Floor Statements

Mr. President, the threat that China poses is widely recognized. Recent events laid bare the Chinese Communist Party's interest in spying on Americans. The Chinese military is growing more aggressive in the Indo-Pacific, especially toward Taiwan. And China is aligning itself with other adversaries like Russia, whose war against Ukraine China has helped support.

We need to make the right decisions now to ensure that the United States is able to counter China from a position of strength, which brings me to the majority leader's current China proposal. Last month, the Democrat leader launched an initiative Democrats are calling China Competition bill 2.0. While this proposal has some laudable goals, a lot of Republicans are rightly skeptical of this initiative. Leader Schumer's last China initiative massively ballooned in cost, and now it is being implemented by the Biden administration as a vehicle for advancing progressive policies.

I am not alone in fearing the Democrats' latest initiative will turn out to be just more of the same. If Democrats are serious about competing with China, one thing they should be doing is making passage of a robust National Defense Authorization Act a priority.

Unfortunately, the NDAA has not exactly been a priority for the Democrat leader over the past 2 years. In fact, last year, Senator Schumer refused to bring the bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee-passed bill to the floor. This critical legislation was allowed to languish for months before a negotiated bill with the House and the Senate finally passed in December of last year.

Our national security should not be an eleventh-hour concern.

I am encouraged that the Senate markup of the NDAA is occurring next week and that the majority leader is inclined to bring it to the floor in July. And I hope that holds.

China has made investment in its military a priority. Over the last 10 years, China's defense budget has doubled. This year, it will increase by more than 7 percent for the second year in a row, not counting any additional defense funding that China hides. It comes as no surprise that China is outpacing our military in modern capabilities like hypersonic missiles and has amassed a larger Navy.

Recent U.S. war games positing a U.S.-China conflict following an attack on Taiwan have had grim results, showing enormous military and economic costs on both sides. These war games also made clear that the United States would run through its inventory of munitions, especially for long-range strike, in a matter of weeks, blunting our ability to sustain a protracted conflict.

The United States, along with our allies and partners, need to maintain a credible deterrence to ensure that the cost is prohibitively high and the odds of success are extremely slim for China to attack across the Taiwan Strait or further attempt to assert any absolute control within the so-called First Island Chain. To do that, we have work to do on boosting our military's resources and readiness. At the very least, that starts with taking up each year's Defense authorization and appropriations bills in a timely fashion.

Besides building up our military, one of the best ways to ensure our competitiveness with China is to strengthen American industry so we continue to lead in the breakthroughs, innovations, and advanced technologies that will define the future. How we attempt to do that matters.

The President and Democrats in Congress have shown their preference for heavy-handed and often costly industrial policy that bestows taxpayer-funded subsidies on certain select industries, and it would be wise to ask where this will put us in the next 5, 10, and 20 years. Will it stifle innovation in our most important engines of growth? What will be the result of government picking winners and losers? Will small businesses and new enterprises be able to compete with large, established, and government-subsidized firms?

The way the Biden administration has so far been implementing its subsidy programs makes me suspect that we are well on our way to having government bureaucrats play an outsized role in our economy, with correspondingly negative effects.

Look no further than the strings that the Commerce Department has attached to funding for semiconductor manufacturers. The Department is giving preference to companies using union workers and, in some cases, conditioning funding on companies offering employee benefits that align with the Biden administration's agenda. It is the opposite of creating a level playing field.

America succeeds when innovators and entrepreneurs are empowered to do what they do best, and government steps out of the way. Government should be focused, not on heavy-handed regulation or picking winners and losers but on creating the conditions on which all businesses, large and small, can thrive.

Republicans have shown how pro-growth policies like this lead to greater investment, more opportunities for workers, and a stronger economy for all. Take our 2017 tax reform legislation. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered tax rates for owners of small- and medium-sized businesses, farms and ranches, and made it easier for them to recover the cost of investing in their businesses, which, in turn, freed up cash for them to invest in their operations and their workers.

It lowered our country's sky-high corporate tax rate to make American businesses more competitive in the global economy. And it brought our international tax system into the 21st century so that American businesses no longer operated at a disadvantage to their foreign counterparts.

