Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, on Saturday, we lost a remarkable former colleague: Senator Orrin Hatch.

Orrin rose from poverty to become one of the longest serving Senators in U.S. history and the longest serving Republican Senator ever. During his more than 40-year Senate career, he built a record of accomplishment that included landmark legislation like the Americans with Disabilities Act; the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act; and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which he authored with his close friend from across the aisle, Senator Ted Kennedy. At the time of Orrin's retirement, no Senator alive had had as many pieces of legislation signed into law.

I was privileged to serve under Orrin's leadership at the Senate Finance Committee, one of three influential Senate committees that he chaired during his tenure in the Senate. In addition to being an outstanding legislator and a principled conservative, Orrin Hatch was also a cherished and good-humored colleague and a deeply kind human being. It is no surprise that his friendships spanned both sides of the aisle or that both the Democrat and Republican leaders paid tribute to him yesterday.

Mr. President, I know I speak for more than myself when I say that I have missed his presence in the Senate. His death is a loss for our country and especially for his beloved State of Utah, which he served so faithfully and so well during his long career.

My thoughts and prayers this week are with Orrin's wife of more than 64 years, Elaine, with Orrin's six children, and with his dozens of grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak prior to the scheduled vote: myself for up to 15 minutes, Senator Cruz for up to 25 minutes, and Senator Stabenow for up to 10 minutes.

Mr. President, we are moving from disaster to catastrophe at our southern border. Last week, the Biden administration announced that title 42 COVID-19 restrictions, which had provided for the immediate deportation of those who crossed the border illegally, will end in May.

Now, it is ironic that just as the administration presses for more COVID funding, it is apparently declaring COVID is over at the border. Now, I just want everybody to think about the inherent contradiction in what is being said here. By ending title 42, the administration says, for all intents and purposes, the pandemic is over; it is over at the border. But, today, it was announced that the student loan program-- repayments on student loans--would be extended until the month of August. Why? Presumably because of the pandemic.

There is still a policy in place, Mr. President, if you can believe this--yesterday, I had the chance to question, at the Senate Finance Committee, Secretary Becerra of the Health and Human Services Department about a policy that is in place right now that has not yet been repealed that requires children under 5 in Head Start facilities to wear masks--masks not just when they are in the classroom but when they are outside on the playground--children under 5, to wear masks.

Now, who says that is a bad idea? Well, for one, the World Health Organization. The World Health Organization isn't exactly a conservative-leaning institution. The World Health Organization says that it is not necessary for children under 5 to wear a mask because there is no discernible health or safety benefit derived from that.

So that policy is still in place. Kids under the age of 5 at Head Start facilities still have to wear masks, not just inside but when they are outside.

Now student loans, again, have been deferred. You don't have to repay your student loans at least until August. It has been extended again.

These policies reflect a belief on behalf of the administration that we are evidently still in a pandemic that requires these policies to stay in place.

So the student loan deferral request has been made or is going to happen. They are just going to do it. So they are doing that by fiat. And this rule that requires children under 5 to wear masks suggests we are still very concerned about the pandemic and about the spread of COVID-19. Yet, Mr. President, title 42 is going to be lifted at the border, which is a pandemic measure. It was put in place as a result of the pandemic and has enabled our officials at the border, Customs and Border Protection, to be able to at least somewhat manage the flow of illegals coming across the border. Think about that. Think about the inherent contradiction, the messages that you are sending--in addition, I would add, to the $10 billion, which was originally $15 billion, that is being requested by the administration to deal with COVID.

So you are asking for more funding. You are requiring kids to wear masks. You are extending the deferral on student loan repayments. Yet you are lifting title 42 restrictions.

Let me tell you what that means. Once title 42 restrictions are officially lifted, the flood of illegal immigration across our southern border is expected to become a tsunami. The Department of Homeland Security expects as many as 18,000 per day to attempt to cross our southern border after the policy is lifted--18,000 per day. That adds up to more than half a million migrants per month.

