Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, farming and ranching are the lifeblood of my home State and a way of life for many South Dakotans, and advocating for farmers and ranchers is one of my top priorities here in Congress.

As a longtime member of the Senate's Agriculture Committee, I have been able to help shape multiple farm bills and make sure that South Dakota's agriculture producers' voices are heard here in Washington.

Lately, I have been hearing a lot of reports from South Dakota's producers and ag exporters about ocean carriers refusing to transport American agricultural products. This is, obviously, a major concern for farmers and ranchers, who are already struggling with the burden of inflation and high input costs and who rely on exports for part of their livelihoods, which is why I recently introduced bipartisan legislation to address violations of free and fair competition in shipping and to create a more level playing field for American producers.

Our bill gives the Federal Maritime Commission greater authority to respond to discriminatory ocean carrier practices, and it provides the FMC with the tools to more quickly resolve detention and demurrage disputes.

This legislation will bring greater efficiency and transparency to a process that leaves many shippers frustrated and will bring long-term positive changes to the maritime supply chain, which, I hope, will benefit ag exporters, importers, and consumers alike.

Another one of my priorities lately has been to address the Biden administration's proposed Waters of the United States, or WOTUS, rule. WOTUS concerns which water features are regulated at the Federal level.

Now, generally, the Clean Water Act only calls for navigable waters to be regulated at the Federal level, which are things like rivers and streams that connect to larger bodies of water. But, like President Obama before him, President Biden is trying to expand Federal jurisdiction to regulate things like ditches, prairie potholes, and streams that only flow when it rains. Needless to say, this would subject nearly every corner of South Dakota to this DC land grab.

Farmers and ranchers could be subjected to the time-consuming process of having each and every pothole and ditch examined by Federal regulators, and they could face massive fines should they run afoul of DC regulators looking to halt everyday farming and ranching practices. Those fines can be $25,000 a day. That is not acceptable.

Any WOTUS rule that is going to work for farmers and ranchers has to include categorical exclusions for features like ditches, prairie potholes, and stock ponds, which is why I recently led the entire Senate Republican conference in writing to the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the Biden administration's proposed WOTUS rule. We urged the administration to suspend its WOTUS rulemaking until the Supreme Court rules on the Clean Water Act case it is currently considering, which would effectively invalidate the Biden WOTUS regulations.

Implementing the WOTUS rule now, when it could be overturned in the near future, would subject farmers and ranchers to an unacceptable level of uncertainty as they plan for the upcoming planting season. It is very likely that the Supreme Court will force the administration to go back to the drawing board, which would, hopefully, result in a less intrusive and more workable rule that won't subject farmers and ranchers to even more Washington redtape.

As a supporter of South Dakota and our Nation's corn and soybean farmers--and as a supporter of clean energy--I have long championed the clean energy potential of biofuels. The EPA's renewable fuel standard, which requires that a minimum volume of renewable fuel be sold in the United States each year, is a significant tool for reducing the carbon footprint of our transportation sector.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration has shown a willingness to undermine the blending targets set by the renewable fuel standard, going as far as a proposal to retroactively reduce the 2020 renewable volume obligation, which had already been finalized.

The Biden EPA tried to suggest that these cuts would be made up for with higher 2022 blending targets, but with a new precedent, there would be nothing to stop the administration from again caving to oil refiners and retroactively reducing volume obligations in the future.

That is why I recently joined a bipartisan group of my colleagues in urging the EPA to prioritize the renewable fuel standard by maintaining the increased blending requirements for 2022, denying all pending small refinery exemptions, eliminating proposed retroactive cuts to the 2020 renewable volume obligations, and setting 2021 renewable fuel standard volumes at the statutory levels.

Unfortunately, the administration remains almost singularly focused on electric vehicles rather than on the readily available and proven clean energy contributions of biofuels. Ethanol, biodiesel, and now sustainable aviation fuel can drive down emissions and help reduce our demand for oil--an important consideration given soaring gas prices and the fact that this administration is forcing us to rely more on foreign oil production.

