Floor Statements

Mr. President, on Tuesday, President Biden delivered his State of the Union Address to Congress, and in this time of divided government, I was glad to see the President making more than one nod to bipartisanship. I do think this moment, with power split between Democrats and Republicans, provides a real opportunity to work together, to move away from the extreme partisanship of the past couple of years and make some real progress on some of the issues facing us.

But the President's speech also left me concerned because the President demonstrated almost no awareness of what actually happened as a result of his policies. Indeed, at times, it seemed as if the President had lived through a different reality from the one most Americans have been experiencing over the past 2 years.

The President rattled off a list of his supposed economic achievements, and I say ``supposed'' because he left out some vitally important context. He claimed credit for the historic job creation while leaving out the essential detail that a lot of that job creation was simply a result of the economy naturally adding back jobs temporarily lost during the pandemic. He talked about wage growth while leaving out the fact that real wages have declined--have declined-- because of inflation over his Presidency. And he appeared to take credit for the fact that inflation has declined somewhat in recent months while neglecting to mention that it was his administration and congressional Democrats who helped create our inflation crisis with their American Rescue Plan spending spree.

Nor did the President spend any time discussing just how bad inflation still is and how much Americans are still suffering. Inflation in December was 6.5 percent. The last time inflation was that bad was in 1982--1982--40 years ago. I am glad inflation has declined somewhat, but I don't think the President has a lot to be congratulating himself about. Even if prices stopped increasing tomorrow, Americans would still be paying thousands of dollars more over the next year to achieve the same standard of living that they had when the President took office.

Again, the President and congressional Democrats and their American Rescue Plan spending spree bear a huge part of the responsibility for this situation. Or to quote former Obama economic adviser, Jason Furman:

The original sin was an oversized American Rescue Plan.

Another of the supposed economic achievements the President talked about Tuesday night was cutting the deficit. Yes, cutting the deficit. Well, let me just quote CNN on that claim. This is a quote:

Independent analysts say Biden's own actions, including his

laws and executive orders, have had the overall effect of

adding to current and projected future deficits, not reducing

those deficits.

Let me just repeat that:

Independent analysts say Biden's own actions, including his

laws and executive orders, have had the overall effect of

adding to current and projected future deficits, not reducing

those deficits.

The President failed to meaningfully address the economic crisis that his policies have helped to create. Instead,

he spent considerable time calling for spending proposals that would cost taxpayers trillions of more dollars.

He also failed to meaningfully address another crisis that has been raging over the past 2 years, and that is the security and humanitarian crisis at our southern border. It is a crisis that the President has spent 2 years ignoring. On Tuesday night, he essentially ignored it again. In a speech that was notable for being the most wordy State of the Union speech in the past 6 decades--clocking in at 9,191 words--the President devoted just 120 words, approximately 1 minute, to immigration. He spent a good chunk of that minute attempting to suggest that it is Congress and not he himself that needs to act. In fact, the President's brief 120 words on immigration managed to convey the impression the President had been trying to secure the border all along, instead of reflecting the reality that the President ignored this crisis--a crisis, I might add, that he, himself, triggered--for 2 years and only began to somewhat acknowledge it a mere month ago.

The President's speech was also strikingly light on a vision for our national security in spite of a war of aggression from Russia, which has made its imperial ambitions very clear, and continued troubling activity from China. There wasn't even a mention of Iran, which continues to be the leading state sponsor of terrorism, or North Korea, which just unveiled an alarming quantity of ICBMs.

The President devoted just nine words to the importance of modernizing our military, even though the past year and, indeed, the past week, has underscored the necessity of making sure our military is the top fighting force in the world so that we can deter and, if necessary, confront any threat.

While the President's speech was light on immigration and national security solutions and on any recognition of the economic crisis the President's policies helped create, the one thing his speech was not light on was the Democratic playbook on taxes and spending. The President kept bringing up and encouraging Congress to ``finish the job.'' It quickly became clear that was code for ``spend more taxpayer dollars'' or maybe ``expand government,'' even though it was excessive government spending that helped get us into this inflation crisis in the first place.

