[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4882-S4884]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Inflation

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, on Sunday, the President appeared on ``60 
minutes,'' where he was asked what he was going to do to help alleviate 
inflation in light of August's continued grim inflation news and the 
resulting stock market nosedive.
  The President's response?

       Well, first of all, let's put this in perspective. 
     Inflation rate month to month was just--just an inch, hardly 
     at all.

  ``Let's put this in perspective''? That might be something to say if 
the inflation rate had ticked up from, say, 2 percent--the target 
inflation rate--to 2.1 percent, but I am pretty sure that that is not 
the appropriate thing to say when you are talking about the sixth 
straight month of inflation above 8 percent and the ninth straight 
month of inflation at or above 7 percent and the 11th straight month of 
inflation above 6 percent.
  Even more concerning than August's consumer price index rising 8.3 
percent from the same month a year ago was the increase in core 
inflation--a measure of inflation minus the volatile categories of food 
and energy. This measure increased to 6.3 percent in August, up from 
5.9 percent in both June and July, suggesting that inflation is sinking 
its roots even deeper into various sectors of our economy--or in the 
words of a CNBC headline from last week:

       Inflation isn't just about fuel costs anymore, as price 
     increases broaden across the economy.

  But, of course, you don't have to take my word for it about the mess 
that we are in. Here is what one of President Obama's top economic 
advisers had to say last week after August's inflation numbers came 
out:

       Today's CPI report confirms that the US has a serious 
     inflation problem. Core inflation is higher this month than 
     for the quarter, higher this quarter than last quarter, 
     higher this half of the year than the previous one, and 
     higher last year than the previous one.

  ``Let's put this in perspective.'' That is what President Biden had 
to say? Here is the American people's perspective: Fifty-seven percent 
of Americans disapprove of President Biden's handling of the economy, 
and 37 percent of voters say that President Biden's policies have hurt 
them personally, versus just 15 percent of voters who say his policies 
have helped them.
  These numbers are no surprise. The President may somehow still 
believe that he is creating an economy that will ``work for working 
families,'' but the reality is that, in the Biden economy, working 
Americans are suffering. Americans' utility bills are soaring; their 
grocery bills have ballooned; and they are paying $1.30 more per gallon 
every time they fill up their car than they were when President Biden 
was elected. Real wages have dropped every single month since Democrats 
passed their $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan spending spree--the 
bill, I would add, that helped plunged our economy into our current 
crisis. And 40 percent of Americans report having difficulty paying for 
their normal household expenses. Americans are dipping into their 
savings or working side jobs to make ends meet. They are charging more 
day-to-day expenses on their credit cards. In too many cases, they are 
having to visit food banks, which are seeing huge lines thanks to 
continued high inflation. What are Democrats and the President doing 
about this? Nothing.
  Of course, last month, Democrats did pass a bill they called the 
Inflation Reduction Act. The problem? The bill will do nothing to 
reduce inflation--nothing. Again, you don't have to take my word for 
it. The nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model said this about the 
bill's impact on inflation:

       The impact on inflation is statistically indistinguishable 
     from zero.

  ``[S]tatistically indistinguishable from zero.''
  Or you could take the word of the Democrat chairman of the Budget 
Committee, who admitted right here on the Senate floor that the so-
called Inflation Reduction Act would not reduce inflation.
  But it is not just that Democrats have done nothing to help solve our 
inflation crisis; they are also on track to make Americans' economic 
situation significantly worse.
  In August, President Biden announced a massive student loan giveaway 
that could cost anywhere from an estimated $500 billion to more than $1 
trillion and that the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget notes 
would ``meaningfully boost inflation.'' This is a statement from the 
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget talking about the 
President's massive student loan giveaway, and they say it will 
``meaningfully boost inflation'' or, as the president of the Committee 
for a Responsible Federal Budget recently put it, ``Amid 40-year-high 
inflation and despite the administration constantly touting its `fiscal 
responsibility,' these changes will recklessly add to the debt and make 
the Federal Reserve's job in fighting inflation even harder, which will 
amplify our risk of entering a recession.''
  Many of us would argue we are already in a recession--two consecutive 
quarters of negative GDP growth.
  Inflation has spent 8 straight months at 40-year highs, and the 
President has decided that now is a good time to implement a policy 
that will ``meaningfully boost inflation.''
  The economy continues to show signs of weakening, driven in large 
part by the inflation crisis Democrats helped create. Major companies 
have recently announced job cuts. Sixty-three percent of small 
businesses are putting a hold on hiring, and 10 percent of those are 
cutting jobs. We have had negative economic growth, as I mentioned, for 
the past two quarters. So naturally--naturally--Democrats decided this 
was

