[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 120 (Wednesday, July 20, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3521-S3527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume legislative session.
The Senator from Florida.
Unanimous Consent Requests--S. 3086 and S. 4571
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further
consideration of S. 3086 and the Senate
[[Page S3522]]
proceed to its immediate consideration; further, 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SCHATZ. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4571, which is at the
desk; 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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Across the country, American families are
fighting harder every week to make ends meet as they deal with
President Biden's raging inflation crisis. Food prices are up. Gas
prices remain at unbearably high levels, and too many families are
having to make the impossible decision of whether to put gas in the
tank or food on the table. It is so tough to be a family in that
position.
I know all too well how this feels and the impacts these high prices
have on families. I grew up in a poor family, with a mom who worked
long hours at her job and also picked up odd jobs just so our family
could get by. We never had any extra money, so when prices went up, we
had to go without.
Families all across the country are in that same spot. People who
have never visited food banks are having to turn to them to feed their
families. Folks are being forced to pawn their things just to afford
gas. It is heartbreaking and makes me furious. Reports are showing it
is happening across America--in Reno, NV; Macon, GA; Yakima, WA; and
the cities in my home State of Florida, like Pensacola and Fort Myers.
These people have to turn to their local pawn shops as they see their
monthly bills grow higher and higher. When President Biden said that we
are going through ``an incredible transition,'' is this what he meant--
Mom and Dad having to sell Bobby's PlayStation and Suzy's doll
collection just so they can afford to take them to school?
Since day 1, President Biden has led a campaign against energy
independence. The White House, EPA, the Department of the Interior, and
the Department of Energy have done everything in their power to make
life more expensive for American families. They have implemented one
policy after another to raise the price of gas and make life tougher
and tougher for hard-working families.
The American people deserve transparency into Biden's Green New Deal
agenda and ought to know why these prices keep going up. That is why I
introduced the GAS PRICE Act last October. Even then, far before the
horrible war in Ukraine began, gas prices were surging higher.
My bill is pretty simple. It would require the Energy Information
Administration to report to Congress on any Federal Agency policies or
regulations that it determines will cause energy prices to rise. All it
does is ask a Federal Agency to provide information to Congress with a
statement of facts on what is causing rising energy prices. Then we can
take this information, see what needs to be fixed, and help the
American people.
I want to thank Senators Marshall, Lummis, Capito, Johnson, Moran,
Blackburn, and Kennedy for cosponsoring this legislation. I also want
to thank Senator Sullivan and Senator Lee for joining me here on the
floor today to talk about the energy inflation Joe Biden is imposing on
Americans.
Considering that we, as Senators, are trusted by the people of our
States to enact policies that improve their lives, I cannot imagine why
anyone would oppose this legislation. Sadly, when I came to the Senate
floor last year to pass this bill, Senate Democrats opposed it.
At that time, I noted that the national average cost was $3.36 per
gallon. Sounds like a bargain today. Since then, the price of gas has
risen dramatically. The average has increased to $4.46. In 15 of the 17
months Joe Biden has been in office, the price of gas has risen.
When I introduced my bill in October, President Biden said he didn't
``have a near-term answer'' for reducing gas prices. Well, clearly
not--his answer was to raise prices and continue his radical Green New
Deal agenda.
Senate Republicans, meanwhile, do have a plan and have offered
solutions. I have introduced the FREE American Energy Act to expedite
the Federal Agencies' review process of applications for permits,
waivers, licenses, or other authorizations related to energy
production. But we can take a simple first step today by giving
ourselves more information on rising energy prices and pass my GAS
Price Act.
For the sake of American families, we need to figure out what the
heck is going on. So while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
blocked my bill from passing last year, my hope was that, as they have
watched their constituents suffer for months now under Biden's
leadership, they would have a change of heart. Sadly, that is not what
happened today. It is an absolute shame what has happened in this
Chamber.
I came here with my Republican colleagues to promote and pass
legislation that would improve the lives of American people and make
America less dependent on foreign oil. We came here asking for answers
into Biden's Green New Deal agenda. We are here responding to the pain
American families are facing at the gas pump and trying to solve
problems.
