[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 23, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S800-S801]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Biden Administration

  Mr. President, I wish that we could write off this nomination as an 
anomaly, but we can't. It is part of a pattern of behavior on the left 
that has destabilized our already fragile political discourse and 
convinced the American people that the Biden administration will 
prioritize their radical liberal agenda above the rights of the people 
they were elected to serve.
  I have to tell you, I hear about this every single day as I am 
talking with Tennesseeans. Since the earliest days of the Republic, our 
Union has managed to survive because of the people's willingness to 
return to our founding principles--those first principles upon which we 
stand.
  However much that they disagreed, they knew that they were stronger 
united than they were divided. So they would come together in the 
public square. They would have robust, respectful debate. They would 
agree to disagree, but they respected the fact that they lived in a 
free country, and they could do this without fear of persecution, 
without fear of being ostracized, and without fear of losing a job.
  Today, Americans are looking for that same commitment to unity. Oh, 
they heard about it during the inaugural address. Unity--we are going 
to work for unity. But what has happened is a cord of panic and fear 
has been struck in their hearts as they see Executive order after 
Executive order and as they see Executive orders that are preferencing 
other countries and not the U.S.A. And as they hear from the left words 
that are, We are not looking for unity; what we are looking for is you 
to submit to our agenda, conform to our way of doing things. What they 
are doing is leaving no room for discussion, even on issues of 
international importance.
  For decades, the various schools of thought represented in this 
Chamber have advocated for different approaches to foreign relations. 
Some revere international bodies and sweeping multilateral agreements, 
and others approach these constructs with caution, prioritizing 
national sovereignty over surface-level diplomacy.
  When former President Trump formally withdrew from the Paris climate 
accords in 2019, economists, business owners, and budget watchdogs all 
breathed a sigh of relief because they knew that adherence to the Paris 
climate accords would put the United States at a competitive 
disadvantage. This wasn't a partisan debate, mind you; this was U.S.-
based companies--U.S.-based companies that were saying thank you for 
withdrawing because adhering to this, when other countries that are our 
competitors will not adhere, puts us at a disadvantage.
  Now, with the climate accords, by 2035, we would have seen hundreds 
of thousands of people lose their jobs, household electric bills go up 
as much as 20 percent, and an aggregate GDP free fall of $2\1/2\ 
trillion. That is the cost. That is the cost of my way or the 
highway. That is the cost of putting other countries and their agenda 
ahead of us, the cost of their noncompliance.

  Fast-forward to a little over a year later, and the Biden 
administration has thrown us back into the accords and back into that 
predicted economic free fall.
  This week, I worked with my colleague Senator Daines to introduce two 
pieces of legislation that will hopefully do a little bit of damage 
control on that issue.
  The first is a bill that would prohibit taxpayer dollars from being 
used to rejoin the Paris Agreement. It makes sense. The reason it does 
is you are taking jobs away from U.S. employers. You are causing 
employees to become former employees or the unemployed. So it makes 
sense. If you want to do this, don't use taxpayer dollars. Don't make 
people pay for things that are going to take away their jobs.
  The second is a resolution that would call on President Biden to 
submit the Paris Agreement to the Senate for approval. It makes sense. 
Where are treaties to come? Here. If you want unity,

[[Page S801]]

send things to the Senate. If you are proud of the step you are taking, 
send it to the Senate. Let there be a vote of the people's 
representatives. Let there be discussion. Do we fear discussion? Do we 
fear debate? Are we so given to the cancel culture that we just say it 
is our way or the highway?
  I would note that submitting these types of agreements for 
consideration is a bare minimum standard set out in the Constitution, 
and there is no legitimate reason anyone in this Chamber should object 
to that. They should welcome respectful, robust debate.
  I think we can all agree that this oversight duty is an important 
one, and I would ask my colleagues to join me in letting the 
administration know we are not going to abandon it simply because it 
would make things more convenient for them.
  Freedom and preserving freedom are not always convenient. It takes a 
lot of hard work. It takes this body doing its job. It doesn't take 
``my way or the highway'' Executive orders coming out of the White 
House.
  On Inauguration Day, President Biden promised unity: all for it, 
wanted to see it, going to work for it--nice words. But so far he has 
done nothing but hide behind those Executive orders and force through 
policies that even members of his own party object to.
  In Tennessee, I have talked to many who have, for most of their 
lives, been Democrats, and they are stunned--indeed, they are very 
concerned--about this authoritarian approach to running the country. 
Sign an Executive order and be done with it, hearing that the Speaker 
of the House has a few people who can vote proxy for people, seeing all 
this fencing around the Capitol causes Tennesseans to say: What in the 
world is going on up there? This is not how we are supposed to act.
  And I will tell you, to my friends across the aisle, one day this 
tactic is going to backfire on the millions of Americans who are 
standing up. They are contacting us. They are speaking out. They are 
having buyer's remorse. It will be something that will backfire because 
this is not the way we should be running our country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Iowa.
  (The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 391 
are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.