Floor Statements

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, Tax Day 2022 is fast approaching. Americans around the country are prepping their tax returns.

If you talked to most Americans, I don't think you would find that the IRS is their favorite government Agency and with good reason. The Agency

has gained a reputation for poor taxpayer service. The last tax filing season was particularly miserable for taxpayers. ``If you call the IRS, there is only a 1-in-50 chance that you'll reach a human being,'' noted a headline in the Washington Post last April.

The national Taxpayer Advocate noted in her 2021 report to Congress:

Calendar year 2021 was surely the most challenging year

taxpayers and tax professionals have ever experienced--long

processing and refund delays, difficulty reaching the IRS by

phone, correspondence that went unprocessed for many months,

collection notices issued while taxpayer correspondence was

awaiting processing, little or no information on the Where's

My Refund? tool for delayed returns. . . .

And bad customer service isn't the only thing tarnishing the IRS's reputation. The IRS has also gained a reputation for mishandling the confidential taxpayer information it has access to. In fact, the IRS was recently subject to a massive leak or hack of private taxpayer information--information that somehow ended up in the hands of advocates at ProPublica, an outfit that promotes progressive causes and went on to publish taxpayers' private information last June. Months later, neither the Treasury Department nor the IRS has provided meaningful followup about the data breach, much less any accountability.

Who could forget the IRS scandal during the Obama administration when the IRS targeted a number of organizations based on their political beliefs? Nor did the IRS inspire confidence a few months ago when it announced it would start requiring taxpayers to submit biometric data in order to access certain IRS services.

Fortunately, after Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee and others weighed in, the IRS abandoned its plans to allow the harvesting of taxpayers' biometric data, but it was a concerning instance of government overreach from an Agency notable for repeated mishandling of private taxpayer information.

The IRS was a frequent subject of discussion in regard to the Democrats' so-called Build Back Better plan. It would have been nice if this was because Democrats had proposed a real plan to improve taxpayer services and increase Agency accountability. But, no, what they proposed in their Build Back Better plan was a massive increase in funding for the IRS--$80 billion--essentially doubling the size of the Agency without any plan for ensuring improvements to basic taxpayer services.

I am hard pressed to imagine why anyone would contemplate handing a massive budget increase to the IRS without simultaneously prioritizing a plan to substantially increase accountability and improve taxpayer services. But, of course, Democrats weren't interested in improving taxpayer services. Their main interest in handing the IRS a supersized budget increase was to increase tax collections to raise revenue to help pay for their partisan tax-and-spending spree.

It is the same reason why they included a provision, until widespread public opposition forced them to remove it, that would have allowed the IRS to examine the details of Americans' bank accounts. Under one version of this provision, the IRS would have been able to sift through the bank records of any American with just $600 in annual transactions--$600. In other words, the IRS would have been able to look through the bank records of just about every American and find out just how much you spent on Starbucks or your last doctor's bill or that new pair of running shoes.

Republicans are not opposed to enhancing resources for the IRS if needed to improve taxpayer services, but any enhanced resources for the IRS must be paired with serious reform, including measures to improve customer service, ensure that existing resources are being used optimally, and promote smarter and more effective audits.

I am a cosponsor of Senator Crapo's Tax Gap Reform and IRS Enforcement Act, which would codify additional protections for taxpayers against IRS overreach.

Among other things, the legislation would help ensure that the IRS is not able to target taxpayers for their political and ideological beliefs, and it would prohibit the kinds of bank reporting requirements that Democrats sought to impose in their Build Back Better spending spree. It would also take steps to increase IRS expertise and improve the audit process. It would improve the information that we have on the tax gap, which is the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid.

Reducing the size of the tax gap and improving enforcement of our tax laws is something we should look at, but any effort has to be balanced with taxpayer responsibilities and taxpayer rights. Vastly increasing the size of the IRS without any new accountability or Agency oversight, as Democrats wanted to do with their Build Back Better spending spree, would be more likely to result in increased harassment of law-abiding taxpayers than in a meaningful reduction in the tax gap.

Just in case anyone thinks I am exaggerating about harassment, I would like to note that a provision in the House version of Democrats' reckless tax-and-spending spree would repeal a measure requiring written approval of a supervisor before an IRS agent can assess any penalties. The provision was intended to prevent overreaching IRS agents from threatening Americans with unjustified penalties. It is hard to imagine why Democrats would try to repeal this measure if they were not trying to pave the way for much more aggressive IRS pressure on American taxpayers.

In her 2021 report to Congress, the National Taxpayer Advocate noted that ``there is no way to sugarcoat the year 2021 in tax administration. From the perspective of tens of millions of taxpayers, it was horrendous.''

Taxpayers deserve better. They deserve an efficient and accountable IRS and timely and effective customer service, and Congress should focus on giving it to them. I hope to be able to move away from Democrats' intrusive and reckless Build Back Better IRS proposals and toward bipartisan efforts to reform the IRS and ensure the taxpayers can reliably depend on the Agency.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, the Russian assault on Ukraine continues unabated. Each morning seems to bring a fresh horror. In the last few days alone, we have seen the Russians bomb an arts school where as many as 400 civilians had taken cover. We have seen the bombing of a theater where an estimated 1,300 women and children and the elderly were sheltered--not a military target, a theater providing shelter to civilians, to children--a theater that was clearly labeled with the word ``children.'' That is right. On the pavement outside, in large white letters, visible in satellite images, was the word ``children'' written in Russian.

So it is pretty impossible that the Russians didn't know what or who they were bombing. But they bombed anyway.

And this is just one example of the depravity of the Russian siege of Mariupol, which has largely destroyed this port city. Residents in Mariupol are without electricity, without running water, at times without food. As important as words are, they fail when it comes to describing the horrors that Ukrainians are experiencing, the inferno that so many of them now exist in on a daily basis.

As we go about our lives in peace and security, most of us have no notion of what it means to live where air raid sirens have become commonplace, where bombed-out buildings line the streets you used to walk on, where crossing a road or leaving a building at the wrong moment can mean your death. The pictures convey some of the horror--the postapocalyptic streetscapes, the buildings gray with ash, the gaping holes in apartment blocks and businesses--images akin to the bombed-out cities seen in old World War II photographs, the total destruction of once vibrant places.

Mariupol is perhaps the foremost example of the devastation Russia has wrought. The last EU diplomat to leave that city summed up the situation in stark words on Sunday:

What I saw, I hope no one will ever see. Mariupol will

become part of a list of cities that were completely

destroyed by war.

``What I saw, I hope no one will ever see. Mariupol will become part of a list of cities that were completely destroyed by war.'' We don't have to look far for the source of these horrors; they can be attributed to one man, to Vladimir Putin.

To achieve his vision of a Russian Empire, he has laid waste to the country of Ukraine; thousands of lives sacrificed, on both sides, because he wants Ukraine, because he thinks Ukraine should be part of Russia. It doesn't matter that the people of Ukraine have made it unmistakably clear that they are their own people and a sovereign nation willing to lay down their lives for their freedom. Putin wants Ukraine, and he is apparently willing to destroy Ukraine to get it.

All this evil, all this destruction, so many--so many--human lives wasted all because of one man's fixation on a Russian Empire. More than 3.3 million refugees have fled Ukraine, including at least 1.5 million children, and around 6.5 million Ukrainians are internally displaced. That amounts to roughly one-quarter of Ukraine's population forced from their homes. And the numbers continue to grow.

Last week, President Zelenskyy addressed Congress. In powerful words, he outlined a situation in Ukraine and asked for additional help as Ukrainians battle for their country. I am proud that the United States has provided Ukraine with substantial military assistance and has put in place strong sanctions against Russia, including sanctioning the lifeblood of the Russian economy, which is the Russian energy sector.

But, Mr. President, we have to do more. However much current sanctions have hit the Russian economy, Putin is still prosecuting his war of aggression in Ukraine, and so we have to do more. We have to send the message, unequivocally, that Russia will be an outcast from the free world until it withdraws from Ukraine.

There are additional sanctions the United States can put in place, and we need to immediately get to work unleashing American energy production so we can provide energy to our allies in Europe and lessen their dependence on energy from Russia. Every dollar--every dollar-- that goes to purchase Russian energy is a dollar that Russia can use to finance its war of aggression.

The United States has correctly banned Russian oil and gas imports; now we need to help our allies in Europe permanently divest themselves of their reliance on Russian energy. Congress needs to act immediately on legislation to suspend Russia's favorable trading status. Membership at the World Trade Organization should be limited to countries that don't launch unprovoked wars on their neighbors. We also need to continue our shipments of arms to Ukraine. And the President needs to find a way to further enhance Ukrainian air defenses, whether that involves sending the S-300 air defense systems that President Zelenskyy asked for, or armed drones, or facilitating the transfer of MiG aircraft from NATO countries to the Ukrainian Air Force, or all of the above.

