our appreciation of all they do to keep us safe. i urge my colleagues to join not only in supporting the unanimous passage of this bill, but also to be quick in talking about our deep appreciation for those who served in such a special way as we try to do our work here every day. i yield back. >> mr. president? >> senator from minnesota. >> thank you to senator blunt. i ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking, housing, and -- the senate is about to gavel in after taking a recess for party lunches. they will continue working on amendments to the 1.2 trillion dollars infrastructure bill. votes on amendments are expected this afternoon. now live to the senate floor, on c-span 2.

>> ms. anderson start us a off

by explaining what your group. >> good morning. thanks for having me today first off. it is always good to be back on the program. this is the grassroots and political arm to the heritage foundation. heritage foundation obviously produces incredible timeless conservative research that has guided much of the discussion in washington over the last 40 years and heritage action was founded about ten years ago as a way to hold members of congress accountable to those policy positions, but then also to galvanize grassroots support across the country for these policies that we were advocating for here in washington. >> the executive director of that group heritage action for america, heritage action.com. do you endorse candidates as we talk about election 2022 and 2024? >> we don't endorse candidates. we find ourself in the

endorsement of policies long before we get to the election cycle so voters know exactly where those candidates are coming down on issues like the economy, taxes, life issues, infrastructure, spending, everything that you would come to consider as you make that choice for your candidate. our job is to get that information to voters early and often to make informed decisions. >> do you engage in lob being? -- lobbying? >> we do. we have engaged lobbyists on our team that are registered and work both with the federal level, and we expanded our lobbying footprint to include states, some states across the country as well. >> do you run campaign ads? >> we run issue advocacy ads. there's a slight difference in the ads we run on television or the internet through digital advocacy are focused on that policy issue. we will do things like thank your member of congress, thank your lawmaker for voting this or that way or here is this policy and how it will impact you.

we ran over 2 million dollars on the georgia election integrity bill, talking about what the bill does and doesn't. we ran that television ad in the state of georgia and nationwide >> 2 million dollars ad. what's your budget for election 2022? >> we're looking at it for a cycle, so for this year and next year, we have a 24 million dollars goal to raise for anything that's related to the election. so it's a two-year goal, and obviously we're well into that this year so far. >> how do you raise that money? >> so heritage action is supported by a huge plethora of donors, both small dollar and high dollar across the country, so we raise it by doing events, engaging with our donor base, getting out of d.c., talking to average americans, every day americans across the country and asking for their support for these issues. >> jessica anderson, the executive director of heritage action for america with us until 9:15 a.m. eastern. phone numbers, republican

202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents 202-748-8002. explain what a heritage action score card is as they are calling in. >> a heritage action score card is our way to grade members of congress based on their voting record. we do something called the key vote alert, comes out well before a vote is to take place in the house or the senate. it articulates and frankly it defines what the conservative position is on that up coming vote. we back it up with research. we back it up with policy analysis, data, economics, anything that is needed to make an informed decision going into the vote, and then we grade it. did they vote yes? did they vote no? in an effort of transparency, that's available to voters across the country. >> the associated press story coming from the action on the senate floor yesterday, senate opens debate on that 1 trillion

dollars bipartisan infrastructure bill. is that going to be a bill that you are going to be scoring members on? >> yes. the infrastructure package will be included in the heritage action score card on the senate side, and should it have its day on the house, it will likely be included as well. when you look at the infrastructure package that's being debated, we have a lot of concerns with it because of just how little it's actually going towards roads and bridges. less than 15% of the entire -- the entire piece of legislation is going to what you and i would probably consider traditional infrastructure. instead it's packed with bloated earmarks for different pet projects across the country, amtrak, electric vehicle subsidies. if we're going to have an infrastructure package, let's make it focused on potholes, roads, and bridges and the needs that we have in this country as opposed to this bloated spending that unfortunately we have seen come out from congress really just this last week >> what are all the other key votes that you've scored members

on this cycle? >> so our score card has looked at everything from tax and spending bills to cultural issues, and so we looked at the cares act. we looked at the ppp, which was the loans process through the beginning of covid. we've looked at other spending packages, as well as life issues, but if you look at what's coming up this fall, with all of the different budget spending reconciliation, i think you are going to see a lot more things pop up on the score card because these votes are so -- going to be so heavily contested. i mean, if you take the infrastructure package, for instance, schumer has said point-blank that this package is directly tied to the democrats' larger goal of the reconciliation package. he said the two are one. not only are we opposed to the infrastructure package on the policy, but also the process of what it sets up and how it will allow that pathway for the larger democrat progressive goals that they have for this

congress, everything from the green new deal to medicare for all, all packed into this reconciliation package, and then of course amnesty which will i think given the crisis at the border will end up driving a lot of the news cycle the next two weeks. look for that on the score card as well. >> callers already for you this morning. amy is up first out of huntington, pennsylvania, independent, good morning. >> caller: hi, jessica, how are you? >> good morning, amy. >> caller: i just want to say thank you. i'm actually one of your small dollar donors. >> oh. >> caller: if it were not for your -- the heritage action for america, i wouldn't know the truth. >> thank you, amy. >> caller: i just -- i wish more people that are listening would actually check you out because you can turn on fox news and get one side. you can turn on cnn and not get anything. turn on msnbc and get something totally different. but if you come to your page, you get it in black and white. i just want to thank you.

>> caller: well, i really appreciate that, amy. i appreciate you being the first caller today. that seldom happens. i appreciate everything that you just said. i would encourage everyone that's listening to check us out. heritage action.com, if you are interested in our economic work, you can check out save our paychecks.com. there's a lot of information to give voters across the country the most transparency to what's going on in washington so they can make informed decisions going forward, for their family, business and schools, all of that. thanks for that encouragement. >> host: you say heritage action talks to average every day americans, please define what you at heritage calls average every day americans. that's on twitter. >> caller: someone like me. i'm a mom, two children, college educated. i want to try to understand exactly what's going on in washington, and sometimes when you read the 5:00 p.m. news or you get caught up in an article on-line, it is tough to mr. sanders: are we in a quorum

call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. sanders: mr. president, as a former mayor, i have a sense as to how important physical infrastructure, roads, bridges, water systems, wastewater plants are, and i'm delighted that we are finally beginning to address our long-neglected physical infrastructure. that is enormously important. but i will tell you what is even more important, and that is to address the human infrastructure, the needs of the working class of this country, the middle class of this country, the low-income people of our country, whether they are black or white or latino, native american, asian american, needs that have been neglected for decades. it is no secret that the

american people, that for a very long time, the united states congress has paid keen attention to the needs of the people on top, and yet we have turned our backs on millions of people who are struggling to put food on the table, to take care of their kids, to take care of their parents, and on top of that, obviously we have ignored the great existential crisis of our time, and that is climate change. and the result of all of that is that today the gap between the very, very rich and everybody else is wider than it has been in 100 years. today you have two people, two people who have more wealth than the bottom 40%. and for many of our billionaire friends, apparently they are increasingly unconcerned about

