Floor Statements

Mr. President, I move to proceed to S.J. Res. 29.

Mr. President, I come here this evening, but I have been back home on recess breaks ever since there has been this idea of a vaccine mandate.

We have got a modern miracle in having vaccines available like they have been. It is part of the long journey against COVID. Along with therapeutics now, they are miracles. Yet getting vaccinated should be a decision between an individual and his or her doctor. It shouldn't be up to any politician, especially in a mandate coming down from that highest authority--our President--and he ought to be consistent with what he has said in the past. He said he would never make vaccines mandatory. He didn't keep his word.

Overreach--I have been here a little under 3 years, and I see it in so many arenas, a lot of it with good intention. We try to solve things here. I think the American public sometimes scratches its collective heads to say: Where are the results? Why does it cost so much? But in this case, you have got to also take into consideration our Constitution, our personal freedoms. It is at stake today.

The Federal Government has no authority to make anyone choose between getting a vaccine and keeping their job. Today, this body will stand up against this overreach.

Main Street--Main Street--is where I come from. When you have to explain to people constantly when they are scared by actions like this, can this possibly happen; will the government go through with it; will it somehow fall apart--well, when you have bad ideas, that eventually happens. And it is going to start here this evening. We have seen it in the courts. It has been repeated earlier here this evening how unpopular it is with the American public.

We did everything we could to keep individuals with their employers. We have spent billions, trillions of dollars doing so. The threshold for a small

business then, when we were helping, was 500 employees. Now we have lowered it to 100. It has got people frightened across the country.

Small businesses face enough hardships. Most are finally getting some type of equilibrium with everything that has happened over the last year and a half, and now they have to contend with this.

As mentioned earlier, any businesses could get fined up to $14,000 per employee. That is more than we were lending them--money--in some small businesses over the recent past.

A lot of stuff just does not make sense. Listen to the number of organizations, ones that all play into telling us how they like to keep free enterprise going, keeping the private sector healthy: the National Federation of Independent Business, NFIB; National Retail Federation; National Restaurant Association; Association of Wholesale Distributors; American Trucking Associations; Associated Builders and Contractors; Associated General Contractors; American Pipeline Contractors; National Lumber and Building Material Dealers; Distribution Contractors. These are all businesses--I have another 10 I could mention--that come from Main Street America. It is not the tier of largest corporations; these are the businesses in our own hometowns. They are crying out: Do not follow through with this lunacy.

When you dig a hole, and you keep making it deeper, despite everything you are hearing, that is a bad business plan. You can always get out of it by just quit digging. And you are hearing it loud and clear.

We must focus on returning to the prosperity we achieved pre-COVID. One thing that will stop this recovery cold is the Federal Government getting in the way, as it is doing now.

His mandates are under fire in the courts. Main Street job creators are complaining against it. And tonight, the U.S. Senate must send a clear message: Back off on this bad idea.

I yield the floor.

We are here today because of the vaccine mandate. When I got back home over the break, I never had so many friends and fellow business owners who actually made it a point to find me and tell me that this can't be happening.

With the full navigation that we have taken through COVID, I have always been clear: Take it seriously. We don't know how this is going to end up.

It has been over a year and a half. The point back in Indiana is that most businesses, schools, all organizations have put protocols in place to where it has not been an issue. It has been a nonissue of, really, transmissions within the workplace.

We finally get through it, we found the rhythm of what works, and now you have a mandate that says: Hey, Federal employees, Federal contractors--they contacted me too. Some think they will lose 10 to 25 percent of their workforce. Businesses are in the same place.

When you look at what we have done, where we are, it just does not make sense. That is why I am leading the Congressional Review Act effort to try to get all Senators on my side--some on the other side of the aisle--to say: Hey, we don't need it. Enough is enough.

Look at the practical reasons because businesses and other organizations have tried and they have been successful at keeping their employees and their customers safe and healthy. This is coming at a point in time where it is going to be salt in the wound. It

will be the biggest wallop these entities have had, especially when we have been paying them to keep their employees, up to 500 employees. Now we are going to force them to lose them en masse down to 100. It doesn't make sense. That is why I am glad I am leading the effort and glad other Senators are here talking about it.

Please pull back on something that is beyond the pale, that we don't need, and that is going to hurt the places we have been trying to help.

I yield to the Senator from Florida.

Thank you, Senator Tuberville.

Mr. President.

Every year, I travel and visit every county in the State of Indiana--92 of them. You know, I can't ever recall anyone saying that they want the IRS to poke into their business more on a day-to-day basis. In fact, they bemoan the fact that many years ago, the IRS was actually sifting through stuff to determine who was conservative or not before they might grant status to your entity.

We have gotten to a point--and I think Senators Tuberville and Scott have eloquently laid out the details. I want to take a little different approach.

I have been here a little less than 3 years, and this kind of entrepreneurialism through government, growing the Federal Government, having an Agency like the IRS that can't do its job well with the money that we do give to it, is just another example of trying to pile on one bad thing after another.

It would be different if we weren't doing it borrowing 23 percent of the money we spend every year. Imagine that in your own household, in a State or local government, a business. You would be laughed out of the banker's office if you did that and then wanted a loan to cover it and then do it the next 10 years. It doesn't work anywhere else.

This is an example that I think, along with maybe the vaccine mandate, where you are now forcing small businesses to do something when they finally got a rhythm--and businesses have protected their employees and their customers as well as anybody out there in that journey. You have got that nonsense that is going to be unfurled here soon. But it is an example of where, at some point, enough needs to be enough.

The IRS has had a poor record of doing things to boot. Earlier, ProPublica released illegally obtained tax records of many Americans. We had the incident of issues with conservative businesses being discriminated against in getting proper status set up. I introduced the Protect Taxpayer Privacy Act in June for that because the IRS is already doing things that they shouldn't be doing. This would be a perfect companion to what Senator Tuberville is putting out here.

To wrap it up, we have to be careful when we send people here. If you were knocking it out of the park, delivering results, not borrowing money to do the things we try to do anyway, and then you tee up something like this--this is going to do nothing more than unleash more of an Agency that doesn't do well in its job anyway, and it is truly an example of government gone wild.

I thank Senator Tuberville for bringing this to a focal point.

I yield back to him.

Mr. President, I left my business to run for Senate because I was fed up with business in DC as usual. Americans are fed up as well.

I think the place is broken when it comes to our budgeting process. We don't do them anymore. We are debating a funding bill for the fiscal year that ends today. That is how you end up $28 trillion in debt.

Congress can agree on basically one thing: budgets, deficits, debt don't matter anymore. Well, they do. Every business, every State, and local government have to do them. Congress should as well.

No budget, no pay is simple. If we do not fund the government by October 1, we don't get a paycheck until we get it done. It is a popular bill because it works.

In 2013--the only time we have done one on time in 20 years--it was in place. Many here voted for it, including the majority leader.

Americans are watching. They are tired of the job we are doing. They demand accountability. Vote for this amendment. It makes sense. Our pay is in the 94 percentile of income to boot.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, to honor the heroism of fallen Corporal Humberto Sanchez, I went to pay my solemn respects on September 13 and 14, 2021, and was not present for votes. Corporal Sanchez was killed in the attack on Kabul airport helping Americans and allies evacuate the country.

Corporal Sanchez is an American hero, and his sacrifice will never be forgotten.

I call up my amendment No. 3114 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, in the 11th hour, Democrats added a provision in the American Rescue Plan that this body did not have time to vet. Under this provision, if States took the money, they cannot lower their taxes in any way through 2024.

Six Federal lawsuits have already been filed, including States like Louisiana, Ohio, and Arizona. West Virginia is leading a lawsuit with an additional 13 States, including New Hampshire and Montana.

States are not happy with this overreach. We can fix this mistake now. States have the right to cut their own taxes, and we have no right to get in their way.

I introduced the Let States Cut Taxes Act with Dan Bishop, of North Carolina, to repeal this overstep in the American Rescue Plan. A vote for this amendment is a vote to protect States' power to impose or cut their own taxes.

Please join me on this bill across the board, and I ask for the yeas and the nays.

No. It is a rollcall vote.

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

I was listening with interest earlier to Senator Durbin and Senator Carper talking about not only the bill in front of us--but I think there is a lot of merit, by the way, to address difficult subjects like infrastructure. And I believe defense is the most important thing we need to do, and I generally have questions about that: Why we don't do audits, why we don't adhere especially to budgeting here, why we don't do budgets across the entirety of the Federal Government. I think, give or take, it has been 20 years since we have done one and have adhered to it.

