Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, if Democrats have made one thing clear over the past 16 months, it is that they think that the Federal Government--or maybe just Democrats--knows best. It is evident in just about everything they do. And there is pretty much no end to the things they think the Federal Government should be in charge of--healthcare, childcare, education, elections, and the list goes on.

Take the current debate over abortion. There is one thing Democrats are clearly terrified of is putting this issue in the hands of the American people. Overturning Roe v. Wade would return the issue of abortion back to the people and their elected representatives. Democrats are keen to make sure that doesn't happen, probably because they know the American people are not in agreement with Democrats' extreme abortion agenda.

And so the news that the Supreme Court might overturn Roe and return the issue of abortion to people has been met with hysteria from Democrats. More than one has responded by calling for packing the Supreme Court so the Democrats can ensure they get the abortion decisions they desire.

Of course, yesterday, Democrats responded to the Supreme Court's pending decision by holding a vote on what has to be the most extreme abortion legislation ever considered by the U.S. Congress--a bill that would rip away even the smallest protections for the unborn and make abortion-on-demand, at any time, for essentially any reason, the law of the land.

Meanwhile, today, the Senate Budget Committee is holding a hearing on a favorite Democratic proposal--putting the Democrats in charge of Americans' healthcare. Under Medicare for All, Americans can look forward to a future in which the government decides what healthcare Americans can access and what medications and procedures will be covered.

Never mind the nearly 180 million Americans who have access to health insurance through their jobs, many of whom are satisfied with their coverage. No, that coverage would be decimated in favor of Democrats' preferred ``one size fits all'' approach. I am not sure what Democrats have seen that makes them think government can efficiently run healthcare. Maybe they never had to deal with the IRS.

Oh, and let's not forget about the part where it has been projected that this government-run system could cost taxpayers more than $30 trillion. So what is the problem with that attitude the Democrats have? Why should all of us be concerned by the fact Democrats think the Federal Government--or maybe just the Democratic Party--knows best?

For starters, it is clearly apparent that government does not always know best. Take our current inflation crisis. A big reason we are currently dealing with the worst inflation in 40 years is the Democrats' decision to flood the economy with unnecessary government money with their American Rescue Plan spending spree.

This legislation was billed as critical COVID relief that was going to help families and our economy recover. Instead, it helped plunge our economy into a massive inflation crisis that has left individuals and families struggling to afford necessities like gas and food.

To give another example, the President's Department of Homeland Security recently created a so-called Disinformation Governance Board. And the individual who has been chosen to head up this disinformation board is someone who, herself, has been a purveyor of online disinformation, as well as being hostile to what she apparently considers excessive free speech. Yet, apparently, the Biden administration thinks we should trust her to rule on disinformation.

Of course, this is not to say that we should distrust every move the government makes or whether the government can never do anything good. Assuming the government always knows best is to vastly overestimate the government's abilities. The Federal Government, like society, is made up of flawed human beings. Being a Member of Congress or a Presidential administration does not come anywhere close to conferring infallibility.

Another big problem with ``Democrats' knows best'' attitude is it usually involves a plan for government to take over ever-greater areas of American life. More government control usually involves less individual freedom.

Take the childcare plan Democrats included in their Build Back Better legislation. First, of course, Democrats take the opportunity to add a lot of new childcare mandates and regulations. But more than that, Democrats' government subsidy program is set up to favor certain kinds of childcare and childcare providers. It is set to favor institutional childcare rather than home care or other models, like neighborhood co- ops. And it is set up to place religious providers at a disadvantage. That is right. Despite the fact that more than half of working families who use center-based care opt for faith-based centers, Democrats' program is set up to put these providers at a disadvantage.

Democrats obviously think childcare is better conducted in secular, institutional settings, so they set up their legislation to favor that kind of childcare, no matter--no matter--what parents actually prefer.

That is pretty much par for the course for Democrats, of course, who have made it very clear that they have their doubts as to whether parents are the best decisionmakers for their children.

Who can forget the Democrat candidate for Governor of Virginia who memorably said:

I'm not going to let parents come into schools and actually

take books out and make their own decision . . . I don't

think parents should be telling schools what they should

teach.

This is a view that President Biden seemed to echo just days ago. I would love to hear the reasons why Democrats think government can make better decisions for children than parents who know their children as individuals and raise them and love them.

But to get back to my main point here. The childcare program in Democrats' tax-and-spending spree is a perfect example of what happens when government starts taking over. The government, instead of the individual, starts making decisions. The more substantial the government involvement, the larger the government's role in decision making is likely to be.

Again, that is not to say that the government has no role to play in American life. We need the Federal Government. Our national defense, for example, is most practically handled at the Federal level. But the Federal Government should be and is meant to be limited.

And allowing the government to take over ever-larger aspects of American life--whether it is childcare, healthcare, or anything else-- is a recipe for the loss of individual liberty.

Finally, Democrats' ``government knows best'' attitude is a problem because, as we have clearly seen, it quickly leads to an attitude of ``Democrats know best,'' which quickly leads to pushing for special privileges for Democrats.

Take recent conflicts involving the Supreme Court. Democrats have made it abundantly clear that they believe the only legitimate Supreme Court is a Supreme Court that hands down decisions in line with Democrats' policy

preferences. And they haven't just implied this. More than one Democrat has actually straight-out called this Supreme Court illegitimate, despite the fact that every single Justice on the Supreme Court was duly nominated and confirmed in accordance with the Constitution of the United States.

And the Senate, despite having the slimmest possible majority, in fact--a merely technical majority and absolutely no mandate for radical change--Democrats have pushed to abolish the legislative filibuster so they can steamroll through far-left Democratic legislation, including a partisan takeover of election law and, of course, the most extreme abortion legislation ever considered in Congress.

Just imagine the howls that would have resulted if Republicans had announced that we were going to abolish the legislative filibuster to institute a 20-week abortion ban--a ban that is much more in line with the sentiments of the majority of Americans than Democrats' far-left abortion legislation.

Or take the protests that have been going on at the Supreme Court Justices' homes. The President and other Democrats have made it clear they are perfectly fine with demonstrators congregating at the private homes of Supreme Court Justices to try and intimidate them into changing their vote.

I have to ask, would Democrats be fine with pro-life activists appearing at the homes of Justice Breyer, Justice Kagan, and Justice Sotomayor to try to intimidate them into changing their votes? I think we all know the answer to that. But because abortion is one of Democrats' pet issues, clearly, the usual rules don't apply. ``Government knows best'' quickly becomes ``Democrats know best,'' which leads to one rule for Democrats and one rule for everyone else.

``Government knows best'' is not a vision Republicans share. We believe that individuals, not Washington bureaucrats, are the best judges of what they and their family and children need. The government should be a backstop, not Big Brother.

We also know the more government expands, the more individual liberty shrinks, which is why we are firmly committed to a philosophy of limited government. Our country is founded to safeguard individual liberty and preserving that liberty it a sacred trust, which is why Republicans will continue to oppose Democrats' ``Washington knows best,'' Big Government philosophy, and why we will continue to fight to make sure that Americans' right to run their own lives and shape their own destinies is protected.

I yield the floor.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) would have voted ``yea.''

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

Mr. President, for more than 70 days now, the Ukrainian people have endured--and more than endured, they fought back. They stood up to their invaders and have achieved amazing things against a superior force--superior, at least, on paper.

Many feared that Russia would crush Ukraine in days. Instead, Ukraine has not only withstood Russian aggression but has inflicted humiliating defeats on Russia. Twelve--twelve--Russian generals have reportedly been killed. Russia lost thousands of its troops, as well as hundreds of tanks and scores of aircraft. One estimate from British intelligence suggests that Russia may have lost more than a quarter of its ground combat strength.

Ukrainians successfully pushed Russia out of the Kyiv suburbs, have retaken territory outside of Kharkiv, and still--still--maintain a defiant hold on the steel plant in Mariupol despite being encircled by Russian troops.

At the same time we recognize Ukraine's successes and the fierce determination that has made them possible, it is also important to remember the devastation this war has inflicted. Thousands of Ukrainian civilians have been killed. Somewhere around 12 million Ukrainians have fled their homes. And the list of Russian atrocities gets longer every day--schools and hospitals intentionally bombed, executions and mass graves, torture, rape, the deliberate targeting of civilians, apparent war crimes.

In a few short weeks, Russia has brought unimaginable devastation. The port city of Mariupol--once home to more than 400,000 people--has been reduced to rubble. The city essentially no longer exists. Across Ukraine, an untold number of homes and buildings have been destroyed. It will take years to rebuild or remove the imprint of Russian aggression from the landscape, and some things cannot be entirely recovered. Just last night, Russia intentionally struck civilian centers in Odessa, bombing a shopping mall and a consumer warehouse without regard for innocent human life.

The Ukrainian people have displayed an incredible gallantry and resolve. They have embraced this fight and the cause of their country's freedom. They have not spent any time waiting around for anyone else to come and save them. In fact, a recent news story highlighted the fact that Ukrainians not only continue to oppose the Russians, they have actually started rebuilding in places even as the war continues to rage.

But it is also important to remember that the Ukrainian people cannot sustain this war without military support from the United States and other free countries. The weapons and military resources we have supplied are playing a crucial role in enabling Ukraine to continue standing up to Russian aggression, and it is essential that we continue that support for as long as the Ukrainian people need it.

At the end of April, the President sent Congress a request for $33 billion in emergency supplemental funding for critical security and economic assistance to Ukraine. Negotiations are ongoing about how we iron out a few matters. The top-line numbers may

change, but I hope Congress can act quickly to get Ukraine the military equipment it needs, as well as humanitarian support to help the millions of Ukrainians who have been displaced. We also need to make sure that our European partners are making similar contributions to help put President Zelenskyy in the strongest possible position to bring this war to an end. It would be a tragedy for Ukraine to have bought all this time with our help only to lose the initiative now.

So I hope that we can get this funding out the door as quickly as possible and that Democrats will not slow things down by attaching extraneous funding requests for unrelated policy riders. Thirty-three billion dollars is a substantial sum of money, but, as the news reports showing Ukrainian highways dotted with bombed-out Russian tanks attest, Ukraine is putting our military aid to good use.

The cost of inaction on our part--of allowing Vladimir Putin to destroy Ukraine and threaten NATO--would be much greater. We should not be so naive as to think that Putin's campaign of Soviet expansion will end with Ukraine. There are rightfully concerns that he will seek to escalate into former Soviet countries in Eastern Europe or even further. He has already hinted at a willingness to use nuclear weapons, and he proved in Syria that he is certainly OK with the use of chemical weapons.

I hope defenders of the Iran nuclear deal are making note of what nuclear power looks like in the hands of a nation with a malign agenda.

We cannot allow Putin to think that he can pursue his expansionist dreams unopposed.

The United States and all NATO members must remain committed to our shared defense and to supporting Ukraine in its fight for freedom. NATO countries should also preserve our open-door policy to nations that are seeking to contribute to the collective security of the alliance. There can never be too many allies in the quest to preserve peace and maintain a strong defense against tyranny, and we should welcome any nation that seeks to help further those goals.

Currently, Russia's main areas of control span from east of Kharkiv to previously contested parts of the Donbas and now along the coast of the Sea of Azov and past Crimea in an attempt to fully block Ukraine's access to the Black Sea. Russia has failed to capture Kyiv or break the resolve of the Ukrainian people, so now Putin wants to close Ukraine off from the world, which will harm not only Ukrainians but also Ukraine's trading partners that rely on Ukraine's substantial agricultural capacity.

Ukraine is a major exporter of wheat, corn, and sunflower oil. If Ukraine's ability to produce and export these products is compromised, which is already happening, we are likely to see not only price hikes but very serious food shortages as a result.

The World Food Programme reports that an additional 47 million people around the world could be facing acute hunger if the war in Ukraine continues. In a world in which hunger persists and famine looms, Putin's war of aggression in Ukraine threatens to cause casualties far beyond Ukraine's borders, which brings us back once again to the importance of supporting the Ukrainian people and their fight.

As President Zelenskyy said the other day in reference to the United States and Ukraine, we defend common values, democracy, and freedom. We do, indeed, Mr. President. We do, indeed.

The Ukrainian people are currently giving their all to secure a future of democracy and freedom in Ukraine. Let's continue to make it clear that they are not alone in that fight, and let's make sure they have the tools they need to win this war and secure Ukraine's freedom permanently.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).

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

Mr. President, it is National Small Business Week, a week that is set aside to honor the contributions that small businesses make to this Nation.