And it worked.

In the wake of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, incomes grew, unemployment fell to a 50-year low, the income gap in this country narrowed, and the list goes on. Business investment increased, inversions--which is tax speak for companies moving their headquarters overseas--stopped. Companies created new jobs and invested in their employees, and they opened new opportunities for American workers by moving production and capital into the United States and bringing substantially more than a trillion dollars in offshore funds home.

One major thing--one major thing--that we could do to help boost our economy and increase our competitiveness with China is to extend the expired provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to give certainty to American businesses and entrepreneurs, and in Democrats' case, commit to not repealing key Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions.

In the defense space, we can enhance the certainty for businesses by authorizing more multiyear acquisition contracts for key munitions like those used by the B-1 bomber, something that would both enhance economic growth and strengthen our Nation's defense.

We also need to resume a real and robust trade policy. For the last 2\1/2\ years, the Biden administration has put trade on the back burner to the detriment of our economy and our place in the world. Trade opens new jobs and opportunities for American workers. It helps businesses and agriculture producers access new markets, which grows our economy, and it provides an opportunity to develop important strategic relationships, foster ties with our allies, and advance U.S. priorities abroad.

Under the Biden administration, the United States has been essentially inactive--inactive--on trade, but the rest of the world has not. China, for one, is currently negotiating or implementing a number of new trade agreements, adding to its already large portfolio of trading partners. These agreements aren't just economically advantageous, they are allowing China to build sometimes predatory relationships that serve to expand its sphere of influence.

One of the most important things we can do to ensure that our country remains competitive with China is to reengage on the trade front and get to work on trade deals that expand market access and strengthen our relationships with other countries, particularly those that neighbor China.

There are a number of other steps we can take to boost our competitiveness with China, things like unleashing American energy production to increase our energy security and to boost

American industry, developing critical mineral resources here at home instead of relying on China for so much of our critical mineral supply, expanding our own security and technological partnerships so we have a more agile and resilient supply chain, and more.

If the Democrat leader is serious about improving our competitiveness with China and not just funding progressive priorities, these are the kinds of things that he should focus on for his bill.

There is no question in my mind that the United States can successfully compete with and deter aggression from China. But to do that, we have to make sure that we are doing the right things to build up our military and ensure that American industry can thrive. And I hope that as we move forward, we will make securing our competitiveness with China a priority and ensure that any China initiative does not simply become a vehicle for more spending on progressive fantasies.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. President, when it comes to what is happening in Washington, DC, it is often the legislation Congress is considering that gets the lion's share of attention, but just as significant are the regulations being put out by the executive branch. Regulations may not seem as significant as legislation, but they can have just as far- reaching an effect as any law and can radically shift Federal policy.

A look at the Presidential administration's regulations can tell you a lot about that administration's approach to government. Over the past 2-plus years, the Biden administration has built a record of regulation that reflects its big-government, big-spending priorities.

Take the President's student loan giveaway, which, if the ``forgiveness'' portion is not overturned by the Supreme Court, is set to cost taxpayers nearly $1 trillion over the next decade, or take his overreaching waters of the United States rule, which, if enforced, would give the Federal Government sweeping jurisdiction over most water features on private property, including things like irrigation ditches, ephemeral streams, and even prairie potholes.

The ability to create regulations gives a Presidential administration a lot of power--and the ability to do a lot of damage. Checks do exist on the regulatory power, however, and one check is provided by the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to pass resolutions of disapproval that repeal the regulations in question. The President still has to sign the resolution for it to go into effect or else two- thirds majorities in both Houses of Congress have to override his veto. But the tool can be used to check excessive use of regulatory power.

Senate Republicans have been making regular use of the Congressional Review Act this Congress to attempt to address some egregious Biden administration regulations. We have passed nine now resolutions of disapproval of Biden administration actions so far this year, every single one of which has been bipartisan, which goes to show just how extreme the actions in question are.

I mentioned Senator Capito's resolution to overturn the administration's waters of the United States rule. It is an Obama-era relic resurrected by the Biden Environmental Protection Agency. As I mentioned, if enforced, this rule would give the Federal Government jurisdiction over a vast number of water features on private property, including things like irrigation ditches and even prairie potholes-- something we are very familiar with in my region of the country.

Farmers, ranchers, and other private landowners could see parts of their land rendered useless for months while the Federal Government determines what restrictions to impose. Landowners could also be faced with huge compliance costs, and the value of their land could plummet.

Now, I say ``if enforced.'' While nine Democrats in the House and five in the Senate joined Republicans to pass a resolution disapproving the President's WOTUS rule, the President vetoed the resolution. But, in a victory for landowners, the Supreme Court recently ruled to clarify and limit the Federal Government's reach under the Clean Water Act, which effectively overturns the President's WOTUS rule.

I also mentioned the President's student loan giveaway. The forgiveness part of the President's student loan giveaway would cost taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of half a trillion dollars over the next decade. The President's legal authority to unilaterally forgive student debt is extremely dubious, not to mention how unfair it is to ask the many Americans who worked hard to pay off their loans or who never pursued college in the first place to take on the burden of student debt for individuals who took out loans for college or graduate school and agreed to pay them back.

With Senator Cassidy's leadership in the Senate, Republicans in the House and Senate, joined by a handful of Democrats, passed a resolution disapproving of the administration's student loan forgiveness overreach, but the President vetoed it. However, the President's forgiveness plan could still be overruled by the Supreme Court, which is set to release his decision on two student loan forgiveness cases as soon as this week.

Another terrible Biden administration regulation that Republicans, through Senator Braun's efforts, have attempted to check is the President's rule that allows pension plan fiduciaries--those are the individuals who manage Americans' retirement accounts--to consider so- called environmental, social, and governance factors and not just the rate of return when investing their customers' money.

In other words, the individuals who manage $11.7 trillion of Americans' retirement are no longer required to make investment decisions based solely on maximizing return. It might come as a surprise to many of the people out there who have funds invested. Instead, they will now be allowed to opt for a less valuable investment if they prefer its environmental profile.

House and Senate Republicans passed a resolution disapproving of this rule, but unfortunately, again, the President vetoed it, meaning that for now retirees may have to accept that environmental goals-- environmental goals--can come ahead of giving them a secure retirement.

But it was important to bring attention to this regulation--one of a number of radical environmental regulations from the Biden administration.

Senate Republicans have also passed resolutions from Senators Mullin and Marshall addressing Biden administration overuse of the Endangered Species Act; a resolution from Senator Lummis addressing the administration's expansive new definition of ``critical habitat,'' which could have major negative consequences for landowners and businesses; a resolution from Senator Fischer disapproving of an EPA rule on truck emissions that could drive some smaller trucking companies out of business entirely--and more. We have more resolutions of disapproval in the pipeline.

While, unfortunately, President Biden has predictably vetoed attempts to check his administration's aggressive use of Federal power, we have had some successes.

When Senator Capito announced her intention to challenge a Federal Highway Administration memo discouraging States from pursuing highway expansion projects and prioritizing funding for projects that reduce emissions, the Federal Highway Administration withdrew the memo and issued a revised version without the problematic language, which was a win for infrastructure investments in rural areas.

As I mentioned, while the President vetoed the resolution disapproving of his overreaching waters of the United States water rule, the Supreme Court's recent decision effectively overturning this regulation is a win for farmers, for ranchers, and for other landowners--and, honestly, for common sense.

While it wasn't a Biden administration regulation, Senator Hagerty led a successful charge in the Senate to overturn Washington, DC's crime bill that would have weakened penalties for a number of crimes.

Congress, of course, has the legal authority to block DC ordinances thanks to Federal legislation rooted in the Constitution which gives Congress legislative jurisdiction over the seat of the U.S. Government--namely, Washington, DC.

Republicans' effort to overturn DC's dangerous new crime bill ultimately persuaded the President to change his mind and sign the resolution of disapproval.

As we move forward, Republicans will continue to use the Congressional Review Act to push back against overreaching regulations from the Biden administration. We may not always be successful, but at the very least, we can highlight the true cost of the Biden administration's regulations and the burdens they place on our economy and on hard-working Americans.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas Mr. (Cotton), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

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

Mr. President, at the end of last week, President Biden published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal touting his economic record. It was not exactly new material. The President is well known for attempting to put a rosy spin on his economic record. But I still have to marvel every time the President claims that he is building the economy from the bottom up and the middle out and working to give families ``more breathing room'' because if there is one thing that can be said about the Biden Presidency, it is that American families have lost a lot of their breathing room.

The inflation crisis the President helped make is costing American families $880 this month. Let me just repeat that. The inflation crisis the President helped create is costing American families $880 this month--$880 for just 1 month. Meanwhile, real wages have declined for 26 consecutive months under President Biden--26 consecutive months; 2- plus years.

So it is no surprise that in a poll last month, 49 percent of Americans reported that their personal financial situation is getting worse or that in another poll, 61 percent said recent price increases had caused financial hardship for them or their household.

Let's be very clear. This is not a random situation that just happened to occur on the President's watch. The President bears direct responsibility for this inflation crisis, which was set off in large part thanks to the bloated, Big-Government American Rescue Plan spending spree the Democrats and President forced through shortly after the President came to office.

You don't have to take my word on that. Here is what one former Obama adviser had to say on the subject:

The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan passed in the early

days of the Biden administration will go down in history as

an extraordinary policy mistake.

``Will go down in history as an extraordinary policy mistake''--that from an Obama adviser.

Another former Obama adviser noted:

The original sin was an oversized American Rescue Plan.

Contrary to what he suggested in his op-ed, the President has done exactly nothing to bring down inflation since. Indeed, he has continued to pursue the same kind of Big-Government, big-spending policies that helped land us in this mess in the first place.

It is frankly staggering to me that the President continues to have the audacity to say things like ``[h]ardworking families are reaping the rewards'' of his policies. Hard-working families are certainly reaping something from the President's policies, but it isn't rewards.

As I said earlier, the President is well known for trying to put a rosy spin on his economic record, and he trots out some of his favorite misleading statistics in this op-ed.

Since he took office, he claims, the economy has created more than 13 million jobs. That sounds pretty good, right? Until you realize that the vast majority of those jobs weren't newly created but are, rather, just jobs that were naturally added back after the pandemic. Currently, we are just 3.7 million jobs above where we were prepandemic--hardly the historic job boom the President portrays.

The President also mentions that gasoline prices are down from their peak in June of 2022, but he neglects to mention that gas prices are currently up 50 percent from where they were when he took office.

Then, of course, the President brings up one of his favorite claims-- that he reduced the deficit by $1.7 trillion over the first 2 years of his administration.

Here is how the Washington Post Fact Checker column has described that claim: ``highly misleading.'' Highly misleading. The President arrives at this highly misleading statistic by comparing his budget deficit in fiscal year 2022 to the fiscal year 2020 budget deficit, which was unusually large, to put it mildly, as a result of the COVID pandemic.

A much more appropriate comparison would be to compare President Biden's actual 2022 budget deficit to what the Congressional Budget Office was projecting that deficit would be before the President's American Rescue Plan spending spree was enacted. That tells a far different story.

The reality, as the Post points out, is that ``the data shows the deficit picture has worsened under Biden.''

The Washington Post Fact Checker column recently awarded President Biden a Bottomless Pinocchio for his deficit reduction claims--a rating the column gives for ``false or misleading statements repeated so often that they [become] a form of propaganda.''

I can't close without mentioning the President's staggering claim that he, again, ``fought so hard to bring Democrats and Republicans in Congress together to compromise on the budget and prevent a catastrophic default.'' As I have already highlighted, the President is fairly well known for revisionist history, but this statement might take the cake.

Can the President possibly think that people have already forgotten that he spent months refusing to negotiate on a debt ceiling agreement and only came to the table at the last minute? Credit to the President for eventually recognizing that divided government requires compromise, but to suggest that he set out from the outset to forge a compromise between Democrats and Republicans is to skate the line between revisionist history and outright falsehood.

After 2 years of painful price hikes at the gas pump and the grocery store, I think few Americans would recognize the positive picture the President paints in his op-ed. Unfortunately, it is clear from the President's column that he plans to continue to pursue policies that will further undermine the economic well-being of the American people. So much for giving American families more breathing room.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).