To put those numbers in perspective, in fiscal year 2021, Border Patrol encountered more than 1.7 million individuals attempting to cross our southern border. That was the highest number ever recorded in a single year. Now we are talking about a rate of migration that would lead to our hitting that 1-year record in just over 3 months.

Title 42 restrictions were never intended to be a permanent border solution, and lifting them would not be a problem if the President had some meaningful plan in place for dealing with the border crisis that has been going on since he took office, but he doesn't--again, evidenced by the fact that the President has no interest in visiting the border, nor has his border czar, the Vice President of the United States. Neither has been to the border.

Lifting title 42 without a plan to curb illegal immigration is nothing more than an invitation for our current crisis to get exponentially worse, which is exactly, exactly what the Department of Homeland Security expects is going to happen.

Now, you don't have to take my word for it on these problems with the administration's decision. Here is what one Democratic Senator had to say about the administration's title 42 decision:

This is a wrong decision. It's unacceptable to end Title 42

without a plan and coordination in place to ensure a secure,

orderly, and humane process at the border.

This is a wrong decision. It's unacceptable to end Title 42

without a plan and coordination in place to ensure a secure,

orderly, and humane process at the border.

That is from a Democratic Senator.

Another Democratic Senator noted:

I think this is not the right time and we have not seen a

detailed plan from the administration. We need assurances

that we have security at the border and that we protect

communities on this side of the border.

Another Democratic Senator.

This is another Democratic Senator, a third one:

Today's announcement by the CDC and the Biden

Administration is a frightening decision. Title 42 has been

an essential tool in combatting the spread of COVID-19 and

controlling the influx of migrants at our southern border. We

are already facing an unprecedented increase in migrants this

year, and that will only get worse if the Administration ends

the Title 42 policy. We are nowhere near prepared to deal

with that influx.

We are nowhere near prepared to deal with that influx.

Again, a third Democratic Senator on the subject of ending title 42.

Mr. President, under the Biden administration, we have had 12 straight months of border encounters in excess of over 150,000. In February, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 164,973 individuals attempting to cross our southern border illegally--the highest February number in more than 20 years. And, of course, those numbers only reflect individuals the Border Patrol has succeeded in apprehending. There is no question that many other illegal immigrants have crossed the border in the past year without being apprehended and have disappeared into the United States. The President is largely responsible for this situation thanks to the series of actions he has taken to weaken border security and immigration enforcement since his administration began.

Mr. President, illegal immigration is a very serious problem for several reasons. First of all, it is dangerous for any country not to know who is entering the country, who is crossing its borders. Illegal border crossings are not confined to individuals wanting to build a better life for themselves. Weak borders are an invitation to human traffickers, drug smugglers, gangs, and even terrorists.

We currently have a very serious fentanyl problem in this country. In fact, fentanyl overdose is the leading cause of death for U.S. adults between the ages of 18 and 45. And where is this fentanyl coming from? It is being trafficked across our southern border. In fact, Mexico has replaced China as the dominant source of fentanyl in the United States. There is no question that the worse the situation at the border gets, the easier it is for drug smugglers to evade detection and capture.

Our Border Patrol officers do heroic work, but they are stretched incredibly thin and have been for the past year. It is simply common sense to acknowledge that the greater the flood of illegal immigration they have to contend with, the easier it is going to be for bad actors to get across the border.

So there are real security concerns that illegal immigration represents. There are also serious humanitarian concerns. The journey to our southern border for those attempting to cross illegally is frequently fraught with danger, and there is nothing compassionate about encouraging individuals to undertake that journey, to run the risk of exploitation and disease and exposure.

Finally, encouraging or tacitly endorsing illegal immigration shows a real disregard for the rule of law. I am a strong supporter of legal immigration. I am one generation removed from immigrants in this country, and I hope this country will always serve as a refuge for individuals seeking a new life for peace and for freedom. But immigration laws are not exceptions to the principle that the law must be respected.

We can and should make changes to immigration laws as needed to address problems or to expand opportunities, but immigration must proceed according to the law. To suggest otherwise is to cultivate contempt for the rule of law, not to mention how unfair it is to those who have done what is required to come here legally.

