John Thune

Mr. THUNE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this morning, the U.S. Trade Representative is testifying before the Senate Finance Committee on President Biden's 2023 trade policy agenda, and I look forward to asking her about the details of the Biden administration's plans--or lack thereof--to boost trade opportunities for American workers, farmers and ranchers, and businesses. Trade has been a very low priority on the President's list throughout the first 2 years of his administration. To name just one example, it took the President a year and a half to nominate a confirmable chief agricultural negotiator at the U.S. Trade Representative's office even though agriculture is a U.S. industry that depends upon trade. If the President has deemphasized trade, he has really deemphasized trade--that is, removing trade and tariff barriers and increasing market access for American producers. The administration is currently negotiating exactly zero comprehensive free trade agreements; and its so-called trade initiative frameworks are, largely, flowery rhetoric with little to nothing in the way of tangible and durable benefits for American workers. Tariff reduction and increased market access--the hallmarks of free trade agreements--are notably missing in action from the Biden administration's trade initiatives. In fact, President Biden's Trade Representative has openly said that the Indo-Pacific economic framework--perhaps the President's signature trade initiative--was designed not--not--to include tariff reduction. So why is this a problem? Well, first of all, it is a problem because trade is essential to our economy. More than 41 million U.S. jobs depend on trade, and that includes a lot of jobs at small businesses. In fact, 98 percent of U.S. exporters are small businesses--a stat that includes many farmers and ranchers in South Dakota and around the country--and ignoring or deemphasizing trade puts those jobs in jeopardy. But it is not just that our economy already depends on trade, it is that trade, specifically free trade--trade characterized by low or no tariffs and fewer market barriers--is a powerful engine of prosperity and economic growth. To name just one example, U.S. farm and food product exports grew from $46.1 billion in 1994 to more than $177 billion in 2021, largely due to greater market access opportunities for American exporters. Free trade helps create economic prosperity. It opens new jobs and opportunities for American workers. It helps grow U.S. businesses and, by extension, our economy. President Biden has tended to deemphasize the benefits of trade for our economy and for American workers and has suggested that trade and a robust U.S. manufacturing footprint are somehow in competition. But increased trade actually helps domestic manufacturing. Sixty percent of U.S. imports are intermediary goods or materials for use in American manufacturing. Removing unnecessary barriers to trade in those goods would generally lower the prices for those materials, which would help and not hurt manufacturing. And while we are talking about lowering prices, I should note that expanding U.S. free trade would promote lower prices for a lot of the goods that Americans buy and would help ease some of the supply chain problems we have been experiencing. That could help alleviate the historic inflation crisis that the President and Democrats have helped to create and improve the economic outlook for Americans. But while economic benefits are a leading reason to prioritize increased trade, they are far from the only reason. Free trade agreements don't just provide an opportunity for economic growth; they also provide an opportunity to develop important strategic relationships and foster ties with our allies. Free trade agreements don't just cement economic ties between countries; they cement friendships. They also provide an opportunity to advance U.S. priorities abroad--security priorities, economic priorities, diplomatic priorities, and more. As I said, the President has deemphasized trade during the first 2 years of his administration; but while the U.S. has been inactive in the trade space, the rest of the world has not. For example, China recently joined the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership--a trade agreement that eventually will eliminate more than 90 percent of tariffs on commerce in 15 member countries. China is also negotiating or implementing a number of new trade agreements to add to those of which it is currently a part. And China is far from the only country pushing ahead with free trade agreements while the United States is sitting on the sidelines. We may be a world superpower, but we have just 14 free trade agreements currently in effect with 20 countries, meaning that many of our goods and services face significant tariff barriers in most places around the globe. Now, by comparison, the European Union has 46 trade agreements with 78 countries, meaning that European goods often have a leg up on the global stage. Under the Biden administration, the United States is getting left behind when it comes to global trade, and if we don't meaningfully reenter the trade arena, we are going to slip further and further behind. I believe that an excellent way to reenter the trade arena would be to conclude a free trade agreement with one of our closest friends and allies, the United Kingdom--something that is long overdue. Earlier this month, I introduced a bipartisan bill with Senator Chris Coons. It is called the Undertaking Negotiations on Investment and Trade for Economic Dynamism Act, or the UNITED Act--the acronym. The legislation is designed to advance a free trade agreement with the United