Floor Statements

Madam President, this past weekend, we gathered to reflect on the anniversary of a national tragedy. The visible and invisible wounds incurred on that day continue to impact the lives of all of us.

In the last two decades since 9/11, our Nation has demonstrated enormous resilience, imponderable sacrifice, and pursued justice in dangerous lands, often under perilous conditions. We have asked our servicemembers to do so very much to keep us safe, and they have responded with uncommon courage. Last month, 13 of our Nation's finest upheld their sacred oath at the cost of their lives.

They were struck down by the cowardice of terrorists while, at the same time, they were helping innocent Afghan civilians reach a better life. Over 100 Afghan civilians were also killed on August 26 in that terrorist attack at the Kabul airport, and many more were grievously wounded. We also hold in our hearts the American servicemembers who suffered those terrible injuries that day.

On September 11, 2001, Taylor Hoover, from Sandy, UT, was just 11 years old. Nine years later, he was a staff sergeant in the Marine Corps. He would go on to serve three tours of duty in Afghanistan and earned both the respect of his fellow soldiers abroad and the admiration of those who knew him well and loved him here at home.

As we recently gathered in Salt Lake City to mourn the life of Staff Sergeant Hoover, it was clear that this deep admiration was shared by thousands of the people of Utah. While our hearts were heavy with grief as his family shared their memories of Staff Sergeant Hoover, they were embraced by the crowd one by one as the ceremony concluded, and our communal bonds emerged ever stronger.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3652 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, my amendment is very simple. It eliminates the instruction to the Senate Finance Committee whereupon people would be able to have their taxes increased.

If you want to have taxes go up in this country on corporations or people, vote against my amendment. If, instead, you want to make sure taxes are not raised on corporations or people, vote for my amendment. Simple as that.

I ask people in this audience who want to keep taxes down, vote yes.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, it is said that politics is the art of the possible, and I am afraid that, over time, someone might argue that politics has become the art of confusion.

There is so much confusion that goes on around issues of significance that in some cases, the media or the public has a hard time quite getting to the bottom of what is a fact and not a fact.

Perhaps, in some cases, the confusion is purposely spread by politicians like me and by others. So I hope today to be able to reduce some of the confusion for those who are paying attention to this debate. I will begin by focusing on some things that I think we can pretty much all agree on.

The first is that we as a nation need to invest in our infrastructure. Our

highways are often in disrepair. In many places, people spend way too long getting to and from work. People in business that are shipping goods from one place to another find that they get stuck in traffic for long periods of time. That hurts our economy. It makes it difficult for us to be competitive globally. I think we mostly can agree with that.

Bridges, as well--we have got our structural engineers who say that literally thousands of bridges across this country are in disrepair. Some are in such bad repair that trucks have to go to long-distance routes to avoid those bridges that are so damaged.

We need also to make an investment in our rail. For some time, I lived in the Northeast. People travel from Boston to New York and New York to Washington and so forth on Amtrak, and in many cases, it takes almost as long to get to those places on Amtrak as it would to drive because the rail is in such disrepair and because passengers compete on that rail with freight. So we need to upgrade our rail system.

Our transit is, in many cases, also in disrepair. We use old technology for a lot of our railcars. Modern technology has the cars themselves that are powered as opposed to being pulled by a huge locomotive or engine. We can improve the technologies we are using. We are just out of date there.

I believe in buses. I think that we can do a better job connecting communities through transit systems like buses that can change their routes as commuting routes also change.

I think we can agree that broadband ought to be available to all Americans, whether in rural areas or in low-income areas. Kids need to be able to connect to their school and get their assignments and follow what is going on in the world through the media, through the internet. People need to be able to use telehealth to get consults with doctors. If we are going to have economic growth in depressed areas of our urban areas or in our rural parts of our country, we need to have businesses know that they have access to high-speed internet, or they simply won't go there.

Our water systems are in need of repair. We have some water systems that date back a hundred years, pipelines back a hundred years. We are going to have to upgrade some of these. We have lead pipes such as in Flint, MI. That disaster there can't be repeated anywhere else, and we have to do a better job making sure that we don't have an adjustment to the pH in the water such that we have lead pipes beginning to leach. In some cases, we are going to need to remove and replace lead pipes.

Wildfires are becoming a bigger and bigger issue in the American West, and we need to have a better program to mitigate and prevent wildfires.

Our power grid, in many cases, needs to be upgraded. It is vulnerable to cyber attack. It is also vulnerable to various weather events that have caused blackouts in various parts of our country. Fortunately with regards to power, in this legislation, we also add some efforts to look at new technologies--nuclear, hydrogen, battery power, and so forth--as a way to reduce our dependence on oil and gas.

Permitting reform--I think we also recognize that sometimes it takes way too long for projects to get underway, and that adds to cost and is frustrating to consumers as well.

All these elements and more are addressed in this bipartisan infrastructure agreement that is before the Senate right now. That is what this bill is all about: addressing those infrastructure needs.

I would note that this is not a partisan issue. It has not been. Every modern President--well, I should say every President in the modern era has proposed an infrastructure package, the need to improve our infrastructure. President Trump, the last administration, proposed a $1.5-trillion plan.

Now, the bipartisan proposal is $550 billion, about one-third of President Trump's proposal. Now, again, confusion sometimes reigns here because we hear all sorts of numbers, but this is $550 billion above what we normally spend. So if you add in what we normally spend, that gets you to the higher number of about a trillion. People talk about that, but that is a different matter. That is the normal run rate over the 5 years. If you add that to the $550 billion, you get almost a trillion.

There is confusion also about how many pages there are. The reality is, yes, there are 2,700 pages in this bill, and I think the public says: How in the world could anyone possibly read something like that and keep up with it? Well, as the Presiding Officer knows, about 2,000 pages of this were already passed by the various committees of jurisdiction. And some of the people who are most vocal in criticizing these 2,700 pages to read, they have had access to those 2,000 pages, or portions of them, already because they are on the committees that passed them. And, of course, in addition to the 2,000 pages, there are other pages that have been written and are before committees to consider.

Something else I would note, and that is, in addition to not having raised taxes to pay for this $550 billion infrastructure program, this bill is paid for. The Congressional Budget Office has scored about one- half of it as being paid for under their rules. The other half is also paid for by real dollars--not the way CBO scores it under their rules but just as real. Sometimes, for instance, a pile of funding, a pile of cash, has been previously allocated and not used, and so it goes back to the Treasury. The CBO says: Well, we can't score that because it has already been appropriated once. I understand that, but it is real dollars.

You might say: Well, why don't we just let it go back to the Treasury and reduce the deficit? Let me tell you something. That will never happen because our Democratic friends are planning on putting in place a $3.5 trillion bill of their own which would surely grab all of that money and everything else that comes along.

So it is not going to go back into the accounts of the Federal Government to reduce the deficit and the debt; it is, instead, going to be used on the spending spree that my colleagues across the aisle are planning on carrying out soon. I affectionately call that $3.5 trillion spending spree the blue whale. It is very, very large--the largest. It is soft, and it is blue. But ours is going to be used for real, hard infrastructure. Of course, it is about one-seventh the size of the blue whale, and I might call it the roadrunner by comparison.

Now, I recognize that there has been some criticism of this bill, and it is not without faults. It was, after all, the product of work by Republicans and Democrats. Ten of us were tasked by our group of 22 to see if we could come up with something, and to get Republicans and Democrats to agree to something together means that there are some things we like better and some things my colleagues across the aisle like better.

There are some things, if it were just up to Republicans, we wouldn't have in there, and my guess is there are some things, if it were just up to Democrats, they wouldn't have in there. But it was, after all, a meeting of people from both parties to find something that could actually get a bill done because, as the Presiding Officer knows, we have had several Presidents try to get a bill done, and it has never gotten across the finish line. So this was an effort to say: Let's break the logjam and get something actually accomplished so we can deal with the infrastructure challenges that we virtually all agree America faces.

Now, criticism is expected, and I would note that criticism is also pretty easy. Anytime you have a bill that is worked up by compromise between two sides, why, the side that looks at the other side's work is going to criticize it. I can point out all the things I don't like about the bill. I won't waste anyone's time doing that.

I do ask my colleagues: OK. If you don't like this bill, what bill do you like instead? What would you do instead? President Trump's $1.5 trillion bill? How would you pay for that one? What would you spend that money on? Because ours is one-third the size of that proposal.

So one can stop and say: What would you do instead?

I know some people would say: Well, nothing at all. We don't want to spend any money at all. No bill. Let's not spend a dollar on infrastructure.

That is, I am afraid, not an option in reality because we have two options. One is to accept the bipartisan work of our respective colleagues, and the other is just to say: Hey, because the

Democrats have the House and the Senate and the White House, just let them do it all by themselves without any Republican input at all.

I am pleased that the President decided not to take that course and that Democratic leadership here in the Senate has concluded as well that is not the right course to take; that a bipartisan approach was better. But let me note that if the option were taken to have a Democratic-only bill, my estimate is that it would cost about $500 billion more than our $550 billion bill; that it would expand union rights through Davis-Bacon, with prevailing wages on areas where they are not currently existent; that there would be more money going into things like transit and Amtrak, more money for lead pipes, more money for administrative costs.

We hold administrative costs down to 3 percent of this bill. There were many efforts to try to raise that as high as 10 percent. That would mean tens of thousands of new Federal Government employees. We held it down to 3 percent. That, in my opinion, would change if it were simply a partisan, one-party bill.

We made some of these funding efforts into loan programs where States or people who would take advantage of the funding would ultimately pay them back. My guess is, if it were a bill that did not have our input, some of those would be transferred into grants.

Now, there is another criticism that gets raised, and that is that this bipartisan agreement and the bill before us are just a gateway to the blue whale; that this is going to open the door to the $3.5 trillion plan that the President has proposed.

I don't really follow that one terribly well, that argument, because obviously if there is no agreement on this legislation, if it doesn't pass or if the House blows it up in some way, why, then this effort, the hard infrastructure effort, will just be added to the blue whale, to the $3.5 trillion. That is going to get done anyway, and this would become part of that.

So there is going to be an effort to pass a blue whale one way or the other. I hope that doesn't pass, by the way. But this is not a gateway to anything but a gateway to better roads, better bridges, better water, better broadband into rural communities, and a better economic vitality for our country.

Now, I do admit that I do understand and appreciate the argument that is being made--one criticism that is being made against this bill by some in my party, which is, by being in favor of this legislation for $550 billion, we are going to confuse the voters, and they are going to think that we are also all just part of this big blue whale thing; that we are spending 550 and my colleagues across the aisle want to spend $3.5 trillion, and it is all just one big, massive spending mess, and it is going to be hard for the voters to understand the difference, and we are going to get blamed for the whole mess.

I subscribe to what Lindsey Graham said. He said: I think we can make it pretty clear to our voters that we love one and we hate the other. That is what my Republican colleagues would hopefully say. That is the way I feel. I love one; I hate the other.

But I happen to feel that this is not so much a matter of confusion as a matter of recognition of what is right for America because, by being for this bill even though there is a risk of some confusion, we do save about $500 billion for the American people and reduce the deficit over time by about $500 billion. We do restrict Davis-Bacon from being expanded into areas where it is not now. We do hold down some of the transit spending and the Amtrak spending. We hold down administrative costs and the number of Federal employees who are going to be hired for these programs.

So, in my opinion, we have to put aside sometimes the politics for what is absolutely right for America. I am sure some people are a little disturbed when they see headlines that say: Oh, this bipartisan effort would look like a win for Biden. Well, it is a win for Republicans, and it is a win for Biden. It is a win for Democrats. It is a win for the Senate to say that we can work together, that we have been able to overcome partisan differences to do something that is right for America.

Mr. President, I am convinced that this is a win for America. I support this legislation. I am proud to have been part of the effort to help draft it and negotiate it. I admire and respect my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have worked on this legislation.

We calculated just the other day that we had had over 50 meetings amongst that group of individuals--just the ones that I attended--over the last several months in preparation for this bill. It is not a slapped-together effort. It was carefully considered. It was drawn upon and built upon legislation already passed by committees, overwhelmingly, time and time again, wherever we could.

I certainly hope that the Senators from both sides of the aisle will join together in passing this legislation, sending it to the House; that the House will address it in a way that is consistent with what we have agreed to and we can send it to the President and help America finally get its infrastructure in order.

Thank you

America's infrastructure is in desperate need of upgrades and expansions. Twice now we have had bipartisan votes to proceed to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. This is an historic piece of legislation that will address decades of neglecting our nation's hard, physical infrastructure.

Because it is a comprehensive piece of legislation--a total of 2,700 pages--some claim that this was dropped out of nowhere. That couldn't be farther from the truth. This bill is a culmination of bipartisan collaboration and regular order. Nearly 2,000 of the 2,700 pages already passed out of committees with bipartisan support and are awaiting floor action. This includes the 1,200 page surface transportation reauthorization from EPW and the Commerce Committee in advance of its September 30 expiration.

In total, a combined 61 senators on 4 committees put together the bills, many of which have been sitting out there publicly for months, that form the core of this bill today.

Across the nation we have roads and bridges in various states of decline and disrepair, a rail system that is out of date, transit that is slow and in need of an upgrade, a lack of high-speed transportation opportunities from one part of a city to another, and entire communities that are unable to access high-speed broadband. If you look at other nations, you can see that we have fallen behind when it comes to our infrastructure and it is impacting our productivity as a nation. China, for example, invests; four times more than we do because they recognize the importance and strategic value of strong infrastructure, and they aren't slowing down.

Several months ago, a bipartisan group of Senators came together to work on an infrastructure because we recognize that in order to compete with nations like China, we need to invest in ourselves and address our nations hard infrastructure needs. Many people in my party believe by working on this bipartisan product we have handed a win to the Democrats, but this bill is a win for America as a whole.

Yes, there are aspects of this bill that I would not have included if I had written it on my own, and I am sure my Democratic colleagues would say the same thing, but that is the nature of compromise. And when the alternative is the Democrat's writing and passing their own infrastructure bill that would go far beyond the boundaries of traditional infrastructure, I believe working together and making compromises is more important than playing political games and holding up a product that is good for all Americans.

There is a lot of misinformation about what is included in this infrastructure bill. Let me echo my colleagues who have spoken today and reiterate that this legislation includes only hard, physical infrastructure. It addresses roads, highways, and bridges, broadband deployment, water infrastructure and clean water funds, ports and waterways, airport improvements, and resiliency.

This is really going to help my home State of Utah where we have 2,064 miles of roads in poor condition. Commute times are up 7.2% in the State since 2011 and bad roads cost drivers an average of $709 per year in repair. This bipartisan legislation authorizes roughly $2.7 billion in highway funding

for Utah over five years to construct, rebuild, and maintain its roads and highways.

Beyond the transportation needs of Utah, this bill includes additional funding for wildfire mitigation and recovery and $300 million to fund the outstanding Emergency Watershed Program, $50 million for the Central Utah Project Completion Act, $100 million for drought contingency plan funding, $1 billion for the FEMA Building Resilient Infrastructure Communities program, $214 million to fully fund the Navajo Utah Water Rights Settlement, and $1.7 billion for the construction and improvement of Indian Health Services sanitation facilities. It also includes my Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission Act which establishes a commission to study and recommend fire prevention, mitigation, management, and rehabilitation policies for forests and grasslands.

Investing in our nation's hard infrastructure is expensive. There are a lot of different numbers flying around right now but the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act is $550 billion in new spending, not $1.2 trillion as some have said. Together our group has developed a plan that is comprised of fiscally responsible pay fors. We have always said the CBO wouldn't give us credit for about of our pay fors including $173 billion in unused saving's from COVID-19 funds, $53 billion from certain States' unused enhanced unemployment insurance claims, $53 billion in economic growth resulting from a return on investment these infrastructure projects will provide, among others.

In the past couple of days, you may have also heard about a provision that would supposedly allow the government track your driving through a vehicle mileage tax. This is fearmongering and misinformation. There is no vehicle mileage tax in the bipartisan infrastructure bill. What you are hearing about is a study to determine how we can tax electric cars the same way the rest of us pay a gas tax. It is not a tax but simply a research tool.

Finally, the last thing I want to address is the mischaracterization that our efforts are somehow linked to paving the way for the Democrats $3.5 trillion dollar wish list. That bill was going to happen with or without this bill. The difference is, with our bill passed, they will be jamming through a reckless tax and spending spree that includes a whole host of unpopular tax hikes and deficit spending.

At the end of the day, this is a good bill on balance. It will be good for Utah, and it is good for every community across the nation. It may not be ideal, but we should not be letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and it is better than what would have resulted had the Democrats had written this bill alone. In addition to providing a much needed upgrade for the country, it shows that the Senate works, preserves the filibuster, and gives hope to future compromises on important pieces of legislation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, the remarks of my colleague from North Dakota have inspired me to stand and join him; and also the fact that we are in a room of great significance and silence reigns, and I hate just to fill it with words, but I think the topic we are talking about is extremely important.

I appreciate the good Senator's support and effort in helping craft this legislation--this bipartisan legislation to improve our infrastructure in our country.

I also salute the leadership on both sides of the aisle for allowing a robust amendment process.

There is no question but that there are many opportunities to improve the legislation as written. The chance for our colleagues to offer adjustments and improvements is a part of our tradition and a good part of our tradition.

I would concur that we do need to upgrade our infrastructure. I think most Americans who have experienced our infrastructure would come to the same conclusion. Too often, our roads are in need of repair. Many times, we have communities that are not connected with high-speed travel opportunities from one part of the city to another. Our transit, in some cases, is old, slow, and does not reach communities that need it.

Our rail system, particularly in the northeast, which is an important corridor for travel, is way out of date. Some people know you can drive between some cities. Where there are trains, you can drive faster than you can take the train.

We have structurally deficient and dangerous bridges, in some cases, that need to be repaired. So I think there is general agreement on both sides of the aisle that we need to improve our infrastructure.

It is known by people in this country, and I think particularly brought home to us, if you travel in other countries and see what they are doing and then you compare where we are--you would think: Boy, we used to lead the world in these things, and now we are not. And it is having an impact on our productivity as a nation because of additional travel time necessary for us to get to and from work as well as other endeavors.

If that is going to happen, we have only two options right now and probably for the indefinite future. Right now, we have a circumstance where my party is in the minority--not by much. We are basically tied here in the Senate, although the tie is broken by the Vice President. So the Democrats have the majority in the Senate, in the House, and, of course, with the White House. Given that circumstance, it is possible for the Democrats to write an infrastructure bill all by themselves and simply pass it through a process known as reconciliation. That is one option.

The other option is to work together on a bipartisan basis, where we craft a better bill with the input of Republicans and Democrats. That is the option that is before us now.

There is not a third alternative, which is Republicans only draft the bill. I would love that alternative, but it is just not available to us because we don't hold the House, the Senate, and the White House. So we have two options. Do we want our Democrat colleagues to draft a bill all by themselves or do we want to work together with Republicans and Democrats and fashion something that is bipartisan.

Now, I note that when you work in a bipartisan basis, there are some things the Democrats will want to include that we Republicans would rather not have there, and it is obvious that that is the case. I am sure that is the case for Democrats as well. They will see things that we have included that they just as soon would not have there. And it is very easy for either side--or both sides, rather--to point out the things in the bipartisan bill that they don't like and to attack it as not being fully in conformity with their views. But that is the nature of two parties working together.

Now, some would say: We could do better. Let's have another alternative, a different bipartisan approach.

My answer is: Go at it. Have at it.

No one is keeping people from working together if they want to come up with a better piece of legislation. Boy, I would be anxious to see what it is. But in order to get a bill passed, it must be acceptable to Democrats and Republicans. And that is unless, in my party, we are able to have Republicans

in the majority in the House and the Senate, and the White House, which we don't have at this stage.

So, again, the alternative is, if you can come up with a better bipartisan bill, do it. Two, amend it as you feel appropriate--and I think there are good amendments that are coming forward that I have supported and will support going forward. But we must not let the desire for perfection on the part of people like myself overcome the desire to have a good bill ultimately reached.

I think it is actually counterproductive for either side to take attack shots at the items in the bill they don't like. Instead, bring forward amendments. See if you can improve the bill. If you can't do that, come up with a bill that has bipartisan support, because that is the only alternative we face, other than a bill drafted exclusively by Democrats.

I, for one, think this bill is a good bill, on balance. It will be good for my State. I think it will be good for every State. We will get an upgrade--a badly needed upgrade--in the infrastructure of this country.

Again, is it ideal, perfect? Far from it, but it is a big step forward and one heck of a huge step of advantage relative to having one party alone write a piece of legislation. I think it is fair to say if Democrats alone write an infrastructure bill, my State of Utah won't be real happy by the time it is done.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the incredible athletic achievements of the Salt Lake Community College men's soccer program. This past season, their hard work and collective determination earned them the NJCAA Division One national championship title following a thrilling overtime victory in the final match.

The Salt Lake Bruins accomplished this feat after an undefeated conference season, tallying an ultimate record of 16-1-1 under the impressive leadership of Mark Davis and the entire coaching staff. On their path to the final, the Bruins were crowned champions of Region 18, West District, and the Scenic West Conference.

On June 10, 2021, Davis and his talented squad of young athletes, a union of Utahns and international footballers proudly representing the Bruins banner, faced top ranked Iowa Western in the final. Despite conceding early, the Bruins clawed back thanks to a sensational left- footed strike by Ryen Jiba. In overtime, Paul Richnow headed home the game winner to deliver the program its first ever championship trophy.

Champions are forged by years of supreme dedication to individual and collective improvement on and off the pitch. These athletes of diverse backgrounds demonstrated their ability to excel as one team, and they should be immensely proud of their accomplishment. For their efforts, Bruins players and coaches earned numerous accolades, including Mark Davis being named SWAC and West District Coach of the Year, as well as Coach of the Tournament. His staff, including Cassie Ulrich, Ty O'Connor, and Jordan Carver, earned United Soccer Coaches Staff of the Year and four All American selections. Sophomores Levonte Johnson, Samuel Owusu, and Paul Richnow were named NJCAA First Team All Americans, and Richnow also earned MVP of the National Tournament. An additional 12 players have committed to playing at the NCAA level.

Individual performances and accolades are built on the strong foundation of a great team. Recently crowned champions also include freshman Jose Arellano, Christian Olivares, Daniel Tareke, Mason McRae, Taimu Okiyoshi, Jermaine Muirhead, Sergio Martinez, William Greener, Negue Kante, Santiago Delfino, Ethan Coleman, Hogeun Jee, Kai Phillip, and Samson Ahisu. Sophomores also include Omar Gomez, Freddy Cano, Brandon Cervantes, Jason Chavez, Andres Bermudez, Azriel Johnson, Johnathan Castro, and Rafael Calderon.

I extend my congratulations to the entire SLCC men's soccer program for their historic season and wish them the best of luck in their continued athletic and academic pursuits.

Mr. President it is an honor to be here. They say that making law is like making sausage. But I have seen sausage made, and it is a prettier process, and it is a lot easier. But this has been a lot more rewarding. I have enjoyed the time we have had together.

My good friend from West Virginia talked about how much money we are spending here, how big this is. But let me note something, underscore something: This is paid for. This is not going to raise taxes on people. This is, instead, taking some money that was already appropriated, not used for COVID relief. We are going to bring that back and use it to help build infrastructure.

This is a bill which is paid for, and it gives the American people something that they desperately need, and that is an upgrade in our infrastructure.

Now, of course, you know it was several months ago that this group came together. We call ourselves affectionately the G-10. Senator Portman and Senator Sinema have shown enormous patience and persistence and resolve getting this across the finish line. I want to thank also particularly Senator Capito for laying out the foundation for what we proposed at the very beginning, which we built upon and has led to the final piece of legislation.

As has been said, neither side got everything we wanted. There are a bunch of things in this bill I don't like, I would take out. There are things in this bill I know my Democratic friends don't like and would take out. But the nature of getting work done in Washington is to be able to come up with something that has enough good for both that we actually get it done. And the American people have been waiting one President after another after another, saying let's improve our infrastructure, and it just doesn't get done. This time, we have.

Now, I know that Republicans had a choice here. We could let the Democrats just do something on their own. With reconciliation, they could have spent trillions of dollars without any of our help. But the President and the leaders of the Democratic Party here and our friends said: No, let's work together and see if we can do something collectively.

Now, I know Members of both parties have mischaracterized our efforts as somehow linked to paving the way to the Democrats' $3.5 trillion wish list. If you don't think our Democratic friends are going to push for that monstrosity with or without this bill, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. They are going to push for that anyway. This is a separate piece of legislation. I love this one. I hate that one. These are two very different things, and there is going to be an effort, obviously, to stop that bill from going forward.

This is not perfect. It is paid for.

I want to note as well that if the Democrats would have written the bill entirely on their own, Utah would probably have ended up on the short end of the stick. But because of our involvement in this effort, some of our rural States like mine have been able to have a seat at the table, and that means limiting the spending on bad policy that only benefits the rich coastal cities in the East and the far West. So I am proud of this bill because it benefits Americans across the country.

For decades, elected officials have talked about addressing our Nation's infrastructure. This infrastructure bill turns that talk into reality without raising taxes on hard-working Americans or adding to our debt.

I am proud of my colleagues. It has been fun working with them. It was challenging from time to time, I am sure, to have to listen to me, they would tell you, but I am proud of what we did together, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Now, I would respectfully request that we yield just a minute more to Senator Portman.

As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 314, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a resolution with Senators Bennet, Hagerty, Klobuchar, and Coons to honor the 2020 Olympic Games that officially start tomorrow.

More than 600 of our finest athletes have traveled to Tokyo to represent the United States. These athletes trained their entire lives to compete this month on the world's biggest stage. They have shed blood, sweat, and tears and have sacrificed countless hours, many while working separate full-time jobs and raising families of their own.

Of course, no one thought the 2020 Olympics would be starting tomorrow. COVID-19 did not just delay the Games for a year, it also meant hundreds of qualifying events around the world had to be canceled and relocated.

We recognize the dedication of the athletes and coaches of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic teams, as well as

the family, friends, and loved ones who support them.

We are grateful to our friends in Japan, who have committed tremendous resources to provide safe and secure Games. I have great gratitude for these people of Japan, the people of that great country, for the enormous sacrifice they have made to host the world, to demonstrate to the world that qualities of the human spirit are great indeed, and to make their home a place where the entire world comes to gather and celebrate the human spirit and its accomplishments.

And while these Games may look a little different this year, we stand with Team USA and will be cheering them on as they bring many medals back home.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor and celebrate the outstanding legacy of my dear friend Dean Cox. His enduring commitment to public service over the course of his life and his consequential career are worthy of the highest praise.

Many Utahns knew Dean as an accomplished Washington County commissioner, but those closest to him knew him as a loving friend, a neighbor, dad, grandfather, and husband, who devoted his life to helping others.

With Dean's passing, Washington County has lost one of its finest public servants. Dean's legacy reminds us that the most reliable path to success in public and private life is marked by an unwavering dedication to principle and compassion.

With people from across our State, we extend our deepest sympathy to his family and his loved ones. He is a man we will miss very, very much.

Dean's lifetime of public service in Washington County and across southern Utah cements his reputation as an indispensable expert on a wide range of vital services for first responders, businesses, and State and local governments.

A true son of southern Utah, Dean was raised on the family pasture by his veteran father and caring mother in St. George. Throughout his youth, Dean learned how to fix just about anything in his father's garage and mechanic's shop, mastering his trade craft in Bob's Garage.

The course of his life would, however, change while attending Brigham Young

University. There, he would meet the love of his life, LaRene Leavitt, and the two would soon dedicate their lives to raising their four children at their home in St. George.

Dean and his brother decided to purchase Bob's Garage and carry on the family tradition. Their shop--renamed Colorland Sales and Service-- was not only a successful small business, but it allowed Dean the opportunity to pass along the skills he had learned from his dad to his own children as well.

Dean's career in public service began as a volunteer emergency responder in Washington County. As a stellar radio operator and licensed pilot since the age of 19, Dean's emergency coordination efforts through major disaster responses and other trials earned him experience and admiration from the communities he protected.

Impressed by his years of excellent service, Washington County offered Dean the critical role of county administrator, where he executed the policies set forth by the county commission. Then when a seat on the commission became available, Dean was encouraged to join the race. His candidacy was backed by three decades of local knowledge, by his expertise and broad popularity within the community.

Victorious, Dean then became the decisionmaker. Without a doubt, the hallmark of Commissioner Cox's legacy is his successful breakthrough in securing approval for the Northern Corridor project. His pragmatism and willingness to reach compromise was the key to resolving long-held disagreements between disparate parties. His efforts yielded a win for the transportation needs of the Nation's fastest growing State and a win for the wildlife conservation of its most beautiful.

Last year, 80 percent of his constituents reelected Dean Cox to be their Commissioner--80 percent. Despite this incredible achievement, illness would tragically force Dean to receive hospital care, including chemotherapy. To his character, Dean continued to serve while undergoing this treatment.

He passed away surrounded by loved ones, and he is survived by his loving family: his wife, LaRene; his son Jeffery, and Tanna, Matthew, Keira, and Camille; his daughter Elisa, and Quinten, Ethan, Anna, and Audrey; his daughter Kristen, and Thomas, Kate, Jonas, and Hailey; his son Edward, and Karen, Emery, and Everett.

At every step of Dean's remarkable career, his sweetheart LaRene stood by his side. Her love and support sustained him through decades of selfless public service, and now, LaRene carries on his wonderful legacy. Our great State owes Dean and LaRene Cox a debt of gratitude for their friendship and kindness to all and their indelible contributions to southern Utah's destiny.

Our hearts go out to them. We love them dearly and pray for happiness and joy in their ultimate reunion.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to the esteemed legacy of Katherine and Bob Garff, two maveriks whose towering achievements in business, politics, religion, and education will continue to benefit Utahns for generations. The Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce has recognized them with the presitigious and well-earned 42nd Giant in our City award.

Bob and Kathi's lifetime commitment to service is aspirational for all and worthy of the highest praise. Their community engagement efforts over many decades have transformed the automobile industry, expanded educational opportunities for young people with the Keys to Success and Road to Success programs, and their support to the University of Utah gave rise to new buildings for business education and athletics. Bob and Kathi's legacy is deeply woven into Utah's fabric of cherished values--prioritizing family, service, education, and the welfare of our future generations.

The Garff family's vast impact on our State is, in part, due to their willingness to serve in positions of leadership and public trust. Kathi served as chair of the Utah State Board of Education and was a board member for the Utah Board of Regents. She also guided education policy on the University of Utah's National Advisory Council, served on the board of the Crimson Club, and was chair of their President's Club.

Bob, too, donated his time to elevating health initiatives as a member of the American Cancer Society and Intermountain Healthcare and boosted Utah's athletic profile on the world stage as chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Olympic Winter Games. There, I witnessed firsthand Bob's talent for complex problem solving and his compassionate and ethical leadership. His accomplishments also include serving as chairman of the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce and the Deseret Book Company, a board member of First Security Bank, a member of the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the Utah Commission on Volunteers. As the former speaker of the House of Representatives for the State of Utah, Bob has cemented his legacy of consequential public service for all time.

A celebration of Bob and Kathi Garff would be incomplete without highlighting the significant role of faith in their lives, including their shared commitment to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Over the years, Bob was called to serve as bishop, president of the England Coventry Mission, stake president at the Univeristy of Utah, and president of the Bountiful Temple. May his strong faith guide Bob as we remember and cherish his time with us.

Kathi and Bob's selfless contributions to the welfare of our State will endure through the ages, and Utahns will remember them for their lifetime commitment to public service. Their 5 children, 21 grandchildren, and 4 great-grandchildren carry on the honorable tradition of their beloved Bob and Kathi Garff.

Mr. President, I am honored to recognize the incredible life and achievements of veteran Nell ``Mickey'' Stevenson Bright, a pioneer of aviation during the Second World War and a proud Utahn. Nell earned her silver wings from the Army Air Corp as one of a highly select group of women serving in the WASP program, or Women Airforce Service Pilots. These brave women flew over 60 million miles in support of the war effort and were finally awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in 2009 in recognition of their valor.

As a young woman, Nell looked to the sky and saw an opportunity to chart her own course. After learning to fly at age 19, Nell undertook an ambitious new challenge--applying her aviation abilities to serve in the military. While the war raged around the world, Nell applied and was accepted to train with the Army Air Corps in Sweetwater, TX. Accustomed to the intense heat, wind, and dust as a daughter of Canyon, TX, Nell proved her talents in conditions that would trouble any uninitiated pilot. Crosswind landings were second nature to the young pilot-in-training, and she quickly earned her silver wings. She was one of 1,074 women to achieve this prestigious distinction from over 25,000 applicants.

WASPs flew every airplane the Army had in order to execute a variety of wartime support operations. Nell flew the B-25 twin-engine bomber, P-47 pursuit planes, and multiple Navy bombers. WASPs transported planes and cargo from manufacturers to bases, towed targets for live anti-aircraft gun practice, and simulated strafing missions. With friendly anti-aircraft guns firing live rounds at the women in the sky, even their training exercises were extraordinarily dangerous. Thirty- eight WASPs lost their lives over the course of their service. Their sacrifice to our country will never be forgotten.

Successfully navigating military aircraft through the skies of war is a challenge for the most decorated pilots, but the WASPs faced adversity on the ground, too. Unfortunately, discrimination was present on base. As women, the WASPs were told not to eat in the officer's mess hall, instructions they promptly ignored. The Tuskegee Airmen, the first Black pilots in the service, also faced similar barriers on base. The WASPs spoke up in their defense, and the commanding officer assented. When the 20 airmen were required to sit segregated, the WASPs refused to accept the injustice and joined them.

WASPs would continue their fight for recognition after the war, contesting their civil service classification despite holding military officer status. In 1977, the WASPs received veteran status, which granted them their well-earned and hard-fought benefits.

Nell is a pioneer of military aviation, and her legacy will continue to inspire the next generation of public servants, particularly young women. By virtue of her bravery and valor, she helped break gender barriers in the military and contributed to the ever-growing diversity in our ranks today. After her service, Nell established a successful career as a stockbroker in Arizona and continued to challenge traditional gender norms.

Today, Nell calls our great State of Utah home. In 2014, she received the Minute Man Award from the Utah National Guard and Honorary Colonels Corps for her service to her country and community. She also earned the 2014 Leadership and Excellence Award from Brigham Young University,

Mr. President, I rise to commend the outstanding charitable efforts of the Farmers Feeding Utah campaign, a project of the Miracle of Agriculture Foundation and the Utah Farm Bureau Federation. As the pandemic brought new challenges to farmers, ranchers, and families everywhere, volunteers and community leaders across the State joined together to help our neighbors in need.

Last year, disruptions to our food security and supply chains led to uncharted economic hardship for both producers and consumers. For many, this included putting food on the table. Nevertheless, Utahns were determined to chart new opportunities for creative and charitable giving.

Recognizing an alarming increased demand in food pantries statewide, the Utah Farm Bureau Federation launched a campaign to deliver food to disadvantaged Utah families. To achieve this, the Farmers Feeding Utah program collects generous donations used to purchase commodities from Utah farmers facing pandemic-related market shortages and losses. These products are distributed to food pantries with the help of numerous community-based organizations, which in turn sustains our farms and ranches.

To date, the Farmers Feeding Utah campaign has collected over 1.5 million pounds of food, worth over $3.2 million, from donations by individuals and organizations passionate about alleviating hunger. These extraordinary acts of kindness have provided nutritional relief to more than 23,000 Utah families along the Wasatch front, northern Utah, the Navajo Nation, and across southern and rural Utah.

The success of this initiative underscores Utah's excellence in fielding solutions to complex problems, to the benefit of individuals and families in need. The collaboration of diverse partners across the agriculture industry, health sector, and religious and academic institutions highlights our State's esteemed tradition of charity. In addition to the Utah Farm Bureau Federation, partners like Utah State University's Hunger Solutions Institute and Create Better Health programs, the Utah Department of Agriculture & Food, the Farm Bureau Financial Services, the Utah Petroleum Association, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and scores of generous Utah companies and individuals have provided invaluable support to this effort.

There is more work to be done, which is why the Farmers Feeding Utah program continues to organize food drives and deliver critical assistance in cities all over Utah. With every additional meal donated to a hungry family, our Utah family grows ever stronger. Thank you to all involved in this tremendous public-private service initiative, with special gratitude for the strong leadership of Ron ``The Milkman'' Gibson as Farm Bureau president. Keep up the great work.

Madam President, I call up my amendment 1364 and ask that it be reported by number.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for 4 minutes of debate equally divided.

Madam President, I actually believe that we make better legislation if we have two parties work together on something.

In this case, we have crafted a piece of legislation that our party hasn't had any involvement in whatsoever. We tried. We went to the White House, and the President was very gracious in welcoming us and listening to us but did not accept any of our proposals. So we have before us today a piece of legislation that has the benefit of only one party.

There are some errors in that and some things I think we really have to look at and try to fix. One of them is with regard to States and localities.

At the time the President put his bill out there, there was an assumption that States have massive losses associated with the COVID experience. But the data that has come out since then has shown that, in fact, the States did not have those kinds of losses. Many States did not. Twenty-one States are seeing a rise in revenue. States like Florida don't need more money. Oklahoma doesn't need more money. My State of Utah doesn't need more money. California has record surpluses, billions of dollars in surplus. Yet, under this legislation, California itself at the State level gets $26 billion more and in total with its localities gets $41 billion. This is on top of their already surplus year.

Think about that. We are going to be asking the American people to allow us to borrow money from China and others, pass that on to our kids and grandkids so that we can send money to States like California and mine and others that don't need the money.

This doesn't make any sense at all. So my amendment does a very simple thing. It says: Look, you can spend all the money that the President's plan suggests and the way they suggest it, but each State's amount is limited by the amount of their revenue loss--meaning the gap they had from 2019 to 2020 and then 2021--as well as any COVID expenses, as well as any Medicaid expenses that grew. So just limit it by how much they need it. That is all it does.

So I ask that people on both sides of the aisle just get behind this so that we can save probably at least $100 billion, to keep money from going to States and localities that don't actually need it.

Thank you.

Madam President, may I respond?

First of all, those States that I described didn't lay people off. They didn't lay off firefighters. They didn't lay off teachers. They have held their teachers. They have held their firefighters. My State has actually paid bonuses to teachers and to State workers, they have so much money coming in.

You see, COVID, the pandemic, did not hit all the States in the same way. So States that need more money, give them more money. I am happy to do that. But States like mine, Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, California, they don't need more money. Why are we borrowing more money and sending on the burden of debt and interest payments to our kids and grandkids to send money to States that don't need it?

By the way, we are talking about States that don't have deficits; they have surpluses. All of their COVID expenses would be reimbursed under the

proposal that I make. There is no COVID expense that is not reimbursed.

I believe I have 10 more seconds.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, once again, I have listened to the arguments of the respective counsel, studied briefs, and weighed evidence in an impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. This is not a responsibility I sought or expected. I certainly did not anticipate having to serve a second time as a Senator-juror in an impeachment trial.

An initial question shaping the context of this trial was whether or not the Senate has constitutional jurisdiction to try a President who is no longer in office. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to try all impeachments. In this case, where the House impeached the President while he was in office, it is particularly clear that the impeachment is constitutional and therefore that this trial is constitutional. The weight of legal opinion and historical precedent affirms this conclusion. Further, the Senate decided this question in the affirmative. I believe its decision was correct: The Senate must not surrender its power to hold accountable those who abuse their office or threaten our Republic, even in their final days in office.

In following the oath in an impeachment trial and in our deliberations on the final question, I believe it is up to every Senator to determine what to consider and what the Constitution and their conscience require of them. The conclusion I reached on the final verdict will not surprise anyone who read my reasoning in the first impeachment trial: I consider an attempt to corrupt an election to keep oneself in power one of the most reprehensible acts that can be taken by a sitting President. The second impeachment resulted from the President's continued effort to do just that.

His attempt to pressure Georgia's secretary of state to falsify the electoral results was itself a heinous act that merited impeachment. President Trump summoned his supporters to Washington on the very day of the electoral vote count, knowing that among the people he gathered were many who had committed violence in the past and who had violent intent. Despite the obvious and well-known threat of violence, he incited and directed thousands to descend upon the seat of Congress as it was undertaking the constitutionally prescribed process to certify his successor. And then he not only failed to defend the Vice President and the others at the Capitol who he saw were in mortal danger, he also incited further violence against the Vice President.

The President's conduct represented an unprecedented violation of his oath of office and of the public trust.

There is a thin line that separates our democratic republic from an autocracy: It is a free and fair election and the peaceful transfer of power that follows it. President Trump attempted to breach that line, again. What he attempted is what was most feared by the Founders. It is the reason they invested Congress with the power to impeach.

Accordingly, I voted to convict President Trump.

We must also consider how we came to a point where a President felt he could do as he did without suffering meaningful consequence.

It has become almost cliche to say that America is divided as never before in modern history. So, too, is the observation that this division is the product of a decline in trust in our governing institutions, of a decline in the social bonds forged in churches and charities and communities, of expanding income inequality, and of trusted

news sources replaced by cable and internet algorithms calculated to inflame our prejudices.

Less unanimous are the predictions of where this division will lead. Even so, no one suggests that it will lead to a better future. Some envision an economy buffeted by policies drafted by the extreme wings of the political parties. Others claim that authoritarianism will replace democracy. Some anticipate social unrest and violence. A few even predict civil war. Still others fear that a weakened America will become vulnerable to an opportunistic foreign foe.

We instinctively know that the growing division represents a growing danger. Academics and pundits may promote cures, but in our hearts, we know that their bromides won't heal the rift. People aren't going to return to mainstream media, churches aren't going to experience a resurgence, and income inequality will remain a persistent feature of the global digital economy.

Throughout history, only one thing has been able to unite a divided nation: great leaders--leaders like Churchill who inspired a fearful nation; leaders like Lincoln who mustered the national will to save the Union; and leaders like Reagan who raised our spirits from suffocating malaise. Leaders like these also have been essential in our churches and universities and businesses and charities, and just as importantly, in our homes.

With our Nation so divided, so vulnerable to economic distress or to civil violence or even to foreign adversaries, the need for leadership that unites and uplifts, that calls on our better angels, is as great as we have ever known. The corollary is that the failure of leaders to unite, to speak truth, to place duty above self, is as dangerous as we have ever known.

With the country as divided as it assuredly is, a person in a position of leadership who inflames passions with the purpose of perpetuating untruth commits a singularly dangerous sin against the Republic.

We Senator-jurors did not all vote in the same way in this impeachment trial. Differences in perception of the facts that were presented are to be expected. So, too, are the differences in our respective estimations of the impact of the outcome of the trial. People of conscience reached different conclusions. National unity does not require unanimity of opinion.

But civic unity does require truth. There is one untruth that divides the Nation today like none other: it is that the election was stolen, that there was a massive conspiracy, more secret and widespread than any in human history, so brilliant in execution that no evidence can be found of it and no observer among the tens of thousands in our intelligence agencies will speak of it.

That lie brought our Nation to a dark and dangerous place. Invented and disseminated by the President, it poisoned our politics and our public discourse.

Like you, I hear many calls for unity. It is apparent that calling for unity while at the same time appeasing the big lie of a stolen election is a fraud. It is the lie that caused the division. It is in the service of that lie that a mob invaded the Capitol on January 6.

Now that the impeachment trial is behind us, it falls to each of us to affirm what we all know: President Biden won the election through the legitimate vote of the American people. The division in America will only begin to heal in the light of this truth, a truth which must now be affirmed by each of us in this Chamber.

Mr. President.

I send a question to the desk.

Mr. President, I rise to congratulate my friend Gary Herbert on a career of esteemed public service. Gary's steady hand of leadership as the 17th Governor of Utah guided our State closer to fulfilling its promise of safety, security, and prosperity for all Utahns.

A son of Orem, UT, Gary faithfully answered his call to service in his early life and career. From his missionary service for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to his military and civil service as a staff sergeant in the Utah Army National Guard, to elected office, Gary's unwavering early commitment to public service earned him the respect and experience necessary for future success.

Gary Herbert's unique ability to articulate sound public policy on behalf of his community earned him a seat on the Utah County Commission, where he demonstrated principled leadership for 14 years. Soon after, Herbert was elected to serve as lieutenant governor, overseeing multiple statewide commissions and the State electoral office. Four years later, Utahns reaffirmed their State's leadership with a record reelection victory for Governor John Huntsman Jr. and Lieutenant Governor Herbert.

Governor Herbert assumed the mantle of leadership and gubernatorial responsibilities on August 11, 2009, following the resignation of his predecessor. For the next decade, the Governor approached significant challenges with a sharp focus and principled decision making. He surrounded himself with impressive public servants and exemplified a compassionate and nuanced approach to good governance. Through an early economic crisis and a myriad of complex public policy challenges relating to civil liberties, faith, education, infrastructure, and public health, Governor Herbert's legacy reflects his impressive caliber of personal character and leadership in difficult circumstances.

Gary's lifetime of public service is sustained by the devotion he shares with former First Lady Jeannette Herbert and their children and grandchildren. Our great State owes Gary Herbert and his family an abundance of gratitude for years of integrity and virtue as Utah's chief public servant. Utah will continue to shine as the brightest star on our American flag.