Floor Statements

Mr. President, the countdown is on. Today marks the beginning of 100 days until the critical and lifesaving authority placing fentanyl-related substances in schedule I expires. In 100 days that expires.

Congress has extended this authority multiple times, most recently in May. However, when choosing how long to extend this authority, Congress shortchanged itself by providing only 5 months to contemplate how to permanently control fentanyl analogs. I pushed for a longer extension, even spearheading bipartisan legislation that would have extended this authority into the next year, but my colleagues on the other side of the aisle insisted that 5 months was sufficient to work with the administration to find a permanent solution scheduling fentanyl-related substances.

I had skepticism about this when the 5-month extension passed in May, and I have even more skepticism now. That is because we are only 100 days away from losing this essential authority and the administration still has not indicated how it intends to solve this problem. So Congress is operating in the dark.

The administration says that a legislative proposal will be sent to Congress as early as next month. But this proposal won't be a done deal once it arrives on Capitol Hill because, you know, Presidents propose, Congress disposes.

If it doesn't include measures to protect vulnerable communities, to prevent more drug overdose victims, and proactively deter and punish drug traffickers, then it won't be enough to solve the problems of a drug--fentanyl--killing several hundred thousand people.

I have been beating the drum on scheduling fentanyl analogs for a long period of time because it is a fight worth having. We simply can't afford to let these deadly substances go unscheduled.

What happens if we don't schedule fentanyl analogs in the next 100 days? Well, it is pretty obvious. Opioid-related deaths fueled by fentanyl analogs increased by 35 percent in my State of Iowa. What about the other 49 States? But 35 percent in Iowa last year. That happens to be in line with nationwide trends. So deaths will continue to rise if we don't buckle down and get onto this issue of scheduling fentanyl schedule I on a permanent basis.

Also, according to the Customs and Border Patrol, so far this year, enough fentanyl and its analogs have been seized to kill the entire population of the United States not once, but 10 times over.

Some may view drug crimes as victimless. You need to tell that to the hundreds of thousands of families who have lost their brother, sister, parent, or child to fentanyl.

Tell that to Rob and Deb Courtney, the parents of Chad Courtney from North Liberty, IA. Chad died 5 years ago because of fentanyl. He used painkillers and then turned to abusing heroin. Rod and Deb tried to help their son through rehab and treatment. Then one day they received the call that they had been dreading. Their son died because a drug dealer laced heroin with a deadly fentanyl substance. Rod said that one of the last memories he has of his son was picking him up from treatment and Chad stating, ``I just want to make a difference.''

We owe it to Chad and the other 36,359 victims of fentanyl-related overdose deaths to make a difference now, and that means passing legislation that schedules fentanyl and its analogs permanently.

Congress can ensure that we put people over profits and communities over cartels by permanently scheduling fentanyl-related substances. I don't doubt that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle want to protect their constituents. Nobody wants more overdose deaths in their home States. So let's work together to put this issue to rest at last.

Starting today, the countdown is on. As I said in the beginning, 100 more days. I hope the administration and my Senate colleagues are ready to get to work on permanently scheduling fentanyl-related substances. I know that I am ready.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, like my colleague from Iowa who has just spoken, I travel Iowa as well, and in holding my county meetings and visiting with employers and employees--not just these last 2 weeks that we have been in recess, but all year--I have been hearing all of what Senator Ernst has referred to, that people are afraid of inflation and a lot of people are old enough to remember the 12- to 15-percent inflation we had during the mid-1970s to the early 1980s. We don't want to repeat that.

Traveling Iowa, it is always refreshing to hear directly from my constituents because, as I often say, Washington is an island surrounded by reality. The Midwest seems to be the real America compared to what we know here in Washington, DC, where everything that dominates the economy is affected by government--and very Big Government.

There is no better example of this than how the Biden administration and Washington elites talk about inflation and rising prices. To them, inflation is transitory or the result of base effects, and those words ``transitory'' and ``base effects'' are used to justify this inflation. Really something not to worry about, I think, is the impression they want to leave us with.

To the Iowans I spoke with, inflation is real and persistent, as Senator Ernst has so colorfully shown. I heard concerns from my constituents about inflation wherever I went. And why? Because it is affecting people's lives right now.