But if there was one thing that became clear Tuesday night, it was that the President wants to have it both ways. He wants to cut the deficit but simultaneously expand and grow government. He celebrates ``Made in America,'' but in nearly the same breath, demonizes businesses. He wants to boost American innovation, but he also wants to raise taxes and impose price controls.

Perhaps no example of this wanting to have it both ways was more telling than the President's clear belief that oil companies should increase domestic oil production, despite the fact that the President campaigned on eliminating fossil fuels. The President recounted an exchange with oil industry representatives who told him that they were reluctant to invest because they were concerned the President would shut down oil wells and refineries. The President clearly intended the anecdote to illustrate the selfishness of Big Oil or Big Business, but the anecdote did a much better job of illustrating just how outrageous it is that the President assumes he should be able to get as much oil production as he wants while simultaneously working to sunset--to get rid of--oil companies.

The President might like to have it both ways, but he can't because policies have consequences; spending has consequences; taxation has consequences.

And the result of the Big Government tax-and-spend policies the President laid out Tuesday night would not be the prosperous future he imagines, but more economic pain for American families and businesses. And any bipartisan work that we do over the next 2 years needs to move away from the failed policies of the past 2 years and toward a more fiscally responsible future.

The upcoming debt limit debate represents an outstanding opportunity to take a good, hard look at government spending and see how we can handle taxpayer dollars more responsibly.

I was disappointed that despite his calls for bipartisanship, the President decided to call for a ``clean'' debt limit increase Tuesday night. In other words, an increase in the Nation's credit card limit unaccompanied by any effort to stop adding to our bill. The President's attitude was all too reminiscent of Democrats' partisan ``my way or the highway'' approach over the past 2 years. I sincerely hope he will rethink that position.

I was also disturbed by the President's attempt to suggest falsely that Republicans are interested in paying for the debt limit increase by cutting Medicare and Social Security. I suspect the President is well aware that is not the position of the Republican Party. And his scaremongering was not reflective of the kind of bipartisanship I hope we can achieve over the next 2 years.

What Democrats and Republicans should be doing is working together to put Medicare and Social Security on a more secure financial footing going forward, and that would be greatly helped by addressing excessive government spending and working to rein in our national debt.

I appreciated, as I said earlier, the fact that despite trotting out far too many of the tax-and-spend policies Tuesday night, the President did make a real nod toward bipartisanship. I truly believe that we can do a lot together over the next 2 years from passing a farm bill to reauthorizing the Federal Aviation Administration and improving our Nation's air traffic control system to creating new market access for American producers and securing more transparency and accountability from Big Tech. I hope that the President's words in support of bipartisanship will be borne out by his actions in the coming months and that working together, we can build a record of achievement that will help make life better for the American people.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. President, yesterday the Senate unanimously approved my resolution with Senator Rounds formally congratulating the South Dakota State University football team on their championship season. And what a great season it was for the Jackrabbits. They ended the season 14 and 1 and never lost a game in their conference. They earned the No. 1 seed in the Football Championship Subdivision playoffs. And they brought home the FCS National Championship for the first time in program history with a 45-to-21 win against the North Dakota State Bison last month in Frisco, TX.

I happened to be on hand for that game. It was an extraordinary game and capped off an extraordinary season. I happened to be there for the semifinal game against Montana State, which the Jackrabbits won decisively. In each of those games, and their games throughout the season, they demonstrated on the field not only great skill but just an incredible determination, resilience, and a willingness to play together as a team, which, really, I think, is what distinguished and differentiated their team from many others around the country this year. It really was an extraordinary team to watch on both sides of the ball. And as someone who has been a fan of sports for a long time, it was really exciting to see the success that they had not only throughout the course of the season but ultimately capping it off with the national championship.

That championship win was a fitting capstone to coach John Stiegelmeirer's 26-season career leading the Jacks. Coach Stig, as he is affectionately known, is the heart and soul of Jackrabbit football.

Like many South Dakotans, he learned his values from his dad. He worked on a family farm in Selby, SD. His dad told him: If you work hard and be a good person, you will have success. Work hard, be a good person, and you will have success.

I would say Coach Stig has done all three. His determination transformed SDSU's football team into what it is today. SDSU became a Division 1 program under his leadership, and former Jacks players have gone on to careers in the NFL. His calm, patience, and caring set the standard for the players and made the team a family.

He leaves as the winningest coach in SDSU history, the 2022 FCS Coach of the Year, and, of course, with a national title for the team that he has dedicated his career to making great.

Huge congratulations to the Jackrabbits on their season and to Coach Stig, and we wish you all the best in your retirement. You have earned it.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

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

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Madam President, later today, I will introduce the Born- Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, along with my colleague Senator Lankford. It is a simple bill. It simply states that a baby born alive after an attempted abortion is entitled to the same protection and medical care that any other newborn baby is entitled to. And you would think that it would be a simple ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body, but unfortunately, that is not where we are.

Four years ago and then three years ago, the U.S. Senate took up this bill, and almost every single Democrat in this body voted against it. Just 3 weeks ago, the House of Representatives took up this bill, and almost every single Democrat over there voted against it. Apparently banning infanticide is now controversial because--let's be clear--that is what we are talking about here.

Some Democrats have tried to cloak their opposition to this bill in meaningless phrases about a private decision between a woman and her doctor, but what is the decision we are talking about? We are talking about whether or not a living baby, born after an attempted abortion, should be provided with medical care or be left to die or, I suppose, be killed outright by the abortionist. That is what we are talking about. That is the ``decision'' Democrats are referring to. And that is apparently the decision they think should be left up to patients and their doctors--whether or not to let a living, breathing baby die.

The Senate voted on a previous version of this bill introduced by my former colleague Senator Sasse 4 years ago when the Democratic Governor of Virginia came right out and said you could keep a newly born baby comfortable while you decided what to do with it--in other words, while you decided whether to let the child die or, I guess, kill it or whether to let it live. That chilling statement made it abundantly clear that we needed to state explicitly that any baby, wherever he or she is born, including in an abortion clinic, is entitled to medical care. It is staggering that we have gotten to the point where we need to debate this in Congress, staggering that this wouldn't be an automatic ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body, but that is where we are.

If anyone thinks that abortion isn't a slippery slope, that we can somehow devalue unborn babies' lives while maintaining respect for everyone else's, then I am here to tell them differently because the Democratic Party has gotten to the point where its members not only oppose legislation to protect unborn babies; they oppose legislation to protect born ones as well. In Democrats' world, there are now apparently two classes of born babies: the wanted ones born alive in delivery rooms and the unwanted ones born alive in abortion clinics. Apparently, only one of those classes of babies is entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

Democrats talk a lot about abortion when they are talking about this bill, but this bill, of course, would do absolutely nothing to restrict abortion. It is not a bill protecting unborn babies; it is a bill protecting born babies.

I do understand why Democrats are so worked up, though, because while this bill may not do anything to restrict abortion, there is always the chance that drawing attention to the humanity and dignity of the child who has just been born will draw attention to the humanity and dignity of the child who is about to be born--the child Democrats are determined our laws should not protect. And Democrats are apparently so determined to preserve the so-called right to kill unborn babies that they are fully comfortable opposing a law that would protect born-- born--babies.

These are hard things to talk about, but they have to be said because that is the reality of where we are right now.

Roughly 50 percent of the U.S. Congress opposes giving the equal protection of the law to born human beings if they happen to be born alive following an attempted abortion.

Now, I think we are at a real inflection point as to where we want to be as a nation. Do we want to be a country where the circumstances of your birth determine whether or not your right to life is protected? Do we want to be a country that endorses leaving living, breathing babies to die, that discards born babies because they are, for a moment at their birth, unwanted? I don't know. I think we are better than that. We have to be better than that.

If we truly want to be a nation that protects human rights, that stands for justice, that defends the vulnerable, then we cannot be a nation that says it is acceptable to leave living, breathing, born human beings to die in abortion clinics, that says there are two classes of newborn babies and that only one of them deserves to be protected. Every human being deserves to be protected, no matter the circumstances of his or her birth.

I want to thank Senator Lankford for his leadership on this issue. We will be working together to advance this legislation, and I pray that sooner rather than later, we will get to the day when this bill will be an automatic ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, later today, I will introduce the Born- Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, along with my colleague Senator Lankford. It is a simple bill. It simply states that a baby born alive after an attempted abortion is entitled to the same protection and medical care that any other newborn baby is entitled to. And you would think that it would be a simple ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body, but unfortunately, that is not where we are.

Four years ago and then three years ago, the U.S. Senate took up this bill, and almost every single Democrat in this body voted against it. Just 3 weeks ago, the House of Representatives took up this bill, and almost every single Democrat over there voted against it. Apparently banning infanticide is now controversial because--let's be clear--that is what we are talking about here.

Some Democrats have tried to cloak their opposition to this bill in meaningless phrases about a private decision between a woman and her doctor, but what is the decision we are talking about? We are talking about whether or not a living baby, born after an attempted abortion, should be provided with medical care or be left to die or, I suppose, be killed outright by the abortionist. That is what we are talking about. That is the ``decision'' Democrats are referring to. And that is apparently the decision they think should be left up to patients and their doctors--whether or not to let a living, breathing baby die.

The Senate voted on a previous version of this bill introduced by my former colleague Senator Sasse 4 years ago when the Democratic Governor of Virginia came right out and said you could keep a newly born baby comfortable while you decided what to do with it--in other words, while you decided whether to let the child die or, I guess, kill it or whether to let it live. That chilling statement made it abundantly clear that we needed to state explicitly that any baby, wherever he or she is born, including in an abortion clinic, is entitled to medical care. It is staggering that we have gotten to the point where we need to debate this in Congress, staggering that this wouldn't be an automatic ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body, but that is where we are.

If anyone thinks that abortion isn't a slippery slope, that we can somehow devalue unborn babies' lives while maintaining respect for everyone else's, then I am here to tell them differently because the Democratic Party has gotten to the point where its members not only oppose legislation to protect unborn babies; they oppose legislation to protect born ones as well. In Democrats' world, there are now apparently two classes of born babies: the wanted ones born alive in delivery rooms and the unwanted ones born alive in abortion clinics. Apparently, only one of those classes of babies is entitled to the equal protection of the laws.

Democrats talk a lot about abortion when they are talking about this bill, but this bill, of course, would do absolutely nothing to restrict abortion. It is not a bill protecting unborn babies; it is a bill protecting born babies.

I do understand why Democrats are so worked up, though, because while this bill may not do anything to restrict abortion, there is always the chance that drawing attention to the humanity and dignity of the child who has just been born will draw attention to the humanity and dignity of the child who is about to be born--the child Democrats are determined our laws should not protect. And Democrats are apparently so determined to preserve the so-called right to kill unborn babies that they are fully comfortable opposing a law that would protect born-- born--babies.

These are hard things to talk about, but they have to be said because that is the reality of where we are right now.

Roughly 50 percent of the U.S. Congress opposes giving the equal protection of the law to born human beings if they happen to be born alive following an attempted abortion.

Now, I think we are at a real inflection point as to where we want to be as a nation. Do we want to be a country where the circumstances of your birth determine whether or not your right to life is protected? Do we want to be a country that endorses leaving living, breathing babies to die, that discards born babies because they are, for a moment at their birth, unwanted? I don't know. I think we are better than that. We have to be better than that.

If we truly want to be a nation that protects human rights, that stands for justice, that defends the vulnerable, then we cannot be a nation that says it is acceptable to leave living, breathing, born human beings to die in abortion clinics, that says there are two classes of newborn babies and that only one of them deserves to be protected. Every human being deserves to be protected, no matter the circumstances of his or her birth.

I want to thank Senator Lankford for his leadership on this issue. We will be working together to advance this legislation, and I pray that sooner rather than later, we will get to the day when this bill will be an automatic ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, it only took 2 years--2 years--for the President to acknowledge the crisis that has been raging along our southern border almost since the day he took office. Over those 2 years, we have seen record numbers of migrants attempting to cross our southern border. We have seen record numbers of migrants die--die-- attempting the dangerous crossing of our southern border. We have seen the Border Patrol overwhelmed, border cities overwhelmed, and dangerous drugs continue to flood across our border and reach communities around our Nation.

Yet, for months and months, the President did essentially nothing. In fact, he acted as if the crisis didn't even exist. I am glad that, at long last, the President seems to be acknowledging this crisis, even if his recent visit to the border was scripted and controlled.

But it is appalling to think of how much human misery could have been avoided if the President had lived up to his national security obligations and addressed the border disaster many months ago. I suppose it is not a surprise that the President wasn't eager to acknowledge just how bad things were because that might have drawn extra scrutiny to the President's border policies, policies that played a substantial role in creating this crisis in the first place.

From the moment he took office and even before, President Biden made it clear that border security was at the bottom of his priority list. On his very first day in office, President Biden rescinded the declaration of a national emergency at our southern border. He halted construction of the border wall. He revoked a Trump administration order that called for the government to faithfully execute our immigration laws. And his Department of Homeland Security issued guidelines pausing deportations except under certain conditions. And that was all on his first day in office.

Well, needless to say, the effect of all this was to declare to the world that the U.S. borders were effectively open, and we have seen the result: 2 years of soaring illegal immigration. Since President Biden took office, there have been more than 4.5 million attempted illegal border crossings. Now, to put that number in perspective, that is roughly equal to the entire population of South Dakota, plus the entire population of Delaware, Wyoming, Nebraska, and then some.

Last month, 251,487 migrants were apprehended attempting to cross our southern border, the highest monthly number ever recorded. And, of course, these numbers just refer to individuals Customs and Border Protection managed to apprehend. There have been a staggering 1.2 million known ``got-aways'' since President Biden took office, individuals that the Border Patrol saw but were unable to apprehend.

President Biden has talked about wanting a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system. Well, up until now, he has failed on all fronts. Encouraging illegal immigration as the President's policies have done is the very opposite of compassionate and humane. There is nothing compassionate about policies that encourage people to attempt the dangerous trip across our southern border, to run the risk of exploitation and disease and exposure and death; nor is it compassionate to condemn border cities to dealing with a never-ending flood of illegal immigration and other cross-border illegal activity.

On top of all that, the kind of unchecked illegal immigration we have been seeing is an open invitation--an open invitation--to drug traffickers, human smugglers, and other dangerous individuals.

Our Nation is currently in the midst of a serious fentanyl crisis. In fact, right now, fentanyl overdose is the leading cause of death of U.S. adults between the ages of 18 and 45. And where is all this fentanyl coming from? Well, most of it is being trafficked across our southern border. And I would be very surprised if the chaos at our southern border isn't facilitating that trafficking.

And--let's be clear--drug trafficking across our southern border doesn't just affect border States; it affects communities around our country. I have

talked to sheriffs in South Dakota, almost as far from our southern border as you can get, who are dealing with fentanyl that has been trafficked across the border from Mexico. Last year, Minnehaha County Sheriff Mike Milstead estimated that 90 percent--90 percent--of fentanyl and methamphetamine in our State, the State of South Dakota, comes through Mexico. Again, I would be very surprised if the chaos at our southern border hasn't facilitated that trafficking.

Our country has been shaped by immigrants from around the world, and I am a strong supporter of legal immigration. I have repeatedly introduced legislation to open up opportunities for individuals to come from abroad and to work here in the United States when employers can't secure enough domestic labor. But immigration has to be legal. It has to be legal for security reasons, for humanitarian reasons, and because we have a responsibility to uphold the rule of law.

I am thankful that the President finally seems to be, at least halfheartedly, acknowledging our border crisis and he has recognized his error in rescinding a number of policies that successfully took pressure off the border. Now let's see how he follows through.

There are definitely things Congress can do to strengthen our border security, deter abuse of our asylum system, and provide resources to those serving on the frontlines against trafficking and smuggling. We can also find ways to address some of the economic factors that influence illegal immigration by leveraging legal pathways to allow immigrants to fill jobs that American employers are struggling to fill.

But the fact of the matter is, while there are things Congress can do to help, the President of the United States doesn't need an act of Congress to move forward on securing the border. The President just needs to enforce the law. For the sake of our national security, our overwhelmed border communities, and the individuals tempted to make the dangerous journey across the border, let's hope he does so.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.