Senate Democrats, meanwhile, have come here to obstruct and blame
shift. They didn't come here to solve problems. They didn't come here
with a different proposal that would alleviate gas prices and ensure
long-term energy independence and sustainability. They came here to
make the problem worse. They want to emulate the policies of Germany
and California, where rolling blackouts and energy rations are a
looming threat and where gas has spent most of this year at over $6 per
gallon.
This is not the way forward. The Senate need leaders who are going to
come in and put Americans first. I am grateful for colleagues like
Senator Sullivan and Senator Lee, who are here to do that. But I hope
the American people have been watching what has happened today and see
who it is who really cares about the problems they are facing.
I yield the floor to my colleague from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Thank you to the Senator from Florida.
Mr. President, President Biden has wasted no time--no time at all--in
embarking on his crusade to hamstring American energy production.
On day 1 of his Presidency, President Biden halted all new oil and
gas lease sales on Federal land. Now Americans are paying the price.
Across the Nation, people struggle to fill their gas tanks, as prices
climb to over $5 a gallon, but there is apparently no need to worry.
According to the President, Americans' pain at the pump is merely part
of an energy ``transition,'' as he puts it.
It is important to note here that this transition is a transition
away from affordable, reliable fossil fuels.
It is not that high gas prices are a problem to be fixed but, rather,
high gas prices somehow are the solution. They are what will facilitate
this transition. The President is getting the results that he wants.
This is a feature, the ultimate feature. It is the end goal, not a bug
in his plan.
Despite this being part of the plan and, in fact, his objective, it
didn't take long for the President to realize how unpopular high
gasoline prices really are. Now he is trying to take credit for even a
slight reduction in gasoline prices. First, by no means is this
reduction sufficient. Second, we can't attribute that reduction to the
President's policies.
To be clear, placing a moratorium on the sale of oil and gas leases
on Federal land is outside the President's authority. If the President
actually possessed that authority, he wouldn't have attempted to
portray this as a temporary pause. It is clear that this is a thinly
veiled attempt to enact the most radical climate policies our country
has
[[Page S3523]]
ever seen--policies that have never been enacted by Congress and
policies that Congress would not enact.
Our suspicions were confirmed when Gina McCarthy, the President's
climate adviser, said during an interview:
President Biden remains absolutely committed to not moving
forward with additional drilling on public lands.
So much for a temporary moratorium.
Confused as to whether Ms. McCarthy's statement represented the
administration's policy, I asked Interior Secretary Deb Haaland whether
it was indeed the administration's intention to indefinitely pause the
sale of all Federal oil and gas leases. She responded: ``I don't
know.''
``I don't know'' is not an acceptable answer to the Utah communities
who rely on those oil and gas leases. ``I don't know'' is not an
acceptable answer to Americans paying over $5 a gallon for gas. ``I
don't know'' isn't an answer to the Americans who have found every
aspect of their lives rendered unaffordable by this administration's
policies, and now this only adds insult to injury.
The American people simply cannot endure President Biden's clear-as-
mud policies any longer. I have introduced legislation to reaffirm that
under the Mineral Leasing Act, the President of the United States
absolutely does not have the authority to hold the country's domestic
energy production hostage. Their continued efforts are coming at the
expense of struggling families.
The Biden administration is fighting in court for Presidential
authority to enact sweeping changes to American energy policy on a
whim. While I believe the courts will arrive at the same conclusion, we
can act now to ensure citizens and companies receive the certainty they
deserve.
We could end this crusade today if we enacted this legislation and
get to work securing American energy independence for generations to
come. It is for that reason that I was disappointed when my friend and
colleague on the other side of the aisle came and objected to passing
this by unanimous consent today. It does, in fact, state what the law
already provides anyway. It shouldn't hurt us to make it obvious. Yet
he objected even though this policy is harming the American people.
It is disappointing that it had to end this way today, but this is
not over. No, we will be back. We will be back as often and for as long
as it takes in order to give the American people the relief that they
need and that they definitely deserve.
Now I yield the time to my friend and colleague, the Senator from
Alaska.
Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you to my friends from the great State of Utah
and the great State of Florida, Senator Scott and Senator Lee.
Mr. President, I want to explain to any American who is watching just
what happened here because, to be honest, it is kind of shocking what
just took place.
Senator Scott came down to the floor. He had a bill, S. 3086.
Normally when you have a bill that is considered pretty
noncontroversial, you can come down and do what is called a unanimous
consent, which is you ask the Senate: Do you want to pass the bill? And
if anyone objects, they actually have to come down and object in the
Senate Chamber.
So what does S. 3086 bill do? Here is the language: ``to require the
Energy Information Administration to submit to Congress and make
publicly available an annual report on Federal Agency policies and
regulations and Executive orders that have increased or may increase
energy prices in the United States.'' That is it. That is it. That is
the bill. It is one page--less than one page. It is two paragraphs.
All we were doing was asking, why are energy prices in America going
through the roof, and is the Federal Government contributing to that
through its actions and regulations? It is a really important question.
Why is it an important question? It is an important question because
when you get out of this bubble in DC and you go home--like I was just
home in Alaska last weekend--energy costs and inflation are the No. 1
issue hurting American families--the No. 1 issue. So shouldn't we in
the Senate want to know why it is happening?
Now, look, what else happened here--a little bit of inside baseball
in the Senate--when a Senator comes down and objects to a UC, usually
he gives a strong reason why--strong: Here is my reason why this bill
is bad for the country, and I am going to object.
You may have seen my colleague object and say ``I am getting the heck
out of here; I am not going to explain this'' because there is no
reason to object to this--none. So he objected and left. He didn't try
to defend objecting to this, because every American wants to know.
It is the biggest issue back home, but here is another reason we need
the bill: because this President has come up with excuse after excuse
after excuse on why energy costs since he got into office have gone
through the roof. Let me give you a couple of examples.
He first said: Well, we are emerging from the pandemic, and the
supply chain couldn't keep up with demand.
All right, if that is really true, let the Energy Information
Administration--of the Biden administration, by the way--see if that is
one of the reasons.
OK. Then he said: Well, shoot, the pandemic is kind of over so it is
Putin's invasion of Ukraine that is driving the increase in energy
prices. Putin's unprovoked, brutal war--which it is unprovoked and
brutal--has led to higher energy prices.
And President Biden then started to say it is Putin's price hike. No
one is buying that one either because energy prices were spiking way
before the brutal invasion of Ukraine.
So then the President started saying: Well, it is COVID and Putin.
OK. Then he started blaming the oil companies. Then he started to say:
Well, we have all these amazing permits that we want the oil companies
drilling on, but they are not using them.
So we need Senator Scott's legislation because the Biden
administration, the President himself, has put out all these ideas on
why Americans are getting crushed by inflation and high costs at the
pump. Yet the one thing the President hasn't done, has never talked
about, is he hasn't looked internally and said: Hmm, maybe it is my own
administration's policies that are driving up energy costs. Maybe. By
the way, it is not maybe; it is certainly. And my colleagues have
talked about this. Heck, I talked about this earlier today. I talk
about it every day because it is crushing my home State and my
constituents.
But what we want the Energy Information Administration to look at is
possibly these reasons: Day 1, this administration came in and said: We
are going to limit production of American energy.
Anyone who went to econ 101 in college knows that when you start to
limit supply, prices go up. Well, that is a culprit.
No. 2, from day 1, they said: We are going to shut down, kill, and
delay moving energy through infrastructure--pipelines, LNG terminals.
They are doing that all the time. So that is a policy, those are
Executive orders limiting the ability to move energy. That sends up
costs.
No. 3 is that they have actively gone to the American financial
sector--the Biden administration--and told them not to invest in
American energy, choking off capital. That increases prices.
So Senator Scott's bill would simply ask the experts in the Federal
Government, the Energy Information Administration, to just take a look:
What is driving up the cost of American energy? What is crushing
middle-class working families?
And the reason my colleague objected and then ran off the floor
without saying anything is because everybody here knows what the answer
is going to be: Joe Biden has done this. It is his policies that are
driving up energy costs.
And here is the thing that Senator Lee touched on, and this is the
thing that should scare everybody. It is likely purposeful. Pain is the
point. They are all talking about this wonderful, glorious transition.
Gina McCarthy talks about: Hey, if the prices go up, it will accelerate
the transition to renewables. They don't give a damn about the people
who are suffering. It is all this green utopia stuff.
All we are asking for is what is driving up the cost of energy on the
backs of working-class Americans? That is it. A two-paragraph bill, and
my colleagues came and objected to it. And
[[Page S3524]]
every American should know this. They don't want you to know what we
all know, which is this: The pain at the pump is the purposeful
policies of the Biden administration, and the American people are
paying for it.
We want the Federal Government to look into the details of this, and
the Democrats were just now objecting to that transparent information
request. And, in my view, it is shameful.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
(The remarks of Mr. MANCHIN and Ms. COLLINS pertaining to the
introduction of S. 4573 and S. 4574 are printed in today's Record under
``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
Ms. COLLINS. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Smith). The Senator from Oklahoma.
Border Security
Mr. LANKFORD. Madam President, if this body were to look at the tests
and the homework, the quizzes, and the essays of the Department of
Homeland Security and give them a grade based on their performance for
the last year and a half, what would the grade be?
DHS says they have six missions, and they detail out those missions.
One of those missions reads: Secure U.S. borders and approaches. Then
they give this little piece behind it to describe that.
The Department of Homeland Security secures the Nation's air, land,
and sea borders to prevent illegal activity while facilitating lawful
travel and trade. What would their grade be on that? And is anyone
going to hold them to account for their grade or is this body going to
continue to just ignore what is happening on the southern border?
It is the role, it is the task, it is the responsibility of the
Department of Homeland Security to help secure our Nation, but this
Department is currently facilitating illegal immigration, not stopping
illegal immigration.
I wish I was wrong on that, but I am not. In fact, as recent as the
last 2 weeks, I met with DHS leadership who described to me the new
method they have laid out so you can apply for asylum, come to the
United States and come to any airport in the country. So you wouldn't
have to come through the southern border; you would just come in. But
it would be the same process as what is happening on the southern
border where people from 150 countries just this year have crossed our
border. They have been checked in by Border Patrol, who know full well
they are not legally present here. Then they are released into the
country and given 8 years until their hearing--8 years.
Instead of responding to be able to slow down the more than 2 million
people who have illegally crossed in just the last year, this
administration is actually working to say it is actually not enough
people. They are increasing the access points to increase the number of
people rather than decrease.
The administration was proud to be able to say in May and in June
that the numbers went down slightly from what they were in the previous
months. The problem with that is, the previous month was a record, and
so was the month before that. If you look at just the June number that,
yes, was slightly down from May, it is still the highest June ever
recorded by the administration.
We are being overwhelmed with the number of people coming in
illegally across our border. The administration is currently releasing
people, and their sole focus seems to be on making illegal immigration
more efficient rather than more enforced.
What grade would you give DHS? A more specific question: Mr.
President, do you want to stop illegal immigration? Because I don't
think you do. And I think it is clear that the policies you put in
place are directly leading to this record influx of illegal immigration
from all over the world.
I wish you could even say: Well, at least we vetted them, but I know
that is not true, and so do you. Not a single one of these people
entering the country has their criminal background check from the
country they are from. We are doing a quick fingerprint analysis to see
if they have committed a crime here, but we have no idea of the 150
countries-plus that they are coming from because right now the goal is
not to check their criminal history; it is to get them released in the
country within 8 hours. Keep it moving. Keep it moving. You don't want
to have a clog up at the border. When they cross the border, the goal
is to just keep them moving into the country.
Last weekend, I spent the weekend again at our southern border.
Serving on the Homeland Security Committee, I spend a lot of time back
and forth across that border to be able to evaluate what is happening
now because it changes from week to week.
I was in the Rio Grande Valley last weekend spending time with CBP,
the Border Patrol, individuals from Air and Marine Operations, from the
Department of DPS in Texas, from the National Guard. All of them
expressed incredible frustration.
When I got there last Thursday night late, we went on a midnight
patrol with Border Patrol. Literally within minutes, we ran through our
first group of folks coming across the border, a group of teenagers.