I heard about how inflation was cutting into families' budgets, making it hard to make ends meet. I heard how prices in grocery staples, such as milk, meat, fruit, vegetables, are on the rise, along with all manner of household goods.

Yet the President and his top economic advisers say inflation is nothing to worry about, or as the President's Treasury Secretary put it, ``I don't think there's going to be an inflationary problem. But if there is, the Fed will be counted on to address it.'' They shouldn't be so nonchalant about it. As we know from the 1970s, once inflation takes off, getting it back under control can require very painful measures.

They should take the advice of former Clinton Treasury Secretary Summers. He recently stated, ``The Fed has had almost no success gently bringing down inflation once an economy has started to overheat.''

Notice that word ``gently'' because everybody thinks this is going to just occur very easily, getting it under control, but we remember the results of the 1970s, early eighties. It took Paul Volcker to take a sledgehammer through the policies of the Federal Reserve to bring down interest rates.

And a lot of farmers in Iowa lost their farms when they were borrowing on that inflation, trusting the government that there was no problem, and then we have just farmers going out of business because Volcker used a sledgehammer, and he probably had to use it because there wasn't a gentle way of doing it. Unfortunately, instead of taking inflation seriously, the current administration appears intent on stoking its flames, pouring gasoline on the inflation fire.

In his budget, the President proposes government spending and debt at levels previously only seen temporarily during war or economic recession. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and economists surveyed by the Wall Street Journal both recently raised their inflation expectations. CBO raised its inflation projections because ``output now exceeds its potential level sooner and by a larger amount than previously anticipated.''

Output exceeding its potential is economic speak for the economy is starting to overheat. Consumer price data released yesterday shows inflation heating up. In June, prices climbed 5.4 percent over the prior year compared to 5 percent in May. Moreover, core inflation, which omits volatile food and energy goods, rose at the highest rate in 29 years

The trillions of dollars in new spending proposed by the President could set inflation ablaze. If that occurs, it is not going to be the wealthy and the Wall Street elites that pay the price. The average hard-working American living paycheck to paycheck, and particularly tough on the retiree on fixed incomes, those are the people that are going to pay more and get less for paying more. The President would be well served to listen more to everyday Americans about how rising prices are affecting their lives today.

President Biden might then realize pursuing another multitrillion- dollar spending spree isn't worth the risk. It could fan the flames of inflation and devastate the livelihoods of average Americans.

It is incumbent upon the President and the Congress to avert catastrophe by pursuing responsible fiscal policies. We can't just expect the Federal Reserve to clean up our mess if we act irresponsibly by spending another $4 trillion. By that time, it could already be too late, waiting on the Fed.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Gary Tromblay, a detailee in my office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

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

Mr. President, every State of the Nation has many infrastructure needs. In Iowa, we rely on our roads, bridges, air, and freight to move our goods and people throughout Iowa, throughout the United States, and eventually throughout the world. I am encouraged that a bipartisan framework has been agreed to for moving forward on an infrastructure bill. I will be interested in seeing more details about the policy and the way to pay for the bill as the bill proceeds forward.

Today, I would like to discuss one aspect of infrastructure, and that is our inland waterways. For Iowa, that is the Mississippi and the Missouri Rivers. For other States, it is a lot of other important rivers.

I ask my colleagues to take this important mode of transportation into account as they work on legislation. I have also sent this request in a letter to both the Senate Environment and Public Works as well as the Appropriations Committees.

The inland and intercostal waterways and our ports are vital to the United States and serve 41 States throughout our Nation. Shippers and consumers depend on the ability to move around 630 million tons of cargo each year, valued at about $232 billion on these waterways. In turn, the inland waterways system supports well over half a million jobs.

Now, I am going to go into some of the information that is on the chart here.

Our Nation's inland waterways system also provides a safe, cost- effective, fuel-efficient, and environmentally friendly way to move our bulk products. This translates into more than $12 billion annually in transportation savings to the American economy.

Furthermore--and when I say ``furthermore,'' this point is important for the environment--1 gallon of fuel oil allows 1 ton of cargo to be shipped 647 miles by barge as compared to 477 miles by rail and only 145 miles by truck.

In addition, the inland waterway transport generates far fewer emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrous oxide than rail or truck per million tons of miles does.

As for safety, there are 21--let's say 22 rail fatalities compared to 79 truck fatalities for every 1 fatality on the waterways system that I am addressing.

By moving goods on inland waterways, we are helping to relieve congestion on the roadways and adding to the Nation's economic prosperity. Moving goods on inland waterways is the most efficient transportation mode. A typical inland barge has a capacity 15 times greater than 1 railcar and 60 times greater than 1 semi-trailer truck. One 15-barge tow can move the equivalent of 216 railcars pulled by 6 locomotives or 1,050 semi-trailer trucks, just as a comparison of the efficiency of this mode of transportation. If the cargo transported on the inland waterways each year had to be moved by another mode, it would take an additional 16 percent more tonnage on the railroad system and 49 million truck trips annually to carry the same load.

U.S. trade policy and its effects on exports, and in particular agricultural exports, have a major impact on the U.S. water transportation system.

The United States is the world's largest agricultural exporting country. U.S. agriculture exports in 2018--the last year we have figures for--generated more than $300 billion in economic output and directly supported more than 1 million jobs.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, about one out of every three acres farmed in our country are planted for export. Agricultural exports account for about a quarter of farm cash receipts, in which 73 percent of these exports and 65 percent of imports were carried on U.S. waterways. American farmers need foreign markets to sell commodities and value-added agricultural products.

Compared to the overall economy, U.S. agriculture is twice as reliant on overseas markets. Consumers in developing countries around the world choose different foods to eat as their incomes rise. As a result, then, there are emerging opportunities for exporting more meat, dairy products, and farm commodities. U.S. exporters need to be able to take advantage of those opportunities with only 96 percent of the world's consumers living outside the United States. Obviously, for the 4 percent of the people who live in the United States, if you want to market, you are going to spend a lot of time marketing to that 96 percent who live outside our country.

As the largest exporter of agricultural products in the world, the United States delivers high-quality, reliable products to consumers around the globe. Now, here at home, these exports are essential to profitability in

agriculture, and the economic activity they generate obviously ripples through the domestic economy.

We need to make sure that our current inland waterway infrastructure is maintained in good condition. Congress has implemented policy changes that provide more funding for the Inland Waterways Trust Fund and adjusted cost shares of the trust fund to more efficiently fund and complete the construction projects. I ask for robust funding to support the use of the Inland Waterways Trust Fund for construction. This is necessary to ensure that the inland waterways modernization, replacement, and rehabilitation construction projects are funded at the level supportable by the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program currently faces a large unmet need in its operations and maintenance account. I have been encouraged that in the last several years, Congress has provided additional funding to help address these backlogs. I request as much funding as possible be provided for these operation and maintenance activities.

The investigations account is also crucial for the inland waterways system. There are currently 15 modernization projects that are waiting to begin construction. It is critically important to complete design of these projects so they can begin construction when the Inland Waterways Trust Fund dollars become available. Failure to have design completed will delay project delivery, ultimately leading to increased total cost of the projects, as well as adding additional time to schedule project completion. I ask that the investigations account be funded at a level to support these projects, given current budgetary constraints.

On the Upper Mississippi River, multiple locks are well beyond their 50-year design life and cannot accommodate more tows, as we have to have the barges break up their tows to get them through smaller locks. So having to decouple the barges significantly slows down traffic on the river and increases costs and emissions harmful, then, to the environment.

I worked with my Upper Mississippi River colleagues here in the Senate and a large, broad stakeholder coalition to get initial authorization for this lock and dam modernization, the Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration Program, signed into law. We have also continued to work on receiving preconstruction engineering design and funding that is provided for in the Navigation and Ecosystem Restoration Program. It is important for that program to receive new start funding so construction on these improvements can start taking place.

Lock and Dam 25, which is a key feature of the navigation and ecosystem program, has received a significant portion of the $72.5 million appropriated for the navigation and ecosystem program thus far and is ready to move to construction. That program is a key priority for me and my colleagues, the State of Iowa, the region, and everybody up and down the Mississippi River, and, eventually, the world benefits from that increased efficiency.

We need all modes of transportation to help deliver our inputs, our goods, and commodities both domestically and internationally. I want to see robust navigation on the Mississippi River and other inland waterways flourish.

I look forward to continuing to work with my congressional colleagues and the administration on these important issues as appropriations and infrastructure legislation is prepared and discussed.

I have one other short comment I would like to make on another subject. It will take me about 2 or 3 minutes.

Mr. President, I am here with Senators Cornyn and Leahy to ask unanimous consent.

As if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 831 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, that the Grassley amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; and that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I guess I am not surprised that we would have an objection like this because a program that has been corrupt and that we have been trying to reform for 8 years--every time we reach an agreement, there is big-moneyed interests in this town and around the country that keep it from happening.

So today's objection, unfortunately, represents another victory for those same moneyed, powerful, corrupt interests that have so often worked to kill reforms to a program that they love to abuse for nothing more than their own financial benefit.

It also means that Congress will not be able to pass legislation to reauthorize the program in advance of its expiration on June 30. A narrow subset of big-moneyed and corrupt interests has now shown that they would rather kill the program altogether than have to accept integrity programs designed to clamp down on their bad behavior.

I thank all those groups who have been working with us for 8 years to get this program reformed. A lot of those people use that program. They were willing to make it an honest program.

All of this action today of this objection is unfortunate but not surprising.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I intend to object to any unanimous consent request relating to the nomination of Kenneth Allen Polite to be an Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice, PN423.

Last week, at the Senate Judiciary Committee's Executive Business Meeting, I noted my intent to object to Mr. Polite's confirmation not on the basis of his credentials--I happen to find him well qualified for the position--but on the basis of the Justice Department's failure to respond to congressional oversight requests.

To date, the Justice Department has failed to provide a full and complete response to any of my oversight requests.

As one of many examples, on February 3, 2021, and March 9, 2021, Senator Johnson and I requested information from the Justice Department relating to Nicholas McQuaid. Mr. McQuaid is Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, the position Mr. Polite will hold upon confirmation. In those letters, we raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest in light of the fact that Mr. McQuaid was employed at Latham & Watkins until January 20, 2021, and worked with Christopher Clark, whom Hunter Biden reportedly hired to work on his Federal criminal case.

This arrangement presents a potential conflict of interest. A core function of congressional oversight is to ensure that governmental Departments and Agencies are free of conflicts of interest. That is especially so with the Justice Department and FBI. If conflicts infect them, those investigations and prosecutions--the very purpose of the Department's existence--could be undermined.

As a part of my oversight, I have requested a recusal memo for Mr. McQuaid. I have also requested to know, as a threshold issue, whether one even exists.

Attorney General Garland has failed to answer and provide the requested records. I have noted to the Department that in 2016 I received from the Department Andrew McCabe's recusal memo to illustrate precedent exists for such a production to Congress. Still, the Justice Department refuses to provide the same for Mr. McQuaid.

There is nothing more eroding of public faith than an unresponsive executive branch that believes it only answers to the President and not the U.S. Congress and, perhaps most importantly, ``we the people.''

This administration's continued ongoing and blatant lack of cooperation has forced my hand. Thus, unfortunately, I must object to any consideration of this nomination. My objection is not intended to question the credentials of Mr. Polite in any way. The executive branch must recognize that it has an ongoing obligation to respond to congressional inquiries in a timely and reasonable manner.

Thank you, Senator Gillibrand.

I think we just heard the Senator from New York speak very strongly about the need for this legislation. She said 12 times she has come to the Senate floor to ask for UC on this bill. So we all ought to know--not only on this bill but a lot of things the Senator from New York is involved in--she is not going to give up. Eight years on this bill proves that, her persistence.

We need to get this done. I would think that a bill that has 66 cosponsors and the demonstrated need for it is such that the people opposing this would be embarrassed, particularly with the 66 cosponsors.

I thank Senator Gillibrand for her persistence. I am glad to be with her on this subject. I haven't worked as hard as she has, but I believe everything she has said, and this bill should pass.

In the last 15 years, there has been virtually no progress in reducing the level of sexual assault in the military. Far too many service men and women have experienced sexual assault, and we don't even know the full extent of the problem because people are afraid to report these because of the retribution that happens as a result of the report. Of those who do report, 64 percent experience retaliation.

But this goes beyond sexual assault. This legislation professionalizes the military justice system and would improve trust and transparency in the ability of the military to handle all serious crimes. The policy of moving the decision to prosecute out of the chain of command has been recommended by military justice experts.

This bill has been considered by the Armed Services Committee for 8 years in a row, and that is why the time has come now to make sure that this bill does not get buried once again in that committee or, as she suggested, very narrowly--the committee has had more than enough time to review the legislation and propose alternatives. We have even heard from the Department of Defense that they can solve this problem, and yet it keeps getting worse.

This bill with so many cosponsors deserves the support and shouldn't have to wait any longer to get passed. It is time for the legislation to finally move forward, and I urge my colleagues to join in this effort to get this done the easiest way possible, and that would be by

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

Mr. President, we have been told by the majority party that soon we will be having a vote on an 800-page bill to change 50 State voting laws to 1 Federal law. This bill is called the For the People Act. It was compiled after the 2018 elections to call into question the legitimacy of democratic elections for partisan political purposes.

If it had been a serious attempt at legislating, there would have been some outreach to some Republicans because it takes 60 votes, a bipartisan vote, to get anything through the U.S. Senate.

In that process, there would have been consultation also with local elected officials--the election officials who conduct the State elections--to make sure it was workable. There would have been hearings in the Congress. There would have been revisions from the bill originally introduced.

The fact that back in 2018, when it was introduced, is the fact that it was intended as political propaganda, and that betrays the absurdity of the title, the ``For the People Act.''

Also, despite Senator Schumer's using Senate rule XIV in the last Congress to bypass the committee and put the bill directly on the Senate calendar, Senator Schumer never used his right to force a vote on moving to the bill. At that time, the Democratic narrative was that Republicans were not doing enough to secure the election so the results might end up being in doubt. Now, what we know from happening in the last election, that argument is out the window now.

Since the Democrats got the results they wanted, they endlessly quote the Trump administration's top cyber security official declaring the 2020 election the most secure ever in history.

I assumed last Congress that Senator Schumer would wait until right before the 2020 election to force a vote so he could accuse Republicans of blocking an election bill for their campaign narrative questioning election security. Instead, they repeatedly, dishonestly, blamed the Republican leader for blocking the bill, ignoring the fact that the Democratic leader had reserved the possibility of forcing a vote.

The For the People Act is a messaging bill. The bill has now been reintroduced and recast as a response to a few State election security laws. A handful of relatively modern reforms at the State level have been shamelessly and falsely characterized as voter suppression, even considering the fact that in the last election, the winner got the highest number of votes of any winner for President in the history of the United States, and the loser got the highest number of votes of any candidate for President of the United States throughout our history.

As I have mentioned before, the claim by some Trump supporters that a certain brand of voting machine switched votes, I pointed out that that was lifted entirely from the Democrats' 2004 playbook. And President Trump's questioning of his loss in Georgia was simply following in the footsteps of the losing candidate for Governor of Georgia 2 years before. The Georgia Democrat lost by over 50,000 votes in 2018 and has never even bothered to try to prove voting irregularities on that scale.

Foreign adversaries like Russia and China cast doubts on the soundness of our democratic system, both to weaken us from within and to justify their own repressive regimes. American politics should not do these repressive regimes propaganda jobs for them, but too often we tend to be doing that.

This bill is being called democracy reform. I support our American democratic system. All Americans should be proud of it. We can and should have confidence in our elections. Our democracy does not need a fundamental rewrite because our democracy works.

Let's stop casting doubt on American elections, stop casting aspersions on the commonsense election security measures supported by Americans of all backgrounds. Let's work together to boost the confidence of all Americans in our elections.

This bill would register illegal aliens. It would do away with State voter ID laws. It would have taxpayer-funded elections.

I remember what our colleague Senator Cruz said. In the first quarter of this year, he raised--it must have been in the neighborhood of about $5 million from contributors of under $200. So if you get that kind of money, under this bill, from people under $200, for every dollar you get, you get $6 from the taxpayers. So Senator Cruz, I am told, would get about $34 million of taxpayer funds to use for political purposes. We don't need to replace 50 State voting laws as this 800-page bill would.

I yield the floor.

Senator Gillibrand, as 1 of the 65 other cosponsors of this legislation, I think you are to be commended for every day coming to the floor, to be as consistent in being for this legislation as you have been since 2013. And every one of us thank you for your persistence. You need to be congratulated. And all the people who have been harmed by sexual assaults over the last decades owe you a great deal of gratitude for that.

So I am here to join Senator Gillibrand in asking for a vote on this crucial legislation. And, obviously, today we aren't going to get it, but eventually it is going to happen. You can't say no to 66 Senators that want this legislation. The Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention Act has that many bipartisan cosponsors, and it is past time for this bill to become law.

This legislation was first introduced by Senator Gillibrand and me and other Senators 8 years ago and has gained more and more support each year. Senators who previously were skeptical have come around and realized that the Department of Defense can't handle the pervasive problems of sexual assault on their own.

The Armed Services Committee and the Department of Defense have had more than enough time to consider this idea. They have told us that they have it under control and tried other approaches. Those approaches have not worked. Women and men in the military continue to face high rates of sexual assault and retaliation. It is clear this bill is needed.

By moving the decision to prosecute out of the chain of command, perpetrators of sexual assault and other serious crimes will be held accountable. Survivors will have more confidence in the process. Retaliation will be less likely. We have been waiting almost a decade. There is no need any longer to wait. I urge my colleagues to allow this bill to move forward today. And, obviously, it isn't going to move forward today, but Senator Gillibrand will be back here tomorrow, asking the same thing. And I applaud you for doing that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is no secret that this Senator has been a leader in promoting renewable energy sources. Iowa has done even more to lead the Nation in biofuels production. This leads to a cleaner environment and really increases America's energy independence.

Last week, Reuters reported the Biden administration is considering ways to allow U.S. oil refiners to not meet their biofuel blending requirements. This same administration has proposed hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for electric vehicles but failed to include any support for biofuels infrastructure, which play a vital role in our Nation's transportation sector as well as our efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.

Need I remind my colleagues, President Biden promised in his campaign to ``promote and advance renewable energy, ethanol, and other biofuels to help rural America and our nation's farmers.'' President Biden is not keeping that promise.

Unfortunately, despite the administration's emphasis on the environment and climate, their recent actions contradict that and undermine their entire credibility. The biofuel industry has proven that ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions from motor fuel by almost half.

Almost every vehicle on the road can run on at least E10 ethanol. Many retailers are now selling more E15 ethanol and other higher blends like E85, if you have a vehicle that can use E85. Whether it is 10 percent, 15 percent, or 85 percent, it is cleaner than 100 percent petroleum.

According to the Energy Information Administration, by 2050, 81 percent of new vehicle sales will still be gas-powered or flex fuel.

In my introductory telephone conversation with EPA Administrator Regan, when he was nominated, he told me that biofuels are a major tool in the Biden administration's plan to combat climate change. I stressed to him at that time the importance of the biofuels industry to both agriculture and energy, and Iowa happens to be the No. 1 producer of ethanol.

No matter what the EPA or Big Oil says about the impact of its waivers to oil companies making billions in profits, farmers and biofuel producers know and feel the negative impact. Any attempt to exempt oil refiners from their biofuels obligation is a blatant bailout.

The law is simple: Blend biofuels or buy credits from those who do. By adding more biofuels to our energy mix, we can reduce emissions from dirty oil while keeping transportation costs low for working families.

Unfortunately, despite the administration's emphasis on environment, it seems like biofuels don't appear to be much of a priority and well short of what nominee at that time, now-EPA Director Regan said that it would be. Now it looks like labor unions have been co-opted by Big Oil, and we are doing their bidding in the White House.

President Biden is now faced with a decision. He can lower greenhouse gases with biofuels or he can side with Big Oil to destroy biofuel demand by illegally tampering with the renewable fuel standard, just as we had problems with previous administrations, both Republican and Democratic--referring to what the Obama and Trump administrations did with the small refineries exemption.

Whether it is labor unions or Big Oil, I won't tire in standing up for homegrown clean biofuels. I did that whether we had Democratic or Republican administrations. I will continue to advocate for Iowans and the biofuels because it strengthens U.S. energy independence, makes for a cleaner environment, and creates jobs in rural America.

I encourage President Biden, EPA Administrator Regan, and my colleagues from across the aisle to keep it clean.

Does President Biden want to be known as ``Big Oil'' Biden? I don't think he does.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, for the past 41 years, I have toured our State to hear from Iowa workers, our community leaders, and our farmers at my annual 99 county meetings. So far this year, I have been in 71.

As a farmer myself, I enjoy speaking with those involved in agriculture all across the State who tell me that they are third-, fourth-, fifth-generation farmers. These folks use the same soil and barns as their grandfathers before them. Everyone I speak with intends to leave their land to their children and leave it better than they found it. That goes way back to it being entrusted to their care. We all have that responsibility.

Between the use of cover crops, buffer strips, no-till farming, and minimal-till farming, more conservation practices than ever before are being used on Iowa's 35 million acres of farmland. While Iowa farmers are continuing to feed our country and the world, they are also doing so with fewer inputs and better soil and water outcomes.

Iowa farmers should be congratulated; however, it seems like there is always a target on the backs of Iowa farmers and I could say for maybe all American farmers. I want to get to that target, and that has something to do with this map that I have here of the State of Iowa.

Last week, it was reported that the Biden administration is moving forward to add redtape to their operations by rewriting President Trump's navigable waters protection rule. In my first telephone conversation with then-EPA nominee Administrator Regan and now the confirmed Administrator--by the way, confirmed by a unanimous vote of this Senate--I warned Administrator Regan against moving back to the Obama-era waters of the U.S. rule, which we call WOTUS for short. That is a regulation they shouldn't move back to because of the burden it placed on rural areas, including Iowa farmers.

In fact, under the old waters rule, 97 percent of Iowa's land would have been subject to jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. In other words, all of the blue part of Iowa--with the exceptions of these areas that are white that adds up to the blue area--97 percent of this land mass of Iowa would be subject to Federal jurisdiction. Adding more Federal redtape to a farmer's day-to-day decisions on the farm is government overreach, plain and simple.

But besides Iowa's 86,000 farmers, a change in the Trump navigable waters protection rule will also result in significant redtape and significant expense for, among others, homebuilders, golf course managers, and construction companies as they make very routine decisions about how best to use the land and run their businesses.

Now, imagine that, not only have new home prices risen due to inflation and soaring lumber prices--and, by the way, lumber prices have added $36,000 to the price of a house just in the last year. Now, instead of that happening because lumber prices have gone up, now home prices, because of this proposed change in the regulation, will increase due to additional permitting that wasn't previously needed.

To clear up common confusion, the Trump-era rule that is now the law of the land did not give polluters free rein to discharge pollutions with no regard to the health of our Nation's waterways. Regulating the discharge of pollution into waterways is important and is done through other parts of the Clean Water Act.

The Trump rule made sure that where routine land use decisions were being made with little or no environmental impact, then those decisions would not be regulated by the Federal Government. EPA's release about its intention to overturn the navigable waters protection rule, which is the Trump rule, mentions that 333 projects would have required permits by the Obama waters rule that did not need government paperwork under the navigable waters protection rule of the Trump administration, and, of course, that is exactly the point--exactly the point of what was wrong with the WOTUS rule.

If you are simply moving dirt to level off a low point in a field, should that need a Federal permit? If a golf course is fixing a bunker or flattening a green, should that need a Federal permit? The obvious commonsense answer to both of these questions and a lot of other questions that can be put out there for speculative purposes is, What good does this redtape do for anyone? I want to underline that point.

My Republican colleagues and I want clean water and healthy soil for our families and our communities. This is important. But what I don't want is a Federal Government power grab that adds so much redtape to routine land use decisions that it slows our economy to a halt.

If the Biden administration decides to go down this road of reverting to the old Obama-era WOTUS, they will be seriously misguided. Why should you put the farmers of Iowa, as well as the other people, with many even having to get a permit to do normal farming practices--it just doesn't make sense.

For an administration that is so focused on updating our Nation's infrastructure, why does it make sense to propose a rule that only adds costs and delays construction with no identifiable benefit?

I urge President Biden and EPA Administrator Regan to listen to the farmers and land owners across the country. Wave the WOTUS rule goodbye. Put away the redtape that is going to come around as a result of what you are planning to do.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, as my colleague from Iowa just said, something mysterious happened just before the holiday weekend when the budget was released. So just before Memorial Day, the administration released its long-awaited fiscal year 2022 budget proposal.

Having reviewed the proposal, it is obvious why they chose this timing to do it--because they hoped most Americans would be too distracted by their backyard barbecues and tributes to fallen heroes to even notice how outlandish this budget proposal is. Thank God, Presidents only propose, Congress disposes because we have the power of the purse.

I have bad news for my Democratic colleagues about the release of this; that the American public won't have the wool pulled over their eyes as easily as this administration thinks so by putting this out late Friday before the holiday weekend. Americans will see this budget for what it is, a very unserious political document containing a laundry list of liberal wish list policies unmoored from economic or fiscal reality. It would be funny if not for the very serious issues we currently face in our country, and this budget makes them worse.

In response to the pandemic, Congress understandably took bold actions to help individuals keep the roof over their head and to help small businesses keep their lights on. As a result, our national debt exploded because of the pandemic. It now exceeds the entire output of our economy, and this budget is going to make that situation even worse.

As we enter the postpandemic world, we need to address the very real issues about rising debt and deficits posing for our country over the long term. Otherwise, to quote the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, ``a growing debt burden could increase the risk of a fiscal crisis and higher inflation as well as undermine confidence in the U.S. dollar.''

The President's budget completely ignores potential fiscal and economic challenges that we all know are on the horizon. Taking the concept of ``never letting a crisis go to waste'' to a whole new level, the Biden budget would put our country in a permanent crisis mode in terms of spending and debt levels.

In 2009, at the height of the financial crisis, the government spending peaked at 24.4 percent of GDP. Now, spending proposed under President Biden's budget would average even higher at 24.5 percent over the next decade. So what we had peaked in the 2009 year of the financial crisis is going to be just common for the whole next decade, and that is bad.

Moreover, the President's budget would set a new record for the debt as a share of the economy. According to the President's own rosy assumptions, debt as a percentage of GDP would reach 112 percent next year, shattering the World War II record of 106 percent of GDP. And by 2031, debt as a share of our economy would hit 117 percent of GDP. So how extraordinary a step this budget takes. At a time when inflation has been rearing its head, proposing sustained spending and debt at these levels is playing with fire, like pouring gasoline on a fire.

Even long-term Democrat economists and Obama administration alums, Larry Summer and Jason Furman, have begun to sound the inflation alarm. The President would be well-advised to start taking notice when leading economists like these two point to the dangers of inflation.

As problematic as the spending side of the budget is--and so far that is the only part I have covered--we now go to the tax side, and the tax side is equally dangerous. The President proposes enacting the largest tax increase in history.

Incredibly, even with the $3.6 trillion in new taxes he proposes, his budget still doesn't come close to putting our national debt on a sustainable path given the new spending. This shows his tax cuts aren't about fiscal responsibility. Instead, they are about punishing success and redistributing wealth.

Ultimately, this will prove disastrous for the economy and, of course, it is going to affect all Americans. Job-killing tax hikes will slow economic growth. These tax hikes will reduce business investment, and these tax hikes will result in lower wages and fewer jobs over the long run. As a result, then, the middle class is likely to suffer the most.

Higher taxes, excessive spending, and escalating debt are not a recipe for our economy to ``Build Back Better,'' those famous words of this President's economic program--``Build Back Better.'' Instead, they are just a recipe for government to ``Build Bureaucracy Better'' and at the expense of hard-working Americans.

I yield the floor.