vote on this. I 
don't know why we wouldn't win by a big margin since, after all, we are 
just ensuring that we get the intent of this legislation rather than a 
miscarriage of it.
  As the Senator from Oregon pointed out, Senator Portman from Ohio, 
who has worked so long and so hard on this infrastructure bill, 
supports us getting a vote on this. He supports the amendment that we 
have drafted.
  I am hopeful that this is going to pass. I will be insistent that we 
get our vote. That is something we ought to do.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered


                     Survivors' Bill of Rights Act

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I had intended to come to the floor earlier today with 
Senator Grassley so that we could talk about our legislation that we 
are introducing this week, that would build upon our efforts to protect 
the survivors of sexual assault in the criminal justice system.
  Unfortunately, I got delayed, but Senator Grassley was here on the 
floor. I want to recognize all of his efforts to address this critical 
issue, and appreciate, again, his willingness to work with me.
  The effort to extend rights for sexual assault survivors across the 
country is critically important, and I am hopeful that when the bill 
that we introduced gets to the floor, that all of our colleagues will 
join us in passing this bipartisan legislation.
  I first became involved in the precursor to this legislation in 2015, 
when a young woman named Amanda Nguyen of the Rise organization 
contacted my office. She had been traveling from office to office here 
in the Senate, trying to find somebody to listen to her story.
  Amanda is a survivor of sexual assault, and she is a fierce advocate 
for change in the way our criminal justice system treats survivors. 
When she detailed her harrowing story of sexual assault and subsequent 
interactions with the criminal justice system, it was very clear 
something had to change.
  Amanda described a system that further traumatized survivors and 
provided scarce protection of their rights. Evidence of assaults was 
being destroyed without survivors even knowing about it, and survivors 
were forced to periodically follow up with law enforcement to preserve 
evidence of their assaults.
  The broken process that survivors were forced to endure resulted in a 
system where they were often revictimized. This system forced survivors 
to confront the trauma of reliving their attacks each time they sought 
to preserve evidence or gather information about their cases.
  Working with Amanda, I introduced the Sexual Assault Survivors' 
Rights Act to ensure survivors were guaranteed basic rights while 
pursuing justice. The legislation created the first legally recognized 
set of rights for survivors to enforce in a court of law.
  I am so grateful that Senator Grassley worked on this effort with me, 
and he included the legislation in the Adam Walsh Reauthorization Act 
so that it could be signed into law.
  The legislation that we passed back in 2015-2016 provided survivors 
with greater protections in Federal cases with a focus on notice, 
access, and the preservation of sexual assault evidence collection 
kits.
  By creating this set of court-enforceable rights at the Federal 
level, Congress established a model for all States to adopt similar 
legislation to protect the rights of survivors. And that has happened 
in many States, including in my home State of New Hampshire. States 
have adopted legislation to guarantee survivors certain basic rights in 
the criminal justice system.
  Unfortunately, we have a lot of other States that have not followed 
suit and don't have legislation that protects survivors. That is why 
the bill that Senator Grassley and I came to the floor today to discuss 
is just so important.
  The Survivors' Bill of Rights in the States Act would establish a 
grant program accessible to States that have in place a law which 
guarantees the rights contained in the Sexual Assault Survivors' Rights 
Act. States could then use the funds to implement survivor rights, 
preserve sexual assault evidence collection kits, reduce the backlog of 
kits, and provide support for victim services.
  Now is the time to pass this legislation. The risk of sexual assault 
and domestic violence has increased during this coronavirus pandemic. 
We can look at any of the statistics and they show us that
  We need to ensure that States provide the same level of protection 
for these survivors as they receive at the Federal level. No survivor 
should be compelled to bear the indignity of petitioning law 
enforcement merely to ensure that they are given a fair shake in the 
criminal justice process.
  It is my hope that this legislation will lead to an increase in 
States passing bills that protect survivors' rights. Let's again show 
survivors that Congress is behind them and that we will stand up for 
their rights. Let's pass the Survivors' Bill of Rights in the States 
Act.
  Again, I want to thank Senator Grassley for all of his efforts. I 
hope together, with the support of other sponsors in this body, that we 
can get this bill across the finish line.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I would like to ask unanimous consent 
to speak as if in morning business for, let's say, 22 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, these speeches on the scheme by dark 
money interests to seize control of the Supreme Court are designed to 
describe it in all its repulsive intricacy.
  My last speech discussed an operation in this scheme within the 
Federalist Society. This speech will take you literally down the hall 
from the Federalist Society to something called the Judicial Crisis 
Network, or JCN. They share the same purpose, the same hallway, and 
likely the same controlling donors.
  Remember David Koch's disastrous bid for Vice President on the 
Libertarian Party ticket that showed how unappetizing his rightwing 
extremism was to normal people. And remember the Lewis Powell playbook, 
which advised:

       Strength lies in organization . . . and in the political 
     power available only through united action and national 
     organizations.