As President, President Biden has a particular responsibility to care for the country's security. When it comes to the border, at least, he is failing in that responsibility, and he is betraying the duty he owes to the American people, who should be able to count on their President to care about security concerns, including border security.

We are less than 2 months away from the end of title 42 restrictions and the border surge that we expect to follow. I hope that the President will use that time to get serious about developing a plan to secure our southern border because he owes the American people nothing less.

I yield the floor.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).

Madam President, if a budget is a set of priorities, here are the President's: an expanded Federal Government, a diminished national defense, higher gas prices, and an open border. Those are the priorities reflected in the budget the President released last week, which contained pretty much what you would expect--more taxes, more spending, more borrowing, and, in all likelihood, more inflation as a result.

Big taxes and big spending have been the agenda for President Biden since he took office. After signing a $1.9 trillion spending spree in March of 2021 that helped create the worst inflation in 40 years, President Biden spent much of last year pushing for still more spending to fund his vision of an expanded Federal Government.

In his 2023 budget, it is just more of the same. The President's budget would increase average yearly spending by 66 percent as compared to the average of the last 10 years. Sixty-six percent--that is a staggering spending increase. Yearly Federal spending under the Biden budget would average $7.3 trillion. To put that in perspective, the total average spending in 2019 was $4.4 trillion.

How is the President going to pay for this, if he even can? Taxes, a lot of taxes--``the biggest tax increase in history in dollar terms,'' according to Bloomberg.

The President, of course, attempts to sell the tax hikes he is proposing as something that won't affect ordinary Americans. That couldn't be more wrong.

That corporate tax hike that he keeps pushing--one study estimates that 31 percent of the corporate tax is borne by consumers. Another big portion of it is borne by labor, otherwise known as ordinary, hard- working Americans.

Higher prices, fewer jobs, lower salaries--we can expect to see all that and more if the President hikes taxes on companies. And I haven't even mentioned the fact that a corporate tax hike may end up hurting private pensions in the value of American's 401(k)s.

Then there are the tax hikes on conventional energy companies, the companies that produce the oil and gas that Americans use to heat their homes and to drive their cars. Increasing taxes on fossil fuel companies to the tune of tens of billions of dollars is pretty much guaranteed to discourage the additional energy production we need to drive down gas prices. Ironically, the proposals to go after traditional American energy production come from the same administration that is releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to deal with high gas prices. You can't make this up.

Then there is inflation. Democrats helped create our current inflation crisis by sending a lot of unnecessary government money into the economy via the so-called American Rescue Plan. The President's budget would essentially do the same thing, which means our already serious inflation crisis could get even worse.

I mentioned the big spending increases in the President's budget. But what I actually meant are the big nondefense spending increases because, while on paper it may look like the President is hiking defense spending, his supposed funding increase would be effectively canceled out by inflation.

When you take into account Democrats' historic inflation, it turns out President Biden's supposed defense spending increase could actually turn out to be a spending cut. Even in the best-case scenario, his budget would leave defense spending essentially flat, which would leave our military dangerously underfunded. That is a big problem.

In a rapidly evolving threat environment, the last thing we can afford is a self-inflicted defeat from underfunding our military. Given Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine and threats to NATO, an increasingly aggressive China, Iran's nuclear ambitions, North Korea's uptick in missile tests, and the Taliban taking over in Afghanistan, among other things, President Biden should be taking national defense spending at least as seriously as domestic spending, but he is not.

The Biden budget proposal would leave the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force underequipped and undermanned and put our defense planning on a dangerously insufficient trajectory.

The President's budget also fails to adequately address border security and immigration enforcement.

Almost since the day the President took office, we have been experiencing an unprecedented flood of illegal immigration across our southern border. In fiscal year 2021, the Border Patrol encountered more than 1.7 million individuals attempting to cross our southern border, the highest number ever recorded. We have had 12 straight months of border encounters in excess of 150,000, and the surge is likely to even get worse now that the President has rescinded the title 42 border policy to immediately deport individuals illegally attempting to cross the border.

What is the President's answer?

Well, $150-million cut to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement next year. That is right. We are experiencing an unprecedented surge of illegal immigration, and the President's budget would cut funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Perhaps the most outrageous thing about the President's budget is the way he misrepresents it. He is now trying to portray himself as somewhat fiscally responsible, as if a 66 percent higher yearly average spending than the last 10 years could be considered fiscally responsible. The President is talking a lot about deficit reduction-- both the deficit reduction he has supposedly created and the deficit reduction his budget will supposedly produce.

But the actual numbers will, again, tell a very different story. The deficit reduction the President would like to take credit for is partly the result of the end of temporary COVID spending measures, which were scheduled to end whether the President lifted a finger or not. Our current deficit would have been a lot lower if the President hadn't decided that we needed a partisan $1.9 trillion spending spree last year, a spending spree entirely--entirely--made up of deficit spending.

When it comes to the President's 2023 budget, the administration claims ``deficits under the budget policies would fall to less than one-third of the 2020 level the President inherited.''

The key phrase there is ``the 2020 level the President inherited.'' And 2020 saw a huge but temporary surge in government spending to deal with the onset of the COVID crisis.

As a result, it is grossly deceptive to take the 2020 deficit as a baseline. A more honest assessment of the prospects for deficit reduction under the President's budget would look at pre-COVID deficits as a baseline and compare the President's future deficits to those, but that wouldn't suit the President's purposes.

Now that it has become apparent that the American people are not, in fact, thrilled by far-left Democratic governance, the President is eager to portray himself as a moderate--hence his inflated claims of deficit reduction.

It is the same reason the President is touting his supposed spending hike on national defense while conveniently omitting the fact that when you figure in real inflation, the spending hike may actually be a spending cut.

No matter how the President tries to dress it up, his fiscal year 2023 budget is more of the same far-left priorities--more taxes, more unnecessary spending, and more economic pain for the American people.

And I hope, I hope my Democratic colleagues will think twice before foisting this budget onto hard-working Americans.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes, Senator Murphy for up to 12 minutes, and Senator Grassley for up to 10 minutes prior to the scheduled vote.

Mr. President, it has now been more than 3 years since the 2018 farm bill, and it is time to start thinking about the next one. The House Agriculture Committee has already begun holding hearings on the 2023 farm bill, and I am hoping that the Senate Agriculture Committee will begin holding hearings soon as well.

Agriculture is the lifeblood of our economy in South Dakota, and advocating for farmers and ranchers is one of my top priorities here in the Senate. I am fortunate enough to be a longtime member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which gives me an important platform from which to address the needs of South Dakota ag producers.

During my time in Congress, I have worked on four farm bills, and I am particularly proud of the nearly 20 measures I was able to get included in the 2018 farm bill. Among other things, I authored provisions to improve the Agriculture Risk Coverage Program, improve the accuracy of the U.S. Drought Monitor, and include soil health as a research priority at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

I was also able to secure a number of improvements of the Conservation Reserve Program, including a provision to increase the CRP acreage cap, increased flexibility for acres enrolled in CRP, and cost sharing for fencing and water distribution practices on CRP-enrolled acres.

I also secured approval for a new, short-term alternative to CRP--the Soil Health and Income Protection Program--to provide an option for farmers who don't want to take their land out of production for the 10 to 15 years required under the Conservation Reserve Program.

And I was able to secure important provisions to increase the approval rate of Livestock Indemnity Program applications for death losses due to weather-related diseases.

I would never have been able to get all this done without the input of South Dakota farmers and ranchers. These provisions were a direct result of extensive conversations with South Dakota ag producers that provided insight into the challenges that they were facing and what improvements could be made to make things easier in this demanding way of life.

As I look to the 2023 farm bill, I will once again be relying on South Dakota farmers and ranchers to lend their firsthand knowledge to this effort. In fact, last Friday, I held the first of a series of roundtables I am planning to hold to hear from South Dakota agricultural producers. Friday's roundtable focused on the commodity and crop insurance titles of the farm bill, and I was grateful to be able to hear from representatives of the South Dakota Farm Bureau; South Dakota corn, soybean, and wheat producers; as well as crop insurance industry representatives.

