Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Mr. President, today I recognize Jorja Whempner, an intern in my Aberdeen, SD, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks.

Jorja is a graduate of Summit High School in Summit, SD. Currently, she is attending Northern State University in Aberdeen, SD, where she is pursuing a degree in history education. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Jorja for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. President, in a couple of weeks, we will mark the second anniversary of one of President Biden's signature measures, the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. I am sure the White House will be celebrating, but Americans shouldn't be because Democrats did the country no favors with this legislation. In fact, the bill reads like a roster of bad Democrat policies.

It is hard to know where to even begin: Perhaps with the bill's misleading--really--outright deceptive title. Democrats called the bill the Inflation Reduction Act, yet even before the bill had been signed into law, the nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model was noting the bill's impact on inflation was ``statistically indistinguishable from zero.'' In other words, the Inflation Reduction Act would do nothing-- nothing--to reduce inflation.

President Biden confirmed this fact a year later when he noted--this is President Biden speaking:

Well, we've put ourselves in a position where we passed the

most comprehensive environmental piece of--it's called the

Inflation Reduction Act. It has nothing to do with inflation.

That is President Biden. Let me just repeat that, Mr. President.

It's called the Inflation Reduction Act. It has nothing to

do with inflation.

President Biden's own words.

Why Democrats chose to name it that when it had nothing to do with reducing inflation is a good question. Perhaps it was to try to convince the American people, falsely, that Democrats were doing something to stem the historic inflation crisis they had created, or perhaps it was to disguise the substance of what Democrats thought might be otherwise an unpopular bill.

But moving on.

Another Democrat selling point for the bill was the claim that it would reduce the deficit. But that claim has proved to be just as hollow as the bill's title. The cost of the bill's Green New Deal provisions has grown to such an extent that the bill will not only not reduce the deficit, it is now on track to add to it. That is right. A bill Democrats touted for its deficit reduction is now predicted to actually add to the deficit.

And speaking of the bill's Green New Deal provisions, as the President himself admitted last year, the so-called Inflation Reduction Act was really a chance for Democrats to impose their Green New Deal fantasies. So the bill contains things like $1.5 billion--billion, I might add--for a grant program to plant trees; $1 billion for zero- emission, heavy-duty vehicles like garbage trucks; $3 billion for the U.S. Postal Service for zero-emission delivery vehicles; $1.9 billion for things like road equity--whatever that is--and identifying gaps in tree canopy coverage; and at least $30 billion in climate slush funds allocated for climate-related political activity. Yes, Mr. President, climate-related political activity because, clearly, families struggling with high grocery prices and high energy prices in the Biden-Harris economy are eager to see their tax dollars going to Green New Deal activism.

Then, of course, there are the tax credits the bill provides for well-off Americans to purchase new electric vehicles.

And there is much, much more. All told, the climate- and energy- related provisions of the bill are now projected to cost American taxpayers in excess of $1 trillion.

I mentioned tax credits for electric vehicles. Perhaps the Biden administration's signature environmental measure has been attempting to force the widespread adoption of electric vehicles.

The Inflation Reduction Act tax credits are one part of this crusade. Others include the final emissions rules the Biden administration released this spring that will have the practical effect of forcing car and truck companies to electrify a huge portion of their sales lots.

And the big problem here is that the President is attempting to force the adoption of his electric vehicle fantasy at a time when our electric grid is barely keeping up with current demand.

An article in the Washington Post this March entitled ``Amid explosive demand, America is running out of power,'' noted ``Vast swaths of the United States are at risk of running short of power as electricity-hungry data centers and clean-technology factors proliferate around the country, leaving utilities and regulators grasping for credible plans to expand the nation's creaking power grid.''

And that is our situation right now as we speak, without the incredible burden that would be added to our grid by a vast increase in the number of electric cars and trucks on the road.

If the President is successful in imposing a rapid and widespread increase in the number of electric vehicles, we are likely to be facing a situation where there is simply not enough power available to keep up with demand, with higher prices, electricity rationing, blackouts, and brownouts as the inevitable result.

I could go on for a while here about the strain the President is attempting to place on our electric grid, even as he seeks to weaken the already creaky grid even further with burdensome new regulations. And I could go on about the Inflation Reduction Act. I haven't even talked about the incredible amount of money Democrats funneled to the IRS through this legislation--the majority of it earmarked for increased audits and enforcements to help fund Democrats' Green New Deal fantasies. Nor have I talked about the tax hikes on energy, which are doing no favors to Americans already beset by high energy bills in the Biden-Harris economy.

Then there are the bill's price controls for prescription drugs, which will curtail medical innovation and the development of new medications. When the Biden administration originally proposed this policy, research from the University of Chicago projected that price controls of prescription drugs in Medicare would result in 135 fewer new drugs available to patients. We have already seen those projections beginning to come to fruition as multiple drug companies have halted research into new treatments as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act.

I will stop here, Mr. President. Suffice it to say that Democrats' so-called Inflation Reduction Act is a catalog of bad Democratic policies from unrealistic Green New Deal measures to costly tax hikes, to irresponsible spending.

Unfortunately, if we end up with a Harris administration next year, this legislation is likely a grim preview of more bad bills to come.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``nay''.

Madam President, America has always been a place where, if you work hard, you can get ahead. But it is a lot more challenging in the Biden economy.

Inflation has dealt working families a series of setbacks that have made it harder to get ahead, and it is, in large part, due this administration's reckless spending.

Madam President, 3\1/2\ years ago, Vice President Harris cast her first tiebreaking votes in the Senate to advance a $1.9 trillion spending bill under the guise of pandemic relief.

She and our Democratic colleagues had been warned that that level of spending risked setting off inflation unlike any we had seen in a generation, but they passed it anyway.

And inflation began to take off almost immediately. And 3 years later, prices have gone up more than 20 percent; groceries are up 21 percent; the cost of car repairs are up 31 percent; energy costs have gone up 40 percent.

Nearly every aspect of daily life is more expensive in the Biden- Harris economy, and Americans are struggling to make ends meet. More than

one-third of Americans are worried about paying their bills. They are pulling back on their spending and putting more on their credit cards. Some people are even taking on extra work just to get by, but sometimes it is still not enough.

As one new mom in Missouri put it:

It's just hard. I work full time. My husband works full

time. I feel like at this point, we're moving more towards

survival mode, rather than thriving.

Another mom in Virginia says of her sons and their wives:

[E]verybody is working as absolutely hard as they can. They

are not farther ahead than my husband and I were 30 years

ago.

Another woman, in Pennsylvania, who is working two jobs, says:

Prior to inflation, I didn't have any debt, I didn't have

any credit cards, never applied for like a payday loan or any

of those things. But since inflation I needed to do all those

things. . . . I've had to downgrade my life completely.

They are not alone. For many Americans, life in the Biden-Harris economy feels like a downgrade. It now costs a typical family $13,000 more per year just to maintain the same standard of living it enjoyed when President Biden took office--$13,000 more per year just to tread water.

That is an incredible strain on families' budgets. And it is not just higher prices. Measures to tame inflation have also added to Americans' financial pain.

To fight inflation, the Federal Reserve has been forced to keep interest rates high, which affects Americans' finances in a variety of ways.

As I said, many Americans have turned to credit cards to cope with inflation. And higher interest rates, in part, the result of the Feds' actions, are making credit card bills harder to pay down. The same is true for car payments.

And Americans looking to own their own home are facing what one housing expert called ``the most challenging home buying market we have ever seen.''

The average monthly mortgage payment is a staggering $2,6000--the result of a combination of higher mortgage rates and higher home prices.

The White House has spent a lot of time trying to spin the economy as strong, but the American people aren't buying it. An economy where people are working harder and still struggling to get by isn't what most Americans consider a strong economy. And it can't be America's future.

I said inflation began accelerating as a result of Democrats' reckless spending. That is not a Republican talking point. It is a fact with which Democrat economists agree.

Yet the Biden-Harris administration and congressional Democrats show no signs of backing off their reckless tax-and-spending agenda. In fact, it is clear they envision a lot more of the same.

The administration's latest budget request is filled with burdensome new taxes and trillions in new spending. They want to see the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act expire, which would mean more tax increases. And Democrats still have plenty of tax-and-spending ideas they would like to implement.

The American people have suffered enough. I don't want to think about what kind of economic pain we could see from another 4 years of Democrats' reckless spending. And I hope--I sincerely hope--that the American people will not have to experience it.

Madam President, as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions, which are at the desk: S. Res. 785, S. Res. 786, S. Res. 787, and S. Res. 788.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``nay.''

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

Mr. President, yesterday evening, in the tradition of another Democrat President and his infamous Court-packing scheme way back in 1937, President Biden announced a proposal to interfere with the Constitution's separation of powers and permanently politicize the Supreme Court. He dressed it up with appeals to permanent American values, but what it all boiled down to was this: Democrats don't like some of the Supreme Court's

recent decisions, and so they have decided to change the rules of the game. That is it.

I have disagreed with more than one Supreme Court decision in my time--I have disagreed with Supreme Court Justices nominated by Presidents of my own party--but I have never thought that my not agreeing with a Supreme Court decision meant that the Court itself was illegitimate or that my party should attempt to change the law to make over the Supreme Court in our image.

Well, not so for Democrats. The Supreme Court releases a handful of decisions the Democrats don't like, and they decide that the Court is illegitimate and that it is time to remake the Court to their liking. More than one Democrat has already introduced legislation in Congress to do just that.

And now, with the President's announcement yesterday, it has become clear that those plans have accelerated and that if Democrats take the White House and Congress in November, we can expect them to lose no time in destroying the Court as we know it.

While the President's proposals are troubling enough, with a measure to circumvent the Constitution's lifetime appointments for Justices and replace the Supreme Court's own code of conduct with a code of conduct mandated by Democrat Members of Congress, who knows--who knows if Democrats will stop there? After all, while their proposal would conveniently start by retiring Republican appointees, Democrats would only be able to retire one Justice every 2 years. What is to say that would be fast enough for Democrats?

We all know that Court-packing, which is expanding the Supreme Court until you get a sufficient number of Justices to endorse your policies, has gained significant traction in Democrat circles. Indeed, President Biden's term limits proposal is a version of Court-packing by another name, and it would not surprise me at all if Democrats didn't stop there, because--make no mistake--this is a slippery slope. Once you start interfering, there is no going back.

If the Democrats implement this plan, it is easy to see a future where each subsequent administration acts to ``return balance'' to the Supreme Court, with the result that the Supreme Court changes wildly from administration to administration, losing all independence and credibility and any resemblance to the Supreme Court as established by the Constitution.

I would like to remind my Democrat colleagues of what happened with the filibuster for judicial nominees here in the Senate. Back in 2013, Democrats, frustrated that they could not rubberstamp all of President Obama's appointees, abolished the filibuster for lower court nominees. It turned out to be a quick step from that to abolishing the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees a few years later, and I am pretty sure that I have heard more than one of my Democrat colleagues express regret over that 2013 decision. But it seems that Democrats are resolved not to learn from history and are perfectly willing to sacrifice the long- term stability of the Supreme Court for their own short-term political gain.

Even worse than any specific element of President Biden's proposals yesterday is the incredibly dangerous precedent they would set for meddling in what is supposed to be a separate, independent branch of our government. If Democrats were really, really concerned about impartiality and the rule of law and promoting faith in the Supreme Court, the last thing they would be doing is interfering with the Court's makeup.

If there are any Democrats left in Congress who are willing to put the long-term health of our institutions over some temporary political gain, I urge them--I urge them--to join Republicans in opposing this power grab.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).