[[Page S5915]]


  No one corporation or wealthy individual needs to, as Powell said, 
``get too far out in front and . . . make itself too visible a 
target.'' Let intermediaries do that work.
  Corporate interests like Big Tobacco and the fossil fuel industry 
have, for a long time, used coordinated webs of national front groups 
in their plots to fend off accountability for the dangers of tobacco 
and carbon emissions.
  These front group webs grew and multiplied and specialized, all while 
concealing their true interests and funders. They got more numerous, 
and they also got smarter and more strategic over time, polishing up 
front group names, like the not-too-subtle Tobacco Institute, to names 
like the more wholesome-sounding Heartland Institute.
  It is quite a web. They created science groups to counter real 
scientific research on public health and climate change with fake 
science; think tanks to churn out white papers and hire sound bite-
friendly fake experts; legal organizations to challenge and delay 
government regulation of harmful products; academic hothouses in which 
to grow donor-friendly, rightwing judicial philosophies; identity-
laundering screens to hide the true donors and controllers and their 
interests; and political attack groups to pressure elected officials. 
People who study this have reported these groups numbering in multiple 
dozens, and their backers play the front groups like keys on a piano.
  Apply this method to the scheme to capture the Court, and you see 
that the dark money donors needed more than just the nominations 
turnstile that they ran out of the Federalist Society. They also needed 
a bare-knuckle political brawler.
  One night in early 2005, at an upscale Italian dinner, with special 
guest Justice Antonin Scalia, major donor and corporate lawyer Ann 
Corkery, California real estate tycoon Robin Arkley, and Federalist 
Society executive vice president Leonard Leo got together and 
celebrated George W. Bush's second term. The political importance of 
the Supreme Court would have been on everyone's mind there as it was 
the five Republicans on the Supreme Court who gave George W. Bush his 
first term.
  According to reporting by OpenSecrets and the Daily Beast, this 
dinner linked to the creation of a 501(c)(4) dark money group, then 
called the Judicial Confirmation Network. By the end of that year, this 
group would spend money--lots of money, lots of big donor money--and 
they would spend it anonymously, first to boost John Roberts as Chief 
Justice and then Samuel Alito as Associate Justice, cementing rightwing 
corporate control over the Court and shifting its decisions further in 
big donors' favor.
  There are a few things to note about the Judicial Confirmation 
Network's early days:
  One, it began work fast. Just months after starting, JCN ads hit the 
air in support of Bush nominees.
  Two, it had lots of money. Beginning in 2008, Ann Corkery took 
control of something called the Wellspring Committee--a dark money, 
identity-laundering group, seeded with funding from Charles and David 
Kochs' donor network. Thereafter, Wellspring funneled seven- or eight-
figure dark money donations to JCN every year--millions of anonymous 
dollars.
  Three, they brought on a lawyer with heavy rightwing chops to run the 
place. Wendy Long, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, became 
chief counsel and mouthpiece.
  Thus, in just a few months, JCN appeared and became a polished, 
powerful, anonymized campaigner for the big donor scheme to take over 
the Court.
  And then came the election of Barack Obama, and JCN had to go from 
offense for nominees to defense against nominees. That ``C'' in JCN, 
for ``confirmation,'' no longer made much sense, and the scheme now 
faced a crisis--the crisis for it of a President nominating judges who 
had not been screened by them, judges whose fealty to the corporate 
rightwing could not be confirmed, judges who might even rule against 
the rightwing donors' agenda. So they quickly rebranded JCN as the 
Judicial Crisis Network, but even in the Obama years, the Republican 5-
to-4 majority on the captured Court delivered big things for JCN and 
its secretive backers.
  In the administration's first term, the Roberts Court handed down 
Citizens United and other decisions opening donor pipelines to 
501(c)(4) groups like JCN. This caused the tsunami of slime we saw in 
our politics, and corporations and rightwing donors rushed to the 
feast. Anonymous money flooded in. Annual donations laundered through 
Wellspring to JCN rose from millions of dollars to many millions of 
dollars. JCN even expanded the scheme to seek to influence State 
supreme courts and State attorney general seats. The scheme was 
flourishing.
  Then, on a 2016 all-expenses-paid trip for Justice Scalia to a luxury 
hunting ranch in Texas, the Justice died, leaving a Supreme Court 
vacancy, with the better part of a year left before the Presidential 
election. Now there really was a crisis. The big donors suddenly faced 
the prospect of a Democratic President appointing Scalia's replacement, 
shifting the balance of the Court 5 to 4 against them, taking away 
their precious majority, undoing the scheme.
  So the donors swung into action. Within days, Mitch McConnell quickly 
pledged to hold the seat open, and within days, Republican Senators 
uniformly lined up behind that decision--a decision very possibly 
explained by the overlay between dark money donors to the scheme and 
dark money donors to Republican Senate political operations. History 
will have to judge the extent of that overlay.
  In any event, dark money funding of JCN hit escape velocity during 
this period. According to tax records obtained by OpenSecrets and 
others, JCN received big donations in fiscal year 2015 to 2016. One 
single anonymous donation alone totaled $17.9 million. Wellspring 
separately channeled $23.5 million in dark money to JCN in 2016, then 
another $14.8 million the next year. When Wellspring dissolved in 2018, 
big slugs of dark money continued to flow through other conduits. JCN 
received four separate, individual, anonymous donations, each of $15 
million or more following Justice Scalia's death. We cannot say for 
sure because the donors hide behind the dark money screen, but these 
donations, over $60 million in all, could well have all come from the 
same donor.

  And one wonders, what are the odds that someone willing to spend $60 
million anonymously to influence the makeup of the Supreme Court is 
someone who has business before the Court?
  Pretty high, I would say, but dark money scheming keeps this 
information secret.
  How did JCN spend all this money? Attack. Leonard Leo's Federalist 
Society operation had handed Trump a list of approved nominees. JCN 
spending poured into TV ads, pressuring Senators, and to media blitzes 
to sell the Federalist Society list. The group spent $7 million to 
attack Merrick Garland; $10 million to boost Neil Gorsuch; $10 million 
or more to prop up Brett Kavanaugh's deeply troubled nomination with 
its--now we know--fake FBI tip line; and $10 million in under 2 months 
to support Amy Coney Barrett.
  On its own, this anonymous $37 million barrage smells terrible, but 
it is only part of the Judicial Crisis Network operation. JCN has a 
corporate twin, the Judicial Education Project, each group backing up 
the actions and finances of the other. Let me walk you through this 
setup because it is a capsule summary of how political scheming is 
accomplished in our corrupted dark money era.
  First, you pair a 501(c)(3) and a 501(c)(4). The Judicial Crisis 
Network was chartered as a 501(c)(4) social welfare group, the Judicial 
Education Project as its allied 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Under 
a perverse reading of the law, the 501(c)(4) organization is allowed to 
operate as a dark money political attack group. We see this arrangement 
commonly now in the clandestine world of dark money politics.
  In fact, a recent Supreme Court case about dark money was brought by 
a group called Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which was the 
501(c)(3) associated with Americans for Prosperity, which is the Koch 
brothers' 501(c)(4) that spent millions of dollars to help Amy Coney 
Barrett get her seat, and yet she didn't recuse herself from the case 
involving the 501(c)(3).
  So, second, you operate the two as one unit: Judicial Crisis Network 
and

[[Page S5916]]

Judicial Education Project are connected by staff, by dollars, and by 
location.
  According to the most recent tax records, long-serving JCN staffer 
Carrie Severino is also the sole and principal officer of--you guessed 
it--the Judicial Education Project. Severino is not listed on JCN's tax 
forms, but she serves as its public-facing ``chief counsel and policy 
director.'' JCN and JEP tax records both list the same address in 
Washington, DC, which, by the way, is right down the hall from the 
Federalist Society at the same address, and both groups share day-to-
day staff. There is a doctrine in the law called piercing the corporate 
veil. In this case, the corporate veil between these two is a web of 
holes.
  What is the next thing you do? You soak up dark money together.
  It is hard to know much about these two groups' dark money funding--
that is why they keep it dark--but we know the Wellspring Committee has 
funded both groups. Both have also paid money to something called BH 
Group, which is a mysterious LLC that Leonard Leo once disclosed as his 
employer, that made a $1 million mystery donation to Trump's inaugural. 
It seems to do no other business. They used the 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) 
status precisely because it lets them hide their donors and 
controllers.
  And the last thing is that you get to play shell games with your 
name. A couple of years ago, those two organizations formally changed 
their legal names in Virginia. Now, follow this for a minute. Judicial 
Crisis Network changed its name, and it became the Concord Fund. 
Judicial Education Project changed its name, and it became the 85 Fund.
  The Concord Fund then registered its old name, Judicial Crisis 
Network, as what is called a fictitious name, a kind of corporate alias 
under Virginia law, and continued to operate as the Judicial Crisis 
Network.
  Here is the Virginia law that allows them to do that:

       A fictitious name is a name that a person (individual or 
     business entity) uses instead of the person's true name, 
     usually in the course of transacting or offering to transact 
     business.

  It also registered the name ``Honest Elections Project Action'' as an 
additional fictitious name to carry out a new voter suppression 
project. The 85 Fund likewise registered its old name, the ``Judicial 
Education Project,'' as a fictitious name, and it separately registered 
as the ``Honest Elections Project'' as an additional fictitious name.
  It gets even better than this because, as I said before, when the 
Washington Post exposed the $250 million scheme that Leonard Leo was at 
the center of to pack and control the Supreme Court, to capture it like 
a captured agency, he wasn't much use any longer. He was like a blown 
agent in a covert operation. He had to go someplace. Where did he hop 
to? He hopped from the Federalist Society to the Honest Elections 
Project so he could get to work on the Presiding Officer's favorite 
cause, voter suppression. Same guy, same corporate network, new name, 
and new purpose: voter suppression.
  As if this weren't enough, both of these groups have now filed new 
fictitious names. This is to help them wade into the rightwing fuss 
over what the rightwing likes to call critical race theory. So the 
Concord Fund has now added the fictitious name ``Free to Learn 
Action,'' and the 85 Fund has now added the fictitious name ``Free to 
Learn.'' Again, you see the pairing of the 501(c)(3) and the 501(c)(4) 
as part of the basic structure for dark money political influence 
operations.
  By the way, the same person filled out all these forms for both 
organizations and is listed with various titles on each.
  So now we have one group that calls itself the Concord Fund that 
operates simultaneously as the Judicial Crisis Network, the Honest 
Elections Project Action, and the Free to Learn Action, and we have a 
sister organization, the 85 Fund, that operates simultaneously as the 
Judicial Education Project, the Honest Elections Project, and Free to 
Learn--all with overlapping staff, locations, and funding.
  By the way, when you are the funder of these groups, you are their 
controller.
  Now, imagine this level of complexity multiplied many times over, 
because that is what the Washington Post disclosed. And I borrow a 
photograph from their video of their investigation.
  That Washington Post expose on the covert court-capture operation 
exposed the Judicial Crisis Network as one part, just one part of a 
massive--there it is, Judicial Crisis Network--one part of a massive 
web of groups, a web of groups that took in over $250 million in dark 
money between 2014 and 2017.
  This effort to capture the Supreme Court? They are not kidding 
around. Spending $250 million in dark money is a serious investment 
that demands a serious return. And guess what. Expert testimony before 
my Senate Courts Subcommittee has since raised that number to $400 
million through 2018.
  Through all these allied and coordinated front groups--the keys on 
the dark money piano that the big donors can play in chords and singly 
as they wish--dark money donors can, from hiding, covertly channel tens 
if not hundreds of millions of dollars in anonymized money toward the 
scheme's court-capture goals.
  Colleagues, this is a scheme akin in complexity and trade craft to an 
intelligence agency covert operation--only this one is not being run by 
one country against another; this one is being run in and against our 
own country by a handful of creepy billionaires and their foundations, 
trying to impose their self-serving ideology on the rest of us through 
our least democratic branch--the branch that doesn't care if normal 
people hate this stuff because they are in robes for life. That is our 
Federal courts, and particularly, it is our Supreme Court.
  The big dark money donors have pretty well pulled it off, too, 
following Lewis Powell's old admonition to use ``strength . . . in 
organization'' and ``united action'' of all of this complexity. They 
have just made it all clandestine, which is why I am going to keep 
digging.
  To be continued.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington


                       Remembering Richard Trumka

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in 
saying I am deeply saddened to learn of the passing of my great friend 
Richard Trumka.
  To say Rich was a champion for workers is really an understatement. 
He dedicated his life to fighting to secure and strengthen workers' 
rights. Everyone who knew Rich knew just how deeply committed he was to 
that mission. He understood how hard people in this country work for 
their families. He understood the dignity of work. He grew up 
understanding it. His grandfather was a coal miner, his father was a 
coal miner, and so was he.
  It is because he knew how hard people across the country work that he 
was driven to work so hard himself, to hold Washington accountable and 
make sure our country was looking out for working families.
  For decades, Rich led the charge in creating a country that treats 
all workers with the dignity and respect they deserve and where every 
worker had the right to join a union, including by fighting to root out 
systemic inequities and racism in this country.
  Rich once said:

       There's no evil that's inflicted more pain and more 
     suffering than racism and it's something we in the labor 
     movement have a special responsibility to challenge.

  He worked to live up to that challenge and to push others as well, 
and this country is better because of it.
  I have worked with Rich for years and seen firsthand how hard he 
fought every day to make sure workers had a seat at the table on 
healthcare, education, taxes, climate change. Whatever the issue, you 
could expect to hear from Rich because of how those issues affected 
working people.
  I will always remember working together to develop and draft the PRO 
Act, which embodied our vision to give workers and their families a 
fair shot in this country--something Rich not only fought for every 
day, but, in my mind, will always be remembered for on this floor, in 
the halls, and all across our country.
  If you didn't hear him in a meeting, you would hear him over the 
bullhorn soon enough because he was as comfortable on a picket line as 
he was in a

[[Page S5917]]

boardroom or in the Halls of Congress, if not more comfortable, which 
is why, even as Rich shaped national policy conversations and led one 
of the Nation's biggest unions in the country through some of the most 
trying times in its history, including a recession and a pandemic, his 
legacy stretches far beyond his legislative accomplishments and beyond 
his leadership of the AFL-CIO, and it will stretch onward still as we 
continue his lifetime work of fighting for our workers. That is how we 
can honor Rich's legacy.
  Rich may have been a recognizable face on television, especially with 
his mustache; he may have met with Presidents regularly; he may have 
changed the history of our Nation for the better; but perhaps the most 
remarkable thing is, even at his tallest, he never talked down to 
people. Even at his biggest, he fought for the small. Even after all 
that he accomplished, he never stopped fighting to do more, which is 
why we must not either.
  My heart goes out to his wife Barbara and his son Rich Junior during 
this tragic time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                               H.R. 3684

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to talk about the process that we 
are in here; first of all, the process that brings us the legislation 
that is before us.
  Now, I respect my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have come 
together to draft the legislation that we have been debating on and 
off, voting even less, but that process shortchanges, I think, the 
Senate and the American people.
  It is a process that our colleagues--well-intentioned and working 
incredibly hard but had no geographic diversity, had no ethnic 
diversity, had no racial diversity, and that is consequential. It is 
consequential in the legislation that we are dealing before us. For 
example, this legislation does very well in taking care of dealing with 
abandoned mines, but it doesn't do all that well with dealing with 
Superfund sites--the sites that most Americans who happen to be from 
disadvantaged communities ultimately reside along.
  This legislation does much to help with the challenges of wildfires 
in our country, which I support, but doesn't do very much for the 
questions of flooding--flooding that takes place along the Mississippi, 
flooding that takes place in Louisiana, flooding that takes place in my 
home State of New Jersey and along the Atlantic coast.
  So that lack of diversity is not only consequential in terms of the 
legislation--geographic, ethnic, and racial--it is also consequential 
to disadvantaged communities.
  For too long, our infrastructure and transportation system have often 
been used to divide communities, split communities, where a highway 
goes through it and ultimately divides the community into the ``right 
side of the track'' and ``wrong side of the track.'' This was an 
opportunity to actually change that dynamic. This was an opportunity to 
create equity in our infrastructure system, to make sure that those 
divided communities no longer were divided and that all of them had a 
highway to opportunity, to make sure that transit access to minority 
communities struggling for employment could be realized. Even though, 
you know, there is a transit provision, it is $9 billion less than what 
we were originally told, but other elements are much, much higher.
  Those provisions not only have a consequence to the communities for 
which transit mobility is a critical element in order for employment, 
it often deals with minority communities that find themselves 
disadvantaged in terms of mobility for minority communities to 
opportunities for employment.
  Look at the pay-fors. The pay-fors, it is pretty remarkable, one of 
them particularly ends a rebate that is supposed to ultimately end up 
for consumers at the prescription drug counter. I often hear from 
people across the spectrum that we need to ultimately ensure that the 
cost of prescription drugs are lowered, but then here we have a pay-for 
that has absolutely nothing to do with lowering the cost of 
prescription drugs.
  Then I hear that, ``well, we are waiting for amendments.'' Well, I 
have bipartisan amendments, amendments on flooding, amendments on our 
national ferry system that many parts of our Nation depend upon, 
amendments about eligibility for bus terminals; and they are 
bipartisan, but the gatekeepers are keeping us away.
  Here we are. It is 5:30 in the evening. We have yet to vote on one 
single amendment. We have yet to vote on anything today. So this cannot 
be the process by which the world's most deliberative body operates 
under.
  And I just want to serve notice that, as it relates to this Senator, 
this Senator has no intention of supporting legislation that comes 
through this process again and that ultimately does not have that 
diversity of geography, of ethnicity, of race. It doesn't have a 
committee process which provides for that diversity to be represented 
and those points of view. I may not win, but I would like to have my 
point of view and those of the communities I represent have a shot. 
After all, that is what the American dream is all about, having a shot 
at it.
  So 5:30, no votes. This is a fantastic process, but one that I can 
serve notice on, I have no intention of supporting in the future.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


