[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 215 (Tuesday, December 14, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9134-S9153]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            RELATING TO INCREASING THE DEBT LIMIT--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.

[[Page S9135]]

  



                   National Defense Authorization Act

  Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, after months of delay with NDAA, it 
has finally made its way to the Senate floor. The Senate Armed Services 
Committee passed its version by a strong, bipartisan vote of 23 to 3, 
and that was back in July.
  As a member of the Armed Services Committee since my first day here 
in the Senate, I have been proud to help draft this bill each year 
since 2013, and I was honored to play a part in drafting the bill this 
year.
  First and foremost, the 2022 NDAA takes care of the greatest asset 
America has--our men and women in uniform. It supports a well-deserved 
pay raise for members of the military, and it reauthorizes important 
special pays and bonuses.
  Keeping faith with our All-Volunteer Forces is essential so that our 
military men and women are able to focus on combating the threats that 
our Nation faces abroad. You don't have to look far to see the threats 
I am talking about.
  Vladimir Putin has placed nearly 100,000 Russian troops right on 
Russia's border with Ukraine, essentially posturing to invade a 
sovereign country. China continues to make shocking progress in 
developing new types of weapons. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff said that China's recent test of a fractional orbital bombardment 
system was very close to a ``Sputnik moment.'' This new missile could 
potentially carry a nuclear warhead anywhere in the world, and it was 
specifically designed to evade U.S. defenses. Our adversaries are 
making huge strides forward. The NDAA recognizes that and addresses it.
  This bill will keep the modernization of our strategic nuclear 
deterrent on schedule. This is crucial because even though our nuclear 
forces are still effective, we have pushed our weapons far beyond their 
designed lifetimes--in some cases, by decades. This bill authorizes the 
resources necessary to keep modernization on track, and it will help 
make sure the next generation of systems is available before our 
current nuclear triad ages out.
  Perhaps most importantly, the NDAA tries to keep defense spending on 
pace with rising inflation. Inflation is at its highest level in 
decades, and it doesn't look like it is slowing down anytime soon.
  The Biden administration originally proposed a top-line defense 
spending increase of just 1.6 percent. That would not have kept pace 
with inflation even in a normal year, but in a year when it is 
threatening to spiral out of control, it would have meant an 
unacceptable cut in resources for our military. The NDAA takes this 
year's runaway inflation into account. It offers an increase of $25 
billion on top of President Biden's proposal, and we came together 
across party lines to agree to that because it is what our military 
needs.
  At the risk of stating the obvious, the NDAA is about investing in 
our national defense. It is in the name, the ``National Defense 
Authorization Act.'' But every State contributes in its own way to that 
national goal, and I am proud to say that this bill will bring some 
major wins to Nebraska, which has a long and rich military history.
  It includes $100 million for the National Disaster Recovery Fund, 
which will help rebuild Offutt Air Force Base, the home of the Air 
Force's 55th Wing and U.S. Strategic Command, after the devastating 
flooding that Nebraska experienced in 2019. It recognizes how critical 
the 55th Wing is to our Nation's intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance capabilities. Their missions take them all over the 
world, but they are proudly based in my State of Nebraska.
  The men and women who wear American military uniforms are part of the 
best fighting force the world has ever known. Our job here in Congress 
is to give them what they need, and this year's NDAA does just that.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Build Back Better Act

  Mr. LEE. Madam President, in her 1993 Nobel lecture, Toni Morrison--
no conservative--told a story of an old woman who was approached by a 
group of kids, mocking her and asking her to offer her conjecture:

       Old woman, I hold in my hand a bird. Tell me whether it is 
     living or dead.

  The blind, old woman was revered for her wisdom and experience.
  She responded:

       I don't know whether the bird you are holding is dead or 
     alive, but what I do know is that it is in your hands. It is 
     in your hands.

  The old woman, of course, meant whether the bird is alive or dead is 
the responsibility of the person who holds it.
  Morrison said:

       The blind woman shifts attention away from assertions of 
     power to the instrument through which that power is 
     exercised.

  Now, Morrison could have been talking about Congress. I will leave to 
your judgment who in Congress is a mocking youth and who is the old 
woman, but in politics it is the instrument of power rather than the 
assertion of power that matters.
  Just this last week, the instruments of power were used, despite 
assertions otherwise, to quietly pave the way for the Democrats' 
``Destroy America'' bill, which they have called Build Back Better. 
Congress used a novel procedure to pass a bill, giving Democrats a 
blank check to raise the debt ceiling to pay for Build Back Better. 
Procedural jujitsu is hardly the stuff of base-motivating campaign 
rhetoric, but it is the instrument of power.
  Now I will describe how this happened, but a bit of background is 
necessary.
  Like most legislation in the Senate, raising the debt ceiling, which 
has been done now 99 times since the end of the Second World War, 
ordinarily requires 60 votes, which, in an evenly divided Senate, means 
Democrats and Republicans have to work together to find an acceptable 
outcome.
  There is, of course, an exception that would allow Democrats to use a 
special budget reconciliation procedure to raise the debt ceiling 
without Republican help, with a simple majority vote--a simple majority 
vote that they could achieve if all 50 Democrats cast their votes. If 
there is an evenly divided vote at the end of the day, it can be broken 
by the Vice President. But they didn't want to use this special 
procedure, and I believe they didn't want to use it for two independent 
reasons.
  First, it was inconvenient. The special reconciliation procedure 
would require too many steps and too much time for their tastes. Still, 
I don't know of a single Republican Senator, myself included, who would 
unduly stall the Democrats from proceeding to its consideration. In 
fact, under the rules, if they follow the right steps, it is, more or 
less, a guaranteed outcome, one that doesn't require a supermajority 
and, at the end of the day, can be accomplished with a simple majority.
  Second, I suspect that Democrats didn't want to bear the political 
cost of raising the debt ceiling without some Republican cover. This 
would ordinarily mean using the standard 60-vote process, but that is 
not how it happened. Instead of Democrats and Republicans working 
together to find consensus on the appropriate way to raise the debt 
ceiling, likely in exchange for spending reforms, some combination of 
Senate and House leadership concocted a new mechanism.
  On a 60-vote bill, Republicans agreed to let Democrats pass an 
entirely separate bill to raise the debt ceiling--without any 
Republican votes--by whatever amount they want. So, rather than 
negotiating a reasonable number, Republicans agreed to ensure that the 
debt ceiling was increased by as many trillions of dollars as the 
Democrats might need to fulfill their agenda. There is an actual blank 
space in the bill where Democrats can write in whatever number they 
want.
  In exchange, Republicans would be protected from scrutiny for 
insisting that Democrats follow the established rules for raising the 
debt ceiling through the reconciliation procedure and would be able to 
launder this vote to appear as something other than helping Democrats 
raise the debt ceiling, which they had publicly committed--in writing, 
no less--not to do.

[[Page S9136]]

  To make matters worse, congressional leadership tied this to a bill 
preventing automatic Medicare cuts. This sent a clear message: Give 
Democrats a blank check or there would be Medicare cuts. Some of my 
Republican colleagues couldn't allow them to shoot that hostage, that 
hostage being held captive by Democrats.
  The playbook is written. The idea that this is a onetime thing or is 
somehow similar to other expedited procedures--for example, those found 
under the Congressional Review Act to disapprove of executive Agency 
rules--is preposterous. The comparison doesn't work. These are very 
different creatures. I am sure this vicious tactic, the one used here, 
has not seen its last use--far from it. I am certain it will be used in 
the future to enact other progressive agenda items, including many that 
are simply unable to garner the 60 votes necessary under the normal and 
transparent Senate filibuster rules.
  With a blank check and a new special procedure, Democrats are able to 
raise the debt ceiling by whatever amount they deem necessary to 
accommodate their ``Destroy America'' bill, which they call Build Back 
Better. They have set that price--and we know this now as of just the 
last few hours--at $2.5 trillion. This is the behemoth bill that would 
seek to grant a form of amnesty to illegal aliens; to further the Green 
New Deal agenda; to overturn State right-to-work laws; to increase 
vaccine mandate fines on private employers to $700,000; to infuse 
critical race theory indoctrination into medical care; and to grow the 
IRS by 87,000 agents. That isn't even the tip of the iceberg.
  The blank check to remake America was a gift to progressives from 
those within the Republican Party who decided to grant it. I regret 
deeply their decision to do so, and the filibuster--the major 
instrument of power preserving the unique identity of the U.S. Senate--
was all it cost.
  As to who was the old woman and who were the mocking children from 
Toni Morrison's story, I can't say, but America is the bird.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                               Inflation

  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, on Friday, the Department of Labor 
reported that inflation had hit a near-40-year high, confirming what 
many American families have been feeling in their wallets for many 
months.
  The soaring cost of virtually everything, from gasoline to groceries, 
is a growing crisis that has hit families across our Nation. The 
numbers are alarming.
  During the past year, the Consumer Price Index, which measures the 
price of goods and services, jumped by nearly 7 percent. That is the 
highest rate since 1982. It represents the sixth consecutive month of 
inflation exceeding 5 percent.
  The goods experiencing the greatest increases read like a list of 
everyday essentials. Energy costs are up by 33 percent. Used vehicles 
are up by 31 percent. Hamburger costs are up by 14 percent. Milk, eggs, 
baby food, furniture, and many other necessities all cost more, and 
those prices are simply unsustainable for many working families.
  The pain is being felt across the Nation, including in my State of 
Maine. I have heard from many Mainers worried about how they will be 
able to afford to heat their homes this winter. The average price of 
heating oil in Maine is currently $3.15 per gallon, compared to $2.11 
per gallon this time last year. While the amount of heating oil a 
household uses varies considerably, a typical Maine family will spend 
nearly $1,000 more this year on home heating oil. The State of Maine is 
disproportionately affected by this rise in costs since more than 60 
percent of our homes use fuel oil as their primary energy source for 
heating compared to only 4 percent of households nationally.
  The rise in the price of heating oil is not the only hardship that 
Mainers are facing this winter. Mainers have shared with me their 
genuine concerns about being able to afford to drive back and forth to 
work and to put nutritious food on the table. Gas prices in Maine are 
about $1.30 per gallon higher than last year.
  Business owners face the often impossible challenge of paying higher 
prices for commodities, food, and supplies without passing those 
increases on to their already struggling consumers. For example, Maine 
restaurant owners, who have already experienced an extraordinarily 
difficult 18 months due to the pandemic, are now grappling with double-
digit percentage increases in the costs of ingredients and other goods 
needed to run their businesses. An owner of a restaurant I visited in 
Searsport told me that the cost of fryer grease has skyrocketed from 
$19 to $48 per case. Another restaurant owner in Rockland recently told 
the Bangor Daily News that the price for prime ribs has more than 
doubled from $7 to $17. These supply costs shrink their already slim 
margins and exacerbate other difficulties the industry is facing with 
staffing shortages and pandemic-related closures.
  After a tough 2020 caused by COVID-related market disruptions and 
drought, Maine's resilient potato growers rebounded with yields up 20 
percent over last year. Such a strong harvest usually would be cause 
for celebration, but farmers are facing rising transportation, fuel, 
and fertilizer costs that are hurting their bottom line and forcing 
them to pass on some of the inflationary costs to their customers. The 
increased costs of doing business mean that families and processors 
will pay more for potatoes and growers will get a lower return on their 
crop.
  This weekend, the Wall Street Journal reported on how inflation is 
harming the employees at the One Stop Tulsa gas station in Aroostook 
County in Northern Maine. One clerk was working 60 hours each week--up 
from 40 before the pandemic--because they are so shortstaffed. Even 
with the increased hours, she said she is struggling with rising costs, 
from food to electricity.
  Melissa Holmes, the gas station manager, said that her twice monthly 
grocery bill has increased from $300 to $500 and it now costs her $60 
to fill up her 2011 Ford Explorer. That is $20 more than last year.
  Ms. Holmes also described facing customers who are frustrated by the 
higher prices. The cost of chicken, for example, has gone up so an 
order of chicken tenders has jumped from $5.49 to $8.99. That is a big 
increase, and customers are feeling that squeeze.
  After passage of the President's $1.9 trillion stimulus this spring, 
the price of goods and services went up. We heard reassurances from the 
President's team that this inflation was transitory but no 
acknowledgement of the role that their policies have had on soaring 
prices. Americans are feeling the consequences as Washington has 
overheated the economy.
  We in Congress must confront this inflation crisis, but instead the 
Biden administration is pushing trillions in additional macroeconomic 
stimulus in the President's Build Back Better plan. The consequences 
for an already overheated economy could be devastating. Given the clear 
link between recent extraordinary government spending and rampant 
inflation, we should not be adding more fuel to the fire. Our economy 
is ailing so it would be wise to begin to follow the maxim that guides 
medical professionals: First, do no harm.
  Democrats have said that their spending spree, which follows the 
Build Back Better plan, would cost $1.7 trillion. Several of the 
proposals in that plan would be set to expire after 1, 3, or 5 years--a 
gimmick that hides the true cost because we know that is not what the 
real hope is nor what is going to happen.
  Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected that 
making the social spending programs in the Build Back Better plan 
permanent would, in fact, cost $4.9 trillion over the decade--$4.9 
trillion. Doing so would add $3 trillion to the deficit unless paid for 
with even more taxes beyond those that the Democrats have already 
proposed in their bill. That is much higher than the purported $1.7 
trillion pricetag because we know that the ultimate goal is to make 
these expensive programs permanent.

[[Page S9137]]

  Inflation is a regressive tax. It does not discriminate among the 
rich and the poor. It does not take into account the ability to pay. It 
is a cruel tax, one that punishes thrift by diminishing the value of 
savings. This is damaging to families who are saving to buy a home or 
for their children's education. It can be devastating to our seniors, 
who can do nothing but helplessly watch as the retirement funds that 
they have worked for their whole lives don't go nearly as far as they 
had expected.
  Like the pandemic itself, we do not know for certain whether this 
inflation crisis will abate, be prolonged, or even accelerate. Our 
immediate focus should be on measures that we know will have a lasting 
and beneficial impact on our economy, such as implementing the 
bipartisan infrastructure law, opening up and repairing our supply 
chains, getting more Americans back to work, and protecting the 
earnings of hard-working Americans.
  What we should not do is pass trillions of dollars in additional 
spending in the administration's Build Back Better bill that would 
exacerbate the toll that inflation imposes on seniors, working 
families, and small businesses. We should not take that risk.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNOCK. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Voting Rights

  Mr. WARNOCK. Madam President, I come to the floor today after a long 
week of wrestling with my conscience. Before we left Washington last 
week, we in this Chamber made a change in the Senate's rules in order 
to push forward something that all of us think is important. We set the 
stage to raise the Nation's debt ceiling.
  Yet as we cast that vote to begin addressing the debt ceiling, this 
same Chamber is allowing the ceiling of our democracy to crash in 
around us. The American people have been pushing for leaders in 
Washington to address voting rights.
  Everywhere I turn, I have been hearing from my constituents in 
Georgia. They are deeply worried. I heard it all weekend. I have been 
hearing it over the last several months.
  And I submit that they are worried for good reason. They know their 
history. They are witnessing what is happening to our democracy in real 
time, and they see the handwriting on the wall. They see the sweeping 
voter suppression proposals in 49 States and the dozens of new laws 
that have now popped up across the Nation, fueled by the Big Lie that 
seeks to delegitimize the voices of millions of Georgians and Americans 
who made their voices heard, made history, and, more importantly, made 
a difference last November and last January.
  The American people see what is happening in Arizona and in Texas and 
in Florida and in Wisconsin and in Iowa. They see what is happening in 
Georgia, my home State, where a new law, SB 202--passed right after I 
won--will make it harder for some voters to access their ballots by 
making it more difficult to vote by mail, allowing far fewer drop 
boxes, and only allowing for the use of those boxes--listen--during 
business hours. You can use the drop boxes during business hours, which 
sort of defeats the purpose of having a drop box. In fact, back home, 
the second most senior Republican in the Georgia State Senate announced 
recently that he wants to do away with election drop boxes altogether--
literal boxes where registered, eligible voters simply can drop off 
their ballots on their way to the night shift or on their way back 
home. It seems to me that they want fewer voters and more dark money in 
our elections, and that is the sad place we are in right now.
  But what is even more disconcerting is that these politicians in the 
State legislature have already laid the tracks to take over local 
boards of elections, for almost any frivolous reason, to undermine the 
voices of local voters and local election administrators, control the 
count, muddy the waters, question or determine the outcome.
  In the face of this crisis, the question is this: Has this Chamber 
risen to the occasion to take on the issue of voting rights, which I 
submit is the central moral issue confronting this Congress in this 
moment? What have we done to strengthen access to the ballot as bedrock 
voting rights protections have been shredded by our courts or to 
protect the sacred right to vote as partisan State legislatures have 
passed laws to dilute that right for so many people?
  Well, some of us have acted. Democrats in this body have tried not 
once, not twice, but we have tried this Congress on three occasions to 
consider legislation to protect and expand voting rights so that more 
eligible Americans can make their voices heard and help shape the 
direction of our country. Each time--whether it was the For the People 
Act or the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act or the Freedom to 
Vote Act--with just one lone exception, all of our friends across the 
aisle have refused to engage with us in any way to address the growing 
barriers to what is basic to American democracy: the ballot box.
  Here is what we have said. We have said to our Republican friends: If 
you don't like this provision or that provision, let's talk about it. 
Offer some amendments. Come, let us reason together. Let us have a 
debate out in the open so that the American people can hear it.
  Everybody talks about the divisions in America right now. Here is 
what folks on the left and the right agree on: There is something awry 
in our democracy. In this moment in which there is this debate 
happening on the outside, how is it that we refuse to even have a 
debate in the Senate? They don't even want to have a debate.
  So here we are. Months have passed. No, that is not true--years have 
passed. Democrats have tried again and again to engage our Republican 
friends in a discussion on this issue--one that lies at the foundation 
of our democracy--and time and time again, because of a lack of good-
faith engagement, the rules of the Senate have prevented us from moving 
that conversation forward.
  We could not imagine changing the rules--that is, until last week, 
because last week, we did exactly that. Be very clear. Last week, we 
changed the rules of the Senate to address another important issue: the 
economy. This is a step--a change in the Senate rules--we haven't been 
willing to take to save our broken democracy but one that a bipartisan 
majority of this Chamber thought was necessary in order to keep our 
economy strong. We changed the rules to protect the full faith and 
credit of the U.S. Government. We have decided we must do it for the 
economy but not for the democracy.
  I will be honest. This has been a difficult week for me as I pondered 
how am I going to vote on this debt ceiling question we are about to 
take. I feel like I am being asked to take a road that is a point of 
moral dissonance for me because while I deeply believe that both our 
democracy and our economy are important, I believe that it is misplaced 
to change the Senate rules only for the benefit of the economy when the 
warning lights on our democracy are flashing at the same time.
  I happen to believe that our democracy is at least as important as 
the economy. Ours is a great nation built upon both free enterprise and 
free exercise of basic democratic rights. You cannot have good 
capitalism without freedom. Each is strengthened by the other, and 
together they make for a nation that is both prosperous and free, a 
nation where everybody can breathe and every child has a chance to live 
up to her highest potential.

  So I stand here because of my children. I have two precious children, 
and I think every day what kind of country I want them to grow up in. I 
stand here today because we are in a place where we are dealing with 
the consequence of misaligned values and misplaced priorities, and that 
is, for me, a serious problem because I lead Ebenezer Baptist Church, 
where John Lewis worshipped and where Dr. King preached. I asked myself 
all weekend as I wrestled with how I would vote--I asked myself, what 
would Dr. King do?
  I thought this week about Dr. King's speech in front of the Lincoln 
Memorial--no, not the 1963 ``I Have a Dream'' speech but the one he 
gave the first time he spoke in front of the Lincoln Memorial in 1957, 
where he addressed

[[Page S9138]]

what he called ``all types of conniving methods'' that were getting in 
the way of the free exercise of the constitutional right to vote. His 
rallying cry that day in 1957 was ``Give Us the Ballot.''
  In light of the conniving methods of voter suppression we have seen 
enacted into law since the January 6 attack on the Capitol, I come to 
the floor today to share with the people of Georgia and the American 
people the message that I shared with my colleagues over the weekend 
and earlier today during our caucus meeting.
  I said to my Democratic colleagues over the last several days--No. 
1--unfortunately, the vast majority of our Republican friends have made 
it clear that they have no intention of trying to work with us to 
address voter suppression or to protect voting rights. They have 
embodied by their actions the sentiments of conservative strategist 
Paul Weyrich, who dared say in 1981: ``I don't want everybody to 
vote.'' That is what he said. ``Elections are not won by a majority of 
the people. They never have been from the beginning of our country and 
they are not now. As a matter of fact,'' he went on to say, ``our 
leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace 
goes down.''
  The second thing I said to my Democratic colleagues today is that 
while we cannot let our Republican friends off the hook for not being 
equitable governing partners, if we are serious about protecting the 
right to vote that is under assault right now, here is the truth: It 
will fall to Democrats to do it. If Democrats alone must raise the debt 
ceiling, then Democrats alone must raise and repair the ceiling of our 
democracy. How do we in good conscience justify doing one and not the 
other?
  Some of my Democratic colleagues are saying: But what about 
bipartisanship? Isn't that important?
  I say: Of course it is, but here is the thing we must remember. 
Slavery was bipartisan. Jim Crow's segregation was bipartisan. The 
refusal of women's suffrage was bipartisan. The denial of the basic 
dignity of members of the LGBTQ community has long been bipartisan. The 
Three-fifths Compromise was the creation of a putative national unity 
at the expense of Black people's basic humanity.
  So when colleagues in this Chamber talk to me about bipartisanship, 
which I believe in, I just have to ask, at whose expense? Who is being 
asked to foot the bill for this bipartisanship, and is liberty itself 
the cost? I submit that is a price too high and a bridge too far.
  So I struggled this weekend. I talked to folk I believe in. Among 
them, I spoke with Reverend Ambassador Andrew Young, who was with Dr. 
King until the very end, about this vote. I talked to Ambassador Young, 
and I asked him: What do you think?
  He said: I try not to worry, but I am worried about our country.
  Then this 89-year-old, battle-worn soldier in the nonviolent army of 
the Lord drew silent on the phone, and then he said to me: Tell your 
colleagues that among your constituent are people who literally laid 
their lives on the line for the basic right to vote. They lost friends. 
They lost so much.
  And so this is a real moral quandary for me, and it makes it 
difficult for me to cast this vote today. But after many conversations 
with colleagues, with Georgians, with experts who know the economy, 
with voting rights advocates, and civil rights leaders, I will, indeed, 
vote today with anguish. I will vote to raise the debt ceiling.
  I am voting yes because I am thinking about the kids in the Kayton 
Homes Housing Projects where I grew up in Savannah, GA. I am thinking 
about the hard-working families pushing to recover from the pressures 
of this pandemic, those on the margins and those who are least 
resilient, for whom a collapse of the economy would be catastrophic. 
Ironically, many of these are the same people who are also being 
targeted by the voter suppression efforts I mentioned earlier. I am 
thinking of them and the people of Georgia as I cast my vote today to 
raise the debt ceiling.
  But I am also thinking about what we need to do to keep our democracy 
and our economy strong today and for the next generation. Once we 
handle the debt ceiling, the Senate needs to make voting rights the 
very next issue we take up. We must do voting rights, and we must deal 
with this issue now.
  Let me be clear. I am so proud of what we did with the bipartisan 
infrastructure bill and the major economic investments we are putting 
the finishing touches on that will close the Medicaid coverage gap and 
deliver historic relief for Georgia farmers and expand broadband access 
and so much more.
  I have to tell you that the most important thing that we can do in 
this Congress is to get voting rights done. Voting rights are 
preservative of all other rights. They lay the ground for all of the 
other debates.
  So to my Democratic colleagues, I say, while it is deeply 
unfortunate, it is more than apparent that it has been left to us to 
handle alone the task of safeguarding our democracy. Sadly, many of our 
Republican friends have already cast their vote with voter suppression.
  So the judgment of history is upon us. Future generations will ask 
when the democracy was in a 9-1-1 state of emergency, what did you do 
to put the fire out? Did we rise to the moment or did we hide behind 
procedural rules? I believe that we Democrats can figure out how to get 
this done, even if that requires a change in the rules, which we 
established just last week that we can do when the issue is important 
enough.
  Well, the people of Georgia and across the country are saying that 
voting rights are important enough. I think that voting rights are 
important enough so we cannot delay. We must continue to urge the party 
of Lincoln not to give into the very forces of voter suppression that 
Dr. King described in that 1957 speech while standing in the shadow of 
Lincoln. But even as we do that, we cannot wait. We cannot wait on 
them. With uncanny and eerie relevance, Dr. King's words summon us to 
this very moment. He said:

       The hour is late. The clock of destiny is ticking out. We 
     must act now before it is too late.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                         Build Back Better Act

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I learned a long time ago, I never want 
to give a speech after that, but certainly I agree with what Senator 
Warnock said, and the Senate schedule kind of made me do this.
  I want to thank Senator Warnock, who is one of the principals in our 
legislation, Senator Bennet, Senator Booker, and Senator Kaine for 
their leadership and their work to deliver what is, pure and simple, 
the largest tax cut for working families ever.
  Tomorrow, for the sixth month in a row--July 15, August 15, 
September, October, November. Tomorrow is the sixth month in a row that 
Ohio parents, 92 percent of parents in Ohio with children under 18, 
will again see $250 or $300 in their bank accounts or in their mailbox 
per child. If they have two infant children, they will get $600.
  This is the most consequential thing we have done in decades to make 
people's hard work pay off. We know how hard parents work at their 
jobs, at raising kids. Any parent knows how much work it is to take 
care of children, especially young children. It has only gotten harder 
over the last couple of years. Often, that hard work doesn't pay off 
like it should. We have seen what has happened over the past decades. 
Productivity has gone up; the stock market has soared; executive 
compensation is stratospheric; but wages have been flat.
  Workers' paychecks are finally--finally, during this administration 
and this Senate, this Congress--finally, because of the work we are 
doing, workers' paychecks are starting to go up. But after decades of 
stagnation, we have a long way to go.
  Meanwhile, parents know how expensive it is to raise kids. 
Healthcare, school lunches, diapers, clothes, school supplies, braces, 
sports fees, camp fees--the list never seems to end.
  Of course, one of the biggest, if not the biggest expense for so many 
families is childcare. Parents feel like they are trapped. They can't 
keep up no matter how hard they work. They work more hours to provide 
for their family. They have to put their money right back into 
childcare. Sometimes the extra money in their paycheck doesn't even 
cover the extra daycare costs.

[[Page S9139]]

  That is why Senators Booker and Kaine and Bennet and Warnock worked 
so hard to enact the child tax credit. As I said, the largest--it is a 
$3,000 tax cut so 92 percent of the families in my State with children 
get at least a $3,000 tax cut. It is the same in Virginia, same in New 
Jersey, the same in Georgia. It is about finally--finally--making 
parents' hard work pay off so they can keep up with the costs of 
raising a family.
  I was talking to Senator Kaine, and I know he is going to say some of 
the same things. Let me share a handful of some really quick stories or 
comments that people have gone on our website and posted at the 15th of 
the month.
  Kristen from Columbus says she is using this money to pay for 
``daycare. For two kids it is $600 a week.''
  Alex in Cleveland:

       Every penny is going to daycare. 4 kids in daycare is 
     around $800/week.

  CeCe said her tax cut helps her pay for daycare. She said:

       Daycare is the same amount as my mortgage payment for 4 
     days a week! So this is so, so helpful!

  Courtney from Southeast Ohio in Athens:

       [S]lightly more than half the cost of part time daycare 
     tuition per month here in Athens--much appreciated help 
     getting kiddo back into childcare . . . keeping me and my 
     husband in the workforce.

  Brittany said:

       Daycare.

  Ellie said:

       Daycare.

  They also mean parents can afford to work and can afford to keep up 
with all the extra costs of raising kids.
  Katie in Akron:

       Help[s] [to] pay for school supplies.

  Caitlin:

       Pay for preschool for my son.

  Lyndsay:

       Back to school clothes.

  Fern:

       It will pay for preschool for both of them and the rest is 
     going in a savings account for them.

  Jennifer:

       Put away for college tuition.

  Melissa:

       I used part of it to buy school uniform pieces for my 4-
     year-old.

  Maia:

       Food and school supplies.