Now, currently, some of my colleagues are promoting a report that was conveniently issued right before yesterday's EPW Committee hearing on the renewable fuel standard. My colleagues, who rarely pass on an opportunity to malign biofuels, say the report undercuts the growing body of research that says biofuels cut emissions by as much as 46 percent or more compared to gasoline.

To this, I will say that if you are concerned about accurate accounting of biofuel emissions, I invite you to cosponsor my bill, the bipartisan Adopt GREET Act. This bill would require the EPA to update its greenhouse gas modeling for ethanol and biodiesel by using the Department of Energy's GREET model. Let's put energy technologies head- to-head. I call on the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee to mark up my bipartisan bill.

Biofuels also provide a highly important market for corn and soybean farmers whose crops and their byproducts go into biofuel production. And it is incredibly unfortunate that the administration continues to overlook the clean energy potential of biofuels and the associated benefits for our Nation's farmers.

I sent two letters to President Biden with a number of my colleagues seeking a meeting to discuss all the ways biofuels could complement his agenda and noting the bipartisan support for ethanol and biodiesel. Unfortunately, it quickly became clear that the President and his administration had little interest in the proven clean energy potential of biofuels. But I will continue to do everything I can here in Washington to promote this clean energy resource and to expand opportunities for South Dakota producers.

No matter the season, South Dakota farmers and ranchers will always be one of my top priorities here in Washington. I continue to work to help farmers and ranchers deal with the challenges of inflation, which are hitting our farm communities hard, and I continue to press the administration to ensure that the meatpacking industry is held accountable for any unfair practices.

Whatever the challenges--and in the farming life, there are always many--our Nation's farmers and ranchers keep pushing forward to feed our Nation and the world, and I will continue to do all that I can to ensure that they have the resources that they need to carry out that mission.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.

Inhofe), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney).

The result was announced--yeas 65, nays 27 as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 64 Leg.]

Madam President, today I wish to honor the Miller School District staff and students, first responders, and all community members who contributed to the successful emergency evacuation of Miller School and Hand-in-Hand Daycare.

On what seemed to be a typical morning in Miller, SD, on February 2, 2022, an explosion and fire suddenly took place in the Miller High School.

A potentially devastating situation was thankfully prevented by the swift actions of the Miller School District teachers and staff. Miller superintendent Dr. Charlene Crosswait, junior/senior high school principal Steve Schumacher, elementary school principal Drake Bachmeier, Mr. Mark Ketelhut, and the teachers and staff efficiently executed the evacuation plan, ultimately saving the lives of all 447 students from kindergarteners through the senior graduating class of 2022.

I would like to commend the teachers and staff members for their diligent training, emergency preparation planning, and quick action to lead students to safety. I would also like to recognize each and every student for their attentiveness and exceptional conduct in an emergency situation. Because of the rapid response, every child and staff member made it out safe and unharmed. I would also like to commend Hand-in- Hand Daycare Center located adjacent to the school for safely evacuating all staff and children.

In emergency situations like this, while people are moving swiftly to get to safety, heroic emergency responders are always there running toward the blaze. The well-coordinated response from Hand County emergency manager Arlen Gortmaker, volunteer firefighters from Miller, Ree Heights, and Wessington Fire Departments, and first responders from Hand County and the city of Miller who secured the area and extinguished the fire deserve recognition. The first responders endured hours of freezing temperatures, frozen pump lines, and weather challenges with equipment. These hard-working, generous volunteers, and workers have big hearts and show up relentlessly under all circumstances to ensure the safety and well-being of others. Thank you to all of our firefighters and first responders for all you do.

In true South Dakota fashion, the entire community pulled together. Despite fire and smoke damage, which made the school inaccessible, thanks to the compassionate generosity of St. Ann's Catholic Church, First United Methodist Church, First Presbyterian Church, and the Community Church of St. Lawrence, students will be able to utilize facilities to complete the rest of their school year. Sunshine Bible Academy has offered their gym for Miller Rustler basketball team practices and games. Communities across South Dakota have been reaching out to offer support and assistance. I am proud to be part of a State that strongly believes in joining together to help friends and neighbors through tough times. The buildings need work, but they can be repaired. Most importantly, everyone made it home safely to their families and the community remains strong and resilient.

