Floor Statements

Mr. President, Americans are currently dealing with the worst inflation in more than 30 years--high grocery prices, high rent prices, high gas prices, high car prices, increases in the price of household goods, and the list goes on. Inflation is so bad that it has outstripped wage growth,

resulting in a de facto pay cut for many Americans.

One of the price hikes hitting Americans hard is the increase in the price of gas. Gas prices have risen 40 percent since President Biden took office--40 percent. That takes a tremendous toll on family budgets. And, of course, high gas prices and other energy costs contribute to price increases on a whole host of other goods. Manufacturers facing higher transportation costs thanks to high gas prices, for example, are likely to pass on at least some of those increased costs to consumers in the form of price hikes.

In my home State of South Dakota, families are facing an increase in home heating costs as high as 50 to 100 percent, depending on how severe of a winter we face.

Nationwide, concerns over high heating costs this winter have been tempered by mild weather so far, but predictions of huge energy bills could return with a period of sustained harsh weather. And that would be another financial blow for families whose budgets are already severely stretched by our current inflation crisis.

It is easy for, say, a wealthy Democrat politician to dismiss the consequences of inflation, but for families living paycheck to paycheck, an increase in the grocery bill or heating costs or the cost of a tank of gas could mean tough decisions, like choosing between adequately heating the house or filling the car to get to a job.

So what has President Biden been doing to help alleviate rising energy prices and inflation? Well, the answer is not much. First, he pleaded with the OPEC cartel to increase oil production and increase global supply, which is the single most influential factor when it comes to gas prices. OPEC was unmoved.

Then the President recently announced the release of 50 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Oil Reserve, a move that Congress had, in part, already mandated.

Unfortunately, this is nothing more than a short-term relief measure, if that, as it will do little to give our energy sector the certainty it is seeking to bring production and American energy jobs back online.

While Democrats helped create the inflation crisis that we are experiencing by flooding the economy with unnecessary government money earlier this year, the President is not solely to blame for high energy prices, which have also been driven up by COVID-related issues. However, the President is certainly to blame for the hostile attitude his administration has displayed toward conventional energy production. And he is certainly to blame for the reckless tax-and-spending spree he is pushing, which would further drive up energy prices for American families.

The President made clear that his attitude toward conventional energy production on day 1 of his administration, when he canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline, an environmentally responsible pipeline project that was already underway and that would have delivered more than 10,000 construction jobs and helped decrease energy costs by increasing regional energy supply, all while being offset with a $1.7 billion investment in renewable energy.

The President also almost immediately banned 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.

Then, of course, there was the release of the first outlines of the President's reckless tax-and-spending plan, which displayed a clear hostility to conventional energy.

Given this record, it is no surprise that many energy producers have been less than enthusiastic about coming fully back online as we emerge from the pandemic. The market signals to increase production are being muted by this administration's burdensome policies and clear intent of sidelining American energy development.

Then there is the current version of the reckless tax-and-spending spree, which Democrats are pushing to pass in the very near future. This legislation will not only likely worsen our current inflation situation, it will also make our energy less reliable and more expensive.

If Democrats succeed in passing their legislation, American families will have to brace themselves for even higher energy bills. One major driver of those higher energy bills will be the bill's new fee--or tax--on methane, which is targeted at crippling the natural gas sector that spurred America's recent energy renaissance and has actually been the largest driver of coal displacement.

The American Gas Association says the proposed fee could add as much as 34 percent to natural gas bills. And that is on top of any increases Americans may already be facing.

As I mentioned earlier, home heating bills are already projected to rise as much as 50 to 100 percent in my State this winter--and that is without the reckless tax-and-spending spree piling on.

And if progressive Democrats have their way, Democrats' tax-and- spending spree could also penalize our oil and gas sector by ending longstanding tax provisions like the percentage depletion deduction, which underpins an overwhelming number of independent producers representing roughly 90 percent of wells drilled in the United States.

Simply put, this administration wants to make it more expensive and more difficult to develop our abundant energy resources in favor of their preferred energy technologies and electric vehicles, with predictable consequences for Americans' pocketbooks.

And just a word about those electric vehicles. The President's Transportation Secretary recently suggested that families feeling the pinch of high gas prices could solve their problem by buying an electric vehicle, which would allow them to ``never have to worry about gas prices again.''

Well, I have news for the President's Transportation Secretary. A lot of Americans can't afford to replace their car with an electric vehicle, not to mention that electric cars and trucks are still not a practical option for many Americans for other reasons. Secretary Buttigieg's statement shows just how far out of touch Democrats have become with ordinary Americans.

I know Democrats are deeply invested in their Green New Deal fantasies of an instant, mostly electric energy regime. But the reality is that American consumers will need to use liquid fuels and electricity and heat for natural gas well into the future. And punishing or discouraging responsible energy development in oil and natural gas will do nothing--nothing--but drive up energy prices for consumers and force our Nation to rely more on oil and gas imports from unstable areas of the world.

We should be encouraging American energy development of every kind-- from oil and natural gas to wind, solar, and biofuels--not artificially picking winners and losers and discouraging essential energy production.

And with American consumers struggling with long-term inflation, the last thing we need to be doing right now is passing legislation that will drive up energy prices. Unfortunately, if Democrats have their way and succeed in passing their tax-and-spending legislation, Americans will soon be able to add even higher energy bills to the list of challenges that they are currently facing.

So much for building back better for the American people.

Mr. President, while I am on the topic of energy, I would like to briefly comment on yesterday's announcements from the EPA and USDA concerning biofuels. To put it simply, the administration can't have it both ways on the renewable fuel standard, something agriculture stakeholders in South Dakota know all too well.

Yesterday, the EPA announced a proposal to take the unprecedented step of clawing back previously set biofuel blending targets; 2020 volumes would be reduced by 2\1/2\ billion gallons, and 2021 would see a reduction.

Now, the EPA is trying to sell this by simultaneously proposing an increase in the 2022 blending volumes, which on its own would be favorable, but it is far from enough to make up for the lost gallons.

And keep in mind that the EPA's proposal pulls back blending obligations from a final rule, giving stakeholders little confidence that this promised 2022 increase won't meet the

same fate. Again, not every component of yesterday's announcement is bad on its own.

Signaling an end to the out-of-control small refinery exemption program is long overdue, and it is consistent with the renewable fuel standard and a Tenth Circuit Court ruling. It is also good to see the Department of Agriculture moving forward with assistance funds for biofuel producers, but this was funding signed into law last December. It is almost as if it was withheld from our producers for months so that USDA could help the EPA sell our ag stakeholders a bill of goods.

I urge the administration to make good on its commitments to our farmers and to finally leverage American biofuels for the energy and environmental solutions they can provide.

I yield the floor.

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, before I begin, I want to take just a few minutes to honor two members of the ``greatest generation'' whom we lost recently, Marcella LeBeau and Bob Dole.

Marcella LeBeau died on Sunday, November 21. She was from my home State of South Dakota and a member of the Two Kettle Band of the Cheyenne River Sioux who served in the Army Nurse Corps during World War II, including time on the frontlines treating the wounded at the Battle of the Bulge. She was decorated by both France and Belgium for her service.

After the war, she returned to South Dakota, spending 31 years working for the Indian Health Service, including as Director of Nursing, while raising eight children.

She was a powerful advocate for Native Americans throughout her entire life and was a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Council for 4 years and a founding member of the North American Women's Association.

Even in retirement, Marcella continued to advocate for Native Americans and also found time to open a quilting shop with her granddaughter featuring, among other things, the Lakota star quilt, used for honoring and naming ceremonies, memorials, and various life achievements.

Earlier in November, she traveled to Oklahoma to attend the ceremony for her induction into the National Native American Hall of Fame.

As we know, Bob Dole died on Sunday. Bob served as an officer in the 10th Mountain Division during World War II. Late in the war, he was seriously wounded in action during an attempt to rescue a fellow soldier, and he bore the resulting injuries the rest of his life.

Forced by his wounds to abandon his plans to be a surgeon, he quickly found another way to help his fellow Americans: public service. He was elected to the Kansas House of Representatives in 1950 and never looked back. In 1960, he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives; and, in 1968, he won election to the U.S. Senate, where he served for 27 years.

He was a Senator's Senator, a master of procedure, and a true legislator whose achievements ranged from Social Security reform to veterans legislation, to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Even after he ended his long career in public service, Bob continued to serve. He was an important supporter of the World War II Memorial here in Washington, DC, and could often be found there visiting with his fellow veterans who had traveled on Honor Flights.