  These parents are all working hard to provide for their families and 
raise their kids. They are working a whole lot harder than the CEOs and 
the hedge fund managers who it looks like, under Build Back Better, may 
continue to get some of their tax cuts--their tax preference, if you 
will. It is a lot harder for these workers than the CEOs and the hedge 
fund managers and the Swiss bank account holders who are always getting 
tax cuts from politicians in this building.
  We all remember what happened. We can look down the hall. We have 
done that before and seen the lobbyists line up in front of Leader 
McConnell's office and line up in front of the politicians who always 
do their bidding with their tax cuts for the wealthy and for 
corporations that outsource jobs. You know what they told us 4 years 
ago, when those tax cuts for the rich passed. They said: It is going to 
trickle down and help everybody else. We will hire more people, raise 
wages.
  Of course, corporations didn't spend the money to raise wages. Of 
course, they didn't spend the money to lower prices. And then they 
blame everybody else for inflation. Of course, they spent it--no 
surprise here--with stock buybacks, and they are still at it today.
  This year, without a single vote, not a single vote from Republicans 
in Congress--twice, every Democrat voting for it, a 51-to-50 vote--
twice we passed the child tax credit. It is a simple contrast: Whose 
side are you on? Do you want tax cuts for billionaires and corporations 
or tax cuts for working families?
  We want tax cuts for working families, Americans from all over the 
country, from all kinds of backgrounds. Let's deliver that for them. 
Let's keep the largest tax cut for working families ever so that 
parents can have that peace of mind, can relieve some of their anxiety 
they face every month to pay the rent and pay the bills. They can have 
the peace of mind that the child tax credit will keep delivering money 
in their pockets through the holidays this year, into next year, into 
next year's holiday.
  I yield the floor to Senator Booker.
  Mr. BOOKER. It is frustrating, I know, to see such an incredible 
action taken, where we have made a difference, where the child tax 
credit already has had a significant impact. The Columbia Center on 
Poverty found that the October payment of the expanded child tax credit 
helped ensure 3.6 million American children--3.6 million American 
children--are no longer living below the poverty line.
  What does that mean? When a child is raised above the poverty line, 
their horizons are transformed. It actually saves an incredible amount 
of taxpayer dollars. For every dollar we spend bringing a child above 
the poverty line, we return $7 back to our economy.
  But it is deeper than that. There is a moral urgency. Children below 
the poverty line have so many more challenges. Their horizons are 
constrained, their life outcomes are lessened.
  Above the poverty line, our children start to exhibit their genius. 
Children raised above the poverty line have higher lifetime earnings. 
They have lower medical costs. Children above the poverty line are less 
likely to go to the hospital, less likely to get in trouble with the 
police. Children above the poverty line have less inhibitions with 
their contributions to this country.
  I, too, like my dear friend Senator Brown, have heard lots from 
people in my State about what this little bit of money in their bank 
accounts--how that little bit of investment makes a transformation in 
the lives of those families.
  Take Kelly in Pitman, NJ. She was forced to quit her job when her 
children's school and daycare closed due to the pandemic. She hasn't 
been able to return to work without reliable childcare, and the child 
tax credit is helping her family. It is helping to make up costs that 
were lost when she lost her income. It is helping her provide for her 
children. It is that little bit of help by returning those tax dollars 
which she has paid in--she is getting more out now--and helping that 
family.
  Take Stacey in Kearny, NJ, the child tax credit payments were a 
lifeline and helped her and her husband keep their family afloat during 
this pandemic, during this crisis. She was indefinitely furloughed, and 
Stacey used those payments to send her two daughters back to preschool.
  Well, we know the evidence is in. Sending her two daughters back to 
preschool means her children will do better in school, are more likely 
to go to college, have higher lifetime earnings, more success that 
inures to the benefit of us all in society.
  Senator after Senator, on both sides of the aisle, has thousands of 
these stories about what getting more of their hard-earned tax money 
back means. In a nation where we have seen the tax cuts of the last 
decade inure overwhelmingly to the richest of the rich, this was the 
first tax cut in my lifetime--the biggest of the tax cuts in my 
lifetime that went overwhelmingly to middle-class families, working-
class families, low-income families.
  And now it sits on a precipice. As many people are aware, tomorrow is 
the last day that these payments are scheduled to go out to families 
like Kelly's and families like Stacy's and millions of families across 
this country.
  The changes we made to the child tax credit will expire. Struggling 
Americans, working Americans, middle-class Americans will not receive 
that payment in January, unless this body acts.
  To prevent this from happening, to make sure families continue to get 
more of their tax dollars back and have greater security, hope in 
challenging times, Congress can pass the Build Back Better Act, which 
includes the extension of the child tax credit payments, which are 
lowering costs for American middle-class, working-class, and low-income 
families.
  Now, I know there is concern being raised about the Build Back Better 
legislation today, but I urge my colleagues to understand the high cost 
of inaction.
  First and foremost, letting this program expire will raise costs for 
families at the very worst time. With the cost of gas and groceries 
going up, a tax increase, which is effectively what

[[Page S9140]]

this would be, would mean millions of families in difficult times would 
have it be harder to make ends meet, to make those kitchen table 
economics work out.
  It will add burdens to people at a time we should be lifting them, at 
a time that we should be providing relief. And, again, it is not just 
working-class families, middle-class families. It is children living in 
that moral obscenity, that dark place within our society that is termed 
``child poverty''.
  The cost of inaction for all of those children, the cost to our 
society overall of having children grow up in poverty is $1.1 
trillion--$1.1 trillion. That is what poverty costs.
  But there is a moral cost that is greater than that. There is a moral 
obscenity that we are experiencing right now, a stain on the soul of 
our Nation that we have without this tax credit--the highest child 
poverty rates of all of our industrial peers.
  This is a moral moment in America. Our inaction will plunge our 
Nation back with millions of families facing crisis. We have seen this 
body act in difficult times before. We have seen us invest in people. 
We have seen us stand up for children. My worry now is that tomorrow 
will be the last day, unless we stand up and act.
  I join my colleagues Senator Brown, Senator Bennet, and I join my 
colleagues Senator Kaine, Senator Warnock in calling us to meet this 
moment, to meet the moral urgency of now, and to please make sure that 
before this body leaves for the holidays, that for those families who 
are in stress and economic strain, those families who are worrying 
about what will happen next month, that we show them that we care, that 
we show them that we are fiscally prudent, and we make the best 
investment possible in America. It is not a stock or a bond. The best 
investment we can make is making sure the child tax credit continues 
because it is an investment in our children.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I am honored to join my colleagues today 
to speak about the child tax credit and to do something similar to what 
they have done and just make it personal to families.
  Tomorrow, on the 15th of December, more than 930,000 Virginia 
families, who together have 1.6 million kids, will receive a child tax 
cut payment--$300 for a child under age 6 and $250 for each child 
between ages 6 and 17. Those are big numbers. Those are big numbers--
1.6 million children; 930,000 families.
  And I am here joining my colleagues to ask that this payment to 
parents--this parents' tax cut--to help their children is not the last, 
because unless we act, the sixth payment that will go out tomorrow will 
be the last.
  Now, the numbers are big, but sometimes the numbers can obscure--data 
and statistics can obscure--what is really at stake. So just a week 
ago, I put up on my Senate web page a question: What has this tax cut 
meant to your family?
  In 1 week we have received more than 200 responses, and I just want 
to share a few with you.
  Heather, from Glenn Allen, is a full-time caretaker of her physically 
disabled daughter. Her daughter started having trouble with the stairs 
in her home. So they used the child tax cut payment to help them buy a 
new stair lift so her daughter is still able to navigate the home.
  Heather wrote this to me:

       My family deeply appreciates the child tax credit because 
     we routinely incur additional expenses while caring for a 
     loved one with a disability. I take care of our daughter full 
     time, which makes us a one-income household, so the tax 
     credit helped make a difference.

  Beatrice from Rockingham, in the Shenandoah Valley, works at Cooks 
Creek Presbyterian Church, and she sees how the child tax cuts have 
affected families they work with. One mother of six, whose husband is 
incarcerated, relies on the payments to help with her child's medical 
expenses. Another couple that comes to this church, who are in their 
sixties, are raising their great-nephew because his mother suffers from 
addiction. The tax cut is helping them cover necessities for this 
great-nephew.
  Lawanda--I have a picture of Lawanda and her family. She is a single 
mom from South Boston, down on the North Carolina border. Lawanda sent 
me this picture and said: Use this picture. She used the payments to 
help buy clothes and shoes for her children and to buy fresh fruit and 
vegetables, which they usually can't afford.
  I love this picture because this is a picture of people with smiles. 
These are resilient people, who dream of a better future, and this 
child tax cut is helping them achieve at something as simple as being 
able to buy fresh vegetables rather than canned, or shoes. Something as 
simple as that is what this child tax cut is about.
  A Virginian from Lynchburg wrote that the tax cut has helped buy 
healthy food, clothing, and shoes. And then she said this:

       Children grow so fast now and eat more, which causes many 
     trips to the grocery store. We are senior citizen, retired 
     grandparents with legal guardianship of our granddaughter. 
     With this being the last payment in December, which would be 
     used partly for Christmas gifts for her, we will [really] 
     have to stretch this.

  Grandparents--grandparents raising their granddaughter and finding in 
this tax cut the ability to afford Christmas gifts.
  Nicole from Leesburg is using the tax cut for therapy for her 
autistic son because insurance no longer covers it.
  In another picture is Sasha from Midlothian, which is right outside 
of Richmond. Sasha wrote to me and said this--and this is Sasha and her 
young one:

       My husband and I both have secure jobs, but the cost of 
     full-time infant care is very high. We spend 23 percent of 
     our combined monthly income on daycare for one child--our 1-
     year-old son. We also just paid off my student loans and 
     are saving to buy our first house next year. The child tax 
     credit has allowed us to save more money for that house 
     and to pay off debts. We would like to grow our family but 
     worry about our financial burden.
  She also wrote:

       Thank you for working so hard to pass the Build Back Better 
     bill. I am following it closely because it means so much to 
     my family's future.

  From Alexandria, a constituent wrote:

       Before the pandemic, the high price of childcare made it 
     difficult to balance my family's budget. Each month we went 
     into debt a little bit more. My husband is a full-time 
     student, and I am the sole breadwinner.

  The child tax credit helped them start to pay down debt, to begin an 
emergency fund, and to start a college fund for their son.
  A resident from Waynesboro:

       I benefited tremendously with the child tax credit. I am a 
     single parent in every aspect, raising two growing boys. It 
     has helped me out with getting things they need for the 
     school year. Also I saved some to be able to give them a good 
     Christmas.

  Finally, Laquanda from Roanoke--all she said was this:

       Please fight for us. Please fight for us.

  I could go on for a long time with these messages, as could my 
colleagues, but I will stop there. I have read you stories from people 
who live in every region of Virginia.
  I want to thank my colleagues Senators Bennet, Brown, Booker, 
Warnock, Cortez Masto, and others for leading the charge on getting 
this policy into the American Rescue Plan earlier this year, and I want 
to thank all of my Democratic colleagues because this thing passed by 
one vote in March. If any of us had been absent, if any of us had lost 
our last race, the American Rescue Plan would have failed, and none of 
these families would have received the support of the child tax credit.
  Well, we are going to have that opportunity again, and, given the 
fact that one party has said they will not support this bill, it is on 
our shoulders. These families who are struggling and working so hard 
and who have hopes as high as any of our hopes, they need us. As 
Laquanda said, they need us to fight for them.
  Thank you to my colleagues for joining in that.
  With that, I yield the floor but would defer to my colleague from 
Colorado.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Madam President, it is a wonderful moment to be here with 
my colleagues to acknowledge that in March we passed the biggest 
reduction in poverty in generations in our country. That was through 
the expansion of the child tax credit, which increased the credit, made 
it payable on a

[[Page S9141]]

monthly basis, and, for the first time in American history, made it 
fully refundable so the millions of children in this country who were 
too poor to get the benefit of the credit because their families were 
too poor would get the benefit of that credit. And we needed to do it.
  The United States, before we passed this, was 38th out of 41 
industrialized countries in the world when it came to childhood 
poverty. The poorest generation in this country are our children, and I 
think what we said was that there is no reason for us to accept those 
outcomes or those numbers as a permanent feature of our economy or our 
democracy. And in the end, this isn't about numbers. This is about 
children all over our country and the future of the United States of 
America.
  Childhood poverty costs this country a trillion dollars a year, and 
one of the things we decided was that maybe, instead of paying for the 
effects of childhood poverty, we could actually begin to try to reduce 
the amount of childhood poverty that exists in our country, the way 
other countries around the world have already done it.
  Nationally, the child tax credit, as I say, is cutting childhood 
poverty in half. It is reducing hunger among families by a quarter. Let 
that linger for a second.
  When was the last time we were able to come to the floor of the 
Senate and say we cut hunger in this country by a quarter? It has been 
generations since anybody has been able to say that on this floor.
  In Colorado, a million kids and their families are benefitting from 
this credit. That is 90 percent of the kids in my State. It is 90 
percent of the kids across the country. Parents in Colorado are getting 
an average of $240 a month to pay for groceries, to help with the rent, 
and, really importantly, to pay for a little extra childcare so people 
can stay at work. And I know that because of what parents have told me 
they are spending the money on.
  When we first passed this credit back in June--I think it was then 
that it first went into effect--July and August, people were getting 
ready to go back to school, and I had mom after mom after mom across 
the State tell me how important it was that they were able to buy 
school clothes for their kids without bankrupting their family, for the 
first time.
  And, you know, all of this is the reflection of an economy that for 
50 years has worked extremely well for the top 10 percent of Americans 
and hasn't really worked for anybody else, and where the families who 
come to see me in my townhall say: Michael, we are working really hard, 
but no matter what we do, we can't afford some combination of housing, 
healthcare, higher education, early childhood education, if we can even 
find early childhood education or daycare.
  We can't save. We feel like our families are going to live a more 
diminished life than we did and that our kids will as well.
  So I brought a few photos today to the floor to share some stories of 
Coloradans with all of you and my colleagues.
  This is April Pratt from El Paso County, and she lives there with her 
three daughters, who are ages 8, 2\1/2\, and 1\1/2\.
  When April was pregnant with her youngest daughter, her husband 
tragically passed away. Now, she is the sole breadwinner for the 
family. And although she works full-time at the local school, there is 
not much left after her mortgage, diapers, and groceries for three 
young kids. Let me just say that again. She works full-time.
  Before the Child Tax Credit, April said she ``felt like I was having 
a lot of anxiety every month about whether I was going to be able to 
afford my bills. It was eating up a lot of my attention.''
  Thanks to the child tax credit, April can afford the $1,200 a month 
for childcare for her two youngest daughters so she can work--so she 
can work. She said, ``If I wasn't able to afford childcare, I'd have to 
quit my job.''
  Without the child tax credit, April said that she would be ``forced 
to use my credit card to fill in the gaps, and that debt just 
accumulates and accumulates, and that becomes crippling, and my family 
wouldn't be able to get ahead.'' She said it was ``nice that our 
government is finally doing something to help working families and 
middle-class families.''
  Finally, after we have cut taxes for the wealthiest people in this 
country by more than $5 trillion since 2001, we finally have a tax cut 
for working families. We should be making it permanent.
  This is Amberly Atencio, also from Colorado. She is here with her 
three girls that are ages 9, 12, and 14. When I got to this place, my 
daughters were 9, 7, and 4, so I have some appreciation for what she 
has got on her hands.
  They lived their entire lives in Monte Vista, a small town in 
southwest Colorado in the San Luis Valley. And for the past 3 years, 
Amberly has been working full-time and studying. And last week, she 
graduated with her second associate's degree.
  She works for a local health insurance company. And before the child 
tax credit, her paycheck was the only source of income for her family. 
She said that knowing that monthly support comes on the same day each 
month helps her pay the rent and buy food. She said: ``I'm a single 
parent. This is like heaven to me, knowing that I have that extra 
income to provide for my children. . . . It has helped so much.''
  Her daughters love sports--soccer, basketball, volleyball, and track. 
But between the shorts, knee pads, cleats, shin guards, and fees, it 
all adds up. And with the child tax credit, she has bought that 
equipment for her daughters so they can play sports with their friends, 
which means the world to them.
  I had a mom who told me that she had bought a bike for her son and he 
was able to take it to stay at school late to engage in afterschool 
activities he otherwise wouldn't be able to do without that bike.
  And, finally, here is Ayesha Bogart from Colorado Springs. Here is 
another mom from the Springs with her three kids, aged 12, 13, and 23. 
Ayesha served for 16 years as a medic in the U.S. Army and U.S. Army 
Reserves. While she was on Active Duty, she was injured during a 
training accident when her Humvee rolled over, and it left her with a 
traumatic brain injury. Now, she is a single mom supporting three kids 
all by herself. And before the child tax credit, she couldn't afford to 
buy new shoes for her kids.
  She said there were days when they didn't have shampoo at home and 
her kids would get teased at school. Thanks to the child tax credit, 
she bought her kids new pairs of shoes. She bought them school supplies 
so they feel like they are on a level playing field with the other 
children in their school. She said the child tax credit has given her 
``breathing room where there wasn't any before.''
  I have heard stories like that all across the State of Colorado. This 
is not an anecdotal reflection of people not working hard. All of these 
people are working hard. It is hard work just to raise a child, much 
less do the kind of jobs these folks are doing. And the economy has 
worked really well for the top 10 percent, as I said, but hasn't really 
worked for anybody else.
  And what has Washington's response been time and time and time again? 
To come here and cut taxes for the richest people in America and ignore 
the needs of working people. That is what we have done since 2001, $8 
trillion in tax cuts, almost all of which have gone to the wealthiest 
people in this country.
  And now, we have a tax cut for working people in an economy that has 
not lifted them up the way it has lifted the people at the very top. We 
are saying we don't have to accept childhood poverty as a permanent 
feature of our economy or our democracy. We don't have to accept an 
economy where it only grows for the wealthiest Americans. We don't have 
to accept that Congress is only paying attention to special interests 
and to the wealthiest Americans.
  We can build an economy that includes everybody, that when it grows, 
everybody benefits from it because the whole society benefits from this 
as well. Childhood poverty costs this country $1 trillion a year. We 
can't afford not to do it, which is why so many other countries in the 
world have done this.
  We can create opportunity for every American family and give every 
child a chance to contribute to this economy and to our society. And I 
believe it is fundamentally important to strengthening our democracy, 
making sure we

[[Page S9142]]

have got something we are proud of to turn over to the next generation 
of Americans.
  That is why it is critical for us to extend this child tax credit, to 
not allow it to lapse at the end of the year, and in my mind, make it 
permanent. I would argue that we cannot afford not to.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Murphy). The Senator from Nevada.
  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, like all Americans, Nevadans have 
been through a difficult 2 years. Our State was one of the hardest hit 
by the pandemic. Nevada relies on tourism and the travel industry, and 
with the country in lockdown, a huge proportion of our families saw 
layoffs or furloughs. In fact, we had one of the highest unemployment 
rates in the country at one time: 30 percent.
  For those families, the middle-class tax cuts we passed in the 
American Rescue Plan have been an incredible lifeline. Today, I am 
joining my colleagues to stand up for extending these tax cuts. It is 
so important that we get this done for people not only in the Silver 
State but across the country.
  In many cases, this is money that Nevadans have earned, and it really 
needs to go back into their pockets. We are talking about a tax cut 
that benefits the vast majority of families in Nevada.
  In July of this year, because of the American Rescue Plan, the child 
tax credit increased to $300 per month for children under 6 years of 
age and $250 a month for children between 6 and 17 years of age. 
Working families with two young kids are receiving more than $500 a 
month back from the government to help them make ends meet, and it is 
making a tremendous difference. Over 594,000 children in Nevada and 
their families qualify for this money.
  I have heard story after story from people in the Silver State about 
the way the money is supporting their children. Some families are using 
the money for rent, to make sure that their kids don't suffer from 
housing insecurity. Others use it for clothes for their children or 
schoolbooks and other school supplies.
  Lori Munoz from Henderson, NV, told the Las Vegas Sun that she uses 
it for school lunches and other school expenses. She said, ``You always 
think, `oh, it's some extra money.' It's never extra money. . . . Kids 
always need, there's always something that needs to be bought.''
  Many families use it just for food on the table. After those first 
payments were issued in July, the number of adults reporting that 
children in their households didn't have enough to eat fell by one-
third.
  And Jessie Cartinella from Reno told me that receiving the monthly 
payments let her stay afloat as a single mom on a teacher's salary and 
kept her from running up credit card bills. She said, and I quote: 
``Thanks to the Advance Child Tax Credit, I've mostly avoided this and 
been able to pay bills and even enjoy special outings with my children. 
The Child Tax Credit encourages my family to make better choices in 
general--affording me assistance with quality childcare, options for 
healthier products and food, and providing the opportunity to 
participate in extracurricular activities that I believe are critical 
to a kid's social and physical development.''
  That was Jessie. And that is why it was so beneficial to her family 
and her children.
  Social interactions are so important for kids' mental health as well, 
and we have known that throughout this pandemic. Treanna James, a 
single mom in Las Vegas, used her extra funds to take her two sons to 
visit an uncle and an aunt in northern California for the first time 
since the pandemic began. Because of underlying medical issues, they 
had to be very careful about travel; but she said the child tax credit 
helped make it possible for them to spend time with family again at 
Thanksgiving.
  So these tax cuts have really been key for Nevada families. Now, they 
are set to expire at the end of 2021, but the budget proposal that we 
are considering extends them for 1 more year.
  Our hard-working families want us to keep this critical support going 
to them. This is not the time to make it harder for people to keep a 
roof over their heads or give their kids the essentials they need.
  So let's make sure Nevadans can keep that money that they have earned 
and extend these middle-class tax cuts to Nevadans and all families 
across the country. Let's support the working people. Let's support 
hard-working individuals every day and help them with their economic 
recovery.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. SMITH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The majority leader.


                          Vote on S.J. Res. 33

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all 
remaining time be yielded back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 498 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Tuberville
     Wicker
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lummis
       
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 33) was passed, as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 33

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     limitation under section 3101(b) of title 31, United States 
     Code, as most recently increased by Public Law 117-50 (31 
     U.S.C. 3101 note), is increased by $2,500,000,000,000.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to executive session and consider the following nomination: 
Executive Calendar No. 476, David A. Honey, of Virginia, to be Deputy 
Under Secretary of Defense; that the nomination be confirmed and the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no 
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to 
the nomination; that the President be immediately notified of the 
Senate's action; and that the Senate resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.

[[Page S9143]]

  It is now December. It has been nearly four months since the 
disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.
  Thirteen servicemembers lost their lives in the attack on Abbey Gate 
along with hundreds of civilians. As a result of the botched evacuation 
operation, hundreds, if not thousands, of American civilians were left 
behind to the enemy.
  We hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that my 
insistence that we actually vote on nominees is unprecedented. I would 
humbly suggest that the crisis into which this President has led this 
country is unprecedented. In my lifetime, it is unprecedented.
  It is unprecedented for an American President to watch 13 
servicemembers lose their lives in an evacuation for which he is 
responsible and then to celebrate that operation as ``an unqualified 
success'' or ``an extraordinary success.'' I believe those were 
President Biden's words.
  Really, an extraordinary success? Thirteen servicemembers dead, 
hundreds of civilians dead, hundreds of Americans left behind to the 
enemy--that is success? No, that is a failure. That is unacceptable.
  And who has been held accountable for this disaster? No one. Who has 
the President fired? Who has offered their resignation? Which of the 
planners at the Department of State or the Department of Defense or the 
National Security Council has been relieved of duty? No one.
  Until there is accountability, I am going to ask that the Senate do 
the simple task of its job, which is to actually vote on these 
nominees. The least we could do is observe regular order and vote on 
these leadership positions at the Department of State and at the 
Department of Defense.
  My colleagues say that we have got to put national security first. I 
agree with them about that. But I believe that begins at the top, with 
the President of the United States and the leadership of the Department 
of Defense and the Department of State. I, for one, am not going to 
stand by and look the other way while this administration 
systematically endangers our national security, imperils the American 
people, and watches the sacrifice of our soldiers go by without any 
accountability, without any change in direction.
  I am not willing to look the other way and just pretend that 
Afghanistan didn't happen, which seems to be the posture that many in 
this body have adopted. I am not willing to do that. I can't do that 
because I promised the parents of the fallen that I wouldn't do that.
  I am going to discharge my responsibility. And as long as it takes, I 
will continue to draw attention to what happened at Abbey Gate and to 
demand accountability for the disaster that this administration has 
pushed upon this country and upon the people of my State.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 
Research and Engineering is a critical position that helps lead and 
manage our military's science and technology work. This includes work 
on disruptive, cutting-edge technologies like quantum science, 
hypersonics, and artificial intelligence. Maintaining our competitive 
edge over China in these areas has been a focus of the Subcommittee on 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities, which I chair, and I know that all 
of us--all of us--here understand how important it is.
  We worked on a bipartisan basis to include investment and policy 
changes for these priorities in the NDAA that we are hoping to pass 
this week. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and 
Engineering is tasked with carrying out many of these changes. Yet the 
nominee for this post has yet to be confirmed.
  Dr. David A. Honey is qualified. He brings decades of experience, 
including as an Air Force pilot, an intelligence officer, and in 
leadership roles at DARPA, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and 
within the intelligence community. Reflecting his qualifications, Dr. 
Honey's nomination has bipartisan support and was voice-voted out of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee in October.
  At a time when our adversaries are investing heavily in an attempt to 
outpace the United States, we need all hands on deck and confirmed 
leadership in this post, so I am very disappointed that we could not do 
that today. This is a matter of national security.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                               Inflation

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, for months now, American families have 
struggled with the growing burden of inflation. New data shows just how 
bad things have gotten.
  Last month, consumer prices increased at the fastest pace in 40 
years. Now, I would like to take a little walk down memory lane. The 
last time the American people endured price spikes like this, ``Eye of 
the Tiger'' was one of the top songs on the radio. I am sure the 
Senator from Delaware remembers that very well. The world had yet to be 
introduced to Nintendo and Mario. Consumers were anxiously awaiting the 
release of the first cell phone, which weighed in at a whopping 2 
pounds. I remember those unwieldy telephones well.
  Over the last four decades, of course, a lot has changed, and I am 
not just talking about technology--the attacks of September 11, wars in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, the great recession.
  Even during the first year of the pandemic, inflation didn't come 
close to hitting the heights that it has today. Between March 2020 and 
February 2021, the inflation rate never topped 2 percent.
  There were countless reasons for us to be optimistic. We had three 
highly effective vaccines, with shots going into the arms of millions 
of people every day. Schools were reopening. Employees were returning 
to work. The American people began to discover a new semblance of 
normal post-COVID.
  But the administration ignored all of this progress because they had 
another plan in mind. They seized on what one House Democrat described 
as a ``tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit [their] 
vision.'' They crafted a nearly $2 trillion piece of legislation that 
included their ideological priorities and tried to brand it as 
necessary pandemic relief. But we know that only about 10 percent of 
that $2 trillion expenditure went to COVID-19. Less than 1 percent went 
for vaccines. What it did include was backdoor funding for Planned 
Parenthood, a blank check for mismanaged union pension plans, and money 
for climate justice. It was easy to see through the COVID relief 
facade.
  Well, as our colleagues pushed this bill forward, they ignored 
warning signs from leading economists that this kind of spending 
chasing limited goods and services could trigger inflation. Larry 
Summers, who served as Secretary of Treasury during the Obama 
administration, even predicted that this package could ``set off 
inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.''
  Our colleagues couldn't be convinced to change course, and look where 
we are now as a result. We are experiencing inflation of a kind that we 
have not seen in a generation. Last month, prices jumped a whopping 6.8 
percent from the previous year, marking the sixth consecutive month in 
which inflation has topped 5 percent.
  When concerns were raised about this, the Federal Reserve claimed 
that this inflation was transitory--in other words, it was a passing 
moment--but the longer and longer inflation continues to rise and 
continues to be a problem, it is looking less and less transitory and 
more and more frightening. The reason it is frightening, of course, is 
because particularly people on fixed incomes are seeing less and less 
buying power for each dollar they spend. It is, some have said, a 
hidden tax on the American people, which describes its impact very 
well.

  Well, month after month, the data has now demonstrated that this is 
not just transitory and it isn't just a blip on the radar of our 
economy. Inflation is running much hotter than expected, and things are 
not expected to cool down anytime soon.
  As families prepare for the Christmas holiday season, they are 
bracing their wallets for higher than normal expenses, and one of the 
biggest hits is for grocery bills--hardly something optional. Breakfast 
on Christmas morning is sure to cost a lot more than it

[[Page S9144]]

did just a year ago. Egg prices are up 8 percent. Bacon costs a 
whopping 21 percent more than it did just a year ago. Dinner--it won't 
be any cheaper either. Prices are up for everything from ham to salad 
dressing to pie.
  Cooking that meal will cost you a lot more too. Electricity prices 
are up 6.5 percent, and anyone cooking on a gas range will shell out 25 
percent more than they did last year.
  If you are traveling to see your extended family this year, you 
better start saving for it now. Gas prices are up a whopping 58 
percent, the largest increase since 1980.
  Of course, this ignores the rising cost of gifts sitting under the 
Christmas tree, if you can get them because of broken and delayed 
supply chains. So the new cars and the washing machines and sofas that 
countless families have purchased this year, all of those cost more.
  You would think that our Democratic colleagues who are proposing 
another $5 trillion in spending under the so-called BBB--or Build Back 
Better bill--you would think they would view this with caution and back 
off of their plans or at least tap the brakes for a second round of 
unnecessary spending. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the 
case. In fact, the Senate majority leader, Senator Schumer, is trying 
to double down on this next round of inflationary spending.
  We know that every trick in the book has been employed to try to make 
the BBB, the Build Back Better--``Build Back Broke,'' ``Build Back 
Bad,'' ``Build Back Bankrupt,'' you call it what you will--our 
Democratic colleagues have used every gimmick in the book to make the 
price of this bill look as small as possible. Of course, they started 
with the chairman of the Budget Committee. Senator Sanders wanted to 
spend $6 trillion more. That was pared down to $3.5 trillion. Now, they 
claim it is only $1.75 trillion. In order to achieve that number, they 
have gamed the Tax Code to fund part of the bill while handing out tax 
breaks to millionaires and billionaires in relief for State and local 
taxes. They have strategically chosen start dates, sunsets, and 
expiration dates that make these programs appear deceptively to cost 
less.
  One of our colleagues acknowledged that this is disingenuous 
advertising and even told Mr. Graham, the Senator from South Carolina, 
that he knew that this score they were promoting was full of gimmicks.
  Of course, that is a lot different than the President himself, who 
said this bill will cost zero. Now, everybody knows that is not true.
  But there had been some debate about what the honest score would be 
even with all the gimmicks. If the temporary provisions were extended, 
as we all know they would be--there is no such thing as a temporary 
government program around here or, as Ronald Reagan said, the closest 
thing to eternal life is a temporary government program--this 
legislation will cost a lot more than they admit, and we now know how 
much that will be.
  Senator Graham, who serves as a ranking member on the Budget 
Committee, asked the Congressional Budget Office to provide a more 
accurate cost estimate for this legislation. Others like me asked the 
CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation to give us an updated estimate. 
There have been a lot of requests made to come up with an accurate, 
truth-in-advertising score for this huge bill.
  Last week, we got what we asked for. We finally received the true 
score for this legislation, and it is a whole lot more than the 
American people were told and much more than they have bargained for. 
Let's start with the cost provision of just one part of this bill, the 
expanded child tax credit. This expansion initially came on the scene 
as a temporary measure in the first partisan spending bill just 9 
months ago. So this actually builds on the $2 trillion our colleagues 
passed at the beginning of this year. The very first payments had 
barely gone out the door when our friends on the other side of the 
aisle called for these temporary provisions to be made permanent. Our 
colleagues knew that a permanent expansion would have been far too 
expensive so they opted for a temporary extension.
  Earlier drafts of this bill would have extended this policy through 
2025. As time went on, the pricetag was still too high so Democrats 
scaled it back to a 1-year extension, but still nothing has changed. 
Calls to make this temporary provision permanent have not gone away, 
and I see no indication that our colleagues will ever be content to let 
this extension expire after just 1 year.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say this provision will 
cost taxpayers $185 billion, as if that were a bargain. The latest 
estimate from the CBO places the actual cost at roughly $1.6 trillion. 
You heard that right. Our colleagues across the aisle said it would 
just cost $185 billion, but the latest estimate from the Congressional 
Budget Office placed the actual cost during the 10-year budget window 
at roughly $1.6 trillion, nine times higher than what Democrats have 
been telling the American people. The true cost of this one provision 
is nearly as high as what our colleagues said the entire package would 
cost.
  Then you add in the other higher-than-promised expenses. The true 
costs of payoffs and subsidies to organize labor, allowing dues to 
become tax deductible will cost taxpayers billions more than 
advertised.
  But I will give them credit about one thing. They are transparent 
when it comes to subsidizing more frivolous lawsuits against small 
businesses by giving a permanent tax cut to trial lawyers. When you add 
up all the not-so-temporary provisions, the Congressional Budget Office 
says this bill will cost $4.9 trillion during the first 10 years--not 
$1.75 trillion, not zero, but $4.9 trillion. Deficits and debt would 
increase by a staggering $3 trillion; in other words, borrowed money 
that the next generation or maybe next two generations will have to 
repay, which makes President Biden's comment about ``zero'' even more 
bizarre.
  When it comes to solving our country's biggest problems, our 
colleagues across the aisle have proven themselves to be a one-trick 
pony. Whether the American people are facing a pandemic, a sluggish 
economic recovery, red-hot inflation, or any combination of crises, 
President Biden and our Democratic colleagues here in Congress think 
trillions of dollars in new spending is the best path forward.
  The first round of reckless spending hurt our economic recovery and 
sent the American people on a wild inflationary ride. Our colleagues 
continue to ignore clear signals from the economy, including warnings 
by Democratic economists about the consequences to unchecked spending.
  And we are now experiencing the highest inflation in a generation. 
This second round of spending would usher in more inflation, higher 
deficits, and even greater financial trouble for the American people. 
The American people have clearly suffered enough, and it is time to 
simply put the ``Build Back Bankrupt'' bill out of its misery.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Biden Administration

  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. President, as we approach the Christmas break and the 
advent of the new year, I believe it is instructive to take an 
inventory of the year that was. So in honor of the holiday season, 
let's take stock of the first year of the reign of Biden, Schumer, and 
Pelosi. In fact, in the spirit of the season, I am going to call this 
recitation the ``Twelve Biden Blunders of Christmas.''
  The first blunder that Joe Biden gave to us is a free Big Government 
socialist agenda, otherwise known as the Democrats' Build Back Better 
plan, designed to pass with no support from or, frankly, input from any 
of these pesky Republicans.
  Time and time again, Joe Biden and his Democratic toymakers have 
parroted the claim that their Big Government socialist agenda costs 
zero--zero. Can you imagine a piece of legislation designed to give 
away trillions of dollars but doesn't cost anything? But perhaps they 
have some elf dust that makes it possible.
  Obviously, this isn't true. Analysis by nongovernment, nonpartisan

[[Page S9145]]

groups, including the Penn Wharton model and the Committee for a 
Responsible Federal Budget, did an analysis and concluded that the cost 
was much, much higher, like just under $5 trillion. A recent thorough 
analysis, based on the history and the traditions of Congress and 
spending, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office agrees. The 
Washington Post's Fact Checker even gave Treasury Secretary Janet 
Yellen two Pinocchios when she repeated the same bogus claim that this 
bill would cost nothing.
  The second blunder Joe Biden gave to us is hiding from media 
reporters and not taking questions. It is unbelievable to me--it is 
hard to imagine the leader of the freest country in the world, in fact, 
the leader of the free world, is afraid to take questions from the 
fourth estate or that his staffers are afraid of what might come out of 
his mouth.
  Freedom of the press is enshrined in the First Amendment of our 
Constitution on purpose. Yet on David Axelrod's podcast, the White 
House Press Secretary Jen Psaki admitted out loud that ``a lot of times 
we say, `Don't take questions.' ''
  The media in the United States is not supposed to be the mouthpiece 
of the government or its leaders. Transparency is essential--
essential--in our exceptional self-governing system.
  Now, I am not the President of the United States, but reporters who 
work in the halls of this temple of liberty and, of course, reporters 
back home in North Dakota know I am always willing to engage. I don't 
hide from my votes or explanations for them. I am not scripted to the 
point of resigning my own thoughts or opinions or even mistakes and 
decisions. North Dakotans elected me, not my staff. Americans elected 
Joe Biden, not his staff, not some buffer of bureaucracy. He has the 
responsibility to be accessible, and the media has the responsibility 
to demand it of him.
  But the slippery slope doesn't end here. Another third blunder Joe 
Biden gave to us is the White House deciding what is 
``misinformation.'' In a news conference, Jen Psaki said:

       We're flagging--

  Imagine this now, the White House spokesperson:

       We're flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread 
     disinformation. We're working with doctors and medical 
     experts . . . who are popular with their audience with 
     accurate information. So, we're helping get trusted content 
     out there.

  That is frightening language coming from a spokesperson for the 
President. It sounds an awful lot like the U.S. Government colluding 
with the media to decide what, in fact, counts as fact. In fact, 
reading between the lines on this one, it seems the White House is 
playing the ultimate arbiter of the truth. If this seems a little 
Orwellian, well, it is. It is.
  While it is easy to see why Ms. Psaki might conclude--and, frankly, 
other Democrats--that they, in fact, control a ``state media,'' the 
fact is, they don't. Give the American people some credit here. They 
are smarter than being spoon-fed information from the West Wing through 
their ``elfin folk'' at Facebook.
  The fourth blunder Joe Biden gave to us is raging inflation from 
pumping trillions of free dollars into the economy. We all saw the 
writing on the wall when Democrats and the Biden administration pushed 
for $2 trillion in ``COVID relief'' in March, just 3 months removed 
from the bipartisan $900 billion relief bill. This was a total 
partisan, reckless $2 trillion that came at a time when there was 
obvious economic recovery coming out of the pandemic.
  And now, Democrats want to spend nearly $5 trillion on their ``Build 
Back Broke'' plan. To put these massive numbers in perspective, the sum 
of these two bills--just these two bills--is more than the U.S. 
Government spent fighting World War II. In 2019 dollars, the United 
States spent $4.69 trillion over the course of just under 4 years to 
fight and defeat Nazi Germany and the Axis powers.
  Liberal and left-of-center economists, including Larry Summers and 
Jason Furman, sounded warning bells early this year, but Democrats 
forged ahead sending inflation to levels not seen in nearly 40 years. 
They continue to insist that inflation is ``transitory,'' but Americans 
know better. Americans paying more and more for everything with each 
passing month know that this is more than transitory inflation.
  The fifth blunder Joe Biden's Cabinet gave to us is Homeland Security 
Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas's assessment of the southern border 
crisis. Remember the hordes of illegal immigrants camping out on the 
bridge in Del Rio, TX? ``Don't worry,'' Secretary Mayorkas said as he 
low-balled the numbers, citing:

       Approximately, I think it's about 10,000 or so, 12,000. It 
     could be even higher.

  Actually, conservative estimates have the tally upward of 15,000 
people.
  While we are talking about the crisis at the southern border, it is 
important to note Joe Biden made multiple claims that he visited the 
border. But guess what. He hasn't. The Washington Post Fact Checker 
wrote: ``We cannot find evidence that Biden at one point made a visit 
to the southern border'' in his many decades of public office.
  It is as though he thinks, if he says it, somehow that makes it true. 
The problem is lying doesn't make the lie true. I have been to the 
border, most recently, about 6 weeks ago. I can tell you, it is bad. I 
can tell you, it is a crisis. Our Customs and Border Patrol agents are 
completely overwhelmed. I went on a ride-along and aerial tour of the 
Rio Grande Valley and visited the Donna Processing Facility, where 
families and unaccompanied minors are processed. If there is any 
takeaway from seeing this firsthand, it is this: There is no way to 
adequately understand the magnitude of the problem or the severity of 
the crisis unless you see it with your own two eyes. So I implore the 
President, who has held elected office nearly uninterrupted since 1973, 
please visit the southern border and acknowledge what is obvious to 
everybody else. This is a national crisis.
  The sixth blunder Joe Biden gave to us is a new kind of border wall, 
not the wall we need to secure the crisis on the southern border, which 
has seen record numbers as nearly 2 million people have attempted to 
enter the country illegally under Biden's watch.
  By the way, this is just the number of illegal immigrants who have 
been apprehended by our CBP heroes. Now, that is more than twice the 
population of my home State.
  But according to Secretary Mayorkas, a border wall is an affront to--
get this--an affront to humanitarian relief. Obviously, the ranchers 
and the innocent American citizens living and working near the border 
don't qualify for this humanitarian relief. Yet his Agency secured and 
awarded a contract for nearly half a million taxpayer dollars to build 
and install a fence around Joe Biden's home in Delaware. What kind of 
humanitarian relief does Joe Biden's beach mansion need?
  The seventh blunder Joe Biden gave to us is $450,000 settlements for 
illegal immigrants, just for being illegal. The Wall Street Journal was 
the first to report this absurd plan. While North Dakota families and 
businesses are struggling with inflation and skyrocketing costs on 
everything because of Joe Biden's spending policies, his administration 
wants to hand out hundreds of thousands of dollars to illegal 
immigrants.
  In comparison to the $450,000 proposed payout for illegal border 
crossers, the U.S. Government pays only $100,000 to the families of 
soldiers killed in service to our country, and people who are wrongly 
accused and incarcerated in Federal prison are eligible for just 
$50,000. That is right--$100,000 if you die defending our freedom but 
$450,000 if you violate our freedom.
  Now, when confronted about this, President Biden said this is not 
going to happen, but he was quickly corrected by his own White House 
and the Justice Department. Negotiations are ongoing, so we don't know 
what any final number will be. I have helped sponsor legislation and 
amendments to prevent this policy from ever being implemented. The last 
thing we need is another incentive for people to come to our country 
illegally.
  The eighth blunder Joe Biden gave to us is private jet-setting 
climate apologist John Kerry's comments on coal. Kerry stated:

       By 2030 in the United States, we won't have coal. We will 
     not have coal plants.

  While a State Department spokesperson walked back Kerry's statement, 
``noting the administration's plan still

[[Page S9146]]

would allow coal,'' it is absurd on its face.
  Cutting off coal would shut down American innovation, kill all the 
progress we have made on carbon capture technology, eliminate good-
paying U.S. jobs, scrap grid reliability, and increase the cost of 
energy and everything that is produced that is dependent on the 
energy--like we need more inflation--and cede energy dominance to 
foreign adversaries who have a total lack of environmental concern and 
standards. Canceling coal is merely a transfer of emissions guilt to 
other countries with dirtier energy production than we have.
  The ninth blunder Joe Biden gave to us is moral authority and other 
gaffes from Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. Most notably, Secretary 
Granholm--while in North Dakota, no less--said: ``We don't have much 
moral authority to call out China when it comes to energy production 
and emissions.''
  This is not just wrong; it is embarrassing. It is not just an 
intellectual mistake; it is an embarrassing gaffe. The stringent 
environmental and, I might add, labor standards of the United States 
are far superior to the lack of any of them in China. And I rest my 
case on the facts of the situation here.
  One, according to the BBC and several other agencies--but the BBC 
says China emits 27 percent of global emissions, and it is a rising 
percentage because it is a rising number, while the United States is 
around 10 percent and a declining percent.
  Two, according to the EPA, total U.S. energy-related carbon emissions 
fell by 12 percent from 2005 to 2018 while the United States became the 
No. 1 energy producer in the world.
  In contrast, global energy-related carbon emissions increased nearly 
24 percent. So the United States reduces 12; the globe increases 24 
percent. This is significant by any standard and certainly qualifies us 
to be able to say we have moral authority over China when it comes to 
polluting and greenhouse gas emissions.
  In North Dakota, in fact, we are performing ground-breaking research 
and piloting innovative demonstration projects. We are in the process 
of adding carbon capture technology to facilities like the Milton R. 
Young and Coal Creek power generation stations.
  Furthermore, the United States has invested more in clean energy, 
research, development, and deployment than the next two countries 
combined.
  We are a global leader in climate mitigation measures for new energy 
sources, carbon management, and efficiency. The radical and backwards 
energy policy of this administration ignores American exceptionalism 
and the real progress that we have made as a nation.
  The Chinese Communist Party, Russia, and other polluters have shown 
no real interest in doing so, yet Secretary Granholm and Joe Biden 
provide cover for them, along, of course, with John Kerry, even 
greenlighting their fossil fuel energy projects, while they kill 
America's.
  The tenth blunder Joe Biden gave to us is a disastrous withdrawal 
from Afghanistan. There is a lot to unpack here, and nothing about this 
topic is meant to be glib or sarcastic. This withdrawal was nothing 
short of a tragic disaster and an international embarrassment.
  We will continue searching for answers and accountability from the 
administration on this, but let's focus on the failed commitments from 
Joe Biden. He said his administration would get all Americans and our 
allies out of the country ahead of his arbitrary August 31 withdrawal 
deadline.

  He also said the United States would stay in Afghanistan until all 
Americans who want to leave can do so. This is obviously not what 
happened.
  After the botched withdrawal, the administration listed numbers 
ranging from 85 people to 200 or maybe 400 Americans left in 
Afghanistan. The State Department, however, believes as many as 14,000 
legal permanent U.S. residents remain in Afghanistan, according to a 
foreign policy press report. Whatever the number, the President went on 
national television and told the world this withdrawal was ``an 
extraordinary success.''
  Can you imagine being one of the people left behind and seeing your 
President on TV calling what he did an extraordinary success, saying 
that we got out successfully? It is abundantly clear there are 
significant numbers of U.S. citizens, residents, and important Afghan 
allies still stranded in the country if, in fact, they are still alive 
at all.
  The 11th blunder Joe Biden gave to us is welcoming stiff competition 
with China. In October, Jen Psaki was asked about the Chinese Communist 
Party's hypersonic missile test successfully circumventing the whole 
globe which, from reports, indicate they are capable of delivering a 
nuclear warhead. Her response, Oh, we welcome stiff competition.
  Really? Really? Why would the White House welcome military 
competition from our peer adversary communist China?
  As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, it has been a 
priority to ensure the U.S. military maintains a secure and effective 
deterrent, a nuclear deterrent. In order to do so, we need to modernize 
our nuclear triad. America's nuclear triad of missiles, submarines, and 
aircraft are 60-plus years old in many cases, and they are not the same 
strong deterrent to our adversaries that they once were. It is clear 
and concerning that the Chinese Communist Party is prioritizing a 
nuclear buildup, and the White House seems comfortable with all of 
this.
  The 12th blunder Joe Biden gave to us is the consistent confusion and 
alarm in regards to his own comments about Taiwan.
  In October, Joe Biden told reporters, ``I have spoken with Xi Jinping 
about Taiwan. We agree, we will abide by the Taiwan agreement,'' he 
said. Of course, immediately, alarm bells rang out, causing confusion 
and a lot of head scratching. You have to remember, we have a backdrop 
of Beijing ramping up military pressure on Taiwan, and Joe Biden can't 
properly articulate our Nation's foreign policy posture.
  The lack of understanding on something as critical as China is 
dumbfounding. Taiwan is a strategic ally and important trading partner 
to the United States, especially given the increased risk China poses, 
not only to the region but to the world. If this was an isolated 
incident, it would be one thing, but this isn't the only time his 
comments in Taiwan had to be clarified--no. In a CNN townhall, Anderson 
Cooper interrupted the President to ask if Joe Biden was ``saying that 
the U.S. would come to Taiwan's defense if China attacked?''
  Joe Biden promptly responded with, Yes, we have a commitment.
  The White House resorted once again to walking back these comments, 
in what seems to be a recurring occurrence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 
One Washington Post article wrote:

       Most analysts believe simply that Biden misspoke.

  Misspeaking is a kind way to dismiss the obvious lack of clear 
understanding of a critical foreign policy issue by our Commander in 
Chief. If there were to be an attack, I am not even sure the President 
would know what to do if he can't accurately express what our policy 
is.
  I am not sure I can sum this up as succinctly as two turtledoves and 
a partridge in a pear tree, but I can conclude that Joe Biden and his 
leftwing extremist allies deserve a lump of carbon-intense coal in 
their White House stockings this Christmas.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                   Anniversary of Sandy Hook Shooting

  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, 9 years ago this morning, I was in 
Bridgeport, CT. I had just done an event with the city of Bridgeport, 
and I was meeting my wife and, at the time, my two very young children, 
ages 4 and 1, in 2012 at the Bridgeport train station. We were going to 
take the train down to New York City, and Cathy and I were going to 
show our two kids the splendor of New York City. We were going to go 
see the Christmas tree. We were going to go to the ice rink.
  And as we were waiting for the train to arrive, I got news that there 
had been a shooting at a school in Newtown, CT. Newtown is a beautiful 
community, a quintessential small town, close-knit. The Labor Day 
parade every year attracts every civic and community group to it, the 
pride of the community.

[[Page S9147]]

  And I wondered whether I could still continue on to this family trip 
or whether I needed to wait to find out more. I figured it was a 
disgruntled employee. A few moments passed as I waited for the train, 
and the news began to come in that this was much more grim, that there 
were children shot, perhaps many.
  And I decided that I should get in a car and head to Sandy Hook. 
There are a lot of days when I wish I didn't see the things that I saw 
or hear the things that I heard in Newtown that day.
  Senator Blumenthal, who is on the floor with me right now, he and I 
were there, and we were just witnesses. We were just interlopers. 
Neither of us lost a loved one that day, but it is a day that I will 
never, ever forget, etched into my brain.
  And we come here likely every December 14 to memorialize another year 
having passed since Sandy Hook. And, of course, at some point, you come 
to a loss for words. You can't figure out what new to say to your 
colleagues to try to explain what has happened to these families, to 
this community, why there is such an aching for action, a disbelief 
that this country refuses to stand up and do something about the safety 
of our kids--because, well, Newtown caught the Nation's attention for 
good reason, twenty 6 and 7-year-olds vanishing from the Earth in an 
instant. Every single day, there are mothers and fathers who are losing 
children to gun violence--gun violence that is completely preventable.
  A few weeks after Newtown, I was in a community center in the north 
end of Hartford with parents who were furious that the country was just 
waking up to this epidemic of gun violence after White children were 
shot in Newtown because it had been happening to their Black children 
for decades.
  And so, today, I want to do something very simple for my colleagues 
and for the country, I want to just explain to you what the grief of 
these families feels like, what it looks like when you lose a child, 
whether that child is 6 or 7 or 16 or 17. When you outlive your child, 
when your child doesn't even make it to adulthood, there is an all-
consuming grief that is inescapable.
  One of the emotions that is connected to this grief that I have 
learned about is the tendency to deny the reality that has become your 
surrounding.
  That is logical, to momentarily, either purposely or subconsciously, 
try to figure out a way out of this world that you are living in 
without your child or without your son or daughter whom you had planned 
to spend the rest of your life with.
  And so I want to talk a little bit about that emotion today. I live 
now in the South End of Hartford. I live just two blocks from the 
intersection of South Prospect and Shelby Street. I think I live there 
intentionally, because I know this story so well, and when my family 
and I were looking for a house in Hartford and there was one available 
just two blocks from this intersection, I think there was probably 
something intentional about the choice we made.
  On and at that intersection, just two months before the Sandy Hook 
shooting, Shane Oliver, a young African American, 20 years old, was 
meeting a couple of acquaintances. He was transferring a car that he 
had fixed up to this other group of individuals whom he knew in 
passing.
  He was there with his girlfriend, and during the exchange of this 
vehicle, an argument broke out. It started because of something 
untoward that his sellers said about his girlfriend. It was essentially 
an argument over a girl that turned into a fistfight that then prompted 
Luis Rodriguez to go back to his car. Inside that car was an illegal 
gun. He walked out of the car with a gun. Shane Oliver tried to run, 
and he was shot in the back. He died that night at a Hartford hospital.
  His mother, for a good deal afterward, would wake up in the middle of 
the night, awaken from a deep sleep, put her clothes on, get into her 
car, and start driving. She would do this night after night.
  She would drive from her home to the corner of South Prospect and 
Shelby Street, where her son died. And when she got there, she would 
shift her transmission into park and she would turn on the high beams 
and just wait for hours--the car in park, the high beams on--
ostensibly, waiting for her son to come back. It is impossible. Shane 
Oliver had died months ago. He wasn't coming back. But his mother, 
consumed by this grief, consumed by this need to deny what had 
happened, sat there in her car.
  Around the same time, one parent whom both Dick and I have gotten to 
know very well in Sandy Hook came up with her own trick. She would 
pretend that her son who had died that day at Sandy Hook wasn't dead. 
In fact, he was just visiting a friend for the afternoon.
  She was trying to figure out ways to just get some housework done, to 
just tidy up the place, to make some phone calls that she needed to in 
order to get her family's business done, and the only way that she 
could do that was to imagine that her son was at a play date and that 
he would be coming home soon. And, of course, that dream would vanish, 
and she would once again come to grips with the reality that her son 
was never, ever coming home. But that need to deny that reality, even 
for a few hours, was what was necessary for her in order to get through 
the day.
  I just tell those two stories because I want people to understand how 
desperate your life becomes when you lose a child. We lost 26 
individuals--20 kids and 6 educators--9 years ago today in Sandy Hook, 
and the families of all 26 of these individuals--the parents, the 
brothers, the sisters, the children--their lives will never, ever be 
the same. Newtown will never, ever be the same. Many of these kids 
lived within a block or two of each other. Everyone in Newtown knew one 
of these families, two of these families. Half of these kids all went 
to the same church. The funerals that we went to over and over again 
were at the same place, with the same priest presiding over funeral 
after funeral, wake after wake.
  And so sometimes those of us who work in and around this issue of gun 
violence get angry at our colleagues, because how can you listen to 
these stories of grief--and they happen in every State--and choose not 
to act?
  Lastly, I want to do something that I have done several times on the 
floor, because I am running out of ways to express what happened in 
Sandy Hook and why our inaction is inexcusable. I am running out of 
turns of phrase to do it myself. So maybe the words of a parent will 
help you understand why we need to act. So I am going to read a few 
excerpts from testimony that our friend Neil Heslin gave before the 
U.S. Senate just 2 months after Sandy Hook occurred.
  Neil is a complicated guy, a good friend who had hard times in his 
life. But his best friend was his son Jesse Lewis. And I will end by 
reading what he wrote to the U.S. Senate 9 years ago.

       On December 14, Jesse got up and got ready for school. He 
     was always excited to go to school. I remember on that day we 
     stopped at Misty Vale Deli. It's funny the things you 
     remember. I remember Jesse got the sausage, egg and cheese he 
     always gets, with hot chocolate. And I remember the hug he 
     gave me when I dropped him off. He just held me, and he 
     rubbed my back. I can still feel that hug.
       And Jesse said ``It's going to be alright.''

  I mentioned that his father Neil had a rough life. He had a hard 
time, like a lot of folks.

       And Jesse said ``It's going to be alright. Everything's 
     going to be okay, Dad.'' Looking back it makes me wonder. 
     What did he know? Did he have some idea about what was about 
     to happen? But at the time I didn't think much of it. I just 
     thought he was being sweet.
       He was always being sweet like that. He was the kind of kid 
     who used to leave me voice messages where he'd sing me happy 
     birthday even when it wasn't my birthday. I'd ask him about 
     it, and he'd say ``I just wanted to make you feel happy.''
       He had so much wisdom. He would know things, and I would 
     have no idea how he knew. But whatever he said, it was always 
     right. He would remember things we'd done and places we'd 
     been that I had completely forgotten about. I used to think 
     of him as a tiny adult.
       Other people felt it, too. Teachers would tell me about his 
     laugh, how he made things at school more fun just by being 
     there.
       Jesse had this idea that you never leave people hurt. If 
     you can help somebody, you do it.

  That's what Jesse thought. If you can make somebody feel better, you 
do it.

       They tell me that's how he died. I guess we still don't 
     know exactly what happened at that school. Maybe we'll never 
     know. But what people tell me is Jesse did something

[[Page S9148]]

     different. When he heard the shooting, he didn't run and 
     hide. He started yelling. People disagree [about what he 
     said]. . . . [But] ten kids from my son's class made it to 
     safety. I hope to God something Jesse did [that day] helped 
     them survive. . . .
       What I know is that Jesse wasn't shot in the back. He took 
     two bullets. The first one grazed the side of his head, but 
     that [probably] didn't stop him yelling. The other hit him in 
     the forehead. Both bullets were fired from the front. That 
     means the last thing my son did was look Adam Lanza straight 
     in the face. . . .

  Jesse grew up with guns, just like I did. I started shooting . . . 
when I was eight years old. My dad was a vice president for years at a 
local gun club. He started taking me shooting when I was eight. . . . 
He taught me to respect guns, just like I taught Jesse.

       Jesse . . . had an interest in guns. He had a bb gun. I 
     watched over him like a hawk with that. I taught him gun 
     safety. He knew it. He could recite it to you.
       Some guns just don't have any place in the hands of 
     civilians. The assault weapons we're talking about today, 
     their sole purpose is to put a lot of lead out in a 
     battlefield quickly. That's what they do. That's what they 
     did at Sandy Hook Elementary.
       I wish I wasn't here with you today.

  Neil writes:

       The best day of my life was the day my son was born. The 
     worst day was the day he died. I don't want to relive that 
     day by talking to you here about it. It would be easier for 
     me just to stay home.
       But I know that's not what Jesse would do. Jesse died 
     screaming at a man with a gun. He died yelling at the top of 
     his lungs so maybe some of his classmates could get to 
     safety.
       I'm not real political. Half the time I think it doesn't 
     matter which group of you guys runs things out here, no 
     offense. I've always thought it wasn't a real good idea for 
     people to be walking around the streets with military 
     weapons, but I probably wouldn't have said anything about it.
       So the reason I say this isn't about politics is because 
     what I felt on that day, and what I've felt since, doesn't 
     have anything to do with politics. In politics, people like 
     to debate and say if we banned the weapon that Adam Lanza 
     used would he just find something else. Let me tell you, when 
     you're sitting at a firehouse and it is one in the morning 
     and you are hoping against hope that your son is still hiding 
     somewhere in that school, you want any change that makes it 
     one bit more likely you'll see your boy again.
       Before he died, Jesse and I used to talk about maybe coming 
     to Washington someday. He wanted to go up the Washington 
     monument. When we talked about it last year Jesse asked if we 
     could come and meet the President.
       I said earlier that I can be a little cynical about 
     politicians. But Jesse believed in you. He learned about you 
     in school and he believed in you. I want to believe in you, 
     too. I know you can't give me Jesse back. Believe me, if I 
     thought you could I'd be asking you for that. But I want to 
     believe that you will think about what I told you [here] 
     today. I want to believe that you'll think about it and then 
     you'll do something about it, whatever you can do to make 
     sure that no other father has to see what I've seen.

  Dick and I were at that firehouse all day and all night, and I will 
never, ever forget that when all the parents had gone home, having told 
what happened, the first responders had almost all left. Sitting in the 
middle of the firehouse all by himself was this one man. And it was 
Neil Heslin. I left that firehouse--I can't remember--at 10 o'clock or 
11 o'clock at night. And Neal was the last person I talked to. And, as 
he tells you in his testimony, he didn't leave until 1:30. If there was 
any chance that Jesse was coming back, that he was running around in 
the woods, he was going to be sitting there at the firehouse.
  It gets harder every year, and I have no personal stake in this. I 
went home that night to both of my kids, who were sleeping safely in 
their beds.
  What the hell is going on in this country that we sit here and 
memorialize year after year since those 20 kids died and we don't do 
anything meaningful about it?
  Next December will be 10 years, and I am just going to tell you how 
hard it will be for so many of these families to live through a 10-year 
mark of Sandy Hook with no action from this body.
  We have a year to get our act together here to make sure that in some 
small way we can honor these children with action.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, this day is one of the profound 
moments for both Senator Murphy and myself, because we lived through 
that day--a searing, grief-stricken day that neither of us will ever 
forget, 9 years ago. And at this moment on that day, I stood before a 
church full of parents and members of that Newtown community. And what 
I said then was, ``The world is watching. The world is watching us and 
what we will do.''
  Today, we remember not only what we lost but also what we still need 
to do as, 9 years ago, those 20 beautiful children and 6 great 
educators lost their lives. Today, as we did at St. Rose of Lima Church 
that evening, we remember the lives they lived. Their names will be 
forever engraved in our hearts. We remember them for bringing bursts of 
light and laughter and love into our lives, mostly into the lives of 
their families.
  We also remember the heroism, the real heroism, of those educators on 
that day--of the six who bravely sought to shield their children. 
Literally, with their own bodies, they sought to protect their 
children--running unhesitatingly toward that danger, barricading 
classrooms, drawing on all their reserves of calm and professionalism 
to protect the children in their care. They were heroes, and so were 
emergency responders, State police, and all who came to the firehouse 
that day. I remember the broken faces--the heartbroken faces--of men 
who went into the school building to secure the crime scene and saw the 
bodies of children who could have been their own. They were tough State 
policemen who had seen it all. Those emergency responders, the 
ministers, the priests, the people of faith who tended to the parents, 
and, yes, indeed, the parents themselves--heroes.
  My colleague Senator Murphy has talked about Jesse's dad, Neil 
Heslin. Jesse's mom, Scarlett Lewis, became a hero as a champion of 
social and emotional learning to try to prevent the conflict and the 
emotional travail that could lead someone like Adam Lanza to do what he 
did.
  I will never forget, at one of those wakes and funerals that we 
attended in the days afterward--they seemed interminable in the cold 
and the deadening light of winter--the one mom whom I approached and 
said: ``When the time is right, when you are ready, I think we should 
do something about gun violence.'' She looked at me and said: ``I am 
ready now.''
  The ferocity, the bravery, the strength, and fortitude of those 
parents in the days and months afterward, coming here, as we sought to 
do something about gun violence, and then they sat in the Gallery when, 
by a handful of votes, we failed, and the cry of shame--shame--that one 
of those parents shouted to us.
  They worked bravely, and they have continued that work with the kind 
of unflinching courage that it takes every time they tell their stories 
and every time one of the surviving families talks about their children 
in the quest to save others. That is what it is all about. That is why 
those brave parents--heroes--of this story have continued.
  For them, that December morning began like every other. They took 
their children to school, kissed them goodbye, maybe admonished them to 
be good that day. It was a normal day until it wasn't. Then, time 
stopped for them and for all of us. Time stopped, and the world changed 
forever--irreparably. Irreparably, it changed forever for them and for 
all of us. Nine years later, they live with that grief so far more 
deeply than any of us that it almost feels like an incursion on their 
privacy to talk about that day. The scars of that day are for them but 
also for the brothers and sisters. For everyone who suffered a loss, 
that trauma and grief continue, and they relive it on this day.
  There also are heroes in that community of Newtown and Sandy Hook--a 
beautiful, quintessential New England town, with such great spirit. 
They came together that evening at the St. Rose of Lima Church and in 
the days and weeks and years afterward with unyielding conviction and 
courage.
  Yet we know that they are so far from alone because, in that time--
incredibly, in the time--of the 9 years since that day, 900,000 more 
people have perished; 900,000 more people have died from gun violence 
and so many of them children. One-third of American children live in a 
home with a gun, and 3 million children are exposed to gun violence 
every year.

[[Page S9149]]

  Firearms are the leading cause of death among American children and 
teenagers--the leading cause of death for children younger than the age 
of 13. So often, they occur at home--outside the front door, in the 
neighborhood. Black children and teens are 14 times more likely than 
White children and teens to die by gun homicide. There is a searing 
inequity and injustice here that radiates outside the boundaries of 
Sandy Hook and Newtown. It affects every community. None is immune. 
None is above gun violence.

  Because 60 percent of all deaths by gun violence are suicide, there 
are solutions here, like safe storage and emergency risk protection 
orders, and red flag statutes that simply keep guns safely stored, like 
Ethan's Law, or that separate guns from people who say they are going 
to kill themselves or others or who give evidence that that is what 
they are going to do.
  The good news is we are seeing a new generation of leaders. We are 
seeing a political movement, not just a moment but a political 
movement, and a group of organizations that is mobilizing the vast 
majority of the American people who know we need to put an end to gun 
violence: Sandy Hook Promise, Newtown Action Alliance, Connecticut 
Against Gun Violence, Moms Demand Action, Students Demand Action, 
Giffords, Brady, March for Our Lives--in the wake of Parkland, March 
for Our Lives. This is a new generation brought together by tragedy, 
united regardless of their party. Regardless of their other politics, 
they are together in demanding action.
  With every one of these mass tragedies--Parkland, Las Vegas, 
Charleston, El Paso, Orlando, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Boulder, 
Indianapolis, and now Oxford, MI--the scourge of gun violence has 
united these groups in a way that has never happened before, with the 
hope that Americans will express themselves not only in their 
neighborhoods and at community meetings but also at the ballot box in 
order to hold us accountable--truly responsible--for the complicity of 
Congress. Yes, it is complicity in that death and murder that occur 
literally every day. More than 100 lives are lost every day.
  There are real commonsense solutions here. I don't need to describe 
them in detail--that will be for another day: expanding background 
checks and closing loopholes in that background check system, keeping 
weapons of war and ghost guns off our streets, funding public health 
research and community violence intervention programs, protecting 
domestic violence survivors, setting standards for safe and secure 
storage, implementing those red flag statutes, and holding the gun 
industry and its nefarious partners accountable. We know what to do. We 
know what is necessary to help stop gun violence. There is no mystery 
here, and this movement--a political movement and social movement--can 
achieve it.
  But I want to talk not only about the grief suffered by families who 
have lost loved ones but about the impact on the living who may not 
even know about Sandy Hook. There are children at schools right now, 
children who routinely do active shooter drills, diving under their 
desks or barricading their doors in anticipation of a mass murder in 
the place that should be the safest to them.
  What will this generation think of school? What will this generation 
think of safety?
  Today, in some schools, there was no school because of the copycat 
threats phoned in to those schools.
  What kind of nation has to shut down schools because of the threat of 
mass murder? Not our Nation, I would hope; not our Nation, if we use 
our power to make our Nation safer; not our Nation, if we have the same 
kind of courage and guts and grit that those families of Sandy Hook 
have. We promised to honor them with action.
  We should keep in mind the grace and bravery of people like Kristin 
and Mike Song, who lost their son, a teenager, at a friend's house, to 
a shooting that was the result of an unsecured weapon--unsecured 
because the parents of his friend failed to put it under lock and key. 
They made it accessible. Kids die like that every day, every week. As 
our hearts break, we should remember the bravery of Kristin and Michael 
Song, who crusaded for Ethan's Law, named after their son.
  They were here just last week at a vigil--literally, within a stone's 
throw of the Capitol--reciting their story, seeking to inspire us to 
act and take that step toward safe storage but taking nobody's gun 
away. These measures take no one's gun away. They just make it safe to 
own a gun and to save lives.
  We have children. I have four children. My colleagues on the floor 
have children and families. We remember those days when our kids were 6 
years old. We remember the joy and life they brought to our lives.
  There is a saying that no parent should outlive a child. Until we 
know someone who loses a child, but most especially at that age, the 
power of that saying may have less meaning.
  In 10 years, we should have done a lot more, if we mark 10 years 
without doing more. In 10 years, next year at this time, we should hold 
ourselves accountable for doing more.
  Over this next year, we have work to do. And as dark as December may 
seem, it is also a season of light. And the heroism of those families, 
of the first responders, of the community of Sandy Hook should provide 
us with the inspiration we need to honor those brave and wonderful 
children, to honor them with action, not just words.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                        Tribute to Bryn Stewart

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor an 
extraordinary public servant. It is my longtime legislative director, 
Bryn Stewart.
  He is going to be leaving the Senate after a 20-year career of 
working on behalf of the people of Wyoming.
  He served in this great institution under two different U.S. Senators 
from Wyoming. He and his family have deep roots within our State, and 
he is a third-generation Wyomingite.
  Bryn was born and raised in Sheridan, WY. His father Clyde was a high 
school business teacher who also coached basketball and the golf team. 
His mother Jerrie worked at the Sheridan Press, our local newspaper. 
Both of his parents encouraged him to work hard, to always be 
respectful, and, most importantly, to be himself, not to be what others 
expected him to be. Well, he has exceeded all expectations, I will tell 
you.
  Family means everything to Bryn. He is the fifth oldest of seven 
children. And while it is Bryn's career that we are here to pay tribute 
to today, in terms of his work in the Senate, his older sister Kendall 
was the first Stewart sibling to work in the U.S. Senate. She worked 
for Wyoming Senator Malcolm Wallop. She then came to work in my own 
office in Sheridan, WY, in Bryn's hometown.
  It is also important to point out that Bryn's brother Dow also worked 
in the U.S. Senate. What a testament to Bryn's parents that so many of 
their children were committed to public service.
  Bryn took a very different route to the U.S. Senate than his 
siblings. After graduating from the University of Wyoming with a 
finance degree, Bryn went on to earn his law degree from the College of 
Law at the university in 1985.
  It turns out that Bryn wasn't the only standout from his class that 
year at the University of Wyoming School of Law. My fellow U.S. Senator 
from Wyoming, Cynthia Lummis, was Bryn's classmate in the law school, 
and the two of them remain great friends to today.
  After passing the Wyoming State Bar, Bryn has maintained his 
membership in the Wyoming Bar for 36 years.
  He moved to Gillette, WY, and he started his career there as legal 
advisor to the Campbell County sheriff and deputy county attorney. Now, 
I would point out that Campbell County, in Gillette, is the town where 
Mike Enzi, my former colleague, had been a representative in the 
legislature as well as the mayor. And Mike Enzi also had graduated, as 
has Bryn, from Sheridan High School.
  Ten years later, Bryn became the director of administrative services 
for the Campbell County Board of Commissioners. In that role, Bryn was 
able to balance the budget during a major economic downturn without 
laying off any employees. This was not an easy achievement.
  Now, after more than 16 years of serving the people of Campbell 
County,

[[Page S9150]]

Bryn made the move to Washington, DC. He came to DC to work for my 
predecessor, Senator Craig Thomas, as his tax and trade counsel. The 
person who gets full credit for convincing Bryn to come work for the 
U.S. Senate wasn't Senator Thomas; it wasn't me; it was my incredible 
wife Bobbi Brown Barrasso who encouraged Bryn to take the job and move 
across the country.

  Bryn fondly tells the story of how my wife Bobbi, who was then the 
State director for Senator Thomas at the time in 2001, reached out to 
Bryn about the opportunity that really did change the course of his 
life and his career.
  Now, she knew that he would be a perfect fit for the job. We are all 
very grateful to Bobbi in so many ways but most certainly for 
recognizing Bryn's talent and talking him into taking a leap of faith.
  Although it turns out a cross-country move wouldn't be the biggest 
shock of the journey for Bryn--it is a long way from Wyoming to 
Washington--but he was officially offered the job the Friday before the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
  Many people would have reconsidered moving to Washington, DC, after 
the largest terrorist attack in our country's history, but Bryn didn't 
think twice. In fact, it only strengthened his resolve and his 
commitment to serve the Nation and the people of Wyoming.
  It turns out he would need that resolve because during his first week 
in the DC office, the anthrax attacks occurred against our Nation, 
against our Capitol, and against a Senate office building. Anonymous 
letters laced with deadly anthrax arrived in congressional offices, and 
Bryn, like so many staffers on the Hill, was displaced for months into 
temporary quarters.
  Despite the chaos and the rocky start, Bryn was not deterred, and he 
immediately jumped into his legislative role at full speed.
  For his first 2\1/2\ years, Bryn served as counsel for Senator 
Thomas. He worked on numerous tax and trade bills. Most notably, he 
helped draft and pass legislation providing critical relief to drought-
stricken livestock producers in Wyoming and across the country. Senator 
Thomas was so impressed with Bryn's work that he promoted him to be his 
legislative director in 2004.
  As you know, legislative directors have a very big job and lots of 
responsibility. They guide the entire policy staff in developing and 
implementing the Senator's legislative agenda. As a result, legislative 
directors must be up to speed on all of the issues.
  Bryn recalls one story in particular from his early days as 
legislative director directly on this point. During the 2005 energy 
bill debate, Senator Thomas was selected to serve on the conference 
committee. A week into the committee meetings, Senator Thomas's then-
energy legislative assistant was diagnosed with cancer. Never one to 
back down from a challenge, Bryn immediately stepped in.
  He quickly took over the reins, and he helped Senator Thomas 
successfully lead the fight for Wyoming coal and other important energy 
resources.

  Bryn recounts this experience as one of the highlights of his 
legislative career--always ready to help, always ready to act.
  In 2007, when Wyoming and the Senate tragically lost Senator Craig 
Thomas to cancer, Bryn was central in supporting our entire staff, many 
of whom are on the floor today, through an extremely difficult and 
emotional time. And when I was selected to fill Senator Thomas's seat, 
I asked Bryn to stay on as my legislative director. It is a decision 
that I have never regretted.
  For more than 14 years, I have been incredibly fortunate to have his 
advice and his counsel. We worked together on critical issues that will 
have a lasting and positive impact on Wyoming for decades to come. This 
includes his great work in helping to pass the Craig Thomas Snake 
Headwaters Legacy Act, which was signed into law in 2009.
  Bryn was also instrumental in securing the return of Wyoming's 
abandoned mine land funds to our State, which is why I have always 
referred to him as our hundred-million-dollar man.
  Now, these are just a few examples of the work Bryn is most proud of 
in his 20-year Senate career.
  Bryn's dependability and knowledge made him an indispensable member 
of my team. His work ethic and his dedication are legendary. He stays 
late; he works weekends; and he does whatever it takes to get the job 
done. We often joke in the office that Bryn is the first one in the 
``leg shop'' and the last one to leave. It doesn't matter if it is a 
blizzard outside or a global pandemic, Bryn is infamous for not letting 
anything keep him from doing the work in the Senate for the benefit of 
the people of Wyoming.
  While I have talked a lot about Bryn's professional accomplishments, 
I also want to highlight the ways that he continues to give back to the 
community and give back to others. He makes it his mission to live his 
life with a purpose. It is one of the reasons he prioritizes giving 
back to the community as much as he can.
  One of his biggest passions is supporting organizations focused on 
providing food and shelter to those in need. He serves as a member of 
the Salvation Army board in his local community. He served in 
organizations that build homeless shelters, operate food pantries, and 
run low-income energy assistance programs. He is also a member of the 
Northern Wyoming Community College Advisory Board in Gillette that 
focuses on providing high-quality, postsecondary education to the 
people in Campbell County and around Wyoming.
  Bryn's departure from the Senate leaves very big shoes to fill. And 
while we are all sad to see him go, we are happy to know he is moving 
back to where it all started for him, his hometown, Sheridan, WY.
  He will be closer to family, also be able to spend time camping, 
hiking, and biking through his beloved Bighorn Mountains.
  Bryn, Bobbi joins me, along with our entire staff, many of whom are 
here on the floor--the current staff, but it is also the past staff, 
the present staff--in commending you on a remarkable career of service.
  We are grateful that you chose to dedicate your life to helping make 
Wyoming and our country a better place to live and a better place to 
work.
  It is with admiration, appreciation, and respect that I wish you 
every success as you embark on this new adventure. And we are not just 
saying that because today is your birthday. You will be truly missed.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, first, I want to offer my congratulations 
to Bryn Stewart.
  That was a beautiful speech about the public service that he has 
contributed to Wyoming and to the U.S. Senate. I thank my colleague 
from Wyoming for that.


                                Kentucky

  Mr. President, I also want to say that over the weekend, I had the 
opportunity to travel to Kentucky.
  I live in Ohio so Kentucky is our neighboring State. I went down to 
help some of our neighbors get back on their feet after these 
devastating tornadoes. It was very emotional, partly, obviously, seeing 
people's lives just be devastated--houses ruined and family heirlooms 
lost and, unfortunately, some loss of life--as the tornado hit some of 
the residential areas in Western Kentucky, but also another emotion, 
which is gratitude for the people who came forward as volunteers to 
help, neighbor helping neighbor.
  As always happens when you have one of these natural disasters, the 
only silver lining is that people do come together in providing water 
and food and help getting people out of their homes through urban 
search and rescue teams, like Ohio Task Force One, that went down to 
Kentucky chain-sawing trees down so that people can get their cars out 
and try to repair some of the damage, get their lives back together.
  It was a terrible thing to see the devastation but also a wonderful 
thing to see people coming together to help one another to get through 
a tough time.


                               Inflation

  Mr. President, I am on the floor today primarily to talk about the 
legislation that has been proposed by the Biden administration and by 
the Democratic leadership.
  This is the 11th consecutive week that I have come to the floor to 
talk about this because, every week since it was introduced 11 weeks 
ago, I have wanted to talk about what is actually in this legislation, 
how it would impact our communities, how it would impact our economy.

[[Page S9151]]

  So, today, I am here to talk a little about some of the new numbers 
we have in terms of inflation and how this would impact inflation and 
some of the new numbers that just came out since last week from the 
Congressional Budget Office, which is the nonpartisan group up here 
that analyzes these legislative efforts, and what they are saying about 
what the cost of this bill will be.
  So I think it is worth having this conversation before Congress--the 
Senate and the House--votes on this massive tax bill, a massive 
spending bill that could fundamentally change the way our economy works 
and, I think, put us in a very difficult position as it relates to 
inflation and the economy and our debt and our deficit.
  Democrats want to push this through under what is called 
reconciliation, which is a special procedure here in the Senate where, 
instead of getting the normal supermajority of 60 votes, they could do 
it with only 50 votes and then have a tie-breaker be the Vice President 
in her role as President of the Senate. So I have concerns about the 
substance of the legislation but also in terms of the process.
  Wouldn't it be great if this could actually go through committees and 
the committees could vet some of these proposals? Last week, I talked 
about some of the tax proposals, for instance, which I think have 
inadvertent impacts on pensions--defined benefit plans, in particular--
inadvertent effects on businesses that aren't going to be able to write 
off expansions and plant equipment, which we want them to do.
  Maybe some of these things are inadvertent, but it also has a change 
in the tax policy where it says that the State and local tax deduction 
would no longer be capped at $10,000. This is a Federal deduction 
people are able to take on their State and local taxes, but they would 
raise that to $80,000, that cap.
  The impact of that and a couple other things in the legislation means 
that 70 percent of millionaires--people who make over $1 million in 
income a year--would get a significant tax cut under this legislation; 
whereas, if you only make 30,000 bucks a year, only 30 percent of those 
people get a tax cut.
  And that is in the first year. In the second year, it goes down to 
about half that. And in the third year, it goes down to 10 percent and 
below. So it really is skewed toward providing tax relief for the 
wealthy at a time when, obviously, we are concerned about those people. 
Given the economic uncertainty, given the COVID issues, given the 
natural disasters, given the other issues that we face, you would want 
to help those who need the help the most. That is not what this 
legislation does.
  Again, if it had gone through the process of the committees of 
jurisdiction--in this case, the Finance Committee, the Ways and Means 
Committee--I don't think we would be seeing this. All these issues are 
ones that could have been ironed out had it not been jammed through on 
this reconciliation process without any committee consideration.
  So I am upset that Congress is being thwarted from doing its work, 
and I think, if we had, it would be a very different piece of 
legislation.
  This plan is also going to hurt, in my view, with regard to 
inflation. We are looking at the highest inflation we have had in 
decades. I think everybody knows that now, not because they are looking 
at the numbers, which I will talk about in a second, but because when 
they go to the grocery store, they are paying a lot more for a 
hamburger or for milk or for bread; or when they go to fill up their 
car with gas, they are seeing the prices at the pump.
  I filled up my pickup truck--I took it to Kentucky on the trip I just 
talked about--and it was almost a hundred bucks to fill it up. That is 
a lot for people who are on a fixed income or young people or someone 
who has to commute to work. That really takes a bite out of your 
budget. But that inflation is across our economy right now, and it is 
tough on people.
  The work shortages that we see, the workforce shortages, the supply 
chain delays, the inflation--all of these things are problems in our 
economy right now. All of them get worse, in my view, if we do it the 
way the Democrats propose because, by adding more fuel to the fire, 
more stimulus spending--in this case, trillions of dollars--you are 
going to stimulate more demand in the economy. And inflation happens 
when demand outstrips supply. So you have a lot of demand for 
something, but you don't have the supply for it, and it raises 
inflation.
  And that is exactly what many of us predicted would have happened 
back in March of this year when Congress did the same thing--$1.9 
trillion. A lot of it was stimulus spending. And people said, ``This is 
going to cause inflation,'' and, sure enough, it did. It wasn't just me 
and other Republicans. It was some Democrats as well.

  So that trend of rising inflation, which has made things so costly 
and expensive for so many people in my home State of Ohio, shows no 
sign of slowing down. Late last week, the Labor Department reported 
that the Consumer Price Index, or the CPI, rose by 6.8 percent over the 
last 12 months. That is the biggest year-to-year inflationary increase 
in 39 years--39 years.
  And last month, the number for inflation--1 month alone--was 0.8 
percent. So get on your calculator and do the math: 0.8 percent in 1 
month. Do that times 12 months, and you end up with inflation of 10 
percent on an annualized basis. That is just from last month, if we 
just extrapolate that out over the year.
  Ten percent inflation? For those who lived through inflation in the 
late 1970s, early 1980s, you know what that does to your economy. So 
the notion that the Biden administration has that this is going to be 
temporary or transitory, that is just not true. And, by the way, the 
Federal Reserve has now said that is not true. It is going to be here 
for a while.
  Although we are hearing a lot of stories these days about businesses 
paying higher wages to attract workers, average wages went up by 4.3 
percent last year. So with all of the labor shortages and the increase 
in wages, wages went up 4.3 percent. Again, inflation went up 6.8 
percent in the same 12-month period.
  So this is why, if you are getting a raise at work and you feel 
pretty good about it--getting the raise--but then you go to the grocery 
store or go to the gas pump or buy some clothes and you don't feel so 
good about it, it is because your inflation is higher than your wage 
gain. So unless your wage gain is over 6.8 percent over the last year, 
on average, you are losing out. And that is a real problem.
  By the way, in 2020, as we got into the COVID-19 crisis, we had a 
very different economy. In February of 2020, we had the 19th straight 
month of wage gains of 3 percent or more, and inflation was 1, 1.5 
percent. So people were feeling: Hey, I am making more money, and it is 
not being eaten up by inflation.
  That is not the case now, unfortunately. Wages are not keeping pace 
with these higher prices, and people are finding that their paychecks 
just don't go as far as they used to.
  We can see by some data that just came out from a survey of consumer 
expectations from the New York Fed that an increasing number of people 
are reporting that they are struggling more financially than they did a 
year ago. That is from the Fed, the New York Fed. And fewer are 
expecting their financial situation to improve by this time next year. 
That is not a great feeling as we approach the holiday season. That is 
a real concern.
  The other report we have had since I was on the floor last week is 
with regard to the Producer Price Index. We have talked about the 
Consumer Price Index. The Producer Price Index is about businesses: 
What are businesses seeing in terms of inflation on business-to-
business purchases, for instance?
  The new number out this week on that is the largest increase year 
over year since we started keeping track of this number, which was 
about 11 years ago, 12 years ago. So the Producer Price Index is also 
going up, and the Consumer Price Index is already up.
  What this means is that that Producer Price Index number is 
eventually going to be reflected in higher consumer costs--right?--
because businesses are going to pass that along. So this is not a good 
week because we just got that data, and I was very sorry to see it 
because what you want to see is the Producer Price Index going down;

[[Page S9152]]

meaning that, in the future, the consumer prices are going to go down 
too. Instead, we are seeing a situation where it is likely that prices 
are going to keep going up.
  Again, Republicans warned of this when the $1.9 trillion was spent, 
mostly to stimulate the economy, saying this is going to overheat the 
economy--more demand, less supply, partly because of COVID. In other 
words, COVID made it harder to get supply in. If demand goes up, you 
are going to have inflation. And sure enough, that is what happened.
  Larry Summers is the former Secretary of the Treasury under President 
Obama, former Chair of the national Council of Economic Advisers. 
Actually, he was Treasury Secretary for President Clinton and Chair of 
the National Economic Council for President Obama, a respected 
economist. He, too, warned of this. So it is not just a partisan issue, 
not Republicans and Democrats. It is the reality of what is happening 
when you increase demand much more than supply can handle. You get 
inflation. So it is not a surprise that it happened. Unfortunately, his 
prediction came true: overheated economy, demand outstripping supply. 
We found ourselves in this spiral of rising prices.
  That was 9 months ago. I think it is fair to say that the inflation 
that people said was transitory is going to stay here for a while. That 
is a real cause for concern.
  So why are we doing this? Why are we, again, spending trillions of 
dollars? And what is the cost?
  Something that happened since we talked last week is that the true 
cost of the Build Back Better plan is now being revealed by this group 
on the outside from the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School, by 
the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and by others, but now 
by the Congressional Budget Office itself.
  So the Congressional Budget Office is the nonpartisan group up here 
in Congress that tells us what the fiscal impact is, what the spending 
impact is, what the taxing impact is, what the economic impact is of 
legislation.
  And the number that has been cited for the cost of this Build Back 
Better legislation is $1.7 trillion over 10 years. That is a lot. That 
would make it the second most expensive bill ever passed by Congress, 
the first being the $1.9 trillion we talked about in March.
  But it is worse than that because it turns out that even those 
staggeringly high costs we just talked about--$1.7 trillion--miss the 
mark based on the analysis that just came out. Just as prices for 
everyday goods and services are going up, the estimates we are seeing 
for the true cost of Build Back Better are increasing with every 
analysis we see.
  These studies have shown us that because the legislation sunsets 
programs, if you actually assume those programs are not going to be 
stopped after--let's say with the child tax credit--1 year or 2 years 
or 3 years, but you continue it through the life of the legislation, it 
is going to be much more expensive.
  So people tell me: Well, Rob, that is fine, but the child tax credit, 
as an example, only costs $185 billion--only.
  And I say: Well, actually, if you take it out over time, that becomes 
trillions of dollars--like $1.6, $1.7 trillion.
  They say: Well, we are just going to do it for 1 year.
  Well, that is just not what happens here in Congress. The history of 
this is that once we put a program like that in place, it continues to 
live on year after year.
  Let me give you the best example of that. You have probably heard a 
lot of Democrats saying over the past few weeks: We have to pass this 
Build Back Better legislation by the end of this year.
  Why? Because the child tax credit--it is already in law based on the 
March legislation--is expiring. So there is a tremendous amount of 
pressure, right? They are saying you have to extend it.
  Well, that makes our case. So you have to extend it this year? That 
means, I assume, you have to extend it next year and the next year and 
the next year and the next year.
  And anybody who says that they don't want to extend it--on the other 
side of the aisle--I would like to hear from them because I don't think 
they are going to say that. And so, if you assume it is extended, then 
you have this huge cost. The spending is going to continue to increase, 
and the program is not going to sunset. The total cost of the bill goes 
from $1.7 trillion that we talked about to about $4.5 trillion based on 
the Penn Wharton study I talked about.
  Under the Congressional Budget Office analysis, it actually goes even 
higher--even higher--to $4.9 trillion. And when you add interest on the 
debt, it goes actually over $5 trillion.
  So it is difficult to understand these numbers we are talking about 
because they are so huge. You know, $4.5 trillion is $4,500 billion. We 
have never spent this kind of money before. I mean, if it is $5 
trillion, that is the size of our budget, more or less--the whole 
budget for the entire country for a year, in one bill.
  Now, people say: Well, it is paid for. Well, the 1.7 part, you could 
argue, is paid for--although we can talk about that, too, because some 
of the things in the pay-fors are not sustainable in my view, 
including, again, the impact on pension funds or the impact on being 
able to write off investments or the impact of the SALT issue. So there 
are lots of things that need to be worked out on the spending side but 
also on the revenue side.
  So let's assume it is $1.7 trillion, but that is not going to cover 
it because you have these expenses--like the child tax credit--that 
will continue.
  So I am glad that my colleague Senator Lindsey Graham, who is the 
ranking member of the Budget Committee, a top Republican, and Senator 
John Cornyn, another colleague, asked the nonpartisan Congressional 
Budget Office to do their analysis, because they showed that, without 
the sunset, the 10-year cost of the child tax credit goes from $185 
billion to $1.6 trillion.
  They also found that, in line with another study by the nonpartisan 
Joint Committee on Taxation, the revenue lost would be $1.6 trillion, 
either taking us further into debt by $1.6 trillion or requiring new 
tax hikes.
  So that is just one part of the legislation. It would be the 
costliest expenditure by Congress in our history, but it is just one 
part of the legislation. The hundreds of billions in funding Democrats 
are proposing as an example for childcare under a new approach to 
childcare, which we can also talk about, the substance of that, but it 
is going to hurt a lot of our State the way they are doing it. But that 
will end up costing double the written amount over the next decade if 
they remain in place, for example.
  So all in all, the Congressional Budget Office looked at 18 
supposedly sunset social spending programs and found that they will end 
up costing the taxpayers nearly $3.5 trillion over the next decade when 
they get extended, if they do. Again, the history around here is that 
they would. So, you know, the price tag goes up and up and up.
  When you add that spending to another program in Build Back Better, 
the CBO says the total spending in the legislation, again, goes to $4.9 
trillion; $4.9 trillion is bigger than the economy of any country in 
the world, with the exception of the U.S., China, and Japan.
  Again, these numbers are just astronomical. But think about that. It 
is bigger than the entire economy, the entire GDP of any country in the 
world except for the three of us: the United States, China, and Japan.
  We are seeing record debts and record deficits right now, as you 
know. The Congressional Budget Office says that the American people can 
expect Build Back Better, if the sunsets don't hold, to add another $3 
trillion to the Federal deficit.
  So if we continue to debate this in Congress, which way should we go, 
we just ought to know these numbers. We ought to analyze them. And 
again, if people on the other side of the aisle are going to say we 
don't want to have the child tax credit be extended, we need to know 
that. But my sense is, just as they want to extend it right now, they 
will want to extend it next year and the next year and the next year.
  So is this the right time to do that? Is this the right time to add 
that kind of stimulus to an economy that already is overstimulated, 
where you have more demand chasing not enough supply, do you want to 
add more to the demand side? That is what is going to happen if we pass 
this.
  I hope that we will not make that mistake, and I hope that we will 
slow

[[Page S9153]]

down and look at these numbers and analyze where we are in terms of our 
spending. We just extended the debt limit. No Republican voted for it, 
but all the Democrats voted for it, and that is all they needed to be 
able to extend the debt limit because it was under a special 50-vote 
margin. That debt limit was just extended for basically 1 year. So 
after the elections next year, $2.5 trillion more debt. We had to make 
room for $2.5 trillion more debt, in 1 year.
  It is clear that a lot of Americans are nervous about that. When you 
look at the polling data, it says that. But just talking to people--
over the weekend, I was also in southeast Ohio, part of our State that 
is very rural, a lot of people are hurting in terms of the economy 
because they don't have access to broadband and so on. So we are 
talking about how they feel about the economy, and there is a lot of 
nervousness. They feel the surging inflation. They are paying more for 
everything.
  And, you know, common steps, people are saying, Let's just slow down 
and think about this. They may end up thinking at the end of the day 
they are for some of this, but they don't want to move forward 
precipitously and make a mistake and have this add more inflation and 
more problems for our debt and deficit for our kids and grandkids. They 
are saying, Let's do the right thing for the country and put the brakes 
on this.
  And if we do put the brakes on this unprecedented spending and 
taxing, it will help us to avoid some of these economic challenges that 
we otherwise are going to be facing. If we go ahead with it, it is 
going to make the economic challenges like inflation even worse.
  My hope is that we will put the brakes on, and these economic 
challenges will not worsen, and instead, we can get the country back on 
the right track.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hassan). The Senator from Washington.

                          ____________________