So in looking at our infrastructure plan and the merits within it, everyone is going to find something that they like. And I am talking about the $1.2 trillion infrastructure plan. I think probably for roads and bridges and a lot of that physical hard infrastructure, the need is even more than that.

But Senator Carper, who used to run a State--I used to be on a school board in my hometown for 10 years and served as a State legislator, with the intention of going there to do something on infrastructure in Indiana, the crossroads of America, living in the southern part of the State that has never had its fair share.

I think you need to be entrepreneurial through government in certain cases, especially at the local and State level where you are accountable, to where your entrepreneurism through government--and I almost don't like to use that word because I have been a Main Street entrepreneur my entire life and it is hard to use that as an analogous term to what we do here.

Anyway, Senator Durbin was talking about, I think, more than just the content of the bill. I--generally when I am coming down to vote for something--look at the principles that I know have worked in the real world in building a business or running a school board, local or State government. He referred to something that really caught my intention; and that is, inevitably, in times like these we will then, on our side, revert to wanting to do a balanced budget amendment. Of course, I have been a proponent of that and term limits as well--not at the local and State level, but here.

I don't think that the Founders ever intended us to grow a government like this, that for all the good intentions of policy that we want to put in place, to where we do it on the back of borrowing money and not doing it in a way that is painful, takes political will.

I will never forget, back in Indiana, 2017, 70 percent of Hoosiers wanted better infrastructure. We polled, and 70 percent didn't want their taxes to go up. Fiscal conservatives like me even got in trouble talking about paying for it, not borrowing the money, not pushing it down the road. At least there you can make the argument, you need a dedicated stream of payment for something that we most agree is essential.

When you drive that point home and when you took it through regular order--listen to this--nearly 2 to 2\1/2\ months in a 3-month session, we ran it through Ways and Means Committee and Roads and Transportation, and by the time we were done, we had roughly 45 out of 47 witnesses--stakeholders from the manufacturing association to the Farm Bureau, to the Indiana Truckers Association for it.

We got people to buy in. And how did we do it? We did it with diesel and gas taxes.

Some complained that we were raising taxes. It was in the context, though, in Indiana of a balanced budget, rainy-day funds. We got one of the best business climates in the country. So it was within a system that was working.

I think what disturbed me, listening a little bit ago, is--I agree with Senator Durbin, this is a shared blame in terms of how we have gotten here. My observation, building a business, frustrated each night coming home and listening to the news is that starting nearly two decades ago or so, when we went from Democrat and Republican administrations that did believe in maybe having some political will-- in other words, paying for the things we do here in a way that is not borrowing the money. Borrowing money is sometimes OK if it is a tangible asset. That is an investment. That kind of makes sense, and this has a little bit of that component as well.

But, in general, when you become a nation of consumption and spending, and you are putting it on display in a way like we have over several decades here from the Gulf wars to what we did in 2008 and 2009, looks like small change compared to what we are doing right now.

I don't begrudge trying to get things done in an effective way. But I want the American public to understand clearly that when you borrow money to spend it or consume it, that has never ended up well in the long run.

I read a book given to me by our friend Mike Enzi called ``The Empire of Debt.'' Actually, in that reading, it took a dismal subject, looked at it historically, put a little humor alongside it--because you need that to get through it, to see how this ends up. It has never worked well.

If you are, by nature, spending and consuming and borrowing the money to do it, I did not need to be a finance guy from business school and have an economics degree from undergrad to know that doesn't work.

Even the folks who lean toward Keynesian economics and the Milton Friedman proponents that like to look at the money supply, no one in even current liberal economists are buying into this idea of the modern monetary theory.

That, to me, just does not make sense. When I look at where we are at today talking about infrastructure--which polls well because the American public knows we need it. But then when we dispense it in a way that is irresponsible in terms of how we pay for it, I couldn't have been for that from the get-go

It was also inextricably linked to the $3.5 trillion of using a word like ``infrastructure,'' which we all know refers to tangible, and now trying to do it on stuff that isn't tangible. That is consumption.