what happens here on earth because they're off in outer space. but some of us who go home every weekend to our states and our districts, we kind of are worried about what's going on down on earth and the needs of working families. mr. president, as you know, as soon as we address this bipartisan physical infrastructure bill, we are going to move toward what i consider to be one of the most consequential pieces of legislation for working families since f.d.r., the new deal, and the great depression. and we are going there and addressing the needs of working families because we understand that real wages for workers have

not gone up in 50 years. an explosion of technology, explosion of worker productivity, and yet in real inflation counted dollar for dollars, real workers today are not making a nickel more than they did 50 years ago. we're going forward on the reconciliation bill to address the needs of the working class because in the richest country in the history of the world, it is unacceptable that half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck. they go to work, and at the end of the week they got nothing in the bank, and maybe they're even further behind because they can't afford their health care needs, the rent, and the educational costs of their children. we are going to go forward and pass this legislation because the time is long overdue for the

united states congress to begin to make sure the american people understand that our job is not just to represent the corporate elites and wealthy campaign contributors, but to address the needs of the struggling men and women of our country. and on top of all that, it would be incomprehensible to the people of our country who turn on the tv, they see the west coast burning, they see the drought in the midwest, they see the floods all over europe, australia on fire, it would be incomprehensible and a real crime against future generations if we did not finally address in a significant way the existential threat not only to our country but to the world in

terms of climate. i wanted to talk a little bit about some of the work that the budget committee has done and what is going to be in that reconciliation package, because my friends here in the media are very concerned about process, which is fine. but the american people want to know, hey, what is the congress going to do for me? what is it going to do to improve my life, my children's life, my parents' life? what are we going to do to save the planet? for a start, we understand that it is absolutely imperative to end the obscenity of some of the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations in a given year not paying a nickel in federal income taxes. so what we have seen in the pandemic, what we have seen in recent years, very, very

wealthiest people becoming phenomenally richer, and then there are studies coming out that show in a given year some of the very wealthiest people in this country, multimultibillionaires are not paying a nickel in federal income tax. and at a time when corporate profits are soaring, we are seeing many major corporations making billions a year, also not paying a nickel in federal income tax. and we are also seeing the pharmaceutical industry, which is enormously profitable, which charges our people the highest prices in the world for the prescription drugs we desperately need, we are seeing a situation where they can charge us anything they want because of the power of their lobbyists and their campaign contributions. and we're going to put an end to

that as well because we are going to demand that medicare start negotiating prescription drug costs with the pharmaceutical industry. so my republican colleagues say, well, they are going to be raising taxes. yeah, we are going to be raising taxes on billionaires and on large profitable corporations and demand that the pharmaceutical industry stops ripping us off, and we are adhering to president biden's belief, which i share, that nobody earning less than $400,000 a year should pay a nickel more in taxes. we're going to do exactly what the american people want us to do and tell the billionaire class that they are going to have to start paying their fair share of taxes. what else are we going to do? what are we going to use that

money for? we're going to use that money to start protecting the needs of our children, working families, the elderly. i think many americans now see what public policy can mean in their lives because we are providing a $300 a month check per child. the united states has the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth. that is a disgrace that it should be unacceptable to every member of the senate. we're going to end that. and i'm very proud to say, mr. president, as i know you know, that as a result of the one year child tax credit extension, $300 per child, we have reduced childhood poverty in america by 61%. parents all over, in vermont, california now have the ability to start taking care of their

children. and our job in reconciliation is either to make that $300 a month permanent, which i would like to see, or at the very least extend it for a number of years. furthermore, in the united states of america, every person in this chamber should be disgusted by the dysfunctionality of our child care system. this is 1950. mom is going out to work, dad is going out to work, and they demand quality, affordable child care which does not exist today. so what we say and what our goal is is that no working family in this country should be paying more than 7% of their income for child care and on top of that, we're going to make pre-k

education for 3-year-old and 4-year-olds free. yes, that's right. we're going to do what other industrialized countries do and understand that the most important investment we can make is in the little children. and by the way, when we do that, we're going to allow well over a million women to go back to work because they no longer have to stay home because of lack of affordable child care. mr. president, it is a bit embarrassing that our great country is the only major country on earth not to guarantee paid family and medical leave. imagine that. every other country in the world virtually does that, and in america i have met with women, low-income women, give birth and then they've got to go back to work in a week or two because they don't have the money to

stay home. well, we're going to end that. and we are going to have, as a nation, guaranteed paid family and medical leave. we are going to address the reality that many of our younger people are unable to obtain the good-paying jobs that are out there because they lack the higher education. now, i myself, will go further than this bill is going to go. i think time is long overdue to make public colleges and universities tuition free. it's not in this bill. what is in this bill is at the very least every american will have the right to get two years of community college and they can use that to get the training they need, to get the good jobs, maybe it's nursing, maybe it's something else, but they will also get the credits they will

need to transfer to a four-year school. so making a big step forward in getting young people the ability to get the training they need, the education they need to obtain the good-paying jobs that are out there. mr. president, i know that you are aware that right here in this community, right here on capitol hill, washington, d.c., you've got people sleeping out on the streets. and they are sleeping out on the streets in every state in this country. in fact we are have over 600,000 people sleeping out on the streets in the wealthiest country in the history of the world. this legislation will create millions of jobs in housing and in other areas because we are going to build below -- low-income -- the low-income and affordable housing that we need. it's not only homelessness, we have 18 million households

spending 50% of their limited incomes on expensive housing. we need to build low-income and affordable housing and when we do that, we are going to create a heck of a lot of good-paying jobs. just today i spoke to a gentleman whose wife is very, very ill and is having a hard time affording the home health care that he is paying for. we are an aging society and whether people have severe disabilities or whether they are just getting old, people would rather stay at home in many cases rather than be forced into nursing homes. and what our legislation will do is significantly improve home health care in this country and make sure that those people provide that important service, difficult service, are adequately compensated.

mr. president, i know that many of my republican colleagues don't believe that climate change is real, don't believe that we should do anything about it, but they are dead wrong. and we cannot go home and look our children and grandchildren in the eye knowing what we know, knowing that in many ways the climate crisis turns out to be worse than what scientists predicted it would be. climate ordinarily changes over thousands of years, hundreds of years. we are seeing the change in climate with our own eyes year by year. it is frightening, and if people think that the forest fires in oregon, california, montana, elsewhere, are an aberration, they are once in a lifetime, you're wrong. everything being equal, we will see worse in years to come. the truth is what makes this

crisis so difficult, we can't solve it alone. we're going to have to work with china and india and europe. we're going to have to bring the world together to save this planet for our kids and future generations, and this legislation takes a -- an important step forward. it doesn't go as far as it should, but it is a major step forward in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. now, i know we will be hearing from my republican colleagues who are very upset that this will be a partisan bill, which it will be. let me remind them that they use the so-called reconciliation process recently in two areas. two areas. number one, they thought it important to go forward in a partisan way, without democratic support, the enormously

important goal of getting massive -- giving massive tax breaks to billionaires and large corporations. that's how they used the reconciliation process. well, we've got a little different idea. we're going to use the reconciliation process and the 50 votes we have and the vice president to help the working class in this country, not the billionaire class. and the other effort they made in terms of reconciliation was to try -- and they came within one vote of doing it, the late john mccain -- they would have thrown up to 30 million americans off of health care by ending the affordable care act. so they have used reconciliation and we will use it except we're going to use it to protect ordinary americans, the children, the elderly, the sick, and the poor rather than just the very wealthy or the pharmaceutical industry. so, mr. president, we are now in

the midst of a debate over the physical infrastructure, the bipartisan bill, very important. we need to rebuild our roads and bridges, but more important is the need to address the crises facing working families all over this country. and when we go forward and do that, when we protect our children and the elderly and the environment, we're going to create millions of good-paying jobs put people to work, rebuilding this country in a way that is long, long overdue. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor today to talk about where our country is in the fight against coronavirus. the simple message on coronavirus is this, vaccines

work. the single most important thing you want to do to protect yourself and to protect your family is to get vaccinated. that is the only message we ought to be sending out. i'm a doctor, i've been vaccinated, my wife has been vaccinated, our kids have been vaccinated. there is overwhelming evidence that vaccines are highly effective against serious illness. yet, we are talking about this issue today because of the chaos and confusion that has come about due to what messaging coming out of the white house and the centers for disease control. that's why with limited floor time during this important debate on spending, i come to the floor today to discuss this specific issue. president biden and the c.d.c., you know, ought to be found guilty for medical malpractice for the comments they've been making. back in may, the c.d.c. said and the president repeated at the white house, that if you've been vaccinated, if you have been fully vaccinated, you don't need to wear a mask either indoors or

outdoors. now they are saying even if you've been fully vaccinated, you need to wear a mask again indoors. i -- you know, at a time when we're trying to encourage people to get vaccinated, i ask how is this going to help someone who hasn't been vaccinated, encourage them to get vaccinated if you tell them, even if you're getting vaccinated, you still have to wear a mask? this policy, this flip-flopping policy is why i think americans are very worried and concerned and somewhat concerned about the actions of this administration. they are wondering what comes next, flip-flop on masks. is this administration going to flip-flop on lockdowns, on shutdowns, on closing schools? you say, no, no, no don't worry about that. mr. president, let me tell you this past weekend, randy wine garden is the head of the

american federation of teachers, she refused to commit to in-school learning this fall, this coming school year. the president of the biggest teachers union refused to commit to incoming teaching this fall. everyone seems to be angry with the directiveness. parents are angry. kids have lost too much. now nancy pelosi is requiring fully vaccinated members of the house of representatives to wear masks or they will be charged a fine. she's even threatened, threatened to tell the capitol police to arrest staff members fully vaccinated staff members who aren't wearing masks. these are people who have been vaccinated. at the same time the biden administration has thrown our southern border wide open. 180,000 illegal immigrants a month with almost every disease

known to man. we're talking people undocumented and unvaccinated. when i went to the border earlier this spring, our border agents told me they had arrested people from 50 different countries. of course these people are all coming from places where vaccination rates are much lower than they are in our country. since the start of the pandemic, more than 8,000 border patrol officers have tested positive for coronavirus. 32 of these agents have died. when i visited the border roughly one in ten accompanied children in custody had tested positive. and they were intermingled with others who had tested positive and those not tested positive. they're all crammed in like sardines and the testing occurred only when they were getting ready to ready to be released and sent all around america spreading coronavirus wherever they went. it's interesting to listening democrats in the national media and on the hill who want to blame republicans for any

vaccine mess attention that's out there. let me set that record straight on that, madam president. republican elected officials have gone out of our way to encourage vaccinations. it is the responsible thing to do. i have traveled for one vaccination site to another all around the state of wyoming, made public service announcements with other doctors, doctors who are members of the doctors caucus in the congress, in the house and the senate. maybe public service announcements. put them out on videos and sent them around the country. the truth is that there are a large number of democrats who are still unvaccinated. 40%, 40% as of today of new york city public school employees have not been vaccinated. and it's ready for the school year to start and yet we don't have a commitment from the head of the teachers union to have in-person learning this year. 40% of the public hospital workers in new york city are unvaccinated. 41% of chicago residents are not vaccinated. you take a look stiff by city,

democrat-run cities, high percentage of people not vaccinated and yet president biden and the senate majority leader continue to point fingers. it does seem to me that democrats have utterly failed to communicate a clear message to get the american people vaccinated. in fact, i think democrat politicians have been a big part of the problem from the beginning. early on while the vaccine was currently being developed, people were hoping for a vaccine. we saw the vice presidential debate. 57 million people watching and at the time vice presidential candidate, at the time senator harris now vice president harris said she would not get a vaccine developed under the trump administration. she said if donald trump tells us we should take it, i'm not getting to take it. before democrats point the finger at republicans, they should get their own cities vaccinated.

mr. president, there's much more to talk about. there are many mistakes made by this administration, the democrats over the last six months. it's no coincidence that over the last three months we've seen a historic drop in national optimism. a majority of the country says america is now on the wrong track. just one in three americans are satisfied with the way things are going in this country. fully only one in five americans have switched from optimistic about our future to pessimistic about our future in just three months. fully one in five americans flipped on their thoughts of the direction of the country. and it's easy to see why. they see inflation eating away at their paychecks. they see democrats piling up debt on our kids and grandkids. they see their taxes are about to go up again. they see an open southern border. they see rise in crime in democrat cities. and, madam president, independent voters are running away from democrats as fast as they can.

it's time for democrats to get the message. we want to get the virus behind us. the answer is not open borders. the answer is not more flip-flops and it's not more mandates on the american people. time for the democrats to stop pointing fingers. the school year returns in just a matter of weeks. every school in america must be open. it's time for democrats to follow the science. no more flip-flops, no more mandates, no more lockdowns, no more excuses. madam president, i ask that the following be placed separately in the record. and i want to address a separate topic and i come to the floor at this point, madam president -- the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i come to the floor at this point to oppose the nomination of david chipman as director of the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. david chipman is an antigun

extremist who would politicize one of the world's greatest agencies, the a.t.f. if confirmed he would be the most radically antigun director in the a.t.f. history. david chipman's views are completely out of touch with those of the american people. he opposed the supreme court case that struck down washington, d.c.'s ban on handguns, the heller case. he was party to a legal brief in the case which said the second amendment he said only protects militias. he supports bringing back the 1994 assault weapons ban which president biden often brags that he wrote. congress let that ban expire because there was never any proof that it brought down crime. during the hearing with the judiciary committee, senator cotton specifically asked mr. chipman to define what an assault weapon is. mr. chipman said an assault weapon would be whatever congress defines it as. senator cotton went on to ask mr. chipman for his own

definition of an assault weapon. he said any semiautomatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine above a22. well, as senator cotton rightly pointed out, this would ban most sporting rifles in america. if david chipman made other -- made our gun laws, most sporting rifles would be banned. states could ban handguns. private gun sales would be illegal. these views are completely out of touch with the views of more than a hundred million americans who are law-abiding gun owners. worst of all, david chipman does not have the character and integrate to lead the a.t.f. he's repeatedly mocked gun owners and impugned people's motives for owning a gun. david chipman said gun ownership is a way you can get patriotic without having to serve in the military. he said i compare gun ownership to the same reason americans might want a muscle car. that's not why people buy guns. the american people buy guns to

protect themselves, to keep their families safe. the american people are buying guns by the millions right now because they're afraid of democrats' gun control policies and they're afraid of crime in democrat cities. last year democrats cut $1 billion in police funding across america. and as a result we saw the largest increase in murder in 60 years. in response the american people bought more than 20 million guns, including eight million guns by first-time gun owners, first-time gun owners. because they realize they weren't able to be protected when those are trying to defund the police. gun ownership is still going up because democrats are still defunding police and democrats -- democrat cities are in chaos. we don't need an a.t.f. director who mocks nearly half of the country. recently we found out another serious concern about mr. chipman's character. according to media reports,

multiple a.t.f. agents say david chipman was accused of making racist comments about african americans. i won't repeat them here. the comments are of great concern. according to the report the racist comments were reported to the equal employment opportunity commission and a complaint was filed against him. republicans on the senate judiciary committee have called for another hearing in light of this new information that has come out. i commend my colleagues for their due diligence. i don't think another hearing is necessary. what is necessary is for president biden to withdraw this nomination. plenty of qualified democrats out there who could be nominated to do this job. the men and women of the a.t.f. deserve a leader with integrity and with respect for the second amendment to our constitution. more than a hundred million legal gun owners in this country deserve it, too. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

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

quorum call:

mr. carper: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: i also ask

unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up to the substitute and be reported by number. one is duckworth 2140, two, cruz-warnock, 2300. further, i ask unanimous consent that at 3:45 p.m., the senate vote in relation to the amendments with no amendments in order to it the amendments prior to a vote in relation to the amendments. with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption and two minutes of debate equally divided prior to the votes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, the clerk will report the amendments by number. the clerk: the senator from delaware, mr. carper, for ms. duckworth and others, proposes an amendment number 2140 to amendment 2137. the senator from delaware, mr. carper, for mr. cruz and others, proposes an amendment numbered 2300 to amendment

number 2137. mr. carper: unless someone else wishes to speak at this time, i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. toomey: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: madam president, i rise in opposition to the duckworth -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. toomey: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. toomey: thank you, madam president. so i rise in opposition to the duckworth amendment 2140. first of all, i think there's very broad support in this chamber -- and i certainly support the idea that local transit agency meet a.d.a. standards wherever it is possible to do so. of course, transit agencies got

a truly massive, staggering amount of money, over about a 12-month period ending in march. so much so that cumulatively they're sitting on something close to $40 billion that they just weren't even able to spend. but despite all that, we dramatically increased the annual run rate of the federal government's contribution to transit agencies, and then on top of that, the bipartisan negotiators agreed to a big one-time plus-up, above and beyond all the money that was sent to these transit agencies over the last year. in the course of these discussions included for transit agencies was a nearly $2 billion funding request to the senator from illinois, the junior senator from illinois, specifically for a.d.a. upgrades at big-city transit systems. to python, it is the first time

that -- to my knowledge, it is the first time that the federal government has given substance sums of money for the purpose of improving upgrading big-city transit systems, in part perhaps, of course, transit systems have their own sources of money, their own states that can provide them. but, anyway, that was -- this agreement was struck. now, in the course of working out the terms and details and negotiating over the language which would accompany this unprecedented funding for a.d.a. upgrades, you know, they were in negotiations. that's the nature of this process. so we asked for certain changes in the language that was initially proposed. some of those requests were requested, some were adopted, and that's how we got to a deal. and one of the changes that was adopted was an agreement that this amendment, this planning

mandate/requirement that is contemplated in the amendment from the senator from illinois, that plan would be dropped. if we were to go ahead and now adopt this amendment, it would completely violate the deal that was struck. now, let me just briefly explain why we requested that that language be dropped. the amendment stipulates, among other things, that as a condition of receiving this nearly $2 billion that this agreement offers to transit agencies for this specific purpose, as a condition, it said a transit agency must commit to a new federal race, age, and income equity mandate. this is a quote. i quote, equity of service to all riders taking into account historical and current service gaps, end quote. madam president, this is politically correct virtue signaling. this is people claiming that

tran silt agencies are somehow racist and that we've -- transit agencies are somehow racist and that we've got to -- i don't know -- we've got to make sure is that escalators are not racist. it doesn't take a very fertile imagination to think about how this language could be used to host new requirements on agencies. you could have bureaucracies micromanaging who knows what -- root -- route planning, fares. out of some presumed systemic racism in transit agencies. if we adopted this, then decisions by transit agencies that should be guided by cost and ridership issues would be being influenced by wokism. now, i think the people who run transit agencies are good and decent people who care about their communities. they're trying to do the best they can. they've now got staggering amounts of money with which to do it. but they don't need to be second-guessed by social engineers who are insisting that

their agency is rife with racism. so i urge a no vote and i want to stress the no vote on this amendment doesn't reduce spending for a.d.a. compliance by a dime. that's not what this is about. this is about avoiding a woke planning mandate. thank you. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the duckworth amendment 2140. ms. duckworth: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. ms. duckworth: i have an amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the amendment is pending. ms. duckworth: last week our nation marked the 31st anniversary of the americans with disability act. more than three decades passed since president bush signed the a.d.a. into law. this past week was a time for celebration and reflection on the progress we've made over the last 30 years. yet when it comes to the a.d.a.'s guarantee of equal access to public transportation

for people with disabilities, many transit and commuter rail systems continue to fall short. this amendment is not racist. this amendment does not call any particular agency racist. in fact, what this amendment does, the substitute amendment includes $1.75 billion to expedite accessibility upgrades and existing legacy rail fixed guideway public transportation systems. my amendment simply ensures that recipients of these critical federal resources fully consider the goals and requirements of the a.d.a. and develop a plan to maximize accessibility across their systems. this is common sense and good government. it ensures accountability that taxpayer dollars are used to fulfill promises made decades ago and are used wisely with maximum effectiveness. 30 years after we committed --. the presiding officer: sorry, the senator's time has expired. ms. duckworth: i'd like to ask the rest of my remarks be included. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania.

mr. toomey: can i be recognized for two minutes in option? the presiding officer: the senator has one minute. mr. toomey: i want to stress to my colleagues here -- not prevent one dime from going to transit agencies for the purpose of upgrading their stations to comply with the a.d.a. all it does is prevent a mandate for a woke planning provision that was dropped in the negotiations on this bill. so i urge a no vote. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute in support of the duckworth amendment if i could. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: madam president, i rise in support of senator duckworth's amendment. this amendment will ensure recipients funding to make systems more accessible have a plan, a place to comply with the americans with disability act. individuals with disabilities

rely on public transit to get where they need to go, whether that's to go to work or to go to school or to simply go about their daily lives. it's past time to upgrade all of our transit stations to provide access to everyone who needs a ride. i support this amendment by senator duckworth, urge all of our colleagues to join me in voting yes. thanks very much. i yield back. the presiding officer: the question is on amendment 2140. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote: the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 48, the nays are 50. the previous in order requiring 50 votes for it the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is not agreed to. under the previous order, there will now be two minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to the cruz-warnock amendment, number 2300. the senate will come to order. mr. cruz: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cruz: mr. president, i want to thank my colleague from georgia, senator warnock, for leading this amendment with me. the amendment is simple and

