Floor Statements

Madam President, now on another matter, 2 years ago, the Democratic leader addressed a crowd on the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened Justices if they didn't rule the way he wanted. Now far-left crowds are surrounding Justices' private family homes. They want to use intimidation to influence the outcome in a pending case. It should be easy for leaders to condemn. All Americans should agree

that judges and juries ought not to be subjected to threats or intimidation campaigns.

Admirably, some on the political left have spoken out against this fringe element. The Washington Post editorial board has condemned this. The No. 2 Senate Democrat, our colleague from Illinois, said:

I think it's reprehensible. Stay away from homes and

families.

His counterpart across the Capitol, the No. 2 House Democrat, Leader Hoyer, said:

We need to protect Supreme Court Justices and their

families, period. We're a nation of laws, not of violence,

not of intimidation . . . laws.

That was Steny Hoyer.

But Leader Schumer and the White House will not follow suit. They won't condemn the harassment. They have basically endorsed it. And top Democrats are standing in the way of concrete action.

A few days ago, the Senate unanimously passed legislation to give the Supreme Court's in-house police force some additional authorities they need to do their jobs. This isn't controversial stuff. It cleared this Chamber unanimously. But House Democrats have been unwilling to promptly pass it.

Congressman Jeffries suggested yesterday this uncontroversial bill might be shunted into a lengthy committee process. Why in the world would that be done? These are essentially clerical fixes. They breezed through the Senate without objection. But House Democratic leadership wants to drag this out with hearings and markups, while mobs assemble at people's houses?

I hope this is some misunderstanding. I hope Democrats are not intentionally stalling these security measures until after the Court has issued its rulings. This would be reprehensible.

At the end of Pennsylvania Avenue, either President Biden or Attorney General Garland has apparently decided not to enforce Federal law. Like I explained on Monday, section 1507 of the Criminal Code makes it a crime right now to picket or parade with the intent of influencing a judge at locations that include a judge's residence. That is the law right now. People have been doing exactly that for days and days right now. But the Garland Justice Department is nowhere in sight.

One would think a DOJ, run by the former chief judge of the DC Circuit, would need no prodding--no prodding--to protect judicial safety and judicial independence. But at least so far, the Attorney General was quicker to pounce on concerned parents at school board meetings.

The Governors of Maryland and Virginia have had to write a joint letter to the Attorney General begging him to make his U.S. attorneys do their job and uphold the law.

So, yesterday, I sent the DOJ my own letter asking the very same question. The Senate needs answers right now, and the Court needs security right now.

Madam President, on a related matter, yesterday, we observed the beginning of ceremonies honoring National Police Week. Soon we will mark Peace Officers Memorial Day.

Tens of thousands of law enforcement personnel from across the country will gather here in our Nation's Capital to honor the service and the sacrifice of their fallen brothers and sisters.

I would like to extend a warm welcome to the Kentuckians who have traveled here for the ceremonies. I am meeting with several of these law enforcement leaders this week to express my gratitude for their service.

The Commonwealth is home to every type of law enforcement officer you can imagine, from big city beat cops to smalltown sheriffs. They take a great risk every day to protect and to serve.

This week, I am thinking especially about the law enforcement officers Kentucky lost in the past year whose names will be added to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial tomorrow--heroes like Graves County jailer Robert T. Daniel, who sacrificed his own life to save endangered inmates as a tornado bore down on their workplace in which he was employed; community pillars like Jefferson County Deputy Sheriff Brandon Shirley, who was shot and killed while working a second job in his uniform; role models like Louisville Police Officer Zachary Cottongim, who was struck and killed by a car while attending to an abandoned vehicle on the side of the road.

Yesterday, I met with Officer Cottongim's widow and former partner who are here in Washington for tomorrow's memorial. We are all praying for them as they mourn this tragic loss.

I am proud to cosponsor the resolution that officially designated National Police Week this year. America's law enforcement personnel are always there when we need them most. The least--the least--Congress can do is have their backs.

Madam President, as I said earlier today, the Ukraine people are fighting valiantly in a war they didn't ask for. Their brave self-defense has literally shocked the skeptics and inspired freedom- loving people all around the world.

Ukraine is not asking us to fight this war. They are only asking for the resources they need to defend themselves against this deranged invasion, and they need this help right now.