Kingdom. Our legislation would authorize the administration to negotiate and conclude a trade agreement with the United Kingdom to open export opportunities for businesses of all sizes, increase the resilience of critical supply chains, and advance economic prosperity for people in both of our countries. At a time of financial and geopolitical turbulence, cementing our relationships with our allies should be a top priority; and an agreement with the United Kingdom--our Nation's fifth largest export market and our largest services trading partner in the entire world-- would further strengthen the ties that bind our two nations while resulting in economic gains for both British and American citizens. Important groundwork toward a comprehensive free trade agreement has already been laid, including the bilateral negotiations initiated by President Trump's and President Biden's attempts to strengthen economic cooperation through the U.S./UK Dialogue on the Future of Atlantic Trade; and with the recently announced Windsor Framework, which provides a pathway on post-Brexit trading arrangements in Northern Ireland, the timing is right to kick-start negotiations. An agreement with the United Kingdom would further strengthen the ties that bind our two nations while resulting in economic gains for both American and British citizens. While the administration may have put trade at the bottom of its priority list over the past 2 years, the President's Trade Representative, Katherine Tai, seems to have at least kept the door open to working on increased market access--that is, tariff reduction-- and real trade agreements. For the sake of our country, I hope the administration will follow through. The Biden administration may have gotten off to a very slow start on the trade front, but it is not too late to turn things around. I strongly urge the President to turn his focus to a more ambitious trade agenda, one that will provide durable economic and security benefits to American workers and businesses and advance American leadership in the world. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

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

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, before I begin my remarks, just a quick observation. I know that the majority leader comes down on a fairly regular basis and attacks Republicans, particularly House Republicans, for not producing a budget. Obviously, for the House Republicans, it is their prerogative over there. If there is going to be a budget, it is probably going to be a budget that is put together by the House majority. But I think it kind of misses the broader point, and that is that, at least here in the Senate, which is our domain, our realm of responsibility, it is up to the majority to put a budget forward. They control the floor. They have all control here. They determine what comes to the floor and what doesn't, and if they want to put together a budget, they certainly could. One place to start, obviously, would be the President's budget. The President submitted a budget, which, by any estimation, is a massive expansion of the Federal Government, with lots of new spending--$5 trillion in new taxes, mostly on job creators and small businesses. At the end of the budget period, he would add $17 trillion to the Federal debt. Budget periods cover a window, typically, of 10 years. The President's budget, as put forward, at the end of that 10- year period, would add $17 trillion to the Federal debt and dramatically increase spending. Now, spending prepandemic, as we went into the pandemic, was about $4.4 trillion a year--all in Federal spending. Of course, during the pandemic, that increased. In a bipartisan way, there were some decisions made to support and increase spending in some areas that were designed to combat and deal with a lot of the adverse impacts of the pandemic. Now the pandemic is behind us, and a lot of that spending should have been temporary. A lot of that spending really shouldn't have been incorporated into the baseline. What the Democrats have done is incorporated that into the baseline so that, this year, the amount of spending in the President's budget-- about $6.9 trillion--is about 55 percent more than the baseline spending back in 2019, prepandemic, at a time when the population of the country has only increased by 1.8 percent. Now, you could argue, I suppose, if you had a massive increase in population--a lot more people in the country--that Federal spending would increase with it, but increasing Federal spending 55 percent at a time when you only have a 1.8-percent population growth in the country seems like a lot of excessive spending spent on expanding and growing the size and the footprint of the Federal Government. Interestingly enough, at the end of that 10-year period--again, the budget window covers 10 years--spending under the President's budget would be $9.9 trillion--$9.9 trillion; in 2019, $4.4 trillion; at the end of the 10-year window covered by the President's budget, $9.9 trillion--more than double, way more than double the amount of spending that we had prior to the pandemic in 2019 and where some additional spending that was added at the time was and should have been temporary. So those are kind of the contours of the President's budget. That is his plan. The Senate Democrats, obviously, could put that on the floor or they could come up with a different budget. But the point, very simply, is they are the majority. That is their responsibility. If they want to put a budget out, if they want to vote on a budget, put a budget on the floor. We are happy to vote on it. We would be happy to offer amendments to it, and they would be amendments that would reflect the priorities that we have on our side, which call for less spending, less government, a lighter regulatory touch, and not the massive tax increases contemplated by the President's budget. So that is just a point I wanted to clarify. As we have this conversation around the budget of whose responsibility it is to advance a budget here in the U.S. Senate, it is the job of the majority, and so far the majority has not wanted to undertake that task. Perhaps, more importantly, I don't think it probably wants to vote on the President's budget, which, as I said, adds $17 trillion to the debt, which makes the debt at the end of that 10-year period--the 10-year window, by the way--$50 trillion; $50 trillion. That is what the President's budget would have us at in total debt, cumulative debt, at the end of that 10- year period, but it adds $17 trillion during that 10-year window and increases spending from $4.4 trillion prepandemic in 2019 to $9.9 trillion. It is pretty stunning, really, but that isn't what I came to talk about here today.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I am also introducing legislation today to help prevent economically damaging regulations from going into effect in the first place. My bill, the Regulatory Transparency Act, would require Federal Agencies to conduct a more transparent and objective analysis of the impact a proposed regulation would have on the economy, especially on small businesses. It would also require Agencies to justify the need for the regulation and consider other less burdensome ways of meeting the same goal. And, importantly, it would require Agencies to consider whether a sunset date for the regulation would be appropriate, which could help reduce the long-term buildup of irrelevant or outdated Federal regulations. There is a lot more that I could say about the regulations the Biden administration has implemented or is trying to put in place, but I will stop here. Suffice it to say that President Biden has made use of the regulatory system to advance an agenda that will negatively affect our Nation, and I will continue to do everything I can to push back against the Biden administration's many troubling regulations and to protect our economy and the American people from the regulatory burden the administration has put in place. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I am also introducing legislation today to help prevent economically damaging regulations from going into effect in the first place. My bill, the Regulatory Transparency Act, would require Federal Agencies to conduct a more transparent and objective analysis of the impact a proposed regulation would have on the economy, especially on small businesses. It would also require Agencies to justify the need for the regulation and consider other less burdensome ways of meeting the same goal. And, importantly, it would require Agencies to consider whether a sunset date for the regulation would be appropriate, which could help reduce the long-term buildup of irrelevant or outdated Federal regulations. There is a lot more that I could say about the regulations the Biden administration has implemented or is trying to put in place, but I will stop here. Suffice it to say that President Biden has made use of the regulatory system to advance an agenda that will negatively affect our Nation, and I will continue to do everything I can to push back against the Biden administration's many troubling regulations and to protect our economy and the American people from the regulatory burden the administration has put in place. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, when it comes to the actions of government, it is often legislation that grabs the headlines, but it is equally important to be aware of what a Presidential administration does with his regulatory power. With the modern expansion of the regulatory state, Presidents have a tremendous amount of power to affect our economy and Federal policy through regulation, and President Biden has made aggressive use of regulatory power to push his agenda and to burden our economy in the process. President Biden's big spending habits are well-known: the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan spending spree that he signed into law; the trillions of dollars in new government spending he has proposed and pushed for over the course of his administration. But his carelessness with taxpayer dollars is not limited to legislative initiatives. President Biden has also pushed through regulations costing almost $360 billion and requiring 220 million hours of paperwork--220 million hours of paperwork. Now, that is a big compliance burden and a good reminder of the fact that regulations have consequences--consequences for individual Americans, consequences for American businesses, and consequences for our economy. Take the Biden administration's proposed rule to require Federal contractors to disclose their direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions and, in some cases, not only their own direct and indirect emissions but also related emissions over which the contractor has no control. This rule is not only impractical, it is unclear how contractors would even begin to gauge emissions over which they have no control, but it is likely to be both costly and burdensome. By the government's own reckoning, the rule would cost affected small businesses more than $600 million over the first 10 years, and the National Federation of Independent Business notes that the actual cost is likely to be much higher. With compliance costs like these, why would any small business want to apply for a Federal contract? This is just one of a number of costly regulations the Biden administration has put in place or is attempting to put in place to advance its extreme environmental agenda. A new rule from the Environmental Protection Agency that will require a drastic reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions from heavy-duty vehicles is not only likely to substantially raise the price of new trucks, it could drive some smaller trucking companies out of business entirely, which would be problematic at any time but especially problematic given the supply chain problems we are still experiencing. A proposed rule to prohibit the sale of cooktops that consume more than a certain amount of energy per year would likely make roughly half of the gas stoves currently sold in the United States illegal and could threaten manufacturers with substantial losses, to say nothing of the way it could limit options for Americans, a substantial number of whom opt for gas stoves. Then there is the Obama-era waters of the United States rule that President Biden's Environmental Protection Agency has resurrected. The WOTUS rule would give the Federal Government sweeping jurisdiction over most water features on private property, including things like irrigation ditches, ephemeral streams, and even prairie potholes. The Supreme Court is currently considering a case concerning the Federal Government's authority over the Clean Water Act, the outcome of which stands to nullify or make obsolete much of the Biden WOTUS rule. But if the WOTUS rule goes into effect, farmers, ranchers, and other private landowners could see parts of their land rendered useless for months while the Federal Government determines what restrictions to impose. Landowners could also be faced with huge compliance costs, and the value of their land could plummet. There are also the Biden administration's oil and gas regulations, which are likely to cost all Americans money by driving up energy prices. Despite the need to develop American energy--an economic and, I would add, national security imperative--this week, President Biden announced that he is closing off a substantial part of the Arctic to oil and gas development. While I am pleased that he did approve the Willow Project this week, he has undercut that approval with these new restrictions. The President's decision to close off a substantial part of the Arctic will not only restrict areas for energy exploration and development, it is likely to discourage future energy exploration and development even in unrestricted areas, with a correspondingly harmful effect on energy prices. As if that weren't enough, yesterday, the EPA piled on with another rule that targets electricity production and industry in 23 States and threatens to shut down essential power sources that help guarantee a reliable supply of electricity to American homes and businesses. The high energy prices Americans have experienced so far under the Biden administration--up to a staggering 37 percent under his watch-- could become a permanent feature of American life if the President continues with policies designed to discourage conventional energy production. So far, I have focused a lot on the economic costs of regulations and the Biden administration's environmental agenda, but of course his environmental agenda is not the only extreme agenda President Biden is pushing through regulations. For example, he is also using the regulatory power to push his extreme abortion agenda. The comment period recently closed for a proposed new regulation that could threaten medical professionals' right to decline to participate in abortions. And in defiance of Federal law which prohibits the VA from providing abortion services, the Biden administration has implemented a rule to use taxpayer dollars to provide abortion counseling and abortion services to individuals served by the VA. While Presidential administrations have tremendous power to push their agendas--and burden our economy--through regulation, there are things Congress can do to push back against troubling exercises of regulatory power. One way is through the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to block regulations if it can gather a sufficient number of votes. Republicans have put forward a number of Congressional Review Act measures--or what we call CRAs--to block some of the Biden administration's most problematic regulations. Republicans in the House of Representatives--joined by a handful of Democrats recently--approved a CRA to block the waters of the United States rule, and we will soon take up this measure here in the Senate. I also expect us to take up a measure in the near future to prevent taxpayer dollars from going to fund abortions at the VA. Thanks to Senator Capito, we have already managed to block one problematic Biden regulation so far this year. Senator Capito announced her intention to challenge a Federal Highway Administration memo, which the Government Accountability Office determined to be a rule, discouraging States from pursuing highway expansion projects and prioritizing funding for projects that reduce emissions. Rather than waiting for a congressional vote, the Federal Highway Administration withdrew the memo, issuing a revised version without the problematic language--a win for infrastructure investments in rural areas of our country. We are likely to have an uphill battle in Congress when it comes to blocking other problematic Biden administration regulations, but Republicans in both Houses are committed to doing everything we can to protect Americans. (The remarks of Mr. Thune pertaining to the introduction of S. 839 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

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