Minutes later, literally while that group was being processed, another
group was interdicted coming across the border not far away. This time
it was 6- and 7-year-old children and a couple of families. While we
watched them being processed, they called us on the radio and said that
about 2 miles down, they just picked up another group. This time, it
was adults, including one pregnant lady who was deep into her eighth
month coming across the border to make sure she delivered here in the
United States.
One hundred fifty-plus countries just this year are crossing the
border because it is open.
I hear the Secretary of DHS say they have secured the border. As I
just came from the border, I wonder when the President of the United
States is going to actually go to the border to be able to see what is
actually happening on the border and the policies they put in place,
because so far the President has been able to make it to Saudi Arabia
but has not been able to make it to our own southern border to even
look once at what is happening on our southern border.
If he goes--someday, I hope--I hope he meets with Border Patrol
because the Border Patrol agents I talk to tell me about a time when
the border was secure. They tell me about a time not long ago that we
added forcible borders and where the policy wasn't to release within
hours and the enforcement priority wasn't to get them moving as fast as
possible; it was to actually secure the border.
You could meet with the landowners, like I did last weekend, who live
in that area. Some of them have lived there for generations, and they
are absolutely furious because although they have lived there--and
their family--for generations, they have never ever experienced this.
They tell me about how, when they were children, they used to play in
this area, and now literally they will not walk out their own door
without a firearm on their hip. They told me about multiple vehicles
being stolen from their property, windows being smashed at all hours of
the day and night, and people walking up to their windows and peering
inside.
One rancher told me about his wife, who is pregnant, and his child,
who is 2--how they literally fear for their lives every day because of
the number of people who are coming across their property and for him
personally, the number of dead bodies that they found on their property
just this year. This wasn't happening before.
They had a very simple request. Their simple request was: I am an
American. Why does my property not count? Why do my rights not count?
The only rights that seem to count are people who are illegally
crossing the border. Their rights seem to count, but the rights of
Americans do not.
Mr. President, would you be willing to answer his question? Would you
be willing to talk to his wife and explain to her why there are bodies
on their ranch and people are peering in their windows at all hours and
they can't live in safety on their own ranch? That was different just 3
years ago. Would you be willing to explain to them what has changed in
your policies, because the goal of this administration seems to be
efficient movement of illegal immigration, not stopping illegal
immigration.
I met this Monday with leadership from the Oklahoma Bureau of
Narcotics, who explained to me about the
[[Page S3525]]
overwhelming amount of methamphetamine that is coming into my State and
the number of people who are dying in my State because much of the meth
is laced with fentanyl, and it is killing people in my State.
I asked them if the meth is being cooked in Oklahoma, as it used to
be, and they said: No, we hardly ever find a lab making meth anymore.
It is all coming from Mexico--all of it.
Mexican cartels are actively working in my State to distribute
methamphetamine, partnering with Chinese groups who are doing not only
the supplies but the distribution network in my State.
When I was in the Rio Grande Valley this weekend, individuals with
Customs and Border Protection showed me the numbers. Just this year,
just in the Rio Grande Valley, 144 pounds of fentanyl has come in and
27,550 pounds of meth that they have interdicted just in the Rio Grande
Valley just this year. Let me run that past you again: 27,550 pounds
just in that one area, just this year.
Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics has explained to me that if you go back
to 2020, we didn't have the drugs moving this way because the border
was not open at that time. Now the drugs are flooding into our State
because the border is open.
What grade would you give the Department of Homeland Security when
they are allowing our country to be flooded with drugs, when they are
choosing to make illegal immigration more efficient rather than
stopping illegal immigration? What grade would you give them?
When is this going to change?
I have to tell you, I believe one of the main roles of the Department
of Homeland Security is to be able to shut down transnational criminal
organizations from functioning inside my State, but instead, just in
the Rio Grande Valley, when I talked to them this week, just in that
one sector, they estimate that the cartels make $153 million a week--
$153 million a week just in that area of the Rio Grande Valley, moving
people across the border illegally, because each of them has to pay the
cartels. In fact, we saw the wristbands that they all wear. Once they
pay the cartels, they are marked that they can actually be moved across
the border; they paid their amount.
That is $153 million a week the Biden administration is facilitating
in payment to transnational criminal organizations just moving people,
based on a liberal policy of ``We are going to open the border up to be
nice.'' That policy is facilitating the cartels in Mexico being
enriched. They make more a week--a week--in moving people than is the
budget for Border Patrol in a year in that area. That is all being
facilitated based on this administration making it easier to cross the
border and more efficient to cross the border than stopping it.
I am tired of hearing about the number of people who illegally cross
the border. And many in this body just ignore it. I am tired of hearing
from the FBI in my State that the price of methamphetamine is going
down in my State. It seems like the price of gasoline has soared, the
price of food has soared, the price of housing has soared, but the
price of meth is going down. Why would that be? Because the supply of
meth is going up because it is coming from the cartels in Mexico, and
this administration is just looking the other way.
When is this administration going to talk to the landowners in South
Texas like I did and hear from them the threats that they face? They
are American citizens. When does their life matter?
It is time we address this issue. It is time we actually step up and
say that DHS is failing in its most basic task of securing the Nation.
It is time we stopped the illegal drugs coming into our country and
killing our kids. It is time. And I am going to continue to come to
this floor and to show what the media will not show anymore. They have
looked away, and my Democratic colleagues have done the same. They just
look away like it doesn't exist, while 2 million people illegally cross
the border.
One more stat: Right now, we have somewhere between 4,500 and 8,000
people a day illegally crossing the border--between 4,500 and 8,000 a
day illegally crossing the border. May I remind you, President Biden,
years ago, called it a humanitarian crisis when 2,000 people a day
crossed the border. Now we have between 4,500 and 8,000 a day, day
after day after day.
This administration is not only opening up the borders, they have
also changed the enforcement priorities here in the United States. So
we have round numbers--6,000 people a day illegally entering the
country. The Biden administration has changed the role for ICE in
deportations. We are currently allowing 6,000 people a day to cross the
border, but we are only deporting 161 people a day from the country.
Six thousand a day, every day, day after day after day, illegally
coming into the country; 161 people now that we are deporting a day.
What would be your grade for DHS in their task of securing the country?
I know what mine is. It is time this body actually does something
rather than just look away.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Budget Resolution
Mr. BRAUN. Madam President, I come to the floor this evening--I have
been talking about this subject for nearly the 3\1/2\ years I have been
a Senator. And I will tell you why I think it is important.
We have grown the Federal Government to a level where all the people
who look to it, where they are dependent upon it, try to work with it,
need to know honestly where this all ends up if we do not change the
trajectory.
I think the easiest way to understand how we have gotten to where we
are now is to look to what we used to do in the past.
The country was never founded upon the principles that you borrow
money to consume it. Any household, any local or State government knows
you can't be successful doing that.
Money should only be borrowed if you are going to invest it or get a
tangible return on it; even maybe an intangible one, when you look at
investing in education or something like that.
But there has been no system that has ever worked that ends up
borrowing money from the future, from its kids and grandkids, to where
that is a good business plan. You get immediately derailed in the real
world. Imagine in a household, if you take in money and you spend 20
percent more than whatever that is, you will go to a financial
counselor. They may get you out of trouble. You keep doing it, you end
up in bankruptcy court.
Businesses have the rigor of competition in addition to earning
revenues, balancing their own budgets, and being able to invest into
the future.
If you follow principles that work everywhere else, it can work here,
too, and we owe it to the American public. Like I said earlier, so many
look to this place to be their partner in some fashion, and it ought to
be one that is going to be there in the future.
Let's look where we have come.
From the founding of the country, we raise revenues, generally, on
the basis of need. You would go into debt; you would pay it off.
If you look at 1920, World War I--it is way over here--you borrowed
money, defend the country, save others, and you paid it off.
Look what happened during the Great Depression, World War II. That is
the deepest we have ever been in debt until we just eclipsed it
recently. That is generally measured by how much debt you have as a
percentage of your GDP--Great Depression; World War II.
Look where we went after that.
We were savers. We were investors then. We weren't consumers and
spenders by nature, and we especially didn't do it through the Federal
Government. We kept our debt in check. Even through the great
recession, which occurred 2008, 2009, you were starting to see problems
crop up. That happened when we put two wars on a credit card.
Like the other side of the aisle said: Well, if you are going to do
that, there are a lot of needs in our own country, and certainly there
are, from healthcare, education, across the spectrum--Social Security,
Medicare.
Look what has happened since then. We have gone from being in
relatively good shape pre-Gulf war, Afghanistan. We borrowed that money
and then ran into the great recession and spent what
[[Page S3526]]
seems like very little compared to how significant that was--$800 to
$900 billion.
And from that time to the present, I think we just said: We are
borrowing money, and we might as well do more. And then you start doing
it for things that don't make sense.
I got here 3\1/2\ years ago, 18 trillion in debt. We were just
approaching the percentage coming out of World War II. Here. We have
now passed that and doubling down and going way beyond that.
We are now, here, after the pandemic, where we spent close to $4
trillion in 2020--a lot of it out of uncertainty. We didn't know much
about it. We should have treated that with respect. We now know a lot
about it, and we probably didn't need to shut the economy down, which
cost us a lot, but we are through it. We certainly shouldn't have
doubled down and spent another 3 trillion in 2021.
I am not going to go over--you hear it on the news, you see it. We
have got inflation embedded in the economy currently. The last time
this occurred, back in the late seventies and the early eighties, when
inflation peaked around 10 or 11 percent, it took 5 years to get it
back to 2 percent, where we were pre-COVID. We can expect probably
something similar. We don't know.
The big difference between now and then is we have got a lot more
debt, especially in government, so it is going to be trickier.
So how do we get out of it?
Well, unless we turn the tide, unless we start doing things
differently, Medicare, which isn't even being addressed here, has
completely depleted its trust fund in about 4\1/2\ or 5 years--
automatic benefit cuts when that occurs.
Social Security, which has been around since the Depression paying
into it, that is depleted in about 10 years.
Those are two large trust funds that will have no balance in them,
and then you would have to borrow even more money to pay the benefits.
Let's show a comparison of where we stack up now with other major
economies.
Look at that. We have known for a long time Japan, which is the third
largest economy, has struggled to figure out how it is going to grow,
how it is going to do for future generations what it has done since
World War II. It has taken debt to where it is a stranglehold on its
economy. Its debt is 237 percent of its GDP.
Now look who is in second place, and this isn't something you want to
be in second place on--United States. Our debt currently is 107 percent
of our GDP.
India, Germany, China--China, our main geopolitical competitor, under
half of the sovereign debt as a percentage of its GDP. That is not a
good place to be. They are our geopolitical competitor, and I sense
they know that you need to be savers and investors if you are going to
be successful in the future, if you are going to give your people what
they are going to need out of a government.
Financially, we are going to be up against them, and they, to me,
look like they are doing a lot of things that someday pivot to where we
are caught by surprise, and then you don't have the options. We start
increasing to be more indebted than what we are, it will be even harder
to compete with somebody like them.
We now have a 9.1-percent inflation rate. That is a pay cut for
everyone. We now know, I think, what caused it. We need to just quit
digging the hole deeper. Let's get out of it. Let's go back to what we
know was working, at least financially, pre-COVID. We had no inflation,
nominal that is built into what is considered zero inflation, wages
rising in the toughest places, and a growth rate that was better than
what we had before, close to 3 percent.
We need to start spending less through government, return the
productive capacity back to the private sector, and then look at--once
we get the ship righted here--what we do better policywise. I am a
believer. We need to fix healthcare; it is a broken system. It drives
our structural deficits more than anything. Medicare each year--like
Warren Buffett says, healthcare in general is a tapeworm on the
economy.
What I want to do is face reality. Regardless of the tax rate, over
50 years, we average about 17\1/2\ percent of our GDP in Federal
Government revenues. If that is all you can get, regardless if you have
high tax rates that gives you a lower economic growth or lower tax
rates that maybe gives you a percent or more in economic growth, we
need to acknowledge it.
My plan does two simple things: acknowledges what our revenue has
been over 50 years--17\1/2\ percent of our GDP--tapers what we spend
into it, takes what we have done here as a maneuver to escape budgeting
and appropriating by putting spending on mandatory versus
discretionary, which is nothing other than saying: I don't want to
budget. I don't want to allocate resources. We are just going to do
more each year.
If we keep doing it, we are not going to be able to fund the programs
that we all consider important.
So it acknowledges a reasonable revenue level. It moves 375 billion
that used to be discretionary that is now mandatory back to
discretionary. And then it is going to be up to all of us, as stewards
of the Federal Government, to see how we are going to make the right
decisions to take that amount and get it down to where we cut it out of
the budget.
That would put us, in 10 years, in primary balance, meaning that the
only thing that contributes to our deficit is our interest. It would
clearly show, too, how the big drivers of our current deficit--
Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, other mandatory spending
features--are driving it.
And, yes, if we want to get to a real balanced budget that covers
your interest, you would have to actually find ways to do the same
things with less money.
Defense is always a topic on my side of the aisle. This spends on
defense--arguably the most important thing we need to do as a Federal
Government. I think there is a lot of bipartisan interest in defending
our country and financing it accordingly. This spends on defense above
the CBO line and gets its numbers from the Senate Armed Services
Committee, plugs it in.
It is going to be more robust there than what the CBO has by a little
bit because I am a believer that what has driven this issue over the
long run is what I call the unholy alliance. Folks on my side, whatever
it takes, will spend it on defense. I said it is the most important
thing we do. Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid--those are important
too. They are going broke over time. So we need to work on all of that
to rein it in. But defense, the most important thing, is going to be at
a level that keeps us secure.
If we don't exercise fiscal restraint, if we don't make the tough
decisions that everybody does in running their own budgets, whether it
is in a business, a local or State government or even a household, it
is going to be a hard landing someday that none of us will like.
A lot of what is about running anything successfully is having a good
plan. I don't think our plan makes sense for the future.
But the other component--and I will never forget the first budget
meeting I was in here. One of the Senators said: Mike, the reason this
keeps coming back and back is we do not have political will.
And whether it is political will that you need to make things work
here, whether it is determination, whatever you want to call it--it is
the marketplace when you run a business, it is a balanced budget
amendment in statute when you have got a State government--there has
got to be more discipline.
Let's put that last chart up here.
And I want to re-emphasize, because I got some on my side that think
we are not being robust enough on defense. We just looked at that chart
where it is the most robust. But I want to go back to this one again.
This one says it all. Look at where we have come from where the
``greatest generation'' left us. Remember, they paid off the debt from
World War II and built the Interstate Highway System--to where we are
now in literally 40 years.
That is shameful.
All I am saying is, my budget makes it to where we have got 10 years.
We don't even have to cover the interest, but we need to bring it back
into what is called primary balance.
I would hope we have some friends on the other side of the aisle that
see that this makes sense, because we will need it for their
priorities. All I can tell you
[[Page S3527]]
is, if we have to remediate this by running the system into the ditch,
it will be a lot harder of a proposition to get it back to where it was
when the greatest generation left us in good shape.
I yield the floor.
Mr. MURPHY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARPER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Order of Business
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time
to be determined by the majority leader following consultation with the
Republican leader, the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar
No. 399, H.R. 7776; that the Carper-Capito-Cardin-Cramer substitute No.
5140 be considered and agreed to; that there be up to 1 hour of debate,
equally divided in the usual form, that upon the use or yielding back
of time, if a budget point of order is made, the Senate vote on the
motion to waive; and that if the point of order is waived, the bill, as
amended, be considered read a third time and the Senate vote on passage
of the bill with 60 affirmative votes required for passage; and the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I might just add: What is all this
about? It is about the Water Resources Development Act. We are trying
to move it along and expedite it. I want to thank everybody. Senator
Capito I notice is on the floor, but Senator Cardin is here and Senator
Cramer as well. Many thanks to all of them and to the leadership on
both sides of the aisle. It is important legislation. We are happy to
get it moving.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
____________________