straightforward. designating interstate 14 across texas, mississippi, alabama, and georgia. the amendment does not have any cost associated with t it is 9 first step in the process of upgrading this system of roads to aid freight -- the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. cruz: it is the first step to upgrade the system of roads to connect strategic military installations across our state. in texas our part of i want-14 will be expanded to the west so that it will serving st. angelo, good fellow air force base and the permian basin. it will connect at midland-odessa which goes westward and leads to el paso and fort bliss. this will complete the linkage between six military facilities across three states, which is critical for economic development and national security. i'd like to add, this amendment has the support of the

department of transportations in texas, in louisiana, in mississippi, in alabama, and in a georgia, as well as untold numbers of local leaders and coalitions of businesses and local governments. so again i want to thank my senator -- my colleague, senator warnock, for leading this bipartisan amendment with me. mr. warnock: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. warnock: i am grateful for the opportunity to partner with bligh colleague from texas -- with my colleague from texas on this infrastructure development, and i ask for the support of all of my colleagues. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: i'd leak -- i'd like to address the senate for a minute on this amendment. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mrs. capito: thank you. thank you, mr. president. i rise in support of this bipartisan amendment and the spirit in which it has been offered. the amendment will designate five different states as the

future interstate 14 corridor. the sponsor state that it would be integral for economic development support and support tourism and also provide an important link to our military facilities. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on the cruz-warnock amendment. mr. carper: can i have the attention of our colleagues? in addition to the points made by the sponsors of this legislation, by the ranking member of the committee, anytime ted cruz and reverend warnock -- i'll ask unanimous consent to address out of order. anytime these two members get together and offer legislation, how can any of us say no? maybe we can get a voice vote, i don't know. we'll see. thanks very much. congratulations.

i ask for a voice vote. is is there objection? does the gentleman from texas mind getting a voice vote? mr. cruz: fine, if it's fine procedurally. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 60-vote hurdle. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: there we go. with that in mind -- the presiding officer: the question is now on amendment 2300. all those in favor, say aye. those opposed, say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. carper: mr. president, i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. cornyn: i'd ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. and i'd ask for order. the presiding officer: without objection. senate will come to order. senators will take their conversations off the senate floor. mr. cornyn: thank you, mr. president. as we all know by now, a bipartisan group of senators worked with the white house over the last several weeks to negotiate a $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill and i know a lot of hard work went into it, a lot of late nights, and i want

to thank all of our colleagues that have made a positive contribution in this debate and discussion. and it's particularly important at this time, i believe, that we do these things on a bipartisan basis, if we can. after much anticipation, we finally received the text sunday night, and a lot of what we expected to see, we saw, like funding for roads, bridges, ports, waterways, and broadband. but what we didn't see was adequate pay-fors for the bill. for example, we learned after the bill was announced that at that would be essentially supplemental to the current infrastructure bill, which would require another $118 billion in general revenue to fill the gap left because of the inadequacy trust fund funding. we had to use general revenue

the last time we did a highway bill but that hasn't been part of the discussion, and i think once people begin to see an additional $118 billion in borrowed money in order to pass this bill, it causes significant concerns. and i guess the other part of it is is that this bill seems to be moving at warp speed. under minority minority norm --l circumstances, it would go under a long and arduous committee process. the committee has passed a highway reauthorization twice unanimously, once under democrat leadership and once under republican leader. that's a positive sign. but this is really a huge amalgam of legislation that frankly only about 20% of the senate is intimately familiar with. both sides would normally offer

amendments before we get to this process. but now we know that has not happened. frankly, i think that's unfortunate because i think our committees are not operating the way they should, which in turn i think helps us produce a better, more thoughtful product. we simply skipped the normal steps that would allow members to raise concerns about the bill long before we got here and offer changes to improve it. so as i've said before -- and i know others have said as well -- i hope the majority leader will offer ample time and opportunities for members on both sides of the aisle to debate and amend this legislation. a robust amendment process is essential. the presiding officer: the senator will suspend. the senate will come to order. members and staff, take your conversations off the senate floor. the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: over the last few day, i've been working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to identify new pay-fors that could be adopted as

amendments. we've come up with some, i think, promising ideas, and i hope these amendments can receive a vote on the senate floor this week. for example, i've worked with senator padilla, the senator from california, to offer one bipartisan amendment to fund infrastructure projects in community cross the country -- across the country without increasing the debt. our amendment would simply give the state and local governments the flexibility to use unspent covid-19 funding on infrastructure projects. it would eliminate the sunset on the use of those funds and it would take the guardrails off that say you can only use that money for covid-19 because, to be honest, mr. president, the states and counties and cities have more money than they know how to -- what -- how -- what to do with it. at least constructively. and i think we all would have an interest in making sure that that money is spent well on long-term projects. what i just said is not

necessarily a criticism of the bills that we passed together on a bipartisan basis. we were in the midst of a pandemic, and we were all operating in an emergency situation, trying to do the best we could. but we didn't know how long this virus would last, how long it would take to get a vaccine, how long the negative impact on our economy would last. and so frankly we overshot the mark, i think, in some aspects of the bill, thus leading to the surplus in funds at many of our state and local governments. right now there are limits on how that money can be spent. qualifying expenses include things that are directly related to the pandemic like covid-19 testing sites, vaccine, p.s.a.'s and additional bed space in hospitals. but this funding can't currently be used for expenses unrelated to the pandemic or items that were previously included in a budget. they must be new

pandemic-related expenses. as i said, in theory at the time we did this, it made a lot of sense. after all, this funding was meant to bolster the fight against covid-19 in communities across our country. not every community and not every state has the need for these projects. in many places the most urgent needs aren't related to the pandemic but rather to failing infrastructure. the pandemic interrupted infrastructure improvements across the country and forced many officials to put these projects on the back burner. repairs, maintenance and construction projects were put on hold until there was enough funding to get things back on track. i've heard from state and local leaders in my state who are frustrated by the lack of flexibility, by the handcuffs, frankly, on their use of the federal funding they've already received. they want the option, not the mandate -- they want the option to use this money where and when it's needed most but right now,

like i said, their hands are tied. many state localities have relief funds on their hand but no necessary qualifying expenses. they have to look at this big balance in their accounts knowing they won't be able to spend it on the greatest needs in their communities. they're frustrated because i've heard from them. that's especially the place in rural america in places where covid-19 numbers are low. leaders don't have the need or the opportunity to spend this money within the timeline for the purposes that congress has dictated. they don't need the full range of pandemic-related resources that might be necessary in other high-density urban areas with higher case counts. for the amendment senator padilla and i have offered would give leaders in rural and urban areas alike the option to spend the funding on necessary infrastructure projects. this does not touch the negotiation between the white house and the so-called g-20, the bipartisan groups of

senators who have come up with the substitute bill which is the base bill that we are now debating. this would be in addition to, and frankly this would be the most efficient way to fund many infrastructure projects in our states and communities because, as we know, once congress appropriates money, frequently it takes years before that money makes its way to the need. well, this could mean widening a highway, making safety improvements on a bridge, expanding broadband access. urban areas could even use these funds for public transit improvement systems. state and local leaders know the needs of their communities best, and they should have the flexibility to spend this money where it's needed most. the key here is flexibility, and here's the other benefit. it doesn't cost another dime. this is money that we've already spent and already sent to the states, so this scores as a big zero.

how many times do we have the opportunity here to do something big and important that doesn't run up the debt or deficit or cost us a lot more money? so the key here is flexibility. our amendment doesn't place a requirement or mandate on state and local governments to spend this funding on anything. anyplace that has a new covid expense to cover can and should use this funding for that purpose, no questions asked. this simply gives leaders at the local and state level the opportunity to spend those funds on projects that otherwise might go unfunded or might not be funded for years to come. i still remember president obama at one point, after the great recession in 2008 and the recovery, when he talked about, when he talked about shovel-ready projects. he said, well, i guess shovel ready doesn't really mean shovel ready. and the truth is we've seen it time and time again. congress appropriates money to

state and local governments and it literally takes years before the money gets to the intended target. this short circuits that project because the states and local government already have that money, and they can spend it for this purpose if we will pass this amendment. i'm not alone in thinking this is a good idea. back in march nearly three dozen organizations wrote a letter to secretary yellen urging her to make transportation infrastructure at an eligible expense. they talked about the impact of covid-19 on transportation revenues and noted that last year 18 states and 24 localities announced delays or cancellation of transportation improvement projects totaling more than $12 billion. these same three dozen organizations noted that the pandemic has impacted every state and community differently. thus, the key -- flexibility. they said flexibility will be

critical to ensuring funds are used expeditiously and with maximum impact, and that's really what we're talking about here. president biden's own secretary transportation suggested as much. in testimony before congress secretary buttigieg said the american rescue plan has some flexibility in it that he thinks can be used to support road budgets that have been impacted. states and cities shouldn't just be able to spend this money. they should be able to invest it in projects and resources that our communities need the most. this is simply a commonsense change both sides should be able to get behind. it ensures money that has already gone out the door will be used before it expires. it puts decision making at the local level. it gives leaders more flexibility to decide how to use this federal funding on their most urgent needs. and it does so, as i said, without increasing the national deficit at all. this amendment has earned the

support of a broad range of organizations across the country, and i'm proud to have worked with senator padilla to craft this amendment in a way that both sides can get behind it. in the coming days i hope this will be one of many amendments that will receive a vote on the senate floor perhaps as early as today. we have to ensure that infrastructure investments are made fairly and paid for reasonably, and a robust amendment process is the only way to get there. mr. president, i would just add in closing, some of my colleagues have said that they support this amendment, but they would be inclined to vote against it because they feel like this somehow violates the agreement that the bipartisan negotiating group had with the white house. but as i described it, it doesn't touch -- it does not touch that underlying substitute bill. what it does is it unleashes these funds in states like connecticut, michigan, west

virginia, texas, and lets our state and local leaders figure out if they can't use these funds if they don't need these funds for covid-19, how they can use them in a way that will have the biggest, most significant economic impact on the infrastructure in their states. so i hope my colleagues who somehow believe that they have sworn a blood oath with the white house not to support any amendments that change the underlying substitute, i don't know what, why we're voting on amendments unless it's to change the underlying substitute, because that's our constitutional function. it is somehow a parallel universe in which the white house, a different branch of government, is telling the senate what amendments we can and cannot pass. as we all know, that's not the way the constitution is written. the constitution says it's our prerogative as senators representing our states to vote on policies that we think are

best for our states and for the country. and, yes, the president has an important role but his role is to veto it if he doesn't like it. not rewrite it, not to tell us what amendments we can vote on or not vote on. that's a perversion of the constitutional system. and i think for matters of institutional integrity and pride, senators would be very jealous about guarding their authorities under the constitution rather than delegating these to the administration. i expect this is going to be a long road. we've already heard speaker pelosi say she's not going to pass this bill once the senate passes it, until she has a chance to pass the $3.5 trillion-plus reconciliation bill at the same time. this is going to be a very bumpy process, but the idea that we cut off access that our states and local governments have to

billions of dollars of unused funds to do in their discretion what they think needs to be dont rather a permission to do so, to turn down this opportunity to get this money where it's needed most in these big-impact infrastructure projects makes no sense to me. so i would encourage all of our colleagues to support this amendment. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i rise to speak about the bill in front of us. for a long time the people in michigan have been waiting. foreyears they have been told told -- for years they have been told it's infrastructure week. unfortunately, for all the talk, michigan's infrastructure remains weak and this lack of investment has real cost for our businesses and our communities and our families. i'm thinking of the single mom who drives to work every day and can't afford to keep making car repairs caused by massive

potholes, an everyday occurrence. i'm thinking of the small business whose deliveries keep being delayed because of the weight limits on a nearby bridge. i'm thinking of the farmer who wants to harness the power of precision agriculture to improve his bottom line. unfortunately he can't because his internet is too slow. and i'm thinking of that farmer's children who need the internet to keep up with their school work but struggle to find a good connection. i'm thinking of all the folks who would love to choose electric the next time they buy a car but worry about finding a charging station. and i'm thinking of the kids in flint and families across the country who should never have to worry that the water coming out of their kitchen sink is unsafe after traveling through lead pipes or becoming contaminated by pfas.

all of these folks are desperate for some investment in that infrastructure. and now, 1,656 days after president trump was sworn in and promised swift action to rebuild our infrastructure, president joe biden, working with a hardworking group of democrats and republican members in the senate, is leading us to get this done. my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and their hardworking staff members deserve to take a bow. this legislation is chock-full of bipartisan wins that will strengthen our country, from seattle to saginaw to sarasota and communities of every size in between. this legislation isn't just going to finally fix our cracking roads and crumbling bridges and spotty internet. it's going to create good jobs,

tackle the climate crisis, help us remain competitive with other countries around the world who aren't sitting around waiting for us to catch up. as a michigan driver, one of the parts i'm most excited about is the money to fix our roads and bridges. hey, governor whitmer, now you can get some help to fix those roads. and because we're the great lakes state, transportation in michigan doesn't just mean trucks and trains and cars. this bill includes $11.7 billion to modernize infrastructure such as the aging sue locks, so critical to our economy, to the country and for the great lakes region. and it includes $1 billion for the great lakes restoration initiative to clean up contamination, restore wetlands, and fight invasive species. i want to thank my partner as

cochair of the great lakes caucus, senator portman, for working on this. that's the single largest investment ever made in the great lakes initiative. this will make a big dent in resolving areas of concern like the detroit river and the rouge river, which were polluted decades ago. while we're on the subject of water, it is way past time for michigan families and families across the country to feel confident that the water coming from their taps is safe to drink. and this bill takes critical steps toward achieving just that. it includes $15 billion to replace lead pipes and another $10 billion to tackle the pfas contamination that plagues our communities all over michigan. as well as the country. healthy families and a healthy economy also require high-speed

internet. we're in 2021. the past 18 months proved that as our whole lives moved online. we saw all of the gaps in high-speed internet services across the country. so i'm very pleased this bill includes $65 billion to ensure folks can get connected no matter where they live. this bill also takes action to change the trajectory of the climate crisis and invest in more resilient infrastructure. it invests in charging infrastructure so that folks that have been anything about buying that new f-150 lightning, mr. president, or a chevy volt or jeep wrangler can make the leap with confidence.

we can't wait any longer because china isn't waiting. and because this legislation also includes my make it in america act that i introduced with senator braun, the american taxpayer dollars will be -- we'll be investing will go to american manufacturers and american workers. it adds new guardrails so that federal agencies can't buy products made in mumbai instead of michigan. it also calls on products purchased by federal agencies to be incorporating more domestic contact. it makes the made in america director and made in america office a permanent part of the office of management and budget that will ensure that american workers an american jobs receive preference regardless of who sits in the oval office. this legislation doesn't just

benefit big companies, it also calls for agencies to use the manufacturing extension partnership, which is extremely effective in michigan and across the country. that means small-and-medium sized manufacturers will have more opportunities to sell their products to the federal government and provide materials for federally funded infrastructure projects, including all those roads and bridges we'll be rebuilding. i also said of the farm bill that it has michigan on every page. i've got to say this bill comes pretty darn close. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation, to invest in america, and to finely get infrastructure week translated into action. i yield the floor, mr. president.

mr. menendez: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i'm proud to come to the floor today to ask for unanimous consent on this bipartisan resolution expressing solidarity with the people of cuba. this resolution passed out of the foreign relations committee by a voice vote with overwhelming bipartisan support. i want to thank the senior senator from florida for his partnership on this resolution which has support of senators

durbin, kaine, senator risch, the ranking member on the foreign relations committee, as well as many others on both sides of the aisle. in passing this resolution today, the u.s. senate can send a powerful message about the truly historic events occurring in cuba in recent weeks. on july 11, in an unprecedented wave of demonstrations across the island, the cuban people peacefully took to the streets and raised their voices to call for freedom and an end to tyranny. we saw the courage of the cuban people, images of cubans chanting, down with the dictatorship and singing fatherland and life spread around the globe. yet the diaz canal responded with violent repression out of fear of losing its iron grip over the cuban people.

they stopped the cuban people from stopping access to the internet, a tool they were bravely using to open the eyes of the world. who does that? only a country that fears its people shuts down the internet. but it was too late. the truth went viral. the regime has arrested more than 700 people and most remain out of communication, dozens more are being subjected to summary trials without access to legal defense or even a have a near of rights, the u.n. high commissioner for human rights have spoken out against the cuban regime's campaign of oppression. president biden denounced the regime's act and asked for global magnitsky sanctions, he has brought together allies of cuban freedom. on friday the president convened

a meeting of cuban american leaders to discuss this crisis and spoke to us. last week secretary of state blinken led a coalition of 20 countries in a joint statement to express international solidarity with the cuban people and their right for freedom of expression and while important steps are being taken, more needs to be done. the cuban people in this unprecedented hour of uncertainty and need can expect nothing less than our support. with this resolution, the senate will reinforce solidarity with the cuban people and their efforts to restore democracy and human rights. the same resolution that is also being offered in the house of representatives in the same bipartisan basis. therefore, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 111, s. res.

310, further, that the committee-reported substitute amendment to the resolution be agreed to, the reftion, as a -- resolution, as amended be agreed to, program be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from florida. mr. scott: i rise today in solidarity with the cuban people. the cuban people have suffered oppression from the castro regime. aye repeatedly told the story of a cuban woman attacked by communist cuban security forces in 2014, they cut off her hand and stuck her arm in the mud to make sure it got infected. her crime, she said the regime was going to close down a school in her neighborhood. they are fighting every day for

human rights and freedom. daniel fera is being detained by the communist regime. activists like him are the future of cuba, not the ruthless communist regime. this is the same communist regime that has been the root of the instability we see across latin america. the communist cuban regime threatens the region and the national security of the united states. what we see now in cuba should send a clear message to the world, communism is the fail ideology that only leads to oppression. communism doesn't work, socialism doesn't work. the people of cuba are denouncing the oppressive communist rule. this disgusting assault on the people of cuba cannot go unchecked. i appreciate my colleague's

effort. these atrocities are linked to communism. i offer a friendly amendment that simply condemns communism in this resolution. labeling the dictators what they are, a ruthless communist regime. in america we understand the value and importance of freedom. it is our duty to stand up for those oppressed by dictators. it is our duty to speak the truth about communism. i stand proudly with the heroic freedom fighters who are determined to put an end to the castro dictatorship. to the people of cuba, you are not alone. together we will defeat communism. we are not going to stop until we see a new day of freedom in cuba. i urge my colleagues to support my important amendment today. therefore i ask that the senator

modify his request to include my amendment which is at the desk so the resolution as amended be agreed to, preamble, as amended, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: does the senator so modify his request? mr. menendez: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i totally agree that the castro regime and its prodigy is a communist, socialist dictatorship, a tyranny. before the senator was ever in this institution or involved with the issue for 30 years i've been saying exactly that. the senator, however, knows that in order to accept an amendment to a resolution that has been hotlined in both caucuses, this process could not move forward. i could not simply accept the amendment. i would have to go through the whole process. and the fact of the matter is i

think there is a fierce urgency of now. this resolution already has the approval of 99 senators and if the senator were to insist on his amendment, the junior senator from florida would be the only one standing in its way. this bipartisan resolution is cosponsored by 19 senators. the initiative is led by senator rubio, the senior senator from florida, the ranking member of the senate subcommittee on western hemisphere affairs. it's sponsored by senator risch, the ranking member of the full foreign relations committee. it's supported by senator cruz and remove any and -- romney and hagerty, and with the strong republican backing, the foreign relations committee passed this resolution last wednesday on a voice vote with overwhelming bipartisan support. now, intervening we've had this infrastructure bill and so we're here trying to get in finally

done. we have an opportunity to act today and send a powerful bipartisan message in support of the cuban people and condemning the regime's brutal repression. now, i personally agree with the sentiment of the junior senator from florida, but that reality is the reality that has existed. we're talking about the reality today of trying to send a bipartisan, bicameral message. this resolution already condemns its present cuban dictator by name for his direct role in ordering a violent crackdown against the cuban people. it also documents the mass wave of arrests in cuba, it denounces in plain language the regime's brutal violence, its use of summary trial to -- those who

have no being access to a lawye. i have opposed cuba's communist dictatorship for 30 years in the congress, including my role in helping to create the human democracy act. no one in congress has a longer or more unwavering track record than i do when it comes to condemning the regime. but this resolution is a strong rebuke of the regime's recent actions and it also achieves the bipartisan opportunity we need for senate approval. there comes a time when we have to put actions over words. today the senate has a chance to act. we should not delay another hour in passing this resolution and because that's exactly what would happen, i have to object to the senator's amendment. the presiding officer: objection is heard to the modification. is there objection to the original request? mr. scott: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida.

mr. scott: reserving the right to object. let me just read this. i'm saying that this condemns the communist party of cuba for decades of oppression, the destruction of the cuban embassy and destructive spread of communism in the western hemisphere. i wish my friend from new jersey would accept this, i would consent to allow this amendment to move forward and i will always stand against the brutal communist regime which continues to oppress them. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: briefly, mr. president, i want to appreciate that the senator from florida, while i share his sentiments, did not press forward on insisting the amendment which would have delayed this and most importantly i think the cuban people will be the ones that will thank you as well.

thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i have 12 requestings for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. durbin: mr. president, i want to start by wishing our friend and colleague, senator lindsey graham, a speedy recovery. yesterday senator graham shared that he had tested positive for covid-19. we're all relieved to hear his symptoms are mild and we look forward to seeing him back in the chamber once he recovers. i hope everyone at home follows

his example by getting vaccinated. in senator graham's worded, without vaccination i am certain i would not feel as well as i do now. the dealt at that variant is no -- the delta variant is no joke. covid-19 and hospitalizations are surging across america and they're surge the most in those parts of the country where large numbers of people are unvaccinate. over 90% of the most recent infections, hospitalizations and disedges are among people who were not -- deaths are among people who were not vaccinated. the good news is vaccinations are starting to trend upward. thanks to the leadership of the president and the urging of many health professionals, as of yesterday it's been reported that 70% of adults have received at least one dose of covid-19 vaccine. that's an important milestone. our nation is slowly -- slowly -- headed in the right direction, but we need to pick

up the pace. more than 80% of the population needs to get vaccinated before we can start anticipating herd immunity, experts say. so please listen to my friend, senator graham's advice, get vaccinated. it will save your life as well as the lives of those you love. mr. president, on another matter, yesterday we received word that a fourth police officer who responded to the january 6 insurrection here in the capitol has died by suicide. officer gunther hashida was a member of the d.c. metropolitan police department, and he was a hero. i also want to note that hours after officer hashida's death was announced, the metropolitan police department confirmed that another officer, kyl fretag, died by suicide last month. as we all witnessed last week, many of the capitol and metropolitan police officers who

defended us -- defended us -- and the capitol on january 6 are still grappling with the physical and emotional trauma of the day. -- we have to do everything we can to support them, from providing access to mental and emotional support to ensuring that everyone who bears responsibility for the january 6 insurrection is held accountable. it's my understanding that 600 people have already been charged with wrongdoing for what occurred on that day, and many more will be charged. the supplemental funding package the senate passed this last week was a good starting point. to deny what january 6 was about is literally adding insult to injury for those officers, brave officers, who defended us. they deserve better. they deserve justice. and we deserve the truth. to the friends and families of officers hashida and frytag, we are so sorry for your loss.

we grieve with you. we will honor their memory. to all of the other police officers and national guard members who defended the capitol on january 6, despite what you hear from some of the politicians in congress, we thank you and we appreciate your valor and your sacrifice. earlier this morning, senators klobuchar and blunt introduced a bipartisan resolution to award these heroes the congressional gold medal. i'm proud to support that effort. mr. president, on one more topic, forever chemicals. it's a phrase that sounds ambiguous and ominous. some of these pollutants, known as pfas chemicals, are used in cleaning supplies, stain-resistant clothing, cosmetic, polishes, waxes and the kind of foam that firefighters use to fight fires. although they have practical applications, these forever chemicals present a major problem -- they don't go away.

they don't break down. once they're introduced into the environment, they stick around forever. and a growing body of research suggests that forever chemicals are linked to a whole host of human health complications -- cancer, kidney disease, liver damage, birth defects. sadly, it's estimated that most people already have trace amounts of these chemicals in their bodies. but imagine if you or your children are forced to ingest these toxic forever chemicals multiple times a day every day. that's the dangerous relate at this time for many american families. i'm sorry to report that they include thousands of families in my home state of illinois. on friday, the "chicago sun-times" published a story on the presence of these chemicals in water systems in the chicago area. lake forest, waukegan, south

elgin. water system managers have found enough evidence of the chemicals that the illinois e.p.a. is calling for further testing. that is just in the preliminary stage. as i mentioned, these contaminants are impressively imperishable and they're being found everywhere. as an example, a few years ago, a dairy farmer in maine discovered one of these forever chemicals had seeped into his farmland through a fertilizer that he had a he used. -- that if he'd use. he only -- that he'd used. he only found out us that -- he only found out because the chemicals were showing up in the milk of his cows. he lost his savings. if these contaminants are too danger us a for a dairy farm, too dangerous for cows, they're certainly too dangerous for our kids. we must protect our communities and families from forever chemicals immediately.

unfortunately, eliminating this public health threat is proving challenging. for one, in illinois it is not clear where they came from. according to the "sun times" article, "among the water as many as' managers contacted by the newspaper, none of them could identify the culprit causing the contamination. the environmental working group has identified more than 1,700 potential sources in my state, from soothe treatment facilities to landfills. the culprit could be anyone or a combination. for now there is no definitive answer. in other words, the analogy is an arsonist still running through the forest, and the only signs are the trees he leaves burning. the other difficulty in meeting this public health threat is it costs money. as we all learned from flint, michigan, repairing and replacing an entire city's drinking water system is no small task. municipal officials throughout my state are still waiting on

state officials for guidance as well as funding to remove these forever chemicals from their water system. when it comes to protecting our children's health and well-being, solutions cannot wait and states like illinois cannot address this threat on their own. pending before the united states senate at this moment is the bipartisan infrastructure deal. this deal is good for us, good for america, and starts to address this problem. this historic bipartisan plan will make our nation's largest ever investment in clean water. that investment includes $10 billion for addressing the forever chemical challenge and other emerging contaminants from drinking water and wastewater systems throughout america. that's a big deal. it's estimated that more than 200 million americans, nearly two-thirds of this country's population, could be drinking forever chemicals in their tap water. but the bipartisan

infrastructure deal, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are coming together as we should to help ensure every family in america has access to clean and safe drinking water. because the infrastructure package will also invest billions of dollars to replace dangerous, decaying lead service lines throughout the country, it's a game changer. a game changer for the city of chicago, i'm proud to represent my home state of illinois. you see, there's no acceptable level for lead consumption. none, zero. much like forever chemicals, lead service lines that hook up the water main in the street to your home, business, school, day care center, these lead service lines can cause lasting harm to the growing bodies and minds of our kids. and as lawmakers, we have an obligation to correct the mistakes made by previous generations of americans. i understand until about 35, 40 years ago lead service lines were mandated in construction in

illinois, in my state, in some areas. we made a mistake. now we know it. what are we going to do about it? this bill addresses it. and i want to thank my colleague, senator that -- tammy duckworth. when it comes to water infrastructure, she ising leading the pack in the united states senate. she really cares about this, as a senator for sure, but equally important as a mom with two lovely little girls. we can establish a new healthier foundation for future generations if we pull together. that's exactly what this bill will do. marshaling the resources of our federal government so that all of america's kids can grow up and lead healthy, productive lives, that's what bipartisanship is all about, and i look forward to my colleagues voting in favor of this bill in the next few days. mr. president, i yield the floor. i can you -- i suggest the absea

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

quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: the provisions of section 803 -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent the quorum call be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: the provisions of section 80603 for the infrastructure investment and jobs act included in this amendment requires clarity reporting requirements to improve tax administration and tax compliance with respect to trading and digital assets. senator sinema has joined me in asking the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation to make available to the public a technical explanation of section 80603, information reporting for brokers and digital assets -- of the infrastructure investment and jobs act. the technical explanation expresses these senators' understanding and legislative intent behind this important legislation. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the technical explanation of section 80603 from the joint committee on taxation of the infrastructure investment and jobs act be inserted into the record. the presiding officer: without objection.