Russia is currently unleashing devastation from the skies of Ukrainian cities, and we need to find a way of helping Ukrainians to reduce or eliminate that threat.

Finally, we need to make sure that while we are sanctioning Russia on the one hand, we are not enriching it on the other with things like an Iran deal that could see Russia benefit to the tune of $10 billion.

The people of Ukraine are not waiting for anyone to come and save them. They are fighting with everything they have to save their country, but they are asking for our help. They need arms and resources and humanitarian assistance to sustain their fight against Russian forces that are increasingly showing less and less restraint. And they are relying on us--on us--on our shared belief in freedom and self- determination, on our shared commitment to human liberty.

The Ukrainian people know what they want to be and that is a free people in a free country, and they have the will to stay in this fight. They just need our help. Let's not let them down.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

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.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

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

Madam President, the Senate Commerce Committee recently voted on the nomination of Gigi Sohn to be a member of the Federal Communications Commission. I voted against her nomination for a number of serious reasons, as did the 13 other Republican committee members.

I was deeply disappointed that not one of my Democratic colleagues on the committee stepped forward to affirm what should be glaringly obvious: that Ms. Sohn is not an appropriate candidate for a position on the Federal Communications Commission.

One substantial concern I have with Ms. Sohn's nomination is her extreme position on net neutrality.

Back in 2014, the Obama administration decided that the Federal Government wasn't regulating the internet enough. So in 2015, the Obama Federal Communications Commission passed what was known as the Open Internet Order--mislabeled, I would add, but which dramatically expanded the Federal Government's power over the internet. The justification for this massive regulatory expansion was net neutrality.

Now, net neutrality is a concept that enjoys broad support in both parties. I support net neutrality and rules that prevent blocking, throttling, and the paid prioritization of internet traffic. I don't think a major service provider should be able to block a small news startup. But what the Obama FCC did in 2015 went far beyond net neutrality. The Obama FCC asserted broad, new government powers over the internet using rules that were designed for telephone monopolies back during the Great Depression. This opened the door to a whole host of internet regulations, including price regulations, and unsurprisingly, broadband investment declined as a result.

That was a problem for Americans generally, who benefit when the United States is at the forefront of internet growth and expansion, and it was particularly bad news for Americans in rural States like South Dakota. Getting broadband to rural communities is already more challenging than installing broadband in cities or suburbs, and the possibility of heavier regulations acted as a further disincentive to expanding access.

Fast-forward to 2017, and the Federal Communications Commission under Chairman Pai voted to repeal those heavyhanded regulations passed by the Obama FCC, and here is what happened: Broadband investment rebounded, and broadband access expanded. Internet speeds increased. Our Nation positioned itself at the forefront of the 5G revolution. While European internet providers were slowing internet speeds during the pandemic, American providers were increasing them. All this despite the repeal of the heavyhanded internet regulation Democrats claimed we needed--or more accurately, because of the repeal of the heavyhanded regulation Democrats claimed we needed.

Why do I go into all this history? Well, because Ms. Sohn not only wants to bring back the heavyhanded internet regulation of the Obama administration, but she wants to go further and have the FCC regulate broadband rates and set data caps.

Just as service providers are working to implement nationwide 5G networks, Ms. Sohn wants to reinstate rules that will discourage broadband investment and diminish access opportunities for Americans outside of major cities and suburban areas. That is a big problem. The light-touch approach to internet regulation that the Federal Government has historically taken has resulted in growth and access, both of which would be threatened by Ms. Sohn's agenda.

Now, while I was very pleased that the FCC under Chairman Pai repealed

President Obama's heavyhanded internet regulation, I believe the best solution for the long term is for Congress to step in and pass bipartisan net neutrality legislation. Swings in net neutrality policy from administration to administration do not encourage long-term broadband investment.

I believe there is bipartisan support for a long-term legislative solution but not, it would seem, from Ms. Sohn, who has openly disparaged bipartisan work on this issue. Now, I think Ms. Sohn would be fine if Congress produces a bill to her liking, but I have serious concerns that if she thought a bipartisan solution didn't go far enough, she would ignore the will of Congress and use her position at the FCC to impose the heavyhanded regulatory regime she favors.

As a resident of a rural State, I am also concerned about Ms. Sohn's position on expanding broadband access to rural communities--an issue every Member of this body cares deeply about. She has been publicly hostile to the efforts of rural broadband companies in expanding reliable internet access to rural areas, while at the same time supporting the use of scarce government dollars to build new internet networks in already well-served urban areas.

As someone who has worked long and hard to expand internet access for unserved Americans, I find her hostility to rural broadband companies very troubling. The vast majority of these companies have spent years building out reliable networks to some of the most remote parts of the country, allowing more rural areas, like those in South Dakota, to reap the benefits of advanced services in healthcare, education, and economic development.

It is not only Republicans who have taken note of her hostility to the needs of rural Americans. Our former Democratic colleague from North Dakota has also questioned how one could support rural broadband and Ms. Sohn.

Ms. Sohn's policy positions alone would lead me to oppose her nomination, but there are other even more troubling factors that should be leading Members of both parties to oppose her nomination.

To start with, Ms. Sohn was not forthcoming to the Commerce Committee about her past history on the board of a company that was ordered to cease operations after being found in violation of copyright laws. This raises serious concerns about her fitness to sit on the FCC.

After questions were raised about her involvement with this company's settlement with broadcasters, she did volunteer to recuse herself, if she is confirmed, on a variety of issues related to broadcasting and copyright violations. But why on Earth--why on Earth should we choose a Commissioner who would have to recuse herself from participating in substantial parts of the FCC's work? How does it serve Americans to have an FCC Commissioner who can't fully do her job? Surely, there are other qualified nominees who don't have Ms. Sohn's conflict of interest.

But my objections don't end there. While I am concerned about Ms. Sohn having to recuse herself from doing parts of her job, I am most concerned about whether or not Ms. Sohn can do any part of her job in a fair and impartial manner.

Ms. Sohn has a history of virulent partisanship and far-left activism, including support for such far-left initiatives as defunding the police. She has publicly expressed her disdain for Republicans, and she has a record of outspoken criticism of the very same conservative media outlets that she would be responsible for regulating. Perhaps the most notable example is her hostility towards FOX News, which she has referred to as ``state-sponsored propaganda'' and accused of playing a role in ``destroying democracy.''

``Destroying democracy.''

And yet we are supposed to believe that she would approach cases involving the FOX corporation impartially? I think it is pretty clear that would not be the case.

I don't expect a Democrat nominee to the FCC to agree with Republicans on all the issues--far from it. But I do expect a Democrat nominee to do his or her job and do it in an impartial and unbiased manner.

In the case of Ms. Sohn, President Biden has nominated someone who cannot fulfill part of the responsibilities of FCC Commissioner and whose record strongly suggests that she cannot be relied upon to fulfill any of her responsibilities in an impartial manner.

Americans deserve an FCC nominee who can do her job impartially, no matter what the matter before the Commission. And I hope that if Ms. Sohn's nomination comes to the floor, at least some of my Democrat colleagues will join Republicans in opposing her nomination.

We should all be able to agree that virulent partisanship and an inability to fulfill the responsibilities of one's job are disqualifying characteristics for a role on the FCC.

I yield the floor.

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

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn) would have voted ``aye.''

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

Madam President, on Thursday, the February inflation numbers were released, and the news wasn't pretty. Inflation for February was 7.9 percent, the highest inflation since January of 1982-- January of 1982, 40 years ago. We are in the grip of the worst inflation in 40 years.

American families have been hit hard by this crisis as the price of everyday necessities has soared, and energy prices, particularly gas prices, are one of the top challenges facing Americans. Energy prices are up 25 percent on average from a year ago. Electricity is up 9 percent. Propane, kerosene, and fire wood are up 19 percent. Utility gas services are up 23 percent, and prices at the pump for gasoline are up 38 percent.

The national average for a gallon of gas was $4.31 on Tuesday, up from $2.86 a year ago. That is $1.45 more per gallon. That is a big problem for American families. That is a big problem for our entire economy.

High energy prices don't just have an impact when Americans fill up their cars; they affect prices across the economy. High energy prices drive up the cost of operating a factory. They drive up the cost of raw materials, and they drive up the cost of getting goods to customers.

President Biden would like to blame the inflation situation, particularly high energy prices, on Vladimir Putin. I don't need to tell anyone how ludicrous that is. Our inflation crisis has been going on for a year. Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine 3 weeks ago. I am afraid passing the buck to Putin doesn't hold water.

Now, it is true that the uncertainty surrounding Putin's war and corresponding sanctions on Russia are partly to blame for the most recent spike in gas prices. But had gas prices been lower to start with, Americans wouldn't be feeling the sanctions-triggered bump to the extent that they are.

Democrats' American Rescue Plan spending spree helped create our inflation crisis. Americans need to look no further than the White House when wondering how the United States, a recent net exporter of energy, is not on stronger footing to weather these tumultuous times.

