quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from north dakota is recognized. a senator: thank you, mr. president, for the time. mr. cramer: i wanted to come down -- the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. cramer: i would ask unanimous consent -- the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cramer: thank you. sorry about that. i wanted to get down here and spend a few minutes continuing the conversation about this infrastructure package that's before us and that we'll be voting on soon or at least the next step. i think to start things off, i first of all want to express my great disappointment that we have squandered not minutes, not hours but now several days. several days we've been

negotiating evidently, quote, an amendments package. i'm in my third year here and i still don't understand the way the senate could not do things as opposed to do them. and i get that every senator has these incredible powers and authorities and can obstruct whatever they want. and i honor that. when the time is right, maybe i'll do the same. i don't know. but i do think it's unfortunate that we have this what's really a pretty good bill to start with but now that we've opened it up for the last week or so to the opportunity for the rest of our members who weren't on the committees of jurisdiction that heard a lot of this, that are seeing a lot of this for the first time several days ago to now improve upon it. i say improve because i'm familiar with a number of the amendments and they're really good amendments, and they should be passed. some aren't as good. i would vote against them. maybe we'd kill most of them. the point isn't whether we pass

them or kill them, the point is we should be voting on them. we should be voting. and i know there are hundreds of them and that can take a long time and absent an agreement, we don't have the time. either way we ought to be voting on it. we ought to be taking time to vote on amendments. so i'm disappointed we aren't. i still -- i'm still hopeful in the waning hours maybe we can get a couple of them. i just find it frustrating that we're not -- we're sitting here speaking instead of voting. that said, i want to again express appreciation to the leadership of the bipartisan group. senator portman, senator sinema have done incredible work proving that the senate can work. building on the framework that was passed by the environment and public works committee and the commerce committee and some of the work that's being done by other committees, building on that framework, adding some more

infrastructure to the now robust infrastructure package, high priorities for republicans, high reports for -- high priorities for democrats and in many ways priorities for both. that's the way a 50-50 senate is expected to work and i think does work. i think one of the most things that's heartening to me that i've seen so far is not even so much of the work that's been done but the work that's been acknowledged. i mean, when i look at the list of organizations that support this, it's a list -- i don't know -- 140, 150 organizations long. what i like about it is the diversity of the list. i see that, for example, that the business round table supports it. those are the biggest companies in america. the u.s. chamber of commerce, they represent a wide range of businesses. but so does my local convenient store and the paving company. so does the afl-cio. so does the small business round

table. i love the fact that the farmers union and the farm bureau support this infrastructure package. that tells you a little something about how compromise and common ground is found, not just by senators. we're a reflection of the people that we work for. i love looking at the list of agriculture entities besides the farmers union and the farm bureau but the modty -- commodity groups, just about every one is represented in north dakota. the beekeepers support this as do, like i said, pretty much area other commodity group. i think one of the other things that encourages me as somebody who believes strongly in federalism, as somebody who believes strongly in self-governance as a reflection in washington of the people back home is the fact that -- that the state legislatures support this. that's where the rubber meets

the road in many cases. if that's not close enough to home, how about the association of counties supports this legislation. now, those are the guys that really know about roads and bridges. they're the ones that are hearing from the constituents on a regular basis. and when they aren't hearing about it from them, they're driving them themselves. and they know where the potholes are. they know where the crumbling bridges are. they know where the roads need repair or where a new road might be built. if that's not close enough to home, how about the league of cities. our mayors in our big cities and small towns support this legislation. that tells you they're the ones that have their ear to the ground. and of course our governors. the national association of governors supports this. my point being this isn't something that came from on high. this is not some sort of an ivory tower contrived in the dome -- under the dome of the united states capitol. these are senators, leaders who are a reflection of the people back home, the folks back home,

small business, large business, medium size business, local government, county government, state government. even the association of agriculture -- state agriculture department supports it. our agriculture commissioners support it. why would an agriculture commissioner care about infrastructure? why would a commodity group care about infrastructure? i think it's pretty obvious. infrastructure is what moves our products to market. oh, by the way, in case you wonder if broadband is infrastructure -- i know there are some people saying that's not infrastructure. that's not, quote, hard infrastructure. you can't do a transaction today without broadband. even if you -- if you order a load of soybeans or you sell a load of soybeans, it's going to take the -- the broad bansdz enter -- broadband internet connection to do the transaction at some point. you might make a deal over the phone and somebody send you a check. i don't know.

but your local elevator needs high-speed internet. and on and on it goes. i always like to use the illustration of food. because i think food which we grow a lot of in north dakota -- and by the way, if we had to eat it all, it would be impossible. if we had to just use it all in the united states of america it would be impossible. we grow food for the world, for the world. hungry people all over the world need what's grown in places like north dakota and ohio and other parts of our great country. you know, we talk a lot about soybeans. remember in the last couple of years we've heard a lot about the importance of soybeans and getting soybeans to market, getting them to the pacific northwest. well, guess how that happens? the way it happens is the farmer combines the soybeans after they've, of course, planted and nourished and then harvested the soybeans. and they get them to an elevator, a grain elevator. it takes a truck to do that.

by the way, the trucks that go out in the field now, these aren't little pickup trucks. these aren't even big grain trucks. these are big, big semitrailer trucks. and they need good roads and bridges. and they get that -- they get those beans to the elevator and the elevator markets them or in some cases they put them in their own bins, wait for the price to go up, protect them. but at some point they get on a train and they go to a place like seattle or some place in the pacific northwest. and then they get on a ship from there. you can't get on a ship unless you have a railroad track that gets you to the port. oh, and then you need the port. you need an adequate waterway. and then those soybeans go some place else in the world to feed hungry people. my favorite illustration, of course, is the pasta. the reason i like to brag about pasta is not because there are a lot of italian foods and italian restaurants in north dakota but we are the number one producer

of d durham wheat. it's produced in massive fields in north dakota. a little in montana and some in canada. but that duram wheat, again the farmer takes it off the field, takes it off the truck to the grain elevator but from there it has to go to a mill where it's milled into sell lina -- semolina flour. and it's sent somewhere where it's then made into pasta of all types. but the 750,000 people in north dakota can't eat all the pasta that's made in the united states of america. so pasta has got to get to other places. in some cases it's manhattan, los angeles, or it might be some country overseas. once again pasta is lightweight. that can even go by air. oh, that brings in the airports which by the way bring a lot of the tourism traffic to and from our great nation. the point is the reason there

are some 150 to 200 organizations large and small, medium size, the reason that the overwhelming people in the united states of america support -- support this infrastructure package is because they know of the importance of it. the other thing that i love about infrastructure is that it push pes against inflation. mr. president, we're expensing real inflation in this country, and some call it transitory, which i guess is a cooler word for temporary. inflation is already temporary. hopefully it's already temporary. the question isn't whether it's transitory, temporary, or permanent. the question is, when's it over? when's it going to be over? well, one of the challenges -- and, by the way, rightfully so, i mean we spend -- we spent a lot of money last year to keep our economy afloat. not so much to keep the economy

afloat as much as to keep people afloat. we didn't know how long businesses would be shut down. we didn't know how long the global businesses would be shut down and global markets would be inaccessible. so to keep people whole, we borrowed a lot of money. we printed a lot of money. our federal reserve, you know, provided allow the of liquidity into the marketplace. that's all contributing to the demand side of our economy, the demand side. well, when you have a lot of liquidity, a lot of cash -- again, call it stimulus, call it safety net, whether it's paycheck protection program for small businesses or the direct payments to families or, you know, forgiveness of loans or the moratorium on evictions for landlords and renters, whatever you a want to call it it's a lot of money.

and it's money on the demand side of our economy. the problem with that, of course, is there's not a supply to support that demand. when you can't shop, that's a problem. when the supply chain of manufactured goods is broken or you can't get lumber from a neighboring state or from canada, that's a supply problem. but infrastructure, see, spends the money on the supply side of the economy. it pushes back against inflation by doing that. how does it do that? it does it by all the ways i talked about, obviously, opening up the supply chain. guess what? infrastructure is -- that's the means of the supply in the chain. that's how you get inputs. it's how you get finished products back out to the market, is on this infrastructure a --

is on this infrastructure. so it helps the supply side for sure. but it also puts people to work in a big way. obviously if you're moving commerce to market, that's people. that's people working. whether it's working on the train or on the railroad, whether it's working on the building of bridges or road oz, or stringing the fiber optics, hooking them up to homes and businesses and institutions, or whether it's driving the trucks or working at the factory, you're helping the supply side. and at the end of it it you have an asset. the great thing about a five-year spending package like this, a five-year authorization package, is you're building an asset that's going to last well beyond the five years. now, when you just give cash as a stimulus, it may last a day,

it may last six months, and maybe it gets saved for a couple years. but we're talking about a transportation infrastructure that lasts decades, decades. that's why the penn-wharton study shows that it actual hadly pays for itself, even if you didn't have any pay-fors -- and we'll talk about that in a little bit -- over the course of time, economy actually pays back the government for infrastructure. that's what pushes against inflation. that's what helps keep inflation down. that's what balances the demand with the supply. and so there's lots of good reasons for us to do this. i want to talk a little bit about the pay-fors because it's been so talked about, and i think in many cases grossly misrepresented. the pay-fors for the $550 billion new spending are real. i know that everybody waited with bated breath for the c.b.o. to prove us wrong and yet the c.b.o. proved exactly what we

thought it would prove. it proved that where they can score -- and, by the way, can i just say, these are word salads, words like score, pay-fors, you know, filibuster. these are word salads that if you stopped a hundred people in fargo, bismarck, they wouldn't even know. we'll talk about new spending pay-fors. the congressional budget office can score. they're confined to what they can score and some of it makes sense. they're accounting terms. they're government accounting terms and they make sense. they identify a whole bunch of legitimate pay-fors, or at least what they call scores. but they also recognize that there are a lot of things they can't score that tilely do pay for this in a -- that actually do pay for this infrastructure. for example, the $53 billion from certain states that would

come back as unused unemployment insurance benefits. that's real money. they can't, of course, score it, because it's already been appropriated. and there is in theory -- nowhere in reality -- there is in theory that somehow that $353 billion might not be spent by the government. theoretically it could, but, believe me, it's a pay-for. it's real money. so they don't call it a score. they call it an estimate. there's another estimate, $67 billion from proceeds from the sea bag spectrum auction. the reason they can't call it a pay-for, a can't score it, is because that $67 billion has already come income tax the auction was in february of this year. so it's already in. theoretically, it would maybe not be spent. therefore, it can't be, quote, scored. but it's going to be real money. it is real money that exists

that doesn't require taking it from anybody else. no tax increases, no new taxes. $67 billion. and that's called, quote, an estimate, not a score. there's an analysis -- i think a pretty conservative one, by the way -- of $353 billion of wealth. the penn-wharton study said it would pay for the entire government. but even the c.b.o. in their analysis concludes that $53 billion would come back. they can't score that. it's just an analysis. but it's real money and it's very conservative. now, i know there's a lot of political rhetoric that flies back-and-forth and these word salads that republicans like to use and word salads that democrats like to use to talk

about the same things, and we tend to talk to our people, if you will, to rationalize or convince or persuade. that's all good. that's all fine. but i know this much for sure -- i don't think there is a single american that thinks we ought to fall behind our adversaries any further. we are under real economic challenges, global economic challenges, by our adversaries, not the least of which of course is china. china is fast becoming the number-one economy in the world. they are by far the largest population other than probably the only thing close would be india. and yet china has made a strategic decision to overcome the united states as an economic powerhouse, along with, by the way, a very, very advanced and efficient military. they don't pay people to join the military. they just make them join the military. their money goes a long way and

whatever technology they can't discover or create, they steal. this is not a small threat. and one of the advantages they have is that they've been investing at a very fast and very aggressive rate in their infrastructure, all forms of infrastructure -- highways, bridges, roads, internet, water, ports, and by the way, they invest in a lot of other country's infrastructure to both win them over and then to use it as leverage against other countries. so, mr. president, there's lots of good reasons to support this bill, as we come -- as it comes time to, first of all, finalize, of course, the substitute, the amendment that makes up a the bill and then get on to final passage. i'm going to wrap up where i

started, that is to stress how disappointed i am that we haven't been voting on amendments. the best ones i know of were introduced by republicans and democrats together, equally. and we'd be wise to -- all of us -- to just agree. maybe it is not the top ten. maybe it is not the top 20 amendments. but even if it is the top four or five, you know, let's recognize that the bill can still be improved in these final hours and get some folks down here. let's get the hundred of us together and make some decisions together while the hours are still in front of us and improve this bill so we can get about the business of debating, getting us to final passage and sending it over to the house of representatives, where i would glory, plead with the speaker of the house to take it up, take it up, apart from this $3.5 to $4.5

trillion wish list of the democratic social i iists. take it up and debate it. then we'll get on to the next package. with that, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. cortez masto: mr. president, i rise today in support of the infrastructure investment jobs act that will make --

[inaudible]. with this legislation senators from both sides of the aisles were able to come together to negotiate policy that will prepare us for a sustainable future. it will create good-paying jobs. and is will strengthen the economy. this is an example of how congress can work to the benefit of all americans. in the infrastructure investment and jobs act, i worked to make sure that nevada and the western states have the tools that they need to address the drought and wildfires caused by the extreme weather that we are experiencing now. this package includes necessary legislation to fund large-scale water recycling projects that can clean millions of gallons of wastewater a day, to keep water in lake mead for the las vegas valley. this act also includes measures i wrote to help prevent wildfires and to fund state of

the art fire detection equipment. new technologies can keep us one step ahead of disastrous fires, and we need this kind of forward thinking to protect our communities. i also ensure this bill would support nevada's mining industry and create new union jobs. it -- that provides key components of cell phones and laptops, electric vehicles, solar panels and more. we should be processing the minerals we mine in nevada right here in the united states and this bill will help us do that in a responsible way while protecting the environment and our public lands. i'm so pleased that this bill will also make historic investments in our students. my bipartisan renew america's schools act will invest $100 million a year in

environmentally friendly school improvement projects. i work to include additional support for our students from funding for electric school buses to programs that keep kids safe when they walk, bike, or ride the bus to school. this legislation also includes $65 billion in funding to expand broadband access to americans across the country. and i helped draft additional bipartisan provisions to promote digital equity and to be sure that government is being transparent by how it is spending this funding. the infrastructure bill will secure improvements for our public transit systems and airports and allow us to produce more electric vex. it will bolster our economy and uplift working families. you know, i like to call nevada the innovation state. i know we have the creativity.

my state has small business owners and students all of whom are eager to play a part in a sustainable and prosperous future. this package will bring us closer to that goal. i look forward to the positive changes this legislation will bring my state, and, mr. president, that is why i am supporting it. thank you and i yield the floor. ms. cortez masto: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from national security council. ms. cortez masto: i notice the be absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from iowa is recognized. without objection. mr. grassley: i come to the floor to ask unanimous consent on two pieces of legislation.

the first is a bipartisan amendment that i have with senator klobuchar. it has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. it does not cost anything. it is noncontroversial, and i'm not aware of any opposition or controversy about it. i filed this amendment as soon as we were on the bill and have been asking for a vote ever since. i'm happy to accept a voice vote. i do not understand why that is not possible. this amendment is entitled assisting the broadband connectivity act that senator klobuchar and i introduced last month. this amendment will make changes to the rural broadband program at usda so that areas aren't automatically ineligible for federal funding because the project previously received state funding. in other words, if a project got state money, now they can't

qualify for federal money. this change will ease the administrative burden for those applying to provide broadband in rural america. however, this won't change the requirements for rural utility service when they administer these programs such as overbill and coordination with other broadband entities. this bill also provides more flexibility with funding and resources that allow states to use funds received from the federal government such as covid state funding to be used for matching funds, a provision that is required for most applications. this update will help rural america move forward by providing more coordination and funding availability for broadband projects. this is not unusual for the rural utility service. they currently allow cdbg and

state-revolving loan funds for water and waste water to be used for matching purposes. this amendment will help our states and providers connect all the pieces from both the state and federal level to help get some of these expensive and urgent rural broadband projects completed. this amendment has been cleared by the senate agriculture committee. there is no reason it should not get a vote. i'm not aware of any opposition, and i have some letters of support i want to put in the record. i ask u.c. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: the second amendment is also -- the second bill is also a bipartisan bill by grassley and leahy. my amendment provides antifraud

provisions to the infrastructure package. this amendment combines two of my bills, the false claims amendment act and the administrative false claims act. both of which are bipartisan and have garnered support from both the good government and inspector general communities. by the way, this amendment is scored by c.b.o. to bring in more than $100 million, and it seems to me that's a pretty significant amount of money, particularly when the infrastructure bill was scored by c.b.o. to add $256 billion to the debt. this amendment provides long-needed improvements to combat fraud perpetrated against the federal government. i'd like to thank my bipartisan group of friends that have

supported this bill and this amendment with their cosponsorship. now, just to make clear, the only business interests that have anything to worry about -- and i'm emphasizing this because since this amendment was offered, you would be surprised all the business interests that have come out in opposition to this provision. so the only thing these business interests have to have anything to worry about with this antifraud amendment are the same ones who are already found in a court of law to have defrauded the taxpayers. since i got the false claims act passed in 1986, it has brought in more than $65 billion of fraudulent taken tax dollars. at this time i'd ask -- i'd like to have letters of support to put in the record as well. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. grassley: so now, madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up to the substitute and reported by number -- grassley 2435 -- that's grassley-leahy, grassley 2500, grassley-klobuchar. so i want to emphasize both of these are bipartisan pieces of legislation. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. shelby: reserving the right to object. i'd ask now that the senator modify his request to include my amendment numbered 2535, and i will speak to that briefly. the underlying bill includes billions of dollars for all manner of infrastructure investments in the u.s. however, it fails to address

critical infrastructure needs to support our national defense. this amendment that i am bringing forth would rectify that. i believe that we cannot in america continue to spend hand over fist on domestic priorities. a lot of them are important -- without investing dime one in our national defense infrastructure. this would rectify that, and i would ask that it include my amendment in this. the presiding officer: is there an objection to the modification? the senator from iowa is recognized. ms. ernst: reserving the right to object, i would ask that the request be further modified to include my amendment numbered 2639, and my amendment is very simple. it requires a public price tag to be put on projects funded

with taxpayer dollars by the department of energy and the department of transportation. it allows taxpayers to see exactly how much -- how their dollars are being spent, whether it's on an airport, a bridge, or any other project. congress has renewed the provision referred to as the stevens amendment annually for more than 30 years for some federal agencies, including the departments of health and human services, education, and labor. it was most repeatedly approved by congress and signed into law as part of both the consolidated appropriations act of 2021 and the national defense authorization act of 2021. the infrastructure bill we are now considering will finance many projects across the country.

my amendment would provide some much-needed transparency for taxpayers by showing what projects are being funded with their tax dollars and the actual costs associated with them. in practice, my amendment requires nothing more than a single sentence disclosing the dollar amount paid by taxpayers and what that amount represents of the overall percentage of the project's budget. the only reason to oppose this commonsense transparency is if there is something to hide. i urge the consideration of my amendment and ask that my colleagues vote yes. and again, i ask that the request be further modified to include my amendment, ernst numbered 2639. the presiding officer: does the senator so modify his request? mr. grassley: i will accept that modification, but i want to

add -- in fact, i think every senator ought to get a vote. we have wasted all day thursday, saturday, and now through now sunday. that's enough time to vote on a multitude of amendments, and we just sat around those three days, accomplishing nothing. the presiding officer: is there an objection to the request as modified? ms. sinema: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona is recognized. ms. sinema: reserving the right to object. i first would like to associate myself with the comments just uttered by the senior senator from iowa. i think many of us are frustrated that we have been sitting around together for quite some time without moving forward. but as i remarked in earlier comments today, the united states senate is a body that requires the unanimous consent of every single senator, and each senator has the right to withhold his objection or consent to any process moving forward. over the last day and a half, we

have seen a lack of willingness to collaborate, to come together to find unanimous consent, to move forward on both the consideration of a number of amendments, including those offered today, and a time agreement. it's not because there weren't many people who were willing to do so. in fact, most of the members of this body were interested in finding such an agreement. but it is the right of each and every senator and the privilege of each and every senator to withhold that consent if he so chooses. and that is the situation we find ourselves in today. so, madam president, and others, i would recommend that just in one hour, we will see this postcloture time expire, and we will move forward under regular order to finish consideration of this broad bipartisan piece of legislation, and i do want to take a moment to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the 22 democrats and republicans who have worked together over the last several months with their colleagues on

both sides of the aisle to consider an historic 22 amendments to this legislation, to ensure that a broad and bipartisan discussion was held, and i look forward to a swift and positive resolution by passing this legislation. and with that, madam president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. wicker: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi is recognized. mr. wicker: madam president, i rise this afternoon to announce my support for this bipartisan infrastructure legislation. coming to this decision has not been easy or straightforward. as the minority leader said recently, quote, i am quite confident that out of 100 united states senators, there are 100 of us who believe this bill is imperfect.

madam president, i want to associate myself with that statement. the bill we are now debating is far from perfect. if i were the only one with a pen, i would have made many changes, but at the end of the day, i believe this magic will do a great service for the united states of america. and a great service senator my home state of mississippi. republicans and democrats agree that roads, bridges, broadband, ports, and rail are the building blocks of a healthy economy. this bill makes historic down payments on those core priorities. i'm fleeced this bill in-- i'm pleased that this bill incorporates all of the surface transportation investment act of 2021 which senator cantwell and i cosponsored and which passed out of the commerce committee by a vote of 25-3, with the support of 14 democrats and 11 republicans. the provisions of that bill ensure that mississippi will get

a fair shake in the competitive grant programs included in this bill, which total more than $20 billion. this bill has a number of other vitally important provisions that will benefit mississippi. it provides my state a lump sum of $3.3 billion for roads and highways, as well as $225 million to replace and repair bridges. we will also be able to compete for funding from another $12.5 billion in bridge grants. madam president, mississippi has nearly 6,000 miles of highway in poor condition, and over a thousand bridges are also in poor condition across our state. -- are up 5.6% over the last decade. according to the american society of civil engineers,

mississippi drivers, on average, are paying an extra $820 per year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs. no one disputes that my state and other states are in desperate need of significant new funding for roads and bridges. and this legislation does that. the historic investments in this bill mean that mississippians can have an easier time dropping off their children at school and shorter commutes to work. first responders will also be able to reach those in need much more quickly, potentially saving lives. separately, mississippi will receive $223 million for public transit, $283 million for water projects, and an estimated $100 million for airport upgrades and repairs. our ports and rail systems also stand to benefit. this bill authorizes $2.25

billion for u.s. ports, $5 billion for rail through the consolidated rail infrastructure and safety improvements -- or crisi program -- and more to provide safety features for grade crossingings, something desperately needed across this country. this bill will also clear away obstacles for major construction projects by streamline ago the federal permitting process. the army corps of engineers will get $ 9.5 billion, meaning mississippi will have new funding opportunities for flood control projects, which are badly needed. and high-need communities will be first in line for those projects, thanks to an amendment i sponsored with the senior senators from delaware and oklahoma. this should benefit urban areas like the pearl river basin as well as rural areas throughout

mississippi and throughout our nation, which have faced the constant threat of flooding for far too long. and another positive provision of this bill, the senate adopted my amendment authorizing the minority business development agency, mbda. for first time -- it had never been authorized, madam president. this will send new business resources to rural areas and a boost of support to historically black colleges and universities which are economic anchors in their communities. and i would add, the good news we got just last month. mississippi will soon be home to a new mbda center. madam president, i also want to mention rural broadband, which will see a tremendous boost because of this legislation. this bill lines up $65 billion to be spent on broadband

deployment, taking us one giant step towards closing the digital divide. based on the federal formula, mississippi will receive a minimum of $100 million from these funds. that's on top of the $495 million mississippi was recently awarded through the rural digital opportunity fund, or ardof auctions, and the relief funds that we are spending on broadband infrastructure in mississippi. no senator has been a stronger advocate than i have on broadband build-out. reliable high-speed broadband is critical to ensuring rural states are competitive for the next generation, and this bill will help us get there. it is no secret that i have registered my concerns about the way this bill waives some of the normal processes that make for good federal rule making.

as written, this bill makes it so that the ntia can choose not to receive public comment on its broadband build-out plans, and it short circuits the judicial review section of the administrative procedures act, giving stakeholders a much smaller voice in the overall build-out process. i hope the ntia will take care to avoid the wasteful and costly mistakes of the past and make sure these broadband dollars are spent efficiently, effectively, and with the benefit of stakeholder comment. madam president, i was pleased that my colleagues included language to prohibit the federal government from setting broadband rates. this would have been an unwelcome intrusion into the private market, and the inclusion of this clarifying

language was absolutely critical. the internet in this country has been able to meet the demands of the covid-19 pandemic in large part because of our light-touch regulatory framework, which has encouraged more broadband build-out. this stands in stark contrast to our european friends who suffered severe slowdowns because of their burdensome internet rules. one pivotal moment of this debate on this subject involved a colloquy that i shared last week with the senior senator from new hampshire, senator shaheen, the chief negotiator for this title. senator shaheen confirmed on the senate floor that preventing regulation of internet rates was the express intent of the language in the broadband title. without this specific language in the legislation and the

assurance made during that colloquy, i would not have been able to support this bill on final passage. now, some have expressed concern about the cost of this bill. offsets have been provided and the negotiators provided pay-fors for every expenditure. but admittedly, the congressional budget office did not agree with all the pay-fors. republicans for decades have advocated more use of dynamic scoring, and i wish c.b.o. had used dynamic scoring in this instance. it's -- it is unfortunate that the c.b.o. refuses to acknowledge that economic growth will result in higher revenues. it should be clear to us all that the investments in this legislation will generate a stronger economy and larger sums of revenue. experts have predicted these investments will make it less costly for business to operate and will lead to greater

productivity. for example, the widely used penn-wharton budget model has projected this bill will increase hourly wages by .1% and reduce government debt by .9%. you heard that right. the penn-wharton model says this bill will reduce government debt. a prediction not to be taken lightly. michael strain of the american enterprise institute, a respective conservative think tank, has said these investments in hard infrastructure will ease the pressure on inflation rather than contributing to inflation. in other words, this investment in infrastructure will result in tremendous economic growth, growth that some of our budgetary bean counters are not willing to account for. now, it is important to make this point emphatically.

this legislation involving hard infrastructure, which i support, stands in sharp contrast to the democrats' forthcoming bill which will certainly not gain even one republican vote and which the 50 democrats in the senate and a slim majority in the house hope to pass with only democrat votes. they say their bill will be infrastructure part the two, but a momentary glance at what they are proposing should dispel any notion that they are bill counts as real infrastructure. i will say it clearly and for the record -- my democratic colleagues are teeing up for next week a reckless tax-and-spending spree that our country does not need and cannot afford. the democrats' reckless budget bill will amount to a staggering $3.5 trillion. it threatens the successful trump tax cuts.

it includes crushing tax hikes on job creators, hundreds of billions in wasteful giveaways to green corporations, and a slew of spending that would heat up inflation, jeopardize our recovery, and drive our nation deeper into debt. the democrats are even considering an amnesty measure. in the midst of the worst border crisis in recent memory, without giving a thought to improving border security, which would count as real infrastructure a but that's next week's bill, not this one. this bill, the bipartisan bill that i'm supporting tonight, is the real infrastructure deal that america needs. as the senate moves forward with this important debate, and as i consider the infrastructure needs of my own state of mississippi, it is instructive for me to recall the history of infrastructure programs i've

personally seen at the state level. in 1968, my father was a first-term state senator from pontatawk county in mississippi. one of his major goals that year was the passage of a comprehensive four-lane highway program. that was 1968. the legislature met from january until september of that year, with vote after vote on the highway bill. before finally adjourning in frustration with the hope of trying again next year. sadly, the next year came and went, as did others. with no meaningful highway legislation. it was not until 1987, a full 19 years later when i myself was a candidate for the state senate, that a major four-lane highway bill was finally enacted. and only then by the tiniest of

margins in a vote to override a gubernatorial veto. if you ask almost anyone involved in economic development efforts during the decades that followed and even today, they will tell you that the 1987 four-lane highway bill was one of mississippi's most significant pieces of legislation for job creation. for this small-town boy from mississippi, this is just as pivotal a moment. for my state's economy, today is such a moment. when will it come again? maybe next year? maybe the next administration? maybe 19 years. can we afford to pass on this opportunity?

we cannot afford to pass this opportunity up. i will be voting yes on this legislation. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor.

mr. durbin: are we in a quorum call, mr. president? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. durbin: mr. president, sinc- the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: since the beginning of our history, united states marshals have protected our federal judicial process and defended the integrity of our constitution. today the marshall service oversees thousands of deputy marshals and investigators across america who guard federal officials and witnesses, track down fugitives, and transport

federal prisoners. they were an invaluable part of our law enforcement system. this afternoon, the senate has an opportunity to confirm proven, trusted law enforcement professional to lead the united states marshal service, ronald davis. in june, the judiciary committee approved mr. davis' nomination on a bipartisan basis. three republican members of the committee, including ranking member chuck grassley of iowa, joined every democrat to support his nomination as director of the marshall service. with mr. davis' experience in the military, the justice department, and as a police officer on the beat, he's an outstanding nominee. but despite his nonpartisan committee vote, his law enforcement experience, and the support he enjoys from almost every major law enforcement organization in america, some of my republican colleagues are blocking him from being

confirmed by unanimous consent. unanimous consent is the expedited process that the senate has used to confirm every other director of the marshal service for as long as this position has been subject to senate confirmation. we have always confirmed the marshal service director by unanimous consent because the position is so important and up until now has been considered to be above partisan politics. i hope my republican colleagues will reconsider their position. at a time when our federal judges and court officials face a growing number of threats, the marshall service needs mr. davis' experience and leadership now, and the american public deserves his steady hand at the helm. let me briefly speak to mr. davis' qualifications and the support he enjoys from law enforcement. after serving in the united states air force, mr. davis joined the oakland, california, police department, serving for 20 years in uniform, ultimately attaining the rank of captain.

he then went on to serve as chief of the east palo alto police department, implementing crucial initiatives that curbed gang violence. in no small part because of his work in east palo alto, mr. davis was tapped by president obama to serve as executive director of president obama's task force on 21st century policing. president obama also selected mr. davis to head the justice department's office of community-oriented policing services known as the cops office. as a cops office director, he disbursed hundreds of millions of dollars in grant money, enabling state and local police departments to retain and hire thousands of police officers. in other words, he was in charge of funding police across the united states. as a police officer with nearly three decades of experience and as the husband of a 31-year veteran in the police force who was the first black woman to serve as permanent police chief in california, mr. davis has a deep and abiding respect for the

men and women of law enforcement. understanding the risks that officers face every day, he said, quote, there is no greater or more noble profession than policing, and he has been emphatic that police officers deserve our highest praise for keeping neighborhoods safe, families secure, and dangerous criminals behind bars. mr. davis also has the backs of members of law enforcement. he earned their respect and trust. numerous law enforcement organizations are asking the senate to move and move quickly to confirm his nomination as director of the u.s. marshal service. listen to the group that has supported him of law enforcement professionals. the hispanic american police command officers association. the federal law enforcement officers association. the international association of chiefs of police. the national black police association. the national organization of black law enforcement executives. the police executive research forum. the major cities chiefs association.

the major county sheriffs of america. the national association of women law enforcement executives. the national sheriffs association. and yes, the fraternal order of police. notably, these organizations didn't just support him. they support his immediate confirmation and urge us to move quickly. consider this letter from the fraternal order of police sent on august 3, and it says at this time in our history, the u.s. marshal service needs the leadership and competence mr. davis can provide. no doubt he understands firsthand the issues facing women and men of law enforcement, and we believe president biden has made an excellent decision to have him lead the marshal service. i couldn't agree more. there is simply no basis for delaying this bipartisan choice out of the senate judiciary committee any moment further. if my republican colleagues really want to stand up for law and order and funding the police, they can start by

confirming a nominee who has devoted his entire career to doing just that. that nominee is donald davis. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the davis nomination, calendar number 174. that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate, that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: reserving the right to object, mr. president. i voted for mr. davis' nomination in the judiciary committee, and i support it, but i think the chairman of the judiciary committee, my friend from illinois, could help me try to resolve a problem that i have, primarily with the chief law enforcement officer of the

united states. that's the attorney general. the attorney general simply will not answer his mail. let me explain. back in march, i wrote a letter to the attorney general urging him to conduct an investigation of a chemical company named aventar and their role in the opioid epidemic that's sweeping america and the planet. in 2020, 93,000 americans died of drug overdoses with 69,000-plus of those from opioids, including heroin. aventar is a leading producer of a chemical precursor known as acidic anhydryte, a chemical used to convert opium to heroin. aventar's product has been used extensively by drug cartels and transnational criminal organizations, with the apparent knowledge of aventar officials who have taken inadequate

measures to prevent the diversion of this chemical, particularly in mexico. alarmingly, associate attorney general vanita gupta holds millions of dollars in aventure's stock and her father sits on the board of that company, raising serious ethical issues. as i have said, i simply want the attorney general to answer my letter. i sent a letter to him asking about the investigative status of aventure and its involvement in the facilitation of heroin production but have yet to receive a response more than four months later. in light of the serious issues that i have raised in this letter and the lack of a response from the justice department, i have placed a hold on this nominee and will not lift my hold until i receive a sufficient response. so i object. mr. durbin: mr. president. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. durbin: i'm disappointed. this is an issue involving vanita gupta, who was approved

by the senate and now is serving in the department of justice and has been for months. what this has to do with the person to lead the u.s. marshal service, i cannot imagine. but i don't have to imagine the importance of filling this position quickly. it was over ten years ago when a judge, a woman that i helped to win the appointment in the federal district court in the northern district of illinois, learned tragically that a disgruntled client of somebody's firm went to her home, killing her mother and her husband in chicago. it was a tragedy, an unspeakable tragedy. because of that terrible event, we turned to the u.s. marshal service and said you have a special obligation to protect the men and women who serve in our judiciary. we're counting on you to make certain that they are safe at work and they're safe at home.

and it's a 24/7, 365-day responsibility that the marshal service has. sadly, that wasn't the last of the tragedies involving judges. it was just a few years ago when a judge in new jersey lost her son, i believe her husband as well, if i'm not mistaken. another person, demented person went to her home and killed them. so when we're talking about filling this position, it's more than whether the attorney general has sent a timely response to a letter. it's a matter of life and death. and now more than ever, because we are in transition and many of the marshals are in a lame-duck status or moved on to other positions and you need someone to head up the service, when we do our work here in congress to approve across the united states, it is hard for us to imagine that we would risk the lives of judges, court personnel, and their families, along with many others, by

leaving this -- this critical law enforcement agency unfilled. no one questions this man's qualifications. he is a humble man who has an amazing story, an incredible story. he is asking to serve this nation again in a capacity when it comes to security and safety that is really one of the most important in our government. i'm sorry that the senator feels this way. i wish he would reconsider and just reflect for a moment on the importance of this position. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, the distinguished senator from illinois, the chairman of the judiciary committee, could resolve this issue in the next hour, and i would lift my hold, if he would simply ask the attorney general of the united states to answer my letter, which i sent four months ago, which we have received no response to. drug overdoses have taken the

lives of 93,000-plus americans in the last year alone. most of those drugs come across the southern border from mexico, including heroin, which is an opioid, which together with prescription drugs which we know have been widely abused is a serious threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the american people. i simply want to make sure that american companies are not complicit in selling precursor chemicals that produce this poison that's then imported into the united states and has taken so many american lives. this is, as i said, no reflection on the nominee himself, but as the distinguished senator from illinois knows, senators have very few tools, very little leverage to actually get the executive branch to do what they are obligated to do, which is simply to respond to our inquiries and our letters. that is a simple matter. this does not implicate the safety and security of the federal judiciary, as the

senator knows. this is an administrative position. we all support the safety and security of all of our judicial officials. so this could be satisfied very quickly and literally within the next hour if the chairman of the judiciary committee would simply pick up the phone, call the attorney general, and ask him to answer his mail. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: mr. president, first let me say that this issue about this corporation -- i believe the senator said it was known as avantar -- is a corporation that was once under the control of vanita gupta's father. she had no -- no -- active role in the administration of this corporation. as the daughter of the owner, her only connection. it was a stock portfolio, that was it. that's the reason why these suspicions went into where. there's no connection between vanita gupta and this company.

it was my understanding at the time that the this company had discontinued its business in mexico and had done that long before her hearing. that was a matter of public record. when members of the judiciary committee on both sides of the aisle said they wanted quicker responses to the letter sent to the department of justice than they received under the trump administration, i said that was perfectly legitimate request, and i invited the members of the committee to join me in a conference equal with the attorney general to discuss with. several did. i'm not sure whether the senator from texas was part of it or not. but the message to the department of justice was, provide a timely response to all inquiries. the attorney general gave us his personallatessurance that he would do that -- gave us his personal assurance that he would do that. i know the letter is important to the senator from texas, but i know the safety of our judges is

even more important. today let's do the right thing and put the person in charge who keeps safe the judges and their families all across the united states from terrible things that have happened to them in the past. mr. cornyn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i have to respond. for the senator from illinois to say that vanita gupta has no relationship with avantor, the company that's been selling this precursor including into mexico used to manufacture heroin, it is true she is not part of the board of directors or the administration or the leadership of that corporation. but she literally owns or did own tens of millions of dollars of stock in avantor. we do not know yet if she has kept her promise to sell that avantor stock. she said she would during her confirmation hearing. we are investigating to see whether she followed through and kept that promise.

but for one of the chief law enforcement officers of the united states to own tens of millions of dollars worth of stock in a company that arguably violated u.s. law by selling chemical precursors into mexico that's used to make heroin that's killed so many americans through drug overdoses is a serious matter. i would not raise this issue if i did not feel that it was so serious. and, again, i think the solution is very simple. but the suggestion that ms. gupta has no relationship with avantor is simply not true, unless she has, unbeknownst to us at this point, gotten rid of the tens of millions of dollars in stock that she owned in that company. mr. durbin: i believe i made it clear that her father owned the company and was a

stockholder, not the manager of the company. i just find it very difficult for a person who has already been appointed to the job, vanita gupta, and that happened months ago, for us to be holding up this critically important position over a letter that wasn't answered. i hope we can satisfy the senator from texas and anyone else who is objecting. it is important to put mr. davis on the job. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: is the senate

currently in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. lansky unanimous consent to end the -- mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent to end the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. seeing none, without objection.

mr. lankford: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent that myself, senator sinema, senator carper be allowed to finish our remarks before the vote begins. the presiding officer: without objection.

the presiding officer: the senator from arizona.

ms. sinema: mr. president, i withdraw carper amendment 2636. i ask consent. the presiding officer: is there an objection? without objection. the amendment is withdrawn. mr. lankford: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: i want to set some context of where we are financially this point. everyone knows last year the difficulties of covid-19 and what happened and the extraordinary measures that were taken to be able to offset the economic damage that was significant. c.b.o. as of july 21 of this year estimates the federal deficit for 2021 will be $3 trillion. much of that based on what was done last year during an emergency time period. 13.5% g.d.p. that deficit in 2021 will be the second largest since the world war ii, since 1945. now this year and the year we're finally working our way out of covid-19, though still taking it seriously, this year there's $2 trillion in additional spending in march of this year.

there's $1 trillion infrastructure plan that's in front of us now. and a $3.5 trillion tax and spend bill that apparently we start in two days. listen, i've been told over and over again throughout the course of this debate that the infrastructure package would be paid for. and then later i was told, well, mostly paid for. and then c.b.o. came out a couple of days ago and said a quarter trillion dollars of it is not paid for. a quarter trillion dollars according to cobb's estimate -- c.b.o.'s estimates. to make matters worse, part of the rest of it that c.b.o. does estimate is still areas where i would look at it and go that's a pretty shaky estimation. for instance, the unused unemployment benefits from earlier this year. that's an area that i look at and i think, okay, if you're taking unemployment benefits that were borrowed with debt money, then not spending them and then later go back and grabbing them and say we're now spending them and they're quote, unquote, paid for, that would be

the equivalent of me taking out a $20,000 car loan but buying only a $15,000 car. so using the extra $5,000 to buy cat food and donuts after that and say it was paid for. it's not paid for. the extra $5,000 would go to debt reduction. in this case it's $53 billion, not $5,000. that area is total debt spending as well. c.b.o. may score trks it's really not there. one of my favorite areas of scoring in this i find fascinating in the course of this conversation. this bill mandates the sale of over 87 million barrels of oil from the strategic petroleum reserve. almost the identical amount is assumed to be collected from the sale of 87 million barrels of oil to be able to pay for the electric car charging stations. so literally this bill sells oil

to then pay for the electric car charging stations. this bill also delays to get scored for this, delays a medicare part d regulation that had already been delayed already. my concern is this. we're not paying attention to the most basic element. this is a quarter trillion dollars unpaid for according to c.b.o. and many other areas are pretty shaky pay fors in this. my simple suggestion is this. let's do infrastructure but let's do the infrastructure we can afford. if we can't afford an extra quarter trillion of this trillion dollar bill, then let's back it up to $750 billion. it should be pretty straightforward. if we can't pay for that extra amount, we shouldn't do that extra amount. so saying that, mr. president, in the pending measure, the senate amendment 2137 to h.r. 3684 contains a matter within the jurisdiction of the budget committee that was not reported or discharged from the budget

committee. therefore, i raise a point of order against division j., title 9, section 905 of the amendment pursuant to section 306 of the congressional budget act of 1974. ms. sinema: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. ms. sinema: mr. president, pursuant to section 904 of the congressional budget act of 1974, i move to waive all applicable sections of that act and any other applicable budget points of order for purposes of the pending amendment. and i 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 i d: -- vote:

vote:

vote: