John Thune

Mr. THUNE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) would have voted ``nay.'' [Rollcall Vote No. 249 Ex.]

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the specter of heavyhanded government regulation of the internet reared its ugly head once again last week with the Federal Communications Commission's announcement that it will consider a so-called net neutrality proposal at its October meeting coming up later this month. So what is net neutrality? Well, at its most basic level, it is simply the idea that internet service providers shouldn't prioritize or block certain internet traffic at the expense of others. Understood in that way, it is a concept that enjoys broad support in both parties. But that is not what we are talking about with the Biden FCC's net neutrality proposal. Like the Obama FCC before it, the Biden FCC wants to assert broad new government powers over the internet using rules-- get this--that were designed for telephone companies and monopolies back during the Great Depression. This is a quote from FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel last week: Today, there is no expert agency ensuring that the internet is fast, open and fair. Proving once again that Democrats' faith in Washington experts is undying and that nothing scares a Democrat more than the thought of some aspect of society not being regulated by the Federal Government. This is not the first time Democrats have sounded the alarm about the perils that await us if we don't let the Government regulate the internet with a heavy hand. In fact, back in 2015, the Obama FCC actually implemented the regulatory regime the Biden FCC is now considering imposing again. This opened the door to a whole new host of new internet regulations including--including--price regulations. Unsurprisingly, broadband investment declined as a result. That was a problem for Americans generally who benefit when the United States is at the forefront of internet growth and expansion, and it was particularly bad news for Americans in rural States like my State of South Dakota. Getting broadband to rural communities is already more challenging than installing broadband in cities or suburbs, and the possibility of heavier regulations act as a further disincentive to expanding business. No big surprise there. Fast forward to 2017, and the FCC under Chairman Pai voted to repeal--repeal--the heavyhanded internet regulations passed by the Obama FCC. The prospect of this repeal was greeted with near hysteria from Democrats. We were told that internet traffic would slow to a crawl, that innovation would be stifled, that our freedom of speech was threatened, and more. And in the wake of the repeal, none of the things that Democrats predicted came to pass. The internet as we know it not only survived, it thrived. Innovation flourished, the internet remained a vehicle for free and open discourse. And internet speeds not only didn't slow down, they got faster and faster. During the pandemic, despite the explosive growth of internet usage, American networks had no problem keeping up with demand, delivering the reliable service that Americans have come to expect. Now contrast that with Europe--where internet regulation is much more heavyhanded--where they struggle to deal with increased internet usage. In fact, European service providers slowed internet speeds to maintain connectivity throughout the course of the pandemic. The United States is now a leader in adopting next-generation telecommunications services like 5G and advanced Wi-Fi, while Europe struggles to keep pace. But that may not last if the Biden FCC goes ahead with its net neutrality plans. As I said, the last time a Democrat-led FCC put heavyhanded internet regulations in place, broadband investment declined. There is a good reason to believe that the same thing would happen this time. There is also substantial reason to be concerned that the Biden FCC's proposed regulatory regime would result in higher internet bills for Americans. As FCC Commissioner Carr, a Republican appointee who opposes the Democrats' proposal, recently pointed out: Since 2017, the prices Americans pay for Internet services have decreased on an inflation-adjusted basis. Meanwhile, the prices for utility-regulated services like electricity, water, and gas have increased over two times faster than the prices for Internet services. Monopoly regulations invariably lead to monopoly prices. In addition, Title II regulation opens the door to regulators adding new taxes and fees to consumers' monthly broadband bills. That is from Brendan Carr's statement. In addition to higher prices for consumers and decreased broadband investment, another consequence of the Biden's FCC's proposed new regulatory regime would be government interference in internet traffic. Ironically, given Democrats' professed concerns, it is precisely the net neutrality regime they are calling for that could imperil the free and open internet they claim to want. Under the regulatory regime the Biden FCC wants to impose, the Federal Government would be allowed to block or prioritize internet traffic or otherwise interfere with the free flow of information. Think about that one. Given, I would add, the Biden administration's demonstrated willingness to use its regulatory power to advance its social and environmental agenda, it is not hard to imagine the Biden administration using this proposed new regulatory power to shape Americans' internet experience for its own ends. The Biden FCC should be focused on addressing real challenges such as continuing our efforts to close the digital divide and ensuring that every American has access to high-speed broadband; it should not be wasting time and money advancing a solution to a problem that does not exist. Thanks, in substantial part, to the light-touch regulatory regime currently in place, the internet in the United States is thriving and bringing new benefits to American families and businesses. And if Democrats really want a free and open internet and to keep the United States at the forefront of broadband development, they will oppose the Biden FCC's heavyhanded power grab. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the Biden administration's war on affordable and reliable energy continues. Three weeks ago, the administration announced a cancellation of seven oil and gas leases in the small portion of ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, that is available for energy exploration and development. It was just the latest move by the Biden administration to stifle conventional energy production. In his State of the Union Address this year, the President acknowledged that ``[w]e're going to need oil for at least another decade . . . and beyond that.'' Let me just repeat that. Again, these are President Biden's own words: We're going to need oil for at least another decade . . . and beyond that. Well, in this case, the President is right. While alternative energy is powering an increasing share of American energy production, we are nowhere near being able to rely exclusively on alternative energy technologies. We are going to need conventional energy for quite a while yet. The best way to get that conventional energy is by developing the United States' abundant domestic resources in an environmentally responsible way. But the President's anti-development strategy seems designed to force us to remain at the mercy of producers like OPEC and to rely on expensive imports from sometimes dangerous or unstable countries and regions. There are multiple problems with relying on foreign sources of oil, not the least of which is the potential for our oil dollars to fund oppressive regimes. But even leaving that aside, depending on foreign oil sources threatens the stability and affordability of our oil supply. You only need to look at the energy challenges and soaring costs countries like Germany have faced in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine to recognize how perilous it can be to rely on another country for energy. Anyone who is concerned about the environment should recognize that oil and gas production here in the United States is likely to be substantially more environmentally friendly than a lot of foreign production. The President's war on domestic production isn't the only dangerous element of his energy strategy. Also of deep concern is the President's apparent determination to force Americans to adopt electric vehicles on a broad scale within the next decade. Why is this so concerning? Because our electric grid is nowhere near capable of supporting that kind of widespread transition to electric vehicles. Rising electricity demand is already stretching our grid, which has been weakened by the move away from conventional energy sources. In an apparent response to the impact of overreaching Green New Deal-style politics, NERC, which is the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, for the first time identified energy policy as a risk to grid reliability in its recent biennial report. Discussing the move away from conventional sources of electricity, NERC found that ``[c]ollectively, the new resource mix can be more susceptible to long-term, widespread Extreme Events, such as extreme temperatures or sustained loss of wind/solar, that can impact the ability to provide sufficient energy as the fuel supply is less certain.'' In February, the PJM Interconnection, which manages a substantial part of Eastern America's electric grid, released a report warning that fossil fuel plants are being forced to retire at a faster rate than new renewables can be brought online at a rate of roughly 2 to 1. In other words, we are rapidly approaching a situation which we simply don't have the ability to keep up with current electricity demand. Add charging for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of electric vehicles on top of that, and we could be looking at a future of widespread blackouts and brownouts, to say nothing of soaring electricity prices. I should also mention that the Biden administration's proposed distribution transformer rule, which would require a move to amorphous steel cores for more distribution transformers--what that would do to the grid is simply no favors whatsoever. In fact, it would be almost guaranteed to worsen supply chain issues and seriously slow grid maintenance and upgrades. And the supply chain backlog is a top concern for utilities and electric cooperatives, which are already facing headwinds from overreaching EPA regulations. I don't need to tell anyone that utility bills for electricity and natural gas have risen dramatically since President Biden took office, as have gas prices. It is a predictable outcome of the economic and energy policies that President Biden has pursued. If his war on conventional energy continues, today's high prices could look cheap next to the energy prices of the future. I am a strong and longtime supporter of renewable energy, and I am proud to be from a State that is a top producer of ethanol and that derives a substantial portion of its electricity generation from renewable resources like wind and hydroelectric. But the fact of the matter is, energy technology has simply not advanced to the point where we can rely solely or even, for that matter, mostly on renewables. While the President may sometimes pay lip service to our continuing need for conventional energy, his actual policies seem to ignore this fact and are setting us up for a future of higher prices, grid instability, and insufficient supply. The President's policies have already resulted in a 2-year-plus inflation crisis. If he keeps going the way he has been going, his legacy may include an energy crisis as well. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisianna (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, ``No end in sight''--that is how one Border Patrol chief described the influx of migrants in the Rio Grande Valley sector of the southern border in March 2021. ``No end in sight.'' That was 2\1/2\ years ago, and there is still no end in sight to this crisis. On Friday, we learned that 232,972 individuals were caught trying to illegally cross our southern border in the month of August--232,972. That is the highest August number yet for the Biden administration. All signs suggest that we are on track for a third recordbreaking year of apprehensions at the southern border. In fact, roughly 11,000 individuals were apprehended attempting to cross our southern border in just 24 hours this past weekend--11,000 in 24 hours. If the White House really thinks it is ``stopping the flow at the border,'' as the White House Press Secretary said last month, it should think again. It is important to note that the numbers I have mentioned only reflect individuals who were actually apprehended. They don't include individuals who have made their way into the country illegally without--without--being caught. Since the beginning of the Biden administration, there have been at least 1.5 million known ``got- aways,'' individuals the Border Patrol detected but was unable to apprehend. The Biden administration's so-called border plan is clearly not working, and State and local governments are stretched thin. And I am not just talking about border towns and border States; I am talking about places like New York City, Chicago, Massachusetts. As migrants flood into these locations, blue States and blue cities are learning what border States have been experiencing for years, and they are struggling with the costs this crisis is imposing. Denver, CO, has spent almost $25 million sheltering migrants. Chicago is projected to spend more than $250 million this year on migrant care. New York City could spend $12 billion--billion with a ``b''--by 2025 on the migrant crisis, possibly precipitating cuts to city services. Just to give you one example of the current crisis, the city has begun housing 3,000 illegal immigrants at a makeshift shelter on local soccer fields, eliminating a popular source of activity and recreation for local children. Here is what New York City Mayor Eric Adams had to say about this crisis the other day, and I quote: Let me tell you something, New Yorkers, never in my life have I had a problem that I did not see an ending to--I don't see an ending to this. This issue will destroy New York City. That from the mayor of New York. The border crisis we are experiencing is a predictable outcome of the decisions made early in the Biden administration. The President's team was warned of the possibility of a migrant surge. Yet the moment the President took office, he set about dismantling the immigration policies of his predecessor and weakening our Nation's border security. And it wasn't long before the border was overwhelmed. And while after 2 years the Biden administration finally started to, at least halfheartedly, acknowledge the border crisis, what few proactive measures the administration has taken have been ineffective, to say the least. As one columnist put it recently in the Washington Post: The Biden administration's various efforts have amounted to Band-Aids on a massive, open wound. I am also deeply concerned about some of the new policies the administration seems to be considering. The Department of Homeland Security is reported to be considering requiring some illegal migrants to remain in Texas or, perhaps, other border States while they await asylum screening. Now, I am not sure if this an attempt to spare blue States from having to deal with the border crisis or a recognition that releasing tens of thousands of illegal immigrants into the interior of the country isn't a good idea; but, regardless, forcing border communities to shoulder even more of the border crisis is a terrible and profoundly unjust idea. How about actually turning illegal immigrants back at the borders of this country instead of keeping them within the borders and border States? And then there is the supplemental funding request the White House sent to Congress. As our colleague Senator Hagerty has pointed out, the request includes a provision that would allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement funding to be used for shelters and migrant services. In the words of the Senator from Tennessee, this could: [E]ffectively convert ICE from a law enforcement agency into a U.S. travel agency for illegal aliens and into a grant-making bureaucracy for sanctuary cities. I am pleased that the administration and Mexico have reached an agreement in which Mexico will attempt to reduce pressure on its border cities by sending migrants back to their home countries, among other reforms. But after letting this crisis deepen for 2\1/2\ years, the administration has a lot more work to do. Currently, immigration is high on Americans' list of concerns, and it is no wonder. Americans can tell that our borders are open and that things are not getting better. They know that our current situation is not sustainable. It would be nice if the President could figure that out as well. Ultimately, it is really quite simple. President Biden created this crisis--no ifs, ands, or buts about it--and he has the power to end it. He just needs to decide he is going to enforce the law. Pure and simple. Unfortunately, until he does so, I am afraid that it will continue to be no end in sight at our southern border. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).