I will be holding additional roundtables to cover other farm bill priorities, including livestock, conservation, and forestry issues. And, of course, I will continue to rely on the many informal conversations I have with South Dakota ag producers as I travel around the State.

There is nothing worse than having ``experts'' in Washington come in and dictate to the real-world experts: the farmers and ranchers who spend every day producing the food that feeds our Nation. And my goal is always to make sure that any farm legislation is directly informed by farmers and ranchers in South Dakota and around the country. I already have a list of issues that I am looking to see addressed in the next farm bill, and I plan to refine that list over the coming months in my conversations with South Dakota ag producers.

One thing that emerged clearly from Friday's roundtable is the importance of the farm safety net and the critical role of crop insurance and commodity programs. Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price Loss Coverage payments, which help offset losses when prices for agricultural products drop, are not always proving sufficient, particularly with our current high inflation, which has sent the price of inputs like fertilizer soaring.

As I mentioned earlier, I was able to secure improvements to the Agriculture Risk Coverage Program in the

2018 farm bill, and I plan to seek further commodity title program improvements in the 2023 farm bill.

I also want to secure further improvements to the Conservation Reserve Program. From my conversations with South Dakota ag producers, it is clear that we need to make changes to ensure that CRP continues to be an effective option for producers and landowners. In fact, last week, I introduced the Conservation Reserve Program Improvement Act, which I will work to get included in the 2023 farm bill.

Among other things, my legislation would make CRP grazing a more attractive option by providing cost-share payments for all CRP practices for the establishment of grazing infrastructure, including fencing and water distribution. And it would increase the annual payment limit for CRP, which hasn't been changed since 1985, to help account for inflation and the increase that we have seen in land values. This would expand the enrollment options available to landowners to ensure the program effectively serves farmers and ranchers, as well as conservation goals.

The Conservation Program Improvement Act is the first of multiple bills I plan to introduce in the runup to the 2023 farm bill to address the concerns of farmers and ranchers.

The one issue I have been working on extensively over the past year is the challenges facing livestock producers, particularly cattle producers. I will work to make sure the farm bill will provide resources to help them face these challenges.

The life of a farmer and rancher is a challenging one. The work often starts long before the Sun rises and concludes long after the Sun has set. The labor can be backbreaking, not to mention the deep uncertainty that goes along with this existence. There are few other industries so subject to the whims of the weather, which can wipe out an entire crop or herd in a very short period of time.

I am profoundly grateful for all those who have chosen and continued this way of life, often for generations. The food we eat every day depends upon their work, and our country would not long survive without them. I am proud to have the honor of representing South Dakota's farmers and ranchers here in the Senate, and I will continue to work every day to ensure that their needs are addressed. I look forward to ensuring that the 2023 farm bill reflects the priorities of South Dakota farmers and ranchers and farmers and ranchers around our great country.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, let me just join my friend and colleague and neighbor from across the border, Senator Klobuchar, in just acknowledging the passage of something that is really important and credit to her staff, who I know worked tirelessly on this, and members of my staff--in particular Chance Costello--who worked tirelessly trying to find that common ground and thread the needle to get this done in a way that would expedite its passage here in the Senate.

As Senator Klobuchar pointed out, the leadership on the Commerce Committee--Senators Cantwell and Wicker--and their staffs also were instrumental in helping us get this across the finish line. But as Senator Klobuchar pointed out, I think this is a good example of how, if you are willing to keep grinding and keep working at it, you can come up with solutions that are bipartisan and solutions that really get at problems that we are facing in this country.

I don't think anybody would argue that we have a supply chain crisis in America. It has heightened the importance of addressing some of these shipping challenges; and our legislation, although it may not be the end-all, certainly takes us a long way toward addressing what have been identified as many of the problems associated with trying to get the goods and products through our port system into the United States and, as importantly, trying to get those products, those things that we raise and grow and manufacture here in the United States, to their destinations around the world.

And there have been lots of examples which Senator Klobuchar has alluded to that she and I and our staffs have, in visiting with stakeholders out there, people who were impacted by these bottlenecks that exist today--as we have listened to them, much of that input and feedback was incorporated into this legislation.

So it does take strong measures to help tackle supply chain slowdowns, and it does level the playing field for American exporters, including South Dakota ag producers. It does this in several ways. She has covered it well, but let me just briefly touch on a couple of things. It does this by giving the FMC, or the Federal Maritime Commission, new authorities to crack down on unfair ocean carrier practices, whether that is a refusal to carry certain cargoes or discrimination against certain commodities for export.

We have all heard these examples--Senator Klobuchar alluded to this-- of containers leaving the ports in the United States that are empty, filled with air, or the carriers making determinations based upon the value of certain products instead of--and then assessing detention and demurrage fees sometimes on shippers that are unfair and unrelated, really, to anything that they have done.

So providing the FMC with more tools to quickly resolve detention disputes, bringing greater efficiency and transparency to a process that leaves many shippers frustrated--and especially small businesses-- is what this legislation is all about. These improvements, we believe, are going to bring long-term, positive changes to the maritime supply chain, which I hope will benefit not only exporters but importers and consumers alike.

The legislation not only levels the playing field for producers in South Dakota and across the Nation, but it will also benefit exporters, small businesses, and, as I said, consumers across this country.

So I hope, as she does, that our colleagues in the House will be able to take this up and pass it. There has been some good work done there already, much of it by my colleague in South Dakota, a Member of the congressional delegation from our State, Dusty Johnson, who has been the leader on this legislation in the House of Representatives when it passed earlier this year. And now, we have our chance here in the U.S. Senate.

And it is a product of a tremendous amount of work. Senator Klobuchar's staff and my staff spent not weeks but months negotiating-- and, you know, there are always disagreements. There are always differences. Of course, when you present it to the rest of our colleagues on the Senate Commerce Committee, they have their ideas, unique ideas, about things that they want to fix and change and make better. So it went through that process.

But, ultimately, when we brought it up for consideration in front of the Senate Commerce Committee, there were some amendments that were offered and voted on. People got a chance to have their voices heard. A lot of the ideas that people had were incorporated into the base text, but, ultimately, when it was voted out, it was voted out of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee unanimously. It came out without a dissenting vote, and that, I think, set us up here on the floor of the U.S. Senate to process in a way that, again, included a high level of bipartisanship.

And I credit, too--as we brought it to the floor, there were a couple of issues we had to again deal with, individual Members who had concerns--some with the legislation, some with other issues. But as is always the case here in the U.S. Senate, an individual Senator can assert their rights in a way that enables them, gives them leverage on the process; but we were able to work through those things, and that product today has now passed the U.S. Senate.

Hopefully, if the House is inclined to do so, it would be great if they would pick it up, pass it, put it on the President's desk, and have him sign it into law because I think it will take us a long way down the road toward leveling that playing field and addressing many of the concerns that have been identified by our exporters.

I know that the farm organizations in my State of South Dakota have been very active in influencing this, very concerned about the bottlenecks and their ability to reach export destinations in a way that allows them to maximize their profitability and, in doing so, increase the prosperity of people all across the Midwest in States that we represent where agriculture is the No. 1 industry.

So congrats to those who worked on this, again, to the staff who have labored, and to my colleague from Minnesota. This is not the first time we have collaborated on issues. We share not only a border but, obviously, a lot of commonality in terms of the issues that impact our States; and this is one

in particular where I think the farmers, ranchers, small business people, manufacturers in Minnesota and in South Dakota will all derive a benefit once it is enacted into law.

We are going to do everything we can now to continue to press forward. We have gotten it this far. We need to now get some additional action by the House of Representatives. I am not sure exactly what that looks like, whether that is going to conference with them. Preferably, obviously, they pick up and pass this bill, put it on the President's desk and turn it into law.

I am pleased to be able to be a part of this and to get a result today.

I would be happy to yield to our colleague and the chairman of the Senate Ag Committee, who also has big equities in this discussion.

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

Mr. President, American families are currently struggling with the worst inflation in 40 years--40 years. Food prices, gas prices, used car prices--everywhere Americans look, they are paying more. Wages increased on average last year, but inflation outstripped wage growth, which means that, instead of a wage increase, a lot of Americans got a de facto pay cut. And there is no clear end in sight.

It is no wonder that nearly two-thirds of the American people disapprove of President Biden's handling of the economy, and they are right to do so because Democrats bear a substantial part of the responsibility for this inflation crisis. While it is true that supply chain issues and the reopening of economies after COVID shutdowns contributed somewhat to inflationary pressures, a big part of the reason for our current inflation crisis is the Democrats' decision to pass the American Rescue Plan last March.

The very definition of ``inflation'' is too many dollars chasing too few goods and services, and that is exactly the situation that Democrats helped create with their so-called American Rescue Plan. Democrats took control mere weeks after Congress had passed a fifth-- fifth--bipartisan COVID relief bill totaling more than $900 billion and meeting essentially all 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 stop Democrats. Now that they were in charge, they were eager to take advantage of the COVID crisis to begin implementing their Big Government vision.

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 outcome was entirely predictable. Democrats flooded the economy with unnecessary government money, and the economy overheated as a result.

Unfortunately, there is no going back and undoing the American Rescue Plan Act; although, given the inflation crisis it helped create, I wonder if some Democrats wish they could go back and undo it.

There is no easy fix for Democrats' self-inflicted inflation crisis, but there are things that we can do to at least lessen its effects, starting with legislation to help ease supply chain woes.

Last week, the Senate Commerce Committee reported my bipartisan shipping legislation out of committee by voice vote. The Ocean Shipping Reform Act, which I introduced with Senator Klobuchar, would help ease supply chain pressures by improving the fluidity of the supply chain.

For some time now, I have been hearing reports of ocean carriers refusing to transport certain goods, often American agricultural products. This would be a difficult situation at any time, as export markets around the world are critically important to American producers, but it is particularly painful at a time when inflation is soaring and the supply chain is under significant strain.

The Ocean Shipping Reform Act is designed to address these kinds of shipping problems and create a more level playing field for American producers. Our legislation would give the Federal Maritime Commission increased authority to respond to unfair ocean carrier practices whether that involves a refusal to carry certain cargo, like agricultural commodities, or discriminating against certain commodities for export.

Our bill would also provide the FMC with tools to more quickly resolve detention and demurrage disputes, which would bring greater efficiency and transparency to a process that leaves many shippers frustrated, especially agricultural producers and other small businesses; and our legislation would take steps to improve the movement of goods at our Nation's ports, which would help ease supply chain bottlenecks and improve the speed at which goods reach consumers.

The Ocean Shipping Reform Act would bring long-term positive changes to the maritime supply chain, which I hope would benefit exporters, importers, and consumers alike.

I was very pleased that our legislation received strong bipartisan support in the Commerce Committee, and I hope it can swiftly pass here in the

Senate. This is the kind of bill that we should be working on if we want to help alleviate our inflation situation and improve the economy.

I was dismayed to see that the President's budget, which was released this week, would double down on the kind of excessive government spending that helped get us into this inflation crisis in the first place. After a year of progressively worsening inflation, you would think Democrats would have learned their lesson, but, clearly, the President is still intent on more reckless spending, coupled, I might add, with job-killing tax hikes--and not just any tax hikes. According to Bloomberg, the President's budget would add up to being the largest tax hike in American history in dollar terms.

I hope that my Democratic colleagues here in Congress will decide to skip the President's irresponsible tax-and-spending proposals and focus on measures that would actually help alleviate this inflation crisis, not make it worse.

While there is no easy fix for our inflation situation, we can start to make things better for Americans with bipartisan legislation like the Ocean Shipping Reform Act. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support the legislation Senator Klobuchar and I have produced.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.