[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.

                          ____________________