brought us to this moment. he found a way to move forward on modernizing infrastructure. let me first if i might talk a little bit about the transportation parts of this bill i am particularly pleased about. clearly we see a significant increase in our investments in roads, bridges, transit systems, rail, airports, ports, and waterways. we can talk about some of the specifics, and i'm going to do that. but first i want to applaud the efforts that we've made to move forward in new directions. this bill for the first time in a major reauthorization of our surface transportation, acknowledges the realities of climate change. we know what is happening in our communities. the increase in the amount of flooding, droughts, wildfires and extreme weather events are frightening to all of us. in my state of maryland, i can point to one community, ellicott city, who has seen two 100-year floods in less than 24

months. the situation is dire, and we need to act on it. the legislation before us provides $18 billion in reducing carbon emissions and strengthening resilience and building electric charging stations and alternative fuel infrastructure. that is what we need to do, and i am pleased that the legislation addresses those issues. in a second area, i was pleased that this bill has a significant increase in the transportation alternative programs that i authored. this increased funding will make it easier for our local governments to move forward on projects that are important to their priorities. we're talking about better sidewalks and bike paths and dealing with safety. we're seeing an alarming increase in fatalities on our highways and roads and community roads. the cap program will allow us to deal with those issues. we all need to be able to get around our community without using our cars, and the tap

program makes this a priority so we can enjoy our communities and we have local decision-making in the use of our transportation funds. i'm also very pleased that this legislation has a justice component to it. i have worked long and hard with senator carper and others in dealing with reconnecting our communities that have been divided because of highways that have been put in the community that did not help that community. when we find out the communities that are most disproportionately affected, they are generally minority communities. i give you a good example. let me use my hometown of baltimore city. a highway was built in the 1960's that was never completed. we call it the highway to nowhere. it is the franklin-mulberry corridor. if you go to west baltimore, you will see this gully that is a blight to the community, that divides communities. 3,000 residents, mostly african american, are directly impacted by this highway to nowhere.

it isolates neighborhoods such as harlin park. this legislation provides a billion dollars as a start to reconnecting communities that have been divided by highways. i know this is good news for people of baltimore and these communities and for other communities around the nation which the transportation program has hurt their community, not helped their community. as i pointed out, there is increased investments in all of our modes of transportation. this past week, i was with secretary buttigieg in baltimore with senator van hollen. the port of baltimore is the nick engine of -- is the economic engine of our community. hundreds of thousands of jobs directly depend on it. baltimore is prepared for the super panamax. thanks to the partnership with the federal government, this legislation will allow us to be more competitive in our ports, creating more jobs in our community. i also pointed out the howard

street tunnel that was recently authorized under a grant that would allow double stacking going through a tunnel that is over 100 years old through downtown baltimore. this will make our community much more competitive. this bill provides additional funding for those grants. and then maryland like every state in this nation has significant backlogs in dealing with our bridges. i could mention the american legion bridge right around here or the johnson bridge in southern maryland. the list goes on and on and on. this bill will allow us to get to some of those bridges. let me talk a moment if i might about transit. we need public transit. our workers need to be able to get to work. we need to be much more sensitive to our environment and getting people out of their automobiles. we waste too much time in congestion. i can't tell you how much hours are wasted every day because of unnecessary congestion. transit, public transit helps us deal with those challenges. this bill takes a quantum leap forward on the transit programs.

i was particularly pleased that it includes a reauthorization of the wamata program for the transit system in this region. i call it the nation's transit system since it's used so much by federal workers in order to get to work. it extends the authorization of $150 million a year from the federal government through this decade. i particularly want to thank my colleagues in this region, senators warner, kaine, and van hollen. the four of us worked together to make sure we got the reauthorizing included in this legislation. then i want to acknowledge and thank particularly senator brown for his help on this, but there is now language in this bill that will allow those lines that were previously allowed -- eligible for capital contributions but did not go forward to be able to be reconsidered for a federal partnership in capital construction on transit. we have a rapid rail line in baltimore city known as the red

line that was stopped by our governor. we are hopeful that we can restart that. it is needed for dealing with public transit in baltimore. that project would then now be eligible for consideration for federal funding, and i would hope that the leadership in maryland would take advantage of this opportunity and put the red line back in the equation. i want to talk a little bit about water projects. the environment and public works committee bill that we worked on which is the basis of this bill on water infrastructure passed this body by a vote of 89-2. it deals with drinking water and waste water infrastructure act, increasing funding in all those categories. we had tremendous backlogs in water infrastructure in our community. we have water lines that are over 100 years old still being used in our communities. this bill will help us deal with that backlog. it includes authorizations that i sponsored, including

affordability. i want to thank senator wicker, my cosponsor of this. this would allow grants so that low-income families can afford their water bills. i could tell you in maryland and many other communities around the nation, people can no longer afford their water bills because so much pressure has been put on the ratepayers. this bill will set up a pilot program similar to a liheap program that helps low-income families deal with their water costs. i also authored an authorization bill for resiliency grants with senator capito to deal with extreme weather conditions and cybersecurity issues, and i was pleased to see that included in the legislation. i do want to express my disappointment. there are things in this bill i'm sure all of us are not satisfied with. i was disappointed that the bill does not fund those new authorized programs, as was included in the legislation that passed this body and was recommended by the environment and public works committee. i hope we'll have a chance

during the appropriation process to get funding for these new authorized programs. i was pleased that president biden's initiative to remove lead plates was included. i can tell you in baltimore, we have significant lead pipes issues, particularly in our school system. i'm glad those programs will be funded. i am pleased also to be moving ahead on pfas, a pollutant in our community as a result of federal installations. i was pleased to see we will be able to move forward on that. and then broadband. we all know we need broadband infrastructure. it is included in this bill. the brookings institute indicates that in the spring of 2020 when we went into lockdown in our schools, 12 million out of the 55 million students did not have access to classes online. that's a shocking number. and look what they lost during this past year. in maryland, it's estimated that as many as 324,000 people in rural maryland do not have access to broadband.

and 96,000 households in the baltimore region do not have access to broadband. we must do better. our goal should be that every house should have access to high-speed internet, affordable internet. this legislation moves us forward on both access and affordability on broadband. that's critically important, and i'm glad to see that it's included. as much as i support this legislation, i have got to express my disappointment as to how this bill is paid for. as chairman of the small business committee, i helped develop the programs that help small businesses during covid-19. they were lifesavers for small business. it saved small businesses, it saved our which i, it saved jobs, and it saved the growth engine for innovation in our community. one tool that we used that was extremely important was the economic injury disaster loan program and advance program. over four million eidl loans have been granted in excess of