             Unanimous Consent Requests--Executive Calendar

  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise in support of two nominations to 
critical positions within the Department of Homeland Security: Robert 
Silvers to be the Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy and Plans; and 
Jonathan Meyer to be General Counsel.
  Both nominees are well qualified for these important roles, and both 
of them have strong bipartisan support, including from former national 
security officials who served both under Democratic and Republican 
Presidents.
  Mr. Silver's public service includes several senior roles in the 
Department of Homeland Security, including Deputy Chief of Staff and 
Assistant Secretary for Cyber Policy during the Obama administration.
  As a lawyer in the private sector since 2017, Mr. Silvers has been a 
leader on cybersecurity, data privacy, and artificial intelligence 
issues. As Under Secretary for Strategy, Policy and Plans, Mr. Silvers 
will help the Department to take a strategic and coordinated approach 
to address challenging policy areas, including domestic terrorism, 
border security, and cybersecurity.
  Jonathan Meyers' previous government service spans 17 years and 
includes senior roles in the Department of Justice, the U.S. Senate, 
and as Deputy General Counsel for DHS during the Obama administration. 
Since returning to private practice in 2016, Mr. Meyers' legal work has 
continued to focus on cybersecurity, technology, and Homeland Security.
  DHS needs qualified Senate-confirmed leaders in place to effectively 
carry out its critical mission of safeguarding our Nation, and I urge 
my colleagues to confirm these qualified nominees today.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 
158; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate, that no further motions be in order to the nominations, that 
the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the 
Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, I do object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Reserving the right to object.
  I would say this is a complicated issue to walk through the issues of 
immigration, and there are a lot of questions that hang out there. 
Secretary Mayorkas was in front of our committee on May 13 to be able 
to walk through the issues we are facing.
  Just as a quick review, we had a record number of people illegally 
cross the border in March. That was beaten in April. That was beaten in 
May. That was beaten in June. That was beaten in July.
  In July, we had 210,000 people illegally cross our border, that we 
know of.

[[Page S5918]]

  The DHS, in a recent court filing--actually filed in a court filing 
where they made this statement:

       Based on current trends, the Department expects that total 
     encounters this fiscal year are likely to be the highest ever 
     recorded. . . . The Department also expects that these 
     numbers will climb even higher if the CDC Order [Title 42] is 
     enjoined.

  There is a real issue that is going on. So when Ale Mayorkas was in 
front of our committee, our committee had direct jurisdiction for 
oversight in what is happening in Homeland Security. There have been a 
lot of changes that have been done this year in how we are enforcing or 
not enforcing the border.
  We have record numbers of individuals crossing the border. The border 
wall and that whole infrastructure, as well as the technology on the 
southern border, all the construction has stopped on that. The best we 
can tell, we have spent $2 billion this year not building the wall.

  Currently, it is not getting better. It continues to be able to get 
worse. We have 10,000 migrants in the Rio Grande Valley currently being 
held right now. That is 783 percent overcapacity in the Rio Grande 
Valley right now.
  And on the Interior enforcement side with ICE--we have 6,000 ICE 
agents--and the last number that we saw last month, they did 3,000 
deportations among 6,000 ICE agents in a month. The standard for them 
to actually interdict, detain, or deport an individual has now reached 
such a high standard that they have to contact regional leadership and 
ask permission by name to be able to interdict someone.
  That has dramatically slowed down what is happening in Interior 
enforcement, what is happening at our border area.
  And as we continue to be able to watch the number of individuals 
cross our border that are COVID positive, we have this odd situation 
where the Nation and the President are talking to companies and telling 
companies, ``you need to mandate vaccines and you need to mandate 
masks,'' when at the whole time we are literally bringing people from 
all over the world across our southern border and releasing them into 
the United States.
  We have legitimate questions that need to be answered. May 13, when 
Ale Mayorkas was in front of our Committee, there were multiple 
questions that I had. It was a very cordial interchange and very frank 
going through the issues. I asked him very specific questions for 
specific numbers.
  He said: I will follow up with that.
  We wrote him a list of specific questions and asked for specific 
answers for that. To their credit, 2 months later--2 months later--we 
got a list of answers to the questions that I had asked. That was 24 
hours ago.
  The very specific answer on the issues--I asked about the volunteer 
force in DHS. The humanitarian exceptions to Title 42, including the 
policy documents, they were very commendable on how they actually 
answered those.
  To DHS, I would ask specific questions on how they are handling sex 
offenders, because ICE agents have told me over and over again sex 
offenders are not being interdicted in the numbers they were in the 
past. They gave us very specific answers on that.
  But the problem was, half of the questions they gave us answers to 
and half they did not. For instance, we asked about the study that they 
started January 20th on the border wall. That study was supposed to be 
60 days. It has now been more than 200 days. We just asked for the 
status of that study and, if we could see any of it, what were the 
findings.
  Instead, I was sent a press release that they had put out. That is 
not what I need. In fact, that press release was copied in multiple 
places in the document to say ``this is responsive.'' That is not 
responsive.
  There is a new process that has been put in place by this DHS called 
notice to report, where literally there is a large number of people 
crossing the border at once. They are taking those individuals out, 
doing biometrics, background checks and releasing them into the country 
with the statement of: Turn yourself in at an ICE office somewhere in 
the country.
  No administration has ever done that. As far as we can tell, 55,000 
people this year have been released into the country under a notice to 
report. That is a new process that is undefined. The questions we asked 
about that were completely unresponsive.
  The Supreme Court made a decision on what is called a notice to 
appear just this year that should change the process from how DHS 
handles notice to appear. We asked very specific questions on how DHS 
is handling this issue based on the Supreme Court decision that was 
made a few months ago. They were completely unresponsive on that.
  We asked about cost analysis for the border construction, what is 
happening on eminent domain on those issues and areas where they are 
choosing not to do eminent domain, and they were completely 
unresponsive to that.
  So literally half our questions they answered completely, and half 
our questions they sent us fluff.
  I am the only one who is holding this up--I am very aware--but it is 
also my committee of jurisdiction that specifically has border 
management. I am the one who is supposed to ask these questions, and I 
am asking these questions, and they are not unreasonable questions.
  We are just asking to be able to get an answer to the questions so we 
can figure out what is the process and what is happening.
  As recently as today, I learned that ICE is currently looking at a 
facility in western Oklahoma to do what they are calling a surge 
overflow temporary facility. That surge overflow temporary facility 
they are looking to open is in western Oklahoma, to move people from 
the border, process them in western Oklahoma, and then release them 
from western Oklahoma.
  It is not an unfair question for me to ask: What is this facility? 
What is its purpose? And will individuals who are not legally present 
in the country be released in western Oklahoma?
  This is the same question that has been asked by mayors and leaders 
in Arizona, who have a facility like this in Arizona, where processing 
was done there and then they were released from there. And mayors and 
individuals there have asked the question: Why are individuals who are 
not legally present in the country being brought from the border to my 
town, and then released in my town?
  It is not unfair for me to be able to ask that as well. I have 
already had that conversation with the Secretary of DHS. I do not have 
an answer.
  So, yes, I object because we need to get some straightforward answers 
to some very straightforward, very fair questions.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: 
Calendar No. 159; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate, that no further motions be in order to 
the nomination, that the President be immediately notified of the 
Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LANKFORD. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

                          ____________________