I think there are merits of discussing childcare, the high cost of post-secondary education, but we ought to do it like we did back in Indiana, when we were talking about infrastructure. Run it through regular order, bring in experts and stakeholders across the country to buy into it.

Here, I see--and I used it just recently--if you try to be entrepreneurial through government, which is what I think is on display here, part of that equation is, yes, you got to take a little risk, you got to get it out there. But no one would put this much at stake and try to be entrepreneurial by borrowing the money. You would be almost certain to fail because in the real world--school board, local, State government, and especially in enterprise--you have got other rigors that won't let you do that.

And you cannot count on a Fed, like, since last year, has been accommodating and basically printing money in the basement by buying a lot of this debt and is committed to do it even on this, as well as the major piece that is going to drop here in a few days.

So my concern is that maybe we, as Republicans, are a little slow- footed when it comes to engaging in real issues. I agree with Senator Durbin that we have been on this journey for a long time. That doesn't mean you double down and triple down. Listen to this. I got here 2\1/2\ years ago, roughly $21.9 trillion in debt. We are now roughly $28.6 trillion in debt, not including what we are going to do here on this hard infrastructure bill and the $3.5 trillion. All of it has merit for discussion, but if you spend money and consume it and borrow it without having the political will of doing what you have to do in any other entity--pay for it sustainably, it is not the foundation for this place or any entity.

I want to give you a little description about what we do here currently. We spend $4.5 trillion a year. We take in revenues of $3.5 trillion. That is a chronic trillion-dollar deficit. That is borrowing 23 cents roughly out of every dollar that you spend. And, again, it is not for a tangible investment; it is for consumption.

Now, with what we are baselining into the future, that is going to go up to close to $1.5 trillion. And we ought to be looking at what is driving the current dysfunction and try to get this place back into a solid footing, rather than putting it in peril, where history has shown it does not work out, every country that has tried it has not had it work out.

The Europeans, who have fashioned a system maybe a little bit erring on that side, have never had an economy that grows much more than 2 percent. And probably 4 or 5 years ago, when the Euro and European Union looked like it was working, you had countries within it--Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal--that showed that you couldn't do it, and then it threatened the integrity of the EU itself. The Euro at that time was starting to become a reserve currency. It impacted them as well. They had to go through the hard medicine of getting back in line.

So when we get through with this exercise, again, we are talking about something we need. But if we don't couch it in the discipline of having political will, in doing it to where it is going to be sustainable and not to where it is going to put us even more in peril in terms of our Federal balance sheet, it doesn't end up well for our kids and grandkids. That is what worries me.

And on two notes, we have got geopolitical competition. Senator Durbin mentioned that as well. Even they have shed communism. They have become almost expert state capitalists. They have an authoritarian system. That will probably be their limitation in the long run.

If they ever liberalize their capital markets or, God forbid, their political system, you can't imagine the impact that would have on us and our currency. So they are playing the long game. They are savers and investors.

And we have got to be careful, because they have at least realized that you can't replace the productive economy with a centralized system, and they are actually moving in that direction, sadly, with an authoritarian political system underlying it.

One other place I will use as an example: We should be looking at what is driving our trillion-dollar deficit. He mentioned the Laffer curve. We were, pre-COVID, at a point where I think was a sweet spot of where we needed to be.

Wages were rising in the most difficult places. I, more than probably any other Senator, since I am the freshest off the street of a Main Street enterprise--it was a little company that grew into a national one over 37 years--basing it on having a conservative balance sheet, not to ruin your business by borrowing too much money even when you have access to it.

And, here, I see that same thing happening here. We will be outrun by our competitors who are long-term thinkers, who are investors, not spenders and consumers. And if we wanted to really right the ship, we ought to be tackling the high cost of healthcare.

We all agree, I think, that that is a broken system. One side of the aisle wants to dump more government into it by making it a one-payer system. What we ought to do first is reform the industry, like I did in my own company with health insurance, with a few simple principles. Make it consumer-driven to where every individual should be a healthcare consumer--not relying on your insurance that pays for everything from your employer or the government doing it. That is giving us a healthcare system that Warren Buffet cites as a tapeworm on our economy. We need something better.

But we should have a common interest there. Make it transparent so we can shop for it like you do anything else, including a big-screen TV and groceries. If you have transparency and you can compete in terms of how you shop, that would work.

If we did that with health insurance, with healthcare costs, we could start the process here, because Medicare, that our elderly depend on, goes broke in roughly 5 years; automatic benefit cuts across the board. That is waiting to solve something once you are in a crisis.

We ought to roll up our sleeves on it, on Social Security. And we need to quit turning discretionary spending, which requires budgeting, into mandatory spending simply because we don't want to go through the rigor that any school board, State government, local government, or especially business would do to be successful in the long run.

So I think we have got a bit of time that we could do this, and maybe do it preemptively, or we can run this thing into the ditch. And for the people who love the Federal Government and want to grow it as a growth business, who are political entrepreneurs, I would think that side of the aisle would be especially concerned about its long-term health.

And for those of us who always talk about it and then seem to be part of the same old thing that occurs each year, that is being a hypocrite, because we have gotten here not with one party driving us; both have been in the vehicle that is ready to run us into the ditch.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we need to support our Capitol Police, and we

will. We need to repay our National Guard, and we will. We need to protect our allies who kept our troops safe, and we will.

Emergencies arise, and the biggest threat to dealing with them, in my opinion, is fiscal irresponsibility in DC. We could have easily paid for the major parts of this legislation with offsets within the DOD.

I think our spending process is broken at every level. We don't do budgets anymore. We vote that the rules don't matter. It seems like Congress can only agree on one thing: Deficits and debt don't matter anymore. But they do. And both parties are to blame. And they threaten our ability in the long run to respond to emergencies when they arise, like the important ones in this bill, not to mention that everything we do here currently is on borrowed money literally from our kids and our grandkids.

My point of order reference has my friend Mike Enzi's name at the top of it. I am speaking here today for the reasons I just mentioned and in honor of him as well.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 2123

(Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.)

Mr. President, Senate amendment No. 2123 would make new budget authority available for fiscal year 2021. The Senate Committee on Appropriations has not filed its suballocations as required by the Congressional Budget Act.

Therefore, I raise a point of order against the amendment pursuant to section 302(c) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I rise here today to give emphasis to something I think is very important--it has been done basically annually--and that is talking about our Pledge of Allegiance. It is an expression of patriotism and commitment to our great Nation.

The United States is a symbol of freedom around the world. It is a beacon for ``the land of opportunity.''

Today, let's reaffirm our allegiance to the United States. I urge my colleagues to pass this annual resolution that simply expresses support for our Pledge of Allegiance.

This resolution was first raised by Senator Tom Daschle back in 2002 and passed without objection. Now, nearly 20 years later, this resolution is probably more important than ever.

We have seen countless attacks on our flag and the values it represents. The American flag is a symbol of hope and perseverance across the world. Whether in Cuba, Hong Kong, or Venezuela, those suffering under tyrannical regimes proudly wave the American flag in protest.

The U.S. Senate must stand in support of the Pledge of Allegiance, one of our most powerful expressions of national unity.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 309, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I rise today because, in a practical place like the State of Indiana, believe it or not, we actually balance our budget every year. We have commonsense things in place that if you are going to receive some benefits of some sort, maybe you do something where we can help to get you to where you do not need the benefits.

In this case, this is again something that was not broken and is now being fixed in a way that takes enterprising States like the State of Indiana, like Texas, like Arizona, places that wanted the ability in administering their share of Medicaid, to have ways to try to get folks into a position where they could get back on their feet, seek work, and do things that would make sense for trying to maybe earn their way into that benefit somewhat.

Do we believe Washington has all the answers? I think that is what you believe when you get rid of something that was working in many places.

I am in the camp that, as much as I know the Federal Government has to weigh in and do things, but if the argument is that we have been knocking it out of the park here, that we have been getting things done that really work, if it wasn't done in the context that of every dollar we spend here, we borrow 23 cents--and in the time I have been here, 2 and a half years, have been probably the loudest voice on trying to fix healthcare.

Part of that issue is in my own party, where I think we are apologists for a broken healthcare industry. The other side of the aisle wants to just spend money to try to fix it without fixing the underlying issues that drive so many of the problems in this country, where we deal with them in a sustainable way in our State governments, in our local governments. If we take away that flexibility, then we are defaulting to a system that has not been solving the problems.

Today, we are here specifically talking about the Medicaid Program. The way it works currently, the Federal Government pays for half the benefits, and the States pay for half the benefits. The Social Security Act authorizes a framework of flexibility so enterprising, innovative States can maybe do something to bring down the cost of these programs and wean us off the need for them primarily in the long run.

Since President Biden has taken office, several State waivers that were previously approved under the Trump administration have been revoked. It has happened in Texas. It has happened in Arkansas. It has happened in Arizona. And now they are coming after a place like Indiana that has a system that works so well that we are even in the process of giving some revenues back to our citizens this coming year, where revenues were so far above forecast, we are still taking care of issues at the State level and doing what we ought to be considering: returning resources to the taxpayer.

This isn't even that. This is trying to retain the flexibility where it has been working. It is called the Gateway to Work Program, and it is not like it is overbearing. It just requires 20 hours per month of work, job searching, school, or community service. It was designed in a way that engages the individual needing the benefit and that can improve their quality of life over the long run.

It has had a long history. The pilot was first approved by CMS in 2007. It has been renewed as recently as 2018. Yet the Biden administration, right now, by taking these actions--these flexibilities would have been in place until 2025. It is stopping prematurely what I believe is essential if we are going to ever live within our means here, finding better ways to do it and more sustainable ways to pay for it. We should have that flexibility.

With this in mind, I will introduce the Let States Set Medicaid Requirements Act. This legislation will empower States to have the flexibility that they have had that has been making progress. It will encourage behaviors that will improve healthcare outcomes. It has precedence in other Federal programs when it comes to earning unemployment benefits or food assistance. This bill is commonsense policy that I think needs to be put into place so that flexibility cannot arbitrarily be taken away.

I yield to my colleague.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of my bill, which is at the desk. Further, I ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President.

Mr. President, my friend from Oregon, we have had a discussion not only on this particular issue. I respect his point of view. And I think we both agree, though, that when it comes to healthcare, it is something that is breaking the bank in this country.

When it is 20 percent of our GDP, and it is 10 to 12 percent in most other developed countries, it has got to be a problem with the underlying industry and the way government has gone about trying to address it.

I am one in my own business, 13 years ago, who declared that no one should go broke because they get sick or have a bad accident, and then took the tools that were out there with a system that didn't give you many to work with, have found a way to make it sustainable, to put skin in the game for my own employees, to get them to get better care for themselves, and to do things that weren't the same things we have been doing, which have not improved the situation.

Medicaid is paid for half by States, half by the Federal Government. I think it does entitle States to have more flexibility on account of it. But what I would ask my colleagues on my side of the aisle is to look at holding the industry more accountable by being competitive, transparent, engaging the healthcare consumer, and that the other side of the aisle doesn't just push through for spending more Federal dollars, where the proof is in the pudding. Neither approach has been working.

It is a tapeworm on the economy. Warren Buffett has got it correct. We need to put our heads together.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to oppose the confirmation of David Chipman, President Biden's nominee for Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Many Hoosiers are concerned about the nomination of Mr. Chipman, and rightfully so. His statements have made one thing clear: If confirmed, he will fail to uphold the constitutional right to bear arms.

He has stated under oath that he supports mandatory Federal registration of common semiautomatic firearms and ultimately supports a ban on AR-15 rifles.

Semiautomatic sporting rifles can be found in the homes of millions of law-abiding Americans, Hoosiers included, who use them for hunting, recreational shooting, and defending their families.

The ATF has a responsibility to clearly articulate its decisions to the public. In his confirmation hearing, Mr. Chipman revealed that he is not able to articulate what an assault rifle even is. His beliefs represent, in my opinion, a direct attack on our Second Amendment rights.

It is no surprise that organizations that have never opposed an ATF nominee before are loudly opposing the nomination of David Chipman.

Mr. Chipman's nomination comes as the ATF is already in need of more accountability for politicized decisions. American gun owners, manufacturers, and small business owners deserve clarity and the right to appeal politicized decisions made by the ATF.

Currently, the ATF engages in a secretive, behind-the-scenes classification review process to decide if a firearm will be regulated by the National Firearms Act. No law-abiding American should have to wonder if they are going to suddenly be made a criminal by a bureaucratic decision. It doesn't make sense.

That is why I joined Representative Dan Crenshaw in the House to introduce the ATF Accountability Act. Law-abiding gun manufacturers and small businesses should be able to appeal the legal status of classifications within a regular timeframe.

I yield the floor at this time.

Mr. President, here in a moment, I am going to ask for unanimous consent on the ATF Accountability Act and the Protecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act.

Governor Cuomo has declared gun violence a public health emergency in New York. ``We want to do with gun violence what we just did with COVID,'' Governor Cuomo says.

During the pandemic, Governor Cuomo and other elected officials used the public health emergency to infringe upon Americans' constitutional rights. They barred Americans from exercising their freedom of religion by closing churches. They infringed upon Americans' right to assemble by banning many gatherings, and now gun control activist organizations are pressuring President Biden to declare gun violence as a public health emergency.

Doing so would allow the administration to take Executive action to hold up gun sales.

Declaring a public health emergency should not give the executive branch the right to infringe upon our Second Amendment. This is why I introduced the Protecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act to stop this. This bill would prevent the White House from declaring an emergency for the purpose of imposing gun control.

I took an oath to represent Hoosiers and protect their Second Amendment rights. That is why I will oppose the nomination of David Chipman and why I will ask for unanimous consent to pass the ATF Accountability Act and the Protecting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1920 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; further, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, a quick response to that before I ask unanimous consent on the next item is that that is an argument I hear so often, that the city that supports some of the toughest State gun laws and local laws that ends up having the statistics that no one would want to have across our country and then would try to cast that blame on a neighboring State tells me that you are looking in the wrong place to solve the problem.

The ATF here, we are just wanting clarity--that is the purpose of this act, and I suggest that my friend from Illinois look at some of the more basic issues that might be underlying what is happening there.

Madam President, in the Senate here, prior to getting here, I have been a tree farmer since the late eighties and have been involved in the agricultural part of farming, other than driving the tractor, for a long time. And farming has got to be one of the most difficult things God ever created in terms of a complicated business that involves risk for a return that, in many cases, just isn't there. Thank goodness, currently, the markets are rewarding that effort and that great risk.

Environmental credits present an incredible opportunity for American farmers because that bottom line is so meager to begin with. And when you have got voluntarily markets out there that are wanting to reward good stewardship, it should be easy. But significant barriers still remain.

In today's market, if you are a small farmer, you are not able to connect with these markets. Only the large farmers, both tree and egg, can do it. This simplifies it; it democratizes it; and it does something, finally, that that small guy, the landowner, the American family farmer, can get some benefit for his or her good stewardship.

The Growing Climate Solutions Act creates a USDA certification program for third-party technical providers and verifiers. It allows the USDA to provide legitimacy to the trustworthy actors in the marketplace. And what is really unusual, in the short time I have been here in the U.S. Senate--it was a surprise yesterday, when I told some folks we are actually voting on something on the floor, and it has 55 cosponsors, almost evenly split between Democrats and Republicans.

More than 100 outside organizations back the bill. Farm bureaus, which are generally very conservative about doing anything where they are going to endorse, stick their neck out, across the board like it. I won't mention all the others. It also does it without adding a dime to our deficit. So it is doing something that has got bipartisan support, tapping voluntary markets, and just providing that portal that all farmers are familiar with to use as the way they take advantage of it.

We are demonstrating the right solution. We are making a statement that we need to be involved in addressing climate, and we are doing it in a place where, thank goodness, agriculture in this country is only 10 percent of the CO2 emissions. The rest is spread among electric generation, transportation, industrial emitters.

What that says, when it is 25 percent emissions across the world due to agriculture, there is a lot to be learned from this as well.

A quick comment on the amendment that we are going to vote on. The key point is, under both the underlying bill and the Lee amendment, the USDA will publish a list of entities on a USDA website for farmers to use.

The Senate Ag Committee worked closely with the Agency, both Under Secretaries Perdue and Vilsack, to ensure the bill provided the necessary quality checks so that the folks certified under the program know what they are doing.

The Lee amendment keeps the website but strikes these requirements.

This is why groups like the American Farm Bureau write that Senator Lee's amendment would dilute farmers' influence in the composition of the bill's advisory panel and also removes critical protections in the base bill.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Lee amendment and to support the underlying bill

I yield the floor.

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