$230 billion. these grants helped save businesses, these loans helped save businesses. these are more the -- for the smaller of the small businesses. they are the ones who use it. these are low-interest, 30-year loans. we have had six million companies take -- small businesses take advantage of the eidl advance program, $23 billion. these are the differences between staying afloat or going under. the g.a.o. estimated this past week that 86% of the eidl loans went to our most vulnerable small businesses, ten employees or less. so why am i talking about it? because this bill takes away the $13.5 billion from the eidl program, just as the time -- the eidl loan program, just as the time where we have small businesses that are going to need these loans. we see an increase in wildfires, the hurricane season is coming.

we're not through covid-19 yet. and yet they take away these funds. these are the most leveraged funds we have available for the federal dollars we put into it, we leverage much larger amounts of loans. do we really want to cut back on the ability to help small businesses through these long-term loans? unfortunately, taking this money away does the -- does exactly that. in addition, it takes $17.5 billion from the advance program under eidl. these are the grants that go to small businesses that can't afford to take out loans. we know under a previous administration, they put a $150,000 cap on the eidl loan program and $1,000 per employee on the advance program. well, the biden administration wants to increase the size of the loans up to the first $500,000 and then $2 million, but also to give $10,000 to the businesses that need it the most under advances. we have taken this money away.

in total about $35 billion. it's going to make it virtually impossible for us to be able to do what we need to for small businesses. that's not right, and we're going to need to do something about it. madam president, i might point out, we have a restaurant revitalization act that everyone here was very proud to help our restaurants that have been oversubscribed. we're going to need a lot more money to be put into that program, yet you're taking away our capacity in this bill to help fund small businesses. that's not right, and i hope i will continue to work with my colleagues so we can find a path forward to help america's small businesses. we all talk about helping small businesses. here is one example where we took the step in the wrong direction. we don't have to choose between building modern infrastructure or helping small businesses. we could do both. and i'm disappointed at this moment that we're not going to be able to do everything we need to do to help the small business community in our country.

i hope i will be able to revisit this at a later time, but it doesn't dull my enthusiasm for this very important legislation that i urge my colleagues to support. it will make a quantum leap forward in america's competitiveness and create more jobs for america's future. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. cassidy: madam president, i would like to rise and speak to

the infrastructure bill that is before us and specifically about a component of the infrastructure bill. my colleague earlier, senator tuberville, from alabama, said when he goes home, he speaks to people in his state, he always gets a consistent message. i, too, get that consistent message. better jobs, greater safety for their families, and a better future for our country. and this infrastructure package addresses those concerns. now, the infrastructure package, it is about roads and bridges and highways, ports and waterways, increased access to broadband in areas that don't have it now, flood mitigation, coastal restoration. these are things that will contribute to better jobs, more safety, and a better future for our country. but first let me dispel some myths. there are some misconceptions out there about this bill. one misconception is that it is somehow the same as the $3.5 trillion bill that people

have heard about that democrats have proposed, increasing taxes to a record basis and increasing our national debt when obviously we are pushing up on the debt limit. this is not that bill. this bill is about roads and bridges and bawbd and flood protection. that bill is about everybody else. this bill is about improving the fault of life for our families and proving the -- improving the future for our country. that bill is a sugar high on an economy that is already in an inflationary mode. these are two different bills. so i'm speaking about the one that has 86% approval in two separate polls by the american citizens. the other concern is that this will contribute to inflation. again, that's confusing it with the -- it's confusing it with the $3.5 trillion wish list my democratic colleagues have.

no, the bill that we are proposing with $550 billion in new spending over five years for roads and bridges and highways is judged to not be inflationary, to actually improve our economy over time. and lastly, that somehow this infrastructure bill that we have proposed is somehow republicans playing along with democrats in a way which is bad for our country. let me point out that president trump proposed a $1.5 trillion infrastructure bill. we put up $550 billion in new spending, he proposed 55 trillion -- $55 billion. this is something that republicans have proposed in the past, that democrats have proposed in the past and in version, it is something that democrats and republicans can

support. it is paid for and it does help the american people. how does it help the american people? it gives them better jobs, increases the safety of their family and gives a better future for our country. let me give some ideas about how that could occur. there's $110 billion for roads, bridges, and highways. not just to repair some, to construct some others, but also for the safety of those that are being rebuilt or being built. $110 billion. now we speak about jobs and safety and a better future. clearly we talked about safety. think about the jobs that will be created by this construction of these highways. think about the better future because these roads appeared bridges will -- and bridges will last for decades. and some pesh who is now a -- some person who is now a child and drives over a bridge as an adult and her life will be

better because of the money that this bill pays for. there is $10 billion for waterways. those liquid highways that take our goods from our country to around the world and brings the goads back from around the world back to our country along the way creates hundreds of thousands of jobs for measures. by the way, transporting products by water is the most environmentally sound way to transport goods. this investment in our ports and waterways, again, creating jobs, increasing the safety also gives us a better future for our economy, a better future for our workers, a better future for our families, a better future for our country. there's $16 billion for the army corps of engineers, for, among other things, to address coastal erosion which is occurring

nationwide. my country -- my state has lost more land mass than any other state in the nation. my state has lost as much land as is in the entire state of delaware, but other states are losing land too. i saw a picture recently of the gold coast, that very swank area in the city of chicago on lake michigan, and it showed how the coastline had eroded over time and now waves from lake michigan are lapping up on to the road in front of these very expensive apt complexes. this is not on the atlantic or pacific or the gulf. i saw another on a beach off of north carolina which in the last 150 years has receded 500 feet. homes that formally had a distant view of the water now have waves coming up to their

lawn. that is happening nationwide. no place more than my state in louisiana. this bill makes a significant investment in coastal erosion and protecting those people who live on the coastlines. it will create jobs as this is addressed, it will increase the safety of those folks that live in such areas. it gives a better future for our country. there's $65 billion for broadband. prioritizing those places without service and those places with poor service. i think of a place in my state. on oppoloosa, louisiana, a small town, think of a parent who wants their daughter who wants to speak mandarin chinese. if she has broadband internet, she gets the same educational

