Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, the United States lost 13 servicemembers in Afghanistan on August 26, 2021. The heroic service and the ultimate sacrifice of these men and women will never be forgotten. They are Marine LCpl David L. Espinoza from Texas, Marine Sgt Nicole L. Gee from California, Marine SSgt Darin Taylor Hoover from Utah, Army SSG Ryan C. Knauss from Tennessee, Marine Cpl Hunter Lopez from California, Marine LCpl Rylee J. McCollum from Wyoming, Marine LCpl Dylan R. Merola from California, Marine LCpl Kareem M. Nikoui from California, Marine Sgt Johanny Rosario Pichardo from Massachusetts, Marine Cpl Humberto A. Sanchez from Indiana, Marine LCpl Jared M. Schmitz from Missouri, Navy Hospital Corpsman Maxton W. Soviak from Ohio, and Marine Cpl Daegan W. Page from Nebraska. Over the next hour, Senators representing many of these fallen servicemembers and the States from which they hail will honor their service and their memory. Utah's SSgt Darin Taylor Hoover was only 11 years old on September 11, 2001. From that moment on, he knew that he wanted to serve his country. Nearly 21 years later, he was killed in Kabul, Afghanistan, performing his duty valiantly, as always, as a U.S. marine. Staff Sergeant Hoover and his fellow marines were on the frontlines of the operation, securing an entrance to the Hamid Karzai International Airport and screening vulnerable Afghans on their escape to safety as the extremist Taliban took hold of their country. Staff Sergeant Hoover was killed by an ISIS-K suicide attack that targeted him, his teammates, and the surrounding innocent civilians. Staff Sergeant Hoover, like all marines, learned the Marine Corps' values at boot camp. Those values are honor, courage, and commitment. He was told that being a marine and living these values does not begin or end with training or service as an Active-Duty marine; these values forever guide marines' decisions, their service, and, in fact, their entire lives. Staff Sergeant Hoover lived these values throughout his entire life. You see, Staff Sergeant Hoover did, always, what he said he would do. He was honest, respectful, caring, and compassionate. He dedicated his life to the service of others, in and out of uniform. He wanted to be the best and to provide the very best for others, and he was always willing to work hard to make that happen. His friends and his family knew him as a loving, thoughtful, hard- working man. He loved and was dedicated to serving those around him, his family, and his country. As a young man, he made a lasting impression on those who knew him. They described him as--and these are their words, not mine--``the best friend,'' ``selfless,'' ``always levelheaded,'' ``hard-working,'' ``a teammate you could count on,'' ``a born leader,'' and as ``a good, kind person.'' By being the type of man he was, he honored those who knew him. He honored the uniform he wore. And in his service and sacrifice, he honored the United States by representing and being the best of us. Staff Sergeant Hoover certainly knew the risks of his duty. He understood the risks of this deployment in particular. In particular, he knew what was at stake and on the line on this particular day. American civilians had been warned not to travel to the airport due to specific credible threats of an attack. The marines at the gate did not, of course, have the option of standing down or shirking their duty; they had a mission to complete. Despite knowing the very real threat to their lives that day, Staff Sergeant Hoover and his marines followed orders and did their duty. They stood in close physical proximity with hundreds as they checked identification and shuffled people through the gate one after the other. They didn't know if or ultimately when an attack might come; they just knew of the threat. Nonetheless, those marines carried on, guiding countless innocent civilians to safety. His father Darin put it best. He said: That's just the type of man that he was, doing what he needed to do and getting the job done for those that couldn't do it for themselves, and he was standing out front leading his men. You see, Staff Sergeant Hoover demonstrated uncommon courage in fulfilling his duty that day, as with all other days in which he valiantly served. This was not Mr. Hoover's first deployment to Afghanistan. In fact, he served three tours of duty there in his 11 years in the Marine Corps. He knew what war and Afghanistan were like. He decided to carry on and continue serving because that is what he had committed to do. Since high school, he knew he wanted to be a marine specifically. His father said that ``he was dead set on it.'' When the news in Afghanistan developed, Staff Sergeant Hoover told his family he wanted to be in the action to help with the evacuation mission. He died doing what he loved: serving his country and leading his men. Staff Sergeant Hoover was the oldest of the 13 servicemembers killed in this attack. His life had been defined by his love of family and of country. He was committed to serving, and he lived and gave his life, showing the last full measure of devotion, demonstrating exactly what it means to be a U.S. marine. Staff Sergeant Hoover leaves a legacy with his family, the State of Utah, and our Nation. He represents the best among us and the commitment of a servicemember and a marine. His dedication to the values of the Marine Corps and full-fledged devotion to what is right will remain with us forever. He will never be forgotten. As the preparations are made to inter him along with other American heroes at Arlington National Cemetery, he can behold what the Marine Corps hymn promises and millions of good marines before him have seen: On Heaven's scenes, you will find the streets are guarded by United States marines. Staff Sergeant Taylor Hoover joined the ranks of American heroes before him, always faithful. May God rest his soul, may God comfort his family, and may God bless us with the honor, courage, and commitment that Taylor Hoover truly lived.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, States and localities are not allowed to tax land held by the Federal Government. As a result of this, Congress created the PILT Program to reimburse States for that lost revenue. Now, PILT payments are determined by a complex formula, a formula that unfortunately is far lower than it would be under a tax equivalency. Twenty-one years ago, the USDA concluded that PILT payments needed to be increased by 3\1/2\ times. On certain Federal lands, the number is much larger. A Utah study showed that for lands held in Utah cities, it needed to be 262 times larger. My amendment would help correct this inaccuracy. It would direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the true taxable value of PILT land and treat it as if it were owned by anyone else other than the Federal Government and therefore subject to taxation. It would reform the program to more accurately compensate States for the revenue that they lose simply by virtue of the fact that they have Federal land in them.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 3141 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, inflation is out of control. Very few seem to be willing to talk about it, much less address it. Now, look, it hasn't been this bad since the great recession. Even then, only two of the months out of that entire crisis were as bad or worse than inflation is right now, and it is showing up in every consumer product Americans buy. Everything from groceries to gasoline, to housing, to healthcare is getting more expensive. Every dollar that we churn into the economy, that we print out when we don't have it, makes these and all other products more expensive. Let's be clear. The spending is facilitated by this budget resolution, and that same spending will exacerbate inflation. It will worsen the pain that Americans are feeling as they are filling their gas tanks and stocking their pantries and refrigerators. When inflation is surging, we can't be piling onto the problem. We are not elected to make life worse. We need to get inflation back under our control. This simple amendment would empower Congress to do that by making it harder for Congress to increase spending whenever inflation is above 3 percent.

Mr. LEE. I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3815 and ask it be reported by number.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I can't agree to move forward with this nominee today. I think this is really unfortunate. We could have avoided this. This could have been avoided altogether if the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would simply disclose the responses to the questions for records to Members directly. Then Senators could review the nominees more quickly. Unfortunately, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has refused to do that, and so I have been forced to go to the State Department to get this information. I received those responses on Monday evening. Just a few hours ago, I sent some additional questions to the nominee. They would have been easy to respond to. I still await those responses, and I expect that I will receive them soon. But until then, I can't do my job right. My advice and consent role can't adequately be performed without having the information. I am not going to relinquish that duty to represent the people of Utah on all matters and not just on those matters as to which I enjoy a seat on a committee. There is one type of Constitutional amendment that is preemptively unconstitutional. All Senators are equal; you can't treat them unequally. I deserve to have access to these answers, and they are not giving them to me. That is why we are here. That is why I can't agree to this tonight, and I am not going to do that. I am not going to be bullied into it. They need to share this information. I therefore object.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, we are debating a bill that a number of us have spoken of on a number of occasions. Since my last address on the Senate floor on this topic, we received a score on the bill from the Congressional Budget Office. Now, remember, it is the CBO's role to put together a score on legislation we are considering. It is part of how the system works in Washington so we can assess what will and will not add to the deficit and how it will do so if it does. It is an important part of the process. When we finally received the CBO score just about 48 hours ago, we discovered a few things. We discovered that, despite the representations we have heard by the bill's staunchest advocates to the effect that the bill would be paid for--that it is, that it would not add to the debt and deficit, and that it would not add to the debt and deficit in a way that also didn't involve raising taxes--it turned out that the CBO rejected the claim that this bill was paid for. In fact, the CBO concluded that $256 of the $550 billion it claimed in pay-fors did not pay. They are not paid for, and thus that they will considerably--I mean, we are talking here about over a quarter of a trillion dollars that would go right on to the debt and deficit. They also concluded that in the long run, over the next 10 years, we will be looking at an additional $340 billion in cost to the Federal Government--a cost that by some estimates could reach as high as $400 billion because of the spillover effect that this bill is likely to have on future spending, contracting authority, and otherwise. So this bill is not paid for. The pay-fors suggested by the bill's proponents don't get the job done. In fact, more than half of them simply don't get there. We do, however, see that there are some of the pay-fors that create significant policy concerns. One of the pay-fors that isn't fake is an extension of the so-called g-fees--g-fees being imposed by entities like Fannie Mae that will inevitably increase the cost that home buyers will face when they go to buy a home. Now, why does that matter here? Well, we have seen a startling uptick in inflation--inflation across the board, everything from gas to groceries and everything from healthcare to housing. We see that increasing stunningly in a way that a lot of people are pointing out, correctly, that first-time home buyers are now finding it very difficult to get into a home. This is something that is going to end up affecting all poor and middle-class Americans at a time they can little afford it. And yet we are increasing these fees--fees that are in effect a back-door invisible tax on a lot of those who are least in a position to pay. Some of the other non-fake pay-fors that actually do bring something in include an increase in the fees paid by manufacturers and distributors of certain chemicals. The issue there is that this fee, while labeled as not a tax--because, technically speaking, it is not a tax--will end up increasing the price of basically every consumer good purchased by the American people. The way these things end up working is that to the tune of about $15 billion or so, Americans will find that pretty much everything they buy, from apparel to electronics, will get a little more expensive. They may not see it. In fact, the overwhelming majority of them won't even know to attribute it to this particular piece of legislation, but it will have that effect. It will make all Americans a little poorer. It will make all Americans face the very stark reality in which their already strapped dollars that they earn will go just a little bit less far. We have to remember that from one year to the next, we don't see dramatic fluctuations in the quantity of goods that the American people have access to that they may buy. In other words, the U.S. economy is capable of producing a relatively foreseeable, predictable, somewhat finite supply of goods in a particular year. When that doesn't change dramatically from one year to the next, as it almost never does, but you dramatically increase the money supply in the U.S. economy, then what you see is that everything gets a little bit more expensive. This ends up hurting, in particular, America's poor and middle class. It ends up hurting, in particular, those Americans, including most Americans who in one way or another live paycheck to paycheck, who in one way or another depend on the income that they have, and the income that they have is relatively fixed. So, as a result of that, they don't get as far. Now, you have got some Americans, including the wealthiest and well- connected in our society, who may well figure out ways to get wealthy off of this bill. One way or another, they can play things to their advantage, and they may make a lot of money off of it. You have got another category of very wealthy Americans--maybe, you know, people in the top 1 or 2 percent of income earners--who might notice that the things they buy are getting more expensive, but it might not affect them all that much. But then you have got everyone else, and I mean the vast, overwhelming majority of all Americans, who, in one way or another, plan out each year knowing that they have got a relatively finite amount of money to spend, and that money goes less far when we just print money to the tune of trillions and trillions of dollars. Remember, the Federal Government, in recent years, has been spending about $4 trillion a year. Tragically, even at the top of our economic cycle, with record low unemployment and with record high growth, we were still spending $1 trillion a year more than we were bringing in-- bringing in about $3 trillion, spending about $4 trillion. This was inexcusable then. It would be inexcusable now, except that we are making it much, much worse. Last year, we took in about $3 trillion, and we spent $3.6 trillion-- borrowing and then printing close to 4 trillion additional dollars. What does this do? Well, it makes all Americans just a little bit poorer, especially those living on a relatively fixed income. So this is troubling when we do that. We ought to be concerned when we do that. Inflation numbers that are coming out all the time, including some that I have heard about the first time today, indicate that everything is getting more expensive. And what are we doing? Well, we are on track to spend another $1.2 trillion, including $550 billion of new spending, which the bill's proponents claim is paid for when most of it isn't paid for. And that portion of it that is paid for is in one way or another often paid for in a way that will inure to the detriment of poor, middle-class Americans. This is concerning. It is also concerning that one of the other pay-for provisions is the one focused on cryptocurrency. It focuses on an industry that is rapidly developing--rapidly developing within the United States--that depends on a lot of innovation happening in the United States. One of these pay-for provisions seeks to bring in more revenue to the Federal Government or at least to promise more revenue to the Federal Government, with the promise of requiring those who spy and sell cryptocurrency to treat it the same way as they would the exchange of securities. This is very different than securities. These aren't just stocks. It is something very different. It is a medium of exchange that, if adopted more widely, could facilitate a lot of economic activity and a lot of innovation within the United States of America. If, in fact, we pass this bill, mark my words, it is going to have a chilling effect on innovation within this sector. And what you will see is that the flight of innovation and investment related to innovation to offshore locations around the globe, places outside the United States, may well be the ones to reap the benefit associated with the loss here in the United States if we adopt an unproven, untested, unknown strategy for dealing with something, trying to adopt many decades-old regulatory policies to a completely new form of exchange; one that, by the way, values very highly the privacy of those who exchange it. So if what you are going to do is take away that value by requiring that all of it be registered and publicly disclosed and by giving the Federal Government the ability to peer into it, you are going to stifle innovation. You are going to make a lot of people upset, and you are going to make Americans poorer. At the heart of a lot of this is a concern that the Federal Government, as it takes more and more money, as it prints more and more money, as it requires Americans to work weeks or months out of every year just to pay their Federal taxes, only to be told that it is not nearly enough and it hasn't been enough for many decades because we are nearly $30 trillion in debt--it is still not enough because we are still going to borrow and print more. It is insulting to them, and it is especially insulting to them when you tell them that in connection with the same legislation that also includes other intrusions into their privacy. For example, there is a pilot program called for in this legislation that will be created by this legislation that would be designed specifically to monitor how many miles someone drives in a year. Now, this has long been a fantasy of a number of people who would like to see the Federal Government tracking miles driven by every motorist in America. Now, we all know that there is almost no way to achieve this that wouldn't excessively interfere with the privacy rights of every man, woman, and child in America. Look, the American people are fine with a government that makes sure that we are safe from foreign aggressors, that regulates interstate and foreign commerce, that coins money and regulates the value thereof, that adopts a uniform set of bankruptcy laws, immigration laws, protects trademarks, copyrights, and patents. What they do not want is a nanny. What they do not want is a snooping device added to every car that will track them; that will track where they and their families are going. It is none of their darn business. Keep the Federal Government out of this. Look, whether you want more government spending or not, chances are, if you are listening to this, you probably are concerned, regardless of what political hat you wear, regardless of whom you voted for in recent Presidential or congressional elections. You probably don't want the Federal Government in your car monitoring your every move knowing where you are going. We know that when governments do that, when they start to assume that everything is government's business, bad things happen. It ends in tears and wars. That is none of the Federal Government's darn business. We don't want the Federal Government even developing technology to start snooping on every person's every move. Which brings me to yet another intrusion on personal privacy and liberty in this legislation. Section 24220 calls for the development and, within just a few years, the formalization and finalization of regulations that would require passenger vehicles manufactured and sold within the United States to have a device that would passively measure the blood alcohol content of the driver and do so in a way that would inhibit or at least impair the ability of the vehicle to operate if the vehicle, in its infinite wisdom, was able to ascertain that the blood alcohol content of the driver was over 0.8. Now, look, we are all for stopping drunk driving. It is terrible. It results in countless lives lost. But we can all see a lot of things that can go wrong with that. Setting aside for a minute the constitutional implications of the intrusiveness of putting technology in every passenger vehicle that requires, at the outset, without any finding that anyone has done anything wrong, that requires you to take a test mandated by the Federal Government every time you want to do something as simple as turn on your car--then let's consider what happens when, with such a technology, which to my knowledge doesn't yet exist--with such a technology, assuming it is able to come into existence because of these burdensome regulations in a few years, that technology, if they are able to develop it, is going to be costly. Who does that hurt? Well, you guessed it. Poor and middle-class Americans who will all of a sudden find that every passenger vehicle will become a lot more expensive. It is just the way it works. When we mandate the creation of new Federal regulations, and those Federal regulations apply to any new automobile sold in the United States, the price of new automobiles goes up. And in the case of a particularly novel and particularly sophisticated technology like this one, I suspect it will go up a lot. This may not be troubling to the millionaires and billionaires out there who don't feel the pinch of that, but to everyone else, the 99 percent of all Americans--more than that, I suppose--this hurts. Moreover, what happens when that technology malfunctions? Not if but when. Look, we have all had cars that will malfunction for one reason or another, and oftentimes it is basic security devices, something as simple as that annoying beeper that goes off until you put your seatbelt on. Sometimes some people will put their seatbelt on, and it still pings. That is a terribly annoying nuisance when that happens. The consequences are much more deeply felt; they are much more severe if someone gets in the car, whether it is to go to work, to come home from work, to take a loved one to the doctor or the hospital, and it doesn't work. Look, glitches happen, and if you are talking about adding an override to a vehicle--you know, maybe that override to the vehicle mistakenly thinks that it smells alcohol, maybe it doesn't like the aftershave or cologne you are wearing on that particular day, maybe the whole thing stops working, and your car stops working with it. This isn't one of those things where you can just open up the hood and find the presence of an on-off switch, as Jerry Seinfeld might have put it many years ago. No, this is much more sophisticated technology that the average, hard-working American isn't going to be able to fix quickly. They won't even be able to see it. There again, they are going to face more costs as they take their vehicle into the shop to have it evaluated by a certified technician capable of dealing with that brandnew, very sophisticated, very expensive technology. So with each of these things, we see something of a common theme. The Federal Government, which already plays too prominent a role in too many people's lives, which is already taxing us too much, spying on us too much, and considering everything under the Sun its business--we are making even more things its business, from cryptocurrency to where and how far you drive your car, to whether you can operate your car at all. We are doing all of this so that we can spend even more Federal money on even more Federal infrastructure projects, which are even more expensive by virtue of the fact that we are dealing with Federal dollars, for the simple reason that compliance with all the Federal regulations that accompany the expenditure of Federal infrastructure dollars costs a lot of money. In many States like mine, it can cost 20, 30 percent, sometimes even more, on top of what it would cost if these were just State revenues that they were spending. So I would ask the question: Is it worth it? I would ask the question: Do we want Big Brother knowing our every move? I would ask the question: Do we want a government that is already requiring you to work weeks or months out of every year just to pay your Federal taxes? Do you want it printing even more money, making sure that the dollars that you spend, which are finite, limited, and sacred, will go even less far? I think not, and I urge my colleagues who support this legislation to reconsider.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, through the summer and fall, in the growing town of Cedar City, UT, hundreds of people will fill the seats of the Engelstad Shakespeare Theater, modeled after the Globe, to enjoy a showing of Pericles, Prince of Tyre by William Shakespeare. Families will cry and cheer, gasp and giggle as they enjoy a Utah tradition: the annual Utah Shakespeare Festival. Each year, for the last six decades, families from around the world have flocked to the campus of Southern Utah University to enjoy productions of the Bard's best works. Founded in 1961, the Utah Shakespeare Festival is a prime example of how private initiative can catalyze growth and unite community. Nobody embodies this story more vividly than Fred C. Adams, the festival's founder. As a young man, Fred made acting look easy. Not only did he develop a passion for the world of theater, he also demonstrated a knack for stagecraft. Over time, his talent and passion developed from a hobby into a career. Years before the Utah Shakespeare Festival put on its first show, Fred served his country from the Pentagon. During the Korean war, he was in charge of entertainment and morale. Having grown up acting, he dedicated himself to the work of production and performance, bringing joy and brilliance to those who served with him. After his service during the Korean war, Fred returned to his home in southern Utah in 1961. At that time, hundreds of thousands of tourists visited each summer to see the area's national parks by day, but by night, there was little to do. It was around that same time that a new freeway exit was planned along I-15, Utah's primary interstate highway, right in the heart of Cedar City. Excited by the prospect of growth, Fred saw an opportunity. One day, while he and his girlfriend Barbara, who later became his wife, were in the Fluffy Bundle Laundromat, daydreaming while waiting for their laundry to dry, the two thought up an idea. Both Fred and Barbara were passionate about theater, and Fred even taught theater classes at the local College of Southern Utah. ``Why not start a Shakespearean festival in Cedar City?'' they thought. With a bit of funding and the help of friends, the idea seemed like it could become a reality. Eager to learn more about how such a festival might come to be, Fred left the laundromat, packed up his bags, and headed to Ashland, OR, where the Oregon Shakespeare Festival takes place each year. When Fred got to Oregon, he was befriended by Angus Bowmer, the founder of the Oregon Shakespearean Festival. After a few days of observation there, Fred returned to Cedar City and then set out with Barbara, Barbara's mother Louise, and two theater students to visit theaters in Canada and Connecticut. On the road, the Utah Shakespeare Festival was born. Fred eagerly approached the Cedar City Council and the Chamber of Commerce to tell them about his plan to attract people to Cedar City. Their reaction was dismal. Fred once recounted: ``the idea went over like a pregnant pole vaulter . . . they thought it was a dumb idea, really dumb.'' Despite the lack of enthusiasm, however, the local Lions Club agreed to underwrite his plan with $1,000 after he told them the festival expected to recover all of the money in ticket sales. Hopeful and excited about the first season of the Utah Shakespeare Festival, Fred set out to show just how significant the economic impact of the festival could be on Cedar City. To demonstrate the reach of the festival, Fred went out and got hundreds of silver dollars upon which he painted a red line. The stage was set. Each time someone paid for a ticket at the festival and needed change, the ticket counter would give them a painted silver dollar. Little by little, the dollars began to enter circulation and people in the city wondered where the painted coins were from. Just 3 weeks after Fred began painting coins, he attended a chamber of commerce meeting in Cedar City. In the meeting, he was asked if he knew anything about the silver dollars with a red line on them. He laughed and responded, ``that is the economic impact of the Shakespeare Festival in Cedar City!'' That first season of the festival saw productions of ``The Taming of the Shrew,'' ``Hamlet,'' and ``The Merchant of Venice,'' performed by a small company of Fred's students, friends, and neighbors. Over 3,000 people attended the shows during the 2-week-long season. After paying off their debts, the festival had also raised an impressive $2,000 to help put on a second season the following year. Since that first year, the Utah Shakespeare Festival has grown to serve more than 110,000 patrons, who view nearly 300 plays each year in three theaters over a 16-week season. The festival has become a year- round operation with over 30 full-time employees and a budget of over $7 million. Fred's work catalyzed tremendous growth. The festival has received many national awards, including the 2011 Emmy Award for its production of ``A Midsummer Night's Dream,'' the 2001 National Governors Association Award for Distinguished Service in the Arts, and most notably the Tony Award for Outstanding Regional Theatre in 2000. Fred's work united the community to accomplish something truly remarkable. After 44 years as executive producer, Fred retired from an active role with the festival but, despite his retirement, could never fully step away. Not a day went by that he wasn't seen at the festival either directing shows, acting onstage, raising funds, or pulling weeds in the Shakespeare statue garden. Fred loved his work and those he worked with dearly, cherishing them all his life. In February of last year, after a 22-year battle with cancer, Fred was reunited with his late wife Barbara. Together, he and Barbara had dreamed up the Utah Shakespeare Festival and made their dream a reality. Surely, he and Barbara are now working hard to put on heavenly productions with the help of angels. Fred's life story is a testament to how personal initiative can catalyze growth and unite community. He tirelessly worked to see his dream of a Utah Shakespeare Festival realized and tirelessly loved his family, his friends, and his community along the way. And as a result, Cedar City has grown, the festival has drawn international praise, and we all benefit from the example he has left behind. So when times are tough, when work seems monotonous, and when dreams seem far-fetched or far-gone, remember Fred. His story can inspire us all.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. LEE. 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

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

Mr. LEE. 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. LEE. 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. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, if there had been a recorded vote on amendment No. 2478 to amendment No. 2137 to H.R. 3684, ``To require the Minority Business Development Agency of the Department of Commerce to promote and administer programs in the public and private sectors to assist the development of minority business enterprises and to ensure that such Agency has the necessary supporting resources, particularly during economic downturns,'' I would have voted nay.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, infrastructure is important. We all need it. We rely on it to get to and from our homes, to and from work. We rely on it for our day-to-day needs. It has to be there. Not all of it has to be Federal, and what is Federal can be made more efficient. My amendment today is directed at exactly that set of objectives. It would finally resolve the fiscal insolvency of the highway trust fund and give Americans a tax cut. It would allow Americans to pay less and Federal, State, and local governments to build more. Pay less, build more--that is the emphasis of this entire amendment. We should pay less for what we need, and we should build more of it. Specifically, my amendment would transfer $120 billion in unused COVID-19 funds to the highway trust fund. It returns the scope of the highway trust fund dollars so that they can be used only for projects on the Interstate Highway System. This was, after all, why the gasoline tax was created, and it ought to be what we use it for today. After all, most roads are not interstate, and most systems are not the Interstate Highway System. The Federal Government doesn't need to do all of it. And, in fact, what we find is that, when States and localities do infrastructure, they can do so more efficiently, far less expensively as a result of the Byzantine labyrinth of Federal regulations that you have to comply with as soon as you are doing any kind of a road project that involves even a single dollar of Federal funds. My amendment also requires a 5-year plan to pay off all of our highway trust fund's outstanding obligations. And, on day one, my amendment reduces the fuel tax from 18.4 cents to 7 cents on gasoline and the diesel tax from 24.3 to 8.3 cents to keep pace with the current spending needs of the Interstate Highway System. We also can't forget the burdensome Federal regulations and intervention that balloon the costs of our country's infrastructure projects. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has estimated that Federal regulations and intervention cost American consumers and businesses nearly $2 trillion annually. We know that, within Federal infrastructure projects, there are a multitude of Federal regulations that drive up the cost of each project by as much as 20 percent, in many cases more like 30 percent, and I am told, in some cases, even more than that. Ultimately, we drive up infrastructure costs when we make the projects Federal. It doesn't need to be this way, because most of these are not Federal projects. That is why my amendment also addresses two key regulatory challenges in our infrastructure context. One, it reforms the NEPA process to ensure projects are given certain timelines and not stalled out by frivolous lawsuits. It reforms NEPA so that our infrastructure money actually goes to NEPA rather than resulting in endless delays brought about by NEPA and NEPA-related litigation. Two, it repeals the Davis-Bacon wage requirements that artificially increase the labor costs beyond what the market demands--labor costs that are especially important and hard felt right now given the labor shortage. The Senate has a choice today. You can choose to pay less and build more. You can offer Americans a tax cut--a tax cut that will affect poor and middle-class Americans most acutely, most immediately, most directly--and it will also simultaneously provide long-term solvency to the highway trust fund and lower the costs of our Nation's infrastructure projects. Or, alternatively, if you don't want to vote for this, you can choose our current path, which is to continue to saddle the American people with debt, more inflation, financial insolvency, and more inevitable taxes. You can also vote against it and choose to continue the current practice of allowing for endless, needless, pointless delays in our infrastructure projects that really harm Americans. Look, at the end of the day, we just want more of our tax dollars going into funding steel and concrete to go into the ground so that America's moms and dads can spend less time stuck in gridlock traffic and more time with their families. The choice seems very clear to me. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment to build more and pay less.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate my friend and colleague, the majority leader, for allowing me to finish my remarks this evening. When we look at legislation like this, I hope we can pay attention to a few details--a few details--that focus on more than just our roads, bridges, wastewater projects, and other infrastructure matters. Are they important? I hope we will ask specifically: Are they appropriately Federal? Could they be just as easily handled as some other level of government? I hope that we will also ask: If they are appropriate for the Federal Government, are we spending appropriately there? And, are we doing it at the right time? Are we placing the dollars that we are going to spend on the right things? I also hope that we will pay careful attention to something that my friend and my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator Sinema, said. She pointed out throughout this process it was difficult and time consuming. I liked how she put it. She said: It is supposed to be that way. Our Founding Fathers set up a system in which it would necessarily be difficult and time consuming to get there. She is absolutely right. It is not supposed to be easy to pass legislation because legislation, especially like this, impacts a lot of people--a lot of people who are not here. There are only 100 of us who have the privilege of serving in this body, and we have 330 million people in this country who will be affected by it, and they will be affected by it for a long time to come. That is why it is supposed to be difficult and time consuming. There, again, I point back to the fact that it took this committee--this committee--or this group; they are not a committee--this group of 10 or so Senators 4 painstaking months to come up with this. And it is to their credit that they were able to get it done even in that amount of time. Again, I don't agree with the conclusion that they reached. I can't vote for this bill as it is written. But that really is remarkable that they were able to do it in that period of time. The fact that they, as a small group, were able to do that in 4 months means that this body has no business passing this legislation in a matter of just a few days. Quite arguably, we should need more time than that, not less, to digest it. But for the sake of discussion, and for the sake of respecting what appears to be a widely held view in this body that we ought to act on this, we at least need a few weeks. We shouldn't be doing this in just a few days. I also hope that we will keep in mind that every one of us in this body holds an election certificate, whether we participated in the drafting of this bill or not, and every one of us should have the opportunity to offer up amendments and to vote on those amendments to make improvements to the bill, whether we support it in its current form or not, whether we intend to vote for the finished package or not, every one of us deserves an opportunity to offer as many amendments as we may choose. And if we want them voted on, they should be voted on. We shouldn't be afraid of it. Often it is through the amendment process that we discover the nooks and crannies, we discover the unintended consequences that we allow the public to have visibility and to what has been a process that most people don't have access to. So I hope that we will do that and that we will be respectful to each other's views in doing that. Bad things happen when legislation--especially legislation spending as much money as this one does or anything close to it--is drafted in secret. Look, there is no problem--I don't have a problem at all with the fact they have been meeting. Members have every prerogative to decide what they want to propose behind closed doors. That is how the deliberative process works that results in legislation. But once it is here, as it is now, we need to take into account the fact that this hasn't been through committee; this hasn't been aired in its current form. We have got to give it the adequate airing that it needs and that the American people deserve. So I hope, I expect that in the coming days, what I hope will actually be the coming weeks, we will have the opportunity to review this in full, to share it with our constituents, to have it analyzed, to have it scored by the Congressional Budget Office--we have no business spending this kind of money without a CBO score--and then Members need to be able to offer amendments on it. We live in difficult times, and we live in times where there is a lot of rancor and there is a lot of disagreement. I am glad that there has been a good feeling here tonight with people who have been able to come together. Sometimes we can't pass legislation simply because it is bipartisan. We can't be expected to pass it just because some Democrats and some Republicans happen to agree with it. That is actually not all that uncommon. From watching the news, sometimes you get the impression we can't stand each other and that there is such deep-rooted animus across party lines, that we can't talk to each other, we don't like each other, and that the problem with Congress is that we can't get anything done because there is partisan gridlock that stops everything. Well, I would offer a different perspective to that. The fact that legislation like this occurs, bipartisanship; the fact that you don't get to be almost $30 trillion in debt without a whole lot of bipartisanship. Every single time we add an enormous sum to our national debt, there is bipartisanship behind it. Just because something is bipartisan doesn't mean that it is taking into account the needs of poor and middle-class Americans, who increasingly, of late, are being robbed blind by those who, for short-term political gain and praising the media, will make things more expensive for the poor and middle class, enabling a small handful of wealthy and well-connected interests to benefit from it. The fact that it is bipartisan shouldn't obscure the problems with it. I hope we will have an opportunity to address those problems and that we will give this legislation the due consideration it deserves. Mr. President, I yield the floor

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. I am not sure I would use the word ``sui generis'' there, but go ahead.

Mr. LEE. I would be happy to.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for the duration of my remarks, not to be limited by 10 minutes.