[[Page S4883]]

a good time to raise taxes on businesses. Yes, Democrats' so-called 
Inflation Reduction Act imposes new taxes on businesses to help pay for 
their Green New Deal spending.

  I say ``taxes on businesses,'' but, of course, taxes on businesses 
largely fall on workers and consumers in the form of fewer jobs and 
opportunities, lower wages, and higher prices--in other words, pretty 
much the exact opposite of what we need right now, with prices soaring 
and wages failing to keep pace with inflation.
  The Inflation Reduction Act also imposes new taxes on energy that 
will drive up energy prices for both American families and American 
businesses, imposing further pain on family budgets and likely 
prolonging our inflation crisis even further.
  The President may have wanted to build an economy ``from the bottom 
up and the middle out,'' as he has described it; instead, he and his 
fellow Democrats have helped create an economy in which working 
families are struggling to make it from one paycheck to the next. And 
thanks to the additional tax-and-spend policies the Democrats have 
recently implemented, working families are likely to be struggling for 
some time to come.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Washington.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4723

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, last week, Republicans made clear that 
despite the clear outcry from people across the country, overturning 
Roe was just their first step. Republicans want a national abortion 
ban. Republicans want to force my constituents to stay pregnant even 
when they do not want to be and to go after the doctors who provide 
abortion care.
  I am here today to continue to say in no uncertain terms that 
Democrats are not going to stand for it. While Republicans are busy 
threatening the rights of women in every State across the country and 
threatening doctors with jail time, Democrats are here to defend 
abortion rights and defend the doctors who provide that care, because 
even before Republicans dropped their national abortion ban bill, I was 
hearing from providers in my home State of Washington who are facing a 
huge influx of patients due to Republicans' extreme bans.
  Just yesterday, the Texas Tribune shared the heartbreaking story of a 
woman who learned that the pregnancy she had wanted so badly was 
incompatible with life, that her daughter was developing without a 
skull or brain. But because Republicans in Texas think they know better 
than this woman or her doctor, she had to travel for treatment from 
Dallas all the way to Seattle to get the care she needed.
  Providers on the ground in my State tell me there are so many more 
patients being forced to make a trek like that. They are worried about 
caring for them, and not just because it is for so many more patients, 
not just because Republicans are straining resources and causing a 
healthcare crisis that puts women's lives at risk; healthcare 
professionals are also deeply worried about how Republicans' extreme 
laws threaten their practices. They are terrified Republicans will take 
away their livelihoods and even their freedom just for doing their 
jobs, just for providing the care their patients need--care that is, 
once again, completely legal in my State.
  They are right to be scared. When it comes to Republicans' extreme, 
no-holds-barred anti-abortion agenda, the writing is on the wall, and 
it has been for some time. Even before this latest bill, Republican 
State lawmakers were already drafting legislation that would make it a 
crime to provide abortion care to a resident even in another State 
where it is legal, and they were doing this while at the same time 
trying to claim they didn't want to throw doctors in prison.
  On top of all of that, they were standing in the way of the bill I 
will offer today to protect healthcare providers. This is a really 
straightforward bill. It simply protects doctors providing legal 
abortion care.
  The last time I tried to pass it, the junior Senator from Indiana 
said he was concerned about this bill ``allowing abortions for anyone 
who crosses the State lines and is not a resident of that State.'' In 
other words, Republicans are worried about all the patients I mentioned 
earlier who are traveling to Washington State seeking abortion care 
that they urgently need. Republicans don't think they should be able to 
travel to Washington State to get healthcare, and they want to allow 
other States to target Washington State doctors, to threaten them for 
providing legal abortion care.