experience as someone who lives in new orleans or baton rouge or shreveport. we need to give every child in this country the same access. i'm a doctor, most people know that, i also think of the expansion of telehealth and telemental health. right now our country has a shortage of adolescent psychologists. if we have rural broadband, our broadband into portions of the city that is underserved, a psychiatrist can be in her office in lafayette, louisiana, doing a visit, an interview with a child who lives in deritter, a place that won't have a pediatric or adolescent psychiatrist has access to real-time visits because of the money that is in this bill. economic development, i once spoke to somebody who was thinking about setting up a

distribution center in north louisiana in a place eye dealingy situated -- ideally situated to get around, but did not have broadband internet. now that investor has the ability to manage inventory and receive orders and communicate with drivers all because rural broadband is a reality. creating jobs, inincreasing safety -- increasing safety. let me mention one more thing and kind of the economic and safety aspect of this. there is money for sewer, water, and for drainage. now, if i think of the four corners of my state, but i'm sure every person could think of the four corners of their state and i think of hawaii as being a round state so i'm not sure of how you would think of those four corners, if i think of monroe and shreveport and all

the places in between, there is a pent-up demand for water, sewer, and drainage. this money puts the money out there that can be combined with other appropriations that can meet the needs for the folks in my community. i want to emphasize the environmental aspects of this bill. we have billions being put forward to superfund and brown fuel sites. louisiana has 25 of those sites requiring funding for superfund or brownsfield. we have $$755 billion to cap oil fields. it includes a bill i wrote with senator coons of delaware called the scale act. the scale act helps build this carbon dioxide pipeline that will take co2 from these manufacturing plants that are

producing a product and will build pipelines beneath the ground or to have that co -- co2 used in another way. it gives a better future for our planet. jobs, safety, and a better planet. i mentioned the $16 billion going to the army corps of engineers for coastal restoration and other projects. this bill is an example of what congress should do. it is focused upon jobs and safety and a better quality of life. this is good for the american worker, it is good for american families, it is good for the united states of america, and with that, madam president, i yield.

mr. cornyn: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are

not. mr. cornyn: madam president, in a state as big as mine, reliable transportation infrastructure is absolutely essential. we're home to both the largest network of highways as well as the largest number of bridges in the country. we're also a major hub for imports and exports both along the gulf coast and southern border and as we continue to welcome more texans every day, the strain on our infrastructure is growing. it takes a lot of planning an maintenance to get all 29 million texans and crucial cargo around the state safely and efficiently. when you add in broadband, airports, levees, waterways, it is easy to see how big an undertaking this process is. i continue to hear from my constituents back home about the need for federal funding to help

repair, maintain and expand infrastructure across our states. but, madam president, we just can't keep adding expenses to the taxpayers' credit card. we have to figure out how to pay for them. earlier this year, president biden floated his idea for an absolutely massive infrastructure bill totaling $2.6 trillion. it included a broad range of controversial and, frankly, overpriced programs, all funded by massive tax hikes on the american taxpayer. the good news is that's not the bill we're considering today. a bipartisan group of our colleagues worked with the white house to find common ground and get a bill to the floor with support from both sides. the 2,700-page text was just released last night and i know, like everybody else, i'm still in the process with my staff of

evaluating just how it will impact my state and our nation. our colleagues who negotiated and drafted this legislation put in a lot of long hours and hard work to reach an agreement, and i commend them for their efforts. i'm eager to see a score from the congressional budget office to provide a better understanding of the true cost of this legislation. but even the proponents who negotiated this deal concede that at least before the $118 billion transfer from the general revenue fund last night that even then only about half of it was paid for. i believe there so far have been some missed opportunities. one being reform to the highway trust fund itself. for years the highway highway td has faced major shortfalls and to a degree texans have

contributed to the shortfall. for every dollar we put in the highway trust fund only 95 cents comes back to my state. that's not the same treatment from every state. in fact, we receive the lowest rate of return than any other state. i don't think it's a stretch to say that it's unfair that texans subsidize infrastructure projects in every other state, but that's only part of the issue here. the highway trust fund has been praying in the red -- operating in the red for more than a decade. the current state of the highway trust fund is unsustainable. and unless something changes we'll be in dire straits -- even more dire straits in just a few years. the idea of the highway trust fund is that we always believed in a user fee, the ones who use it are the ones to maintain it and expand it. rather than make reforms to the

formula to make the funds solvent, this bill throws more borrowed money at the problem. as i said, just this morning, i learned that another $118 billion was proposed to be transferred to the highway trust fund with no reforms to help put it back on sound financial footing. this is quite a step away from the user fee model for those who use the infrastructure are the ones that pay for it. this is a transfer from general revenue from the taxpayer into the highway trust fund. this inclusion was a big surprise to me and in all the conversations we've had about this legislation over the past several weeks, i didn't hear a word about a highway trust fund bailout. the massive bill, as i said, was dropped last night and we're still trying to comb through the 2,700 page also of text which at this point appears to be full of

surprises. and i just mentioned one of them. this bill should not be a rush through the senate without providing all members a chance to read it, to understand it, and offer their suggestions to improve it. i've been working with some of our colleagues on amendments to this legislation to provide legitimate pay fors. since this bill didn't go through the regular committee process but was really cobbled together by a negotiation, again in a bipartisan fashion that i commend for their efforts, but it makes it all the more important that since this is the first time that many of us have seen the entire 2,700-page bill, that it be subject to an open amendment process. this legislation will have impact on every state in the country and every member of the senate should have the opportunity to weigh in and offer changes.

members of the bipartisan group have committed to a process that allows senators on both sides to offer changes to this bill. and in the days ahead, i hope the majority leader will allow that to happen and we will have a robust amendment process. madam president, on another matter, my state is no stranger to tragedy. in recent years we've experienced hurricanes, tornadoes, a crippling winter freeze, and other natural disasters that have tested our resiliency. sadly, too, some of our communities have experienced mass shootings. tomorrow texans will mark a solemn anniversary, two years since a gunman stormed into a walmart in el paso, texas, and opened fire. 23 people died, dozens were injured, and the lives of countless el pasoians were

forever changed. my friend, the former mayor dee margo said at the time hate will not overcome love. hate will not define who we are. this shooting was undoubtedly hate in its purest form. the shooter was a white supremacist who carried out an act that can only be described as domestic terrorism. our hispanic neighbors and friends were purposely targeted and both texans and mexicans were killed by this wicked individual. in the face of this pure evil, el pasoians responded with love. off-duty surgeons and doctors rushed to the hospital to save as many lives as they could. impasse sowians were -- el pasoians were comforted by their faith servants who sat beside them as they were told their

loved ones had not made it. and hundreds of texans lined up to give blood. i was proud to be one of those 3,000 donations at the center in el paso in las cruces. a young el pasoan rubio martinez was just in sixth grade when this mass shooting took place. in the days that followed, he created the el paso challenge where he and his mom performed 23 random acts of kindness in honor of the 23 victims. two years later they're still keeping up that tradition and recently gave out roses at san jacinto plaza to remind people to spread love and kindness. el paso, a community that saw the face of evil unequivocally chose love. and i'm grateful for texans like rubin have continued to make the choice day after day to honor the lives of the 23 who we lost.

as we remember the lives that were lost just two years ago and the families and the victims that many of us comforted in the hospitals in the aftermath of this, we're also -- we also carry the painful reminder that justice has not yet been served. last week the federal hearing for the accused shooter was postponed until november, and the state's case continues to await a trial date due to delays stemming from covid's impact on our court system. my heart is with the families and friends looking for closure who must now deal with this additional delay in justice being served. i know i speak for all texans when i say that the two-year anniversary approaches tomorrow, that as it approaches we all stand in solidarity with el p pasoans and remember the enduring strength and spirit of this vibrant community. madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. a senator: madam president, thanks very much. i'd ask consent to speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. casey: thank you, madam president. i wanted to offer remarks about two of our former colleagues who passed away. i know many have already spoken about both of their lives and their contributions and their public service. i'm not speaking today about the pending legislative business but just wanted to make sure i took some time today to talk about both of these individuals. i'll go in the order of their passing just in the last week really. first former senator from wyoming mike enzi who served in this institution since being elected in 1996 and then left the senate after 2020 was concluded. i'll have kind of a longer statement that i'll ask consent to put in the record. i just wanted to share some personal reflections because sometimes when you outline

someone's career in a position whether it's in government or otherwise, that doesn't really tell the story about who they were. and we all have different impressions. but it's remarkable how often in the last couple of days members of both parties in the senate have commented on mike enzi as a person. i said that last weekend the health, education, labor and pensions committee which he and i were both members and overlapped for a number of years, that mike enzi was the paragon of decency. and that's probably an understatement. decency isn't a word that's often attached to public officials, unfortunately. but in mike's case it applied. he was a decent human being and treated everyone with respect. and we could all learn more than one lesson from the way he treated people and the way he

conducted himself as a person and the way he conducted himself as a united states senator. just in terms of work, a number of us could share stories about issues we worked with mike on. i can share one or two. one in particular i remember, a bill that had not been reauthorized. that's another fancy washington word for taking a policy or taking a program and in a sense reinstituting it by updating it and maybe getting authorization to have either new policy or appropriations or additional appropriations. but we wanted to reauthorize the perkins career and technical education program, but the bill had not been acted on. the proposal, the bill itself or versions of the bill were around for something like -- oh, gosh -- about 12 years between 2006

and 2018 before we finally got it done. i won't walk through the policy but just share a personal story that when mike enzi and i were working on the senate version of it -- there was another version in the house very similar if not identical but it needed work in both chambers. but we were working with th then-chairman alexander, lamar alexander and the ranking member patty murray. so the four of us had to work very hard to get it done. but once it was done, i remember standing here on the floor and mike enzi was standing on that side of the floor talking about what we had done. and as i was paying tribute to his work and commending him, i thought my goodness, i may be getting him in trouble back home by having a democrat compliment him so much and he was complimenting my work. but i remember that because it was a typical, in some ways a very typical mike enzi work

product. it defied resolution for a long time, but he stayed at it. and he stayed in the room so to speak until we had it done. so i want to thank him for that work that will i a lou more and more americans -- that will allow more and more americans to have that opportunity to have a career in technical education that they would not have or at least would not have it in the way the -- in the manner the bill set forth which was a dramatic and substantial improvement in that kind of career and technical education from a federal government perspective. the final thought that i'll share because i want to be brief because i also have a statement to submit are budget votes. as many americans know, if they're watching and maybe they aren't watching when we do a budget resolution but it's vote after vote, hour after hour, often well into not just the evening but well into the next morning. and to preside over that, as

mike was at the time as the chairman of the budget committee, i just recall him standing at the lek turn hour -- lecturn hour after hour having to comment on every amendment, whether he opposed it or supported it. if he opposed it, of course, he had to make an argument against it. that it part of being the chair and standing there all those hours. but even when he was making the case against democratic amendments which was often and stating his opposition, there was no snarl, there was no rarely political r rhetoric. he would just state his objections very forthrightly and very soberly and then move on. there was no finger pointing, no demonization of the other point of view. so i always appreciated how he did that in an environment where there often is that kind of invective flying back and forth.

so mike enzi when i say he was the paragon of decency, that applied to his whole life. and we know how terribly his family must miss him and how his state mourns the loss of mike enzi. but that loss was felt in a bipartisan fashion here on the senate floor and within the senate family. so, madam president, i would ask consent to submit for the record a longer statement which is a summary of mike enzi's -- somewhat of a summary of his life and a summary of his work in public service. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you, madam president. and then just some additional comments on another colleague that we lost this year, this time a democratic senator carl levin. served the people of michigan starting in 1978. i think almost immediately after serving on the city council in detroit.

and i'll submit a statement about his life as well. but carl as well was decent and honorable. and i have no doubt that people in both parties had that same impression of him dealing with him again i'll say as a person and as a united states senator, as a public official. carl levin had a work ethic which was second to none. i don't ever remember him in a setting where he wasn't working. it was as if he was never relaxed and kind of turned off. he was always on the floor trying to get support for an amendment, trying to get support for a bill. and the difference between carl and many of us is that he knew the detail of that bill sometimes as well or better maybe than the staff. he knew every part of the policy. if he were allowed to be on the senate floor with his jacket

off, he would roll up his sleeves. someone was telling a story the other day how that was kind of an image we had of carl. his sleeves were always rolled up when he was working. but on the senate floor he wasn't allowed to do that. but it was emblematic, i think, that rolling up of his sleeves when he was traveling or addressing constituents or the like, was emblematic of his work ethic. and the scholarship that he put into the work that he did for the people of michigan and often for, of course, the workers. the stories that have been told in the last couple of days of him carrying around his union card when he worked in a factory as a young man. he never forgot those workers. it wasn't just a symbol of a union card in his wallet. he never, ever stopped working for them, autoworkers or otherwise. so that's something that we pay

tribute to today. and his work on behalf of those who were powerless or those with little power, those who don't have a lobbyist, those who don't have the opportunity to influence legislation directly. carl levin calls made sure that their voice was heard. and as much as he was a supporter and i think a consistent and strong supporter of a strong national security, no member of the senate could say they did more than carl levin to support our national security, both in terms of what he supported but in terms of his leadership on the armed services committee and ultimately as the chair of the committee, working in a very bipartisan fashion to keep us safe, working with senators like john mccain and others, democrat and republican alike. but even though in the midst of -- or in the course of supporting national security, you deal with big institutions, big defense contractors, big,

powerful interests that he worked with and made sure were part of the best national security in the world, he was also very tough on those same big institutions because, as many of you know -- many people here in the senate know -- carl was the chairman of the permanent subcommittee on investigations, maybe the most powerful subcommittee in the entire u.s. senate, at least for many years it was. and as the chairman of that subcommittee, carl levin held the feet of powerful interests, held their feet to the fire, over and over again, with a cross-examination skill that very few senators would possess, even senators who were good lawyers. and carl levin was not let those powerful interests up for air if he thought they had information

that he needed to extract from them in the public interest. and anyone who appeared before him knew how tough he could be on the most powerful people and the most powerful institutions in the country, if not in the world. so we appreciate carl levin's decency and the honorable service that he rendered, but we also appreciate how hard he fought for people that didn't have power. so, madam president, in conclusion, i'll also offer -- or ask consent, i should say, to offer for the record a summary -- not a fulsome summary, but a summary of his work here in the united states senate and ask that it be included in the

record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. casey: thank you. mr. carper: we're talking about the serious side of carl but there's also a lighter side of carl, as you know. i was elected to -- qui state treasury and elected to congress in 1982 and one of the members of my freshmen class was sandy levin, his older brother, who had apparently run for governor, not successful. later got elected to the house and i think served as ways and means committee chair. so i got to meet carl pretty early, although i didn't join him until about 20 years ago. but he is from detroit, in that area, and loved the detroit tigers. so do i. try to figure out why an ohio state boy would be a big detroit tigers fan, but i was. ended up on the governmental affairs committee.

he was in charge of the subcommittee on investigations. and i ended up being the chair of the committee, worked pretty closely with tom coburn and others. carl said he wanted me to come up and tour the border, the u.s.-canadian border right there around detroit by boat, by water, by helicopters. i said, sure, count me in. we had one heck of a day. got to spend time with the coast guard people and others, very much involved in our border secured. late in the day, there was an opening day of baseball season. the tilingers were -- the tigers were playing in minnesota, an afternoon game. after we finished our day's activities and it was moving on toward supper time, he said, let's go have dinner. when we got to the restaurant,

the tigers game was on the radio. he said, let's have a couple of libations and sit in his car and listened to the tigers game. and so we did. and the game -- the seventh or eighth inning, we stayed until the very end, and we had a couple of libations and some laughs. then we went inside and for, like, $6 we bought two of the biggest dinners i've ever seen. had a wonderful time. but i loved carl. i love sandy, too. the idea that carl has left us is real sad. his wife, barbara, a wonderful woman. we thank her for sharing her husband with us. here is a serious issue, beneficial ownership. using shell corporations to try to do those bad activities.

there was a question about who should have the authority, who should be held responsible to make sure no nefarious activities take place. delaware happens to be a state where there are a lot of corporations. half of the fortune 500 are incorporated in delaware. so we had an interest in doing this but doing it in a way that doesn't unduly burden the states. this was an issue that lasted and lasted and lasted. and carl, when he went to meet our maker about a year or so, we resolved that issue, and it took years to resolve that issue. and he was tenacious and his staff was tenacious, so were a lot of other folks. we got the job done in a way that protect tz the local interest. so carl, if you're listening,

buddy, our tigers are doing better this year. hopefully they'll continue to. thank you for raising those points about carl. that's very sweet. thank you. mr. casey: i thank the senior senator from delaware for those kind, personal reflections about carl levin. madam president, i will yield the floor. mr. carper: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up to the substitute and be reported by number. number 1, padilla-moran, number 2133, indian health. number two, thune-tester, unanimous 2162, communications workers.

further, that at 5:30 today, the senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed, with no amendments in order to these amendments prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with 60 affirmative votes required -- 60 affirmative votes required -- for adoption and two minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote. the presiding officer: is there an objection? a senator: madam president? mrs. capito: madam president, i don't have an objection. i just wanted to say to the chairman here and others, all of us here, we're ready to get this thing started. this is a great wait for members to say what they like and what they don't like and the amendment process is on its way. thank you. mr. carper: madam president, i would say thank you to the ranking member for those comments. i, too, am ready to get to work. this is a good way to do it, a

couple of amendments that i think a lot of us can support. i appreciate the consensus to lock in on these two amendments. we will work to have votes on others as well, hopefully sooner rather than later. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from delaware, mr. carper, for mr. padilla, proposes amendment numbered 2133 to amendment 2137. mr. carper for mr. thune proposes amendment numbered 2162 to amendment number 2137. mr. carper: with that, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon.

mr. merkley: madam president, i ask the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor today to bring attention to the wildfires raging in our western states, devastating community after community. i'm also here to call my colleagues to use the ongoing infrastructure discussions to take the swift, bold action necessary not just to confront the current crisis but to address the root cause and help save others from having to endure similar fires and tragedies in the future. for nearly a month now, the bootleg fire, pictured here, has been the biggest of 91 fires burning across 12 states. it's been raging in southern oregon. it's burned about 415,000 acres.