Sending lethal assistance to Ukraine is not just some kind of philanthropy; this conflict has direct and major consequences for America's national security and America's national interests.

Russia's aggression cannot--cannot--be allowed to continue cost-free.

I understand my friend and colleague from Kentucky would like changes to the bill. Those changes are not acceptable to the Democratic majority, as we have just heard. So I think there is a simple way to solve this. We should vote on Senator Paul's amendment, and then we should pass the supplemental, and we should do it today.

Mr. President, this all-Democratic government has managed a unique kind of economic turnaround. They took an economy that was ready to soar, turned it around, and drove it into the ground. American families are being crushed by 8.5 percent inflation. Democrats' policies have unleashed the worst inflation in more than 40 years.

Last March, the Senate Democratic leader said:

I do not think the dangers of inflation . . . are very

real.

At that time, the most recent inflation figure was 1.7 percent. Inflation has more than quadrupled since Leader Schumer said he wasn't worried.

Now, remember, the same Democrats predicted the Republicans' 2017 tax reform bill would harm the economy and hurt working people. Instead, what it produced is the best economic moment for American workers in modern history. Falling unemployment, low inflation, and wages grew faster for the bottom 25 percent of earners than for the top.

So Democrats' worldview has been proven absolutely wrong. But, of course, last year, they put it into action anyway. Democrats dumped $2 trillion on a recovering economy and paid people a bonus to stay home from work, even after vaccines were available, and the American people are hurting as a result.

American workers' real average weekly earnings declined 3.6 percent over the last year. Inflation has more than wiped out the average worker's wage gains. President Biden has handed the average American a big pay cut--a pay cut.

The cost of the essentials that families need have been skyrocketing. Gas prices are now the highest they have ever been in American history--ever. Americans are now paying roughly $4.40 per gallon. That is up about 2 whole dollars from when President Biden put his hand on the Bible. Grocery prices have shot up 10 percent

over the past year. Housing costs are up more than 6 percent. Clothing is up nearly 7 percent. Each category is the worst it has been since at least the early 1980s.

Remember, if and when the inflation rate begins to gradually slow, that does not mean all of these sky-high prices for goods and services will actually fall back down. In many cases, this painful and preventable inflation will be baked into prices going forward. These Democratic price hikes will likely be American families' new normal at the checkout counter, a permanent--permanent--direct result of their failed policies.

Mr. President, now on a different matter, this week, our colleagues want a second run on some controversial nominees who stalled out last month.

Today, Senate Democrats will try again to confirm Professor Lisa Cook to the Federal Reserve Board. Professor Cook has no proven expertise in monetary economics at all, much less fighting inflation. One of her main supposed qualifications for this position is that she sits on the regional Fed Board in Chicago. The problem is, she was literally appointed to that position a few days before she was nominated for this one.

Professor Cook is a proven partisan who has promoted leftwing conspiracy theories and called for a fellow academic to be fired because that person did not support defunding the police. The American people deserve an independent, nonpartisan inflation fighter for this important post.

Likewise, the Federal Trade Commission is an important Agency that gets wide latitude to oversee our private sector. The American people need its Commissioners to be levelheaded experts who will put aside ideological ax-grinding.

The two current Commissioners who were appointed by a Republican President were so qualified and uncontroversial, the Senate approved each of them on a voice vote. But to serve as their newest colleague, President Biden has picked a radical partisan named Alvaro Bedoya.

Mr. Bedoya is such a poor fit that the first time Leader Schumer tried to shut down debate on his nomination, he lacked the votes and had to call it off. But Democrats want this hardcore partisan confirmed very badly, so here we are once again.

Mr. Bedoya has publicly attacked police and law enforcement and demanded that our country not enforce--not enforce--our immigration laws. He has called for States to essentially nullify Federal immigration law, saying:

Maryland police have no business working with ICE [and] I

think it's high time that state legislators understand that

they can do something about this.

He has volunteered statements that align with ``defund the police,'' demanding that none of the Democrats' trillions in stimulus waste should go to provide for law enforcement.

Mr. Bedoya's social media feeds have read like the rantings of a far- left activist with no aspiration to ever receive Senate confirmation.

He has embraced socialized medicine, critical race theory, and cracking down on citizens' Second Amendment rights. He has launched political attacks on current Senators and called the National Republican Party Convention a--listen to this--``White supremacist rally''--a ``White supremacist rally,'' the Republican National Convention.

The rabid partisanship is not just an extracurricular activity. We know Mr. Bedoya would apply it specifically to the work of the FTC. He is already on the record calling for the elimination of longstanding bipartisan FTC policy statements. He supports excluding minority party Commissioners from investigations.

This nominee would not be fit to neutrally oversee major economic decisions, no matter what the makeup of the Senate was. But he is an essentially foolish choice--foolish--when the American people handed this administration a 50-50 Senate.

I would urge my colleagues on both sides to stop this awful nomination so the President can reconsider and send us somebody suitable.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, 2 years ago, the Senate Democratic leader rallied a crowd on the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened Justices by name if they did not resolve an abortion case the way he wanted. Here was the quote:

I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh:

You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.

You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these

awful decisions.

This incitement triggered rare public rebukes from the Chief Justice himself and even the liberal American Bar Association. But, apparently, the radical left heard their marching orders loud and clear.

Since the precedent-setting leak of a draft opinion last week, the left has set out to harass and intimidate sitting judges as they consider a pending case. We have seen angry crowds assemble at Justices' private family homes. Activists publish a map of their addresses. Law enforcement has had to install a security fence around the Supreme Court itself.

Trying--trying--to scare Federal judges into ruling a certain way is far outside the bounds of First Amendment speech or protest; it is an attempt to replace the rule of law with the rule of mobs.

It appears this may possibly be flatout illegal. There is a Federal law on the books that criminalizes ``pickets or parades with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer'' at locations--listen to this--that include a judge's ``residence.''

Last year, Attorney General Garland's Justice Department was quick to treat the concerned parents of America like potential domestic terrorists. But, curiously, I haven't heard any announcement about how the DOJ may handle these intimidation tactics aimed directly at Federal judges.

Washington Democrats have gone out of their way to fuel the hysterical, potentially dangerous, climate. The President's statement about the unprecedented leak didn't condemn it. His Press Secretary has repeatedly appeared to endorse rallies at judge's private family residences as long as they don't turn into outright violence.

The senior Senator from Massachusetts stood on the Supreme Court steps and shouted:

We are gonna fight back.

Democrats are renewing their calls to break the Senate in order to pack the Court. They want to destroy two institutions for the price of one.

One liberal Georgetown law professor helpfully summarized their mission as follows: He explained this past weekend that the key moral difference between this pressure campaign and the January 6 riot is that, in this case--now listen to this--``the mob is right.''

So what has generated this reckless outrage? What is the Armageddon over which Democrats want to break the Senate, pack the Court, and condone potentially illegal rallies outside judges' family homes? Here is the case in question: whether the State of Mississippi can enact an abortion law that would still be more liberal--more liberal--than laws in Germany, France, and Switzerland.

This is the case that is driving these hysterics, the possibility that abortion laws might begin to move away from China and North Korea and closer to Germany, France, and Switzerland? That is what has prompted the calls to destroy our institutions and surround Justices' family homes. That is why a pro-life nonprofit in Wisconsin got a Molotov cocktail through its window and activists called for disruptions of Sunday worship.

Today's Democratic Party is profoundly out of step with the American people on this issue. Their extreme position ignores modern science and public opinion.

Leader Schumer wants the Senate to vote again on a Democratic bill that would effectively legalize abortion-on-demand through all 9 months. Their bill is written to protect abortionists rather than mothers. It would roll back health regulations. It would attack America's conscience rights and religious freedoms. It would overturn modest and overwhelmingly popular safeguards like waiting periods, informed consent laws, and possibly even parental notification. And it is written so that, in practice, it would allow elective abortion until birth.

Democrats' extreme position is radical on a global scale and wildly unpopular with the American people. Only 34 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases into the second trimester. That drops to 19 percent in the third trimester, but that is what the Democrats' bill would allow in practice.

Every Senate Democrat but two and every House Democrat except a handful has put their name on this as cosponsors. That means 97 percent of Washington Democrats support a position that only 19 percent of Americans actually want. I will say that again. Ninety-seven percent of Democrats in Congress are cosponsors of an outcome that has 19 percent public support.

Notwithstanding inflation, energy insecurity, open borders, a violent crimewave, and a war in Europe, Democrats want to spend this week explaining their extremism. Some Democrats even want to try again to break the Senate in order to ram this through. I have clearly stated I will never, never support smashing the legislative filibuster on this issue or any other. Yet Democrats want to wreck our institutions over their fringe position that Americans do not share.

I can understand why my colleagues want to distract from their governing record. Their policies have created a living nightmare for working families. But Democrats' extreme and unpopular position on abortion is not going to bail them out. It just gives Americans yet another reminder that the radicals are running the show.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, in Albany, NY, a grandmother of four reported recently that rising prices have forced her and her husband, a retired New York police officer, to cut back on eating out. ``I feel it in the pocketbook,'' she said.

In Grand Rapids, MI, one young family reported that, before inflation took off, ``the paycheck went a little bit further.'' Now, on essentials like gas and groceries, ``there's no wiggle room.''

In Springfield, MO, a food truck owner said that he and his wife are having to take business farther and farther from home despite gas prices.

Stories like these aren't exceptions; they are the rule. Working Americans have been absolutely swamped by rising prices.

Two-thirds of Americans told one recent survey that inflation has been difficult or even a hardship for their families. Fewer than one in five says the Biden administration's policies have done anything to improve economic conditions, and yet, as we speak, with the economy already scuffling, Washington Democrats are proposing more reckless spending and the biggest tax hike in American history. For example, President Biden is considering trying to buy up his sinking approval ratings by magically waving away $1.6 trillion in student loan obligations.

So let's put a few things into perspective.

More than a third of Americans did not pursue education beyond high school. Of the Americans who did receive additional schooling, barely one in four holds any student debt at all. In fact, an outright majority of the $1.6 trillion in Federal student debt is held by professionals with advanced degrees.

Working people who chose to avoid taking on debt should not have to bail out high-earning doctors, lawyers, and dentists or adults who borrowed six figures for an Ivy League master's.

President Biden wants to effectively funnel money away from people who decided to learn a trade, away from people who chose community college, away from people who made tough sacrifices to actually pay off their loans in order to buy more enthusiasm from one of the Democrats' loudest and farthest left constituencies. Young liberal professionals with elite degrees and massive earning potential get a giant handout, and working people in rural America get the bill.

As one scholar from a left-leaning think tank puts it:

Almost a third of all student debt is owed by the

wealthiest 20 percent of households [while] only 8 percent by

the bottom 20 percent.

He concludes:

Student debt is concentrated among high-wealth households,

and loan forgiveness is regressive whether measured by

income, educational attainment, or wealth.

Even among the small slice of Americans who do have some student debt, the majority owes less than $20,000. Ah, but the senior Senator from Massachusetts has proposed a cap that would cover debt up to 2\1/ 2\ times that amount. She is laser focused on giving the future lawyers and future doctors of Cambridge, MA, this massive gift before this November.

You literally have Democrat State attorneys general writing the administration, demanding the Federal government ``exercise its authority to cancel federal student loan debt for every [single] borrower.''

Student loan socialism would be a giant slap in the face to every family who sacrificed to save for college; to every graduate who paid their debt; to every worker who made a different career choice so they could stay debt-free.

Now, a little more than a year ago, President Biden was saying:

I don't think I have the authority to do it by signing with

a pen.

Speaker Pelosi affirmed that view, saying:

People think the president . . . has the power for debt

forgiveness--he does not.

Even the former general counsel at the Obama Education Department concluded:

The Executive Branch likely does not have the unilateral

authority to engage in mass student debt cancelation.

But, apparently, lackluster poll numbers have the President considering breaking the law and plowing ahead anyway.

So think about this very concretely. Democrats want construction workers, police officers, and small business owners in Kentucky to effectively eat the student loans of surgeons, corporate lawyers, and people in New York City who chose to borrow $180,000 for a master's from the Columbia film school, with no plan whatsoever for paying it back.

In addition to making inflation even worse across the board, this jubilee for the elites would do nothing to combat runaway costs in higher education. Mindless subsidies would just make the runaway costs even worse. I would like to see one single Democrat visit the working people in Kentucky and defend this proposal with a straight face.

Democrats' policies already have working Americans facing the worst inflation in more than 40 years as well as the risk of a recession. But instead of trying to help middle-class families, Democrats are cooking up massive bailouts for Ivy League graduates. You can hardly dream up something more unfair.

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

Mr. President, the week before last, it was my honor to sit down with a number of law enforcement officials in my hometown of Louisville, but I wish we could have met under happier circumstances.

Our city is contending with a tragic and record-setting jump in crime. Last year, Louisville saw 188 homicides--the most in any year on record. In the last 2 years, carjackings have tripled, and deadly drugs are becoming so prevalent on our streets that Jefferson County saw 500 overdose deaths in 2021.

Unfortunately, the historic wave of crime that has swept my hometown is challenging communities all across America. The murder rates of at least a dozen other major cities set alltime records last year. Chicago saw its most carjackings in 20 years, and in the first quarter of 2022, New York's crime rate was already up--listen to this--44 percent.

Needless to say, this is a time for strong law enforcement. Studies show that fewer police and less active policing make crime worse and leave the most vulnerable communities particularly worse off.

But our Nation's police officers aren't just facing higher volumes of crime; they are facing more direct, personal risks to confront it. Last year, as overall homicide counts continued to climb past 2020's record total, killings of police officers saw a staggering 59-percent spike of their own: 73--73--men and women sworn to protect and serve their communities were killed in 2021 while trying to do exactly that, and, already, 2022 has seen more than 100 more officers shot in the line of duty.

The surge in anti-police violence that boiled over in the summer of 2020 has taken its toll on the men and women of law enforcement. An exhaustive report

compiled by the city of Louisville last year found that morale-- morale--among our officers is alarmingly low. A full 75 percent would leave for another police department. Not surprisingly, this has led to a severe staffing shortage on the force. Our police chief even took out billboard ads in Atlanta--in Atlanta--to try to recruit officers from other cities.

Now more than ever, we need to fund law enforcement, support police officers, and back the blue, but too many Democrats are apparently bent on doing just the opposite. The far left's call to defund the police has taken root at every level of government. Elected officials--sworn to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution--have chosen instead to amplify distrust of the men and women who work every day to enforce our laws.

So let's just consider whom the Biden administration has prioritized for confirmation to top jobs in the Justice Department.

There is the new U.S. attorney with a reputation for pushing to cancel entire categories of the Criminal Code and the assistant attorneys general who have advocated for efforts to ``decrease police budgets'' and ``invest less in police.''

There is the newly minted Supreme Court Justice who advocated in her last job that the COVID pandemic was an appropriate reason to let inmates out of jail right here in Washington.

Just last week, our colleagues on the Judiciary Committee considered a nominee to the circuit court with an unapologetic record of hostility toward law enforcement. Without any basis in fact, Nusrat Choudhury suggested that police murdering unarmed Black men ``happens every day.'' Happens every day?

When our colleague the junior Senator from Louisiana called her out on it, the nominee tried to claim that she had only made the statement as an act of ``rhetorical advocacy''--``rhetorical advocacy''--on behalf of a client.

Unsurprisingly, that answer hasn't done much to ease the concerns of America's law enforcement community. Major organizations representing officers--from the Sergeants Benevolent Association to the National Sheriffs' Association, to the Fraternal Order of Police--have voiced strong, strong opposition and called on President Biden to ``take a stand against this dangerous and absurdly''--absurdly--``divisive rhetoric.''

Well, needless to say, the President and his administration need to do a lot more than that to prove to the men and women of law enforcement that they have their backs.

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

Mr. President, for years, the radical left has attacked the institution of the Supreme Court. Last night, it appears their campaign hit a new low.

Historically, the Justices, clerks, and staff have prized and protected the Court's confidentiality. The Justices must be able to discuss and deliberate in an environment of total trust and privacy. Americans cannot receive a fair trial if politicians, pundits, bullies, and mobs get a say in court. Judicial independence is vital, but the far left has spent years shamelessly attacking it. Democrats in Congress have endorsed plans for partisan Court packing. They have sent the Justices threatening legal briefs. They have scheduled sham hearings to smear judges.

In 2020, the Senate Democratic leader marched across the street to the Court and shouted threats--threats--at multiple Justices by name if they didn't rule how he wanted.

In 2018, activists literally chased Senators around the Capitol.

Now, last night, a shocking--shocking--new breach: Somebody--likely somebody inside the Court itself--leaked a confidential internal draft to the press, almost certainly in an effort to stir up an inappropriate pressure campaign to sway an outcome.

The radical left immediately rallied around the toxic stunt. The cheerleaders for partisan Court packing applauded what they suggested was the work of ``a brave clerk'' making ``a last-ditch Hail Mary attempt'' to cause a political firestorm and ``cause the Court to reconsider.''

Liberals want to rip the blindfold off Lady Justice. They want to override impartiality with intimidation. They want to elevate mob rule over the rule of law. The same political movement that used a leak to move up the timeline of Justice Breyer's retirement process is trying to use yet another leak to make the Court less secure and less impartial.

Never before--never before--in modern history has an internal draft been leaked to the public while the Justices were still deciding the case. Never before.

Whoever committed this lawless act knew exactly what it could bring about. The Justices already require security. Less than 2 weeks ago, an unbalanced person lit himself on fire on the Court steps. Less than 3 years ago, a liberal mob tried to storm the Court, shoving past law enforcement and pounding on the doors.

Look, everybody knows what kind of climate the far left is trying to fuel: one that is antithetical--antithetical--to the rule of law. Right on cue, top Democrats began publishing wild statements about what the Court might decide, packed with using unhinged rhetoric that could easily incite, light a match.

So what else happened? Activists flocked to the Court. An angry crowd surrounded the Court, chanting Justices' names--their renewed call to smash the institutions of both the Senate and the Court at the same time. One of the Court's most essential and sacred features was smashed just to buy the outraged industrial complex a few extra days to scream nonsense about what the Court might rule.

This lawless action should be investigated and punished to the fullest extent possible--fullest extent possible. I am certain the Chief Justice will seek to get to the bottom of this. If a crime was committed, the Department of Justice must pursue it completely.

So, listen, I want all nine Justices to know there are still principled Senators who have their backs no matter what. There are still some people in this Capitol--and a majority in the Senate--whose support for the rule of law is not conditional, not conditional. The Court should tune out the bad-faith noise and feel completely free to do their jobs. They should follow the facts and the law wherever that leads.

As I have warned in the past, courts bowing to activist pressure would never enhance judicial legitimacy. It could only erode it. And the hostage takers would never settle for half a loaf.

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

Madam President, inflation has hit a staggering 8.5 percent on Democrats' watch as a result of Democrats' policies.

Last week, the Commerce Department announced that personal consumption expenditures climbed at their fastest rate this past year since 1982--40 years ago. Americans are paying 10 percent more on groceries than they were a year ago and about $1.25 more for a gallon of gas. In every aisle of the supermarket, in every big box store, the prices families pay for essentials have skyrocketed.

As the owner of a coffeehouse in my hometown of Louisville put it, ``We are trying not to pass on too much to the customers, but it comes to a time when you just have to.''

The owner of a longstanding butcher shop nearby said:

``We're all holding our breath.'' That goes for small

business owners and shoppers alike.

One new poll found that 94 percent of Americans are upset or concerned about inflation, and they are overwhelmingly not happy--not happy--with what the Biden administration is doing about it. Just 28 percent of the country approved of President Biden's handling of inflation.

The worst part is that this pain was certainly not inevitable. American families could have been spared all of this.

Last spring, Democrats inherited an economy that was ready for a historic comeback. Even top liberal economists such as Larry Summers and Jason Furman--both senior advisers to the Obama White House-- warned--warned--that Democrats' $2 trillion spending binge was completely out of proportion to the remaining output gap. The country didn't need anything like it.

Summers warned of ``inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.''

Furman said:

It's definitely too big for the moment.

But Democratic politicians didn't listen. Here in the Senate, the Democratic leader said:

I do not think the dangers of inflation, at least in the

near-term, are very real.

That was Leader Schumer last March.

So they spent all that money anyway, and, sadly, for the American people, the rest is now history. Democrats

spent $2 trillion of the American people's money and purchased the worst inflation in more than 40 years.

Well, actually, that is not all it purchased.