Floor Statements

Mr. President, during this pandemic, the people of the United States have seen the Federal Government intrude into their lives more frequently and more completely than ever before. President Biden didn't make any pretense about this. He didn't mince any words. He didn't sugarcoat it. He didn't even try to hide behind any veneer when he spoke to the American people. He said: ``Our patience is wearing thin.''

This five-word expose of the President's thinking is deeply troubling. It is not the kind of sentiment you ever want expressed within a Free Republic, not from the Chief Executive.

To say ``our patience is wearing thin'' might be something that you say of a foreign adversary. It might be something you say of a subordinate within government, someone who reports up to the President. It is not something you say of the people--the people who, in our system, collectively, are the sovereign.

It is only by the consent of the governed that our government has its legitimacy, and to denigrate the American people that way is not consistent with who we are. It is not consistent with our form of government.

So I find that five-worded mission of how he views the American people worrying in its own right. But I find it nothing short of horrifying that he--as if acting as some sort of omnipresent nanny state disciplinarian executive is now set to plunge even more deeply into everyday lives of the American people.

We are here today to remove one of the options from the unconstitutional buffet of strong-armed Executive tactics used by President Biden in connection with COVID-19. Requiring proof of vaccination for interstate travel would create millions of second-class Americans. And it would make all Americans subject to a form of government and a type of power to which we are not accustomed. And that is really ill-suited for our Constitution structure.

The Constitution itself protects Americans from this type of action. The Privileges and Immunities Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment grants Americans the right to freely travel between the States. There is no precedent for the Federal Government requiring anything like vaccination before traveling domestically. There is no precedent because there is no legitimate Federal power in this area to begin with.

It is important to remember that the Federal Government doesn't have what we call general police powers. These are the basic powers of government that are there to protect life, liberty, and property and to focus on things like health, safety, and welfare.

You see, State governments retain this general police power. Remember that James Madison, in Federalist No. 45, described the powers given to Congress as few and defined and those reserved to the States as numerous and indefinite.

The Founding Fathers understood what general police powers were. They deliberately, consciously, intentionally, and with very good reason did not give those powers to the Federal Government.

So as a result, the Federal Government doesn't possess, under the Constitution, the ability to pass laws or regulations of this sort. No, in our system of government--our national government--this Federal Government has to pass only those laws that are within these powers that are few and defined, those enumerated in the Constitution.

The President of the United States, under our Constitution, does not, moreover, have any kind of unilateral lawmaking authority whatsoever. So the power is not Federal in the first place. And even if it were a proper Federal power, which it is not, it is a legislative power that he is trying to wield here. Only we can give him that. Only we can enact legislation.

Article I, section 7, makes it very clear that if you are going to change the legal status quo, if you are going to establish policy at the Federal level that will carry the force of generally applicable Federal law, you have to be acting within one of Congress's enumerated powers.

But more importantly here, under article I, section 7, you have to have passage in the House; you have to have passage in the Senate of the same legislative vehicle, followed by presentment to the President of the United States. That formula hasn't been followed here. We have no Federal law on this as a result of that. We, thankfully, got rid of a King back in 1776. We have never gone back--never looked back and longed for the Union Jack. We shouldn't be anxious to convert the Presidency into a type of monarchy, even if it is a mini monarchy.

Beyond the constitutional problems, requiring vaccine passports for domestic travel within the United States would place a huge burden on not only the American people, but also on airlines and on other businesses that are already hard hit by the pandemic. Multiple major airlines have already expressed their concerns with a vaccine passport mandate.

Look, the last thing the American people need is more mandates and restrictions preventing them from making their own reasonable decisions. Americans deserve to be able to make a living and to be able to engage in interstate commerce and to travel interstate without mandates making them choose between providing for their families and undergoing a medical procedure against their will.

That is why I am fighting President Biden's existing mandate and fighting against future intrusions by the executive branch into the lives of Americans.

The bill offered by my friend and colleague, the Senator from Florida, would ensure that Federal Agencies cannot attempt to impose vaccine requirements for interstate travel or commerce. I am proud to be here in support of this bill. I am proud to defend Americans and their constitutional rights. I hope we can protect millions of our fellow citizens and the American way of life by passing this bill.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concern with President Biden's disregard for American freedom. President Biden's strong-arm push to force Americans to choose between their health and decisions affecting their health, on the one hand, and providing for their families, on the other hand, is wrong.

I simply do not believe the Federal Government has any business mandating the COVID-19 vaccination for all Americans.

Now, let me be clear. I believe that vaccines, broadly speaking, have provided immense benefits to society, nearly eradicating measles, polio, smallpox, and more in the United States.

I have personally received the COVID-19 vaccination, as has my entire family, and I view the rapid development of effective COVID-19 vaccines as a miracle; one that safeguards the vulnerable from severe illness and from hospitalization.

I believe that the FDA's expedited approval process is effective at efficiently reviewing and producing generally safe drugs and devices for Americans' use.

Additionally, I believe the emergency use authorization can make drugs available to Americans more quickly, which, in some cases, can mean the difference between life and death.

So even with the speed by which COVID-19 vaccines were developed and made available, I very much believe that they are generally safe. However, receiving the vaccine is a decision that Americans should make with all the facts in front of them, in consultation with their doctors, and with full consideration of their own current health circumstances.

However, President Biden made his intentions clear when announcing his Federal mandate saying: ``This is not about freedom or personal choice.''

Look, we have got to remember that anytime someone, someone who is serving as the President of the United States, while issuing a sweeping Federal mandate, insists that this is not about freedom or personal choice, it is. It necessarily is. It unavoidably is.

The fact that he made this statement is troubling. The statement highlights the fact that the President does not understand the key relationship between citizens and government under our Constitution.

Every mandate, regulation, tax, or any other government imposition comes necessarily at the cost of freedom and personal choice of Americans. It is a tradeoff we make with government. Use of overwhelming government power, without even considering the implications on freedom, is precisely why our Founders thought the Declaration of Independence, a revolution, and our Constitution were necessary.

I have heard from many Utahans who are at risk of being unemployed if they choose not to get the vaccine. In fact, within the last week alone, my office has heard from no fewer than 144 Utahns in distress for this very reason.

Allow me to share just a few of their stories:

A young woman in Utah has two autoimmune diseases. She was told by her doctor that she should not get vaccinated because of her existing health conditions. Yet her employer has informed her that, contrary to her doctor's recommendations, she must get the vaccine or be fired. Get the vaccine or be fired, those are the only two options she is left with.

A soon-to-be-mother, who has been advised not to get the vaccine because of her pregnancy, has been told by her employer that she must choose between receiving the vaccine and receiving a paycheck. Without her job, she will not have the means to care for her child.

A disabled veteran, who now spends his time working for the VA because he loves helping his fellow veterans, has been informed that he must be fully vaccinated within the next 75 days or lose his employment. This ultimatum imposed by President Biden is making him choose between receiving an unwanted medical procedure, on the one hand, while, on the other hand, being unable to provide for his pregnant wife and their child.

After businesses have weathered the economic impacts of COVID-19 and the corresponding shutdowns that have led to so many closures and bankruptcies, President Biden now wants to force employers to act as a sort of medical police force. They must impose a vaccine mandate on their workforce or be forced to pay a heavy fine.

This mandate is constitutionally dubious--and that is putting it mildly--and it is not reasonable and it neglects the interests of business owners, families, and individuals alike.

Look, threatening the employment of millions of Americans and making employers become enforcers is not how our country will return to normal. It is not even how you will make more people decide to get the vaccine. These steps will only erode meaningful relationships that Americans have with one another.

The utility of such a sweeping mandate is also in question. In fact, a recent study from three hospitals in Israel shows that natural immunity was ``27 times more effective than vaccinated immunity in preventing symptomatic infections.''

This mandate completely ignores existing evidence-based data lending credibility to the reality that millions of Americans may not need to be vaccinated because they have acquired natural immunity from previous COVID-19 illness. Further, the mandate dismisses the reality that there are outstanding questions regarding the COVID-19 vaccine's safe administration to those who are immunocompromised or have certain other health-related concerns or how to accommodate any who may have objections rooted in religious or other sincerely held beliefs.

The decision to engage in a medical procedure, you see, is personal. It is

deeply personal, and even the idea that it can be forced upon citizens by the Federal Government is offensive. If particular American citizens do not feel that the receipt of the COVID-19 vaccine is the right decision for them or their children, then they are entitled to that belief.

A mandate by the Biden administration to be vaccinated against COVID- 19 under threat of unemployment will not quell Americans' concerns; instead, it will likely further erode the little trust that may currently exist.

Now, I don't believe that the Federal Government has been as transparent as it must. In its effort to get as many people vaccinated as possible, it has neglected the responsibility to inform Americans of any adverse effects that some may have experienced. These unfortunate instances of harm following the administration of COVID-19 vaccines must be acknowledged even if they are rare.

The fact that instances of adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccines are not being shared with the public or even, in many cases, the medical community, causes me grave, grave concern. It has left those who have been adversely harmed with almost nowhere to turn. It has caused distrust in the unvaccinated that the government may have something to hide.

When openly and transparently informed, I believe that each and every American is able to handle the responsibility of weighing the risks of getting vaccinated or not getting vaccinated. I honestly believe that most Americans, after speaking to their doctors, will make the decision that is best for themselves, for their families, and for our country.

Finally, while I have not seen the final regulation for President Biden's COVID-19 vaccine mandate, nor do I know definitively even what statute he is claiming provides him with this sweeping authority, I highly doubt that this unilateral action is constitutional. But, frankly, I don't think the President cares. President Biden knows the effects his announcement and even a temporary regulation will have, even if it is later ruled unconstitutional. Even if the mandate is never fully or ever implemented, it still could get him what he wants.

Businesses across the Nation are yielding before the awesome might of the Federal Government in complying with this Executive mandate before it has even legally been drafted, let alone enforced.

According to the vague outline that President Biden's speech provided, a business would risk going under if even a small percentage of its workforce were unvaccinated at the time enforcement begins. This is a scare tactic--a scare tactic of the absolute worst sort--and it is working. People are scared, and I am here to defend them.

Today, in this bill, the Senate has the opportunity to protect those in the minority, those Americans who sincerely believe, due to religious conviction or otherwise, that they should not receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

This bill would not prevent businesses from imposing their own mandates or establishing rules for their own workplaces. All this bill would do is to ensure that the Federal vaccine mandate provides an exemption for Americans whose sincere beliefs prevent them from receiving the vaccine.

Furthermore, nothing in Federal law provides President Biden the authority to institute the vaccine mandate on private-sector employers or on the public at large, and today Congress has the opportunity to rectify this situation for the American people.

Now, I want to be clear. This is not the end of my discussion here. I have 12 of these bills. I will be back tomorrow and the next day, for as long as it takes to win the fight against this sweeping mandate.

So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of S. 2850 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I want to be very clear about something. There are no exemptions built into the mandate because the mandate doesn't yet exist.

As far as I can tell, this may be a feature and not a bug, you see, because he gave a speech--he gave a speech--talking about the fact that he was going to issue the mandate. He didn't release any legally operative documents, didn't even disclose his precise source of authority to do this--authority which I highly doubt even exists. So there is no document to challenge. No one can sue to challenge the document because the document doesn't exist.

But businesses everywhere fear and, indeed, know that it is coming, and so their general counsel's offices, their human resources departments for employers with more than 99 employees in this country are scrambling to get ahead of it. Many are even adopting and some, I am told, are moving forward with enforcing or preparing to enforce those same policies. So what will happen is that those employees who have these sincerely held objections will be without recourse.

Now, my friend and colleague from Washington makes the point that these exemptions are already there. That is a legal and factual impossibility because the mandate does not yet exist. The document isn't in there, which begs the question: If it already exists, then what would be her objection or anyone's objection to merely adopting a measure that says any such mandate, if and when it is issued, must contain such an exemption--an objection that my friend and colleague from Washington assures us already exists. It is difficult for me to understand how this would be objectionable.

Without these protections, you see, President Biden is telling many religious minorities in the country that they need not apply for a job, and if they have got a job already, that that job is in jeopardy.

Freedom to make one's own medical decisions is fundamental to our system of liberty. The economic impact of the mandate is going to hamper our economic recovery as workers are forced to make hard decisions.

Here we are talking specifically about objections rooted in religious or other sincerely held personal beliefs. If, in fact, that exemption already exists, that protection is already there, which it isn't because it can't be because the document itself doesn't exist, then why not embrace it? Why not accept it? Why not acknowledge it in law?

I struggle to imagine what harm could come from protecting religious minorities in this country, and I find it very discouraging and very distressing that this body, the U.S. Senate, wouldn't want to do everything we possibly could to make that happen.

Another word about the fact that it doesn't yet exist; the mandate isn't there. Because it is not there, employers with more than 99 employees around the country are being forced to

guess as to what it might mean, and a whole lot of them are already preparing their own policies--in some cases, already adopting them and enforcing them based on their own anticipation of what the mandate may be. What it means as a practical matter is, you can't sue anyone. You can't sue any administrator in the Biden administration or elsewhere in the Federal Government who is going to be enforcing this because you don't know what they are going to be enforcing. There isn't a dispute ripe for adjudication in any court anywhere because we don't know what that is.

For many people, this entire exercise could be rendered moot in the meantime, not just moot in the sense that the court would lack article III jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in question, but moot in the sense that they might lose their job, moot in the sense that they are going to have to face this awful Hobson's choice between maintaining their ability to provide for their family, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, receiving a medical procedure that they would deem harmful and objectionable based on their religious or other sincerely held beliefs. This is not America; this is not acceptable; and this is not and cannot possibly be constitutional.

We should be able to do this.

I am going to be back tomorrow, the next day, and as long as it takes to keep addressing this issue. Freedom matters, and the Constitution matters. President Biden has ignored them both. Thank you.

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

Mr. President, George Washington, in his farewell address to the Nation, warned us against foreign entanglements and costly wars. He and the other Founders knew firsthand the danger that enduring engagement abroad posed to our Republic and to the cause of freedom.

Despite those warnings, we, the United States, have been embroiled in a directionless, trillion-dollar war in Afghanistan for the past 20 years.

And after all that investment--the American blood and treasure poured into that cause--Americans watched in horror as any semblance of the so-called progress and investment in a democratic Afghanistan crumbled in a matter of weeks. Haunting images demonstrating this failure tragically played out before us. Americans hadn't seen tragedy of this type since the Fall of Saigon.

The Costs of War project at Brown University estimates that the total monetary cost of our war in Afghanistan amounts to $2.3 trillion, counting U.S. military spending, both on and off budget. U.S. manpower, resources, and expertise were dedicated for decades to the war in Afghanistan.

So we must ask ourselves: What went wrong?

I rise today to explain how the erosion of Congress's constitutional war-making role permitted and, in fact, enabled these failures.

In the early years of the war, Congress shrugged as the President transformed the mission in Afghanistan. President Bush addressed the Nation and the servicemembers going to war in October of 2001, promising ``To all the men and women in our military--every sailor, every soldier, every airman, every coastguardsman, every Marine--I say this: Your mission is defined; your objectives are clear; your goal is just.''

At the time, the mission was clear. The goals were to capture the terrorists responsible for the September 11 attacks, neutralize the threat posed by al-Qaida in Afghanistan, and ensure the Taliban was not strong enough to provide a safe harbor to al-Qaida.

In 2003, we had substantively accomplished each of those goals. Though killing Osama bin Laden would take until May of 2011, the Taliban had fallen and the leaders of al-Qaida went into hiding outside of Afghanistan. And yet, despite this reality, the Bush administration shifted the mission to physically rebuilding Afghanistan and reshaping the country's government and culture as if to mirror our own.

Even as the mission in Afghanistan was changed dramatically and unrealistically, Congress did not repeal or replace or amend the 2001 authorization for the use of military force in Afghanistan.

The Constitution charges the legislative branch to not only fund but also declare and oversee wars, and yet Congress seemed unaffected by the rather dramatic change in mission and strategy.

As a result, the war continued for longer than it should have--much longer--and the United States continued to lose tax dollars, lives, and any attachment to the original goals all at the same time.

As building a democratic Afghanistan became the new mission, Presidents of both parties and the interagency apparatus ignored explicit evidence of failure and, in fact, doubled down on American investment and involvement.

The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction--created by Congress to oversee and audit funds used for nation-building in Afghanistan--has delivered 427 audits and more than 250 reports to Congress since 2008, detailing the risks, the waste, and the mismanagement in the U.S. mission. Many of these reports pointed out contradictions of our aims and explained the waste, fraud, and abuse plaguing the funds Congress appropriated for the reconstruction projects of all sorts.

Now, thanks to the investigative journalism of Craig Whitlock of the Washington Post, ``The Afghanistan Papers'' added another layer to the inspector general's reports, revealing evidence that high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense, in the State Department, and the White House knew that the U.S. mission had no focus, no metrics, no clear coordination, and no defined enemy.

Douglas Lute, a three-star Army General who served as the Afghanistan war czar under President Bush and President Obama, is quoted in the published interview saying ``We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan--we didn't know what we were doing.''

While I share the view with the majority of Americans that withdrawing forces from Afghanistan was the right choice and was, by all accounts, inevitable at some point, the Biden administration's disastrous withdrawal was the culmination of American failure in Afghanistan.

Kabul fell to lawlessness and mass panic. Afghan security forces laid down arms to the Taliban. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani fled his nation. And the evacuation was so poorly directed that potential terrorists and men with child brides secured seats on U.S. evacuation flights while American citizens were left behind enemy lines. Our Nation lost 13 servicemembers, with many more seriously wounded, to a terrorist attack, and the administration ineptly responded by killing 10 innocent civilians, including 7 children.

President Biden's closing of the war in Afghanistan has been riddled with avoidable mistakes, resulting in both tragedy and embarrassment of historic magnitude. The President and other high-ranking officials must be held accountable for this failure. Anyone else engaging in such mismanagement of our actions in a theater of war would surely be held accountable, and they must too.

Throughout 20 years of engagement, Congress itself has shamefully failed to respond to an executive branch plundering powers that constitutionally belong to Congress. It is time for Congress to do its job. It is time to ensure that such a grave mistake that cost us so much in American taxpayer resources, but most importantly in American blood, will never, ever happen again.

Some of my colleagues and I may disagree on when and exactly how to use military force, but we should debate those matters in the light of day for

the American people to view and, even more importantly, for the American people to influence. U.S. engagement in Afghanistan over the last decade and the recent blundered withdrawal demand that we prioritize such a debate. It is long, long overdue.

That is why I, along with my colleagues across the aisle, Senator Chris Murphy and Senator Bernie Sanders, introduced the National Security Powers Act, which would restore Congress's role in national security decisionmaking. This is an opportunity to protect our constitutional order. American citizens and especially those who serve in our military deserve nothing less.

Despite our political differences, as members of the branch of government most accountable to the people, we feel the weight of American blood and treasure sacrificed in our Nation's wars. We may not have all the answers--I certainly don't claim to have them, but we put forth a really thorough, well-reasoned, much-needed set of reforms to ensure that America is not thrown into another endless war without continual congressional input--congressional input that is not just helpful; it is not just a good idea, but congressional input that is actually required by the Constitution itself.

It is that kind of input that has been neglected. And, sadly, it has been neglected not just by the executive branch, but it has been neglected by the Congress, by the very people who are supposed to wield it.

See, there is a big difference when it comes to war-making power between our system of government and the one we left behind--the one that was based in London. As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 69, this was one of the key design features of the Constitution, one of the things that differentiates it from our former London-based system of government.

There, the Chief Executive--that is the monarch; in those days, King George III--would take the country to war unilaterally. It was up to Parliament then to figure out how to fund it. Our Founding Fathers decided to make a break from that practice. They did not give this power to declare war to the Chief Executive, no. They gave that power only to the branch of government that would stand accountable to the people at the most regular intervals, the legislative branch.

When we denigrate this role, when we minimize this responsibility, when we shirk this duty, we do so to our own everlasting shame and in violation of the oath that each and every one of us has taken to support the Constitution of the United States.

In this Republic, Congress can no longer sit idle while the Executive alone decides the fate of our Nation's wars and those who fight in them. While we can't change history, we can live up to the ideals of our Constitution. I pray that we will. And I know that together we can, we must, and we will.

Madam President, the United States lost 13 servicemembers in Afghanistan on August 26, 2021. The heroic service and the ultimate sacrifice of these men and women will never be forgotten. They are Marine LCpl David L. Espinoza from Texas, Marine Sgt Nicole L. Gee from California, Marine SSgt Darin Taylor Hoover from Utah, Army SSG Ryan C. Knauss from Tennessee, Marine Cpl Hunter Lopez from California, Marine LCpl Rylee J. McCollum from Wyoming, Marine LCpl Dylan R. Merola from California, Marine LCpl Kareem M. Nikoui from California, Marine Sgt Johanny Rosario Pichardo from Massachusetts, Marine Cpl Humberto A. Sanchez from Indiana, Marine LCpl Jared M. Schmitz from Missouri, Navy Hospital Corpsman Maxton W. Soviak from Ohio, and Marine Cpl Daegan W. Page from Nebraska. Over the next hour, Senators representing many of these fallen servicemembers and the States from which they hail will honor their service and their memory.

Utah's SSgt Darin Taylor Hoover was only 11 years old on September 11, 2001. From that moment on, he knew that he wanted to serve his country. Nearly 21 years later, he was killed in Kabul, Afghanistan, performing his duty valiantly, as always, as a U.S. marine.

Staff Sergeant Hoover and his fellow marines were on the frontlines of the operation, securing an entrance to the Hamid Karzai International Airport and screening vulnerable Afghans on their escape to safety as the extremist Taliban took hold of their country.

Staff Sergeant Hoover was killed by an ISIS-K suicide attack that targeted him, his teammates, and the surrounding innocent civilians.

Staff Sergeant Hoover, like all marines, learned the Marine Corps' values at boot camp. Those values are honor, courage, and commitment. He was told that being a marine and living these values does not begin or end with training or service as an Active-Duty marine; these values forever guide marines' decisions, their service, and, in fact, their entire lives.

Staff Sergeant Hoover lived these values throughout his entire life. You see, Staff Sergeant Hoover did, always, what he said he would do. He was honest, respectful, caring, and compassionate. He dedicated his life to the service of others, in and out of uniform. He wanted to be the best and to provide the very best for others, and he was always willing to work hard to make that happen.

His friends and his family knew him as a loving, thoughtful, hard- working man. He loved and was dedicated to serving those around him, his family, and his country. As a young man, he made a lasting impression on those who knew him. They described him as--and these are their words, not mine--``the best friend,'' ``selfless,'' ``always levelheaded,'' ``hard-working,'' ``a teammate you could count on,'' ``a born leader,'' and as ``a good, kind person.'' By being the type of man he was, he honored those who knew him. He honored the uniform he wore. And in his service and sacrifice, he honored the United States by representing and being the best of us.

Staff Sergeant Hoover certainly knew the risks of his duty. He understood the risks of this deployment in particular. In particular, he knew what was at stake and on the line on this particular day.

American civilians had been warned not to travel to the airport due to specific credible threats of an attack. The marines at the gate did not, of course, have the option of standing down or shirking their duty; they had a mission to complete. Despite knowing the very real threat to their lives that day, Staff Sergeant Hoover and his marines followed orders and did their duty. They stood in close physical proximity with hundreds as they checked identification and shuffled people through the gate one after the other. They didn't know if or ultimately when an

attack might come; they just knew of the threat. Nonetheless, those marines carried on, guiding countless innocent civilians to safety.

His father Darin put it best. He said:

That's just the type of man that he was, doing what he

needed to do and getting the job done for those that couldn't

do it for themselves, and he was standing out front leading

his men.

You see, Staff Sergeant Hoover demonstrated uncommon courage in fulfilling his duty that day, as with all other days in which he valiantly served.

This was not Mr. Hoover's first deployment to Afghanistan. In fact, he served three tours of duty there in his 11 years in the Marine Corps. He knew what war and Afghanistan were like. He decided to carry on and continue serving because that is what he had committed to do. Since high school, he knew he wanted to be a marine specifically. His father said that ``he was dead set on it.''

When the news in Afghanistan developed, Staff Sergeant Hoover told his family he wanted to be in the action to help with the evacuation mission. He died doing what he loved: serving his country and leading his men.

Staff Sergeant Hoover was the oldest of the 13 servicemembers killed in this attack. His life had been defined by his love of family and of country. He was committed to serving, and he lived and gave his life, showing the last full measure of devotion, demonstrating exactly what it means to be a U.S. marine.

Staff Sergeant Hoover leaves a legacy with his family, the State of Utah, and our Nation. He represents the best among us and the commitment of a servicemember and a marine. His dedication to the values of the Marine Corps and full-fledged devotion to what is right will remain with us forever. He will never be forgotten.

As the preparations are made to inter him along with other American heroes at Arlington National Cemetery, he can behold what the Marine Corps hymn promises and millions of good marines before him have seen: On Heaven's scenes, you will find the streets are guarded by United States marines.

Staff Sergeant Taylor Hoover joined the ranks of American heroes before him, always faithful. May God rest his soul, may God comfort his family, and may God bless us with the honor, courage, and commitment that Taylor Hoover truly lived.

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

Mr. President, States and localities are not allowed to tax land held by the Federal Government. As a result of this, Congress created the PILT Program to reimburse States for that lost revenue.

Now, PILT payments are determined by a complex formula, a formula that unfortunately is far lower than it would be under a tax equivalency. Twenty-one years ago, the USDA concluded that PILT payments needed to be increased by 3\1/2\ times. On certain Federal lands, the number is much larger. A Utah study showed that for lands held in Utah cities, it needed to be 262 times larger.

My amendment would help correct this inaccuracy. It would direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the true taxable value of PILT land and treat it as if it were owned by anyone else other than the Federal Government and therefore subject to taxation. It would reform the program to more accurately compensate States for the revenue that they lose simply by virtue of the fact that they have Federal land in them.

I call for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, inflation is out of control. Very few seem to be willing to talk about it, much less address it.

Now, look, it hasn't been this bad since the great recession. Even then, only two of the months out of that entire crisis were as bad or worse than inflation is right now, and it is showing up in every consumer product Americans buy. Everything from groceries to gasoline, to housing, to healthcare is getting more expensive. Every dollar that we churn into the economy, that we print out when we don't have it, makes these and all other products more expensive.

Let's be clear. The spending is facilitated by this budget resolution, and that same spending will exacerbate inflation. It will worsen the pain that

Americans are feeling as they are filling their gas tanks and stocking their pantries and refrigerators.

When inflation is surging, we can't be piling onto the problem. We are not elected to make life worse. We need to get inflation back under our control.

This simple amendment would empower Congress to do that by making it harder for Congress to increase spending whenever inflation is above 3 percent.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I can't agree to move forward with this nominee today. I think this is really unfortunate. We could have avoided this. This could have been avoided altogether if the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would simply disclose the responses to the questions for records to Members directly. Then Senators could review the nominees more quickly.

Unfortunately, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has refused to do that, and so I have been forced to go to the State Department to get this information. I received those responses on Monday evening.

Just a few hours ago, I sent some additional questions to the nominee. They would have been easy to respond to. I still await those responses, and I expect that I will receive them soon. But until then, I can't do my job right. My advice and consent role can't adequately be performed without having the information.

I am not going to relinquish that duty to represent the people of Utah on all matters and not just on those matters as to which I enjoy a seat on a committee.

There is one type of Constitutional amendment that is preemptively unconstitutional. All Senators are equal; you can't treat them unequally. I deserve to have access to these answers, and they are not giving them to me. That is why we are here. That is why I can't agree to this tonight, and I am not going to do that. I am not going to be bullied into it. They need to share this information. I therefore object.

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

Mr. President, we are debating a bill that a number of us have spoken of on a number of occasions. Since my last address on the Senate floor on this topic, we received a score on the bill from the Congressional Budget Office.

Now, remember, it is the CBO's role to put together a score on legislation we are considering. It is part of how the system works in Washington so we can assess what will and will not add to the deficit and how it will do so if it does. It is an important part of the process.

When we finally received the CBO score just about 48 hours ago, we discovered a few things. We discovered that, despite the representations we have heard by the bill's staunchest advocates to the effect that the bill would be paid for--that it is, that it would not add to the debt and deficit, and that it would not add to the debt and deficit in a way that also didn't involve raising taxes--it turned out that the CBO rejected the claim that this bill was paid for. In fact, the CBO concluded that $256 of the $550 billion it claimed in pay-fors did not pay. They are not paid for, and thus that they will considerably--I mean, we are talking here about over a quarter of a trillion dollars that would go right on to the debt and deficit.

They also concluded that in the long run, over the next 10 years, we will be looking at an additional $340 billion in cost to the Federal Government--a cost that by some estimates could reach as high as $400 billion because of the spillover effect that this bill is likely to have on future spending, contracting authority, and otherwise.

So this bill is not paid for. The pay-fors suggested by the bill's proponents don't get the job done. In fact, more than half of them simply don't get there. We do, however, see that there are some of the pay-fors that create significant policy concerns.

One of the pay-fors that isn't fake is an extension of the so-called g-fees--g-fees being imposed by entities like Fannie Mae that will inevitably increase the cost that home buyers will face when they go to buy a home. Now, why does that matter here? Well, we have seen a startling uptick in inflation--inflation across the board, everything from gas to groceries and everything from healthcare to housing. We see that increasing stunningly in a way that a lot of people are pointing out, correctly, that first-time home buyers are now finding it very difficult to get into a home. This is something that is going to end up affecting all poor and middle-class Americans at a time they can little afford it. And yet we are increasing these fees--fees that are in effect a back-door invisible tax on a lot of those who are least in a position to pay.

Some of the other non-fake pay-fors that actually do bring something in include an increase in the fees paid by manufacturers and distributors of certain chemicals. The issue there is that this fee, while labeled as not a tax--because, technically speaking, it is not a tax--will end up increasing the price of basically every consumer good purchased by the American people.

The way these things end up working is that to the tune of about $15 billion or so, Americans will find that pretty much everything they buy, from apparel to electronics, will get a little more expensive. They may not see it. In fact, the overwhelming majority of them won't even know to attribute it to this particular piece of legislation, but it will have that effect. It will make all Americans a little poorer. It will make all Americans face the very stark reality in which their already strapped dollars that they earn will go just a little bit less far.

We have to remember that from one year to the next, we don't see dramatic fluctuations in the quantity of goods that the American people have access to that they may buy. In other words, the U.S. economy is capable of producing a relatively foreseeable, predictable, somewhat finite supply of goods in a particular year. When that doesn't change dramatically from one year to the next, as it almost never does, but you dramatically increase the money supply in the U.S. economy, then what you see is that everything gets a little bit more expensive. This ends up hurting, in particular, America's poor and middle class. It ends up hurting, in particular, those Americans, including most Americans who in one way or another live paycheck to paycheck, who in one way or another depend on the income that they have, and the income that they have is relatively fixed. So, as a result of that, they don't get as far.

Now, you have got some Americans, including the wealthiest and well- connected in our society, who may well figure out ways to get wealthy off of this bill. One way or another, they can play things to their advantage, and they may make a lot of money off of it.

You have got another category of very wealthy Americans--maybe, you know, people in the top 1 or 2 percent of income earners--who might notice that the things they buy are getting more expensive, but it might not affect them all that much.

But then you have got everyone else, and I mean the vast, overwhelming majority of all Americans, who, in one way or another, plan out each year knowing that they have got a relatively finite amount of money to spend, and that money goes less far when we just print money to the tune of trillions and trillions of dollars.

Remember, the Federal Government, in recent years, has been spending about $4 trillion a year. Tragically, even at the top of our economic cycle, with record low unemployment and with record high growth, we were still spending $1 trillion a year more than we were bringing in-- bringing in about $3 trillion, spending about $4 trillion. This was inexcusable then. It would be inexcusable now, except that we are making it much, much worse.

Last year, we took in about $3 trillion, and we spent $3.6 trillion-- borrowing and then printing close to 4 trillion additional dollars. What does this do? Well, it makes all Americans just a little bit poorer, especially those living on a relatively fixed income.

So this is troubling when we do that. We ought to be concerned when we do that. Inflation numbers that are coming out all the time, including some that I have heard about the first time today, indicate that everything is getting more expensive. And what are we doing? Well, we are on track to spend another $1.2 trillion, including $550 billion of new spending, which the bill's proponents claim is paid for when most of it isn't paid for. And that portion of it that is paid for is in one way or another often paid for in a way that will inure to the detriment of poor, middle-class Americans. This is concerning.

It is also concerning that one of the other pay-for provisions is the one focused on cryptocurrency. It focuses on an industry that is rapidly developing--rapidly developing within the United States--that depends on a lot of innovation happening in the United States. One of these pay-for provisions seeks to bring in more revenue to the Federal Government or at least to promise more revenue to the Federal Government, with the promise of requiring those who spy and sell cryptocurrency to treat it the same way as they would the exchange of securities.

This is very different than securities. These aren't just stocks. It is something very different. It is a medium of exchange that, if adopted more widely, could facilitate a lot of economic activity and a lot of innovation within the United States of America. If, in fact, we pass this bill, mark my words, it is going to have a chilling effect on innovation within this sector.

And what you will see is that the flight of innovation and investment related to innovation to offshore locations around the globe, places outside the United States, may well be the ones to reap the benefit associated with the loss here in the United States if we adopt an unproven, untested, unknown strategy for dealing with something, trying to adopt many decades-old regulatory policies to a completely new form of exchange; one that, by the way, values very highly the privacy of those who exchange it.

So if what you are going to do is take away that value by requiring that all of it be registered and publicly disclosed and by giving the Federal Government the ability to peer into it, you are going to stifle innovation. You are going to make a lot of people upset, and you are going to make Americans poorer.

At the heart of a lot of this is a concern that the Federal Government, as

it takes more and more money, as it prints more and more money, as it requires Americans to work weeks or months out of every year just to pay their Federal taxes, only to be told that it is not nearly enough and it hasn't been enough for many decades because we are nearly $30 trillion in debt--it is still not enough because we are still going to borrow and print more.

It is insulting to them, and it is especially insulting to them when you tell them that in connection with the same legislation that also includes other intrusions into their privacy.

For example, there is a pilot program called for in this legislation that will be created by this legislation that would be designed specifically to monitor how many miles someone drives in a year. Now, this has long been a fantasy of a number of people who would like to see the Federal Government tracking miles driven by every motorist in America.

Now, we all know that there is almost no way to achieve this that wouldn't excessively interfere with the privacy rights of every man, woman, and child in America. Look, the American people are fine with a government that makes sure that we are safe from foreign aggressors, that regulates interstate and foreign commerce, that coins money and regulates the value thereof, that adopts a uniform set of bankruptcy laws, immigration laws, protects trademarks, copyrights, and patents.

What they do not want is a nanny. What they do not want is a snooping device added to every car that will track them; that will track where they and their families are going. It is none of their darn business. Keep the Federal Government out of this. Look, whether you want more government spending or not, chances are, if you are listening to this, you probably are concerned, regardless of what political hat you wear, regardless of whom you voted for in recent Presidential or congressional elections. You probably don't want the Federal Government in your car monitoring your every move knowing where you are going.

We know that when governments do that, when they start to assume that everything is government's business, bad things happen. It ends in tears and wars. That is none of the Federal Government's darn business. We don't want the Federal Government even developing technology to start snooping on every person's every move.

Which brings me to yet another intrusion on personal privacy and liberty in this legislation. Section 24220 calls for the development and, within just a few years, the formalization and finalization of regulations that would require passenger vehicles manufactured and sold within the United States to have a device that would passively measure the blood alcohol content of the driver and do so in a way that would inhibit or at least impair the ability of the vehicle to operate if the vehicle, in its infinite wisdom, was able to ascertain that the blood alcohol content of the driver was over 0.8.

Now, look, we are all for stopping drunk driving. It is terrible. It results in countless lives lost. But we can all see a lot of things that can go wrong with that. Setting aside for a minute the constitutional implications of the intrusiveness of putting technology in every passenger vehicle that requires, at the outset, without any finding that anyone has done anything wrong, that requires you to take a test mandated by the Federal Government every time you want to do something as simple as turn on your car--then let's consider what happens when, with such a technology, which to my knowledge doesn't yet exist--with such a technology, assuming it is able to come into existence because of these burdensome regulations in a few years, that technology, if they are able to develop it, is going to be costly. Who does that hurt? Well, you guessed it. Poor and middle-class Americans who will all of a sudden find that every passenger vehicle will become a lot more expensive. It is just the way it works.

When we mandate the creation of new Federal regulations, and those Federal regulations apply to any new automobile sold in the United States, the price of new automobiles goes up. And in the case of a particularly novel and particularly sophisticated technology like this one, I suspect it will go up a lot.

This may not be troubling to the millionaires and billionaires out there who don't feel the pinch of that, but to everyone else, the 99 percent of all Americans--more than that, I suppose--this hurts. Moreover, what happens when that technology malfunctions? Not if but when. Look, we have all had cars that will malfunction for one reason or another, and oftentimes it is basic security devices, something as simple as that annoying beeper that goes off until you put your seatbelt on. Sometimes some people will put their seatbelt on, and it still pings. That is a terribly annoying nuisance when that happens. The consequences are much more deeply felt; they are much more severe if someone gets in the car, whether it is to go to work, to come home from work, to take a loved one to the doctor or the hospital, and it doesn't work.

Look, glitches happen, and if you are talking about adding an override to a vehicle--you know, maybe that override to the vehicle mistakenly thinks that it smells alcohol, maybe it doesn't like the aftershave or cologne you are wearing on that particular day, maybe the whole thing stops working, and your car stops working with it. This isn't one of those things where you can just open up the hood and find the presence of an on-off switch, as Jerry Seinfeld might have put it many years ago. No, this is much more sophisticated technology that the average, hard-working American isn't going to be able to fix quickly. They won't even be able to see it. There again, they are going to face more costs as they take their vehicle into the shop to have it evaluated by a certified technician capable of dealing with that brandnew, very sophisticated, very expensive technology.

So with each of these things, we see something of a common theme. The Federal Government, which already plays too prominent a role in too many people's lives, which is already taxing us too much, spying on us too much, and considering everything under the Sun its business--we are making even more things its business, from cryptocurrency to where and how far you drive your car, to whether you can operate your car at all. We are doing all of this so that we can spend even more Federal money on even more Federal infrastructure projects, which are even more expensive by virtue of the fact that we are dealing with Federal dollars, for the simple reason that compliance with all the Federal regulations that accompany the expenditure of Federal infrastructure dollars costs a lot of money. In many States like mine, it can cost 20, 30 percent, sometimes even more, on top of what it would cost if these were just State revenues that they were spending.

So I would ask the question: Is it worth it? I would ask the question: Do we want Big Brother knowing our every move? I would ask the question: Do we want a government that is already requiring you to work weeks or months out of every year just to pay your Federal taxes? Do you want it printing even more money, making sure that the dollars that you spend, which are finite, limited, and sacred, will go even less far? I think not, and I urge my colleagues who support this legislation to reconsider.

Mr. President, through the summer and fall, in the growing town of Cedar City, UT, hundreds of people will fill the seats of the Engelstad Shakespeare Theater, modeled after the Globe, to enjoy a showing of Pericles, Prince of Tyre by William Shakespeare. Families will cry and cheer, gasp and giggle as they enjoy a Utah tradition: the annual Utah Shakespeare Festival.

Each year, for the last six decades, families from around the world have flocked to the campus of Southern Utah University to enjoy productions of the Bard's best works. Founded in 1961, the Utah Shakespeare Festival is a prime example of how private initiative can catalyze growth and unite community. Nobody embodies this story more vividly than Fred C. Adams, the festival's founder.

As a young man, Fred made acting look easy. Not only did he develop a passion for the world of theater, he also demonstrated a knack for stagecraft. Over time, his talent and passion developed from a hobby into a career.

Years before the Utah Shakespeare Festival put on its first show, Fred served his country from the Pentagon. During the Korean war, he was in charge of entertainment and morale. Having grown up acting, he dedicated himself to the work of production and performance, bringing joy and brilliance to those who served with him.

After his service during the Korean war, Fred returned to his home in southern Utah in 1961. At that time, hundreds of thousands of tourists visited each summer to see the area's national parks by day, but by night, there was little to do. It was around that same time that a new freeway exit was planned along I-15, Utah's primary interstate highway, right in the heart of Cedar City. Excited by the prospect of growth, Fred saw an opportunity.

One day, while he and his girlfriend Barbara, who later became his wife, were in the Fluffy Bundle Laundromat, daydreaming while waiting for their laundry to dry, the two thought up an idea. Both Fred and Barbara were passionate about theater, and Fred even taught theater classes at the local College of Southern Utah. ``Why not start a Shakespearean festival in Cedar City?'' they thought. With a bit of funding and the help of friends, the idea seemed like it could become a reality. Eager to learn more about how such a festival might come to be, Fred left the laundromat, packed up his bags, and headed to Ashland, OR, where the Oregon Shakespeare Festival takes place each year.

When Fred got to Oregon, he was befriended by Angus Bowmer, the founder of the Oregon Shakespearean Festival. After a few days of observation there, Fred returned to Cedar City and then set out with Barbara, Barbara's mother Louise, and two theater students to visit theaters in Canada and Connecticut. On the road, the Utah Shakespeare Festival was born.

Fred eagerly approached the Cedar City Council and the Chamber of Commerce to tell them about his plan to attract people to Cedar City. Their reaction was dismal. Fred once recounted: ``the idea went over like a pregnant pole vaulter . . . they thought it was a dumb idea, really dumb.'' Despite the lack of enthusiasm, however, the local Lions Club agreed to underwrite his plan with $1,000 after he told them the festival expected to recover all of the money in ticket sales. Hopeful and excited about the first season of the Utah Shakespeare Festival, Fred set out to show just how significant the economic impact of the festival could be on Cedar City.

To demonstrate the reach of the festival, Fred went out and got hundreds of silver dollars upon which he painted a red line. The stage was set. Each time someone paid for a ticket at the festival and needed change, the ticket counter would give them a painted silver dollar. Little by little, the dollars began to enter circulation and people in the city wondered where the painted coins were from. Just 3 weeks after Fred began painting coins, he attended a chamber of commerce meeting in Cedar City. In the meeting, he was asked if he knew anything about the silver dollars with a red line on them. He laughed and responded, ``that is the economic impact of the Shakespeare Festival in Cedar City!''

That first season of the festival saw productions of ``The Taming of the Shrew,'' ``Hamlet,'' and ``The Merchant of Venice,'' performed by a small company of Fred's students, friends, and neighbors. Over 3,000 people attended the shows during the 2-week-long season. After paying off their debts, the festival had also raised an impressive $2,000 to help put on a second season the following year.

Since that first year, the Utah Shakespeare Festival has grown to serve more than 110,000 patrons, who view nearly 300 plays each year in three theaters over a 16-week season. The festival has become a year- round operation with over 30 full-time employees and a budget of over $7 million. Fred's work catalyzed tremendous growth.

The festival has received many national awards, including the 2011 Emmy Award for its production of ``A Midsummer Night's Dream,'' the 2001 National Governors Association Award for Distinguished Service in the Arts, and most notably the Tony Award for Outstanding Regional Theatre in 2000. Fred's work united the community to accomplish something truly remarkable.

After 44 years as executive producer, Fred retired from an active role with the festival but, despite his retirement, could never fully step away. Not a day went by that he wasn't seen at the festival either directing shows, acting onstage, raising funds, or pulling weeds in the Shakespeare statue garden. Fred loved his work and those he worked with dearly, cherishing them all his life.

In February of last year, after a 22-year battle with cancer, Fred was reunited with his late wife Barbara. Together, he and Barbara had dreamed up the Utah Shakespeare Festival and made their dream a reality. Surely, he and Barbara are now working hard to put on heavenly productions with the help of angels.

Fred's life story is a testament to how personal initiative can catalyze

growth and unite community. He tirelessly worked to see his dream of a Utah Shakespeare Festival realized and tirelessly loved his family, his friends, and his community along the way. And as a result, Cedar City has grown, the festival has drawn international praise, and we all benefit from the example he has left behind.

So when times are tough, when work seems monotonous, and when dreams seem far-fetched or far-gone, remember Fred. His story can inspire us all.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what are these so-called pay-fors?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I yield the floor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I urge my colleagues to support amendment No. 2279.

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

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

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

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

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

Vote on Amendment No. 2279

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, infrastructure is important. We all need it. We rely on it to get to and from our homes, to and from work. We rely on it for our day-to-day needs. It has to be there. Not all of it has to be Federal, and what is Federal can be made more efficient. My amendment today is directed at exactly that set of objectives.

It would finally resolve the fiscal insolvency of the highway trust fund and give Americans a tax cut. It would allow Americans to pay less and Federal, State, and local governments to build more. Pay less, build more--that is the emphasis of this entire amendment. We should pay less for what we need, and we should build more of it.

Specifically, my amendment would transfer $120 billion in unused COVID-19 funds to the highway trust fund. It returns the scope of the highway trust fund dollars so that they can be used only for projects on the Interstate Highway System. This was, after all, why the gasoline tax was created, and it ought to be what we use it for today. After all, most roads are not interstate, and most systems are not the Interstate Highway System. The Federal Government doesn't need to do all of it.

And, in fact, what we find is that, when States and localities do infrastructure, they can do so more efficiently, far less expensively as a result of the Byzantine labyrinth of Federal regulations that you have to comply with as soon as you are doing any kind of a road project that involves even a single dollar of Federal funds. My amendment also requires a 5-year plan to pay off all of our highway trust fund's outstanding obligations.

And, on day one, my amendment reduces the fuel tax from 18.4 cents to 7 cents on gasoline and the diesel tax from 24.3 to 8.3 cents to keep pace with the current spending needs of the Interstate Highway System.

We also can't forget the burdensome Federal regulations and intervention that balloon the costs of our country's infrastructure projects. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has estimated that Federal regulations and intervention cost American consumers and businesses nearly $2 trillion annually. We know that, within Federal infrastructure projects, there are a multitude of Federal regulations that drive up the cost of each project by as much

as 20 percent, in many cases more like 30 percent, and I am told, in some cases, even more than that.

Ultimately, we drive up infrastructure costs when we make the projects Federal. It doesn't need to be this way, because most of these are not Federal projects. That is why my amendment also addresses two key regulatory challenges in our infrastructure context.

One, it reforms the NEPA process to ensure projects are given certain timelines and not stalled out by frivolous lawsuits. It reforms NEPA so that our infrastructure money actually goes to NEPA rather than resulting in endless delays brought about by NEPA and NEPA-related litigation.

Two, it repeals the Davis-Bacon wage requirements that artificially increase the labor costs beyond what the market demands--labor costs that are especially important and hard felt right now given the labor shortage.

The Senate has a choice today. You can choose to pay less and build more. You can offer Americans a tax cut--a tax cut that will affect poor and middle-class Americans most acutely, most immediately, most directly--and it will also simultaneously provide long-term solvency to the highway trust fund and lower the costs of our Nation's infrastructure projects.

Or, alternatively, if you don't want to vote for this, you can choose our current path, which is to continue to saddle the American people with debt, more inflation, financial insolvency, and more inevitable taxes. You can also vote against it and choose to continue the current practice of allowing for endless, needless, pointless delays in our infrastructure projects that really harm Americans.

Look, at the end of the day, we just want more of our tax dollars going into funding steel and concrete to go into the ground so that America's moms and dads can spend less time stuck in gridlock traffic and more time with their families. The choice seems very clear to me.

I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this amendment to build more and pay less.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, it is an honor to serve in this body. It is an honor to serve with the men and women from whom we have just heard.

The Senators from whom we have just heard are some of my favorite people in the Senate. For that matter, they are some of my favorite people. I like them, Democrats and Republicans alike. They are hard- working. They have been working really hard. They have gotten very little sleep in the last few days.

Notwithstanding my great respect for them personally and professionally, I rise today because I have got real concerns with this bill, a lot of them. Those concerns, unfortunately, can't be overcome by the respect I have for the individuals involved or my gratitude to them for their willingness to work hard for months on end and through the night on many, many nights in the recent past. These individuals are hard-working, and they genuinely want to do good.

I have a different perspective on this bill. I recognize that I am the only one with that perspective on the floor right now, but I assure you, Mr. President, I am not alone. I am not alone among Senators, and I am sure not alone among those I represent and those represented by the 100 of us in this body. There are a number of Americans who see that all is not well with the way we spend money, the people's money, within the Federal Government, and it is to them that I would like to direct my remarks tonight.

Let's talk for a minute, first of all, about infrastructure. One of the things that I think makes this an appealing piece of legislation is the fact that it deals with something that most Americans intuitively understand we need. Infrastructure is something that is somewhat uniquely positioned for government. It doesn't always have to be through government, but it can be, and it often is because it is a public good. It is a public good that is supposed to be accessible to all, not excludable, and it is difficult to have that without some sort of a master plan.

Infrastructure is also something that can make the difference between someone having to spend hours of their life each day stuck in gridlock traffic and being able to spend time at home with their family.

Infrastructure benefits us in countless ways. The fact that infrastructure is a good thing and that we need it is a different question from whether we can afford the infrastructure plan in this particular case. It is also a separate question from whether Federal infrastructure is what we need, at least to this degree.

Remember that we are a government of powers that James Madison described as few and defined. That is in Federalist No. 45. By comparison, he described the powers reserved to the States as numerous and indefinite.

The powers of Congress and, by extension, the powers of the Federal Government are those, for the most part, outlined in article I, section 8 of the Constitution. There have been a few other powers added since then. Most of them, most of the power that we rely on in enacting legislation--the overwhelming majority of the powers we rely on can be found in article I, section 8.

Article I, section 8 really does come up with a pretty limited list of powers. We are in charge of national defense, trademarks, copyrights and patents, postal roads and post offices, and immigration code to determine questions on immigration and naturalization, bankruptcy laws, declaring war, granting letters of marque and reprisal. That is one of my favorite powers because, you know, it is a power that we have to issue essentially a hall pass in the name of the United States that entitles the bearer to engage in state-sponsored acts of piracy on the high seas in the name of the United States with utter impunity, and that is really, really cool that we have that power. We don't exercise it very often; at least we haven't in the last century or so.

We also have the power to regulate trade or commerce between the States with foreign nations and with Indian Tribes. We have the power to collect taxes and to spend that money. And I believe the best reading of that clause, clause 1 of article I, section 8, is that we have the power to spend money on those powers that are enumerated in article I, Section 8 or elsewhere.

We don't have the power--in article I, section 8, you won't find a generalized power that just says: Go out and spend things that you think would be good for the American people.

Some people make the argument that that very power can, in fact, be found in clause 1 of article I, section 8. They will refer to what they sometimes characterize as the general welfare clause.

Now, the term ``general welfare'' is a term of art that appears exactly twice in the Constitution. The first time it appears is in the preamble. Remember that the preamble is a nice, lovely statement. It is not an operative provision. It doesn't contain any authority.

The second time, as I mentioned, is in article I, section 8, clause 1. James Madison believed--and I believe--that most of the Founding Fathers were with him in this belief. As I said a moment ago, it was intended to grant Congress the power to spend money on those things that they were put in charge of. It doesn't mean just go out and spend money on anything that we deem appropriate. There is also no power in there--in article I, section 8, or elsewhere in the Constitution--that gives us the power to create jobs.

Now, I understand that that is an appealing thing. People like being able to have jobs. They like an economy that provides jobs. So when a politician can promise job creation, that sounds like an appealing feature. That, in and of itself, can't be our objective; and that, in and of itself, doesn't actually work. I will touch on this a little more a little bit later.

But we have to remember that the Federal Government has no ability to generate wealth. It lacks that capacity; that, regardless of what you think of the Federal Government and the extent of Federal power, the Federal Government can't create wealth. It can only transfer it. It can collect taxes. It can do new things, and those things can be good. They can even have positive impacts on the economy.

We lack the power to generate wealth. We, therefore, lack the power to create jobs. Because, remember, when we are taking money, we are taking it from someone else--taxpayers, typically. Or in the case of borrowed money--and we will get more to that later--talking about future generations of Americans who will pay for this.

So we are not creating jobs. We are just taking money from one group of people to do a specific job. And, yes, some people might be employed in those projects. That doesn't mean we are actually creating jobs.

Nor can we forget the fact that when we do something, we can always take credit for the things that we do. Those things don't necessarily take account of the things in the economy that would have happened but for our intervention. We can't take into account what hospital wings might have been built but for the fact that we took a whole bunch of money and spent it on a Federal priority.

So let's get back to the distinction between State power and Federal power; specifically as it relates to infrastructure. I can see a number of instances in which some infrastructure projects might well be appropriate for Federal spending.

It was President Dwight D. Eisenhower who proposed the creation of the Interstate Highway System back in the 1950s. One of the arguments that he came up with--in fact, as I recall, is the principal argument that President Eisenhower relied on in creating the Interstate Highway System--was that, for purposes of national defense, we needed to have a way that we could move U.S. military personnel from one part of the country to another.

He did some research on it and discovered that many parts of the country would be inaccessible from other parts of the country; and if they needed to get troops from one area to another, that could create a real national security hazard.

I suppose he might also have relied on the power to regulate interstate commerce. To my knowledge, he was relying principally on the defense aspect of having an Interstate Highway System.

So, on that basis, he proposed that we create the Interstate Highway System; and he proposed, and Congress passed with his signature, legislation creating a gasoline tax to pay for the creation of the Interstate Highway System. It was more or less the deal that he cut with the American people

He said: Look, we, Congress, and the Federal Government, as a whole, will fund this. We will then fund the building of the Interstate Highway System. Once the Interstate Highway System is built, we will hand it over to the respective States, understanding that each State would have a portion of the Interstate Highway System running through it. We will hand over to each State the portions of the Interstate Highway System running through that State. Those States would then be responsible for maintaining it and keeping it functioning and so forth.

In the seven or so decades since that plan was conceived and hatched, we have now built the Interstate Highway System. It is complete. The Federal gasoline tax has been adjusted on several occasions since then. It has been a few decades since it has been adjusted, but it currently stands at 18.4 cents per gallon. That is the portion of what every American pays when they go to the gas pump. Regardless of what other additional State tax they might pay on that gasoline, it is 18.4 cents out of every gallon that goes into the Federal Highway Trust Fund, and that is still there, notwithstanding the fact that the Interstate Highway System is still in existence.

Now, one might ask why. Well, decisions have been made over time suggesting it might be appropriate still for us to maintain the Interstate Highway System using Federal gasoline tax dollars. It is a decent argument; one that I can accept, notwithstanding the fact that it wasn't part of the original plan.

Why then, with Federal infrastructure money, do we always dip into the Federal Highway Trust Fund and have to supplement it with general fund revenues?

Why is the 18.4 cents per gallon--a tax, remember, that is the vestigial remains of the tax originally put in place to build it with the understanding we would hand it over and the States would maintain it.

The question becomes an even more interesting one when you realize that it doesn't cost 18.4 cents per gallon to maintain the Interstate Highway System. In fact, it doesn't take anything close to that. Estimates vary some, but, according to some estimates, you can do that for about 5 cents per gallon. And yet we collect 18.4 cents per gallon. And yet that is never enough because, on transportation funding, we routinely spend a lot more than that and we have to dip into other sources of revenue, including what we collect in income tax and so forth.

Why is that?

Well, it is because of the mission creep. Instead of just focusing on Federal infrastructure, we have focused on

a lot of things that are not Federal infrastructure; things that, while lovely, useful, perhaps necessary, aren't necessarily Federal in nature; things like bike paths, hiking trails, beautification projects that go alongside of a transportation corridor, and, in some cases, mass transit systems; in some cases, surface streets that may or may not even be connected to the Interstate Highway System; and that, in many cases, start and end entirely within one State that are not part of the interstate network at all.

So why, then, do we do that?

I mean, we do that to a really large degree. As the sponsors of this bill, this bill that I received for the first time just moments ago--I was sitting on the Senate floor waiting to begin my remarks, 2,702 pages long. I see it sitting near the desk clerk right now. It is a rather impressive specimen. It is a large piece of legislation. It is one that I look forward to reading. It is one that I realize will not exactly read like a fast-paced novel.

Reading legislation like this and being able to digest it takes a fair amount of expertise. It takes a lot of patience, and it takes countless instances of cross-referencing to multiple existing provisions in Federal law to understand. There is 2,702 pages. They have worked hard on it. It has taken them 4 months to come up with it, and even though I have got grave concerns with the legislation and can't fathom a circumstance in which I will vote for it--although that said, that remains to be seen, depending on what we are able to change about it. You see, any piece of legislation can potentially turn into something that any Member ought to be able to vote for it, depending on how the amendment process goes.

In its current form, I couldn't possibly vote for it because it simply spends too much money. It spends money that we do not have, and it spends an enormous amount of money at a time when the American people are feeling the pinch of inflation--inflation brought about predictably and foreseeably by a government that spends way too much money.

In effect, it is just printing more money. I mean, technically, I know there is an additional step involved in that. Technically, it is borrowed money. The Treasury issues instruments of debt, and in those instruments of debt, we borrow money from our creditors. There are lots of investors from all over America and throughout the world who buy those instruments of debt from us

But because the U.S. dollar is the world's reserve currency, and because many regard U.S. Treasuries as sort of the least bad investment of its kind, people will buy them; and this stuff functions almost-- when we decide to issue additional debt--functions almost as if hitting a button, just printing more money.

When you print more money and you have a relatively finite basket of goods and services that an economy can produce in a particular year, the same basket of goods--when that same basket of goods can be targeted by more money, inflation is going to hit and people are going to have to pay more for the same things that they always need to buy.

So, look, this doesn't necessarily hurt wealthy Americans. In fact, some of the wealthiest and most well-connected Americans will get rich off of legislation like this. Keep in mind, this legislation spends $1.2 trillion. The $550 billion number is the number that just refers to the new spending. So that means there was already roughly $700 billion that they were anticipating would be spent based on past practice. That doesn't necessarily mean that we have to start all of this from the assumption that we will continue spending at that pace, but it certainly shouldn't obscure the fact that this is an enormous amount of money--$1.2 trillion--that we will be spending here.

This is at a time when Americans are feeling the pinch of inflation precisely because of the pace at which we have been spending money. I mean, look, we were already spending way too much money even before COVID hit. In the last few years, we have typically been shelling out about $4 trillion a year through the Federal Government. And, tragically, even at the top of the economic cycle, where we were right when COVID hit, we were still borrowing $1 out of every $4 we were spending. We were taking in about $3 trillion and spending about $4 trillion before COVID hit. This, at a time where we are at the top of the economic cycle, fantastic economic growth, record low unemployment, things were going great and we were still borrowing $1 out of every $4 we were spending. COVID hits. Last year, instead of spending $4 trillion, which is already too much, we spent $6.6 trillion, $6.7 trillion. So we spent $3.6 trillion more than we brought in.

One of my colleagues recently pointed out to me that about 37 percent of all U.S. dollars that have ever come into existence have come into existence in the last 18 months. That, by itself, should help people understand why their dollars are going less far than they have ever gone before. Because when you just add to the money supply, when government spends that much money that it does not have, that does not exist, it lessens the buying power of every dollar of every American.

There, again, are some people, wealthy, well-connected individuals and corporations in this country who will get very rich off of a $1.2 trillion spending bill. They just will. We know it. They have got sophisticated analysts, lawyers, lobbyists, and compliance specialists who I can assure you right now, at this very moment, are combing through that bill to figure out how they can get wealthy off of it.

Those who don't get wealthy off of it but who are already wealthy themselves probably won't notice the pinch as much. Sure, they might notice that they are paying more for everything from gasoline to groceries, to air travel and everything in between, but it probably won't impact their lifestyle, at least not for the top 1 percent.

But then you have got pretty much everyone else--pretty much everyone else in America who is not wealthy, not well connected, who won't make money off of this, and isn't wealthy enough; any person who is not wealthy enough to be able to cushion the blow of inflation to where it doesn't have to impact their lifestyle, pretty much everyone else, and that means the overwhelming majority of Americans.

I mean, I am talking about probably 90, 95 percent of the men and women in America really will get hurt by this. Most people in America, in one way or another, are living paycheck to paycheck, and if their paycheck remains the same during a time period in which each dollar goes less far, that really hurts them. And if they are living close to the edge on what they can afford with that paycheck and we further diminish the buying power of the dollar through our reckless spending in order to bring praise and adulation from the media and from each other, shame on us. That is reverse Robin Hood. That is stealing from the poor to give to the rich. Why then would we do that? Why would we do it right now?

By the way, because of this same spending spree, this orgiastic convulsion of Federal spending of money that we do not have, we have labor shortages, and we have material shortages. The cost of labor and the cost of materials that will go into these projects are costing more than they ever have before. So why is this the time to aggressively push something when we know full well that it will cost more right now because of other things we have done and that will, in turn, make other things that the American people need to buy more expensive?

Shame on us for making poor and middle-class Americans poorer so that we can bring praise and adulation to ourselves and more money to a small handful of wealthy, well-connected interests in America.

It begs the additional question: There has got to be an additional reason why you would want to make all this spending Federal. I mean, keep in mind, it is not just that most powers of government are and are supposed to be lodged in States and localities. That is also true. But it is also true that most infrastructure falls within the domain of States and localities. Most roads that people use from one day to the next are State roads or local roads. They are not Federal.

So why does all of this need to be Federal? Why couldn't some of this, why couldn't most of it, why couldn't perhaps nearly all of either the new spending or all of the spending incorporated within this $1.2 trillion package, why shouldn't that be something

that States and localities could play a part in?

Now, one might reason, perhaps there is some additional efficiency that could come from this centralization of this plan by making the plan Federal--by making the money Federal. Maybe we can make it more efficient. We can standardize it. That argument might be compelling if it were true, but it isn't. It is quite to the contrary.

When you add Federal money to any infrastructure project, the minute you add Federal money to it, you attach a whole host of Federal laws and Federal regulations that the State or local government carrying out the work then has to comply with, such that if the project were not Federal, if there were not Federal dollars in place, they wouldn't have to comply with the same Byzantine labyrinth. They wouldn't have to negotiate this Byzantine labyrinth of Federal regulations and mandates.

This affects everything from the cost of labor to the cost of materials, to the length of time needed to complete the project, the paperwork involved. And at the end of the day, it results in less of that money going into steel and concrete being placed in the ground and a whole lot more of it going to lawyers, accountants, compliance specialists, and delays, frankly.

In fact, this varies a little bit from State to State, but in many States, including my own, you often add 30 percent, sometimes it is closer to 40 percent, to the cost of a project the minute you add Federal dollars. Even just a few Federal dollars will add these requirements, and those requirements require a lot of additional money.

It is not the case that we make this more efficient, that we make each dollar stretch farther by consolidating it and distributing it back to the States, which is how these infrastructure projects often work.

It is also intuitively something that doesn't add up. Why would we take money, bring it to Washington, run it through our filter, knowing some of that money can slosh around, some of it gets lost administratively, and send it back? That wouldn't make things more efficient. Separate and apart from the fact that we make infrastructure more expensive when we do that, it doesn't make sense intuitively.

All of this also arises in the context in which, due to the recent spending spree that we have been on in Washington, we are at a scary place with regard to our debt-to-GDP ratio. It is about 2 years ago when the Congressional Budget Office issued a report expressing some concerns about the fact that we were, at the time, about 79 percent-- our debt-to-GDP ratio was about 79 percent.

It is concerning because it had been mounting for some time. It was continuing to mount at the time. It was continuing, tragically, to mount, even though we were at the top of the economic cycle with good job growth, good economic growth, low unemployment, and so forth, and yet we were still adding to the debt at a rate of about $1 trillion per year. But they concluded, yes, 79 percent debt to GDP, this is bad.

They also forecasted at the time that we might cross the dreaded 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio within about a decade. I believe the prediction at the time was that we would cross that threshold sometime in maybe 2029.

One of the reasons people worry about that is that there has been a lot of research done on this. A couple of economists from Stanford University wrote a book. The name of the book was, ``This Time Is Different.'' It is one of many academic publications that explored the relationship of the debt-to-GDP ratio and economic growth.

They conclude that once you cross that threshold, 100 percent debt to GDP, economic growth tends to stall, and it becomes much more difficult to manage the Federal debt at that point, the national debt that you are dealing with. And they have done this using models from all over the world, going back hundreds of years. And they have concluded that this is a threshold at which economies tend to stall out.

The name of the book was inspired by the fact that they said, basically, every country, when it approaches this sort of thing, tends to--the government tends to tell the people of that country: Don't worry. We are different. This time, it will be different, just as Americans and the Federal Government tend to tell people this day: Don't worry, this time it will be different.

They say it is not. This is real stuff.

So it was with some concern a couple of years ago, when the Congressional Budget Office issued this report saying: Yes, we are at 79 percent now, and by the end of the 2020s, if we don't turn things around, we should be hitting 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio.

Just a couple of weeks ago, the CBO issued another report. That report concluded that by the end of this year, by the end of 2021, our debt-to-GDP ratio will be at a staggering 106 percent. So at that moment when we really should be very concerned--because, look, regardless how comfortable someone has been with deficit spending in the past, there are people who brushed off concerns by making an argument that, look, as long as the economy on the whole and the big picture is growing faster than the debt, we should be able to keep a lid on it; we should be able to prevent it from spinning out of control.

Now, there is some real appeal to that argument, but that appeal starts to dwindle. In fact, it disappears entirely once your debt is growing much, much faster than your economy. And it gets even more concerning once you past that 100 percent debt-to-GDP ratio because at that point, many economists predict that you will experience not just a cyclical, not just a periodic or episodic short-term downturn economic growth, but you will experience a secular downturn, one that is likely to last much longer than that.

So at a moment like that, I respectfully tend to think we should be asking ourselves the question about money that we are already spending. Should we even be spending money that we have already been planning to spend? The $700 billion that we had planned to spend over the next few years, perhaps that could be pared back. But, instead, we are saying: No, we are going to do all of that, not cut back on any of it, and then we are going to add $550 billion to it.

To me, that is kind of scary, especially when you take into account how all of these things are interconnected. The fact that we have been spending too much, way too much, the fact that we have inflated the dollar as a result, that as a result of inflation, Americans are finding it harder to fill up their gas tank, they are finding it harder to pay their grocery bills, to pay for their rent, their mortgage, they are finding it harder to do just about everything, so why would we want to step on the accelerator at that moment, which also happens to be the precise same moment when the cost of all the things that we will need to undertake this ambitious infrastructure spending package, including materials, steel, concrete, labor, everything else that we will need in connection with that, when all of those things are more expensive and made more expensive still by the fact that we are making them all Federal because, when you use Federal dollars for an infrastructure project, it typically cost a lot more.

In a State like mine, it is often 30 percent, sometimes more than that. It costs that much more the minute you add Federal dollars. For that reason, in my State and in many others, State transportation officials--very bright--my friend Carlos Braceras, who has been the long-time head of the Utah Department of Transportation, he and his team in the State of Utah and with the help of Utah's Governor and its legislature, they have figured ways to make sure that when Federal funding comes their way, it doesn't bleed into everything.

There are a number of projects that they try to keep insulated from Federal spending, from Federal dollars, specifically for the reason that it is likely to cost more and sometimes take longer if you involve Federal dollars in it. So why would we want to continue exactly as we have been going and then add to it an additional $550 billion?

Now, on the inflation side of this argument, some of my colleagues will argue--in fact, some of them argued tonight--that this is noninflationary spending and that it is going to be lengthened over--it will be spent over a lengthy period of time and we, therefore, shouldn't worry about the impact it might have on inflation.

I have a couple of responses to that. First of all, the fact that we will be

spending it over a period of several years doesn't mean it won't have an impact on inflation. The fact is, when we spend more Federal money, especially Federal money that we don't have, that is the definition of inflationary. Maybe it is not as inflationary as it would have been had this bill spent two or three times that amount and had it been mandated that it all be spent immediately, but that doesn't make it noninflationary.

Many of them also argued that it is OK because it is all paid for, the new money is all paid for. Well, it is one of the things that we will be exploring over the next few days, and I hope we will have even longer than that to wade through it. On this point, I would add simply that my colleagues--again, all Senators for whom I have tremendous respect and affection.

Every one of these Senators who has worked on this has worked hard on it. They are passionate about it. I like them. I respect them, even though I disagree with them on this. But many of them pointed out that it is paid for. Yet, when you look at the pay-fors, I wonder whether it actually is.

Now, some of the arguments that they make in saying that it is all paid for rely on things like recapturing COVID funds already appropriated but not yet spent.

I suppose that is a good thing to do. If we have got COVID money that we have appropriated but that hasn't been spent, I suppose we have got to recapture that and direct it somewhere else. But I am not sure that that necessarily means that there is no cost or consequence to choosing to spend it here.

I mean, if we appropriated more money for COVID than we should have, than we needed to, shouldn't we also consider--I don't know--giving it back to the American people or paying down the debt so that we don't add to the debt as quickly? I think that ought to be on the table as well. So that is part of it, is the argument that we are taking a good chunk of it from COVID money that has previously been appropriated but not spent.

They also rely on a number of other arguments suggesting that it is paid for and not through tax increases or additional borrowing. Some of those arguments are, I suppose, technically defensible but not necessarily within the spirit of what they are saying. For example, there is a large sum of money, many billions of dollars--the last time I checked, their proposal was at about $13 billion--to reinstate the fees attached to the production and distribution of certain chemicals. Like I said, the last time I checked, the proposal was at about $13 billion falling into that category. It might be more or less because, again, we just now received the 2,702-page bill that now sits at the clerk's desk in front of us.

So let's assume that it is $13 billion from the collection of that. Well, it really is--at least, in my investigation of that, they are imposing taxes on the production and distribution of certain chemicals, many of which are used in the production of basically everything, basically all consumer products.

So it is listed as a fee, not a tax. Sometimes, the distinction between a fee and a tax can be relatively minor and relatively insignificant, but, regardless, it is money that ends up being paid for by poor and middle-class Americans in the form of higher prices passed down to the consumer on everything that American consumers buy.

The biggest difference between this and a tax is that with a tax, there is some record somewhere of what the taxpayer is paying. But with a fee that is going into basically every consumer product in the case of many of these chemicals, it is effectively an invisible or sort of hidden tax, so it is actually less desirable than a tax increase, in that respect.

Like I say, there are two purposes of our tax system. The more obvious purpose is just to fund the government. But the other purpose is to communicate the cost of government to the voter so that the voter knows what they are getting and what they are paying for.

Things like these hidden fees that will increase the cost of all manufactured items, maybe just a little but with no pricetag attached to it, it seems kind of unfair to me.

Last I checked also, there were $56 billion counted among the pay- fors, $56 billion that they were counting on as something that would be collected by the Federal Government as tax revenue as a result of increased economic activity stemming specifically from the money that we are spending in this legislation.

Now, I don't think we score infrastructure bills that way. To my knowledge, we haven't done that in the past. To my knowledge, the Congressional Budget Office, whose job it is to score these things and which I hope will give us a score here--I don't think it typically scores infrastructure bills that way.

So, yeah, we are going to spend $1.2 trillion on this bill, but that $1.2 trillion being plied into the economy is going to do other things, and that, in turn, will generate revenue and come back to us this way. You sometimes hear of things like that being done from advocates of tax reform, and sometimes dynamic scoring has been done in tax reform. I don't think it is typically done with infrastructure projects.

I also think it is wildly speculative to assume that $56 billion will come from this and that that $56 billion wouldn't come from the Federal Government if we weren't doing this. It goes back to the common fallacy with government. You can see the tangible things that government does, but seeing those tangible things that government does often obscures and makes impossible to know what would have been done in the absence of government intervention, what hospital wing won't be built as a result of people paying higher prices for everything they buy and higher prices on their tax bill and through inflation, generally.

You don't always see all of the consequences built into that, but you can see the tangible benefits, which is exactly why this is such a tantalizing, tempting thing for politicians--because, look, when politicians vote to spend more money, not theirs but everybody else's, the way things work in our society today, in our mainstream media today, you will get praised for that. You will pretty much always get praised for voting to spend more of the American people's money as long as you can identify good people who will benefit from it. And you can almost always do that, and I am absolutely certain that there are a lot of good, deserving, hard-working Americans who will be able to point to things in this bill that they will benefit from. I won't take that away from the bill's sponsors, not for a moment.

There are absolutely good things that will happen to good people-- good, deserving people--if we pass this legislation. It is very tempting to do that because we will get praised if we do it. And once we create the expectation that we are going to do it and then we don't do it, we will get criticized. Predictably, those who vote for this will get praised in the media. Those who vote against it will get attacked as thoughtless and insensitive and not caring about those people who will benefit from it.

But what about the Americans who will be harmed by it? It is one of the tragic consequences of spending large volumes of money through a system of government. We have the luxury in government of collecting money by force. Usually, that force doesn't have to be brought to bear directly; it is the implicit threat of the potential for use of force that allows governments to collect money. In fact, it is what differentiates governments from businesses or individuals or any other enterprise that might want to collect money in some way. Governments can use the implicit threat of force and carry out the threat of force when necessary in order to carry out our mandate.

So we always have to remember that, even though we will get praised for spending other people's money because there are good people who will benefit from it, there are other people who are harmed. It is a tragic consequence of concentrated benefits and dispersed burdens attached to basically all spending legislation. I mean, it is really difficult. I don't know quite how to unravel it other than to say it is one of the many reasons why we should adhere to the constitutional norms established in 1787, as modified with each of the 27 amendments that we have adopted, in figuring out what is and what is not a Federal priority.

There are a lot of things that are good ideas. We don't have to utilize

force or the implicit use of force or the potential use of force for all of them, but that is what we do when we push things through government. And when we push them through the Federal Government, we add other problems to them.

Back to the drafters of this legislation. It took them 4 months to get to this. And, again, I commend them for doing that. I don't fault them for the fact that it took them that long. I praise them for their willingness to dedicate their time and that much of their lives to something they care about. I happen to disagree with where they are going with it, but I respect them, nonetheless, greatly for it.

But think about this. This group that has been working together has been very, very intimately involved in the negotiation of the details of it, but it took them 4 months to get there. There are, what, 10 or so of them. But there are 100 of us, and we have got 435 counterparts in the House of Representatives.

Article I, section 7 tells us that you can't create legislation at the Federal level without going through Congress. You can't pass Federal legislation without it passing the House and passing the Senate and being presented to the President for signature or for veto. So it does still have to get through this body.

What I would suggest is that if it took these 10 or so of our colleagues 4 months to get here, it is not reasonable to expect that the rest of us can be brought to where they are in a matter of days. That is one of the reasons why we have committee processes. And I am not of the view that there is no piece of legislation that ought to ever be passed without it having gone through a full committee process and regular order. There are lots of times when that might not be necessary or appropriate or there might be other extenuating circumstances.

I wonder, here, why that didn't happen, but, regardless, the bill is here now. It is on the Senate floor now. We ought to consider it. But I would suggest this. If it took them 4 months to get comfortable with it, is it at all reasonable to expect that we should get through it and over the threshold of passing it, placing burdens on the American people that will last not just for years but for decades, in a matter of days? Would it be unreasonable to suggest that we ought to have at least a few weeks to debate it and discuss it; that we ought to have at least half the time that they have had to prepare this? It took them 4 months. Shouldn't we at least have a month or 2?

We are approaching a time when Members of Congress typically spend more time in their home States. Is it at all unreasonable to suggest that maybe we ought to take that time to vet this with the people we represent in our respective States? I would love nothing more than to take that 2,702-page bill around the State of Utah with me in my visits to the State in the month of August. I would love to get their input on it. I would love for them to be able to have access to that document so we can have this debate and this discussion.

And, yeah, sure, I have got grave concerns with it. In its present form, I can't vote for it. That doesn't mean that we can't make it better. That doesn't mean that we can't all benefit a lot from having those who have elected us have the chance to review this.

Now, I don't expect that all 3\1/2\ million Utahans will read that 2,702-page bill. It does not read like a fast-paced novel. But they still ought to have time to learn about what is in it, to at least read analysis performed by others and presented to them in a digestible form so that we can get their input on how it might affect their lives for good or for ill.

Some of the other arguments that we have heard also need to be addressed. We have been told tonight that many of our peer nations are spending more money on infrastructure than we are. I am not sure that is true in every case. In fact, there aren't a lot of countries on Earth that can afford to spend anywhere near the amount of money that we spend on anything, infrastructure or otherwise. So if that is what they are suggesting, I am not sure the argument pans out in a dollar- for-dollar or dollar-for-dollar equivalent analysis. If they are talking about as a percentage of GDP, maybe that is a good point.

If we are talking about China, I am not sure that we want to measure what we do and evaluate the sufficiency of what we do on infrastructure the same way China would. China, remember, has a very highly centralized form of government and a very highly centralized economy, which China, being a communist dictatorship, focuses around the government, around their national government. That is a critical difference. I don't think the Chinese model is one that we want to emulate here.

The argument was also made that many in Europe are spending more. Again, perhaps they mean as a percentage of GDP. I am not sure. I would note here that many countries in Europe have the luxury of doing a lot of things that we don't, in part, because of the burden that we carry for them on issues of national defense. Even with that, I doubt very highly that any country in Europe spends more dollars or more dollar equivalence of whatever currency they use than the United States, so I am not sure what is meant by that argument.

We have to remember that anytime a politician, anytime an elected official, says ``you need me,'' the opposite is true. He or she, who when saying ``you need me,'' is actually saying ``I need you.''

People aren't here to serve the government. The government exists for the purpose of serving the people. We have to be very, very wary of anything that sounds like we are telling the people ``you need us, you need us to take money from you and to take money from your yet unborn children or from your children who are alive today but not yet old enough to vote and spend it in a manner that we see deem fit.''

For that additional reason, we should be extra cautious. As much as I love and respect the colleagues who put together this 2,702-page bill, I want to go through it to make sure that it spends money in the way that my constituents would like, which is all the more reason why--if it took them 4 months, shouldn't we really at least take a few weeks with it and not just a few days?

Now, $1.2 trillion is what this bill wants to spend. It is easy to get caught up in the words ``million,'' ``billion,'' ``trillion.'' In fact, I have heard most of our colleagues--most of us at one point or another have made the mistake, hopefully not in public as much, but at least in our private conversations as we discuss large numbers--large numbers necessarily involved in funding a government as large as ours is. Sometimes we will find ourselves saying ``million'' when we mean ``billion,'' or ``billion'' when we mean ``trillion,'' or some other combination of syntactic errors. There is a big difference between them, a thousandfold difference at every level.

Remember that a number of people have pointed out recently in order to encapsulate the point, a million seconds lasts just 11\1/2\ days; a billion seconds lasts 31.69 years; a trillion seconds lasts 31,688.74 years. There is an enormous difference here--an enormous difference that we ought to take into account.

So I don't mean to suggest that any of this is easy. It is not easy at all. But we ought to get concerned anytime someone proposes that we spend this much money all at once, we have got to do our due diligence.

Now, people like to talk about roads, bridges, wastewater projects. They like to talk about potholes. Those things are all really important.

I would be happy to.

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