  That is extreme. It is not what doctors want, and it is definitely 
not what the American people want. Women and men across the country do 
not want politicians making their healthcare decisions and throwing 
their doctors in prison. They want to be able to make their own 
decisions about their own bodies, their own families, their own future. 
They want doctors to be able to focus on doing their jobs, not fearing 
a jail sentence.
  So I urge my Republican colleagues to step aside and allow us to pass 
the Let Doctors Provide Reproductive Health Care Act. This legislation 
is so straightforward. It protects doctors providing legal abortion 
care, and it ensures that they can practice medicine and save lives 
without fear of legal threats and intimidation. It makes clear that the 
attacks we have seen on doctors are unacceptable and that politicians 
should not be harassing or scaring or investigating, threatening, or 
punishing doctors for providing care that is perfectly legal, that 
patients want, and that in many cases is even necessary to save lives.
  If Republicans have been doing what I have been doing, if they have 
been actually listening to doctors and patients, then they should 
reverse course and let us get this commonsense bill passed. But if they 
continue blocking these steps, if they continue ignoring the outcry 
from every corner of the country, if they continue to undermine the 
health of patients seeking care and the freedom of healthcare providers 
doing their jobs, they should know we are not going to stop pushing 
back. There is too much at stake.
  So, Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous 
consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further 
consideration of S. 4723; that the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time 
and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, reserving the right object, I am glad the 
Supreme Court has returned the issue of life back to the people's 
elected representatives, where it should have stayed 49 years ago.
  This legislation denies State representatives the right to make laws 
protecting life. This bill is an attempt to undermine State laws that 
protect life by allowing abortions for anyone who crosses State lines 
and is not a resident of the State.
  Moreover, it gives the Department of Justice $40 million in grant 
funding to help people sue States--to help people sue States--that 
enact policies to protect life. The Department of Health and Human 
Services is given another $40 million in funding for any eligible 
center at Secretary Becerra's discretion. This funding is not protected 
by the Hyde amendment, and most likely, we are going to borrow every 
penny of it, like we do for most things in this place. We should not 
spend $80 million to undermine State laws on life or impose a 
legislative backdoor for abortion-on-demand across our Nation.
  For these reasons, I oppose this bill, and I do object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I am deeply disappointed. I am not 
surprised. We continue to see Republicans show their true, harsh 
colors, and the contrast with Democrats could not be more stark.
  We simply want people to get the healthcare they need and let them 
make their own medical decisions. Republicans want to ban abortion 
nationwide. We want to protect doctors. Republicans want to threaten 
and penalize or even jail them just for doing their job, even when they 
are following their State's laws.
  Mr. President, rest assured, I will continue speaking up for our 
healthcare providers, for families, for patients. And as we continue to 
see

[[Page S4884]]

this extremism, I want to assure everybody that I am not going to stop 
fighting.
  Mr. President, someone should be allowed to travel out of their own 
State to get the healthcare they need. It is unbelievable that the 
Republicans block this bill.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Treaty Document No. 117-1

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to oppose the 
Kigali Amendment. That is the United Nations treaty that is under 
consideration in this body today.
  Two years ago, this body, the U.S. Senate, passed a bipartisan bill. 
The goal of the bill was to reduce hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, and do 
it domestically. We passed it. It was signed into law.
  Now, these HFCs are gases that are used in refrigerators, air-
conditioners, fire extinguishers, and in insulation. They also 
contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions.
  So I worked in a bipartisan way to build a coalition of Senators to 
pass the bill. Two years later, here we are; the law is now in effect 
in the United States. Parts of the law are still being implemented. 
Yet, now, today, we are being asked to sign on to treaty obligations at 
the United Nations that I believe are wholly unnecessary.
  We have already passed bipartisan legislation to reduce HFC 
consumption, and it has already become the law of the land. Many of the 
benefits and the jobs that are being touted are U.S. innovations, and 
it is the result of our domestic legislation, not ratification of some 
U.N. treaty. We did it here. We did it right.
  I say we don't need to get entangled now in another United Nations 
treaty. Our own law can be amended if we would like. It can be 
repealed. It can be replaced. Depending on the impact and cost, the 
United States can make changes quickly. It is much harder, if not 
impossible, to do it with an international treaty. In fact, when you 
take a look at the Kigali treaty and amendment, there is actually no 
way to withdraw from it if we ratify and join in.
  When I take a look at this, it is especially bad because it doubles 
down on the practice of treating China--yes, China--as a developing 
country. And the key word here is ``developing.'' China is not a 
developing country, but this treaty says they are a developing country, 
and it makes a big difference in terms of the treaty and the way that 
China is treated internationally because it gives China special 
treatment.
  And I will tell you, Mr. President, they don't deserve the kind of 
treatment that they would get with this. Under this treaty, China would 
get an extra 10 years--an extra decade--to produce HFCs. Well, this 
places us, the United States, at a competitive disadvantage to China 
for 10 additional years.
  Interestingly and, I think, surprisingly to people when they hear 
this, the United States would also be expected to give more American 
taxpayer dollars to a U.N.--United Nations--multilateral fund that is 
set aside to help developing nations. The key word here again is 
``developing.'' And they want to treat China like a developing country. 
So it would send more U.S. dollars to China because they have access to 
this U.N. multilateral fund.
  Well, the United States is already the largest contributor to this 
fund. We have given over 1 billion of American taxpayer dollars to this 
United Nations so-called--it is a slush fund.
  But what about China? Do they contribute? Oh, no, China has actually 
taken $1.4 billion out of the fund that we have contributed to because 
we are a developed nation and China is still, theoretically and 
legally, by this treaty, developing.
  When you take a look at the debt that we have as a nation and you go 
and talk to any high school class or any junior high school class, as I 
have done in Wyoming--we did it in Wheatland, WY, with a bunch of 
really smart kids--they say: OK, when we have this debt, who are we 
borrowing the money from?
  Do you know what they say? Oh, we are borrowing it from China.
  So we borrow from China to give to the Multilateral Fund under this 
Montreal Protocol. And what happens then? The Fund gives it to China. 
The United States borrows from China. We give it to the United Nations. 
The United Nations gives it to China. So we are further in debt to 
China. This makes zero sense. Even to the high school kids it makes 
zero sense.
  With ratification of the Kigali Amendment to the U.N. treaty, more 
and more American taxpayer dollars will be going to communist China.
  Now, this is happening despite the fact that everyone knows that 
China is not a developing country and shouldn't be labeled as a 
developing country or be treated as a developing country. China is the 
second largest economy in the world. China is our greatest economic and 
geopolitical rival.
  The United States should not let China play by a special set of rules 
that is designed to give a helping hand to truly developing nations. 
China doesn't fit. But this is exactly what is outlined in the Kigali 
Amendment. And that is why I have filed at the desk an amendment to 
what is being discussed on the floor of the Senate today. My amendment 
says the United States will not ratify this treaty until China is 
defined, rightly, as a developed country--not a developing country but 
a developed country--because they truly are. No special treatment for 
China, period. Everyone should stand up for that in this body, each and 
every Member.
  So Senators have some decisions to make: Are you going to vote to 
allow China to play by a whole different set of rules? Are we going to 
put America at a competitive disadvantage? Are we going to vote to 
continue to give American taxpayer dollars to China?
  Now, Members and my colleagues and friends on the other side of the 
aisle say: Oh, it is not about China. This is about HFC, the chemicals 
involved. Again, we have already passed bipartisan legislation to 
reduce HFCs. The law is still going into effect. There is no excuse for 
any Senator to give China a handout at the expense of the American 
taxpayers and the American hard-working families--no excuse whatsoever.
  We should not be outsourcing our environmental policy. I urge my 
colleagues to support my amendment and, once again, say no special 
treatment for China.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.