The President has pursued an energy agenda that has done next to nothing to help drive energy prices down and is, in fact, almost guaranteed to increase energy prices long term and increase our reliance on foreign sources of oil.

From the moment he took office, the President sent a negative signal to energy producers by making it clear that his administration was not going to be embracing conventional energy production.

He set the tone for his administration on day 1 by canceling the Keystone XL Pipeline--an environmentally responsible pipeline project that was already underway and that was to be paired with $1.7 billion in private investment and renewable energy to fully offset its operating emissions.

He also almost immediately froze new oil and gas leases on Federal lands, sending a clear signal to oil and gas producers that his administration would be reluctant to work with them to increase American energy production.

Now, President Biden has recently been touting the number of available permits for oil and gas development, which is positive as far as it goes, but new permits have dropped precipitously this year. And issuing permits alone isn't enough to get development going.

The Biden administration has thrown up roadblock after roadblock to actual energy development. Companies are struggling to break through regulatory redtape to actually get oil and gas development up and running. For example, they have struggled to obtain right of way to build essential development infrastructure, like access roads to oil rig sites. They are also struggling to get timely pipeline permits to transport the oil and gas that they extract.

Unfortunately, they know exactly how this administration feels about building pipelines. And the Biden administration is fully responsible for

these problems. The administration has the ability to immediately take action to expedite American oil and gas development by clearing away the redtape that companies are facing.

It is refusing to do so. Instead, President Biden seems ready to increase our reliance on energy imports from despotic governments in volatile areas of the world. That is not acceptable. Energy independence, relying on homegrown production instead of foreign energy sources, is key for a number of reasons.

For starters, energy security is national security. The more we rely on imports from other countries, the more that we are dependent on those countries. We have seen that during the current conflict in Ukraine. European companies like Germany have been unable to divest from Russian energy because they rely on that production.

Without Russian energy, more than one country in Europe would face a dire energy shortage--as Putin is well aware. We don't want to give another country that much power over us.

Energy independence, and the robust energy production that comes with it, also reduces the risk to Americans from price hikes in the global market. The more oil and gas the United States produces as a share of the global market, the more we are able to influence global supply, which is the leading driver of cost.

The Biden administration has not been good for American energy independence. We have increased our reliance on foreign sources of energy during this administration, including our reliance on Russian energy production.

And now that we have banned Russian energy imports, President Biden seems ready to replace Russian energy, not with increased American production but with oil and gas from human rights-challenged countries like Venezuela.

I realize that President Biden and many Democrats would like to see the United States focus solely on alternative energy production, but the fact of the matter is that we are a long way from being able to rely exclusively on alternative energy technologies. Whether Democrats like it or not, our country is going to need oil and natural gas for quite a while yet, and all of Democrats' wishful thinking isn't going to change that.

The answer is not to get that oil and natural gas from despots in volatile areas of the world but to get it from American energy production.

President Biden and his administration may not be solely to blame for high gas prices, but they have the power. They have the power to help lower energy prices by unleashing American energy production--all of it, both alternative and conventional--and they are responsible for their failure to do so.

We need an ``all of the above'' energy policy that embraces everything from oil and gas to hydroelectric and nuclear, to solar and wind. And when it comes to alternative energy production, we need to invest in all proven clean energy technologies, not just the administration's preferred technologies like electric vehicles. The administration has neglected important clean energy technologies like biofuels, which have demonstrated significant emissions reductions versus conventional gasoline.

As a resident of a rural state, I would like to see the administration get serious about leveraging agriculture as an energy solution and work to expand biofuel production and consumption. This means not only setting robust blending targets and rejecting specious small refinery exemptions but approving advanced fuels from corn kernel fiber and restoring the year-round sale of E15.

Last week, I led a letter to the President with the Democratic whip and colleagues from both parties urging the President to enable E15 to be sold during the upcoming travel season to provide Americans with a lower cost fuel that would help displace Russian oil.

Yesterday, the President's Press Secretary said that ``E15 was on the menu.'' Well, it deserves real consideration. American drivers can't afford for the President not to take action. The President could get us on a path to lower energy prices today--today--by announcing that his administration will get serious about expediting American production of oil and natural gas. If he fails to do so, then he really will be responsible for the prices that Americans are facing at the pump and for the hit that our national security will take from our increasing reliance on foreign sources of energy.

I hope the President will decide to unleash American production and put our Nation on a path to long-term energy independence.

I yield the floor.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman).