Floor Statements

Mr. President, ``infrastructure,'' ``court packing,'' ``crisis,'' ``Jim Crow,'' ``bipartisan''--all words that we recognize, all words with fixed, long-established meanings, and all words whose meanings are currently being twisted unrecognizably.

In the brave new world of the Biden administration, the Democratic Congress, the plain meaning of language is no longer so plain.

Take the term ``infrastructure.'' Ask anybody what they think of when they think of infrastructure, and I can guarantee what they will tell you: roads, bridges, waterways, maybe airports. I can also tell you what they won't think of: Medicaid expansion, support for Big Labor, free community college.

Why? Because none of those things has ever been part of the definition of ``infrastructure,'' until now. Now Democrats are claiming that infrastructure is pretty much whatever they want it to be.

One Democratic Senator tweeted:

Paid leave is infrastructure. Childcare is infrastructure.

Caregiving is infrastructure.

Well, actually, no, they are not. Those are policy proposals-- proposals that could be discussed, but they are not infrastructure. Saying something is infrastructure doesn't make it so.

And, unfortunately, Democrats' redefinition of infrastructure, as Orwellian as it is, is actually less alarming than some of Democrats' other attempts at linguistic redefinition.

Take court packing. Everyone who has ever sat through an American history class knows exactly what court packing refers to--expanding the number of Justices on the Supreme Court so that you can get the Supreme Court decisions that you want.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proposed it in the 1930s, and it was defeated by a bipartisan majority of Senators. And most thought the idea had been consigned to the ash heap of history, until Democrats resurrected it during the Trump administration.

Upset by the Court's current makeup and worried that the Court might not rubberstamp Democratic policies, a growing number of Democrats are getting behind the idea of court packing.

But, of course, they are eager to escape the negative connotations of the

term. After all, President Roosevelt's Court-packing attempt is not exactly regarded as a shining moment of his Presidency. And so in a move worthy of Orwell's ``Nineteen Eighty-Four,'' Democrats are asking us to accept the fantastical notion that Republicans packed the Court-- indeed, packed the entire judiciary--and that Democrats are merely seeking to restore balance.

Yes, in the Democrats' brave new world, the President performing his constitutional duty to nominate judges and Justices, and a Senate duly confirming them, is now defined as a nakedly partisan power grab akin to President Roosevelt's attempt to secure a favorable outcome for his policies from the Supreme Court.

I should say a Republican President fulfilling his constitutional duty and a Republican Senate confirming his nominees because we all know--we all know that if it were President Biden who had filled multiple seats on the Supreme Court and succeeded in having a lot of judges confirmed, his actions would not be regarded as Court packing; they would be regarded correctly as business as usual. That is what we do around here. They would be regarded correctly as a President doing his job and performing his constitutional duty.

Then there is Jim Crow. Americans know what ``Jim Crow'' means. It refers to the reprehensible period of segregation, when Black Americans were forced to live as second-class citizens and denied the equal protection of the laws.

``Jim Crow'' is one of the great stains on our country's history, and it is a term that should not be used lightly, but that is exactly what Democrats are doing.

They decided that it suits their purposes to call to mind the history of this word, and so they have applied the term to an ordinary, mainstream election reform bill in Georgia.

In fact, the President went so far as to call the Georgia law ``Jim Crow on steroids,'' as if it would not only bring us back to the era of segregation but return us to something even worse.

And all this for an election law that is squarely in the mainstream when it comes to State election laws and in some ways is more permissive than election laws in presumably utopian Democratic-led States like New York.

I could go on.

There are Democrats' attempts to redefine ``bipartisan'' from something that is supported by both parties in Congress to something that is maybe--maybe--supported by some Republican voters in some poll, no matter how dubious its reliability.

Or there is the White House's contorted refusal to call the situation at our southern border a crisis, as if by refusing to use the word they could somehow change the reality of the situation.

But let me ask a question. Why is the plain meaning of language under assault by the Democratic Party? Why are Democrats dramatically redefining ordinary words and concepts?

Well, maybe it is because reality isn't so pretty. Take court packing. The truth is that Democrats are afraid that the current Supreme Court is not going to rule the way Democrats want in cases they care about. So they want to expand the Supreme Court and let President Biden nominate new Justices so they can guarantee the outcomes that they want.

But saying that doesn't sound so great. In fact, it sounds more autocratic than democratic. So Democrats are attempting to disguise the real reason behind their partisan court-packing plan by applying the word ``Court packing'' not to their own attempts to pack the Court but to the ordinary work of the President and the Congress.

Or take infrastructure. Pretty much everybody supports infrastructure. You would be hard-pressed to find anyone who doesn't thinking the government should maintain our roads and bridges.

It would be a lot easier, on the other hand, to find people who think that maybe government shouldn't be in the business of substantially increasing spending or expanding into new areas of Americans' lives.

So Democrats have chosen to disguise their plans for massive government spending and government expansion under the heading of ``infrastructure.'' After all, everybody supports infrastructure.

So if they can sell their plans for government expansion as infrastructure, then they might be able to implement a lot of proposals that otherwise might not make it through Congress

Or take Jim Crow. With H.R. 1 and S. 1, Democrats are pushing to pass an election law that would federalize elections, inject a massive dose of partisanship into our election system, and give Democrats what they hope will be a permanent advantage in elections going forward, but obviously they can't say that. They can't suggest that we pass H.R. 1 to improve Democrats' electoral chances so they have had to find another reason to push Americans to pass this bill.

And so they have manufactured a crisis--States are passing dangerous election laws that harken back to Jim Crow, and we need the Democrats' election bill to save the day.

Sometimes I wonder when the President is bashing the Georgia election law if he remembers that the legislature that passed that law was elected by the same voters who gave him the victory in Georgia and sent two Democrats to the U.S. Senate. Does he really want to call those voters racist?

Ultimately, Democrats' assault on language is about power. Change the language, and you can change the outcome and secure your political control.

It is no coincidence that oppressive regimes have cracked down on speech and redefined it to suit their purposes or that they manufacture crises to keep the people in need of government.

The problem for Democrats is that there is no mandate for Democrats' far-left agenda. Democrats' radical socialist candidates couldn't even make it through the Democratic primary, let alone the general election. President Biden won the Democrat primary and the election in large part because he campaigned, perhaps disingenuously, as a moderate. And as for Congress, Democrats lost seats in the House and have a paper-thin majority in both Chambers. If there was any mandate to be gathered from November, it was a mandate for moderation.

But Democrats aren't interested in moderation. They are increasingly enthralled with the far-left wing of their party, and they have a radical agenda to push and possibly a very limited window to push it. And since there is no mandate for that agenda, they have to create one.

That is why you see Democrats redefining the very plain meaning of common words. Say that you don't like the makeup of the Supreme Court, and most Americans would say: Tough, that is the way the ball bounces sometimes in our democracy.

Claim that Republicans engaged in court packing, on the other hand, and all of a sudden Democrats' radically partisan Supreme Court power grab seems a lot more acceptable.

I get Democrats' passion for their politics. I feel pretty strongly about my political principles. But their manipulation of language to advance their politics is deeply disturbing. Instead of trying to pursue a radical agenda cloaked in misleading language, I suggest Democrats turn their efforts to bipartisan cooperation. As the November election made clear, that is what the American people are looking for.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I would echo what my colleague from Delaware has said about the Chaplain's Bible study on a weekly basis. That, I think, is the highlight for many of us throughout the week.

I would also say that the Senator from Delaware also has a very good command of the Holy Scriptures, and I appreciate the opportunity that he and I and others have, on a weekly basis, to participate in that study and would encourage other Members to join us. It is truly an inspirational time and is something that, I think, we all need with the busyness that we have on a weekly basis here in the Senate.

(The remarks of Senator Thune pertaining to the introduction of S. 1458 and S. 1475 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

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

Mr. President, along with my livestock producer protection bill, I am also introducing legislation today to eliminate the November 1 haying and grazing date for cover crops.

Cover crops provide a lot of environmental benefits. They improve soil health, reduce erosion and nutrient runoff, improve water quality, and sequester carbon. They also benefit farmers, since their animals can graze these crops, or the cover crops can be harvested to provide forage for livestock. Currently, the haying and grazing date--the date on which farmers can start harvesting or grazing cover groups on prevent plant acres--is set for November 1, which is too late in the year for farmers in more northern States like South Dakota. Early winter weather in these States can cause cover crops to freeze before they can be used for hay and grazing.

The legislation I am introducing today with my colleague Senator Stabenow would fix this problem by letting farmers harvest and graze cover crops outside of the primary nesting season, which ends August 1 in South Dakota, allowing for both farmers and our environment to benefit from these crops.

Protecting our planet is imperative, and government certainly has a role to play in promoting clean energy and sound environmental policy, but putting the government in charge of our economy--in fact, putting the government in charge of pretty much every aspect of American life, as the Green New Deal would do--is not the answer. Innovation, not government, is the key to addressing environmental challenges.

Unfortunately, President Biden is embracing a whole host of Green New Deal-like policies. Take his so-called 30-by-30 directive directing the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other Agencies to provide recommendations to conserve 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030.

I have already heard from ranchers and landowners in South Dakota who are concerned about the measures the administration could pursue to meet this goal, including Federal land acquisitions and burdensome regulations on private landowners, many of whom are already doing everything they can to promote the health of their land.

There is also serious reason to doubt the government's ability to manage a vast new amount of land. The Federal Government already frequently fails to properly manage the land it already has. Yet some believe that we can give the Federal Government huge new swaths of land, and somehow the government will manage it properly.

Yet that is the problem with a lot of these socialist fantasies. They assume that the government will achieve levels of efficiency and productiveness that the government has simply never demonstrated. It is the triumph of fantasy over experience. Surely, the people espousing socialist fantasies have sat in long lines at the DMV or remember how the Obama administration had more than 3 years to prepare for the opening of the ObamaCare exchange yet couldn't even come up with a working website in that time period. Yet the Green New Deal's proponents are advocating that we put the government in charge of pretty much every aspect of American life.

Socialists and the Democrats parroting their ideology don't want to believe it, but the truth is that private individuals are often a lot more efficient, effective, and innovative than government, and we should be focusing our energies on supporting that efficiency and effectiveness and innovation instead of attempting to solve our environmental problems by giving the government more than it can handle.

I will continue working here in Congress to advance policies that promote clean energy and improve our environment without placing heavy burdens on American workers or American families. I will continue to advocate for policies that encourage and harness the ingenuity of the American people in facing our environmental challenges, and I will continue to oppose legislation that prioritizes supposed environmental gains over the well-being of the American people

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

Mr. President, last week, the junior Senator from Massachusetts and the Congresswoman from the 14th District of New York reintroduced their Green New Deal resolution. I think most Americans remember this socialist fantasy from when these Members introduced it 2 years ago. It would be hard to forget a proposal with that pricetag. There was one think tank that analyzed the initial proposal and released a first estimate that found that the Green New Deal would cost between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years. Let me just repeat that--between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years.

To put that number in perspective, our entire Federal budget in 2019--our entire Federal budget--was well under $5 trillion. It would be interesting to learn where we are going to get that kind of money. A massive tax hike on the rich wouldn't get us close to paying for this, but I don't think I am the only one who isn't sure where we would get the money for this. I don't think the plan's authors have a very clear idea of that either. In fact, the entire Green New Deal resolution is notable for its complete lack of specificity.

It proposes outlandish, impossible goals, like upgrading every single building in the United States--every single building--in the next 10 years for maximum energy and water efficiency, as well as comfort, but it offers zero--zero--specifics for how we might actually accomplish them. I am not surprised, because there is no way to come close to accomplishing everything the Green New Deal's authors want to accomplish over the next decade without enormous economic pain.

So often, when hearing the policies of the far left, environmental and otherwise, I am struck by how they leave people out of the equation. Now, of course, the individuals proposing these plans don't think they are leaving people out of the equation. The Green New Deal's authors are clearly under the impression that they are creating a paradise for American families--if paradise includes the government supervision and administration of just about every aspect of American life. Yet the reality is that, like so many utopian plans, most of the environmental left's sweeping ideas for remaking our society would have nightmarish effects in practice: higher energy costs, reduced economic growth, sharp increases in the cost of essential commodities like groceries, huge tax hikes, and job losses.

Today, I want to talk about just one example of the damaging potential of environmental extremism, which has relevance for a bill I am introducing today.

There has been an increasing tendency on the part of the environmental left to demonize the consumption of beef, and this tendency is creeping into the mainstream. Earlier this week, food website Epicurious--a site a lot of Americans turn to when they are wondering what to cook for dinner--announced that it will no longer add new recipes featuring beef. The website said its move is not anti-beef but pro-planet. It is pretty much wrong on both counts.

First of all, the move to demonize beef could have real consequences for a lot of ranchers, like those I represent in South Dakota. If the demand for beef drops, some of these ranchers may be out of a job. Of course, the Green New Deal's authors would probably suggest a government program to help

them out, but I can't think of many ranchers I know who would like to abandon their way of life for their dependence on a government program, and there is no reason they should have to.

Contrary to the story being pushed by the environmental left, beef production is directly responsible for only a tiny fraction of U.S. emissions, and beef cattle actually plays an important role in managing pasturelands that sequester vast amounts of carbon. On top of that, it has become clear that, with certain feed additives, it is possible to significantly reduce cattle emissions, making the demonization of beef even more wrong-headed.

Today, I am introducing the Livestock Regulatory Protection Act with my colleague Senator Sinema. I actually introduced this bill years ago with the Democratic leader, before it became dangerous for Members of the Democratic leadership to support anything that might anger the environmental left. The Livestock Regulatory Protection Act is simple. It would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing emissions regulations relating to the biological processes of livestock.

We really shouldn't need this bill, but it is becoming increasingly clear that we do. This legislation was included in annual funding bills on a bipartisan basis for a number of years after the Democratic leader and I first introduced it, but the House has omitted it from its recent bills, and the Senate has had to secure its inclusion in the final bills. Passing this legislation would give livestock producers long- term certainty that their livelihoods will not be compromised by overzealous environmental crusaders.

I believe very strongly in protecting our environment. I have been an outdoorsman all my life. In many ways, outdoors men and women are the original environmentalists. If you value spending time in the outdoors--whether you are hunting or hiking, fishing or swimming--it is likely you are going to care a lot about keeping our air and water clean, preserving native species, and safeguarding our natural resources.

I have been interested in clean energy issues for a long time and have been introducing legislation to support clean energy development for more than a decade. In February, I introduced two bipartisan bills to support the increased use of biofuels and to emphasize their clean energy potential. Currently, the EPA's modeling does not fully recognize the tremendous emissions-reducing potential of ethanol and other biofuels.

The Adopt GREET Act, which I introduced with Senator Klobuchar, would fix this problem and pave the way for increased biofuel use both here and abroad by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to update its greenhouse gas modeling for ethanol and biodiesel using the U.S. Department of Energy's GREET model.

I also introduced a bill to advance long-stalled biofuel registrations at the EPA. Regulatory inaction has stifled the advancement of promising technologies, like ethanol derived from corn kernel fiber, even though some of these fuels are already being safely used in States like California.

My bill would speed up the approval process for these innovative biofuels. This would allow biofuel producers to capitalize on the research and facility investments they have made and improve their operating margins while further lowering emissions and helping our Nation's corn and soybean producers by reinforcing this essential market.

Just last week, I joined colleagues from both parties to cosponsor the Growing Climate Solutions Act, which is legislation to make it easier for agriculture producers and foresters to participate in carbon markets. This bill is a great example of the kind of bipartisan process we should be following when it comes to climate legislation.

So, as I said, I strongly believe in protecting our environment, but I believe that we need to protect our environment in a way that takes account of people, too. That means promoting legislation that is good for our environment and for our economy, that is good for our environment and good for agriculture producers, and that is good for our environment and good for American families.

That is why I have introduced proposals like the Soil Health and Income Protection Program, or SHIPP. This program, a short-term version of the Conservation Reserve Program, is a win for both our environment and for farmers and ranchers. SHIPP, which became law as part of the 2018 farm bill, provides an incentive for farmers to take their lowest performing cropland out of production for 3 to 5 years. Like the Conservation Reserve Program, it protects our environment by improving soil health and water quality while improving the bottom line for farmers.

(The remarks of Mr. Thune pertaining to the introduction of S. 1458 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.''

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

Mr. President, along with my livestock producer protection bill, I am also introducing legislation today to eliminate the November 1 haying and grazing date for cover crops.

Cover crops provide a lot of environmental benefits. They improve soil health, reduce erosion and nutrient runoff, improve water quality, and sequester carbon. They also benefit farmers, since their animals can graze these crops, or the cover crops can be harvested to provide forage for livestock. Currently, the haying and grazing date--the date on which farmers can start harvesting or grazing cover groups on prevent plant acres--is set for November 1, which is too late in the year for farmers in more northern States like South Dakota. Early winter weather in these States can cause cover crops to freeze before they can be used for hay and grazing.

The legislation I am introducing today with my colleague Senator Stabenow would fix this problem by letting farmers harvest and graze cover crops outside of the primary nesting season, which ends August 1 in South Dakota, allowing for both farmers and our environment to benefit from these crops.

Protecting our planet is imperative, and government certainly has a role to play in promoting clean energy and sound environmental policy, but putting the government in charge of our economy--in fact, putting the government in charge of pretty much every aspect of American life, as the Green New Deal would do--is not the answer. Innovation, not government, is the key to addressing environmental challenges.

Unfortunately, President Biden is embracing a whole host of Green New Deal-like policies. Take his so-called 30-by-30 directive directing the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other Agencies to provide recommendations to conserve 30 percent of U.S. lands and waters by 2030.

I have already heard from ranchers and landowners in South Dakota who are concerned about the measures the administration could pursue to meet this goal, including Federal land acquisitions and burdensome regulations on private landowners, many of whom are already doing everything they can to promote the health of their land.

There is also serious reason to doubt the government's ability to manage a vast new amount of land. The Federal Government already frequently fails to properly manage the land it already has. Yet some believe that we can give the Federal Government huge new swaths of land, and somehow the government will manage it properly.

Yet that is the problem with a lot of these socialist fantasies. They assume that the government will achieve levels of efficiency and productiveness that the government has simply never demonstrated. It is the triumph of fantasy over experience. Surely, the people espousing socialist fantasies have sat in long lines at the DMV or remember how the Obama administration had more than 3 years to prepare for the opening of the ObamaCare exchange yet couldn't even come up with a working website in that time period. Yet the Green New Deal's proponents are advocating that we put the government in charge of pretty much every aspect of American life.

Socialists and the Democrats parroting their ideology don't want to believe it, but the truth is that private individuals are often a lot more efficient, effective, and innovative than government, and we should be focusing our energies on supporting that efficiency and effectiveness and innovation instead of attempting to solve our environmental problems by giving the government more than it can handle.

I will continue working here in Congress to advance policies that promote clean energy and improve our environment without placing heavy burdens on American workers or American families. I will continue to advocate for policies that encourage and harness the ingenuity of the American people in facing our environmental challenges, and I will continue to oppose legislation that prioritizes supposed environmental gains over the well-being of the American people

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

Mr. President, last week, the junior Senator from Massachusetts and the Congresswoman from the 14th District of New York reintroduced their Green New Deal resolution. I think most Americans remember this socialist fantasy from when these Members introduced it 2 years ago. It would be hard to forget a proposal with that pricetag. There was one think tank that analyzed the initial proposal and released a first estimate that found that the Green New Deal would cost between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years. Let me just repeat that--between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years.

To put that number in perspective, our entire Federal budget in 2019--our entire Federal budget--was well under $5 trillion. It would be interesting to learn where we are going to get that kind of money. A massive tax hike on the rich wouldn't get us close to paying for this, but I don't think I am the only one who isn't sure where we would get the money for this. I don't think the plan's authors have a very clear idea of that either. In fact, the entire Green New Deal resolution is notable for its complete lack of specificity.

It proposes outlandish, impossible goals, like upgrading every single building in the United States--every single building--in the next 10 years for maximum energy and water efficiency, as well as comfort, but it offers zero--zero--specifics for how we might actually accomplish them. I am not surprised, because there is no way to come close to accomplishing everything the Green New Deal's authors want to accomplish over the next decade without enormous economic pain.

So often, when hearing the policies of the far left, environmental and otherwise, I am struck by how they leave people out of the equation. Now, of course, the individuals proposing these plans don't think they are leaving people out of the equation. The Green New Deal's authors are clearly under the impression that they are creating a paradise for American families--if paradise includes the government supervision and administration of just about every aspect of American life. Yet the reality is that, like so many utopian plans, most of the environmental left's sweeping ideas for remaking our society would have nightmarish effects in practice: higher energy costs, reduced economic growth, sharp increases in the cost of essential commodities like groceries, huge tax hikes, and job losses.

Today, I want to talk about just one example of the damaging potential of environmental extremism, which has relevance for a bill I am introducing today.

There has been an increasing tendency on the part of the environmental left to demonize the consumption of beef, and this tendency is creeping into the mainstream. Earlier this week, food website Epicurious--a site a lot of Americans turn to when they are wondering what to cook for dinner--announced that it will no longer add new recipes featuring beef. The website said its move is not anti-beef but pro-planet. It is pretty much wrong on both counts.

First of all, the move to demonize beef could have real consequences for a lot of ranchers, like those I represent in South Dakota. If the demand for beef drops, some of these ranchers may be out of a job. Of course, the Green New Deal's authors would probably suggest a government program to help

them out, but I can't think of many ranchers I know who would like to abandon their way of life for their dependence on a government program, and there is no reason they should have to.

Contrary to the story being pushed by the environmental left, beef production is directly responsible for only a tiny fraction of U.S. emissions, and beef cattle actually plays an important role in managing pasturelands that sequester vast amounts of carbon. On top of that, it has become clear that, with certain feed additives, it is possible to significantly reduce cattle emissions, making the demonization of beef even more wrong-headed.

Today, I am introducing the Livestock Regulatory Protection Act with my colleague Senator Sinema. I actually introduced this bill years ago with the Democratic leader, before it became dangerous for Members of the Democratic leadership to support anything that might anger the environmental left. The Livestock Regulatory Protection Act is simple. It would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from imposing emissions regulations relating to the biological processes of livestock.

We really shouldn't need this bill, but it is becoming increasingly clear that we do. This legislation was included in annual funding bills on a bipartisan basis for a number of years after the Democratic leader and I first introduced it, but the House has omitted it from its recent bills, and the Senate has had to secure its inclusion in the final bills. Passing this legislation would give livestock producers long- term certainty that their livelihoods will not be compromised by overzealous environmental crusaders.

I believe very strongly in protecting our environment. I have been an outdoorsman all my life. In many ways, outdoors men and women are the original environmentalists. If you value spending time in the outdoors--whether you are hunting or hiking, fishing or swimming--it is likely you are going to care a lot about keeping our air and water clean, preserving native species, and safeguarding our natural resources.

I have been interested in clean energy issues for a long time and have been introducing legislation to support clean energy development for more than a decade. In February, I introduced two bipartisan bills to support the increased use of biofuels and to emphasize their clean energy potential. Currently, the EPA's modeling does not fully recognize the tremendous emissions-reducing potential of ethanol and other biofuels.

The Adopt GREET Act, which I introduced with Senator Klobuchar, would fix this problem and pave the way for increased biofuel use both here and abroad by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to update its greenhouse gas modeling for ethanol and biodiesel using the U.S. Department of Energy's GREET model.

I also introduced a bill to advance long-stalled biofuel registrations at the EPA. Regulatory inaction has stifled the advancement of promising technologies, like ethanol derived from corn kernel fiber, even though some of these fuels are already being safely used in States like California.

My bill would speed up the approval process for these innovative biofuels. This would allow biofuel producers to capitalize on the research and facility investments they have made and improve their operating margins while further lowering emissions and helping our Nation's corn and soybean producers by reinforcing this essential market.

Just last week, I joined colleagues from both parties to cosponsor the Growing Climate Solutions Act, which is legislation to make it easier for agriculture producers and foresters to participate in carbon markets. This bill is a great example of the kind of bipartisan process we should be following when it comes to climate legislation.

So, as I said, I strongly believe in protecting our environment, but I believe that we need to protect our environment in a way that takes account of people, too. That means promoting legislation that is good for our environment and for our economy, that is good for our environment and good for agriculture producers, and that is good for our environment and good for American families.

That is why I have introduced proposals like the Soil Health and Income Protection Program, or SHIPP. This program, a short-term version of the Conservation Reserve Program, is a win for both our environment and for farmers and ranchers. SHIPP, which became law as part of the 2018 farm bill, provides an incentive for farmers to take their lowest performing cropland out of production for 3 to 5 years. Like the Conservation Reserve Program, it protects our environment by improving soil health and water quality while improving the bottom line for farmers.

(The remarks of Mr. Thune pertaining to the introduction of S. 1458 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.''

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

Mr. President, this evening President Biden will deliver his first address to Congress. I have been asked, I think as most Members have, by the media: What do you expect to hear? What do you want to hear?

Honestly, I am interested to hear the direction the President will set in his speech. The President's inaugural address leaned heavily into the theme of unity and bipartisanship, but unity and bipartisanship have not been a distinguishing feature of the Biden Presidency.

The President's first major bill, a COVID relief bill, broke the streak of bipartisanship on COVID legislation--a streak that goes back to March of last year. Since that time, when we were the majority, we passed five bills, all of them with big bipartisan majorities. Under President Biden, Democrats shoved through a totally partisan bill filled with non-COVID-related liberal priorities.

Republicans were more than ready to work with Democrats on additional coronavirus legislation. In fact, 10 Republicans developed a COVID proposal and then met with President Biden to discuss it. But Democrats and the President were having none of it. It was ``their way or the highway'' on COVID legislation. No bipartisanship. No compromise. It was, support the Democrats' bill and its wasteful spending on non- COVID-related priorities or be left out of the discussion. As I pointed out, only about 10 percent--10 percent--of that ``COVID bill'' was actually COVID related.

It was a deeply disappointing start to the Biden Presidency and a betrayal of the unity that President Biden had pledged himself to in his inauguration address.

Unfortunately, the Biden Presidency has mostly continued along in the same partisan fashion. The President promised to be a President for the whole people yet seems more focused on making sure that he is the President for the far left. You don't have to take my word for it. One of the leading voices of the far left in this Congress recently stated that President Biden had exceeded--not met; exceeded--progressives' expectations.

Between Democrats and the White House, the first 3 months of the Biden Presidency have been a long stream of policies and proposals that seem to have come right from the progressives' playbook--proposals for tax hikes and more tax hikes and still more tax hikes to pay for new government programs like the President's Green New Deal-esque Civilian Climate Corps; a sharp retreat from border security, with a huge crisis going on at the border as a result; a bill that would place unprecedented restrictions on the free exercise of religion in the name of equality; legislation to dramatically revise our electoral system to ensure Democrats' hold on power. The list goes on.

Once an ardent defender of America's core institutions, the President recently established a commission to explore the idea of court- packing--perhaps the most outrageously partisan and political proposal we have seen in this century.

From the way Democrats are behaving, you would think that the American people had elected overwhelming Democratic majorities and a President with a reputation as a strong leftist. Of course, that isn't close to being the case. We all know that. Democrats have a razor-thin majority in the Senate and an almost equally thin majority in the House of Representatives, where they lost a substantial number of seats. As for the Presidency, while certainly a Democrat won the election, it is worth noting that the only candidate who could win the Democratic primary was a man historically regarded as a moderate. That is right. Even among primary Democratic voters, the Democrats' far-left liberal candidates did not fare so well.

If there was any mandate in the election, it was a mandate for moderation, for compromise. Yet the President and Democrats are behaving as if they had been delivered a mandate for a partisan revolution.

There has been one encouraging thing lately, and that is the fact that President Biden seems to actually be considering pursuing bipartisanship on an infrastructure package. He has had multiple meetings on infrastructure with Republican Members of Congress, and while I am still waiting to see just how committed the Democrats are to achieving a bipartisan result, I am encouraged that the President is at least talking to the Republican Members.

A bipartisan infrastructure proposal should be a slam dunk. Congress has a history of bipartisan collaboration on infrastructure legislation. In fact, our last major infrastructure bill, the FAST Act, received strong support from both Democrats and Republicans and was a remarkably successful bill.

As chairman of the Commerce Committee, I helped to spearhead a bipartisan reauthorization of the FAA, including of critical programs to improve airport infrastructure, and last Congress, the Environment and Public Works Committee developed major bipartisan infrastructure legislation.

There is no good reason that we shouldn't reach bipartisan agreement on another substantial infrastructure bill, but it will require a commitment from the Democrats and the President to real bipartisan work and a recognition that bipartisanship involves compromise and that no one side is going to get everything its Members want.

Bipartisanship is not the Democrats inviting the Republicans to support the Democrats' ideal bill. Bipartisanship is sitting down at the table, identifying what we agree on, and then working out a solution to our differences that involves both sides accepting compromises.

I hope that, tonight, the President will go beyond empty talk about bipartisanship and make an actual, concrete commitment to achieve bipartisan results, starting with infrastructure legislation. I hope, although I do not really expect, that he will move away from the policies and partisan priorities of the far left and toward a more moderate vision, more in keeping with the bringing together of Americans that he spoke of in his inaugural address.

Ultimately, what matters the most is not what the President will say tonight

but what he will do in the days and weeks to come. Will he finally deliver on that promise of unity that he spoke of in his inaugural address or will he continue to pursue the partisan path that progressives have laid out for him? For the sake of our country, I hope he chooses bipartisanship.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

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

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, a few weeks ago, President Biden introduced an infrastructure plan--or at least that is what the Democrats are calling it. In fact, a substantial portion of this bill goes to Democratic priorities that have nothing to do with infrastructure, from support for Big Labor to a new Civilian Climate Corps to advance ``environmental justice.'' President Biden's infrastructure proposal would cost a lot of money, well north of $2 trillion.

So how does the President plan to pay for this legislation? Unsurprisingly, the President is proposing tax hikes--notably, a substantial hike in the corporate tax rate.

There are two sources the Democrats like to go to when it comes to paying for their spending--corporations and prosperous Americans. In fact, the Democrats tend to speak about corporations and well-off Americans as if they are a bottomless source of funding for government programs and as if the Democrats can endlessly hike taxes on these individuals and businesses without consequences.

When the Republicans object to the prospect of major tax hikes, the Democrats cry that the Republicans are just protecting wealthy corporate cronies--a deeply ironic charge when you consider that the Democrats want to include a tax cut for wealthy Democratic donors and Hollywood types in this same infrastructure package.

The real reason for the Republicans' concern, of course, is quite different. The Republicans are concerned about substantial tax hikes on any individual or business because we know that taxation has economic consequences. It is something that the Democrats should know as well-- it is basic economics, after all--but they don't seem capable of grasping it. Taxation has consequences. Tax hikes have consequences, and big tax hikes have big consequences, usually negative ones.

The corporate tax hike the Democrats are talking about will have negative consequences for American businesses. That means it will have negative consequences for American workers, and that is a problem.

Three years ago, the Republicans passed major tax reform legislation. Along with substantial tax cuts for middle-class Americans, this legislation cut America's corporate tax rate. Why? Well, at the time we passed this legislation, the United States had the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, plus an outdated international tax system. Both of those things put U.S. businesses at a major disadvantage next to their foreign counterparts, and they discouraged foreign companies from moving to and investing in the United States.

Our outdated tax system had also resulted in a wave of inversions. That is tax professional-speak for companies moving their headquarters overseas. According to Bloomberg, between 2004 and 2016, 36 American- based companies

inverted. Needless to say, those inversions resulted in a loss of American jobs and domestic investment. A piece in the Wall Street Journal reported that one accounting firm estimates that the United States lost $510 billion from cross-border mergers and acquisitions between 2004 and 2016.

The Republicans knew that if we wanted to boost job creation here at home and improve opportunities for American workers, we needed to address the high corporate tax rate and put American companies on a more competitive footing internationally, so we cut the corporate tax rate and brought the U.S. international tax system into the 21st century by replacing our outdated worldwide system with a modernized territorial tax system.

It didn't take long to see the results: Inversions ended. Economic growth outstripped predictions. The poverty rate dropped. Jobs increased. Incomes grew. In fact, income growth in 2019 was the highest ever recorded, and the real median household income for African- American, Hispanic, and Asian-American workers hit record highs. In other words, tax reform worked, and, importantly, it worked for the very people the Republicans wanted to help--ordinary Americans. By improving the tax situation for American businesses, we improved the job and income situation for American workers, but now the Democrats want to undo all of that.

To pay for their preferred government programs, they want to substantially hike the tax rate on American corporations--once again, putting American businesses at a substantial disadvantage next to their foreign competitors. If the Democrats impose President Biden's suggested tax hike, the combined average top tax rate on corporations in the United States will be higher than that imposed by every one of our major trading partners and competitors, including China.

It is difficult to understand why the Democrats think it is a good idea to put American companies at a disadvantage next to Chinese companies and next to British companies, Japanese companies, French companies, German companies, and the list goes on and on. It is especially difficult to understand why the Democrats would do this now, at the very time our economy is trying to recover from the serious hit we took from the coronavirus.

Unfortunately, it has become clear that the Democrats are either incapable of grasping or don't care about the economic consequences of their proposed tax hikes. The Democrats are fixated on imposing a whole host of new government programs, and they are ready to tax Americans and American businesses to pay for them even if ordinary Americans suffer as a result. Presumably, they think that if ordinary Americans start suffering, they can just offer them some help through a new government program, but I am pretty confident that most Americans would exchange government assistance for the kinds of jobs and incomes that free them from having to depend on government programs.

Substantially increasing the corporate tax rate--and I am talking substantially; what is being talked about is a 33-percent increase, so it will be a one-third increase in the tax rate--and putting American businesses at a disadvantage on the global stage is not the best way to encourage the creation of those kinds of jobs. Hiking the corporate tax rate will have negative consequences for our economy and for hard- working Americans.

It is easy to say ``Tax the corporations; tax the rich people,'' but those businesses hire American workers. If they have to pay more in taxes, they have to pay less in wages. What we saw, as I mentioned before, was the highest wage increases that we have seen in decades, particularly for lower income Americans.

But apparently what is being talked about with this tax hike is just the beginning. President Biden and his Democratic colleagues have a lot more government programs they want to push, and they have a whole raft of tax hikes waiting in the wings to fund them. There is a hike in the top individual income tax rate that would hit small businesses hard. Most businesses--99 percent of the businesses in my State of South Dakota--are organized as passthroughs. That means they pay taxes at the individual rate. Those are farmers and ranchers and small business people across my State. They are the people who create the jobs in South Dakota. A hike in the top individual income tax rate hits every one of those small businesses that has an income in excess of $400,000. That is money that could be used to hire more workers. There is a hike in the capital gains tax, which would discourage investment and decrease the value Americans can expect from their 401(k)s, a new death tax that would hit middle-class families and family farms and businesses, and so much more.

These tax hikes may help the Democrats usher in parts of the socialist fantasy they have been envisioning, but they will do nothing to help American families gain financial stability and secure good jobs and lasting, rewarding careers. Working Americans are the ones who will ultimately suffer the most from the Democrats' tax hike plans.

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 North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).

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