translate that into square miles, that's 646 square miles. or translate that, that's an area about 20 miles wide and 30 miles long, half the size of the state of rhode island reduced to ash and smoke. it's country, not a lot of developed communities but you still have a lot of homes getting burned, at least 161 homes. double that, or roughly double that in outbuildings, hundreds of vehicles have been destroyed, thousands of families have been forced to evacuate. this fire grew so large, it started generating its own weather system. think about that. usually we watch the weather to see how the weather's going to influence the fire. well, rain and storms slow them down, humanity slow it down -- humidity slow it down a little

bit, hot dries it down, hot dry with the wind, but that's not the case with the bootleg fire. it created massive clouds rising more than 30,000 feet in the air, and as the air surges up, below it, it pulls up air from all around which feeds oxygen to the inferno. and then when that air cools and drops down, it pushes the bottom air out, spreading sparks like some living monster sucking in fire-intensifying oxygen, and then spewing out fire-spreading ember as the air spreads and descends, even generating lightning storms and spawns fire tornadoes throwing vortexes of heat and flame. fires are an annual occurrence in oregon, but decade after decade they're getting a lot worse. two major reasons for this -- climate chaos is one and poor

forest management is the other. the forests, due to climate chaos, they're drier, more prone to fire. and why are they drier? because, well, carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and methane gas leaking out of our natural gas system, they're heating the planet. so we have to pivot quickly and transition to renewable energy to stop it from getting worse, but that's a discussion really for another day. focus today on the second part of the challenge, which is forest management. when fires erupt, we put them out as fast as we can, trying to prevent devastating fires like the bootleg fire. but the result of putting out fires fast over decade after decade after decade is that a lot of fuels build up on the floor of the forest. in addition, we have a lot of forests that's second growth

forests and trees are planted very close together and grow up at about the same height so their canopies are touching each other. it makes it very easy for the fire to spread from tree to tree to tree. you throw in the combination of longer, hotter, drier summers and second-growth forests, and you've got a perfect recipe for infernos like the big fires we've been seeing out west. to reduce the risk of these devastating fires in the short run we have two basic tools. one is we reduce the grass and under growth that fuels the fire. we sometimes call that mowing. and then we do prescribed burns. the second is we thin the forest. thinning the forest works better in some forests than others. ponderosa pine it works really well. you spread out those pine trees. they would never have grown so close together. in the old days when fires regularly swept through, they would kill the younger trees,

the older trees would survive. the widely spaced trees, they would burn up the fuel on the floor of the forest, and it works well. other forests, we're still trying to figure out the best way to reduce fire risk. the bootleg fire did show the effect of these types of efforts. with the last decades ecologists have been working in the sycan marsh preserve thinning out the forests and using prescribed fires. they have been reducing the number of ponderosa pines to making it less fire-prone forest. as the bootleg fire came into the preserve, firefighters on the ground reported flames didn't jump as easily or readily from tree top to tree top. they went back to the ground, going back to the ground where

there had been prescribed fire, the fires move the a lot slowly. the thinning and burning in sccan marsh preserved strong proof of why we need to use these tools with the most effective strategies for different kinds of forests. again, those strategies may not work as well in other types of forests, and we need the best science. i've asked the head of the forest service get us the best science so we can apply the best strategies to make different types of forests more fire resilient. but we need to be able to fund such efforts on a much more massive scale. out in oregon we have 2.3 million acres that have been approved environmentally to be treated that aren't treated because we haven't had the funds. so this infrastructure bill, this is an opportunity to address so much of the work that needs to be done to make the forests more fire resilient.

and well, i'm pleased to say that the bill is going to have quite a bit in it, and i'm really pleased with this. i've been pushing for this for years that we need to spend not millions, but billions of dollars in forest management. so $8 billion of wildfire-related funding is included, and that will help go out through the forest service and the department of interior. $2.4 billion for hazardous fuels reduction efforts. $2.1 billion for efforts to restore ecosystems on a broader scale in a fashion that will help reduce the vulnerability of the forests and other ecosystems to fires. ability to help fund wildfire mitigation activities for at-risk communities. $650 million for rehabilitating areas burned by fires. $600 million to give firefighters the pay raises they deserve, to increase to a year-round workforce. for years i've been saying one

of the problems we have is the big attrition rate in our firefighters. they go out for a season and then the job's over and they have to find other jobs. when they find those other jobs, well, they aren't there to fight the fire the next season. crew bosses are essential. you don't want to lose these experienced crew bosses. so what's the answer? well, part of the answer is let's create year-round jobs with decent pay so that when you're not doing firefighting directly, you're doing fire prevention by working on forest management projects. and i think that that idea is starting to gain some traction. we also have funding in here to increase the collaborative forest landscape restoration projects, cflr projects. cflr, a qlab are a -- collaborative brings together stakeholders from the environmental side, timber side, from all sides in between and they work out what they refer to as a prescription for a

specific forest. then they go out, and in the beginning when they don't really have a great trust relationship, they go out together and go through the acreage, they'll mark the trees. then later on as the trust grows, they write the prescription, and they know it will get implemented as they desire, and they can get a lot more work done. and you know what? it means that this thinning operation, the forest treatment operation stays out of the courts, and that is very important because if we're just treating forests through timber sales that are always hung up in the disputes in the courts, we're not getting the job done. and this effort, this effort to increase the role of these collaboratives, it puts people in the room that have been traditional opponents, and they're talking to each other and they're working out plans together, and they find out they actually sometimes like each other. so we need a lot more of these collaboratives. we have in oregon close to two

dozen collaboratives. only four are federally funded. so by increasing the funding, we enable more collaboratives to do a lot more work, and that would be a very good thing. i spoke to the billions of dollars, but you know what? these couple billion dollars, it's not enough. i'll be introducing legislation modeled on the great american outdoors act to fund $30 billion in hazardous fuels treatments across our public lands over the next five years. that's closer to the scale we need to undertake to manage these forests. you know, it used to be you thought about, well, when do i want to go out and hike on the pacific crest trail. well, august, least chance of rain. now it's like whatever you do, think twice about going in august because you'll be dodging forest fires. it's happened to my wife, mary, and i a number of times now. we plan to hike in the southern part of the pacific crest trail, and twice we had to move

to the northern part. we hiked in the northern part twice and had to dodge forest fires. one time it was the fire that erupted and put the whole columbia gorge on fire. we had fireworks on the fourth of july. and then just last year we were hiking starting on the warm strings reservation and other hikers said did you know there's already a fire on the warm strings reservation right where we were. wind was blowing the other way, we hadn't smelled the smoke. you're out of cell phone range out in the mountains, hadn't heard that. but it reflects the fact that you have to worry now when hiking because the forest is so vulnerable, it's so dry, it so easily turns into a fire that can move very quickly, especially if there is a wind. i've worked to get funding for the national guard to be able to help fight fires the last four years, including 1,500 members of the oregon national guard have been trained. they have been out helping on this bootleg fire, so that's

great. we've been working to enable fema to deliver disaster assistance more quickly to the communities impacted by catastrophic fires. and we have to recognize that we need to tackle the issue of smoke. we didn't used to talk about smoke in oregon, but it was smoke from burning our grass seed fields because the way to get grass seed very pure was to burn the fields every year, so we'd have this haze throughout the summer. well, it was very unhelpful to people's health to be breathing that smoke, so eventually we said, no, no, no, we're not going to build the fields in that fashion. but now we have the smoke from the forest fires. but wouldn't you know when i was home last weekend, i expected to see smoke. there was a point where i drove

600 miles during labor day last year, i never got out of smoke. this time i was under blue skies and i saw that the weather pattern was blowing our smoke from our fires to montana. there was a lot of smoke in d.c. from the fires out west so it is a national issue. the index for air quality in new york city surged to 157 and anything above 100 is pretty dangerous. but that just shows the level of challenge that we're addressing. so we need to tackle the smoke. it's why i'm introducing the smoke emergency act. we need to recognize the impact of the smoke and the impact of the smoke on communities so we

need to have a way to respond and create a national emergency related to it. we need to have something for air-filtered locations where people with asthma can get to and get to clean air when the air quality drops so dramatically and we need to protect our farm workers. so i will introduce the farm worker heat and smoke protection act. we lost one of our farm workers due to heat when this heat dome struck oregon a couple of weeks ago. there in portland where my house is, 116-degrees plus a wind that was blowing that turned it into a hair dryer. you stepped outside and you watched the plants shrivel up. we were fortunate. we turned our gas to a heat pump so we could switch to that from

fossil fuels. the side to that is we have air conditioners. think about 116-degree heat where it's rare to have 100-degrees break during the summer. so we need federal standards related to smoke. we need to work with the occupational health and safety administration to ensure that farm workers get the assistance they need to be able to work safely. i can't underscore enough the importance of us coming together as a nation to tackle these western fires. at this moment the fire season is just beginning in oregon. it feels like we've been in it forever. we have july -- august, september, october. we have fires starting early in the year, starting in march, and

burning late in the year and california it is a year-round proposition already and oregon isn't far behind. my fervent hope is that with wildfires in oregon an montana and california, it will be a wakeup call in this chamber to act and to act quickly. we have an opportunity to make an impact but we have to have the policy knowledge and the political determination to take that quick action. thank you, madam president.

mr. padilla: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. padilla: i understand that senator carper has called up amendment numbered 2133. the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. padilla: i thank senators lankford, moran, schatz, feinstein and smith for joining me in this effort. madam president, tribal communities face grave and unjust disparities in access to all kinds of infrastructure, but the disparities and access to health care and health infrastructure are increasingly

stark. this amendment is very simple. it's common sense, in my opinion. it's a technical fix that would allow urban indian organizations to use the indian health service funds that they already receive for infrastructure and facilities improvements. so i want to be clear. this amendment would not give urban indian organizations more funding or take away funding from anybody else. it would simply give them additional flexibility to use the funding they already receive for necessary infrastructure improvements. urban indian organizations provide culturally competent care for over 70% of american indians and alaska natives who live in urban centers. many of those served in -- many of those served live in

low-income medically underserved areas. according to recent congressional testimony from the indian health service and i quote, expanding the current authority to be consistent with the authority for other government contractors would allow urban indian organizations to make renovations, construction or expansion of facilities necessary to improve the safety and quality of care provided to urban indian patients. end quote. in fact, the deputy director of the indian health service went on to state, quote, providing urban indian organizations with broader authority to improve their health care facilities will assist in providing the high-quality, safe, and culturally relevant health care for the urban indian tribe relation. end quote. this amendment, i believe, is particularly relevant in the midst of the covid-19 pandemic

when items like ventilation, along with social distancing and other infrastructure upgrades are desperately needed. this is an easy, no cost, bipartisan way to help ensure that this package helps to bolster infrastructure in indian country because no infrastructure package would be complete without robust improvements to tribal infrastructure. it has the support of the chairman and ranking member of the indian affairs committee, which just held a hearing on this issue last month and i urge my colleagues to sport it. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. tester: thanks for the recognition, madam president. i want to start by thanking senator john thune. he and i have are -- are cosponsoring this. there is broadband infrastructure in this bill. we need to have better broadband to have better distance learning, if we're going to have telehealth, if we're going to have businesses, give them the

opportunity to be able to expand their customer base. well, the challenge out there has worked for us. what this bill will do is help us better understand how many folks are going to be needed to hire and train on this enormous endeavor. it will not only help with the workforce but that people are safe and fairly compensated. this will create good-paying jobs not only during the building of the infrastructure but also well on for decades and decades past. we need to make sure every community is included, nobody's left behind. this amendment will help us achieve those goals. i would encourage my colleagues to support it. with that, madam president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, there will now be to minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to padillo-moran amendment number 2133. mr. carper: i'd ask unanimous consent to yield the time back. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the question is on the amendment. mr. carper: i'd ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 90, the nays are 7. under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to.

under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the thune-tester amendment numbered 2162. mr. thune: mr. president. a senator: the senate is not in order. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: amendment numbered 2162 would aim to address the workforce needs of the telecommunications industry and increase the number of workers available to deploy 5g technology and broadband services to rural areas across south dakota and across the nation. in order to reap the benefits of 5g, we must have a skilled workforce in place to deploy the infrastructure necessary to support this new technology. importantly, 5g technology will require not just traditional cell phone towers but small antennas -- >> the senate is not in order. mr. thune: but small antennas called small cells that can often be attached to existing infrastructure like utility

poles or buildings. wireless providers will need to install roughly 800,000 small cells around the nation to support this nationwide 5g network. some estimates suggest we will need an additional 20,000 tower climbers alone for the installation of this wireless infrastructure. in addition, after installation, every one of these small cells will have to be monitored and maintained which will require substantial increase in the telecommunications workforce. this amendment will help identify ways in which we can expand the number of workers enrolled in 5g training programs and identify ways to grow the telecommunications workforce well into the future. this amendment received unanimous support by the commerce committee earlier this year, and i would encourage my colleagues here to do the same. thank you, mr. president. mr. tester: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. tester: i want to associate myself with the words of john thune. listen to thune. vote yes. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a second?

there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: on this vote the yeas are 95.

the nays are 1. under the previous order, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of of this amendment, the amendment is agreed to. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia cane canee senator from virginia? mr. kaine: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: m.b.t.? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the following amendment be called up -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. carper: thank you. i ask unanimous consent that the following amendment be called up to the substitute and be

reported by number, number 1, barrasso, 2180. deals with building energy codes. further, that the senate vote in relation to the amendment at 7:40 p.m. with no amendments in order to the amendment prior to a vote in relation to the amendment with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption and two minutes of debate divided equally prior to the vote. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i would like to join my chairman and saying again, this will be our third amendment of the night. mrs. capito: i think it shows good progress for all of us. thank you. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment by number. the clerk: the senator from delaware, mr. carper, proposes an amendment number 2180 for mr. barrasso to amendment number 2137. mr. carper: i note the absence

of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the floor today to address the amendment at which we'll be voting in the next 15 or 20 minutes. it's barrasso amendment number 2137. it has to do with building codes and the bill that's on the floor

tonight for our discussion and debate, the bipartisan infrastructure bill. there is money in this bill that's being debated today for building codes. and this amendment is quite simple. it is a consumer protection amendment and it just says no money, no money in this bill can be used to bar natural gas hookups to your home. can't block commercial use, residential use, and new constructions so no money in the bill can be used to restrict or prohibit the direct use of natural gas in residential and commercial buildings for space heating, water heating, for cooking, for other purposes. and can't also use money to compel the adoption of model building energy codes. those are local decisions that are made. the thing that's -- why i come to the floor to speak specifically about that is that people all around the country are very concerned about what is

in this bill and how it's going to affect them at home and how they live and their pocketbooks. no matter where you're from, people are saying how is this going to impact me? people who are living under the times of these massive inflation that they're hitting, they're paying more for groceries. they're paying more for gasoline. now they're looking at if they come out and come out with building codes that block natural gas hookups, what's that going to do to the cost of energy to heat their home, to cook, all of those sorts of things. and for people who are not necessarily tuned into this who may be members of this body but don't think about how so many of the decisions here impact hardworking american families, i come to a story that was in this morning's "wall street journal." the headline is natural gas phaseouts are facing resist tense. there's a reason they're facing resistance. they're facing resistance because people do not want to have to pay more to heat their homes, to cook, all of those

things. the article points out that massachusetts is enernling as a key battleground in the u.s. fight whether to phase out natural gas for home cooking and heating with fears of unknown costs. that's what people are concerned about. unknown cost, unfamiliar technologies fueling much of the opposition as the country is being encouraged to go all electric. so what we're seeing is that more towns around boston are debating measures to block or limit the use of gas in new construction. and they talk about climate change as a reason for that. well, builders and realtors will tell you that construction costs go up and the cost of heating and cooking go up if you're not allowed to use natural gas in the construction. as a matter of fact, a study by a subsidiary of the national association of home builders published this year estimated that building all electric

homes, building all-electric homes in the colder climates of denver, colorado, the rocky mountain west, minneapolis is part of their study, madam president, they say it may cost at least $11,000 more to build those than it would if you could allow them to be built for the use of gas. wait a second. before you drive up the cost of buying a new home, before you buy -- drive up the cost of cooking and heating your home, let's let people make some decisions for themselves. they don't need washington telling us what we need to do as what we can do. major cities right now, including san francisco, seattle, denver, new york, they've enacted or proposed measures to ban or discourage the use of natural gas in new homes and in buildings. this is two years after berkley, one of the most liberal portions of the country, passed the first such prohibition in the united states. and as you can imagine, when these things are coming out of

california, a state with the highest electricity costs in the country, a state with ongoing blackouts because of their lack of energy effectiveness and efficiency and all of the mandates related to energy and sky high prices, the efforts have sparked a backlash -- no surprise -- prompting some states to make gas bans illegal. so i'm coming to the floor with this amendment to point out that as we're working on bipartisan legislation and there is money in the bill for building codes, that no money can be used to prohibit natural gas hookups to homes, commercial construction, residential new construction because consumers have to have a say in this. it shouldn't be government saying we know better than you do. we'll spend your money. we'll make decisions about how you get to spend your

hard-earned money. and as coming from the state of wyoming where a significant production of natural gas, affordable, reliable, available, people want to use it. they want to use it because they know the value to them and their families and their way of life. they don't want washington coming in and saying no, you can't do it because we know better than you do. and i hear a lot about that at home in wyoming. people saying to washington, you don't know better than we do. we don't need you telling us. the bill doesn't say they have -- is going to tell them we just want to make sure that by adopting this amendment building codes do not bar the use of natural gas hookups to your home. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. without objection. mrs. shaheen: madam president, i rise to urge my colleagues to vote against this barrasso amendment because there is nothing in the underlying provision that would in any way promote prohibiting natural gas. and that's what senator barrasso is suggesting is in the bill. now, if it were such as senator barrasso says, i don't think we

would have received strong letters of support for this specific provision from both the national association of homebuilders and the american gas association. i have the letters right here, and i would actually like to read from the homebuilders letter. the homebuilders supports section 5101, which was the original section in the energy bill, as it passed the committee. cost-effective codes effectiveness and resiliency. this is the important point. this section promotes technical assistance and funding for coded option while maintain ago the flexibility for state and local governments to deliver safe energy-efficient and affordable housing. why do we want to get in the way of what states and communities are already doing? i'd like to ask that both of these letters be entered into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you.

as many of my colleagues know, it is unprecedented to get the american gas association, the national association of homebuilders, and the energy efficiency advocates all in agreement, and that is the result of the extensive negotiations that went into this section of the bill that senator barrasso would overturn. now, energy chairman manchin wasn't able to get here to speak to this provision and this amendment, but he opposes it, and if he were here, he would say, let's not mess with a good thing. this provision doesn't ban -- it doesn't mean touch natural gas. so i strongly support the bill as written and urge my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. madam president, can i ask that the vote that's scheduled begin

immediately? the presiding officer: is there 0,? seeing none, without objection. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to barrasso amendment number 2180. mr. barrasso: i yield back. i yield back all time. the presiding officer: the question is on the amendment. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a sufficient second. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: