A resolution amending the Standing Rules of the Senate to require inflationary impact statements in committee reports.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up to the substitute and be reported by number: Wicker No. 2146 and Kennedy No. 2210; further, that upon disposition of the Johnson amendment, the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed, with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to a vote in relation to the amendments, with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption of the Kennedy amendment, 5 minutes for debate for Senator Wicker and 2 minutes for debate for opponents before the Wicker vote, and 4 minutes for debate equally divided before the Kennedy vote.

Mr. President, there are a lot of folks gathering around our new Senator from Arizona, congratulating him, commending him on his speech.

I said to him--I am Navy. We have got a bunch of military people that serve here: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. But in the Navy, when somebody does an especially good job, we say ``Bravo Zulu.'' And that was an exceptional, exceptional address.

We are delighted to be joined by Cindy McCain.

Before I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin for his amendment, the theme that we just heard from our new Senator from Arizona really focuses on preparing, through the groundwork, plowing the field in anticipation of creating jobs. And we do that in a lot of ways. He has mentioned a bunch of them in terms of technology jobs and so forth.

One of the other ways is what we are doing with the legislation before us today, and that is investing in our infrastructure broadly, not just roads, highways, and bridges; not just waterworks; not just broadband; not just surface transportation. All of the above. All of the above.

So it is a great way to start our day today.

With that, I yield the floor. I think the gentleman, our colleague from Wisconsin, has some comments that he may want to make, unless the leader wishes to go next.

Mr. President, over the years, I have made any number of trips to our Nation's southern border. I have also traveled extensively throughout Central America--and sometimes with the author of this legislation--with many colleagues, Democratic and Republican. One of the people who have been to that part of the world more than me is a guy who used to serve here in the Senate--later, Vice President--and that is our President, Joe Biden.

There is a verse in Scripture in the New Testament, Matthew 25, which speaks to the least of these, and one of the things: When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was naked, did you clothe me? When I was thirsty, did you get me to drink? When I was a stranger in your land, did you welcome me? Did you welcome me?

To the extent we have looked out for the least of these, then we have a brighter future.

But anyway, the reason I raise that, we have this moral imperative to look out for the least of these, and that includes people who end up on our borders looking for safe haven. The reason why so many people continue to come to our borders from Central America--especially Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador--is because they live lives in fear; deprived of economic opportunity and hope; corruption, crime. You know, if any of us lived there with our families, we would want to get out of there, too, and find a place to go to with a brighter future.

As a former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, border security is enormously important. We need secure borders; no question about that. There are a whole bunch of force multipliers which help provide more secure borders, including barriers--including barriers-- and I have supported them. So has the Senator, who is also a former chairman of the committee. We have traveled in that part of the world together.

One of the things we fully agree on is what I just said. We can spend the next, you know, year, 5 years, 10 years securing our border. That is important. But if we don't address those root causes of why people are coming here, 10, 20 years from now, they will still be coming. They will still be coming. We have to be smarter than that.

This is a shared responsibility; it is not all on the United States. I said to my colleague from West Virginia, I like to use the example of Home Depot, which Ron Johnson, Senator Johnson, heard me use more than a few times. Home Depot--their ad line is ``You can do it. We can help.'' In these countries we are getting all this immigration flow from, they can do it, but we can help.

One of the things we set up was something called the Alliance for Prosperity a number of years ago, with Democratic and Republican support--I think with support of certainly then-Vice President Biden and Senator McCain, the late John McCain. Among the things that we need to focus on and we are doing under the Alliance for Prosperity are, one, addressing crime and violence; two, addressing corruption; and three, economic hope and opportunity. Those are the three buckets. We put money in those buckets, the expectation is that those three countries put even more money in those buckets, matching us 2, 3, 4, 5 dollars for every dollar that we put up. There are other countries that we have an expectation for them to help. There are private businesses; there is an expectation for them to help. Nonprofits. There is an expectation for all. This is a shared responsibility.

As the place where all these illegal drugs are coming from, moving those drugs through these three countries--we have some moral responsibility to do something to help the situation down there, not just at the border.

So with that in mind, I am not going to support this amendment. But I would just note, I always look for common ground. The author of the amendment knows full well--I have heard him talk about it eloquently, about the need to go after root causes. For as long as we have been working on this issue, all those years, we have needed to work on root causes, and we still do today as well.

Mr. President, colleagues, in about 48 hours, about a third of the Senate is going to be on an airplane heading for Gillette, WY, and we are going to go and say goodbye to our friend and colleague Mike Enzi.

I will never forget where I was sitting about, I don't know, 20 years ago as the Presiding Officer, and Mike Enzi was literally standing almost right where you are, talking about the 80-20 rule and why they were so successful in the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Senator Kennedy and Mike Enzi--Democrat, Republican--how they were able to find common ground and get stuff done: the 80-20 rule.

I said to Mike Enzi that day: What is the 80-20 rule?

He said: About 80 percent of the stuff, Ted and I agree on, and about 20 percent, we don't. What we do is we focus on the 80 percent where we agree.

There is common ground here. I think that the Senator from Wisconsin knows what it is. And I would ask that in addition to talking about our differences, let's talk about where we agree, and let's do good work there.

Vote on Amendment No. 2245

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up to the substitute and be reported by number: Peters-Rounds, 2464; Lankford, 2233; Cardin-Wicker, 2478; Daines, 2449; and Scott, 2338, CBO inflation verification; further, that at 4:15 p.m. today, the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed, with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to a vote in relation to the amendments, with 60 affirmative votes required for adoption of the amendments listed, with up to 4 minutes equally divided prior to the first four votes and up to 7 minutes for Senator Scott of Florida and 2 minutes for opponents prior to the Scott vote.

Mr. President, let me amend that request to 4:25--not 4:15 but 4:25. I ask unanimous consent to make that modification.

Madam President, I ask the clock not start running right away. Senator Capito and I want to just raise an issue with the Chair and our colleagues.

That last vote took about 50 minutes--50 minutes--and they are getting longer, not shorter.

And Senator Capito and I want to use this as an opportunity just to start a conversation amongst our colleagues, see if we can't do better than that, maybe a lot better than that.

So start thinking about it, and we would be interested to hear from you.

You never know. We might do some voice votes. That would be good.

All right. We thank you.

Madam President, we have had two votes in this tranche; first vote about 50 minutes from start to close and the second vote about 25 minutes.

We are going to propound a unanimous consent request--and I am tempted to do it right now--to try to figure out what would be reasonable. My sense is that maybe 15 minutes would be reasonable but a real 15 minutes, and we will start with that.

Any objection?

A SENATOR. Without objection.

All right. Madam President, I would ask that we make it a 15-minute vote, a real 15-minute vote.

Thank you.

Yield back.

Mr. President, Senator Capito and I have a couple of comments we would like to offer before we start on this amendment with Senator Lee, and that is we have consulted with both leaders, with Senator Schumer and Senator McConnell. They are in agreement that 15 minutes firm is the vote.

So when we start this vote, folks have 15 minutes to get here after we start the vote to vote, and if they are not here, they are too late.

So that is the idea. We have spent way too much time waiting for people. We have three amendments lined up, and we are going to vote them and be punctual.

Senator Capito.

Thank you.

I would just ask any staff and Members who are watching, staff, let your Senators know it is 15 minutes, and that is it.

Amendment Nos. 2279 and 2358 to Amendment No 2137

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up to the substitute and be reported by number: No. 1 is Lee No. 2279; No. 2 is Rosen No. 2358; further, that the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed, with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to a vote in relation to the amendments, with 60 affirmative votes required for the adoption of the Lee amendment listed and with up to 4 minutes, equally divided, prior to each vote.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by our colleague from Utah.

This amendment would undermine the National Environmental Policy Act, also known as NEPA, by allowing States to assume responsibility for undertaking complex reviews of Federal action. These are reviews that Congress vested explicitly in the Federal Agencies that permit or license projects that could adversely affect our environment.

NEPA is designed to ensure that Federal Agencies consider major actions carefully to ensure those decisions do not unduly impact water quality, endangered species, community well-being, air quality, and other environmental resources.

NEPA is a critical analytical tool that ensures that Federal decision makers are better informed and that the affected community has an opportunity to engage and be heard.

Today, as the world is in the midst of a sixth great extinction event, and climate change is having ever greater impacts on our natural world, we should be making decisions more carefully than ever, not just to improve outcomes but also to avoid wasting money on projects that are not resilient to withstand climate change.

This amendment would instead turn over responsibility for that critical analysis to the States.

The bill before us includes many environmental deregulatory provisions--more, in fact, than many of us would prefer. However, it has been drafted in the spirit of bipartisan compromise.

This bill, as drafted, includes provisions to set deadlines for project review schedule in order to reduce project review timelines. It provides or expands categorical exclusions from NEPA. It also permanently authorizes the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council.

Unlike these provisions, which were the product of committee deliberation and compromise, the amendment that our friend from Utah has offered would significantly alter the process for Federal environmental review without any committee deliberation on such major changes.

These sweeping changes are inappropriate and unwarranted, and I urge our colleagues to join me in voting no.

Would the Senator yield?

I object.

Mr. President, let me just take a minute from Senator Capito to explain what is going on. OK?

So lined up right now, we are going to do three voice votes. Negotiations are going forward on an amendment from Senator Schumer, related to the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction. And after that, I think the last vote will be that of Senator Fischer, and we will be done.

And the reason why that is delayed is in order to provide time for negotiation to occur on the Schumer amendment with the Commerce Committee, and I think we are just about resolved.

I don't like it. It is what it is.

I just want to thank all for your patience. We are close to the end.

I would just ask, when we ask for a voice vote on the amendment from Senator Jacky Rosen, that we get a voice vote. And I would ask that when we ask for a voice vote on the Carper-Inhofe amendment, we get a voice vote. And beyond that, we will be halfway home, halfway home.

So thank you for your patience. We are almost there.

Mr. President, let me have order. Let me have order, please.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up to the substitute and be reported by number: Carper-Inhofe 2564, Bennet-Hoeven 2548; further, that the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed, with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to voting in relation to the amendments, with up to 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote.

I rise in support of this amendment. I hope we will get everybody to vote for it. Let's do a voice vote so we can move on.

Mr. President, I rise now to discuss my amendment with Senators Inhofe, Wicker, and Duckworth.

This amendment makes several changes to the appropriations section of the substitute in the section that funds the Army Corps of Engineers.

In WRDA 2020, Senator Barrasso and I heard multiple times about the struggles of small, rural, and economically disadvantaged communities in meeting project cost shares. These projects range from aquatic ecosystem restorations to flood control and new levees. Yet because the Corps is required to cost share the work, these small, rural, and poor communities never get the assistance they need.

Last year, Senator Barrasso and I created a cap authority that allows the Corps to pay for full expense of these projects to help these disadvantaged communities finance the infrastructure the community needs.

This amendment also makes clarifying changes to the inland waterways funding. In addition to a technical correction, it makes clear that the funding provided in this act must be prioritized for projects on the Capital Investment Strategy Report, the guiding document for the Corps inland waterways projects.

Finally, this amendment makes sure that inland flooding projects are prioritized for economically disadvantaged communities and life-safety- related projects. This supports equity for disadvantaged communities while prioritizing projects with the highest need.

This is a good bill. It is a good amendment, and these small tweaks make it stronger.

I urge my colleagues to support our amendment and hope that we might do so unanimously.

Senator Inhofe would be here. He is in Oklahoma with his family right now. I think some would understand that. He urges us to support this as well.

With that, Mr. President, I would suggest the absence of a quorum, waiting for the arrival of Senator Bennet, who will be here momentarily.

Mr. President, colleagues, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up to the substitute and be reported by number. The first of those is Fischer, 2164, with Cortez Masto--is that correct? Yes--and the second is Schumer, 2570; further, that the Senate vote in relation to the amendments in the order listed, with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to a vote in relation to the amendments, with up to 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote.

Mr. President, I understand there has been a request--let me ask the Senator.

I understand there has been a request for a recorded vote. Can you confirm that or not?

All right. Then it will be a recorded vote.

Let me ask our colleagues: 10 minutes; is that OK? Ten minutes from start to finish, and that is it. And the last amendment will be Schumer. All right? Let's do this in 10 minutes, OK?

Vote on Amendment No. 2164

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, infrastructure is the physical backbone of our country, and it is an example of positive, constructive American achievement and accomplishment.

Unfortunately, this particular bill, in its process, content, pricetag, and long-term effects, simply will not serve the country, Americans, and particularly Utahns well. It will ultimately be detrimental to our economy, to the daily lives of the American people, and even in some cases the infrastructure itself.

Now, I am not saying I don't appreciate the hard work, goodwill, and excellent intentions of my colleagues who put many long hours, weeks, and months into crafting it; nor am I suggesting that there aren't good things in the bill, good things that would benefit deserving people in this country.

As I have said before, the question is not whether or not infrastructure is a good and a necessary thing; nor is the question whether the bill contains some good things.

The question is, rather, how much should the Federal Government be involved in infrastructure? And if it should, where it should. How much should it be spending on it?

The truth is the particulars of this bill take the scope far beyond what should be under the realm of the Federal Government, under the domain of the Federal Government, specifically at a price far beyond what we can afford and at a time when we are already far into feeling the sting of inflation.

There is a reason that our Founding Fathers reserved ``numerous and indefinite'' powers to the States while providing ``few and defined'' powers to the Federal Government. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution literally lists the particular powers given to Congress. It tells us what they are. And you will notice that infrastructure generally is not one of them.

Now, in some cases it does make sense that the Federal Government is involved in some infrastructure. The Interstate Highway System is a good example of that. Postal roads, also specifically accounted for in article I, section 8, are another example of that.

This bill, however, includes things like bike paths and beautification projects, mass transit systems, surface roads, roads that start and stop in one State and are not part of the Interstate Highway System--things that, while good and lovely and useful, are a far cry from what the Federal Government can and should reasonably and successfully oversee. What is more, it does so at an enormous pricetag, one that will dig us even deeper and deeper into debt at the expense of the American people, both now and further down the road.

Now, proponents of the bill insist, and will continue to insist as we debate this, that the bill is paid for. But, in fact, despite the staggeringly large amount of money that it spends--estimated to be $1.2 trillion in total, the largest amount for a package of this kind in history by far--it still does not have a score from the Congressional Budget Office.

Normally we don't vote on, much less pass, something like this without a CBO score. We don't have one. And I regret to say that many of the so-called pay-fors amount to flimsy budget gimmicks that, in reality, do no such thing as pay for the bill.

So what are these so-called pay-fors?

Well, let's take the new reporting requirements on cryptocurrency, for example, which would allegedly bring in $28 billion. Everything about this pay-for is half-baked and unclear.

How exactly will additional revenue reporting generate new tax revenue? And how can you possibly apply stock exchange-style reporting requirements to something so different and decentralized as Bitcoin, Dogecoin, and other cryptocurrencies?

At best, this revenue gimmick will fail. At worst, it will hamper financial innovation for decades to come.

Take the mandated sales of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which the bill sponsors claim will produce $6 billion in revenue starting 7 years from now. But do we realistically know what the demand for oil might be at that time or what can happen in the meantime when we might need to use oil in this Strategic Petroleum Reserve?

What happens when we get 5 years down the road and Congress determines that we should hold onto the oil a bit longer until we might be able to generate more revenue from the sale?

What if even more of these sales are congressionally mandated in these years, essentially flooding the market and causing the price of that same oil to crash?

Take the pension smoothing component of the bill, which would only cause us to lose more money in the long-term and simultaneously threaten the solvency of retirement benefits--the retirement benefits of millions and millions of American workers.

Take the rebate rule delay, which so far has never, and may never, go into effect. Delaying something that has no set time for implementation cannot realistically be predicted to produce $49 billion in savings.

Take the $20 billion in future spectrum auctions. While spectrum auctions can certainly produce a great deal of revenue, this possible future auction may end up never happening. It could have significant restrictions on it due to the dynamics of adjacent bands, or it could simply produce far less than we are being asked to assume today.

Finally, take the claim of $205 billion in unused COVID funds. Upon further investigation, it includes only roughly $50.2 billion of unused COVID funds as a real pay-for.

The other $150 billion is simply spending that didn't happen because the country began to emerge from the pandemic. Many States ended the enhanced unemployment benefits that were keeping more people out of work, and other States, local communities, businesses, and families didn't require as much Federal spending, thanks to their own successes and their own resiliency.

In other words, this other $150 billion is not a pay-for. It is fake. It is simply spending or lost revenue that was never realized. And whether this bill passes or not, this $150 billion will never be realized.

No, the numbers for these pay-fors do not add up. The math for this bill is faulty, to say the least. What is more, much of the massive amount that it will be spending will not even be efficient or effective spending on infrastructure. Even if this were the role of the Federal Government, then we ought to make sure that it spends those funds efficiently and effectively.

But, unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that along with Federal dollars come a whole host of Byzantine laws and regulations that prevent precisely that, including restrictions imposed by everything from NEPA to the Davis-Bacon Act.

The Davis-Bacon Act artificially inflates labor prices by requiring that all federally funded construction projects worth more than $2,000 pay workers at least the prevailing wage rate on non-Federal projects in the same locality. And it has substantially driven up the cost of Federal projects, hindered economic growth, wasted taxpayer dollars, and hurt unskilled laborers each year. In fact, it is estimated that repealing it would save taxpayers $10.7 billion over 10 years.

NEPA has imposed similar burdens and costs. Signed into law in 1970, it was intended to account for the environmental consequences of proposed Federal actions or projects. But over the last 50 years, it has substantially deviated from its original purpose, morphing into a complex, bureaucratic labyrinth; stalling projects from frivolous lawsuits and bureaucratic delays; and dramatically increasing the cost and timeline of their completion. Sometimes this law stretches projects that should take a couple of years to complete into decades.

At the very least, we ought to reform these costly, ineffective regulations--and do so drastically--so that Federal infrastructure can be completed better and faster, which is exactly what I proposed in the amendment that I put before this body yesterday.

But this bill, in its current form, is ultimately not good for Utahns, and it is not good for the American people. Driving more Federal money into infrastructure, unfortunately, means we will pay more to build less. We will be paying more to build less. It means less money going to steel and concrete in the ground, and a whole lot more going to lawyers, accountants, lobbyists, compliance specialists, and bureaucratic delays. It means longer and more expensive projects.

Now, this varies State by State, but in Utah, it is estimated that adding Federal dollars to a project increases the overall cost by 20 percent--sometimes as much as 40 percent. Not only will it mean more expensive projects, but more expensive products too.

Another provision in this bill would impose new fees on dozens of chemicals used in countless products and consumer goods in our day-to- day lives--chemicals found in concrete, wood, plastics, rubber, dyes, detergents, drugs, and pesticides for food, just to name a few. So every time you buy one of those products--or almost any product, for that matter--you will be paying a little bit for this. Only it is not a tax; it is a fee, and it is hidden from your view. So the consumer--the poor and middle-class taxpayer--doesn't see a tax increase. They just see that they are paying even more for everything that they buy.

Another provision would extend Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's ``g- fees'' for an entire decade. These fees could add thousands of dollars to the mortgages of home buyers at a time when that first home is increasingly out of reach for many. Utahns can't afford this. Congress is supposed to be addressing problems like these, not making them worse with sneaky new fees. This comes at a time when Americans are already feeling the sharp sting of snowballing inflation.

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

curve sloping sharply upward. Today, inflation is at 5.4 percent, which means, on average, the goods you buy today are 5.4 percent more expensive and the savings you have responsibly accrued are actually worth less.

And don't forget--the Federal Government's reckless spending has exacerbated this trend. Look at how the red has grown, what we see here. The red that you see in this chart, these are deficits. Look at how it has grown. The red portion of the graph is deficit spending.

While we surely needed to spend some additional money during the COVID pandemic, did we really need to spend this much more, to the point where we were borrowing a lot more than we were taking in? You know, we borrowed close to $4 trillion last year. Even if you think that we did need to spend this much more, wouldn't we try to get our country back on track and to discontinue this unfunded spending spree that contributes to runaway inflation?

Look, from gas to groceries and from homes to healthcare, every day, it is getting harder for hard-working Americans to afford the basic necessities of day-to-day life. Take just a quick look here at everyday items. These are not luxury items that we associate with the elite; these are things that ordinary people purchase every day. Compared to the period of time before the pandemic, not so very long ago, just 16 months ago, eggs are now 13 percent more expense; milk is 11.3 percent more expensive; chicken breast, 11.3 percent more expensive; bread is 9.4 percent more expensive; and gas is more than 27.5 percent more expensive.

The fact is that packages like this one are not without their effects on the people we have taken an oath to represent. At the end of the day, it is the American people whose tax dollars we take to pay for packages like this. At the end of the day, it is the American people who will bear the brunt of the debt we are forcing upon them. At the end of the day, it is the American people who will feel the effects in every aspect of their daily lives--in their workplaces, their communities, and their families--and they should get a say in it.

They certainly shouldn't have to sign on to something that was made known to the American people at 10 p.m. on Sunday night. Those who drafted this legislation had 4 months to review it and 4 months to get to know it. The American people shouldn't be asked to pass this in 4 days.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, in reference to my amendment No. 2279, this is what we are trying to deal with here.

In order to help expedite the review of projects that are subject to NEPA, Congress authorized in the FAST Act for States to assume the duties of conducting the NEPA analysis.

For example, the Federal Highway Administration has entered into agreements with seven States--including Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Utah--to assume this responsibility with great success, providing an opportunity for States to leverage their unique understanding of their own States in order to better carry out NEPA's requirements.

To build on this success, Congress should look to expand the ability of States to partner with the Federal Government for these types of reviews in their States' water infrastructure projects.

My amendment would require the Department of the Interior to set up a program similar to the existing Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program so that any State may voluntarily assume the Agency's NEPA responsibilities for their water storage infrastructure projects.

As I said just a moment ago, States already have a history of successfully conducting this work in the transportation space.

In 2020, for example, California conducted 33 environmental assessments, 32 findings of no significant impact, 2 environmental impact statements, 3 records of decision, and the list goes on and on.

In just the last half of 2020 alone, Arizona conducted over 50 categorical exclusion analyses. These are clearly roles that States are able and excited to handle.

In fulfilling these responsibilities, States would be subject to the same rigorous environmental requirements as their Federal partners, employing the very same standards. Just as projects led by Federal Agencies can be halted due to insufficient NEPA analysis, States would also be held to the same standard.

With much of the West experiencing severe drought, with dire consequences, allowing States to aid the Federal Government in NEPA review in order to expedite water storage infrastructure projects is not just common sense, it is a necessity. It is a matter of survival.

I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 2279.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. President, it is important to remember these are the exact same standards that would apply. We do this all the time in other areas. Federal regulatory Agencies, on a continual basis, with the blessing of Congress, are given authority to carry out a Federal program.

In fact, we already do this with NEPA in the context of the Federal Highway Administration.

This works. States are competent. It is a matter of expanding the human resources to which we have access.

These are the exact same standards. There is no environmental threat. This would just allow this stuff to get done faster.

Vote on Amendment No. 2279

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, it is an honor to rise today to deliver my maiden speech.

Nine months ago, the people of Arizona trusted me with a great responsibility: to represent them in the U.S. Senate; to do so during a pandemic that has challenged every one of us, taken loved ones too soon, and battered our economy; and to fill the remaining years of Senator John McCain's sixth term.

Each day since then, I have gone to work for the people of Arizona, striving to fulfill that responsibility, undeterred by the challenges we have in front of us because that is what Arizonans have done over the last year and a half--protecting their families from this virus, keeping themselves and their businesses afloat, and looking out for their neighbors.

Arizonans have faced down this virus and the economic fallout that came with it with determination. And I came here to have their backs and to work towards a brighter future for our growing State because we can't just rebuild our economy the way it was before. We have to reinvent it and create the jobs of the future, good-paying jobs that you can actually raise a family on. It is a long to-do list. But, hey, I am used to those.

The checklist for flying the Space Shuttle stands about 6 feet tall. The Senate, though, is not NASA. It doesn't move as fast. And it is not the U.S. Navy, either, where everyone works together toward a common goal.

But my wife, Gabby, taught me a thing or two about how to listen and how to find common ground. Now, she loved representing Arizona in Congress, and no one works harder than she does. Now, neither of us expected that it would be me serving here in the U.S. Senate. I might have been the astronaut, but it turned out that she is the one who would nearly lose her life serving our country.

I am so proud of her and of her relentless positivity that she brings to her continued rehabilitation. It inspires me each and every day. I could not do this without her support or the support of my daughters, Claudia and Claire, or my first grandchild, Sage, who was born in May. Maybe, I am not so sure about her support; she is only 2 months old.

But in my first days here, I spoke to Republicans and Democrats to work on emergency COVID relief. For so many Arizonans, the relief we got passed was a lifeline--the difference between bankruptcy and keeping the lights on, between losing their small business and paying their employees. I have heard that countless of times as I have traveled across the State.

In March, on my 100th day in the Senate, I spoke with a group of Arizonans to understand how COVID-19 was impacting them and their families. One of those conversations really stuck with me, and I want to take a second to tell you about Susana Andrade.

Prior to the pandemic, Susana worked in a school cafeteria in South Phoenix. Her husband worked as a landscaper. When the pandemic spiked in Arizona, her husband's work slowed down and the school closed. But Susana and her coworkers kept going to work. The school was continuing to offer meals for pickup for students and families who needed them, and a lot of them needed these meals. She told me that they initially were just offering breakfast and lunch, but then they added dinner and a snack because the demand was just so high.

Susana and her coworkers knew how hard the pandemic had hit the community, how many folks were out of work. There were students who wouldn't eat if they weren't there to make the meals. So she kept going to work, making and packing meals for students and their families.

And, then, in February, she and her entire family got sick with COVID. She couldn't go to work for weeks, and she and her family struggled to pay their bills that month while they tried to recover.

Now, Susana's story has stuck with me over the last year. Here is a hard-

working Arizona family doing everything right, who just got knocked off their feet. At the same time, Susana embodies the best of what we saw during this awful pandemic: neighbors and parents making tremendous sacrifices to help one another get through this.

I spoke to Susana recently. She told me that days after we spoke in March, she and her family received their stimulus checks, and it made such a big difference in their lives. But she is still now living paycheck to paycheck, working two jobs, trying to provide for her family to just get ahead.

I understand that. Growing up, my mother worked both as a secretary and a waitress at the same time. When my brother and I were in middle school, she decided to become a police officer, like my dad. But she had to pass this physical fitness test, which was designed for men. But my mother was not discouraged. She wasn't discouraged by that or by the fact that, if she would pass, she would become one of the first female police officers in our home town. In fact, I think she liked that. That was my mom for you.

But I knew that she believed that the increased and steady salary would help our family. My mother wanted to give my brother and me every opportunity to succeed. She showed us what we could achieve by having a goal and a plan and working hard at it.

I am here because of a good public education and because of the opportunity that my parents created for me to serve our country and pursue my dreams. But for so many families, it is becoming harder to get ahead, and the pandemic only made this more difficult. Businesses shuttered, savings drained, and debt and bills piled up.

What every parent wants--what my mom wanted--is to be able to work hard and give their children a future filled with opportunity.

That is why the most important responsibility we have here is not just to rebuild our economy but to reinvent it for the future. And doing that starts with infrastructure: roads, bridges, water, the power grid, high-speed internet. And it is not just in big cities but in rural and small towns, in smalltown Arizona and Tribal communities. That is the item on our checklist now.

Arizona is facing a severe drought that requires us to improve our water infrastructure and increase or resiliency.

Schoolbuses on the Navajo Nation cost three times as much to maintain because so many of the roads are unpaved.

I-10, which runs through the center of our State, between Tucson and Phoenix, has not been expanded in years. A signal accident can cause delays for hours. That happens almost every day.

It is clear that Arizona will benefit from upgrading and modernizing our infrastructure. That is why, for the past few months, I have been working with a group of Republicans and Democrats to come to an agreement on a historic investment in our infrastructure. I advocated for Arizona's priorities, and we worked together to find common ground and work out our differences. And now we are on the verge of passing it

This is going to fix roads and bridges, improve Tribal water and transportation infrastructure, expand affordable high-speed internet access, and make Arizona more resilient to drought and wildfires.

I have been determined to deliver these infrastructure investments that Arizona needs to continue to grow. We want to grow, and we want to attract new and innovative companies to our State because Arizona's prosperity depends on continuing to create new, high-paying jobs, including growing our tech sector.

Now, one of the biggest success stories of our growing tech sector is an industry that actually produces something physically small, microchips.

Microchips go in everything, from our phones and appliances and cars to computers, but also the most sophisticated fighter jets and missile systems.

There is currently a global shortage of microchips, and the truth is, today, just 12 percent of them are manufactured here in the United States. It used to be 40 percent. Many foreign competitors, including China, are investing heavily to try to dominate this industry.

Now, Arizona does manufacture a lot of microchips. It already employs about 30,000 people in good-paying jobs in this industry, and it is poised to grow. We recently announced investment plans from Intel and the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. Arizona can lead the way as we restore more microchip manufacturing and development to American soil.

That is the goal of this $52 billion plan that I spent months working on with Senators Cornyn and Warner, to create new advanced manufacturing facilities, or fabs, in places like Arizona. I made it my mission to get this passed through the Senate because it is important. It is important to our economy, and it is important to our national security, ensuring that our supply chain for something so critical does not depend on adversaries like China.

Transformational investments such as this will create thousands of high-paying jobs, and we got it passed through the Senate, Republicans and Democrats working together.

Now, we must continue working on this checklist, getting Arizonans the skills they need for these new jobs. For some, that will mean getting a college degree in science or engineering.

Arizona is home to three world-class universities that are leaders in research and innovation. We must continue to educate the best scientists and engineers in the world. That is the only way we are going to stay ahead.

At the same time, we know that about a third of students who graduate from high school will not pursue a 4-year degree. Now, that doesn't mean that they can't be set up for success in the 21st century economy, and we need to make sure that they are.

Advanced manufacturing facilities, like the microchip fabs that I mentioned earlier, for those we need well-trained semiconductor processors, and we need electricians, and we need HVAC technicians. These are good-paying careers for those who get the skills and training that they need.

And right now, a lot of young Arizonans are getting those skills through our community college system.

At Pima Community College's downtown campus in Tucson, they have a new Automotive Technology and Innovation Center that I visited last month. Their students are learning how to operate the software that automatically controls drills and lathes and milling machines and 3D printers and other tools. They can be trained not just in traditional automotive technology but in electric vehicles as well.

Arizona is becoming a center for innovative electric vehicle manufacturers. So why shouldn't we be getting these students the skills they need for this technology right now?

Pima Community College's chancellor, Chancellor Lambert, calls this much needed approach ``moving at the speed of business.'' What he means is our education system must meet the demands of today's workforce, and that has to be the case not just in major metro areas but in rural Arizona, as well, and in rural America.

At Yavapai College in Northern Arizona, they just opened a new Skilled Trades Center in Clarkdale, where they will train a new generation of construction workers and plumbers and electricians and HVAC technicians.

I could not be more impressed with Arizona's community college system.

Yavapai College is also taking advantage of partnerships with companies to set students up with opportunities that prepare them to immediately enter the workforce in industries like mining.

Moving at the speed of business, that is how we are going to prepare hard-working young students to get these good-paying jobs. It is also how we are going to outcompete and outinnovative other countries like China, having a talented workforce that can fill the jobs of the future and develop cutting-edge technologies that are critical not just to our economy but to our national security as well.

Now, these are issues that I know Republicans and Democrats agree on.

And even on tough issues, I believe that we can also find common ground. We have had crisis after crisis at our border, each a result of decades of failure in Washington to adequately address border security and fix our broken immigration system.

Senator Portman and I have introduced bipartisan legislation that would require the Department of Homeland Security to finally develop a plan to

handle increases at the border, to take the politics out of this, no matter which party controls Congress or the White House, and to provide dedicated funding to carry out that plan and ensure a secure, humane process at the border. Finding common ground on issues like this is hard, but it is important.

Like many of you, like many of my colleagues, I spent years admiring the way the late Senator John McCain represented Arizona in the U.S. Senate. But my first impressions of John McCain were not of him as a Senator but of his service in the Navy. He was a hero of young naval aviators like me--an example of how to serve your country honorably and bravely, including in the impossible circumstance of being shot down and captured.

His legacy means so much to the State of Arizona, and it lives on through his children and his wife, Cindy, whom I am so grateful to have here today in the Gallery.

Thank you.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

His legacy, it is something that cannot be matched, but it is what inspires me serving in this Senate seat. And it is his example of bipartisanship, of independence that continues to demand more of us. So I am going to continue focusing on delivering results, on beating this virus, and reinventing our economy for the future so that hard-working Arizonans have every opportunity to succeed.

Arizonans sent me here to have their backs, and that is what I intend to do.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

(Applause, Senators rising.)

Madam President, after many weeks of uncertainty and distress, millions of Americans can--for now--let go of the fear of losing their homes and the roofs over their head. Last night, the Biden administration announced a new 60-day Federal eviction moratorium. I certainly support that decision.

I want to thank all those who insisted that we do something, especially U.S. Congresswoman Cori Bush, of Missouri, who knows the trauma, personally, of being without a home, having been a victim of eviction in her life. Representative Bush camped out outside on the Capitol steps for 5 nights. She slept on the steps of this building so that some of the most vulnerable people in America would be able to sleep with a roof over their heads while we were made sure the law caught up with our intentions.

I also want to thank my fellow Democratic Senators, especially Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren, who pushed for a fair and just solution to avoid what would have been an entirely preventable tragedy for families who already lost so much in this pandemic.

As many as 11 million Americans have fallen behind on their rent during this pandemic because of job losses and other misfortunes.

Let me tell you about one of them. Patricia Vasquez. She lives in Chicago's Little Village neighborhood. She told her story to the Chicago Sun-Times. By the time Patricia Vasquez received an email on July 23 telling her that she qualified for help from Chicago's Emergency Rental Assistance Program, the gas to her apartment had already been cut off because of an overdue $1,400 bill. She had sold some clothes and jewelry to pay the electric bill and keep the lights on, and she was 6 months behind in rent.

The Federal eviction moratorium will enable people like Patricia to avoid homelessness while they wait for emergency assistance to reach them.

Between the bipartisan CARES Act that Congress passed in December and President Biden's American Rescue Plan, Congress has provided State and local governments more than $46 billion in emergency rental assistance to help families pay their landlords. Unfortunately, many States and localities have been slower than expected in getting that money to the people who need it. So far, only $3 billion of the $46 billion has reached tenants and landlords.

To punish renters who have already lost so much for delays over which they have no control and to evict them with the Delta variant tearing the country apart would be unfair, unconscionable, and, in many cases, deleterious to public health. It would harm our efforts to bring this virus under control for good.

Fortunately, in recent weeks, many cities and States have made progress in getting the help out to the people who need it. That includes the city of Chicago and the State of Illinois.

The CDC's new eviction moratorium is only a first step. It is imperative that all State and local governments step up their efforts to get Federal relief to the families who need it and the landlords as well. This pandemic has caused enough pain. Redtape can't be allowed to deepen that pain for everyone.

Immigration

Madam President, I would like to address another issue that comes up on the floor quite regularly, usually from speeches on the other side of the aisle.

I heard one of my colleagues in the Senate on the Republican side who is a personal friend talk about it today--and he is not the only one-- and it is, of course, the issue of immigration. I have been involved in this issue for a long time.

I can recall when I was first elected to the Senate, I got a phone call from Ted Kennedy. He said: I heard you are going to be on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I said: That is right.

He said: Can I ask you to be a member of my Immigration Subcommittee?

Well, how do you say no to Ted Kennedy, to start with? I was fascinated by the invitation. I got involved in the immigration debate then and over the years.

At one point, I joined three other Democratic Senators and four Republican Senators--the so-called Gang of 8--and tried to sit down and fix this broken immigration system. We actually wrote a bill, a good bill. It passed here on the floor of the Senate with 68 votes.

Senator McCain was one of the contributors to it. Senator Flake of Arizona was also one of them--Senator Graham of South Carolina, Senator Rubio of Florida, Senator Schumer, Senator Bennet, Senator Menendez. We put our hearts and souls into that effort and put it together and brought it to the floor of the Senate and it was enacted into law.

Comprehensive immigration reform--I should say, it passed the Senate. It failed to become enacted into law because the House of Representatives, under Republican control, wouldn't bring it up for debate, let alone a vote. That was an unfortunate missed opportunity.

It just comes down to this. We have not passed a significant immigration bill in the United States of America in 35 years. Everyone but everyone concedes that our immigration system is broken. There are parts of it that are just fundamentally unfair. There are parts of it which do not serve our Nation. There are certain things we ought to all agree on, Democrats and Republicans. Let me give you three that I think are the starting points.

First, we need a safe and secure border. I want to know who is coming into America and what they are bringing. In the age of terrorism, in the age of drugs, I want to know who is coming in and what they are bringing. Yes, we need border security.

Secondly, we should never knowingly allow a dangerous person to come into this country, period. If someone is here without legal protected status and they are dangerous to us, they are gone--no ifs, ands, or buts about it

The third point is an important one as well. We cannot allow everyone in the world who wants to come into the United States to arrive tomorrow. It just won't work. We have to have an orderly process, and we ought to show some caring and humanitarian instinct in that process, too, whether it is a refugee or asylee. These are people who desperately need some safe place to be, and the United States has often opened its doors since World War II to show that kind of kindness. Our generation should do the same.

Now, there are those who come to the floor and say: Because so many people want to come into the United States, it is a mistake for us to give anybody legal status in this country because it is a green light. It is an incentive for even more to show up.

That argument, I think, is not strong, and here is why. Each year, the orderly legal process in America makes 1 million new Americans from immigrants. It happens every year. These people are following the law, every letter of it, to become legal permanent residents in America. So to say we are going to cut them off and no longer allow them to become citizens makes no sense.

Secondly, immigrants are a critical part of America. When my farmers come to me and tell me how desperately they need farmworkers, and they don't have enough immigrants to fill them, my natural reaction is, why don't you go to the Americans who live near your farms? And they say: Senator, we do. Nobody wants to do that backbreaking work of picking fruit or vegetables and all the hard labor that goes with it. We need immigrants to do it.

Two million people in our country pick our crops, 2.4 million. Did you know half of them are undocumented? That is a fact. They have come to this country and get paid to do the worst, hardest work you can imagine.

Go to a meat processing plant or a poultry processing plant--you pick it--anyplace in the United States and look at the workforce that comes out of that gate at the end of the day. The majority of them--well, I should say 40 percent across the Nation--40 percent of them are immigrants who are working in that field; tough, dangerous, hot, hard work. They do it because others

aren't lining up to do it in their place. That is part of America today. Immigrants are a critical element.

I might add one other element which is timely. Think of all the times we tune into the Olympics and look at the people who make us just beam with pride, with ``USA'' written across their chest on uniforms, who are winning these medals and competing on behalf of us, the United States, in the Olympics.

Suni Lee of Minnesota, who is she? Well, it turns out that she is a child of a Hmong family. The Hmongs, you remember from the Vietnam era, were a people who were killed because they sided with the United States, and they were caught in the crossfire of war. Many of them settled in the United States, many in the State of Minnesota.

Here is this young woman, this daughter of refugees who is making us so proud as she stands on the podium crying her eyes out with ``USA'' written on her uniform, proudly holding that gold medal. We cheer her on.

Yet when it comes to the U.S. Senate, there are no cheers from some quarters. These are immigrants. Many people look at them negatively. I am not one of those people.

There has to be a better way. There has to be a humane way for us, this Nation of immigrants, for us to be able to have a system that is fair, that really is based on the three principles I mentioned: border security, no dangerous persons, and we have got to have an orderly process to come up with.

We are going to see in the next few days, I am sure, debate on the budget resolution. It is going to be, in some part, a debate on immigration policy. I am certainly ready for it. I hope my colleagues are too. I hope that they will keep an open mind to a process of creating a new immigration policy in America that really reflects our values, that is fair to the people who seek to be part of our future, and that recognizes the great heritage which the immigrants have brought to this country. I hope those people who are on the other side who don't feel as I do will take the time to meet some of these immigrant people.

Meet my Dreamers. These young people who I first started championing 20 years ago have lived lives in the shadow of doubt for decades. They were told they were undocumented; they could be deported at any moment; and yet they soldiered on. They worked hard. They went to school. They have done remarkable things, becoming doctors and nurses and teachers and entrepreneurs and even members of our military. They are amazing. They never let me down. They are just terrific young people. I think they deserve a chance to become part of America's future.

I think they have earned it, and I think we ought to have that kind of attitude in our minds when we talk about the role of immigrants in the future of America.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, if you like Federal mandates, here is one.

Senator Lankford wants a Federal mandate to require that anyone who receives a grant from this bill has to sign up for E-Verify.

Well, what does that mean?

It means a school district in my home State that ended up getting a grant under this bill for energy-efficient improvements, renewable energy improvements at public school facilities would now be required by the Lankford amendment, the Federal mandate, to have E-Verify to check out the cafeteria workers in the school district. Is that what we really want to do?

Well, how good is E-Verify? Some States have done it voluntarily. Eight of them have done it for all or most employers. You think if you run all these employees through the E-Verify process, how good is it?

Well, I can tell you how good it is. Do you know how many illegal aliens you find when you go through E-Verify? One percent. One percent.

So he is creating a Federal mandate and regulations on districts that are just trying to get energy improvements and reduce their costs and putting in an E-Verify requirement to get those illegal aliens.

Well, it turns out that isn't the situation at all. It is a mandate that is unnecessary. I beg my colleagues to give these school districts and others no more redtape but less redtape.

Please oppose the Lankford amendment.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the unanimous consent request from the Senator of Florida.

The amendment before us would change the Standing Rules of the Senate and require additional reporting requirements regarding inflation, a change which would substantially increase the administrative burden on committees and staff and the process on the floor.

We already have significant tools at our disposal to evaluate economic indicators. We have economists at the Department of Labor, Treasury Department, Congressional Budget Office, Federal Reserve, and other Federal offices regularly consulting with Congress on issues about inflation and other economic indicators. This is totally unnecessary.

For these reasons, I oppose this resolution and the request for unanimous consent. I object.

I yield back my time.

I announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, I am here on the floor today to speak in support of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which is the bipartisan legislation that is before the Chamber that will make historic investments in our Nation's core infrastructure, and I am pleased to follow my colleague and friend from Utah, Senator Romney, who was one of those whom I worked with to help negotiate this package.

This is historic legislation that provides $550 billion in new Federal investments over the next 5 years to respond to the needs that are facing our country. This bill will rebuild crumbling roads and bridges and tunnels across the country. It will provide clean drinking water in homes and address harmful contaminants. It will increase connectivity in our communities to bring broadband to even the most rural parts of our country. It will prioritize sustainable solutions to improve our infrastructure systems for future generations. And it will combat climate change by making the monumental investments in our clean energy grid and electric vehicle infrastructure that we must make.

Now, this bill was a long time in the making, as I am sure my colleague from Utah would agree. Over the past 3 months, there have been many late nights, early mornings, and countless conversations about how to make the best use of this opportunity to invest in our Nation's infrastructure.

I very much appreciate the continued good faith and negotiations from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and the White House and the leadership of Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Rob Portman to deliver this bipartisan infrastructure agreement. I also appreciate the work of the chairs and ranking members of relevant Senate committees who laid the foundation for so much of the bipartisan work that has gone into this bill, as well as the leadership of both parties for giving us the space and time to get this agreement to the floor

Now, I could spend all day talking about the many aspects of this legislation that meaningfully invest in our communities and in our country, but today I want to specifically talk about two key areas that I worked on. Both of these issues, water and broadband, speak to the critical needs in New Hampshire and across the country.

Water and wastewater infrastructure is one of the major investments we make in this bill, with $55 billion invested in this area. Now, no parent should have to worry about the safety of their family's water when they turn on the tap, but, unfortunately, as most of us know, this is not the case for too many Americans, because compromised water supplies, due in part to our rundown water infrastructure, is an issue across this country and in some places in New Hampshire.

This was a problem for decades before the pandemic hit, but looking at a crisis like COVID-19 has illustrated just how basic and essential clean and safe drinking water is for our communities. Righting this wrong starts with investing in our water systems, which have been severely underfunded for too long.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, drinking water utilities will need to invest $472.6 billion over the next 20 years in order to provide safe and sufficient drinking water to the American public. Well, fortunately, we have a big chunk of that as a down payment in this proposal. And earlier this year, the Senate passed overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan vote, the Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure Act. That bill makes a historic investment in our water infrastructure through authorizations. And in addition to putting significant funding toward that effort, the bipartisan infrastructure package before us includes $15 billion to replace lead service lines, which is a huge public health priority, and it is an issue that has long plagued communities across this country.

Another real public health concern that is addressed in this bill is the presence of per- and polyfluoralkyl substances, or PFAS, in our water supplies. Preventing exposure, cleaning up contaminated sites, and understanding the full scope of the health implications associated with these chemicals is critical for so many affected by PFAS in their water.

As I have heard again and again from New Hampshire families, discovering that you have been drinking contaminated water can produce a range of emotions from anger and fear to guilt. That is what I heard from so many parents who had children at the former Pease Air Force Base, where they were in childcare, and parents thought they were safe in those childcare centers. But they found out that they had been drinking water contaminated with PFAS. That contamination at the former Pease Air Force Base forced the city of Portsmouth to shut off three drinking water wells in 2014. The contamination was created by the use of firefighting foam by the Air Force when Pease was an Air Force base.

One of those wells that was shut down, the Haven well, has just come back online this week, after 7 years. It was inoperable for 7 years.

PFAS contamination surrounding the Saint-Gobain manufacturing plant in Merrimack, NH, and in areas around the Coakley Landfill Superfund site in the Seacoast create an ongoing worry for Granite State families also because of PFAS contamination. So you can imagine what those parents felt like when they found out that their children had an elevated level of PFAS in their bloodstream, and they didn't really understand what that meant.

I remember talking to one mother who told me she had taken her daughter to Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center for her health exam, and she talked to the doctor about the elevated levels of PFAS in her blood. She said: The doctor didn't know what I was talking about, because this is an emerging contaminant.

But thanks to the work of so many of those affected--people like Andrea Amico in Portsmouth, who helped found a group called Testing for Pease, and folks involved with the Merrimack Citizens for Clean Water-- they have raised awareness and worked to find solutions to clean up our drinking water. We owe it to them, to all of those families affected by PFAS and contaminated water supplies, a serious commitment to stop this problem where it starts and to give them the peace of mind that they so deserve. The comprehensive measures to address our water infrastructure that are contained in this historic bill will help do just that.

Now, water infrastructure is a serious issue that New Hampshire shares with many other States throughout the country. Like water, another shared issue is access to broadband or high-speed internet service.

The challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic--just as I highlighted the challenge of not having enough access to clean water--highlighted just how important it is for our communities to have fast and reliable access to the internet. Whether we like it or not, we live in a digital world. We all relied on that digital world more than ever during the COVID crisis so that our kids could go to school, so our grandparents and families could keep their medical

appointments, and so our businesses could stay afloat. Of course, even before the pandemic started, the digital divide created an equity issue that deepened disparities in education, health, and business.

If you live in a community in northern New Hampshire, how can you attract business to your community if you don't have access to high- speed internet, if the business can't open a website and tell people what they do?

Just last month, I met with representatives from several towns in southwestern New Hampshire, another part of our State where they have been struggling to bring high-speed internet service to their residents. Due to their rural nature, these towns and others like them are unable to attract a provider to work with them. About a quarter of those that live in these towns are considered unserved and far more are underserved.

At that session, I talked to a woman named Molly Miller. She is a telecommunications committee member from Hancock, NH, a town with about 1,600 residents. She talked about the challenges that her family had experienced trying to work and do school from home during the pandemic. She said everyone had to disconnect while her youngest son was participating in college classes, and she shared a story about her son. She said: He was unable to turn in his final exam from one of his courses because the file was too large. He couldn't print it because they didn't have enough speed--download speed in their house. By the time he made it to the library to print out the file, it was too late. His exam was not accepted.

That is just the kind of everyday challenges that families, who don't have access to high-speed internet, face. And broadband access isn't a partisan priority. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle recognize the need for significant investments to ensure that all of our workers, our students, and our families are able to connect to the critical resources that are provided by the internet.

This infrastructure bill commits $65 billion to bring high-speed internet to communities in New Hampshire and all across the country. These bold investments are what we need to create jobs, to enhance the safety of our infrastructure networks, and to improve this Nation's competitiveness.

Now, had I written the bill before us on my own, I am sure, like everyone in this Chamber, it would have included different priorities than what is before us in some cases. But, as we know, that is not how the give and take of negotiations work. It is not how compromise works. You give and you get. And the fact is that New Hampshire and the United States are going to get a whole lot in this infrastructure package.

We also know that legislation that has broad bipartisan support stands a better chance at lasting longer without threats of being repealed or reversed. President Biden supports this package, and we have received strong support across the aisle through the procedural votes that we have had so far.

I am proud to have worked with my colleagues to help craft this bipartisan bill, and over the coming days, I know that I will work with even more people in this Chamber as we try and move this legislation through the Senate. Thank you. I look forward to a strong, positive vote by the end of this week.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.