Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor this evening to urge that Congress speak with one voice, at a critical time, on an urgent matter.

The fight for freedom is being waged in Ukraine right now, and the outcome is going to have profound effects not just in Eastern Europe but around the globe.

Russia has invaded Ukraine twice in the last 8 years, illegally annexing Crimea, inserting troops and offensive military equipment into the Donbas region in the east. They have initiated cyber attacks against public and private entities in Ukraine, and they continue to use disinformation to try to destabilize the democratically elected government in Kyiv.

Now, the Russians have gone further by amassing more than 100,000 troops under the command of 100 tactical groups on Russia's Ukrainian border. This Russian deployment includes rockets, tanks, and artillery, and it is no longer just on the eastern border of Ukraine but now on the northern border, where Russian combat troops and heavy equipment have moved into Belarus and in Crimea in the Black Sea area.

Let me give a little history as to how we got here. Eight years ago, Ukraine made a choice. The people of Ukraine stood up to a corrupt Russian-backed government in 2014 and made a conscious decision to turn to the West--to the European Union, to the United States.

I was in Ukraine in 2014 shortly after what is called the Euromaidan or the Revolution of Dignity. When I was there in 2014, the Revolution of Dignity barricades were still up, and in the center of town, the Maidan was still occupied by Ukrainian patriots who were determined that their country not go backwards.

The Ukrainian people at that time rejected authoritarianism. They said instead they were choosing democracy, freedom of speech, and freedom to gather, respect for the rule of law and free markets-- turning to us.

Despite Russia's unrelenting efforts at destabilization over the past 8 years, the Ukrainian people are more committed than ever to an independent, sovereign, and democratic nation. And Ukrainians today are increasingly patriotic and opposed to the Russian efforts to destabilize their country. They don't want state control, repression, and fear; they choose liberty and prosperity.

Moscow would have the world believe that somehow this massive, unwarranted Russian buildup is about trying to shore up its border against threats from Ukraine and NATO. This is, of course, patently false. Ukraine's military posture has always been purely defensive, and, unlike Russia, Ukraine has up held its commitments under the Minsk agreements, which were designed to ensure a ceasefire in Eastern Ukraine in the Donbas region.

NATO, of course, is a defensive alliance and is no threat to Russian territorial integrity. NATO's Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently told reporters that the ``significant movement'' of Russian troops into Ukraine's neighbor, Belarus, is the ``biggest Russian deployment there since the Cold War.'' And Russian troop numbers in Belarus are likely to climb to 30,000, with the backing of special forces, advanced fighter jets, short-range ballistic missiles, and S- 400 ground-to-air missile defense systems. This is new.

By the way, Ukraine is not asking for us to fight these wars for them. They have been in a war with Russia over the past 8 years. They have lost over 14,000 Ukrainians to this battle, including at the line of contact, where there has been a hot conflict. I have been to the line of contact. I have seen it. I have seen where the Russian snipers have killed Ukrainian soldiers. I have talked to the soldiers from Ukraine, who are determined, committed, and patriotic.

Fourteen thousand people--if you compare the population of Ukraine to our population here in the United States of America, that would be the equivalent of us losing about 120,000 Americans over the past 8 years to an enemy. That is more people than we lost in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined. Think how we would feel. This is how the Ukrainians feel.

Ukraine is not asking, again, for us to fight their war for them, but they are asking for increased lethal military assistance to help defend themselves should Russia make a big mistake and decide to invade further into Ukraine.

When it comes to our allies, I have been pleased that most have really stepped up to help Ukraine during this crisis. The British have provided anti-tank missiles. When I was in Ukraine recently with the congressional delegation, as we left the airport--this was about 3 weeks ago--a cargo plane arrived--an American-made cargo plane--with weapons from the U.K. The United Kingdom was providing anti-tank weapons to Ukraine. I saw them being unloaded, and I saw the smiles on the faces of the Ukrainians knowing that this will give them a better chance to defend themselves. We appreciate the Brits.

The Canadians have helped, specifically recently providing important training on some of the new equipment they are getting. The Danes have helped with additional funding, and the Baltics have transferred weapons as well. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have all been strongly supportive. Poland has been so supportive--and so many others.

We need all of our allies to step up like that--certainly all of our NATO allies but, really, all freedom-loving countries around the world. This is where the cause of freedom is being fought right now.

My hope is that Congress can come together and speak with one voice-- Republicans and Democrats alike--pass bipartisan sanctions legislation and an aid package that sends a strong message of support to the Ukrainian people, a message that we stand with them in their fight for freedom but also sends a strong message to Russia that, if they choose to invade further, the armed conflict will carry a heavy cost, the sanctions will be devastating--and, finally, legislation that sends a strong message to the world that the United States stands with its allies in Eastern Europe and throughout freedom-loving countries across the world.

The time to speak is now, with one voice. The world is listening and watching.

Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the Senate floor today to speak in support of a bill sponsored by the entire Ohio delegation naming the post office in Avondale--of Cincinnati, OH--for two World War II aviators: John Leahr and Herbert Heilbrun.

These two remarkable men--one Black and one White--grew up in Avondale, which is a neighborhood which is part of Cincinnati, OH. They dreamed of flying and signed up for the Army Air Corps after Pearl Harbor. John Leahr flew the P-51 Mustang with the Tuskegee Airmen, and Herb Heilbrun flew the B-17 bomber.

The Tuskegee fighters were assigned to protect the bombers in the European theater. John and Herb worked together on some of the same missions, but as World War II airmen, they were segregated and did not interact. They didn't get to know each other until more than 50 years after the war ended.

In 1997, Herb Heilbrun discovered that an event for the Tuskegee Airmen was going to be held in downtown Cincinnati. He decided to stop by and thank the fighter pilots who helped protect him and his bomber and his bomber squad in Europe.

There, Herb met John Leahr, and the two men hit it off and discovered how much they had in common. They found out they had both grown up in Avondale and both spent time waiting for training working at the same engine plant: Wright Aeronautical in Lockland, OH. They realized they had been in the same third grade class at North Avondale Elementary School. Luckily, Herb had saved the class picture; and there, you can see them standing right next to each other, John and Herb.

Their friendship was obviously meant to be. John Leahr had long wanted to make sure people knew about the Tuskegee Airmen and their contributions during the war. Together, John and Herb shared their story with schoolchildren and adults, talking about how things were different in the past and promoting racial understanding and the rejection of bigotry today.

Here they are with a group of young people, Herb and John, with models of the airplanes that they flew.

The Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations honored them for their work in 2003, and in 2007, there was a book--``Black and White Airmen: Their True History''--and it recounts their story.

John died in 2015 at the age of 94. Herb died in 2020 at 100 years old.

I believe naming this post office in their neighborhood for John Leahr and Herb Heilbrun is a fitting way to honor the memory of this team, who served our country with bravery and distinction in World War II but then continued an important part of their public service long after their military service ended.

My hope is that this legislation will be passed by the Senate on a bipartisan basis and we can name this post office after these two remarkable men.

(Ms. HASSAN assumed the Chair.)

Madam President, finally, I want to acknowledge someone who is in the Chamber tonight. I want to acknowledge her dedicated service. This is one of my senior staff members, who is moving to Richmond, VA, to join the new Virginia Governor's administration.

Angie Youngen is an Ohio native and an Ashland University graduate-- who is very proud of that--and who was the scheduler for my predecessor, Senator George Voinovich. I have had the good fortune of having her on my team. Her loyalty, hard work, and judgment over the past 8 years is deeply appreciated.

So, Angie Youngen, we will miss you here on Capitol Hill, but best of luck in your new adventure.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that Senators Blunt, Blackburn, and I be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each prior to the scheduled vote.

Madam President, I am here today to discuss the crisis at the border. Unfortunately, it is not getting any better. In fact, it is getting worse by any measurement. The flow of illegal drugs and illegal migration continues to surge.

As the lead Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I recently traveled to the U.S.-Mexican border in Nogales, AZ, just south of Tucson, to learn firsthand from Border Patrol and Customs officials and Border Patrol agents who are on duty 24-7 trying to protect our Nation from illicit narcotics, unlawful immigration, and terrorism.

It was my third trip to the border in the last year, and, like other trips, what I saw was alarming. Officials at the port of entry told me about the increasing and more sophisticated efforts to smuggle illegal and deadly drugs into the United States. They showed me some of the x rays that have been taken of some of the vehicles where the smugglers are cleverly hiding these illicit narcotics into compartments.

By the way, this is deadly stuff. This is mostly now the illicit drug called fentanyl, which is a synthetic form of opioid that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, is probably killing two-thirds of the people who are dying from overdoses. The number of overdose deaths in this country is at record levels. During the year of 2021, we believe it is going to exceed 100,000 individuals--record levels.

So why aren't we scanning more of these vehicles for drugs and other contraband? The best numbers we have are that, currently, less than 2 percent of the passenger vehicles and less than 20 percent of the commercial vehicles coming into the United States are scanned for illegal drugs like this deadly fentanyl we talk about.

That is just unacceptable. A smuggler with multiple pounds of fentanyl concealed in hidden compartments needs to know that there is no chance of getting across our border without some kind of search. It is not just a gap in our security; it is a gaping hole in our security, and it is resulting in lives being lost in my home State of Ohio, where we have a big issue with opioids, and also all across America. In a sense, every State is a border State now.

Last year, Customs and Border Protection seized nearly 10,000 pounds of deadly fentanyl. That is a 40-percent increase from 2020. But, as officers on the line told me when I was down there recently, most of it is getting through.

A year ago, Congress mandated that the Department of Homeland Security give us a plan and a strategy to scan all vehicles at the ports of entry for deadly narcotics such as fentanyl. Unfortunately, even with this crisis that demands these new approaches, the Biden administration has failed to deliver this report, which was due more than 6 months ago. Let's get that report done. Whether it is crystal meth or cocaine or whether it is fentanyl--sometimes pressed into pills to make it look like something else--it is flowing across the southern border. Let's have a plan to stop this.

We also face challenges between the ports of entry. In Nogales, the Border Patrol agent in charge rode with me to look at the border. What he described was an overwhelming, recordbreaking number of unlawful migrants and a recordbreaking number of drugs like fentanyl and these other drugs coming into the United States. He talked about the urgent need for more Border Patrol agents to be able to cover the border; new vehicles--vehicle maintenance is a huge issue for Border Patrol right now; and technology, particularly cameras and sensors.

There is a lot of discussion here always about the wall, but what is really important about a fence or a wall is the technology that goes along with it. When the Biden administration came in and they stopped construction of the wall, what they really did was they stopped the technology.

In the El Paso Sector where I have been, as an example, only about 10 percent of the technology had been completed for the fence that was being erected there. So they stopped building the fence--and you can see all the metal on the ground, which is very demoralizing for the Border Patrol because they have to fill the gaps 24-7 or figure out other ways to stop people--but most importantly, only 10 percent of the technology had been done, and they cut off all of that. We have already paid for it, by the way. Taxpayers have paid for all of that.

My thinking is, Democrats and Republicans alike talk about the need for technology--this is, again, monitors of some kind; there are various kinds out there that are very effective--cameras, and the ability to respond quickly.

I toured the border area that had huge gaps in the fencing, too, which I don't get. Why would you want to spend all this money to build the border barriers and then leave the gaps in the middle? I saw broken areas of fencing that need repairs. I saw the need for new fencing in some areas.

I walked up to one large gap only several miles from the city of Nogales. There is 15- to 20-foot fencing on either side of this gap, and then there is about 40 feet with just a four-strand barbed wire fence to keep cattle from coming into the United States and vice versa. So that is where human smugglers go. They know about these gaps.

I saw lots of evidence of foot traffic, lots of plastic bottles and plastic bags discarded in the area from migrants who crossed right there.

Leaving these gaps is one of the reasons we face a crisis.

We just learned in December that the Border Patrol apprehended more than 170,000 unlawful migrants in December. That is the highest number ever in December. And the Biden people say: Well, this is seasonal so it will stop in December and January because it is colder and people aren't going to go or when it is really hot in July and August. That has not happened.

For the first time ever, we see a continual flow of people. It is not slowing down at all. These dramatic increases in unlawful entries and illegal drugs in the last year are clearly due to the policy changes, again, that were put in place on day 1 of the Biden administration--not just fewer deportations and a more lax approach to immigration generally but a specific issue of stopping the installation of this technology and fencing.

Also, they made a major change immediately with regard to asylum policy. So now people know if they claim asylum, they will be released in the United States pending a court date, which, on average, is going to be 5 or 6 years away. They say the backlog is at least 1.3 million people now--the backlog.

Now, is there any wonder that when people come to my home State of Ohio or go to my colleague's State in Missouri or go to Nevada, with 5 or 6 years ahead of them, that it is sometimes not possible to find them when the court date comes up, and that is happening, obviously, increasingly.

So we need a policy that just makes sense, that doesn't tell the smugglers, hey, if you get somebody in the United States, you can tell them that they can get in; they can work; they can get their kids in school. And that is what the smugglers do to people all over the world. It is not just Central America. In fact, there are more people coming from Ecuador now than there are from Honduras. I am told in the last week there were five Syrians who were apprehended coming across the border.

It is a lot of people from around the world who are being told by these smugglers who are exploiting them and their families, hey, just come on with me, and we can get you in. Pay me 10,000 bucks or whatever it is. That is one reason we have right now this pull factor because of a policy issue we have got to address.

The administration also chose to end the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy, which says to people, hey, you can come and apply for asylum, but you have got to

wait over in Mexico until we adjudicate this. That discouraged a lot of people. A lot of folks went home because they were trying, obviously, to come to the United States, but that policy was ended.

But, generally speaking, the right policy is adjudicate these cases immediately. Let people know, we don't want to have a 1.3 million backlog of people in the United States, 5 or 6 years waiting for a court case. It just doesn't make sense.

Anyway, with these policy changes since the President's inauguration, the southern border has faced the worst unlawful migration crisis in decades and the worst drug crisis ever. To help the Border Patrol do their job, we are working on bipartisan legislation to increase the number of agents, address retention challenges of the existing workforce, and respond faster to these humanitarian crises that come up by doing things like having a Border Patrol reserve that can respond to surges.

I am always impressed with the men and women of Customs and Border Protection and the Border Patrol that I meet on my trips. They have tough jobs right now--really tough jobs. A lot of them are overworked. A lot of them are being pressed into doing processing and other things that they weren't hired to do or trained to do. It is tough. And we are making it even tougher with policies that we are putting out here in Washington.

The ongoing crisis is clear and persistent, no longer seasonal. I urge the Biden administration to change course, stop the policies that send the green light to these human smugglers to be able to exploit migrants and families from all over this hemisphere and elsewhere now and stop giving a green light to the drug traffickers. Instead, provide Congress with a plan to deter illegal immigration, to detect and deny deadly drugs from crossing our border. America's national security depends on it. American lives depend on it.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I am here today to talk about the escalating aggression by Russia against Ukraine, an ally and a sovereign country whose territorial integrity is once again under attack. In our generation, this is where the fight for freedom is being held; this is where it is being waged. It is going to affect not just Ukraine and Eastern Europe but countries all over the world, depending on the outcome.

Today, I am going to address what I think the appropriate role is for us as Americans, what more we can do to help avoid what could become an international disaster and a humanitarian crisis.

Russia is the aggressor here, having invaded Ukraine twice in the past 8 years, illegally annexing Crimea, inserting troops and offensive military weaponry into the Donbas region of Ukraine, initiating cyber attacks against public and private entities in Ukraine, and using disinformation to try to destabilize the democratically elected Government of Ukraine.

Now they have gone further by amassing more than 100,000 troops under the command of 100 tactical groups on Russia's Ukrainian border. This Russian deployment includes rockets and tanks and artillery and is no longer just on the eastern border of Ukraine, but it is now across the borders, including the northern border, where Russian combat troops and heavy equipment have gone into Belarus. And on the Belarus-Ukrainian border, a Russian presence is being felt. It is also in Crimea and in the Black Sea area, where Russia is taking advantage of their illegal annexation to move troops in those areas close to Ukraine.

I will give you a little history about how we got here. Eight years ago, the people of Ukraine made a clear choice. They stood up to a Russian-backed, corrupt government in 2014 and made a conscious decision to turn to the West, to the European Union, to us, the United States of America.

I was in Ukraine in 2014, shortly after what is called the Euromaidan, also the Revolution of Dignity. The barricades were still there. And in the center of town, the Maidan, in Kyiv, was occupied still by Ukrainian patriots, insisting that Ukraine chart its own course. The Ukrainian people had rejected authoritarianism and, instead, embraced freedom, embraced democracy, freedom of speech, freedom to gather, freedom for the respect of law, respect for the judicial institutions in the country, and free markets.

Now, have they stumbled along the way sometimes with regard to reforms, including of the judicial system? Yes, of course. Most fledgling democracies do; all of them do. But they have made tremendous progress, and they are on their way toward becoming what they wanted to become at the time 8 years ago--again, this Revolution of Dignity that is called the Euromaidan--more like a Western European or Eastern European country that is part of the EU.

Despite Russia's unrelenting efforts to destabilize Ukraine over the past 8 years, the people of Ukraine have remained committed to this independent, sovereign, and democratic principle, that vision.

And Ukrainians today are actually increasingly patriotic and opposed to the Russian efforts to destabilize their country. According to polling data, this sentiment is especially true among young people, which makes sense because they have tasted the fruits of freedom--free enterprise, the ability to express themselves, the ability to connect with the rest of the free world. They don't want state control. They don't want repression. They don't want fear. Instead, they want liberty and prosperity.

Moscow and Russia would have the world believe that somehow this massive, unwarranted Russian buildup is about trying to shore up its border against threats from Ukraine and from NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Nothing could be further from the truth, of course. This is patently false. Ukraine's military posture has always been defensive. Unlike Russia, Ukraine has upheld its commitments under the Minsk agreements, which were designed to ensure a cease-fire in the Donbas region, the eastern part of Ukraine. NATO, of course, is defensive. It is not an offensive group and is no threat to Russian territorial integrity.

My hope is that Congress can come together this week--Republicans, Democrats, Senate, and House--and issue a strong message to the people of Ukraine that we stand with them in their fight for freedom; to Russia that if they choose to invade, the armed conflict will carry a heavy cost, and the sanctions that would result from that would be devastating; and then to the world that the United States stands with its allies, not just in Eastern Europe but throughout the freedom- loving countries of the world.

I am hoping Congress will pass an extensive sanctions package, including increased security funding for Ukraine, more resources for cyber security, and funding for the Global Engagement Center at the U.S. State Department to help push back on Russian disinformation.

I want to say a word about our allies. In many respects, I believe that what Vladimir Putin has done by these aggressive actions we talked about is to strengthen the transatlantic alliance,

including those countries that are part of NATO, and go beyond that, countries in other parts of the world that understand that this is about the cause of freedom. So many have stepped up. Denmark is providing F-16 jets to nearby Lithuania. Spain is sending ships to join a NATO fleet. France is getting ready to send troops to Romania, they say. The United Kingdom has sent anti-tank weapons directly to Kyiv and supported Ukraine in so many ways.

When I was in Ukraine recently, I was there to see a cargo plane unload anti-tank weapons from the UK to Ukraine. And recently, the United States has not just increased our military assistance to Ukraine to help it defend itself, but also we have placed 8,500 of our troops on heightened alert to go to be with our NATO allies in the region in Eastern Europe. They, of course, welcome that.

Ukraine, by the way, has never asked for U.S. troops or NATO troops to defend Ukraine. They have asked for help to be able to defend themselves. And that is an important distinction.

On the Russian pipeline to Europe called Nord Stream--I think it was a bad idea before all this started and I think it is even a worse idea now--Russia provides Germany with roughly one-third of their natural gas supply already, a dependency that will increase substantially with the activation of the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline.

Let's not forget, this multimillion-dollar pipeline is one that this body, the U.S. Senate, chose not to impose sanctions on just a few weeks ago after we had already done so once before on a bipartisan basis. I will say the vote last week was not 60 votes, but it was a majority of this body voting to impose sanctions because, again, the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline is a bad idea in terms of the dependency of Europe on Russia.

Once the pipeline is complete, it will supply a lot of Russian gas to Germany, the rest of Europe, and Russia will use it as a political weapon. We have seen this. This is no surprise that they would do it. They did in it in Moldova, and of course they have done it in Ukraine.

Even today, German prices are being affected by what Russia decides is appropriate. Germany has told us privately that they are willing to shut down the pipeline if Russia invades Ukraine, but they should say so publicly and clearly.

I am also concerned about Germany's resistance to approving arms sales to Ukraine. Again, Ukraine just wants the help to be able to defend itself. A great example of this is some artillery pieces that were made in East Germany decades ago. Those artillery pieces, those howitzers, are now in the hands of the Estonians. The Estonians want to provide these weapons to the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians want them. Even though they are older howitzers, they need them. They need the artillery. And yet, because they were made in Germany--in East Germany--decades ago, under the licensing agreement, Germany has to approve Estonia sending Ukraine these weapons they so desperately need. That approval has not been forthcoming.

To me, this is outrageous that Ukraine is not receiving the weapons it needs because another country that is part of the NATO alliance is saying that they are not going to approve the transfer. I hope that will change. I hope very soon we will see that transfer approved.

Germany, by the way, might say--as I have heard from some, and I have had conversations about this with them--that they don't like to send weapons into hot spots. Well, they are certainly happy to send weapons into the Middle East. In fact, last year, as I understand it, it was their largest year ever of exports of military weapons made in Germany to other countries, including to countries like Egypt, as an example.

So we need to be sure that we are doing all we can to avoid Russia making this terrible mistake. And a big part of this should be all the countries in the region, certainly our NATO allies, standing up and providing military assistance to Ukraine and making clear that if something happens, that the consequences will be devastating because of sanctions.

The cost of freedom in Eastern Europe is at stake here, but so is, really, the stability of all of Europe. The Ukrainian officials themselves have talked about this. The Foreign Minister, Foreign Minister Kuleba, whom I met with recently in Ukraine, stated that Germany is taking a stance that ``does not correspond with the level of our relations and the current security situation.''

I agree.

People listening may be wondering: Why should the United States get engaged here? Why is this Senator from Ohio passionate about this?

Well, first, in Ohio, we have a lot of Ukrainians I have gotten to know over the years, and it is not just about the Ukrainian Americans in Ohio; it is about people from all over that part of the world-- Central Europe, Eastern Europe, certainly the Baltics, Lithuania, Latvia. The people whom I talk to tell me that this is, again, a seminal moment, not just in the history of Ukraine, but in the history of our world because, again, it is the fight for freedom being played out right before our eyes. These nationality groups, including, of course, the Ukrainian Americans, are deeply concerned that this continued aggression unchecked will lead to other countries, including the Baltics, including Poland and others, being subject to the same kind of pressure from Russia.

But it is also because I believe what happens in Ukraine does affect the cause of freedom more broadly. Countries all over the world are watching. Authoritarian countries are watching. Democratically elected countries are watching. And they are wondering, in the 21st century, are we going to allow something like this to occur, when one country looks to another and says that I want that country so I am going to invade and take that land?

Again, until we had the invasion of Crimea only 8 years ago, this hadn't happened in almost 80 years since World War II on the continent of Europe.

This is something that countries are watching to get a message to see whether the United States is going to continue to be the country that joins with others, including our NATO alliance but a much broader group of freedom-loving countries to stand up for the cause of freedom and to stand up for the right of a sovereign country to be able to protect its own borders.

I recently joined a bipartisan delegation led by me and my good friend Senator Jeanne Shaheen. Senator Murphy, who is on the floor tonight, was also with us. We personally met with President Zelensky. We also met with four or five other Cabinet officials, including the Secretary of Defense. We talked about the U.S. commitment to provide military assistance to ensure Ukraine can defend itself and deter the threat. If you talk to these individuals and you talk to the military officials we talked to and the commanders--and I have also been to the line of contact, where this hot water is going on with Russia even today in the Donbas region. I have been there. I have talked to the troops. You will see that there is a commitment, a strong commitment by the Ukrainians to defend themselves. They get that this is a critical time in their history.

We tried to send a clear message on a bipartisan basis. I believe we did. I believe that this time--this time--unlike 2014, when, frankly, Ukraine and the world wasn't ready, that the situation is very different. The military is prepared. The people of Ukraine have a strong sense of nationalism and a deep patriotism and they will fight and this will be a bloody conflict that we all want to avoid.

The other thing I will say about Ukraine is they are our friends. They are our allies. They share our values. When the United States was looking for help in Iraq and Afghanistan, some NATO partners came through, but so did Ukraine. Ukrainian troops were shoulder to shoulder with American troops during some very tough situations in those countries. These are our friends. This is a country that has allied with us because they believe that that is the best future for the Ukrainian people.

It is time for us to stand with them in response to this unwarranted and unprovoked Russian aggression. My hope is that Congress will act on a bipartisan and bicameral basis--the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats--and send a strong message to Russia that would avoid a bloody conflict, deter them from taking the

actions that they are contemplating and making a terrible mistake, but also that we would send a strong message to the people of Ukraine to give them strength during this time, and, finally, a message to the global community that the lamp of freedom will not be extinguished.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was asked recently what I think is the No. 1 issue facing America. It is a tough question, and I have had a lot of issues race through my mind: inflation, the debt, workforce issues, the crisis at our southern border, the explosion of COVID cases, the deadly opioid epidemic, a warming planet, Russia and China flexing their muscles and creating more volatility around the world. We have got plenty of challenges, don't we? But do you know what I landed on, what I think is our biggest problem? It is the increasing division--even polarization--of our politics and our country. It is what makes it so hard to address all of those other issues that I named that are so important to the families whom we represent.

Last week, on the Senate floor, my Democratic colleague from Arizona, Senator Sinema, called it a disease of division. Well put. When we are together, this country can achieve great things and has over the years. It can provide a beacon of hope to a troubled world, but as Lincoln warned, ``a house divided against itself cannot stand.'' In this body, we should be figuring out how to come together to help America stand-- and stand strong--to address our many challenges.

That is why I am so discouraged about what I see playing out on the U.S. Senate floor again this week. I have seen an attempt by Democratic leadership to fan the flames of distrust. I see an attempt to further divide an already splintered country, both by exaggerated arguments being made to advance controversial legislation opposed by every single Republican regarding the tough issue of voting and then to try to achieve this purely partisan objective by changing a foundation of the Senate to dismantle the one Senate rule--the legislative filibuster-- that works to bring us together rather than pull us apart.

Equally troubling to me is that this seems to be a purely political exercise now in that the conclusion seems predetermined. Apparently, the Senate is being dragged through this divisive and ugly partisan debate, knowing that it will not achieve a legislative result but only a deepening and hardening of the political lines in each camp.

Here in the Senate, most Republicans and most Democrats say they want to bring the country together. I think they are sincere about that. This message was an explicit part of President Biden's campaign for President. Yet there is nothing about the harsh, partisan rhetoric from the President's speech on this topic in Atlanta last week or from much of the floor debate this week and last week that does anything but push our country further apart.

First is the substance of the legislative fight. Democrats have been highly critical of those Republicans who refuse to accept the results of the 2020 election, pointing out accurately that dozens of lawsuits failed to show adequate fraud to change the result. They have attacked some Republicans because they have said that the election was rigged and for questioning the State-by-State certification process that has led to deeper rifts in our Nation and a significant number of Republican voters questioning the legitimacy of the election. I get that.

So why now are Democratic leaders and President Biden using the exact same language, literally saying the elections are rigged--literally saying that? Why are they perpetrating their own election narrative that does not fit the facts but serves to push both sides deeper into their own camps and, in particular, now leads Democrats to think that elections are illegitimate?

Majority Leader Schumer claims ``Republicans are pushing voter suppression and election nullification laws.''

President Biden has compared State efforts to tighten up election administration to Jim Crow laws. He has compared Republicans to notorious racists in our history. These attacks are overwrought, exaggerated, and deeply divisive.

Here is what the nonpartisan and respected group called No Labels has said about the Democratic attacks:

If you dig into these [state legislative] proposals you

find most entail tightening up procedures pertaining to

registration, mail-in absentee voting and Voter ID [laws]

that were loosened in 2020 in the name of making it safer for

people to vote amid the COVID pandemic. Many leading

Democrats and liberal commentators have taken to describing

these measures as Jim Crow 2.0, which is to say they are

somehow worse than the original Jim Crow era, which entailed

poll taxes and literacy tests, violent intimidation of Black

voters by the KKK, and even outright prohibition on Black

voters participating in party primaries in southern States.

To suggest that any voting measures being debated today in

America are somehow worse than this is simply irresponsible

demagoguery.

That comes from No Labels, which is a nonpartisan group, Democrats and Republicans, trying to find that middle ground.

Now, to be fair, this group has been critical of Republican claims of widespread election fraud that cannot be backed up. So what are the actual facts?

First, the Constitution guarantees all citizens 18 years of age or older the

right to vote in elections regardless of race or gender--period.

The Federal Voting Rights Act reaffirms that right and makes it enforceable in Federal court. In 2006, Congress voted in a bipartisan way to reauthorize this important law for 25 years, through 2031. I voted for and strongly support the Voting Rights Act and have long supported other commonsense efforts to increase voter confidence in our elections.

In fact, there is a bipartisan effort underway right now to deal with a real problem: to ensure that after the fact, certified elections are respected. This will require making overdue reforms to the Electoral Count Act and some other reasonable updates to Federal election procedures. I am happy to be working with a small group of Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans on those efforts. That is how the system should work. We are not going to agree on everything, but we can sit down and talk and find common ground to address problems.

What Republicans and most Americans don't support is an unprecedented Federal takeover of our election system, which is what the overly broad party-line bills proposed this week by the Democrats will do.

Let me be clear. Despite what Democratic leaders are saying to jam these bills through Congress, our democracy is not, as they say, in crisis because it is too hard to vote. We just had a national election in 2020 with the highest voter turnout in 120 years. Ninety-four percent of voters said it was easy for them to vote. This is according to the Pew Research Center--94 percent. That is good.

Some have said drastic changes are needed at the Federal level because the States are now enacting voter restrictions. Some point to the liberal Brennan Center, which reports that 19 States have enacted laws which it characterizes as restricting the right to vote. As noted above--again, by the nonpartisan No Labels group--when you really look at these laws, the truth is that they largely make modest changes in election law administration, such as the date that voters may apply for mail-in ballots or ensuring voters are who they say they are through voter ID and other signature requirements--something, by the way, the vast majority of Americans support.

Some of the laws return to State practices closer to the status quo before the pandemic. As an example, some laws reduced the number of ballot drop boxes in cases where there were no ballot drop boxes before COVID. And many of the States the Democrats criticize for improving their elections process are enacting laws similar to those that have long been in place in States represented by Democrats, so-called blue States.

For example, under its new law, Georgia has a limit of 17 days of in- person early voting, 17 days. New Jersey and New York have 9 days of in-person voting. Connecticut doesn't have any early voting. Georgia has also added one extra Saturday of early voting. Georgia's new requirement that voters provide their driver's license or State ID numbers when applying for mail-in ballots, which Democrats have criticized, is the same as laws in Maryland and Pennsylvania. Rhode Island enacted a voter ID law a decade ago. And with regard to President Biden's home State, The Atlantic has noted that ``few states have more limited voting options than Delaware.''

I, frankly, have not heard Democratic leadership calling out any of these Democrat-majority States for pushing what they deem to be voter suppression.

I don't know anyone who doesn't believe it should be easy to vote and hard to cheat. Every State has to find that balance, but they have to find it while not violating the Voting Rights Act.

I don't agree with every policy every State has in place. I find some too restrictive. As an example, I support no-fault absentee voting, as we do in Ohio. It works well. You don't have to have a reason; you can vote absentee. I would like to see every mailbox, in a sense, be a ballot box, in essence. I find that some of the laws in some of the States lack adequate security, on the other hand. For example, I think some form of ID is smart, as do the vast majority of Americans.

But in our Federal system, within the guardrails of the Voting Rights Act and consistent with the Constitution, that decision is left up to State legislators, closer to the people and accountable to the voters. That is just a fundamental philosophical difference we have here on the Senate floor. We see it play out on lots of issues and now on this one.

I am very proud of the job that my State of Ohio and our bipartisan election officials in every county do in our elections. In the last election, we had a record 5.97 million Ohioans cast a vote--more voters than ever. It represented 74 percent of eligible voters in our State, the second highest percentage in the history of Ohio. Despite the challenges of running the highest turnout election in our State's history, during an unprecedented pandemic, it was widely regarded as the most secure and most successful Ohio election ever.

Now is not the time to take the responsibility away from Ohio State and local officials. Article I, section 4 of the Constitution clearly assigns that authority over elections to the States. Alexander Hamilton acknowledged in Federalist 59 that only in extraordinary circumstances should the Federal Government become involved in election law, explaining that allowing the Federal Government to run elections would have been a ``premeditated engine for the destruction of State governments.''

We are not in extraordinary circumstances right now. In general, it has become easier and easier to vote in America, and that is a good thing. And it has become easier to vote in America than many other democracies around the world, and that is good too--easy to vote, hard to cheat.

Despite all the fiery speeches on the floor stating the contrary over the past week, according to a recent survey from Morning Consult, only 33 percent of American adults think it is too hard for eligible voters to vote. A larger share--44 percent--actually think current rules aren't strict enough. Having heard the debate, this is what voters think.

Not only are Democrats attempting a Federal takeover of our election system, but because they have chosen to change the constitutionally based election system in a purely partisan way, they don't have the 60 votes necessary to get something passed here in the U.S. Senate. That is why instead of reaching out to find a bipartisan way forward, they are also proposing to fundamentally change the longstanding rules of the Senate. Specifically, they are proposing to do away with what is called the legislative filibuster in order to advance their Federal election takeover bills by a simple majority instead of the normal 60 votes.

This 60-vote margin, the legislative filibuster, is the one tool left to encourage bipartisanship not just here in the Senate but in our system, in the House and at the White House. Yes, it provides important minority rights in the Senate that protect the country from legislation that is too far out of the mainstream, and it helps pass good legislation, like Medicare or Social Security with big votes, big margins, that mean those programs can be sustained, and they can be relied upon. That is good for our country.

Most importantly to me, the legislative filibuster is the one thing that encourages us to work in a bipartisan way. The successful passage of the bipartisan infrastructure law last year is a good example. I was in the middle of those negotiations. We knew we had to achieve 60 votes in a 50-50 Senate. What did that mean? That meant that we had to find common ground. We had to make concessions on both sides in order to get to 60 votes. As a result, we got well over 60--into the seventies--and a good piece of legislation was able to pass the House and be signed into law and is now in place, again, as sustainable, reliable legislation.

Did I agree with everything in it? No, nor did anybody else. But to get to those 60 votes, we all had to make certain concessions.

Although it is a Senate rule, the legislative filibuster also requires Members of the House of Representatives to come up with more bipartisan solutions because they know their legislation has to pass the Senate if they want it to become law. Just as I have been a committed, bipartisan legislator here in the Senate for the past 11 years, the same was true in the House

for 12 years, where I regularly used the fact that we needed 60 votes in the Senate to force colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together and find a way to pass legislation in a bipartisan manner. When I was in the executive branch in two Cabinet-level jobs in the Bush 43 administration and as Director of the Office of Legislative Affairs for Bush 41, that 60-vote necessity in the Senate calmed the passions within the administration and forced us to find common ground to work in a more bipartisan manner, resulting in more effective results that last the test of time. I know the benefits to our country of requiring more than a bare Senate majority that shifts back and forth because I have lived it in the House, in the Senate, and in the White House.

And it is not just me or other Republicans now saying that the legislative filibuster is good for our Federal system. Less than 5 years ago, 32 Senate Democrats, including then-Senator and now-Vice President Kamala Harris, joined with me and other Republicans in signing an open letter insisting the legislative filibuster should not change. This was at a time when there was a Democrat in the White House, but Republicans controlled the Senate. It appears that those 32 Democrats were happy to defend the filibuster as good for the country when they were in the minority but not now when the country is even further divided, and they have a majority. All but a couple of those Members have shifted their views.

I would encourage my Democratic colleagues to reread their own letter, which makes such a compelling case that this is about the country, not about one political party or another.

Back in 2005, Senator Schumer called abolishing the filibuster ``a temper tantrum by those on the hard, hard right'' who ``want . . . their way every single time.'' That was in 2005. Now he is majority leader, and he has changed his tune.

This seems shortsighted to me, since the history of the Senate is to change the majority regularly. We don't know who is going to be in the majority in the next Senate.

Could the Senate rules be improved to allow more debate and more progress on legislation? Absolutely. There is bipartisan interest in this, and we should turn it to something constructive. After this political exercise we are going through right now, we should turn to the issue of reforming the rules around here. Let's have each leader choose a few interested Members. Let's hammer out a bipartisan proposal that allows more amendments and makes it easier to get legislation passed. It is not that hard. But eliminating the one tool that forces us to come together makes it harder to address those many challenges we face. It makes it harder to pass legislation, broadly supported and sustainable, to actually help the people we represent. That is what we were elected to do. That is our job--not inflame the passions of our most committed and hard-line supporters but achieve results. And as I said at the outset, between inflation, and COVID, our southern border, and more, we have got plenty to do.

I urge my Democratic colleagues to step back from the brink, to think twice before trying to destroy what has made the U.S. Senate such a unique and valuable part of the world's longest lasting and most successful democracy. And I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support sensible rules changes and recommit to use the 60-vote margin responsibly to generate consensus and find that elusive common ground that will best serve those we represent and that will keep our great Republic the envy of the world.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor an exceptional American and an exceptional member of the U.S. Capitol Police Force, Officer Roderick Jennings. Officer Jennings is retiring from the U.S. Capitol Police on December 28, 2021, after 31 years of service, and today, I wanted to take a moment to honor his years of service to the U.S. Capitol Police and to our country.

While he has served in many roles during his tenure, Officer Jennings most recently has been assigned to the U.S. Capitol Police Senate Division. I would often see him stationed in the basement of the Russell Senate Office Building, as well as other locations throughout the Senate complex. Whenever I saw Officer Jennings, he was always friendly and consistently maintained a sense of utmost professionalism. I always enjoyed seeing him throughout my day, and I know other members and staff feel the same. The Senate community will miss Officer Jennings.

We must do everything we can to support and honor our law enforcement officers for what they do for us each and every day. The Capitol Police make tremendous sacrifices and put their lives on the line for us, and for that, we owe them a debt of gratitude. Officer Jennings showed an unwavering commitment to keeping others safe, and these halls undoubtedly remained safer because of his service and the entire Capitol Police force. Officer Jennings represents everything that is great about our country, and we are all better off for his selfless sense of duty and his tireless commitment to our safety. I thank Officer Jennings for his

years of service, and I wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. President, first of all, it is great to be on the floor with my friend Jeanne Shaheen and talk about something positive, something that we have been able to accomplish over the years--as she said, we have been at this over a decade--which is to encourage more energy efficiency. This is the ability for us to save energy by not using it. It is, therefore, sort of energy found. It is also an ability to improve the economy because it creates more jobs and makes us more competitive globally by having lower energy costs.

Think about the businesses in your State. The competitive nature of business today is that you are really competing with the Europeans and the Japanese and the Chinese and so on, and if you have higher energy costs and you are not energy efficient, you are not going to be competitive.

But if you are competitive, it adds jobs and makes the economy stronger. So the way I look at it, if you are interested in lower emissions and a better environment and, at the same time, you are interested in a better economy and creating jobs, then energy efficiency is the low-hanging fruit. That is the thing we can all agree with.

I applaud Senator Shaheen because she has been patient. We have both been patient, as our staffs have been, over the years, in getting pieces of our legislation in various bills that have passed this U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives and been signed into law by President Obama, President Trump, and now President Biden.

The most recent one was the infrastructure bill, and it is exciting what we were able to get in there in terms of encouraging a better, more sustainable use of our energy resources in both the public sector and in the private sector.

Importantly, energy efficiency is also a part of a more reliable and resilient grid, which was part of our legislation: improving the electrical grid.

We have had some pretty severe weather events over the last year, as you know. I was just in Kentucky over the weekend, my neighboring State, helping out on the cleanup there. And, boy, electricity was out everywhere.

By improving energy efficiency, we can reduce demand, taking pressure off our power grids, and help create more stability.

These are some of the reasons why, since 2011, we have worked together to promote this energy efficiency bill called the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act. Senator Shaheen called it Portman-Shaheen. I call it Shaheen-Portman because she is in charge now. The Senate is in the Democrats' majority, not ours. But we have worked together seamlessly. It has really been nonpartisan.

And, again, our goal has been, really, three different areas. One is residential and commercial buildings, because that is where we use a lot of energy. About 40 percent of the energy used in this country is used there.

Also, to ensure that the Federal Government does a better job. The Federal Government uses more energy than any other entity in the entire economy. By the way, it uses more energy than anybody in the world. And they don't do it very efficiently. In fact, there is a lot of energy inefficiency in our Federal Government.

So practice what you preach, right? So you have the government telling everybody else they have got to be green, but the government itself is not green. So our legislation requires that the Federal Government take steps to make it more energy efficient as well.

And then, finally, the manufacturing sector. Here is where there is a great opportunity, and manufacturers are really excited about it because we can provide some incentives, some best practices, and so on to make them more competitive globally by improving their energy efficiency.

We have created a big tent through this process, joining forces with our colleagues over the years for the purpose of supporting these kind of commonsense energy efficiency measures. A number of Senators who have had important parts of our legislation include Senator Wicker, Senator Bennet, Senator Collins, Senator Manchin, Senator Hoeven, and others--Senator Murkowski.

Our legislation has been voted on by this body before. In 2016, it passed the U.S. Senate. It also passed out of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee five separate times with bipartisan support.

By the way, in 2016, the vote was 85 to 12. Now, it was part of a larger energy package, but that was a pretty strong sign of bipartisan support for this. And it improved energy efficiency, in that case, in leased office space and improved energy savings from water heaters, as an example.

However, we have long recognized we need to do more to be able to save energy and save money. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, residential and commercial buildings accounted for 40 percent of total energy consumption. In addition, reports from the U.S. Department of Energy have found that the Federal Government, again, is the single largest energy consumer in the country. And those studies have shown that our legislation as a whole would save consumers $51 billion on energy bills, reduce carbon emissions by 1.3 billion tons-- not by hurting jobs--by creating more jobs because it would add more than 100,000 jobs to the economy.

Over the years, our legislation has gained the support of industry, such as the National Association of Manufacturers, American Chemistry Council, and U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It has the support of commercial and real estate developers like BOMA and the Real Estate Roundtable, as well as from efficiency advocates and the environmental community like the Alliance to Save Energy, called ACEEE.

There is not a lot in Washington these days that has such a broad group of stakeholders supporting it. But there is a reason this legislation has received such broad support. It reduces emissions by reducing energy consumption. It also creates new jobs and lowers energy bills for consumers. And it does all this without putting any new mandates on the private sector. Particularly now, at a time of record inflation and rising energy costs, investing and improving energy efficiency is a smart way to help support hard-working families in Ohio and around the country.

The good news is that now, with the bipartisan infrastructure bill signed into law, we are much closer to seeing the benefits for the American people become a reality. The infrastructure bill, which we coauthored along with a bunch of our colleagues, included a total of $2.5 billion for various energy efficiency projects. Included in these critical investments are a number of our provisions from Shaheen- Portman.

For example, we were able to include and fund programs to help incentivize contractors, homebuilders, and others to adapt and implement updated building codes. We were also able to fund programs that will help career skills development to help us train a workforce able to develop and install important new energy efficiency technologies. That has been one of our challenges.

For example, we include funding to enhance the Industrial Assessment Centers Program at the Department of Energy. This program allows students from around the country to conduct

energy assessments and small- and medium-sized manufacturers to improve their competitiveness, reduce waste, save energy, while at the same time training students in the field.

By the way, it is these kinds of small changes and upgrades that can result in big emissions and cost savings for businesses all around the country. So I am truly proud of what we have accomplished, including the infrastructure bill most recently.

Again, I want to thank my colleague Senator Shaheen for her tireless work to get this legislation across the finish line--again, energy efficiency, the low-hanging fruit. I look forward to continuing our partnership on these important issues.

Mr. President, first, I want to offer my congratulations to Bryn Stewart.

That was a beautiful speech about the public service that he has contributed to Wyoming and to the U.S. Senate. I thank my colleague from Wyoming for that.

Kentucky

Mr. President, I also want to say that over the weekend, I had the opportunity to travel to Kentucky.

I live in Ohio so Kentucky is our neighboring State. I went down to help some of our neighbors get back on their feet after these devastating tornadoes. It was very emotional, partly, obviously, seeing people's lives just be devastated--houses ruined and family heirlooms lost and, unfortunately, some loss of life--as the tornado hit some of the residential areas in Western Kentucky, but also another emotion, which is gratitude for the people who came forward as volunteers to help, neighbor helping neighbor.

As always happens when you have one of these natural disasters, the only silver lining is that people do come together in providing water and food and help getting people out of their homes through urban search and rescue teams, like Ohio Task Force One, that went down to Kentucky chain-sawing trees down so that people can get their cars out and try to repair some of the damage, get their lives back together.

It was a terrible thing to see the devastation but also a wonderful thing to see people coming together to help one another to get through a tough time.

Inflation

Mr. President, I am on the floor today primarily to talk about the legislation that has been proposed by the Biden administration and by the Democratic leadership.

This is the 11th consecutive week that I have come to the floor to talk about this because, every week since it was introduced 11 weeks ago, I have wanted to talk about what is actually in this legislation, how it would impact our communities, how it would impact our economy.

So, today, I am here to talk a little about some of the new numbers we have in terms of inflation and how this would impact inflation and some of the new numbers that just came out since last week from the Congressional Budget Office, which is the nonpartisan group up here that analyzes these legislative efforts, and what they are saying about what the cost of this bill will be.

So I think it is worth having this conversation before Congress--the Senate and the House--votes on this massive tax bill, a massive spending bill that could fundamentally change the way our economy works and, I think, put us in a very difficult position as it relates to inflation and the economy and our debt and our deficit.

Democrats want to push this through under what is called reconciliation, which is a special procedure here in the Senate where, instead of getting the normal supermajority of 60 votes, they could do it with only 50 votes and then have a tie-breaker be the Vice President in her role as President of the Senate. So I have concerns about the substance of the legislation but also in terms of the process.

Wouldn't it be great if this could actually go through committees and the committees could vet some of these proposals? Last week, I talked about some of the tax proposals, for instance, which I think have inadvertent impacts on pensions--defined benefit plans, in particular-- inadvertent effects on businesses that aren't going to be able to write off expansions and plant equipment, which we want them to do.

Maybe some of these things are inadvertent, but it also has a change in the tax policy where it says that the State and local tax deduction would no longer be capped at $10,000. This is a Federal deduction people are able to take on their State and local taxes, but they would raise that to $80,000, that cap.

The impact of that and a couple other things in the legislation means that 70 percent of millionaires--people who make over $1 million in income a year--would get a significant tax cut under this legislation; whereas, if you only make 30,000 bucks a year, only 30 percent of those people get a tax cut.

And that is in the first year. In the second year, it goes down to about half that. And in the third year, it goes down to 10 percent and below. So it really is skewed toward providing tax relief for the wealthy at a time when, obviously, we are concerned about those people. Given the economic uncertainty, given the COVID issues, given the natural disasters, given the other issues that we face, you would want to help those who need the help the most. That is not what this legislation does.

Again, if it had gone through the process of the committees of jurisdiction--in this case, the Finance Committee, the Ways and Means Committee--I don't think we would be seeing this. All these issues are ones that could have been ironed out had it not been jammed through on this reconciliation process without any committee consideration.

So I am upset that Congress is being thwarted from doing its work, and I think, if we had, it would be a very different piece of legislation.

This plan is also going to hurt, in my view, with regard to inflation. We are looking at the highest inflation we have had in decades. I think everybody knows that now, not because they are looking at the numbers, which I will talk about in a second, but because when they go to the grocery store, they are paying a lot more for a hamburger or for milk or for bread; or when they go to fill up their car with gas, they are seeing the prices at the pump.

I filled up my pickup truck--I took it to Kentucky on the trip I just talked about--and it was almost a hundred bucks to fill it up. That is a lot for people who are on a fixed income or young people or someone who has to commute to work. That really takes a bite out of your budget. But that inflation is across our economy right now, and it is tough on people.

The work shortages that we see, the workforce shortages, the supply chain delays, the inflation--all of these things are problems in our economy right now. All of them get worse, in my view, if we do it the way the Democrats propose because, by adding more fuel to the fire, more stimulus spending--in this case, trillions of dollars--you are going to stimulate more demand in the economy. And inflation happens when demand outstrips supply. So you have a lot of demand for something, but you don't have the supply for it, and it raises inflation.

And that is exactly what many of us predicted would have happened back in March of this year when Congress did the same thing--$1.9 trillion. A lot of it was stimulus spending. And people said, ``This is going to cause inflation,'' and, sure enough, it did. It wasn't just me and other Republicans. It was some Democrats as well.

So that trend of rising inflation, which has made things so costly and expensive for so many people in my home State of Ohio, shows no sign of slowing down. Late last week, the Labor Department reported that the Consumer Price Index, or the CPI, rose by 6.8 percent over the last 12 months. That is the biggest year-to-year inflationary increase in 39 years--39 years.

And last month, the number for inflation--1 month alone--was 0.8 percent. So get on your calculator and do the math: 0.8 percent in 1 month. Do that times 12 months, and you end up with inflation of 10 percent on an annualized basis. That is just from last month, if we just extrapolate that out over the year.

Ten percent inflation? For those who lived through inflation in the late 1970s, early 1980s, you know what that does to your economy. So the notion that the Biden administration has that this is going to be temporary or transitory, that is just not true. And, by the way, the Federal Reserve has now said that is not true. It is going to be here for a while.

Although we are hearing a lot of stories these days about businesses paying higher wages to attract workers, average wages went up by 4.3 percent last year. So with all of the labor shortages and the increase in wages, wages went up 4.3 percent. Again, inflation went up 6.8 percent in the same 12-month period.

So this is why, if you are getting a raise at work and you feel pretty good about it--getting the raise--but then you go to the grocery store or go to the gas pump or buy some clothes and you don't feel so good about it, it is because your inflation is higher than your wage gain. So unless your wage gain is over 6.8 percent over the last year, on average, you are losing out. And that is a real problem.

By the way, in 2020, as we got into the COVID-19 crisis, we had a very different economy. In February of 2020, we had the 19th straight month of wage gains of 3 percent or more, and inflation was 1, 1.5 percent. So people were feeling: Hey, I am making more money, and it is not being eaten up by inflation.

That is not the case now, unfortunately. Wages are not keeping pace with these higher prices, and people are finding that their paychecks just don't go as far as they used to.

We can see by some data that just came out from a survey of consumer expectations from the New York Fed that an increasing number of people are reporting that they are struggling more financially than they did a year ago. That is from the Fed, the New York Fed. And fewer are expecting their financial situation to improve by this time next year. That is not a great feeling as we approach the holiday season. That is a real concern.

The other report we have had since I was on the floor last week is with regard to the Producer Price Index. We have talked about the Consumer Price Index. The Producer Price Index is about businesses: What are businesses seeing in terms of inflation on business-to- business purchases, for instance?

The new number out this week on that is the largest increase year over year since we started keeping track of this number, which was about 11 years ago, 12 years ago. So the Producer Price Index is also going up, and the Consumer Price Index is already up.

What this means is that that Producer Price Index number is eventually going to be reflected in higher consumer costs--right?-- because businesses are going to pass that along. So this is not a good week because we just got that data, and I was very sorry to see it because what you want to see is the Producer Price Index going down;

meaning that, in the future, the consumer prices are going to go down too. Instead, we are seeing a situation where it is likely that prices are going to keep going up.

Again, Republicans warned of this when the $1.9 trillion was spent, mostly to stimulate the economy, saying this is going to overheat the economy--more demand, less supply, partly because of COVID. In other words, COVID made it harder to get supply in. If demand goes up, you are going to have inflation. And sure enough, that is what happened.

Larry Summers is the former Secretary of the Treasury under President Obama, former Chair of the national Council of Economic Advisers. Actually, he was Treasury Secretary for President Clinton and Chair of the National Economic Council for President Obama, a respected economist. He, too, warned of this. So it is not just a partisan issue, not Republicans and Democrats. It is the reality of what is happening when you increase demand much more than supply can handle. You get inflation. So it is not a surprise that it happened. Unfortunately, his prediction came true: overheated economy, demand outstripping supply. We found ourselves in this spiral of rising prices.

That was 9 months ago. I think it is fair to say that the inflation that people said was transitory is going to stay here for a while. That is a real cause for concern.

So why are we doing this? Why are we, again, spending trillions of dollars? And what is the cost?

Something that happened since we talked last week is that the true cost of the Build Back Better plan is now being revealed by this group on the outside from the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School, by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, and by others, but now by the Congressional Budget Office itself.

So the Congressional Budget Office is the nonpartisan group up here in Congress that tells us what the fiscal impact is, what the spending impact is, what the taxing impact is, what the economic impact is of legislation.

And the number that has been cited for the cost of this Build Back Better legislation is $1.7 trillion over 10 years. That is a lot. That would make it the second most expensive bill ever passed by Congress, the first being the $1.9 trillion we talked about in March.

But it is worse than that because it turns out that even those staggeringly high costs we just talked about--$1.7 trillion--miss the mark based on the analysis that just came out. Just as prices for everyday goods and services are going up, the estimates we are seeing for the true cost of Build Back Better are increasing with every analysis we see.

These studies have shown us that because the legislation sunsets programs, if you actually assume those programs are not going to be stopped after--let's say with the child tax credit--1 year or 2 years or 3 years, but you continue it through the life of the legislation, it is going to be much more expensive.

So people tell me: Well, Rob, that is fine, but the child tax credit, as an example, only costs $185 billion--only.

And I say: Well, actually, if you take it out over time, that becomes trillions of dollars--like $1.6, $1.7 trillion.

They say: Well, we are just going to do it for 1 year.

Well, that is just not what happens here in Congress. The history of this is that once we put a program like that in place, it continues to live on year after year.

Let me give you the best example of that. You have probably heard a lot of Democrats saying over the past few weeks: We have to pass this Build Back Better legislation by the end of this year.

Why? Because the child tax credit--it is already in law based on the March legislation--is expiring. So there is a tremendous amount of pressure, right? They are saying you have to extend it.

Well, that makes our case. So you have to extend it this year? That means, I assume, you have to extend it next year and the next year and the next year and the next year.

And anybody who says that they don't want to extend it--on the other side of the aisle--I would like to hear from them because I don't think they are going to say that. And so, if you assume it is extended, then you have this huge cost. The spending is going to continue to increase, and the program is not going to sunset. The total cost of the bill goes from $1.7 trillion that we talked about to about $4.5 trillion based on the Penn Wharton study I talked about.

Under the Congressional Budget Office analysis, it actually goes even higher--even higher--to $4.9 trillion. And when you add interest on the debt, it goes actually over $5 trillion.

So it is difficult to understand these numbers we are talking about because they are so huge. You know, $4.5 trillion is $4,500 billion. We have never spent this kind of money before. I mean, if it is $5 trillion, that is the size of our budget, more or less--the whole budget for the entire country for a year, in one bill.

Now, people say: Well, it is paid for. Well, the 1.7 part, you could argue, is paid for--although we can talk about that, too, because some of the things in the pay-fors are not sustainable in my view, including, again, the impact on pension funds or the impact on being able to write off investments or the impact of the SALT issue. So there are lots of things that need to be worked out on the spending side but also on the revenue side.

So let's assume it is $1.7 trillion, but that is not going to cover it because you have these expenses--like the child tax credit--that will continue.

So I am glad that my colleague Senator Lindsey Graham, who is the ranking member of the Budget Committee, a top Republican, and Senator John Cornyn, another colleague, asked the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to do their analysis, because they showed that, without the sunset, the 10-year cost of the child tax credit goes from $185 billion to $1.6 trillion.

They also found that, in line with another study by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the revenue lost would be $1.6 trillion, either taking us further into debt by $1.6 trillion or requiring new tax hikes.

So that is just one part of the legislation. It would be the costliest expenditure by Congress in our history, but it is just one part of the legislation. The hundreds of billions in funding Democrats are proposing as an example for childcare under a new approach to childcare, which we can also talk about, the substance of that, but it is going to hurt a lot of our State the way they are doing it. But that will end up costing double the written amount over the next decade if they remain in place, for example.

So all in all, the Congressional Budget Office looked at 18 supposedly sunset social spending programs and found that they will end up costing the taxpayers nearly $3.5 trillion over the next decade when they get extended, if they do. Again, the history around here is that they would. So, you know, the price tag goes up and up and up.

When you add that spending to another program in Build Back Better, the CBO says the total spending in the legislation, again, goes to $4.9 trillion; $4.9 trillion is bigger than the economy of any country in the world, with the exception of the U.S., China, and Japan.

Again, these numbers are just astronomical. But think about that. It is bigger than the entire economy, the entire GDP of any country in the world except for the three of us: the United States, China, and Japan.

We are seeing record debts and record deficits right now, as you know. The Congressional Budget Office says that the American people can expect Build Back Better, if the sunsets don't hold, to add another $3 trillion to the Federal deficit.

So if we continue to debate this in Congress, which way should we go, we just ought to know these numbers. We ought to analyze them. And again, if people on the other side of the aisle are going to say we don't want to have the child tax credit be extended, we need to know that. But my sense is, just as they want to extend it right now, they will want to extend it next year and the next year and the next year.

So is this the right time to do that? Is this the right time to add that kind of stimulus to an economy that already is overstimulated, where you have more demand chasing not enough supply, do you want to add more to the demand side? That is what is going to happen if we pass this.

I hope that we will not make that mistake, and I hope that we will slow

down and look at these numbers and analyze where we are in terms of our spending. We just extended the debt limit. No Republican voted for it, but all the Democrats voted for it, and that is all they needed to be able to extend the debt limit because it was under a special 50-vote margin. That debt limit was just extended for basically 1 year. So after the elections next year, $2.5 trillion more debt. We had to make room for $2.5 trillion more debt, in 1 year.

It is clear that a lot of Americans are nervous about that. When you look at the polling data, it says that. But just talking to people-- over the weekend, I was also in southeast Ohio, part of our State that is very rural, a lot of people are hurting in terms of the economy because they don't have access to broadband and so on. So we are talking about how they feel about the economy, and there is a lot of nervousness. They feel the surging inflation. They are paying more for everything.

And, you know, common steps, people are saying, Let's just slow down and think about this. They may end up thinking at the end of the day they are for some of this, but they don't want to move forward precipitously and make a mistake and have this add more inflation and more problems for our debt and deficit for our kids and grandkids. They are saying, Let's do the right thing for the country and put the brakes on this.

And if we do put the brakes on this unprecedented spending and taxing, it will help us to avoid some of these economic challenges that we otherwise are going to be facing. If we go ahead with it, it is going to make the economic challenges like inflation even worse.

My hope is that we will put the brakes on, and these economic challenges will not worsen, and instead, we can get the country back on the right track.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I appreciate the comments of my colleague from Indiana. What he didn't have under that Christmas tree or in the stocking was a lump of coal because I guess a lump of coal is not something we would find in Build Back Better. Even though there is a lot of stuff in there that is really bad for our economy right now, bad for our families, bad for our workers. And when you think about it, right now, we are in a time of high inflation, supply chain difficulties, record levels of debt and deficit, and an uncertain economy due largely to the uncertainty regarding COVID and particularly this variant, the Omicron.

So this is not a time for us to be putting forward a massive new spending bill and a massive new tax increase on the American economy. In fact, it is the time for us to retrench a little bit and try to help to get back to where we were before COVID-19.

Remember, that was the time when after the 2017 tax reforms, we had a great economy, by any measure. And it was an opportunity time. It was the lowest poverty rate in the history of our country since we started keeping track in the 1950s.

As of February, just before going into the COVID-19 period, February 2020, we had 19 straight months of wage gain of over 3 percent. By the way, that was over inflation because inflation was so low. So people were feeling it. They were actually getting a wage increase. In my State of Ohio, that was the first time in probably a decade and a half.

Now, it is just the opposite. Wages are actually down when you take inflation into account. And inflation is high, as everyone feared because we have dumped so much on the demand side of the economy, and the supply side is restricted, in part, because of what has happened with COVID, and it creates this inflation. This was warned by not just Republicans like myself, but back in March, when President Biden and the Democrats put $1.9 trillion into this economy--the most ever, the biggest bill ever--it was Larry Summers, former Secretary of the Treasury under President Clinton, and NEC, National Economic Council, Chair under President Obama, who said: You know, this is going to stoke inflation. It is going to overheat the economy.

And that is exactly what it did.

So we have this high inflation. We have these record levels of debt and deficit. We are talking about extending the debt limit right now, and people think the number is going to be--just to extend it for about a year--over $2 trillion; meaning that we are spending so much more than we are taking in. And yet there is this discussion that somehow before Christmas we are going to put forward this Build Back Better legislation that we just talked about.

It is not building back America better. Unfortunately, it is building us worse off than we were and adding to inflation, adding to the supply chain difficulties, adding to the debt and deficits at record levels, and certainly doing nothing with regard to COVID-19.

So why would we do this? And certainly why would we do this now? It makes no sense. Well, because I guess there was a promise made that we are going to have this massive new spending and these massive new tax increases.

What is in there? Well, on the spending side, when you look at it, it is the largest spending bill ever put forward by the U.S. Congress, unless you believe that it is really only $1.7 trillion instead of two or three times that. In that case, it is the second biggest ever. But the analyses I have seen from the Penn Wharton study, from the Committee for a Responsible Budget, and from others said: You know, there are a lot of sunsets in there.

As an example, the child tax credit lasts for 1 year. Does anybody believe it only lasts for 1 year? That wouldn't be the history of this place. So it will continue.

So these sunsets are not going to be effective so the spending will continue to increase. The tax increases don't cover them so there will be a big gap accrued to the deficit, and the projections are it is more like $4\1/2\ trillion in spending. So it is the largest increase in the history of our country by far.

We are talking about doing this, again, at a time when already we have record levels of debt and deficit and high inflation and driven by COVID, a lot of uncertainty in our economy.

On the tax side, I could argue it is even worse because the tax increases are going to be hard on workers because they are taxes on businesses. What the Joint Committee on Taxation says--which is the nonpartisan group here in Congress that advises us--what CBO says, the Congressional Budget Office says, what other outside groups say is the same thing, which is when you tax these businesses, who gets taxed? Well, it is workers--lower wages, lower benefits.

Seventy percent of the benefit of our tax cuts in 2017 went to workers, and 70 percent of this increase in taxes will be coming out of workers' pockets. So it is a bad idea. But let's look a little deeper at what these taxes actually are. There is a 15-percent minimum tax--a new alternative minimum tax, which is always complicated for everybody to figure out what that is. But in this case, it is called the book tax.

Now, I don't know if this was on purpose or not. I assume it wasn't. But the book tax, as you apply it to our economy, will result in real damage to things that most people think are important like defined benefit plans, pension plans. Democrats and Republicans alike have supported defined benefit plans. I support them. Unfortunately, there aren't as many as there used to be. But there will be even fewer if this passes. Why? Because when you calculate your taxes under the book tax, you now have to take into account whatever your asset increase is in your pension. And if you are one of these companies caught up in this, you could well find yourself in a situation where, for the first time ever, you get no deduction for your contribution to your pension. Why would we do that? And then you are taxed on the asset increase, which may be caused by higher interest rates, may be caused by the market going up, but you get no benefit in your company, and your profits in your company may not be enough to pay those taxes.

Here is an example of this. There are some companies that have figured out this problem. By the way, there are some unions figuring it out, too, because a lot of union workers are caught up in this as well because they have defined benefit plans, typically. The company is saying: OK. If I make $100 million in profit and if I have a $2 billion or $1 billion increase in my pension assets and you apply a 15-percent tax to that, I am not going to have enough money to pay my taxes.

So what are they going to do? Well, they could declare bankruptcy. They could get a loan, which again hurts workers. So that, I hope, is an inadvertent part of this, but that is in this legislation.

Why do we want to hurt defined benefit plans?

I think it was an effort to say: OK. We are going to raise taxes, but we are going to do it in a sort of convoluted way so that it doesn't look like we are really raising taxes. But it is real taxes, and it is going to hurt, again, workers in America.

Another thing it would disqualify companies from doing is taking what is called bonus depreciation. All of us, I thought, were kind of supportive of that.

In 2017, that tax bill, this put in place where you can immediately write off expansion of plant equipment. Retailers love it, restaurants love it, and so do manufacturers. And they use it a lot. And those manufacturers are telling me: OK. Now, under the book tax, you have to go back to the regular depreciation so you are not writing things off that first year as you can now under bonus depreciation. Why would you want to do that right now, again, with all the economic uncertainty out there, with COVID, with inflation fears? We want to encourage people to expand plant equipment, and there are a lot of people hesitating. That is in this legislation.

Now let's talk quickly about the SALT provisions. We already know what that is because it has gotten a lot of play. But the State and local tax deduction means that in States like mine, Ohio, we are subsidizing high-tax States. So if you are from Missouri--Senator Blunt is here on the floor--or if you are from Ohio, by having a deduction for your State and local taxes at the Federal level, you are not only encouraging those States to continue to have high taxes and even have further taxes if you are being subsidized by Federal taxpayers, but it is unfair to those States that have done the responsible thing to try to keep taxes under control.

But in this legislation, Democrats say: No, we are going to increase this cap from 10,000 to 80,000 bucks a year; in other words, provide more help to the SALT beneficiaries. Guess what. There is an analysis out this week that says almost none of that benefit goes to Americans who are not in the top 10 percent of wage earners. Almost none of that benefit that is in this bill goes to people not in the top 10 percent. There is $285 billion devoted to this--$100 billion more than is devoted to the cornerstone social safety net program, the childcare credit in this bill. Over $100 billion more for this.

So how does this all shake out in terms of whom it is helping and whom it is hurting?

Well, here are what the numbers are. This is, again, the Joint Tax Committee, folks who are nonpartisan, looking at this. Almost 70 percent--almost 70 percent--of people who make $1 million or more a year are going to get a significant tax cut because of this legislation.

Think about that. It is about 68 percent-plus are going to get a significant tax cut if you make a million bucks a year. If you are a millionaire, you are going to do very well.

If you make between $500,000 and a million bucks a year, 90 percent will get a tax cut under this legislation.

But if you make $30,000 a year--only 30,000--only 30 percent of people who make $30,000 a year are going to get tax relief under this legislation, and that is just in the first year.

In the second year, it goes down below 30 percent to 12 percent; in the third year, 10 percent; and then it goes down to single digits. So the benefit is heavily skewed toward higher income Americans. Why would we do that? It just makes no sense. Are we worried about millionaires? But that is in this legislation.

So, again, I would say, Build Back Better? I don't think so. We were building pretty well when we had the lowest poverty rate in the history of our country, when we had the lowest unemployment rate ever for Blacks, Hispanics, the disabled, when we had 50-year lows in unemployment overall in our economy, when we had a situation where wages were going up--again, 19 straight months of 3 percent or more wage gains. It was real wage gains above inflation.

Let's get back to that. That is how you grow the opportunity economy. That is how you give people a chance. That is how you help everybody.

But let's not do this massive new spending bill that will cause more inflation, massive tax increases that are going to hurt the economy and hurt workers, especially coming into the holiday season. Let's instead do something that gives the American people the gifts they deserve.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to honor an exceptional member of the U.S. Air Force. I am proud to enter this tribute into the Record as I have had the pleasure of traveling with Chris to London and Ukraine and saw firsthand his professionalism, leadership, and dedication to duty.

Lt. Col. Christopher ``Chris'' Ryan has distinguished himself through his professional character and dedication by serving this Nation in uniform. A leader and expert communicator, he has provided distinguished service to our country while assigned to the Air Force Senate Liaison Office. He is an outstanding leader and the perfect airman to represent the Air Force on Capitol Hill. Chris has served in the Air Force for over 20 years in both the enlisted and officer ranks. As an aircraft maintenance officer, Chris has led thousands of maintainers in support of the AC-130H, C-17A, KC-135R, and C-5M aircraft.

Throughout his career, Chris has demonstrated his exceptional abilities; he was the 1997 Airman of the Year at Joint Base Andrews and recipient of the John Levitow Award in 2000. Chris was both distinguished graduate for the ROTC Detachment 330 at the University of Maryland-College Park and at the Advanced Maintenance and Munitions Operations School. Further, Chris was recognized as the 2019 Secretary of the Air Force, Legislative Liaison Reserve Officer of the Year. Prior to his current assignment, Chris had the privilege of being selected as an Air Force Legislative Fellow where he was detailed to the Congressional Research Service and then worked for my dear colleague, the senior Senator from Oklahoma and then-chairman of the Armed Services Committee in 2018.

As a legislative liaison in the Air Force Senate Liaison Office from December 2018 to December 2021, Lieutenant Colonel Ryan performed his duties well and without reservation supporting the 115th, 116th, and 117th U.S. Congresses. His strategic thinking and foresight helped to strengthen and improve our national security. Chris accomplished this utilizing his in-depth

Air Force knowledge with numerous engagements between Congress and the Department of the Air Force.

Chris expertly conveyed Department of the Air Force positions on the Air Force Future Design that included the future bomber, tanker, and fighter force. Chris' direct support provided the U.S. Senate critical information necessary for three National Defense Authorization Acts. His efforts helped establish the U.S. Space Force, ensure the confirmation of the 25th and 26th Air Force Secretaries, the 22nd Air Force Chief of Staff, and ensured the Department of the Air Force support of the National Defense Strategy in our return to Great Power Competition.

Lieutenant Colonel Ryan planned and led delegations for Members of Congress on visits all over the world to include the bicameral Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Reagan National Defense Forum. In fact, Chris escorted me to the United Kingdom and Ukraine in 2019. Chris' significant efforts led to successful engagements between this governing body and senior Department of Defense Officials, including the Secretary of the Air Force. All of these engagements helped U.S. Senators understand defense equities and their impact on national security. Due to his direct involvement and stewardship, Members of Congress were able to make informed decisions and ensure the Department of the Air Force was properly resourced and funded.

After serving in this vital role for the past 3 years and becoming a fixture on Capitol Hill, Lieutenant Colonel Ryan will move to his next assignment, as deputy group commander, 514th Maintenance Group, located at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. Chris, his wife Rachel--the chief of staff for the Bureau of Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance at the Department of State--and their children Joshua, Kathrine, and Emma have sacrificed much as a family in service to our Nation. I am thankful for Chris' service and his work with my office and the Senate over the past 3 years on issues important to this great Nation. I salute this American patriot whose selfless service has kept our country safe and strong.

Mr. President, I am here on the Senate floor again this evening to talk about the so-called Build Back Better legislation.

This is legislation that Democrats are trying to push through the process here on a purely partisan basis under what is called the reconciliation process.

I believe this massive tax-and-spend bill is irresponsible at a time when we

see an uncertain economy, thanks in large measure to all of the challenges we are now finding with regard to COVID, and Omicron in particular, at a time of really high inflation that is hurting my constituents and everybody's constituents in this Chamber, and at a time of record levels of debt. Certainly, this is not a time for us to put out another piece of legislation that spends dramatically more money and also has big tax increases on the economy.

This is the 10th consecutive week while Congress has been in session that I have come to the floor to talk about reasons I believe this legislation is bad for America.

As we have talked about before, this massive new spending bill represents the largest amount of spending of any legislation ever passed by the U.S. Congress. This is a big deal.

Now, some would say: Well, the official score is only $1.7 trillion so it is the second largest because the first largest would be the $1.9 trillion that was already spent earlier this year. That is fine. You can say that, but what sets this legislation apart, as a number of analysts have shown us, including the Penn Wharton study, is that a lot of the spending in this bill, the costs of the bill, have sunsets. So it camouflages the full cost of the bill.

I will give you an example of one of the major spending priorities that is going to end up costing a lot more than estimates say. The enhanced child tax credit from the March spending bill is extended for 1 year in this legislation, which means that after next year, this new benefit people have come to expect would be cut off.

Based on the history here in Congress, that is not how it operates. Benefits like this are not ended. So if it doesn't end, and these programs ended up not being sunset, Penn Wharton estimates that the total spending on this bill goes from around 1.75 trillion to about $4\1/2\ trillion. Wow. More than double the largest spending bill ever considered by the U.S. Congress.

At a time of record debts and deficits, my hope would be that Democrats and the Biden administration have come up with a responsible way to pay for this multitrillion-dollar reconciliation package.

Unfortunately, some of us have been arguing for months that this legislation is about as far as responsibly paid for as you can get. One of the primary sources of proposed revenue is a series of tax hikes that, despite what Democrats might say, hits the middle class, hits families in the middle class, hits small businesses the hardest.

As an example, the proposed Medicare surcharge on active investment income is going to hit millions of small businesses that structured themselves as passthroughs with a new, across-the-board, 3.8-percent increase on all income.

Proposed corporate tax increases will hit American workers based on the analysis of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation. They say that when you increase the taxes on businesses, the main impact is to increase taxes on workers.

Why? Because wages and benefits are reduced because of it. Costs will be passed down to working families. This means higher prices for everything.

What is even worse is that, while the worker making 20, 40, 60,000 bucks a year is getting hit hard having to pay more because of inflation for gas, groceries, and clothes, at the same time, wealthy Americans, under this legislation, would get a tax break worth hundreds of millions of dollars, thanks to the Democrats' insistence on raising the cap on what is called the SALT, the State and local tax, deduction.

As part of the tax cuts back in 2017, we decided to limit the deduction you could take for State and local taxes to $10,000 per year.

Why? Because it was very expensive to have that deduction out there because it is progressive, helps wealthier Americans much more because it is an effective policy that leads to an incentive where States are incentivized to raise their taxes because people get a corporate--a Federal tax deduction for it, and it is just not fair.

My constituents in Ohio are subsidizing New York and California for their high taxes. That doesn't seem to make sense to people.

However, under this Build Back Better bill that was passed by the House, they raised that cap from $10,000 up to $80,000. Over the next 5 years alone, that provision would cost $285 billion. The vast majority of that tax benefit would go to the wealthiest Americans, with one recent analysis from the Tax Policy Center finding that almost no benefit will go to Americans not in the top 10 percent of income earners.

Conversely, child tax credit expansion, which Democrats argue was designed to help lower and middle-income Americans, costs $185 billion. So $285 billion for the SALT, which primarily goes to the wealthier individuals; 185 billion is put in place for what is viewed as the cornerstone safety and social net program in this whole bill.

So there are $100 billion more in the regressive tax cut than there is in this cornerstone social safety net program.

As Marc Goldwein, with the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, put it:

We're debating about whether to give lower- and middle-

class families a thousand dollars more a year through the

child tax credit, while giving upper-class families $10,000

or more through SALT.

That is pretty accurate.

Through lifting the SALT deduction and a number of other poorly planned tax overhauls under the so-called Build Back Better legislation, almost 70 percent of people making $1 million or more a year--almost 70 percent of them--that is over 68 percent will get a significant tax cut.

So if you make over a million bucks a year, 70 percent are going to get over--are going to get a significant tax cut.

Nearly 90 percent of taxpayers earning between $500,000 and a million dollars are going to get a significant tax cut.

Contrast that to people who make 30,000 bucks a year, as an example. While 70 percent of those making $1 million or more are getting a tax cut, only 30 percent of those making 30,000 bucks a year or more are going to get a tax cut.

And guess what. That is in the first year. In the second year, it goes down to 12 percent. In the third year, it goes down to 10 percent or less, and then it goes to single digits.

So if you make 30,000 bucks a year or more, you got really no significant benefit here at all. But if you make a lot of money, you get a huge benefit. That doesn't make sense.

For example, in California, where there are graduated income tax rates of over 10 percent--that is the State income tax rate--that would amount to a $47,000 deduction, on average, for somebody making 500,000 bucks a year--that is a lot--while the average taxpayer in California is only seeing a $20-per-year benefit.

So, again, you are getting a deduction of about 47,000 bucks if you make over 500,000 bucks; whereas, the average taxpayer is only going to get about a $20-a-year benefit. This doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to Americans as they learn more about this.

The people I represent in my home State of Ohio are very concerned right now about the economy, particularly about inflation. They are worried about rising prices for everything, from gas to groceries. And they are worried about the fact that their hard-earned paychecks aren't going as far as they did just a few months ago.

Back in March, when the Democrats pushed through that $1.9 trillion spending package, many of us on this side of the aisle tried to warn them that this stimulus was not needed to get the economy moving. The economy was going ahead on its own at that time, and yet this stimulus was thrown into the economy, which we said would overheat the economy. And it wasn't just Republicans.

Larry Summers, who served as the Treasury Secretary for President Clinton and Director of the National Economic Council under President Obama, warned that injecting so much money into the demand side of the economy would lead to inflation. He was right.

Now those same lawmakers are gearing up to do it again. Not only does Build Back Better deal an unfair hand to the working families they claim to champion, giving a tax break to the wealthy and leaving other Americans struggling to get by, it will stoke more inflation by pumping more money into the demand side of the economy. That is not what we should be doing now.

Ultimately, the American people are going to have to look at this reconciliation package--this bill called Build Back Better package-- with its job-killing tax hikes, tax breaks to the wealthy, and stimulus spending and judge whether this is the right thing for the economy right now as we grapple with high inflation and struggle to get out of this pandemic.

It certainly is not the right thing. It is not in our national interest to be providing tax breaks to the wealthy and burdening our businesses and everyday taxpayers with higher taxes while stoking more inflation.

We are dealing with a host of economic challenges right now, from inflation to supply chain delays, to Omicron, to workforce shortages. As we seek to overcome these challenges, let's not build back worse.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am here on the Senate floor today to talk, once again, about the so-called Build Back Better legislation that the Democrats are trying to force through this system on a purely partisan basis under what is called reconciliation.

I strongly believe that this massive tax-and-spend bill is the wrong way to go. I think it is irresponsible, particularly at a time of high inflation, uncertain economic growth--driven a lot by the uncertainties around the new COVID concerns--and record levels of debt.

This is the ninth consecutive week that the Senate has been in session that I have come to the Senate floor to talk about specific reasons I believe the Build Back Better legislation is a bad deal for America.

As we have talked about before, this massive new spending bill represents the largest amount of spending of any legislation ever passed by the U.S. Congress. Now, the official score is something like $1.7 trillion. You could argue that the one that passed in March, the $1.9 trillion, was the largest one, and that this is the second largest one.

In fact, when you look at what is in it, a lot of the spending is, in effect, camouflaged, as has been said by the folks at Penn Wharton, who analyzed this. When you take into account the programs that are relatively popular and unlikely ever to be ended--like the child tax credit--or that are likely to continue, they are sunsetted in this legislation.

If they weren't sunsetted, the cost of the bill would go from about $1.75 trillion to about $4.5 trillion. One analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has it a little higher than that, but let's say it is $4.5 trillion. That would be, by far, the largest piece of legislation that would have ever passed the U.S. Congress.

Much of that spending is what is called stimulus spending--adding to the demand side of the economy, adding to inflation. Remember, inflation is demand chasing supply. If there is not enough supply and there is more demand, you have inflation. That is what many of us predicted would happen with the $1.9 trillion legislation. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened.

So, once again, at a time of devastating high inflation already, record debt, and so much uncertainty on COVID and the possible need for more Federal resources there with regard to COVID, massive new spending--it seems to me right now--is the wrong thing to do.

On the revenue side, the massive tax increases are also irresponsible, in my view, and not well thought out.

Today, I would like to focus on one new tax increase proposal in particular, and this is the Democrats' plan to propose a new 15-percent minimum tax on the domestic side. They call it the minimum book tax. It is not a tax on books; it is a tax on companies and on workers and on pensions, which we will talk about, based on the financial statement. It is not based on income as we traditionally think about it or as the Tax Code traditionally defines it, but it relies on so-called book value, and it has several negative consequences that I want to talk about today.

The new book tax, if it were to be put into effect, would drive inflation even higher. It would discourage investment in key sectors of the economy, and it would jeopardize the state of businesses that provide pension funds for their employees.

The book tax proposal is, essentially, a new corporate alternative tax. But, again, it taxes the adjusted financial statement income of a large corporation, not its IRS tax analysis; and that is the income that might be reported to, let's say, the SEC through a Form 10-K.

This makes it very different than the existing corporate income tax, which is determined based on the income that these companies report to the IRS. Because these two taxes are calculated using very different base amounts, the 15-percent book tax can end up being a lot larger for companies than the 21-percent income tax.

The line that you will likely hear from some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that this tax is designed to make big companies pay their fair share of taxes because it only applies to companies with a 3-year average adjusted book income of more than $1 billion, but studies from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Tax Foundation, and more show that it is actually the workers who bear the brunt of these types of taxes in the form of lower wages, lower benefits, lost jobs, and higher prices. I am also hearing about a number of specific unintended, perhaps, consequences, and I am certain there will be others as well.

Let's start with its effect on workers' retirements. Under this proposal, a qualifying company ends up paying a new tax on certain investment gains, potentially due to just a change in interest rates, in their employees' pension funds. So this is a new tax. Right now, if the pension fund has an income gain, that would not be taxed, but under this proposal, it would be--under the book tax proposal. So it is basically a tax on the pensions.

First, these gains shouldn't result in a tax to the company at all. Companies do not have access to these pension investments. They sit in a segregated account. Companies can't touch them nor should they be able to touch them. Obviously, they make money for the retirement accounts of the employees. That is the whole idea. For good reason, pension funds should be invested, and they should grow over time because it benefits the workers to strengthen their retirement security.

Second, companies could be forced to pay more in taxes on the pension gains than the company makes in actual profits.

Let's take an established company, and I can tell you some of them have contacted us with specific examples of this, but they tend to be companies that are pretty well established because they have pretty big pension plans.

If you have an established company with a large pension plan, let's say that company makes a profit of 100 million bucks in a year. They could see their long-running pension fund gain a lot more than that-- say, $2 billion--over that same period.

So, under this tax plan, that company would have to pay a 15-percent tax on that $2 billion in pension income, or about $300 million on top of any normal income taxes. That business then has to make a tough choice because, remember, the business has only made $100 billion in profit, and you have a tax bill of $300 million because of your pension income.

Are you going to go bankrupt? Are you going to take out loans to pay these taxes?

This is money that would otherwise be invested in people, in plants, equipment, in our economy. Instead, it is going toward paying a potentially large tax that is entirely counterproductive.

Third, of course, is that it discourages companies from investing in their workers' retirements. Having more invested in pension plans is good for workers. I think we should encourage employers to do the right thing, and that is to have a defined benefit plan. There are fewer of them these days. Of those that are left, we don't want to drive employers out of those, in my view.

By the way, that is the view of almost all of my colleagues, I think, on the other side of the aisle and certainly a lot of union members who have these pensions. Let's not forget that this tax could threaten the retirement of tens of thousands of union and nonunion workers alike.

But this tax proposal doesn't just jeopardize pensions; it could have a significant negative impact on how industries, particularly manufacturers, invest in growing their operations. According to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the manufacturing sector leads all other sectors in the economy when it comes to the use of what is called bonus depreciation. That is where you get to have an immediate writeoff if you expand, again, plant or equipment.

That is something that was part of the 2017 tax legislation. It has been very helpful to help grow the economy, very important to retailers, very important to hospitality, and very important, of course, to manufacturers, who lead the way in terms of taking this deduction. It allows them to quickly and affordably invest in equipment, in new machinery, leading to higher productivity, leading to more jobs--what economists think is the most important thing we can do right now in our economy, which is to grow the supply side of our economy.

Under this new book tax the Democrats are proposing, that deduction would not be able to be paid, as it is now, immediately as bonus depreciation but, rather, it would have to be paid over a longer period of time, making these critical investments a lot less likely and leading to fewer new hires and lower productivity.

By the way, less investment in capital assets, of course, puts more pressure on inflation because it increases on the demand side of the economy if you don't do it. If you do it, it would increase on the supply side. So you want to encourage investments in capital assets. That is good because it helps in terms of the supply side.

So this bill has stimulus spending, as we talked about, on the spending side, and more demand and lower investment is exactly the opposite of what we ought to be doing in terms of countering inflation.

Taking a broader view, both of these immediate negative impacts on the economy and workers--the taxes on pension funds and less financial incentive for investment--are going to lead to higher prices for consumers, which also increases inflation.

It is even worse. From what I am hearing, some of the biggest sponsors of pension plans are logistics and delivery companies. I hope my colleagues are talking to these same companies that are reaching out to talk to us. To pay for these additional costs, particularly the pension costs, they have told us they are likely going to have to increase costs, reduce customer services, and suspend investment in new technology. These are logistics companies. At a time when many Americans are already experiencing inflation and supply chain bottlenecks, this is exactly the wrong prescription.

The book tax proposal is just one of a lot of policies in this reconciliation bill that I think would be bad for the economy and bad for workers. Maybe these specific problems we talked about today were just overlooked in the rush to produce a bill without going through any of the normal committee processes, including the Finance Committee, which hasn't looked at this--those issues would have emerged, I am sure, had the Ways and Means Committee and the Finance Committee had the opportunity to review it and to analyze it--or maybe the plan is to just overwhelm the American people with so many dramatic changes to our Tax Code that they won't notice how irresponsible any single one might be. Whatever the case, it is clear that this book tax has not been properly vetted.

It is time for Congress to slow down this process so that we can properly understand the consequences of these policies on the American people. These massive tax-and-spend proposals are bad for the economy, certainly bad for inflation, bad for business, and most importantly, bad for workers and their jobs.

I yield the floor.