I commend the entire Miller community for their excellent response to the emergency at the Miller School. The true spirit of our State shines brightly in Miller, SD.

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 order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, we are currently in the midst of the worst border crisis in our Nation's history.

It is no exaggeration to say that the situation at our southern border is out of control. In December, U.S. Customs and Border Protection apprehended more than 178,000 individuals attempting to cross our southern border illegally--178,000 in 1 month--which is more than double the number of individuals apprehended by the Border Patrol the previous December.

This is no isolated incident. Almost from the day the President took office, our Nation has been experiencing an unprecedented border surge. 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.

The situation at our southern border is a security, enforcement, and humanitarian nightmare. Our Border Patrol officers have done heroic work this past year, but they are stretched incredibly thin and are having to spend too much time caring for migrants and not enough time patrolling the border. This heightens the chance that dangerous individuals--from terrorists to drug smugglers, to human traffickers-- will slip across the border into the country unnoticed.

Drug trafficking across our southern border is a major problem and a problem that affects our entire country. There is a massive increase of fentanyl being smuggled across the border in States around the country, with total seizures up 134 percent and as high as 1,000 percent in South Texas. Alarmingly, fentanyl overdoses are now the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 45.

I have talked with local law enforcement officials in South Dakota who report that they regularly seize drugs that they can trace back to cartels trafficking them across our southern border. In other words, it is not just border States that are affected by security problems at our borders. Every State in our Union is threatened by lax border security.

Addressing the situation at our southern border should be one of this administration's top priorities, but the President has been almost completely AWOL on this issue, as has his supposed border czar, the Vice President. He seems to be hoping that if he ignores this crisis long enough, it will go away. But it hasn't gone away. In fact, it shows no signs of stopping.

It is hard to overemphasize the depth of the President's dereliction of duty on this issue. After all, it is the President's job to deal with national security and border enforcement. Yet the President continues to do essentially nothing to address the situation at our southern border. He can't even be bothered to visit the border. In fact, there is reason to believe that the President has never, never visited the border--not as President, not as Vice President, and not even as a Senator--beyond driving by it once on the way to a campaign rally in 2008.

Of course, this situation isn't just a matter of the President being derelict in his enforcement duties. The President is partly, if not largely, responsible for the existence of this situation in the first place.

Immediately upon taking office, the President took steps that weakened our Nation's border security. On his very first day in office, the President rescinded the declaration of a national emergency at our southern border. He halted construction of the border wall, and he revoked a Trump administration order that called for the government to faithfully execute our immigration laws. That was all on his first day, and that wasn't all.

The President's Department of Homeland Security also issued guidelines that same day pausing deportations except under certain conditions. The effect of all this was to declare to the world that the U.S. borders were effectively open, and the administration hasn't made much of an effort to correct that impression. The President has significantly limited the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection to enforce immigration laws.

Deportations dropped precipitously during fiscal year 2021, as did arrests in the interior of the country. And, of course, having a President who seems untroubled by the massive number of migrants attempting to cross our borders illegally hardly sends a discouraging message to those contemplating making the crossing themselves.

There is simply nothing good to say about President Biden's record on the border so far. His policies are not compassionate. There is nothing compassionate about policies that invite illegal immigration and encourage individuals to undertake the dangerous journey to our southern border.

He has betrayed 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 just marked the anniversary of the President's first year in the White House, a year marked by disaster at our southern border. The President has a chance to change that record, to leave behind something other than border chaos to mark his time in office. But until we see real action from this administration, I am not going to get my hopes up.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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

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

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

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 order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, the AP headline from last Thursday said it all: ``U.S. inflation highest in 40 years, with no letup in sight''-- with no letup in sight. That is life in the Democrats' America. In January, U.S. inflation hit 7\1/2\ percent--the highest inflation since February of 1982. Inflation has now been above 5 percent for the last 8 months.

There are people raising families today who have never experienced this

kind of inflation in their entire lifetimes. American families are hurting--hurting badly. The average American household spent an estimated $3,500 more last year as a result of inflation--$3,500. That is a lot of money for an ordinary family--a lot. Everywhere they turn, families are facing higher prices. Whether it is ground beef for the chili, bunk beds for the kids' room, or a new car to accommodate a new addition to the family, higher prices are the order of the day.

The price of chicken is up 10 percent. Pork is up 14 percent. Beef roasts are up 19 percent. Eggs are up 13 percent. Citrus fruits are up 10 percent. Whole milk is up 8 percent. The list goes on. Furniture and bedding were up 17 percent. Major appliances are up almost 10 percent. Tires are up 14 percent. Used cars and trucks are up 40 percent.

And then there are energy prices. Fuel oil is up 46 percent. Gas prices are up 40 percent. Natural gas is up nearly 24 percent--and on and on and on.

Predictably, inflation is having its biggest impact on those least able to afford it. A recent Penn Wharton Budget Model study found that lower-income houses, on average, faced an even greater spending increase in 2021 when compared to higher-income households, as a result of inflation.

It is no wonder 69 percent of Americans disapprove of the President's handling of inflation. Democrats have talked about wage growth. Here is the story on wages. Despite wage growth, Americans received a de facto pay cut in 2021, thanks to inflation. Between January 2021 and January 2022, real average hourly earnings declined by 1.7 percent--a pay cut.

How did we get here? Obviously, the reopening of economies and supply chain issues have created inflationary pressures for the United States and countries around the world. But a big part of the reason things are so bad in the United States today is because Democrats decided to pass a massive so-called COVID relief bill last March that far exceeded anything the economy needed. That is right. When Democrats took office last January, inflation was 1.4 percent, well within the Fed's targeted inflation rate of 2 percent.

It might have stayed there had Democrats not decided that they needed to pass a massive and partisan $1.9-trillion spending spree under the guise of COVID relief mere weeks after Congress had already passed a major COVID bill--one of five COVID bills, I might add--that passed in 2020, all bipartisan.

The definition of inflation is too many dollars chasing too few goods and services. That is exactly the situation Democrats helped create with their so-called American Rescue Plan. They sent too many dollars into the economy, and the economy overheated as a result. You don't have to take my word for it. Let me just quote a recent New York Times article:

``The United States has had much more inflation than almost

any other advanced economy in the world,'' said Jason Furman,

an economist at Harvard University and former Obama

administration economic adviser, who used comparable

methodologies to look across areas and concluded that U.S.

price increases have been consistently faster.

The difference, he said--

This is Jason Furman, former Obama administration economic adviser.

The difference, he said, comes because ``the United States'

stimulus is in a category of its own.''

Despite all of this, despite the fact that it was Democrats' massive March spending spree that helped plunge our economy into this inflation crisis--there are still Democrats out there who want to double down-- double down--on the strategy that helped get us into this mess in the first place and pass yet another massive spending spree that would undoubtedly make this inflation disaster even worse.

``U.S. inflation highest in 40 years with no letup in sight.''

``No letup in sight.''

That was the headline. That is where Democrat policies have gotten us.

I was actually pleased to hear this morning the Democratic leader come down here and talk about inflation. It seems to be at least--maybe because of polling or whatever--starting to be realized by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that this is an issue that is having a massive and very adverse impact on the pocketbooks of the American people, particularly low-income Americans, because, you see, inflation is a tax that hits every American, but it affects and impacts lower-income and middle-income Americans the most.

The Democratic leader said that Republicans should quit complaining about inflation and start doing something about it. Well, we obviously don't have the majority. The Democrat's solution to this, as I pointed out, is another $5-trillion spending bill. Oh, yeah, that will solve the problem. Let's flood the zone with another $5 trillion on top of the $2 trillion already out there, have even more dollars chasing fewer goods, driving inflation even higher.

One thing we can do, what Republicans have advocated, is let's end wasteful spending. Let's don't do crazy stuff. Let's don't massively expand the size of government and flood the economy with more dollars at a time when inflation is already raging. That is a really simple solution.

Another solution is not to raise taxes, which is, again, something Democrats have proposed: raising taxes by $1.5 to $2 trillion to partially--and I say partially because the cost of $5 trillion doesn't get compensated for by $1.5-trillion tax increase but tax increases, nonetheless; all of which, of course, get passed on to consumers, raising inflationary pressures even more. They want to raise taxes massively and grow the government and spend money and add about $3 trillion to the debt, which is already $30 trillion. Those are the solutions of our colleagues on the other side.

I would say, end--stop in its tracks cold--the wasteful spending. Two, don't raise taxes. Provide some certainty. Maybe even make permanent a lot of the tax relief that was put in place in the 2017 tax law. Three--how about this? How about this idea? How about we become energy independent in America, which is where we were?

We were actually exporting energy in the previous administration for the first time in American history--at least in my lifetime--where we actually had energy policies that were producing American energy on a level that was keeping energy costs low for Americans and enabling us to actually export energy to other places around the world.

That came to an abrupt end when President Biden came to office. Democrats got control of both Houses of Congress, and what happened? First thing, day one--day one in office, first day, first thing he did--President Biden canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline, which would have allowed us to get energy fuel oil from where? Our friend, our neighbor, Canada, the Canadians, and move it through a pipeline to places across the United States, helping fill the demand with additional supply that Americans need to power their everyday lives-- first thing in office, first day in office. It hasn't stopped there.

The administration decided that energy, evidently, is evil, at least if it comes from the ground, and decided to cancel a bunch of projects. There are all kinds of areas now that are off-limits to energy exploration, energy production in this country. There are lots of regulations and permitting things that are slowing down energy projects, making it more difficult, more expensive to produce American energy, leading us, leading Americans, to a place we didn't want to be, a place where we were a few years ago; but we are going hat in hand to Saudi Arabia, to OPEC countries, saying: Please, please produce more energy. We need more energy in this country.

What has happened is predictable, and what has happened is this: The demand for energy in this country is great. We are coming out of a pandemic. People are going back to work. They need, during the winter months, to heat their homes. They need fuel to get where they need to go--transportation--to work, to travel. So the demand for energy is up, the supply is going down; so what is happening?

Boom. Simple. It is really pretty simple. It is economics. The price is going up. So the price of oil in this country is now pushing $100 a barrel. Gasoline prices, as I mentioned, are up 40 percent--40 percent--over a year ago. It is simple math. It is simple economics. And there are some Democratic Senators now who are suggesting: Let's just waive the gas tax temporarily--

the gas tax which pays for all the infrastructure that we travel on in this country and which would leave a huge hole, obviously, in the highway trust fund, which is critically important to every State in the Union that depends upon the Federal Government and the highway trust fund and the fuel tax--to fund the infrastructure that enables our economy to move and keeps us competitive in the global marketplace. That is their solution.

Now, it is short-term--short-term, obviously to benefit--to try to gain some political advantage at a time when people, all of a sudden now on the other side, are starting to worry. Efforts are being led by four Democrats who are up for reelection this year. No surprise there because they have understood now what we know, and that is the American people are fed up and frustrated--fed up and frustrated with policies that are driving up the cost of everything that they have to buy, from the groceries in the store, to the rent that they pay, to the gas they put in their automobiles. Everything is going up.

Energy factors into almost everything we do. A pound of hamburger that you buy at the grocery store probably had to get there from somewhere, unless you live in the middle of the country where some of us do. But if you live on one of the coasts, you probably had to have transportation to get it to the destination, so it is factored in--it is baked in the cost of everything. When fuel prices go up, natural gas prices go up, when the cost of energy generally goes up, everything else goes up with it. It is economics.

The solution isn't a short-term political ruse to try and provide political cover to people who are running for reelection. It is to put policies in place that encourage American energy independence, that invest in American energy. That can be done in ways now with technologies we have that are environmentally friendly.

But we have to be energy independent. We can't depend upon other countries around the world that are unreliable to fuel and fund and run our economy. That investment should be here in the United States of America. And if we solve more of that, we would see less inflation, lower fuel prices.

If we end the crazy spending ideas and tax ideas coming out of the other side, we could restore some sanity to this country when it comes to these out-of-control prices, which is a tax, literally, on every American and hits particularly hard those who are struggling to make ends meet.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).