Bill Hagerty

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, on August 7, I came to the Senate floor to oppose the expedited passage of what is known as the bipartisan infrastructure bill. I did that for several reasons, including because it was obviously going to be taken hostage and used by Democrats to impose Big Government socialism on America. In those August 7 remarks, I said: I am frustrated with this legislation . . . because it is tied to . . . the Democrats' real ambition, which is their multitrillion-dollar march to socialism that they will unveil right after this infrastructure legislation is passed. Democrats have admitted this . . . is [their] plan. They previewed phase 1 of this scheme in March, when they spent $1.9 trillion in the name of COVID relief. Of course, 90 percent of it had nothing to do with COVID. It was really just a payoff to their most loyal political supporters. Sadly, it is now causing the highest inflation . . . in decades . . . [which] is a daily tax on every American who [is buying] goods and services. I went on to lay out phase 2, the step-by-step plan some Democrats are using to launch their Big Government socialism fantasy. Step 1, I said, was to change the conversation to trillions. Make billions look small. Condition the Congress. Condition the media. Condition people. That has happened. Step 2, I said, was to tell everyone that the United States needs infrastructure. That has happened too. Step 3, I said, was to redefine the term ``infrastructure'' to include Big Government socialism programs. Really muddy it up so that no one could understand what they were actually talking about. That has happened. Step 4, I said, was that when more reasonable Democrats in the Senate balk at some of the more extensive or egregious items, promise them a two-track process: one for hard infrastructure and one for social programs. Confuse the situation even further. That has happened. Step 5, I said, was to negotiate as much of the Democrats' socialist wish list as possible into the infrastructure track. Then, put the rest of the wish list into the Big Government socialism wish list bill. That also has happened. Step 6, I said, was to pass the bipartisan infrastructure bill through the Senate as quickly as possible. The Trojan horse would then be through the gates. Unfortunately, that has also happened. Step 7, I said, was to hold that infrastructure bill hostage in the House of Representatives until everything they couldn't get into the infrastructure bill--meaning the trillions of dollars in Big Government spending programs--also passes the Senate. That is what we are seeing happening right now, just as I predicted in early August. Step 8, I said, was for the President to say that he wouldn't sign the infrastructure bill into law if it is not accompanied by trillions of dollars in Big Government socialism programs. This has also happened. Step 9, I said, was to get the Big Government socialism part passed by circumventing the filibuster in the Senate. This would require abusing an arcane loophole called reconciliation to pass trillions of dollars in Big Government socialism with only 50 Democrat votes. Step 10, I said, was to give more moderate Democrats political cover to support the parliamentary trick and Big Government socialism spending. To accomplish this, radical Democrats in the House are threatening to shoot the hostage--the hostage is the infrastructure bill that passed the Senate--a bill that more moderate Democrats more strongly support. These final two steps have not yet been executed because some Democrats see the peril in following the dangerous instincts of the most extreme elements of their party. On September 27, the most radical House Democrats, backed by Speaker Pelosi, stated that they were ``committed to voting for the infrastructure bill only after [their Big Government socialism bill] is passed.'' On September 29, one of the most outspoken of that group made it even clearer, saying: [S]everal months ago, we had an agreement with . . . everybody else throughout the entire party . . . we will move forward on this $3.5 trillion. And we will link the [two bills, meaning the bipartisan infrastructure bill] and the [big government socialism bill]. In revealing this, she confirmed that the far left has been manipulating everyone involved in this process. When I laid out Democrats' plans on the Senate floor back in August, I used the word ``abracadabra'' to illustrate the sleight of hand Democrats were attempting to pull off, saying that the American people might not even notice--until it is too late--that their wallet has been stolen and their country has been fundamentally changed. Fortunately, it seems the American people are wising up to the trick. The question I asked at the time--and the question the American people should be thinking about--is this: If all of these policies and all of the spending is so good, why does getting it done require a parliamentary house of mirrors? The answer to this question is that many Democrats know that the Big Government socialism bill is unpopular; it is bad for the country. Otherwise, the hostage-taking wouldn't be necessary. This radical dream of Big Government socialism is stalled out at the moment. So, at Speaker Pelosi's direction, President Biden drove up to Capitol Hill on October 1 and, according to one Representative, told House Democrats that in order to get the infrastructure bill done, we have to get this agreement on the Big Government socialism bill through the reconciliation. According to a House Democrat, the President said that he wanted ``both bills to go at the same time'' and specifically praised the far- left House Members who were ``exuberant,'' according to a progressive congressional caucus member. In other words, the far left is in charge, and President Biden embraces that fact. His actions made clear that the infrastructure bill is merely a tool to pass this Big Government socialism legislation. Both must pass or neither will pass. Rather than use his platform to defuse the hostage situation, President Biden is egging on the hostage- taking, and he is demanding Big Government socialism as the ransom. Following President Biden's meeting with House Democrats, POLITICO quoted a Democratic observer who said: The fact that the president came to the Hill and whipped against his own bill is the strangest thing I've ever seen. It is very strange indeed, but it underscores the sad reality that the far left is in charge of the Democratic Party. What we have witnessed these past 9 months is the biggest bait-and- switch in American political history. The American people didn't vote for Big Government socialism in 2020. Yet the Biden administration proudly proclaims that it is the most radically leftwing administration in American history. According to POLITICO this morning, President Biden held a call with progressive House Members yesterday in which he told them that he was ``getting more and more frustrated with moderate Democrats.'' For what? For refusing to be steamrolled by an agenda that most Americans don't want? Democrats' extreme politics are eclipsed only by their incompetence, from Afghanistan to inflation, from our energy dependence to a border collapse. Why? Because far-left radicals are dictating the agenda, and they are calling all the shots. With respect to this infrastructure hostage situation, the only question now is, Will every Democrat pay the ransom of Big Government socialism? And what is included in this ransom? First, Democrats are currently haggling over the top-line cost. Will it be $3.5 trillion, $2.5 trillion, $1.5 trillion, or something in between? Again, this is trillions of dollars--with a ``t''--that we are talking about. The number that they use is actually irrelevant because the bill will actually cost far more when you peel away the budget gimmicks. The overall cost of the bill is only labeled at $3.5 trillion because Democrats are pretending--again, for budget projection purposes--that many of these costly programs are simply temporary and they will terminate in a few years. Ask any Democrat whether this bill just includes some temporary spending--spending that will soon phase out. Ask them this: How will they vote when it comes time to prevent the program from expiring? You know this. Once you turn this sort of spending on, it will be next to impossible to turn it off. This is like valuing the cost of your home at the initial downpayment price and ignoring the 30-year mortgage that follows. Current estimates are that $3.5 trillion really will be more like $5.5 trillion, and that is just in the first decade alone. Yet all of Washington is currently obsessed with negotiations over where this phony number is going to land. This is another distraction. It is a tactic to divert your eyes from what is in the bill. No matter what number is used, the total cost of this bill is vastly higher than they claim, tens of trillions of dollars over my children's and your children's lifetime. That is before even accounting for inevitable cost overruns, waste, and program expansions. Of course, this means most of the Big Government socialism bill will be debt-financed because the bill will cost far more than projected even in the short run. Given our current debt of nearly $30 trillion, allowing the fuse to continue to burn on this new, inflation-fueling, economy-crushing level of debt borders on insanity. It is the kind of thing that toppled world powers in the past. Now is the time to get our fiscal house in order or at least avoid making it worse. Democrats want to solve the problem of a burning house not by throwing water on it but by throwing on gasoline and arguing that 50 gallons of gasoline is, well, better than throwing 100 gallons of gasoline on it. As obscene as Democrats' spending has become, focusing on cost obscures the more insidious, destructive nature of Big Government socialism. Without careful oversight from the American people and their elected Representatives here in Congress, government bureaucracy can't help but serve its own interests. Over time, the bureaucracy has fed itself, becoming ever more powerful, ever more hungry, and ever more present in the lives of the American people. Many Democrats believe in feeding the bureaucratic beast. They want the government to grow, and they want Americans to be ever more dependent upon government from cradle to grave. They want permanent government control over childcare, over preschool, raising your children, over healthcare, over energy, jobs, employers, and the list goes on. This will mean that Americans must turn to Big Government for more and more of life's necessities. Big Government will increasingly control the lives of Americans beginning in their formative years. Once the Federal Government is in charge of funding preschool and daycare that has crowded out all the private competition, you better believe the Federal Government will be providing the lesson plans for your children as well. This legislation will dramatically expand the welfare entitlement state, meaning they will provide even more incentives for American workers not to work. At a time when small businesses are desperately searching for workers, this is the wrong thing to do. It will fuel inflation; it will pile on more debt for our children and grandchildren; and it will drastically increase taxes and regulations on all Americans. More fundamentally and more sadly, it will move America closer to a European socialist model where government dependency replaces opportunity and where the dignity of work is lost. The strength of America is our unique system--our spirit, our work ethic, and our compassion for one another. The foundation for all this has been the freedom to pursue our dreams thanks to the system of free market capitalism--a system that has spread the American dream across the globe. That dream spread because our country offered something different. This plan to spend tens of trillions of dollars fundamentally threatens the American system and the American dream, not only by jeopardizing our fiscal stability but by ushering in Big Government socialism, which, if history is any guide, tends to crowd out everything else and, perhaps, especially opportunity. The American people have proven that they will flourish if permitted to do so. In this sense, the only thing that can stop the American people is the size and the reach of the American Government. For the Senate to participate in imposing such self-inflicted wounds on our country would be profoundly sad. History will not look kindly upon it. However, one point from my remarks this summer remains just as true today: It only takes one Democrat to end this insanity, to stand up and say he or she won't participate in this scheme. The American people and their children and grandchildren will no doubt be grateful if one of them chooses to do so. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, I have come to the floor of the Senate today on behalf of myself and the senior Senator from Tennessee, Marsha Blackburn, to honor the life and legacy of a heroic Tennessean, U.S. Army SSG Ryan Knauss, who was killed in a terrorist attack while serving the country that he loves so in Afghanistan on August 26, 2021. Staff Sergeant Knauss served with the Army's 9th Psychological Operations Battalion, 8th Psychological Operations Group at Fort Bragg. He was from Corryton, TN--a small, rural community where love of country and volunteerism runs deep. Corryton is known for being the hometown of country music star Kenny Chesney, and now it will be known forever as the home of our hero, SSG Ryan Knauss. Ryan was 23 years old when he laid his life down for his Nation. I have spoken with Staff Sergeant Knauss's widow Alena and his father Greg. Through our conversations, I got to know a little bit more about Staff Sergeant Knauss. And I am here today to share with you all and with the American people just who Staff Sergeant Knauss was. He was a devoted husband. Ryan met Alena when they were in high school working at a local pizza parlor. I sensed her deep love for Ryan when we spoke, and I am certain that Alena feels blessed to have had the opportunity to be loved by someone like Ryan. He was a loyal son. After speaking with Ryan's father Greg, it was clear the love and the commitment that SSG Ryan Knauss had for his family and his fellow soldiers was unwavering. I can only tell you that after hearing of Ryan's dedication to his family and his country, it is the hope and prayer of every parent to have a son as honorable and principled as Ryan. As a father, I told Greg I couldn't fathom his grief. Ryan had hoped to soon become a father himself. He and Alena had plans to try for their first child when he came back from overseas. And building a nursery was at the top of their to-do list when he was to arrive home. Staff Sergeant Knauss was a steadfast friend. His own friend spoke of his charm and intelligence at a memorial service at his former high school in Corryton. He was a charismatic person to whom people were instantly drawn. SSG Ryan Knauss was a proud and honorable soldier. And when his country needed him at such a dire time, he fiercely answered the call. Even as a child, Ryan knew his calling was to serve. In a friend's elementary school yearbook, Ryan wrote that he wanted to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. And as a freshman in high school, he signed up for the ROTC program. As one of his fellow soldiers explained, ``This was his dream job, and he . . . ran with it.'' Ryan's unit, Detachment 10, described it as follows: Ryan knew the dangerous situation he was going to, but protecting innocent civilians is one of the values that drove him. It has been said that life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives, and Ryan had an incredible impact on his family and friends. And thanks to his actions, thousands of children will have the joy of knowing a childhood free from danger and oppression. The Bible teaches us that no one has ``greater love than this, than to lay down one's life for one's friends.'' Staff Sergeant Knauss did just that. He died a hero's death. He made the ultimate sacrifice for his Nation, for all of us. Ryan will be remembered as a selfless and heroic man--a Tennessee volunteer--who, with a servant's heart, gave everything of himself at just 23 years old for the country that he loved so dearly. I ask that each of you here today join me in continuing to pray for the Knauss family and uplift them in the coming days and months as they lay their soldier to rest at Arlington National Cemetery.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, I call up my amendment No. 3742 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, my amendment provides for ensuring that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which is charged by Congress with enforcing immigration laws in the United States, has sufficient resources to deport illegal aliens who have been convicted of crimes in the United States. According to ICE's website, 92 percent of the illegal aliens that ICE deports have been convicted or charged with crimes. Yet despite the border crisis and record border crossings, the Biden administration has drastically reduced deportations to roughly one-quarter of what they were last fiscal year, reaching the lowest levels on record this spring, from over 28,000 in October of 2019 to less than 3,000 in April of 2021. That means the administration is allowing thousands of criminal illegal aliens per month to remain in American communities and potentially commit more crimes. I ask for your support for enforcing our immigration laws and deterring illegal immigration and criminal activity by providing the resources necessary to remove criminal illegal aliens from our streets. Thank you, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, as I said earlier in this debate, I agree that working to shore up our hard infrastructure is a worthy cause. Investing in infrastructure the right way is a wise investment in America's future and in our long-term competitiveness. But that is not what we are being asked to vote on here. Rather, we have a package with some infrastructure that is good for our economy. Yet it is riddled with Big Government and massive deficit spending, over a quarter of a trillion dollars in the hole. And we want to rush through this as quickly as possible? There is a right way and a wrong way to pursue noble goals. And let's be clear. The Democrat leadership has tied this infrastructure bill to their effort to use their 50-vote reconciliation process to fundamentally move America toward Western Europe-style socialism, which as anyone can see today, brings with it limited opportunity, less innovation, crushing taxes, a bloated government bureaucracy, and cradle-to-grave government dependency. Right on cue, Democrats have introduced a $3.5 trillion part of the plan this morning, and the Democrat leader promised that the Senate will turn to it just as soon as this bill is passed. I wish this wasn't the case. And all it would take for it not to be the case is for just one of my Democrat colleagues to say that they won't support the $3.5 billion part of this plan. I am still hopeful, but I remain concerned, given the statements by Democrats just like my colleague, who just spoke a minute ago, from Oregon. President Biden and Speaker Pelosi have been clear that this bipartisan deal on infrastructure won't become law unless all of the socialist Big Government items that got excluded from the so-called track 1 of the first deal are later tacked on to it in track 2 of their plan. The Democrat leader is saying this quite clearly, using the consistent refrain of a two-track plan. They are doing this because the far left has pushed the Democrats over the edge. Whether the subject is court packing, election takeovers, or government dependency, it is clear that the far left is calling the shots in the Democratic Party today. Sadly, Democrats view this infrastructure bill as an important tool to advance the far left's agenda. Democrat leaders have promised to link it to trillions of dollars more in government taxing, spending, and dependency programs that this body will take up later this week. This smoke-and-mirrors charade is the kind of thing that makes Americans shake their heads. I have negotiated deals my whole career, and often what is negotiated out of a deal is just as important as what is in it. There is not a deal if, at the last minute, the other side uses a side deal or a different program to put everything in it that you never wanted. That is why, when we consider this infrastructure bill, we must also look to the multitrillion-dollar, tax-and-spend path to socialism that the Democrat leaders have promised will be part of the total package. So Members of this body and the American people need to listen carefully to what is expected to be in this second part of the plan and try not to let your jaw hit the floor in the process. Just listen to what Democrats are promising to stuff into this reconciliation bill. It will enable the Green New Deal. It will crush the American fossil fuel industry--never mind the fact that the industry is continuing to become ever more industry clean on its own. This will cost millions of American jobs. It will sacrifice the energy independence we have already achieved, and it will make us more dependent on foreign adversaries. Ultimately, Democrats would rather placate the far left's near-religious fervor for government-subsidized electric cars and windmills, even if it means hollowing out American communities that provide our energy independence today. And they will jeopardize our national security in the process. It is a great deal for the green energy lobby which supports Democrat politicians, but it is a terrible deal for our Nation and for our national security. It will drastically increase taxes on job creators, which will cost untold number of jobs and reduce wages. Get ready to see more jobs shipped out of the United States and into the welcoming arms of China. Don't worry, though, Democrats are proposing to create a Civilian Climate Corps that will hire some of the people who lose their jobs. To do what? Proselytize on the virtues of clean energy? It will impose one of the largest ever tax increases on American capital, resulting in America having one of the highest tax rates on investment and capital in the industrialized world. Capital investment creates new jobs and innovation, and this will crush that process in America. It will expand the death tax that Americans must pay on savings and property of their loved ones that pass away. It will make it much harder for small businesses and farms to be passed on to the next generation. It will move America closer to a European socialist model for healthcare, with less choice, longer wait times, and less quality. If we have learned anything during the coronavirus pandemic, it is that we have the greatest healthcare system and healthcare workers in the world. The last thing we need to do is try to make our healthcare system weaker. It will nullify the State right-to-work laws and ensure American workers don't have a choice but to submit to union bosses. It is impossible to say how many good-paying jobs this will cost States like Tennessee, States that have experienced enormous growth and prosperity in recent decades by passing laws that put workers first by allowing them to choose whether or not they want to join a union. But union dues are used to fund Democrat political campaigns. So rather than make unions earn the support of workers, Democrats want to mandate it. At a time when American small businesses are desperately looking for employees, this legislation will provide even more incentives for American workers not to work. Small businesses and American consumers will suffer as a result. It will provide more handouts to teachers unions who have refused to open schools in much of the country for the last year and a half. Teachers unions provide a great windfall benefit to Democrat political campaigns. It will provide more handouts to green unions and green energy interests, which conveniently fund the campaigns of Democrat politicians. Are you noticing a trend yet? In addition to taking more American taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, it will be debt-financed and not paid for, at least not by our generation. It may be convenient for today's politicians, but our children and grandchildren will be left footing the bill. It will be so large that it will likely be beyond the capacity of Congress to even oversee it to prevent the waste, fraud, and abuse that are sure to come. We should all be deeply concerned. Ultimately, this package is designed to create a permanent state of government dependency and reliance for everything from jobs to your choice of doctors, to fueling your car. That way, you will have to turn to the institution Democrats have captured most: government and the unelected bureaucracy that controls virtually everything. In the short term, this is a reckless, multitrillion-dollar step toward socialism--again, several trillion dollars. That is 13 digits, a number that many calculators don't even have room for. This step will likely add further fuel to already rampant inflation. As we know, inflation is a hidden tax on all Americans, cutting into our savings, decreasing real earnings, and hurting our retirees most of all. Over the longer term, this path to socialism will slow job creation and productivity. It will reduce wages. It will ship jobs overseas. It will harm small businesses and workers and freeze investment right here in America. It will drastically increase taxes, and it will hobble innovative industries and technologies in which America was poised to lead. And Green New Deal mandates and regulations will crush industries where we currently do lead, such as the energy industry. With this massive expansion of inefficient government, bureaucratic government in our day-to-day lives will increase. It is as if Democrats' goal is to emulate the totalitarian central planners of the Chinese Communist Party. Rather than competing against China by creating a free market-driven environment for innovation and job creation, which, by the way, is how we won the Cold War, Democrats seem to want to copy China's model. This tax-and-spend spree by Democrats will also burden our children and grandchildren with even more debt. Sadly, this isn't a pig-in-a- python moment, and the harmful effects of this spending spree will last for generations. America is nearly $30 trillion in debt--$30 trillion. Thirty trillion is significantly more than the total value of what our economy produces annually. As Democrats impose policies that will limit economic growth and productivity, our ability to pay our debts will become much more difficult. As the debt payments we owe continue to increase and become a larger and larger share of the Federal revenue pie, we are going to leave our children with some really tough choices. So while I support hard infrastructure and working to find a right way to invest in it, joining it at the hip with a vision for America as a socialist utopia isn't it. The stakes are too high, and it is time to get serious about the path we are heading down. We must think beyond today and our short-term interests. We need to stop endangering our children's and our grandchildren's future while we still can, by getting our spending under control and developing a plan for paying down our debt, not by making it far worse. This multitrillion-dollar path to socialism threatens the future of our country. It not only threatens to leave our children with an unpayable debt, but it also limits their ability to pay it off by smothering our economy with massive government bureaucracy that stifles the private-sector innovation that has until now led the world. America has always been a beacon of hope for the world because we are exceptional. We have provided more freedom, opportunity, and prosperity than any other nation. We have been proud of this exceptionalism and have carefully safeguarded it through generations. The strength of America is our unique system--our spirit, our work ethic, our compassion, and the communities we create. This multitrillion-dollar plan, which increases government control and decreases freedom and opportunity, threatens the system at our core. Our government exists to preserve the freedoms that allow the American people and our communities to flourish, not to control the American people. And the American people will flourish, if permitted to do so. In this sense, the only thing that can stop America is America's government by limiting our own people's opportunity and our prosperity. I am asking my colleagues to fight to ensure that the America that we know endures for our children. The ``greatest generation'' gave us the most just and prosperous country in the history of the world, the country that won World War II and then the Cold War, and we must fight to preserve it, not throw it away. Because the President and Democratic leaders have bound this infrastructure bill to a plan that will dramatically weaken America and reduce opportunity and prosperity for our people, I will be casting a ``no'' vote and urge my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be called up to the substitute and be reported by number and that they be the only remaining amendments in order: First, Ernst, No. 2639; Cornyn-Padilla, No. 2602; Wicker-Stabenow, No. 2206; Cruz, No. 2389; Lee, No. 2517; Grassley-Klobuchar, No. 2500; Crapo- Wyden, No. 2507; Blackburn, No. 2328; Warner-Portman, No. 2617; Wyden- Lummis-Toomey, No. 2619; Cantwell, No. 2588; Wyden-Murkowski, No. 2603, Cantwell-Braun, No. 2621; Van Hollen, No. 2613, as modified; Cruz-Lun, No. 2490; Daines, No. 2599; Sullivan, No. 2586; Shelby, No. 2535; Rounds, No. 2636; Sinema-Portman, No. 2620; further, that the Senate vote in relation to all pending amendments, with no amendments in order to the amendments prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; and that if a rollcall is ordered, then 60 affirmative votes be required for adoption for the amendments listed in this agreement, except for Lee, No. 2517; Warner, No. 2617; Wyden, No. 2498; Ernst, No. 2639; and Grassley, No. 2500; and that there be 2 minutes for debate, equally divided, prior to each vote.

Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, the Senator's objection exposes the Democrats' true intention. I have never objected to considering amendments on this bill--not once. Democrats say they want amendments, but they can't take yes for an answer. The Democrats' true intention is to rush this bill through so that they can hurry up and light the fuse on their $3.5 trillion spending spree--a socialist debt bomb--and then leave town for vacation. If they want to vote on amendments, why would the Senator object to my reasonable request? The only way the Democrats will agree to the amendments is if they can rush this bill through. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGERTY

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

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I support hard infrastructure. It is in my DNA. As a kid, I grew up shoveling asphalt. My father and my grandfather were in the road construction business. I served as the economic development commissioner in my home State of Tennessee. I understand firsthand the importance of quality infrastructure. It was essential to attracting good jobs to my State. So I am in complete agreement that shoring up our hard infrastructure is a worthy cause. This bill does some of that, and that is good. But there are both good ways and bad ways to achieve noble ends. And the question is, What is the best way to achieve this goal? And my frustration is with the methods and with the vehicle that is being used here. The first problem is that the bill sponsors repeatedly said it would be paid for. In fact, it is not. And it is more than a little bit off. It is over a quarter of a trillion dollars short. That is almost seven times the budget of my home State of Tennessee. We waited weeks for the text of this legislation. And before the text even existed, the Democrat leader forced the Senate to vote on proceeding to it. There is absolutely no reason for rushing this process and attempting to limit scrutiny of this bill other than the Democrats' completely artificial, self-imposed, and politically driven timeline. There will be more on that later. The text, all 2,700-plus pages of it, was finally made available to us 6 days ago. The Senate has been able to consider that this week, but the Senate continued to wait all week for the Congressional Budget Office's analysis of what it would cost. The CBO is the entity that Congress has agreed is responsible for scorekeeping on what legislation will cost the American people. Let's keep in mind that meeting the definition of ``paid for'' in the CBO's eyes doesn't always make sense to the average American. For instance, CBO allows spending now to be offset by projected savings that won't happen for 10 years. CBO can allow savings that are already occurring naturally to count, effectively, as new savings for purposes of scoring a bill. The point is, this kind of scoring is designed to make it easier for a bill to be scored as paid for, at least on paper. As an example, the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that this legislation would actually add $351 billion in deficit spending, an even higher total than the CBO estimate. The point is, even using these scorekeeping advantages, the CBO has made it clear this bill isn't paid for. I understand why the Democratic leadership kept the CBO score under wraps until Thursday. It showed that the bill fell far short of ambitions. The CBO said that it misses the mark of being paid for by a cool quarter of a trillion dollars. As an aside, I found it incredible that despite--or perhaps because of--getting this news on Thursday afternoon, Democrats tried to accelerate the passage of this bill later that same day. Instead of going through the normal multiday process for debating and enacting a bill, they tried to rush it through in the middle of the night. I objected to accelerating this process on Thursday because the Senate must carefully consider what it is doing. Now, the proponents of this bill claim that the CBO's analysis is wrong. No matter how much explaining they do, the Senate agreed on the umpire before the game started. To this end, if this bill is paid for, why will we have to waive Budget Act requirements later on in this process? The Senate is going to have to pass this bill by waiving the Budget Act or the pay-go requirements. That is not ``paid for.'' Most of us probably won't be around when the bill comes due for this never-ending deficit spending here in Washington, but, sadly, our children and our grandchildren will be. The politicians in Washington spend now to buy votes but, conveniently, won't be around to deal with the consequences. We can do hard infrastructure--again, that is a worthy goal--but we can do it without shoveling more debt onto the backs of our children and our grandchildren. Indeed, if we just limited this bill to hard infrastructure, it would be paid for. As I said, there are good and bad ways to achieve noble ends. The second reason that I am opposed to this legislation is because of its Big Government, top-down approach. It includes many half-baked components that deserve far more scrutiny. Rather than compete against China using our unparalleled innovation, our ingenuity, our technology, we are substituting massive government control to dictate, to fund, and to decide winners and losers. That is not the American way. We are using the cryptocurrency market as a pay-for. Have we fully vetted how this new regulation and taxation will affect this rapidly developing industry? Will we wind up ceding this industry to others because of this regulation? What is the point of even having committees in the Senate with expertise in certain matters if the most significant legislation that passes this body doesn't even go through? The whole point of committees is to use them--use these committees to carefully scrutinize and refine important legislation, use committees to prevent unintended consequences that result from rushed legislation. Yet this is a 2,700-page bill that is going through no committees. Once again, we have to pass it to find out what is in it and then learn what kind of unintended consequences we can expect. The third reason I am frustrated with this legislation is because it is tied to what I believe is the Democrats' real ambition, which is their multitrillion-dollar march to socialism that they will unveil right after this infrastructure legislation is passed. Democrats have admitted this. This is their plan. The far-left wing of the Democratic Party, which is effectively calling the shots these days, is demanding that Democrats here in Congress spend trillions of dollars to reshape American society, to make American citizens more dependent on their government. Their aim seems to be to turn the United States into a sclerotic, government- controlled state, just like Western Europe. The upcoming legislation that we are talking about now is the third leg of the stool of the Democrats' overall plan. The first leg is to pack the Supreme Court so the Constitution no longer gets in the way of their plan. The second is to Federalize and take over voting laws and procedures, ensuring Democrats will never lose another election, propelling themselves into perpetual power over both the legislative branch and the executive branch. And, third, they want to remake the U.S. economy and America's relationship with government into one where Americans begin to look to government for everything, from Green New Deal programs to daycare. In this world, American citizens will be less free, less prosperous but more captive and hooked on government programs. That means they will be more dependent on Democrats and the institutions that they control. So far, Democrats have been unable to build legs one and two of the stool, but they are actively trying. President Biden has a court- packing commission ongoing, and the Democratic leader is, today, working on scheduling more votes on the election takeover. They are desperate to appease leftwing extremists that have all of the energy in their party because they need these extremists' support to win elections. Yet they have stalled out on their first two goals, so they have come up with a scheme to build the third leg of their stool. They previewed phase 1 of the scheme in March, when they spent $1.9 trillion in the name of COVID relief. Of course, 90 percent of it had nothing to do with COVID. It was really just a payoff to their most loyal political supporters. Sadly, it is now causing the highest inflation that we have seen in decades. This inflation is a daily tax on every American who has to buy goods and services here in America. But phase 2 of the scheme is even more devious. Step 1: Change the conversation to trillions with a ``t.'' Make billions sound small. Condition the Congress, condition the media, condition the American public to these big numbers. Remember, a trillion dollars is an astronomical number, and our children are going to have to pay for it. Step 2: Tell the United States that America needs infrastructure; but then, Step 3, redefine the term ``infrastructure'' to include government-dependency programs. Really muddy it up. Step 4: When more reasonable Democrats in the Senate balk at some of these more expensive or egregious items, promise them a two-track process--one for hard infrastructure and one for social programs. Step 5: Negotiate as much of your socialist wish list into the infrastructure track as you can. They got some of it into this bill, but not all of it. They will just put the rest of it into the wish list and put that wish list into the government-dependency bill that is yet to come. Step 6: Pass the infrastructure bill through the Senate as quickly as possible. Drop a nearly 3,000-page bill and demand that it be passed immediately before we can even understand or scrutinize what is in it. The Trojan horse, my friends, is through the gate. Step 7: Hold that infrastructure bill hostage in the House of Representatives until everything you couldn't get into the infrastructure bill--particularly meaning the trillions of dollars in government-dependency programs--are passed through the Senate. Therefore, Nancy Pelosi has promised that this bill will never become law until it is joined at the hip with the multitrillion-dollar socialist bill. More on that in a minute. Step 8: Say that the President won't sign the infrastructure bill into law if it is not accompanied by trillions of dollars in government-dependency programs. President Biden already did this before he clumsily walked it back, but we saw and we heard what he was thinking. Step 9: To get the government-dependency programs part passed, circumvent the filibuster in the Senate by abusing an arcane loophole called reconciliation. Reconciliation was intended to save taxpayer dollars and to assure passage of an annual budget for the Federal Government. But now they are using this process--they are abusing this procedure to pass trillions of dollars of government-dependency programs with only 50 Democrat votes. Step 10: Give reasonable Democrats political cover to support the parliamentary trick and the government-dependency spending by saying it unlocks the ability for their hard-fought infrastructure bill that passed the Senate--and, by the way, is now being held hostage in the House--to finally get through the House and to the President's desk. Wait a minute. What just happened? Abracadabra. The American people are so confused by the Democrats' sleight of hand that they don't even notice that their wallet has been stolen and that their country has been fundamentally changed. My question is simple: If these policies and this spending is so good, why does getting it done take a parliamentary house of mirrors? There can't be a bipartisan deal on infrastructure if its enactment into law requires later tacking on all of the socialist wish list items that got excluded from the deal. Democrats have telegraphed these plans. You just have to pay attention. The President of the United States, right after announcing the infrastructure deal, said it would be held hostage on his desk without the trillions of dollars of government-dependency spending alongside it. President Biden specifically said this: I expect that in the coming months this summer, before the fiscal year is over, that we will have voted on this bill-- the infrastructure bill--as well as voted on the budget resolution. But if only one comes to me . . . this is the only thing that comes to me, I'm not signing it. It's in tandem. Later, in response to a question, President Biden revealed: ``Look, the bipartisan bill, from the very beginning, was understood there was going to have to be the second part of it,'' he said. ``I'm not just signing the bipartisan bill and forgetting about the rest.'' Now, he has later tried to muddy up the waters on this because he said too much. But if you read his cleanup statement carefully, he never took back his vow. He never said he would sign the bipartisan bill without having alongside it the partisan multitrillion-dollar bill. The Speaker of the House has said the same thing repeatedly. On June 24, she said: There ain't going to be a bipartisan bill without a reconciliation bill. She added again: Let me be really clear on this: We will not take up a bill in the House until the Senate passes the bipartisan bill and a reconciliation bill. A month later, on July 22, Speaker Pelosi again said: We will not take up the infrastructure bill until the Senate passes the reconciliation measure. It only takes one Democrat to end this insanity, to stand up and say he or she won't participate in this scheme. That would change the entire tenor of this debate and this process. So while I believe in hard infrastructure, I cannot participate in doing it this way: first, by including in this bill a bunch of things that aren't hard infrastructure, and the result of that is throwing a quarter of a trillion dollars more debt at our children and our grandchildren; and, secondly, and most importantly for the future of this country, enabling this quadruple bank-shot attempt by Democrats to thread their government dependency fantasy through a House and a Senate that are divided by the narrowest of margins by holding this bill, once it passes, hostage in the House. The stakes here are too high. America is an exceptional nation. We are distinct from all others throughout history. We are exceptional because we provided more freedom and opportunity than any other. President Lincoln called it the ``last best hope of Earth.'' Ever since, it has fulfilled that promise for countless generations. We must fight to preserve our American system and the American dream, not in a tornado of hurried legislative activity that will seal its decline. I am asking my colleagues to fight for this country's future. Our children and grandchildren deserve to have the same sort of wonderful opportunity that our parents and grandparents gave us. We need to make certain that they have a future for them that is better than today, and we are duty-bound to make certain that it happens. That is why I ran for office. Let's work together on infrastructure, out from under the rapidly approaching cloud of socialism. Let's make this happen a different way. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGERTY

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

Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, I am here today to address Democrats' deceptively labeled ``For the People Act,'' which should more accurately be labeled the ``For the Politicians Act.'' This legislation represents a breathtaking, unprecedented power grab. In a 50-50 Senate, this is a blatant attempt by those who are in power by the slimmest possible margin to take over and rewrite the election and campaign rules for all 50 States in one fell swoop. This would be done on an entirely partisan basis to ensure candidates from that same party win elections. In fact, while the only supporters of the bill are Democrats, there is bipartisan opposition to this legislation. This legislation would disenfranchise every American through the Federal seizure of the authority of each State's representatives to set election rules for their State in accordance with the wishes of their citizens. This partisan legislation would wash away election integrity measures, making it easier to cheat. Each invalid vote cast dilutes the strength of each valid vote cast. Our form of government for the people and by the people rests upon voters' faith in the integrity of our elections. If we allow that faith in our elections to continue to be compromised, we are allowing the very foundation of our American system to be eroded. Democrats don't want to talk about the details of this legislation. They don't want you to peek under the hood. They want to just slap a voting rights bumper sticker on it, jam it through, and then disparage and name-call anyone who opposes it. So let's take a look at exactly what is in this legislation. Under this legislation, a Federal politician running for election can take millions in taxpayer money for his or her own campaign. The legislation says that States must then allow that politician to pay political operatives to visit nursing homes, dormitories, emergency shelters, and other residences to collect thousands of ballots and, then, choose which ones to be dropped into unmanned drop boxes, maybe in the middle of the night. This bill would make it illegal for States to verify the identity of voters at the polls. Under this bill, ballots arriving even a week after election day would still be counted. It would require States to adopt universal mail-in voting practices. States would be forced to allow murderers, rapists, and child molesters to vote, even if a State's citizens have adopted laws to prevent it. It would require States to allow unregistered voters to cast ballots by simply showing up on election day and signing a form, without an ID and with no vetting allowed. The bill would silence political speech by religious and nonprofit organizations while politicians can use taxpayer dollars to air attack ads with which many Americans would find distasteful. The bill provides that if anyone disputes any of this, that is OK. They can lodge their complaints with the Federal Election Commission, a body that has been bipartisan since its creation. But wait. In addition to changing the rules to benefit one team, the legislation also ``buys off the umpire'' by transforming the FEC into a partisan, Democrat- controlled body--a body that could hound the opposing party candidates to the ends of the Earth. This bill transforms the judge into the prosecutor. I wish that was all this legislation did. It also snatches the responsibility for drawing Congressional districts from the elected representatives of all 50 States, who have done that job for the last 230 years, and sets up a Byzantine process that would ultimately hand it over to an academic consultant hired by a liberal judge right here in Washington. Let me repeat that: A consultant hired by a judge in Washington, DC, will be drawing every congressional district in the country. Using government power to seize control of elections, to limit speech, to pack tribunals, to ensure the ruling party stays in power-- that sounds like a headline you would hear in Venezuela, Russia, Iran, or even China, not in the United States of America. Not too long ago, both parties would have considered this partisan power grab beyond the pale. But far-left operatives want permanent power, and Democrats, eager to keep the power for themselves, are afraid to tell them no. Democrats are now characterizing this legislation as an emergency response to recent legislation in a few States. This legislation isn't just a solution in search of a problem; it is a power grab that for years has been in search of a crisis--any crisis, manufactured or otherwise--that can be used to justify it. Democrat operatives introduced a previous version of this bill on January 24, 2017, 4 days after President Trump took office. The purported crisis then was the American people's election of Donald Trump, which the Democrats found unacceptable. They continued this effort by introducing yet another version of the ``For the Politicians Act'' in 2019, which at that time passed the House without a single Republican vote. Like the bill the Senate will consider this week, this bill was a Democrat operative's electioneering fantasy--federalizing unlimited mail-in voting, prohibiting voter ID requirements, and allowing unregistered voters to show up and vote on election day. Wisely, the Senate, in 2019, never took it up. Then, as the pandemic took root in the spring of 2020, Democrats, in search of yet a new crisis to justify this bill, included it in a pandemic relief bill that the House passed--again, without a single Republican vote. Once again, the Senate dismissed it and wisely focused on providing bipartisan pandemic relief, rather than using the pandemic as a justification to federalize elections. With the pandemic now in the rearview mirror, this legislation is being pitched as necessary to preserve voting rights, using cartoonish, overheated, and false characterizations of a few sensible, measured voting integrity laws that have recently been enacted by States. Why? Because Democrats have to invent a new crisis every 6 months or so to conceal this quest to install themselves permanently into power. Don't let them fool you. This isn't about some State election law. The House passed virtually the same bill last year. Most of the components of this bill have been floating in Democrat National Committee back rooms for years. This isn't about voting rights. This legislation protects voting rights like banning security guards at banks would protect bank depositors. Now, why are the Democrats so desperate to pass this bill? Well, a recent report from POLITICO explains it. POLITICO says: What's at stake is . . . potentially the future Democratic majorities. Many in the party privately worry that frontline Democrats could lose their seats if Congress doesn't [pass this bill]. So, to keep power, Democrats have determined that they have to take over State elections. This is about holding on to power and nothing else. There doesn't seem to be a power grab that is too extreme for the modern left, whether it is this bill, legislation to pack the Supreme Court, suddenly changing their position and pushing to scrap fundamental Senate rules in order to obtain short-term political gains or adding Washington, DC, as a State. It is all about one thing-- fulfilling a fantasy of permanent Democrat power. Under this legislation, American elections would no longer be about earning the support of voters by communicating a powerful vision. Rather, American elections would be all about creating the largest machine, identifying favorable voters, and mass-gathering their ballots door-to-door as efficiently as possible. The winning campaign would be the one with the largest army of ballot harvesters to drive voters--registered or unregistered, with or without ID--to fill out and hand over a ballot that will be ``dropped'' on their behalf in unmanned ballot boxes. Americans want commonsense laws that make it easier to vote and harder to cheat. Such laws currently exist throughout the country. That is why we had recordbreaking voter participation in 2020, including in my State of Tennessee. This legislation is as unnecessary as it is misguided and dangerous. It is a politician protection measure that would do irreparable damage to the fabric of this country, and it should be soundly rejected by this body Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Madam President, I rise today to discuss my serious concerns about the judgment and the temperament of the nominee Colin Kahl, the controversial nominee to be the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, the third highest position in our Department of Defense. On April 13, 2021, I, along with 17 other Senators, wrote to FBI Director Christopher Wray requesting an investigation into whether Kahl had improperly disclosed classified information. We also asked the majority leader not to advance Kahl's nomination to the floor until the FBI completes its investigation. Yet here we stand. The 18 Senators who signed these letters