Roger Wicker

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to announce my support for this bipartisan infrastructure legislation. Coming to this decision has not been easy or straightforward. As the minority leader said recently, I am quite confident that out of 100 U.S. Senators, there are 100 of us who believe this bill is imperfect. I want to associate myself with that statement. The bill we are now debating is far from perfect. If I were the only one with a pen, I would have made many changes. But at the end of the day, I believe this package will do a great service for the United States of America and a great service for my home State of Mississippi. Republicans and Democrats agree that roads, bridges, broadband, ports, and rail are the building blocks of a healthy economy. This bill makes historic downpayments on those core priorities. I am pleased that this bill incorporates all of the Surface Transportation Investment Act of 2021, which Senator Cantwell and I cosponsored, and which passed out of the Commerce Committee by a vote of 25 to 3, with the support of 14 Democrats and 11 Republicans. The provisions of that bill ensure that Mississippi will get a fair shake in the competitive grant programs included in this bill, which total more than $20 billion. This bill has a number of other vitally important provisions that will benefit Mississippi. It provides my State a lump sum of $3.3 billion for roads and highways, as well as $225 million to replace and repair bridges. We will also be able to compete for funding from another $12.5 billion in bridge grants. Mississippi has nearly 6,000 miles of highway in poor condition, and over a thousand bridges are also in poor condition in our State. Commute times in Mississippi are up 5.6 percent over the last decade. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, Mississippi drivers, on average, are paying an extra $820 per year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs. No one disputes that my State and other States are in desperate need of significant new funding for roads and bridges, and this legislation does that. The historic investments in this bill mean that Mississippians can have an easier time dropping off their children at school and shorter commutes to work. First responders will also be able to reach those in need much more quickly, potentially saving lives. Separately, Mississippi will receive $223 million for public transit, $283 million for water projects, and an estimated $100 million for airport upgrades and repairs. Our ports and rail systems also stand to benefit. This bill authorizes $2.25 billion for U.S. ports; $5 billion for rail through the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements--or CRISI--Program; and $3 billion to provide safety features for grade crossings, something that is desperately needed across this country. This bill will also clear away obstacles for major construction projects by streamlining the Federal permitting process. The Army Corps of Engineers will get $9.5 billion, meaning Mississippi will have new funding opportunities for flood control projects, which are badly needed. And high-need communities will be first in line for those projects, thanks to an amendment I sponsored with the senior Senators from Delaware and Oklahoma. This should benefit urban areas, like the Pearl River Basin, as well as rural areas throughout Mississippi and throughout our Nation, which have faced the constant threat of flooding for far too long. In another positive provision of this bill, the Senate adopted my amendment authorizing the Minority Business Development Agency--MBDA-- for the first time ever. It had never been authorized. This will send new business resources to rural areas and a boost of support to historically Black colleges and universities, which are economic anchors in their communities. And I would add the good news we got just last month: Mississippi will soon be home to a new MBDA center. I also want to mention rural broadband, which will see a tremendous boost because of this legislation. This bill lines up $65 billion to be spent on broadband deployment, taking us one giant step toward closing the digital divide. Based on the Federal formula, Mississippi will receive a minimum of $100 million from these funds. That is on top of the $495 million Mississippi was recently awarded through the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund--or RDOF--auctions, and the $275 million of COVID relief funds that we are spending on broadband infrastructure in Mississippi. No Senator has been a stronger advocate than I have on broadband buildout. Reliable, high-speed broadband is critical to ensuring rural States are competitive for the next generation, and this bill will help us get there. It is no secret that I have registered my concerns about the way this bill waives some of the normal processes that make for good Federal rulemaking. As written, this bill makes it so that the NTIA can choose not to receive public comment on its broadband buildout plans; and it short-circuits the judicial review section of the Administrative Procedure Act, giving stakeholders a much smaller voice in the overall buildout process. I hope the NTIA will take care to avoid the wasteful and costly mistakes of the past and make sure these broadband dollars are spent efficiently, effectively, and with the benefit of stakeholder comment. I was pleased that my colleagues included language to prohibit the Federal Government from setting broadband rates. This would have been an unwelcome intrusion into the private market, and the inclusion of this clarifying language was absolutely critical. The internet in this country has been able to meet the demands of the COVID-19 pandemic in large part because of our light-touch regulatory framework, which has encouraged more broadband buildout. This stands in stark contrast to our European friends, who suffered severe slowdowns because of their burdensome internet rules. One pivotal moment of this debate on this subject involved a colloquy that I shared last week with the senior Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Shaheen, the chief negotiator for this title. Senator Shaheen confirmed on the Senate floor that preventing regulation of internet rates was the express intent of the language in the broadband title. Without this specific language in the legislation and the assurance made during that colloquy, I would not have been able to support this bill on final passage. Now, some have expressed concern about the cost of this bill. Offsets have been provided, and the negotiators provided pay-fors for every expenditure; but, admittedly, the Congressional Budget Office did not agree with all the pay-fors. Republicans, for decades, have advocated more use of dynamic scoring, and I wish the CBO had used dynamic scoring in this instance. It is unfortunate that the CBO refuses to acknowledge that economic growth will result in higher revenues. It should be clear to us all that the investments in this legislation will generate a stronger economy and larger sums of revenue. Experts have predicted these investments will make it less costly for businesses to operate and will lead to greater productivity. For example, the widely used Penn Wharton Budget Model has projected this bill will increase hourly wages by .1 percent and reduce government debt by .9 percent. You heard that right. The Penn Wharton Model says this bill will reduce government debt, a prediction not to be taken lightly. Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute, a respected conservative think tank, has said these investments in hard infrastructure will ease the pressure on inflation rather than contributing to inflation. In other words, this investment in infrastructure will result in tremendous economic growth--growth that some of our budgetary bean counters are not willing to account for. Now, it is important to make this point emphatically: This legislation involving hard infrastructure, which I support, stands in sharp contrast to the Democrats' forthcoming bill, which will certainly not gain even one Republican vote, and which the 50 Democrats in the Senate and a slim majority in the House hope to pass with only Democrat votes. They say their bill will be infrastructure part two, but a momentary glance of what they are proposing should dispel any notion that their bill counts as real infrastructure. I will say it clearly and for the record: My Democratic colleagues are teeing up for next week a reckless tax-and-spending spree that our country does not need and cannot afford. The Democrats' reckless budget bill will amount to a staggering $3.5 trillion. It threatens the successful Trump tax cuts. It includes crushing tax hikes on job creators; hundreds of billions in wasteful giveaways to green corporations; and a slew of spending that would heat up inflation, jeopardize our recovery, and drive our Nation deeper into debt. Democrats are even considering an amnesty measure--in the midst of the worst border crisis in recent memory--without giving a thought to improving border security, which would count as real infrastructure. But that is next week's bill, not this one. This bill, the bipartisan bill that I am supporting tonight, is the real infrastructure deal that America needs. As the Senate moves forward with this important debate, and as I consider the infrastructure needs of my own State of Mississippi, it is instructive for me to recall the history of infrastructure programs I have personally seen at the State level. In 1968, my father was a first-term State senator from Pontotoc, Union, and Benton Counties in north Mississippi. One of his major goals that year was the passage of a comprehensive four-lane highway program. That was 1968. The legislature met from January until September of that year, with vote after vote on the highway bill, before finally adjourning in frustration with the hope of trying again next year. Sadly, the next year came and went, as did others, with no meaningful highway legislation. It was not until 1987--a full 19 years later, when I myself was a candidate for the State senate--that a major four-lane highway bill was finally enacted, and only then by the tiniest of margins in a vote to override a gubernatorial veto. If you ask almost anyone involved in economic development efforts during the decades that followed, and even today, they will tell you that the 1987 four-lane highway bill was one of Mississippi's most significant pieces of legislation for job creation. For this smalltown boy from Mississippi, this is just as pivotal a moment. For my State's economy, today is such a moment. When will it come again? Maybe next year, maybe the next administration, maybe 19 years. Can we afford to pass on this opportunity? We cannot afford to pass this opportunity up. I will be voting yes on this legislation. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Senator Shaheen, the Portman-Sinema substitute provides in title 1 of the division on broadband that ``[n]othing in this title may be construed to authorize the Assistant Secretary or the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to regulate the rates charged for broadband service.'' It is my understanding that an agreement was made among the bipartisan group that no rate regulation of broadband services would be authorized or permitted by NTIA or the Assistant Secretary who leads the NTIA, as part of the State broadband grants program. Is it the Senator's understanding that the language I just quoted accomplishes that goal?

Mr. WICKER. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Shaheen and I be allowed to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I offer today what should be considered a friendly amendment to the broadband section of this infrastructure bill. Why is it a friendly amendment? Because by using the Administrative Procedure Act, which my amendment would provide, it would save billions of dollars in broadband build-out funds. It would provide for consumer input, stakeholder input, local and State government input into NTIA--the Agency that will be in charge of this broadband build-out. And also because it will not delay the broadband build-out in any way. Now, as written today, the broadband section waives the Administrative Procedure Act. The Wicker amendment would simply strike that waive and make the Administrative Procedure Act apply to the broadband section as it applies to so many big programs that are enacted. If we pass this amendment, here will be the timeline: Let's assume the President doesn't get around to signing this bill until October 1. I would expect the President would sign it earlier than that, but let's assume that he does that. There will be 30 days of notice, 30 days of public comment after the notice is published, a review of those comments, which could take 30 to 40 days. At that point the regulations are published and, after 30 days, they go into effect. So by my calculations, assuming the President is very, very late in signing the bill, the act and the regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act would be done by February 7. Now, what we all know--what everyone in this Chamber knows--is that we have to wait on the FCC maps, and they will not be ready until the earliest--until the earliest--by spring of next year, and that is--that is very, very optimistic. So we have time to do it right, to get public input, to have people who have already experienced this come to the Agency and say: You might want to do it this way; or: You might want to avoid doing it that way because here is our experience. We did this one time before, and it was only $4.7 billion. This is $42 billion. That was the BTOP program, which was enacted in 2009. We skipped this. We gave it to an Agency which is going to have it this time, the NTIA--a staff of only 157 people--to monitor back then $4.7 billion; this time it is $42 billion. Here is what we learned about the BTOP program, which is an awful lot like this one: When Congress asked NTIA to administer this, the results were deeply troubling. Let me quote the inspector general, let me quote the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy, and the Phoenix Center. Their own inspector general found that the Agency faced significant challenges in managing the size and complexity of the program. It is a program a tenth the size of what we are talking about today. The Stanford Institute said NTIA's mechanism for selecting projects was incoherent. NTIA, had they adopted more a reasonable framework, many more households could have been connected with the same money, or the same number of connections could have been realized for a fraction of the cost, because they didn't do what I am advocating today. The Phoenix Center, an independent think tank, said they found no positive effect on home broadband adoption from the BTOP program. My fellow colleagues, years from now, when someone realizes we have wasted billions of dollars on this build-out, I would want, and I think my colleagues would want, to say: Well, I voted yes on the Wicker amendment to take the extra 130, 140 days to hear what went right and what went wrong in the past and to make sure we get it right. No Senator has worked harder than I have on broadband build-out. I want this program to succeed. This is a way to make sure we spend the money correctly, to make sure we do it right. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article dated August 3, just yesterday, from the National Journal. It says: ``How $65 billion for broadband infrastructure could fall short.'' I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at this point

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I don't want this program to fall short; I want it to succeed. This amendment gives us a chance to get the money right, to take the extra time that we are going to have to take anyway to get the maps right. It is a good government amendment, a friendly amendment, and I urge bipartisan adoption of it.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I do appreciate the Senator from Maryland joining on this. Everything he said about the committee action today in the Commerce Committee is exactly correct. I subscribe to every statement that he made. I couldn't improve on it. I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I am indeed hopeful we can vitiate the rollcall vote and save some time by voicing this one. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. Hear! Hear!

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I, too, rise in support of this amendment. It is in response to a tragic automobile accident that affected a number of families. I want to thank Senator Schumer's staff for working with me, the ranking member, and the chair of the Commerce Committee to get this language correct. It is in good shape. I entirely agree with the junior Senator from New York. Vote on Amendment No. 2570

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Joseph Calascione, an FCC detailee in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I am told that the distinguished Senator from Georgia may have some followup unanimous consent. OK. If not, I am happy to proceed. I rise today pointing out an injustice done by the authorities running the Tokyo Olympics. This morning, Americans learned the news that Sam Kendricks, an American double world champion pole vaulter from Oxford, MS, has been shut out from competing at the Tokyo Olympics after a positive COVID-19 test today--almost certainly a false positive COVID-19 test. This is an injustice that can still be rectified if the Olympic Committee will be fair. For those of you who don't know Sam, he is an alum of the University of Mississippi, Ole Miss, where he took back-to-back NCAA championships before launching his professional career. He won the U.S. Olympic trials in 2016 and went on to the Rio Olympics, where he took home the bronze medal. Then again, you probably do remember Sam Kendricks. He is the pole vaulter who stopped mid-run in the 2016 Olympics to stand and salute for his national anthem. That is Sam Kendricks, Olympic champion from the State of Mississippi. He has made his school, his State, and his Nation very proud, and by all accounts he was expected to be a contender for the gold medal this year. But after testing negative for the COVID virus three times, Sam received a positive test result earlier today. The timeframe is different in Tokyo, but it was on Thursday. And under International Olympic Committee rules, he was immediately disqualified from competition, even though he had previously tested negative three times and even though he has already had the coronavirus. And even after a followup test, administered according to U.S. Olympic standards, came up negative, the rules are that you have to wait 6 days. Well, guess what, his competition is Friday, and adherence to high- bound rules like that will bar him from the Olympics. There is no consideration for the fact that his test--one of thousands of tests administered daily--may very well have been a fluke. As Sam told the world, he is not sick, he is not displaying symptoms, and he has already had COVID-19 and should be immune. And, again, he tested, according to U.S.A. track-and-field team tests, immediately after getting this false positive. Obviously, the fair thing for the Olympic Committee to do would be to follow up immediately on another test to verify whether all these negatives were correct and, undoubtedly, they were. But the powers that be won't allow Sam Kendricks to get an official followup. No, according to protocols, he must wait 6 days. Then he can have a followup test, which no doubt would show that he doesn't have the coronavirus What is magic about 6 days? What about the young athlete? What about fundamental fairness? As Sam Kendricks' father said: These athletes traveled too far, worked for too many years, made too many sacrifices not to confirm a positive test--a very inexpensive thing to do. I agree with Mr. Kendricks. These athletes should be given a confirming test--one test to minimize the chances of a false positive. But that is not the way the Olympic authorities in Japan see it. My question is this: What is the health risk of a followup test? How could it possibly hurt anyone or anything to make sure you have got it right when you tell a young American that he can't compete for his Nation in the Olympics? So I say I am not just disappointed, I am outraged, outraged that a young athlete is unfairly missing out on his chance to show his talent to the world and win a gold medal on behalf of his country, and aghast that a proud global tradition like the Olympics, a celebration of sport, competition, and international cooperation, has been reduced to testing protocols and rigid rules that are fundamentally unfair-- inflexible rules that assume there is no such thing as a false positive I send my best wishes and congratulations to Sam Kendricks and his family for the good grace they have displayed in the face of this unfair and pointless disqualification. And allow me to state emphatically that I am not willing to be so gracious. If this action stands--and I hope it will not stand--this high-bound decision by the decisionmakers at Tokyo should make them ashamed of themselves. It is not too late, even today. It is Friday morning in Tokyo. Even today, the Olympic committee can use common sense and fairness. It is Friday morning in Tokyo. When the Sun comes up, give Sam Kendricks a confirming test and allow this young man to represent his country. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Maryland, who has been such a leader in the area of human rights and international recognition of the challenges that our world faces today. I do appreciate his leadership and his partnership. We have worked shoulder to shoulder on so many issues. Yes, I proudly rise with him this afternoon to talk about a very valuable series of meetings that our 12-member delegation had in 4 countries in Europe in recent days. This was Republicans and Democrats from the House and Senate, a truly bipartisan and bicameral delegation--a very large delegation--which I think my colleague will agree made a strong statement on behalf of the United States of America and on behalf of the U.S. House and Senate about the way we view European engagement and our partnership and friendship with the 50-plus member countries of the OSCE and their Parliamentary Assembly. We visited Vienna, Austria, for the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. As Senator Cardin mentioned, we met with great success. Yes, I was reelected to the position of vice president, and I appreciate the support of Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate in helping me get those votes to receive another 3-year term there. Richard Hudson, our colleague from the House of Representatives, has been very active as chairman of Committee No. 1 in the Parliamentary Assembly. He is highly regarded. He was reelected without opposition. So there are two bits of success there. And then the great piece of work, actually, was with regard to Senator Cardin's initiative on the rising hate and intolerance that we are seeing all around the world, particularly among member countries of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Senator Cardin actually took the lead in challenging the leadership of the Parliamentary Assembly in saying that issues should be discussed. Even though they weren't in an immediate, like, 3-week crisis mode, they deserved to be brought forward. And Senator Cardin was able to get his resolution considered and passed overwhelmingly, and we made a strong statement on behalf of countering the rising hate and intolerance and countering the use of these things to buttress authoritarianism and to stoke conflict around the world. We also passed a very important resolution about the tragedy, the outrage that has gone on in Belarus. I can tell you, the opposition party leader from Belarus was in this Capitol building just yesterday talking about the importance of support from places like the United States Congress. I can tell you, Madam President, that Senator Shaheen and I are about to send a letter to our colleagues asking any and all of us to join a Freedom Caucus for the Belarusian people, the Belarus Freedom Caucus. We asked the opposition leader, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, to tell us whether that would be helpful. She said the formation of this caucus to support the freedom movement in Belarus would be a strong signal. It would be well received and effective on behalf of the opposition leadership there in Belarus. Then, again, we reiterated our opposition to what Russia has done in Ukraine and particularly to the recent Russian military buildup and ongoing aggression in Ukraine. We did a lot there with the Parliamentary Assembly. We went on to Estonia, met with leadership there--a former President, the current Prime Minister, other leaders. And, also, we had a chance to travel to the very easternmost part of Estonia and actually travel on the Narva River and look right across to Russia and the security guards there, understanding what our Estonian allies are up against with Putin's Russia staring right across the river at their freedom and democracy. From there, we joined the Three Seas conference in Sofia, Bulgaria. I can tell you, this is a group of Eastern European former Soviet Bloc countries that are striving to be in charge of their own infrastructure and rely less on the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. I think the fact that 12 Americans showed up, participated, met with Heads of state at that conference made a very strong statement of American support for freedom and for looking westwardly in trying to get their problems solved and their infrastructure needs met. We also had a very meaningful visit to Norway, where we saw some American-Norwegian defense initiatives. I am very proud of the partnership that this Helsinki Commission--our organ of the American OSCE PA--and the way that we joined together to express our support for freedom, for democracy, for the rule of law, for opposing corruption, both at the petty local level and also at the larger State-sponsored level. One other thing before I yield back and let my friend close. Particularly in Bulgaria, but also all during our trip, we were met with hearty thanks for the United States leadership in the global Magnitsky Act. This began as an initiative with Senator Cardin, Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and me several years ago directed--during the Obama administration--directed toward individual Russians who had violated human rights and individual liberty in a very outrageous and gross way, allowing us to sanction individuals rather than causing harm to the people of Russia in that case. That has been expanded now to the global level and other countries are adopting this. But I can tell you, when we arrived in Bulgaria, we were met with great thanks from people who are trying to combat lawlessness and corruption at the top level of government. I just have to say, of course, Ben Cardin has been the premier leader in this worldwide effort. It was gratifying to know and to learn firsthand on the ground there in Sofia, Bulgaria, that an initiative that began right here in this U.S. Senate years ago, and continues to this day, is having a beneficial effect on the people all across Europe and particularly in some of the countries that we visited. I yield back to the Senator from Maryland

Mr. WICKER. Would the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. WICKER. If I might add, people in Narva, Estonia, and people in the city across the river have access to each other across a bridge there. And it is clear to the people on the Russian side that their cousins and friends in Narva, Estonia, live a better life and have a better standard of living in this free country, this NATO ally called Estonia, than the Russian cousins and friends have on the other side. I just thought I would add that to the discourse before Senator Cardin moves on to discussing Norway and Bulgaria. Thank you.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, one other thing that our colleagues might not understand about the OSCE is their role in election observation. As we were leaving Sofia on the morning of July 11, we crossed paths with some other representatives from the OSCE from European countries who were there to observe the parliamentary elections being held in Bulgaria that very day. Also, on the same day, Moldova, another member of the OSCE, was having parliamentary elections. We have every hope that the results of these elections will be a further resolve in those two nation members to counter the corruption at the highest level, and we want to congratulate both of those member states of the OSCE for free and fair elections in Europe. With that, I thank my colleague. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Hyde- Smith and I be allowed to use a prop or two during our next presentation.

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, thank you very much. My first prop is a front-page story from the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal on Thursday, July 1, 2021. It says: Hail State! Bulldogs are national champions. Mississippi State celebrates after winning the College World Series 9-0 against Vanderbilt after the deciding Game 3 on Wednesday in Omaha. See full coverage: Sports, 1B. That is my other prop, and that headline says: Best in Show. Decisive win delivers first national title for the Mississippi State Bulldogs. Senator Hyde-Smith and I could not be more delighted to rise this afternoon and recognize Mississippi State University and their baseball team on their first national championship in school history in any sport. The Bulldogs had been to the College World Series 11 times in the past, and that in itself is a remarkable achievement. They even got to the championship series once in 2013. But this year was the year it all finally came together under Head Coach Chris Lemonis. They say good pitching wins baseball games, and in this case, it certainly helped Mississippi State win the College World Series. The hype had been building around MSU by the time they arrived in Omaha in mid-June. After beating Texas and then Virginia and then again beating Texas on a walk-off hit in the bottom of the ninth, the Dawgs advanced to the championship round to face Vanderbilt. The Bulldogs dropped the season opener, but the next day, on the strength of pitching from Houston Harding and Preston Johnson, who combined to throw a four-hitter, State bounced back with a 13-to-2 victory. They carried that momentum into game 3, where Will Bednar and Landon Sims took the mound and held Vandy to one single hit. The Bulldogs won in a 9-to-0 shutout to bring the national title home for the first time ever to Starkville, MS. I want to offer my congratulations to Mississippi State Head Coach Chris Lemonis, who was named Coach of the Year by Collegiate Baseball Newspaper. Congratulations are also in order for Will Bednar, who won Most Outstanding Player at the College World Series and outfielder Tanner Allen, the SEC Player of the Year. He was also named the American Baseball Coaches Association National Player of the Year. In addition, six Bulldogs were named to this year's College World Series All-Tournament Team: Logan Tanner, Luke Hancock, Lane Forsythe, Tanner Allen, Rowdey Jordan, and Will Bednar. I want to commend the Mississippi State Bulldogs team for their tireless work throughout this season and for their outstanding achievement. They have made Mississippi State and the entire Magnolia State of Mississippi proud. In the words of the late Jack Cristil, the voice of the Bulldogs for many, many years, you can wrap this one up in the maroon and white. I yield to my colleague from Mississippi.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, what the senior Senator from Iowa just said is exactly right, and unfortunately, the Biden inflation tax increase is real, and it is already here. We warned about it earlier this year when our friends on the Democratic side decided to spend almost $2 trillion that was unnecessary, and here it is. Just the other day, consumer prices increased by 5.4 percent. This represents the largest year over year price surge since 2008. It is a tax increase on every American consumer. And then today, even worse news, the producer price increased 7.3 percent. We are in an inflation problem. It is caused by this unnecessary spending spree that we have been on this year. We have known about it--now, we see the statistics--because we felt it at home. And the senior Senator from Iowa mentioned what he was hearing during the break. Mississippians are paying more for a tank of gas, for a gallon of milk. They are paying more for a new home, for a used car. Used car prices have shot up by 10 percent since May and by 45 percent since June of last year--used cars, up by 45 percent. That is real inflation, and it affects real working Americans. The hard reality is that our economy is now saturated with a tsunami of spending unleashed by the Democratic majority back in March, when party leaders abandoned what has been a balanced and bipartisan approach in the year 2020 to COVID relief. I would remind my colleagues that in February, the Congressional Budget Office had predicted our economy was already going to return to its prepandemic size by midyear without the spending of a new $2 trillion. As the senior Senator from Iowa mentioned, Larry Summers, a longtime Democratic adviser, an adviser to President Obama, warned that more stimulus could overheat the economy and cause inflation. And more spending came and the economy got overheated, and we are faced with real statistics about inflation that cannot be denied. Our Democratic friends brushed off that warning and instead pumped trillions more of borrowed money into our economy. Our Nation's money supply has increased by an unheard of 31 percent since the pandemic. Now, some of it, we had to do in the year 2020, when the economy had fallen off a cliff, but we are halfway through 2021, the Fed is still printing cash, and the majority party in this body seems intent on spending trillions more. As a result, inflation is now eating away at family earnings, at bank accounts, at 401(k) savings accounts, most of which are shrinking as a share of the economy. Loss of purchasing power is making it harder for Americans to buy a home, start a family, or send their children to college. All of this should serve as a caution to all of us, to our friends on the other side of the aisle. This week's Consumer Price Index and today's Producer Price Index information are an early alarm bell signaling that this Congress and the Biden administration are courting runaway inflation. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, if I might, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Marshall, Scott of Florida, and Murray be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I, too, rise in opposition to S. 1 and urge a no vote. The bill that the Senate will be asked to consider today is a truly radical piece of legislation. It turns out, because of that, it is an unpopular piece of legislation, the kind of bill the Senate was created to help stop from becoming law. S. 1 seeks to transform the way we do elections in this country and to do so on a narrow, partisan basis. Here is what Americans need to understand about this legislation. First, it would strip away the power of the States to run elections and hand it to the Federal Government, showing a complete lack of trust in local and State leadership. It would also spend millions of taxpayer dollars to help politicians run ads for their campaigns. Taxpayers would suddenly have to finance partisan messages they may strongly disagree with, raising serious First Amendment questions. S. 1 would nullify sensible voter ID laws across the country, including voter identification laws in predominantly Democrat States, like Connecticut and Delaware. And the legislation would also give the Federal Government the right to draw congressional district lines, even though States have done this since the beginning of our republic. At its root, this bill is based on a myth. And I consider my words here. It is based on a lie, and that lie is that voting rights are somehow under attack in States like Georgia and Texas. This is utterly absurd, and I think the voters in those States understand that. The election reforms recently passed in Georgia, for example, have actually expanded access to the ballot box, making it easier to vote, but also making it harder to cheat. The new Georgia law does this, among other things. It expands the window for early voting. The new Georgia law allows no-excuse mail-in voting to continue. It adds 100 new ballot dropboxes. It allows voters to get a government-issued ID for free, and it increases transparency in elections, for example, making sure the ballot counting does not stop in the middle of the night, as we have seen in past elections. These reforms are entirely reasonable and widely popular across Americans and were based on broad input from the local stakeholders. My colleagues who are pushing S. 1 say they are trying to save democracy, but, in fact, the bill would actually harm democracy. S. 1 would undermine the security of the ballot box, causing more and more Americans to question the outcome of our elections. We should be working to strengthen trust in democracy, not weaken it. The only thing bipartisan about this bill is the opposition to it. In my home State of Mississippi, every Member of the House of Representatives--Democrat and Republican--voted against this legislation, including Democrat Representative Bennie Thompson, a chairman of a committee in the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Democratic National Convention of 2020, who said he voted against it because it was opposed by his constituents. The ACLU has come out against S. 1, saying that some provisions ``unconstitutionally impinge on the free speech rights of American citizens and public interest organizations''--hardly a rightwing conspiracy group, the ACLU. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with 300 other organizations, have said this legislation is ``fundamentally incompatible with the American tradition and the principles enshrined in our Constitution.'' And when you ask the public about the specific proposals in this bill, many Americans--conservative and liberal, Democrat, Republican, and Independent--are outright opposed. According to a recent poll, 81 percent of people say they are concerned with allowing voters to vote without any form of photo ID. Eighty-three percent say they are concerned with ballot harvesting practices, this practice of having party operatives go door to door and pick up large numbers of ballots to turn them in. Sixty-eight percent of Democrats are opposed to so-called ballot harvesting. And 50 percent of people say they oppose taxpayer dollars being used to pay for political campaigns. This, again, cuts across party lines. So it is clear that S. 1 is not popular. It is squarely at odds with the views of the majority of the American people. Every Senator who votes yes will need to prepare to explain to voters why they wanted to overturn State voter ID protections, allow ballot harvesting, force taxpayers to pay for political campaigns, and enact a partisan Federal Election Commission. That is why S. 1 should be rejected this afternoon, and that is why it will be rejected. Thank you. I yield the floor.

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lt. Samuel Krakower, a U.S. Coast Guard fellow with my staff, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Mr. WICKER

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

Mr. WICKER

Mr. WICKER. Madam President, I rise today in strong support of our U.S. Coast Guard. For more than 230 years, the U.S. Coast Guard has watched over our shores, protected against foreign threats, lent a helping hand to those in need of rescue, and enforced the rule of law. The Coast Guard lives by its motto, ``Always Ready,'' and has earned the trust and admiration of the American people. America could not do without this uniquely capable branch of our military. The Coast Guard is so effective and so versatile that it is tasked with 11 statutory missions spanning the entire globe. One of the best known Coast Guard missions is search and rescue. The Coast Guard carries out 45 search and rescue missions on an average day, saving the lives and property of Americans in dire need. The Coast Guard also protects our ports and inland waterways, facilitating billions of dollars in trade and maintaining the navigation aids that make sea commerce possible. In today's global economy, 80 percent of international trade travels by sea. The Coast Guard plays a crucial role in screening commercial vessels, patrolling maritime infrastructure, and servicing aids to navigation, such as beacons and buoys. Each of these functions contributes to our Nation's prosperity and security. The Coast Guard is also increasingly involved in homeland security. It is largely the Coast Guard's job to deter potential threats before they arrive in U.S. ports. Coast Guard men and women can be found in every major port in America, conducting security boardings and escorting passenger and cargo vessels into our waterways. The Coast Guard also helps to enforce U.S. migration laws and saves the lives of those who foolishly risk everything to travel on unseaworthy vessels. Beyond this, the Coast Guard plays a crucial role in blocking narcotics and illegal weapons from entering our country. It is not uncommon for Americans to open their news feeds and read a report about the latest multimillion-dollar drug bust carried out at sea by the Coast Guard. In one recent example, three Coast Guard cutters joined efforts to intercept more than 11,000 pounds of cocaine valued at $220 million. That was a remarkable feat, but not unusual for the U.S. Coast Guard. As the polar regions attract more interest from Congress, it should be known that the Coast Guard is America's surface presence in both the Arctic and the Antarctic waters. Coast Guard icebreakers carry out a wide range of operations, allowing us to have a sustained presence in Antarctica and conduct research in some of the most remote corners of the Earth. If all of these roles were not enough, the Coast Guard is taking on greater responsibilities in national security. Partnering side-by-side with the Navy, today's Coast Guard conducts freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea, provides maritime security in the Middle East, and deters illegal fishing in international waters. This long list of responsibilities should make two things very clear: First, the Coast Guard is indeed capable and adept; and, secondly, it is being stretched increasingly thin. Today, the Coast Guard is being asked to carry out almost every maritime task imaginable, but Coast Guard funding has not kept up with these increased demands. The fifth branch of our military needs the certainty, predictable funding, and authorities necessary to accomplish all of its missions. Congress has the ability to meet these needs, and I am asking my colleagues to do so by supporting a new bill, the Unwavering Support for Our Coast Guard Act. This legislation would essentially do five things. No. 1, it would protect pay and allowances for Coast Guard members during the government shutdown. During the latest government shutdown, the Coast Guard members went without pay yet continued to serve admirably. This should not be allowed to happen again. We need to safeguard Coast Guard pay and allowances from failures here in Washington. No. 2, the legislation would provide full funding to eliminate the shore-side facility maintenance backlog while building resilience into these facilities. No. 3, the bill would enhance the diversity of the Coast Guard. No. 4, it would support needed renovations at the Coast Guard Yard in Maryland. And, No. 5, the bill would require the Coast Guard to tell us the assets and facilities it needs to complete all of its missions. For too long, the Coast Guard has been asked to do more with less. Congress needs to understand the true cost of modernizing and recapitalizing our Coast Guard fleet to meet its mission requirements in the increasingly complex maritime domain. I am proud of my State's role in supporting the Coast Guard's fleet recapitalization efforts. Mississippi is building two of the vessels that will be the vanguard of our Coast Guard for years to come: the National Security Cutter and the cutting-edge Polar Security Cutter. The National Security Cutters have already proven themselves to be the most capable and versatile ships the Coast Guard has ever used. They can deploy all around the world and integrate seamlessly with our NATO allies, and use next-generation technologies, like unmanned drones, to extend their reach. These cutters are especially effective at countering drug smuggling, illegal fishing, and illegal movement of migrants. America will also benefit significantly from the new Polar Security Cutters, which will be the first heavy icebreakers built in America since the 1970s. Our current fleet of icebreakers is aging and shrinking. We have fallen far behind Russia in our icebreaker fleet, and the Arctic is quickly becoming a critical national security domain. A fleet of new Polar Security Cutters will allow us to maintain a heavy presence in polar regions and keep our adversaries at bay. America needs a capable and growing Coast Guard, and the Coast Guard needs the support of this legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to provide the Coast Guard with the resources it needs to continue its exemplary service to our Nation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.