Marcella and Bob came from different places and different backgrounds and, so far as I know, never crossed paths in this life, but they had in common that abiding commitment to service that characterized so many members of the ``greatest generation.'' Both Bob and Marcella spent their entire lives serving their country and their fellow citizens, and even retirement didn't slow them down.

The ``greatest generation'' was a fixture of American life for many decades, but its members are rapidly slipping away. Fewer than 250,000 of the 16 million Americans who served in World War II are still with us, and that number dwindles every day.

We need to make sure that the passing of the ``greatest generation'' does not mean the passing of the virtues that they modeled for us: humility, patriotism, quiet service, duty, and perseverance.

We need to remember Bob Dole and Marcella LeBeau and the many others like them who, in war and in peace, lived lives of service to our country.

My thoughts and prayers are with Bob and Marcella's families, with Bob's wife Elizabeth and his daughter Robin, and with Marcella's children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and great-great- grandchildren.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

[Rollcall Vote No. 484 Leg.]

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) would have voted ``yea.''

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

Mr. President, tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Dobbs case, which deals with a Mississippi law that would prohibit most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. This case offers the best opportunity in many years to see Roe v. Wade overturned or modified--something that is long overdue.

Roe v. Wade was a bad decision that should long ago have been reversed. Legal scholars from across the ideological spectrum have criticized the decision, noting, in the words of one expert:

As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The

court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less

from the constitutional ether.

As another legal scholar put it, Roe is ``a very bad decision . . . because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.''

Now, I should note that both of the individuals I just quoted are actually supportive--supportive--of abortion. But like many others, both recognize that Roe is simply bad law.

In the Roe decision, the Supreme Court reached far beyond the Constitution in the Court's interpretive role to impose a new abortion regime on the entire country, and it is past time for this unconstitutional decision to be overturned and for the Court to return jurisdiction over abortion to the States.

It is important to note that overturning Roe would do just that: return jurisdiction over abortion to the States and to elected officials who can be held accountable for the decisions and ultimately to the American people.

Many assume, incorrectly, that overturning Roe would somehow automatically ban abortion nationwide. It would not. It would simply return jurisdiction to the people's elected representatives.

Abortion law would become the domain of States and Congress, instead of the domain of unelected, activist members of the judiciary.

Members of the radical pro-abortion lobby, which controls the abortion policies of the Democrat Party, are, of course, up in arms over the Dobbs case. They are terrified--terrified--that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe, and I suspect that the root of that fear is the knowledge that they need an activist Court for the radical abortion agenda.

Why? Because the American people do not agree with the radical abortion lobby on abortion.

For all its efforts to paint abortion on demand at any time up until the moment of birth as the only possible position, the pro-abortion lobby has completely failed to convince the American people.

Polls consistently show that a strong majority of the American people support at least some restrictions on abortion. Gallup has been polling on abortion for decades, and in all that time, the percentage of Americans who believe abortion should be legal under any circumstance has always remained under 35 percent. In fact, for most of the past several decades, that number has remained squarely under 30 percent.

An Associated Press poll from this June found that 65 percent of Americans believe that abortion should generally be illegal in the second trimester--or from about 13 weeks of pregnancy--while a whopping 80 percent of Americans believe that abortion should generally be illegal in the third trimester. And it is no surprise.

Despite the abortion lobby's attempts to dehumanize unborn children and portray them as nothing more than clumps of cells or unwanted growths, most Americans are well aware that an unborn child is a baby, a human being, an innocent human being.

And because Americans generally gravitate toward justice and the defense of human rights and vulnerable human beings, they remain-- despite the best efforts of the abortion lobby--fundamentally uncomfortable with unrestricted abortion.

And so I think the root of the abortion lobby's outrage is the knowledge that if Roe is overturned, their radical abortion agenda is unlikely to prevail nationwide because the American people simply do not agree with them on abortion.

The pro-abortion lobby and its allies in the Democrat Party would like Americans to believe that Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban is extreme, radical legislation. Well, nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, the United States of America--the United States of America-- is a radical outlier on abortion. We are one of only seven countries in the world that allows elective abortion past 20 weeks--one of just seven countries in the entire world. Among those other countries are China and North Korea, not exactly the kind of company you want to be keeping when it comes to defending human rights.

Forty-seven out of fifty European countries--47 out of 50--either require women to have a specific reason for seeking an abortion or limit elective abortion to 15 weeks or earlier. Thirty-two European countries, including France, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, and many others, limit elective abortion to at or before 12 weeks' gestation.

Now, let's consider that for just a minute. A substantial majority of European countries limit abortion to at or before 12 weeks. In other words, Mississippi's 15-week abortion law is not on the radical fringe when it comes to abortion; it is squarely in the mainstream for Western democracies, and it is, in fact, more permissive than the abortion laws of a majority of European countries. And yet the abortion lobby would have us believe that Mississippi is pushing some kind of extreme abortion legislation.

Let's talk about unborn babies at 15 weeks. Fifteen-week-old unborn children have fully developed hearts that have already beaten more than 15 million times. They yawn. They make facial expressions. They suck their thumbs. They respond to taste and touch. Scientific evidence suggests that they can feel pain.

Pro-abortion activists may not like to hear it, but scientific evidence shows that the neural connections necessary to transmit pain are fully in place by around 20 weeks and that babies may actually begin to experience pain as early as 12 weeks.

So when we are talking about a 15-week-old unborn baby, we are talking about a baby who may very well already be able to experience pain and will certainly be able to experience it a few weeks later, if she can't now. Yet in this country, it is perfectly legal to kill unborn children who are able to

feel pain and kill them with an abortion procedure so brutal and barbaric it is difficult to even describe.

Yet it needs to be mentioned because we need to acknowledge the reality that we are killing unborn babies in this country capable of feeling pain, using a widely employed abortion procedure that involves dismembering the unborn child. As I said, it is incredibly hard--in fact, it is heartbreaking, really--to even talk about it.

The abortion lobby would like to draw a veil over what happens inside abortion clinics, but the truth is that abortions are brutal and inhumane--certainly to the baby but, in many respects, to the mother as well.

Since the Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision, there have been an estimated 62 million-plus abortions in the United States. That number is so big, it is pretty much unfathomable. To put it in some kind of perspective, 62 million is nearly three times the population of the entire State of Florida. That is how many unique, unrepeatable human beings we have lost to abortion since Roe.

We are better than this, and we have to do better than this. Our country was founded to safeguard human rights. We haven't always lived up to that promise, but we have never stopped trying. And it is time for us to continue that work by standing up for the most vulnerable human beings among us: the unborn children, whose human rights are not protected and whose lives can be taken away at any time.

Thanks to medical advancements, it is possible for babies born at 22 weeks to survive outside their mothers. It is also perfectly legal to kill unborn children at 22 weeks. Now, something is radically wrong with that picture.

How can an unborn child of 22 weeks be regarded as a human being worthy of protection in one case and in the other case be regarded as nothing but a clump of cells to be disposed of in an abortion clinic?

The cognitive dissonance is mind-boggling.

The more we learn about unborn children, the more we see their humanity. It is impossible to look at an unborn baby kicking her feet and sucking her thumb on an ultrasound and see her as anything but the human being that she is. Science, medical advancements, and plain old common sense all point inexorably to the humanity of the unborn child.

And human beings deserve to be protected. A good place to start would be with laws like Mississippi's, laws that would bring us into the mainstream of abortion laws worldwide. As I have said, the United States is one of just seven countries in the entire world, including China and North Korea, that allow elective abortion past 20 weeks of pregnancy. I would like to think that we can do a better job of protecting unborn children's human rights than China and North Korea.

So I hope that the Supreme Court will uphold Mississippi's law and open the door to greater protection for unborn children. But win or lose--win or lose--I and many, many, many others will continue to stand up for the human rights of unborn Americans; and I am confident that, in the end, right and justice and life will prevail.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).

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

Madam President, the Biden border crisis continues to rage. Last month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 164,303 individuals attempting to illegally cross our southern border. That is more than twice the number of encounters Customs and Border Protection had the previous October and the highest October number ever recorded by Customs and Border Protection. In all, more than 1.7 million migrants were apprehended attempting to cross our southern border in fiscal year 2021--the highest number ever.

We are in the midst of a very serious crisis, and the response from Democrats and the administration? Well, mostly crickets. Democrats seem to hope that ignoring the border situation will make it go away or at least ensure that no one pays attention. I am pretty sure the President and his administration spent more time earlier this year fighting against the use of the word ``crisis'' to describe the situation at the border than they did actually thinking about how they might deal with the influx. Apparently, the administration is still--still--trying to avoid the ``crisis'' label judging by a recent hearing wherein the President's nominee to head Customs and Border Protection seemed to carefully avoid referring to the situation at the border as a ``crisis.''

If the highest number of border encounters ever recorded isn't a crisis, I am not sure what is. The situation at our southern border is out of control. It is a security crisis, it is a manpower and enforcement crisis, and it is a humanitarian crisis--although, again, you would never guess it from the Democrats' behavior.

Despite the fact that this crisis has been raging for the best part of a year now, Democrats and the administration have taken essentially no meaningful action to address the situation, and that is not the worst of it. The Democrats' policies are actually making the situation worse.

Among other things, the President has significantly limited the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection to enforce immigration laws, and arrests in the interior of the country dropped steeply under this administration. The Washington Post recently reported:

Immigration arrests in the interior of the United States

fell in fiscal 2021 to the lowest level in more than a

decade.

The practical effect of the President's immigration policies has been to encourage new waves of illegal immigration. It is hardly surprising. If you think that your chances of staying in the United States are good, even if you are here illegally, you are likely much more inclined to undertake the journey in the first place.

The administration's actions--or lack thereof--have been compounded by the actions of Democrats in Congress who have been doing their best to guarantee widespread amnesty. Democrats have repeatedly attempted to include some form of amnesty in their tax-and-spending spree. While they have been partially foiled by the rulings of the Senate Parliamentarian, the latest version of their bill still contains provisions to grant de facto amnesty to many illegal immigrants.

Their spending spree also deliberately lacks restrictions on Federal funding going to individuals in the country illegally, which means that illegal immigrants could end up receiving the $3,000-per-year child allowance, housing vouchers, and more. One analysis suggests that illegal immigrants could collect $10.5 billion in child allowance payments next year.

I haven't even mentioned reports that the Biden administration has apparently been contemplating settling lawsuits brought by individuals, who came here illegally, with payments of up to $450,000 per person-- $450,000. That is right. That is more than four times as much as the government gives to the families of soldiers killed in action and nine times--nine times--as much as the government gives to an individual wrongly imprisoned for 1 year. The administration has suggested that payments will not actually be that high, but even a settlement half that size would dwarf the payments that we give to the families of fallen soldiers.

Immigrants have helped make this country what it is today, and I am a strong supporter of legal immigration, including temporary worker visas, like H-2B visas, which help South Dakota employers and many others address hiring challenges, but, again, immigration has to be legal. Encouraging illegal immigration, as the Democrats are doing, presents a serious security risk because it makes it easier for everyone from terrorists to drug traffickers to enter the country unidentified, to say nothing of drugs like fentanyl and other illegal items.

Encouraging illegal immigration through lax immigration enforcement and amnesty also undermines respect for the rule of law. The area of immigration should not be an exception to the principle that the law has to be followed and respected. Yet that is basically what Democrats' policies are saying--that the law doesn't matter when it comes to immigration.

Finally, we need to get away from any idea that there is anything compassionate about policies that encourage individuals to come here illegally. Attempting to enter the country illegally is fraught with danger, from natural perils like weather, disease, and exposure, to exploitation by smugglers and traffickers. Amnesty and lax enforcement policies encourage thousands more individuals and families to expose themselves to the dangers of an illegal border crossing.

President Biden and Democrats could help stem this crisis right now by making it clear that immigration law will be enforced and that the only acceptable way to enter the United States is to come here legally. Unfortunately, it seems much more likely that the President will continue to ignore this crisis and deemphasize immigration enforcement while Democrats in Congress will continue to push for amnesty. It is a serious failure of responsibility on the President's part and one that will continue to have serious and sometimes deadly consequences.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, today I recognize Maham Shah, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months.

Maham is a recent graduate of Baylor University in Waco, TX, having earned degrees in psychology and political science. This spring, Maham plans to continue serving the American people by working on Capitol Hill. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Maham for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Madam President, today I recognize Destiny Wenger, an intern in my Aberdeen, SD, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months.

Destiny is a graduate of Hazelton-Moffit-Braddock High School in Hazelton, ND. Currently, she is attending Northern State University in Aberdeen, SD, where she is majoring in political science. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Destiny for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.