include Senators who sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the Senate Armed Services Committee. As Senators, the Constitution charges us with providing advice and consent, and so I stand here today because the Senate deserves to have these questions answered so that we may properly discharge our duties. I fear my Democratic colleagues want to force this nominee through before we know all the facts--facts which may be incredibly damning to his nomination. Here is what we do know. As a U.S. Government employee with a Top Secret security clearance, Colin Kahl signed a classified information nondisclosure agreement. In fact, he likely signed many of them during his tenure in government. This document binds government employees in perpetuity to protect classified information under U.S. laws, regulations, and Executive orders. These classified information nondisclosure agreements don't come with footnotes. They don't come with fine print that says you are only obligated to protect classified information when it is a President you like or when it is a President that belongs to the political party you agree with. Mr. Kahl signed this document to protect classified information in perpetuity, period. Rather than uphold the oath that he took to his Nation and to his government, Kahl decided to recklessly disclose sensitive information to secure political points on Twitter. Some of the information that Kahl appears to have leaked--internal deliberations of the National Security Council--is of a category that even Senators and Senate staff with the highest security clearances are almost always denied access. In December of 2017, Kahl publicly bragged that he confirmed the disclosure to the media of classified planning for military operations in North Korea with ``multiple sources inside the Administration.'' You can see right here his tweet: There is a contingent at the White House that believes a limited strike is viable and the US can control escalation by threatening regime change if Kim Jong Un retaliates. This is incredible. Continuing on that same thread, he says: I've heard this separately from multiple sources inside the Administration. In other words, if the intelligence services of North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, and other adversaries were working to corroborate the accuracy of this leaked information, Kahl saved them the trouble by working with ``multiple sources inside the Administration'' to confirm this leaked classified information, publicly, no less. Let me put this in a personal perspective. When Kahl tweeted these leaks in December of 2017, I was serving as U.S. Ambassador to Japan. This was at a time when North Korea had launched two intercontinental ballistic missiles over Japan, and they had also detonated a thermonuclear warhead, putting the lives of my family, my fellow American diplomats, and more than 50,000 Active-Duty U.S. military and their families--all of us living within range of North Korea--in harm's way At a time when tensions couldn't have been higher, Colin Kahl was willing to expose vital information to North Korea and risk American lives--all of this just to score political points. Reckless, I say. In February and March of 2017, Kahl leaked details about a classified National Security Council meeting on counterterrorism operations in Yemen that he ``confirmed with 4 separate staffers in the room.'' Here is his message, talking about Yemen, quoting the Deputy National Security Advisor, K.T. McFarland, saying ``saddle up.'' The existence of this meeting should have been classified and certainly anything that was said during this meeting. Here it is on Twitter. Then he follows up by saying he has ``confirmed with 4 separate staffers in the room.'' In short, Kahl used social media and other forums to leak classified information to brag about his ability to get U.S. Government employees to confirm with him the veracity of leaked classified information. Whoever holds the third highest position at DOD must be someone who completely understands and appreciates the important nature of sensitive information and is dedicated to safeguarding it. Yet rather than respect the responsibility that came with his access to sensitive material, Kahl recklessly shared this privileged information on Twitter for the world to see, merely to scratch political, partisan itch. If we let this nominee slide through under these conditions, what message does it send to other ambitious national security types? Doesn't it say that leaking classified information for political reasons will be rewarded? Doesn't it encourage further disclosure of classified information? Doesn't it play right into our adversaries' hands by showing that our internal political divisions can be exploited to obtain the most sensitive information that our government keeps? My Senate colleagues and I explained in our letter to FBI Director Wray: The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy plays a key role in matters crucial to America's national security and should be held by a person of sound judgment and temperament-- someone who understands and respects the need to safeguard classified information and to keep national security affairs distinct and separate from partisan political activities.'' Kahl's growing record of apparent mishandling of classified information and his evasive response regarding this issue fall far short of the standards required for holding one of our nation's top national security positions. By apparently soliciting or otherwise receiving classified information from U.S. government officials serving in national security roles and repeatedly posting such information on social media . . . Kahl demonstrated disregard for security protocols that are designed to protect our national security interests. Kahl has shown that he is unfit to serve and his nomination should not move forward until the FBI has completed the investigation requested by me and 17 of my Senate colleagues. I hope that all of my colleagues want to see answers to these important questions, as well, before we begin to advance his nomination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I have 11 en bloc motions at the desk, and I ask that they be read and considered en bloc.

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by a host of my colleagues. The motions we are proposing are very simple and should attract wide support. Senators on both sides have said this must be a bipartisan process, but so far, it isn't. Not once did any of the 11 Senate subcommittees with jurisdiction over relevant aspects of this legislation meet to consider it--not once. What is the purpose of the Senate's system of expert committees if, as we consider one of the largest bills ever before this body, we are just going to act as if the committees never existed? We are for pandemic relief. What we are not for is a decade-long spending spree, rushed through this body, much of which has nothing to do with pandemic relief. Our motions would simply send this legislation back to committee for 3 days so it can be reviewed in a bipartisan manner. These motions would ensure that the legislation supports proven bipartisan programs before launching new programs or spending more money on programs that are already flush with cash. By midweek, we would have bipartisan legislation with committee input that is targeted to timely pandemic relief for those in need. I urge my colleagues to support these motions.

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

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Scott of South Carolina and myself, I would like to submit a question to the desk.

Mr. HAGERTY

Mr. HAGERTY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the senior Senator from Oklahoma as the lead cosponsor of this amendment in support of our shared objective, maintaining the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem, the eternal and the indivisible capital of the Jewish State of Israel. This Embassy is paving the way for peace throughout the region and should be preserved. Now our allies there know we will stand with them.