Small businesses are an essential part of our economy. Ninety-nine percent--99 percent--of South Dakota's businesses are small businesses, and almost 60 percent of South Dakota employees work for small businesses.

Nationally, small businesses make up most of the businesses in this country and are responsible for 62 percent of net new job creation.

And small businesses are not only an essential part of our economy, they are also an essential part of our communities--doing everything from creating gathering spaces for community members to supporting local charities and sponsoring local sports teams.

During National Small Business Week, I would like to be able to report that small businesses around the country are thriving. But the truth is, while some are doing well, a lot of small businesses are having a difficult time right now, not because of COVID, as Democrats might like you to think, but because of inflation. Inflation, which has hit American families hard, is also creating major difficulties for small businesses.

Now, when I talk to small business owners in South Dakota, one of the first things they tell me is how inflation is affecting their businesses.

In a recent survey from the National Federation of Independent Business, 62 percent of small businesses reported that inflation is having a substantial impact on their businesses, and 84 percent reported that they are experiencing lower business earnings due to inflation, and it is no surprise.

Inflation has driven up the final price of goods and services. It has also driven up the cost of raw materials.

The producer price index, which measures wholesale costs to sellers, hit 11.2 percent in March--its highest level ever recorded.

And small businesses are struggling with high energy costs, which affect everything from production to the transportation of finished products to the cost of keeping a storefront open.

Farms and ranches, which make up a substantial part of South Dakota's small businesses, are seeing huge price increases in the cost of essential inputs, like fertilizer, while the price of diesel, which powers farm equipment, reached an all-time high this week.

Agriculture is already a challenging industry by its very nature. Many farmers and ranchers in South Dakota, for example, are currently dealing with a severe drought, and inflation is making things a lot worse, especially right now in the midst of planting season.

We all know how we got here. Democrats came into office last year mere weeks after Congress had passed a fifth bipartisan COVID relief bill totaling more than $900 billion, and meeting essentially all of the current pressing COVID needs.

It was abundantly clear that we were not in immediate need of trillions more in government spending.

But that didn't matter to Democrats. Now that they were in charge, they were eager to take advantage of the COVID crisis to begin implementing their Big Government vision.

And so in the name of ``COVID relief,'' they pushed through a massive partisan $1.9 trillion piece of legislation filled with unnecessary spending and handouts to Democrat interest groups.

And the result was entirely predictable.

The definition of inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods and services, and that was exactly the situation that Democrats helped create.

Democrats flooded the economy with unnecessary government money and the economy overheated as a result, and there is no clear end in sight.

It is small wonder that, after months and months of high inflation and anti-growth policies from the Biden administration, our economy shrank in the first quarter of this year.

Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to the inflation crisis Democrats helped create.

One essential thing, of course, is to do no more harm, and that means no more excessive government spending and no bloated Build Back Better tax-and-spending spree, a spending spree that some Democrats are still--still--advocating for.

Another essential thing is to unleash American energy production, and that includes conventional energy production.

I am a strong supporter of clean energy. I come from a State that, in 2020, derived 83 percent of its energy generation from renewables.

But no matter how much Democrats and the President might wish it were otherwise, the fact of the matter is that our Nation is nowhere close to being able to eliminate our reliance on traditional energy sources. Clean energy technology is simply not advanced to the point where we can replace all conventional energy production with renewables. And cutting off investment in clean, responsible oil and gas production will do nothing but drive up energy prices for American families, farms, and businesses.

Unleashing American energy production, on the other hand--including, I might add, production of oil and natural gas--could quickly result in relief for families and businesses and help ease our inflation crisis.

Unfortunately, the President has made his hostility to conventional energy production very clear. He set the tone on day 1 of his administration when he cancelled the Keystone XL Pipeline, an environmentally responsible pipeline project that was already underway and that was paired with $1.7 billion in private investment in renewable energy to fully offset its operating emissions. The Keystone Pipeline was set to be what they call ``net zero''--net zero--when it comes to emissions.

The President also immediately froze new oil and gas leases on Federal lands. And while his administration is finally conducting sales for new onshore oil and gas leases after being ordered to do so by a Federal judge, it has reduced the land available for such leases and substantially increased the royalty rate, sending a loud and clear signal to American energy producers that the administration is reluctant to collaborate with them.

Meanwhile, the Securities and Exchange Commission has proposed requiring publicly-traded companies to comply with costly new climate- related disclosures that would likely discourage investment in conventional energy production.

In short, the Biden administration is creating a recipe for sustained high energy costs and a lot more pain for American businesses and families.

But I and my Republican colleagues will continue to do everything we can to unleash conventional energy production here at home and drive down energy prices for Americans.

I am grateful for all that small businesses contribute to our economy, and during this National Small Business Week, and every week, I will continue to work to mitigate the harm of Democrats' inflation crisis and advance policies that make it easier for our small businessmen and -women to continue to drive the American economy forward.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``yea.''

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

Mr. President, Monday's leak of a draft opinion in the Dobbs Supreme Court case was an unprecedented and deeply disturbing breach of confidentiality that almost always surrounds Supreme Court deliberations. It is difficult to think this was anything but an escalation in the radical left's campaign to bully the Supreme Court into delivering decisions in line with the priorities of the Democratic Party. From Court-packing threats to threats from the Democratic leader himself that were directed to specific Justices, attempting to intimidate the Supreme Court has become par for the course for liberals, but Monday's leak represents a new low.

Almost as disturbing as the leak has been the reaction from my Democratic colleagues. Their hysterical comments have been focused almost entirely on the prospect of their getting an outcome they don't want in the Dobbs case. I have seen almost no concern about how the leak will affect the integrity of the Supreme Court as an institution, and their activist base has gone out of its way to praise the leaker.

More than one Democrat has actually called for undermining the integrity of the Supreme Court by packing the Court with additional Justices. Yes, that is the result of what happened yesterday among Democrats. More than one Democratic Senator believes that the proper response to a Supreme Court decision you don't like is to add additional Justices to the Court until you can be confident that you will get the outcomes you want.

Other Democratic Senators have proposed undermining the integrity of the U.S. Senate by abolishing the Senate filibuster rule--again, in order to be sure that they can get the legislative outcome they want in response to this possible decision in the Dobbs case.

Mr. President, regardless of what side you are on in this debate, you should be willing to stand up for the rule of law and the integrity of our institutions. That shouldn't be a partisan issue. Our system of government depends upon the rule of law, which is based upon an independent judiciary, free of political pressure or partisan influence.

Do Democrats really want a future in which Supreme Court decisions are made based on political pressure or bullying rather than on the Justices' impartial application of the law and the Constitution to the case before them? Maybe they do. But if they continue to push in that direction, they will end up sacrificing our system of government in the process.

Mr. President, I have strong beliefs in any number of issues, including abortion, but above all, I believe in our system of government and in the rule of law. While I will fight passionately in support of the causes I believe in, I will not sacrifice the integrity of our institutions for what would ultimately be nothing but temporary political gain. It is starting to seem like most of my Democratic colleagues disagree with that position. That may possibly be a recipe for political success, but it is also a recipe for destroying free government.

I am glad that Chief Justice Roberts has taken steps to investigate this unprecedented breach of trust at the Court, and I hope that he will receive the full support of the Department of Justice should this turn out to be a criminal matter. It is difficult to overstate how much this breach could erode trust among Justices and Supreme Court staff, and I hope the damage is minimized by a quick identification of the party responsible. I hope every one of the Justices will continue to feel free to do their jobs and follow the facts, the law, and the Constitution.

At least one Democrat has suggested Republicans are spending more time commenting on the leak than on the content of Justice Alito's draft because we are somehow scared to talk about our pro-life decision. Let me be perfectly clear: We are not. I am proud to defend the right to life, and I know my colleagues are as well.

I think most of us have refrained from commenting because we don't yet truly know the outcome. But I will say this. I hope Justice Alito's opinion ends up being the majority opinion. As I have long believed, Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision by an activist Court that reached far beyond the Constitution and the Court's interpretive role to impose a new abortion regime on the entire country. I hope the Supreme Court overturns Roe and returns the question of abortion to the American people and their elected representatives, where it belongs.

The fight to defend life is in keeping with our highest ideals, our passion for justice, our dedication to human rights, and our compassion for the innocent and the vulnerable. I am grateful for all the Americans who have fought to make sure the right to life of vulnerable human beings is protected and have spent their time and their resources helping moms in need. I look forward to a day, which I hope is soon approaching, when innocent, unborn Americans will enjoy the full protection of the law.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.