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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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. Mr. President, Monday's leak of a draft opinion in the Dobbs Supreme Court case was an unprecedented and deeply disturbing breach of confidentiality that almost always surrounds Supreme Court deliberations. It is difficult to think this was anything but an escalation in the radical left's campaign to bully the Supreme Court into delivering decisions in line with the priorities of the Democratic Party. From Court-packing threats to threats from the Democratic leader himself that were directed to specific Justices, attempting to intimidate the Supreme Court has become par for the course for liberals, but Monday's leak represents a new low. Almost as disturbing as the leak has been the reaction from my Democratic colleagues. Their hysterical comments have been focused almost entirely on the prospect of their getting an outcome they don't want in the Dobbs case. I have seen almost no concern about how the leak will affect the integrity of the Supreme Court as an institution, and their activist base has gone out of its way to praise the leaker. More than one Democrat has actually called for undermining the integrity of the Supreme Court by packing the Court with additional Justices. Yes, that is the result of what happened yesterday among Democrats. More than one Democratic Senator believes that the proper response to a Supreme Court decision you don't like is to add additional Justices to the Court until you can be confident that you will get the outcomes you want. Other Democratic Senators have proposed undermining the integrity of the U.S. Senate by abolishing the Senate filibuster rule--again, in order to be sure that they can get the legislative outcome they want in response to this possible decision in the Dobbs case. Mr. President, regardless of what side you are on in this debate, you should be willing to stand up for the rule of law and the integrity of our institutions. That shouldn't be a partisan issue. Our system of government depends upon the rule of law, which is based upon an independent judiciary, free of political pressure or partisan influence. Do Democrats really want a future in which Supreme Court decisions are made based on political pressure or bullying rather than on the Justices' impartial application of the law and the Constitution to the case before them? Maybe they do. But if they continue to push in that direction, they will end up sacrificing our system of government in the process. Mr. President, I have strong beliefs in any number of issues, including abortion, but above all, I believe in our system of government and in the rule of law. While I will fight passionately in support of the causes I believe in, I will not sacrifice the integrity of our institutions for what would ultimately be nothing but temporary political gain. It is starting to seem like most of my Democratic colleagues disagree with that position. That may possibly be a recipe for political success, but it is also a recipe for destroying free government. I am glad that Chief Justice Roberts has taken steps to investigate this unprecedented breach of trust at the Court, and I hope that he will receive the full support of the Department of Justice should this turn out to be a criminal matter. It is difficult to overstate how much this breach could erode trust among Justices and Supreme Court staff, and I hope the damage is minimized by a quick identification of the party responsible. I hope every one of the Justices will continue to feel free to do their jobs and follow the facts, the law, and the Constitution. At least one Democrat has suggested Republicans are spending more time commenting on the leak than on the content of Justice Alito's draft because we are somehow scared to talk about our pro-life decision. Let me be perfectly clear: We are not. I am proud to defend the right to life, and I know my colleagues are as well. I think most of us have refrained from commenting because we don't yet truly know the outcome. But I will say this. I hope Justice Alito's opinion ends up being the majority opinion. As I have long believed, Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision by an activist Court that reached far beyond the Constitution and the Court's interpretive role to impose a new abortion regime on the entire country. I hope the Supreme Court overturns Roe and returns the question of abortion to the American people and their elected representatives, where it belongs. The fight to defend life is in keeping with our highest ideals, our passion for justice, our dedication to human rights, and our compassion for the innocent and the vulnerable. I am grateful for all the Americans who have fought to make sure the right to life of vulnerable human beings is protected and have spent their time and their resources helping moms in need. I look forward to a day, which I hope is soon approaching, when innocent, unborn Americans will enjoy the full protection of the law. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays. Vote on S.J. Res. 39

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier today on the floor, President Biden has apparently decided that COVID is over at our southern border but not, apparently, for American toddlers. While a court injunction has barred enforcement in a number of States, the Department of Health and Human Services has still not repealed its mask and vaccine mandate for Head Start Programs--a mandate that requires children as young as 2 years old to wear masks indoors and, incredibly, outside. The scientific evidence for masking toddlers is shaky at best. The World Health Organization does not recommend masking for children under 5. The concerns about the effect on speech and children's development are real. But none of that seems to matter to the administration. Despite the low danger of serious illness in children, apparently the Biden administration believes that toddlers should be masked in perpetuity--a position Secretary Becerra doubled down on in front of the Senate Finance Committee last month. If the Biden administration isn't going to repeal its toddler mask mandate, it is time for Congress to step in and do it for them. The resolution of disapproval that I have introduced and which we are voting on in the next few minutes would end the administration's mandate, and I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for this resolution. It is past time to call a halt to the Biden administration's outdated and unscientific mandate and ensure that our toddlers can run around the playground mask-free. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

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 Alabama (Mr. Shelby) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, we yield back time, and I would ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I just want to briefly associate myself with the remarks of the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, with respect to the alleged breach of the Supreme Court and reiterate that this is a lawless action. If it turns out to be what we believe to be true, it should be investigated, punished as fully as possible. The Chief Justice has to get to the bottom of this. And, if applicable, the Department of Justice needs to pursue any criminal charges. Let me just say, too, that I believe, as Senator McConnell pointed out, that all nine Justices on the Supreme Court should tune out the bad-faith noise and feel totally free to do their jobs following the facts and the law where they lead. We need an independent Supreme Court, and we should, at every turn, be defending the independence of our Supreme Court.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize the Cornerstone Rescue Mission in Rapid City, SD. On April 29, 2022, Cornerstone will mark its 40th anniversary of feeding and sheltering people in crisis. Cornerstone Rescue Mission is open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and it provides nearly 200 beds to men, women, and children. This organization's longevity is a testament to its hard work and dedication to serving others in need. Cornerstone serves an average of 440 free meals per day and has provided more than 180,000 people with a warm bed over the past 5 years alone. Not only do they provide food and shelter to those in their community who live in poverty, but they also emphasize the importance of helping people improve their situation for the long term. The mission will assist people with obtaining legal identification, getting clothing for interviews, transportation, spiritual guidance, and case management services to help find employment and housing. Cornerstone has changed the lives of countless South Dakotans, including American veterans who have served our Nation and sacrificed to preserve our freedoms, while showing them kindness and support when they needed it the most. The men and women who work and volunteer at the Cornerstone Rescue Mission are living a life of purpose and are difference makers in their community. I commend the staff and leadership of Cornerstone Rescue Mission for 40 years of service and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, from the beginning, the Biden administration has displayed a hostility to fossil fuels. President Biden set the tone on day 1 of his administration when he canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline, an environmentally responsible pipeline project that was already underway and that was to be paired with $1.7 billion in private investment in renewable energy to fully offset its operating emissions. He almost immediately froze new oil and gas leases on Federal lands and is only now making new onshore leases available for sale after being ordered to do so by a Federal judge. His first budget contained a series of tax hikes on conventional energy production, and his budget this year, released in the midst of an energy crisis, calls for hiking taxes on fossil fuel companies to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. And the list goes on. Perhaps even more troubling, however, is the more insidious campaign the President has been conducting against conventional energy production, using the long arm of financial regulation and government pressure to directly or indirectly discourage investment in fossil fuels and other industries disliked by his political base. The Securities and Exchange Commission recently issued a completely unworkable proposed rule requiring publicly traded companies to disclose information not only about their own greenhouse gas emissions but about those of their suppliers and even their customers--clearly attempting to make companies diminish or outright cut ties with traditional energy. Never mind whether this expanded environmental, social, and corporate governance--or ESG, as it is called--desired by the far left can be accurately or consistently measured, much less proved to have a positive impact on the economy or for the climate. But the administration doesn't stop there. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission established a so-called Climate Risk Unit that potentially seems designed to pressure industries into making certain investment choices. The Federal Reserve, which has zero business inserting itself into debates over climate policy, is suggesting that it should provide ``supervisory guidance'' to large banks on so-called climate-related risks. Similarly, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency recently issued draft principles for banks on ``climate- related financial risk.'' President Biden's climate envoy, former Secretary of State John Kerry, has actively--actively--pressured banks not to invest in fossil fuels. And disturbingly, the original draft of the National Credit Union Administration's Draft Strategic Plan for 2022 to 2026, though it has since been revised, went beyond discouraging investment in conventional energy production and actually suggested that investing too heavily in agriculture--agriculture--could be problematic for climate-related reasons. Now, I am not sure where the National Credit Union Administration thinks our food is going to come from if banks and credit unions don't provide capital to their farms and ranch clients. All of these measures, as I said, are designed to directly or indirectly discourage investment in conventional energy production and other industries that the far left believes interfere with its unrealistic environmental agenda. And that is a problem. While I am a longtime supporter of clean energy and come from a State that in 2020 derived 83 percent of its energy generation from renewables, the fact of the matter is that our country is nowhere close to being able to eliminate our reliance on fossil fuels. Clean energy technology has simply not advanced to the point where we can replace all conventional energy production with renewables. And cutting off investment in clean, responsible oil and gas production will do nothing but drive up energy prices for American consumers and increase our reliance on energy from unstable or unfriendly countries, which, I might add, often extract energy in far less environmentally friendly ways than do U.S. producers. Americans are already struggling with high energy prices, thanks, in part, to the Biden administration's hostility to domestic oil and gas production, and I don't think too many Americans are eager to see energy prices rise even further. In the worst-case scenario, limiting investment in U.S. conventional energy production could not only drive up prices but contribute to fuel shortages here at home, as we may end up seeing with countries that are overly reliant on Russian energy. And I am pretty sure there aren't many Americans who are eager to wait in line at gas stations for a rationed amount of gas. And it is not just high energy prices that Americans could have to worry about. If Democrats take their climate hysteria as far as discouraging lending to certain sectors of the agricultural economy, like livestock, which now seems possible, Americans could also see food prices rise sharply. I think it is safe to say that it is the last thing American families need in an economy that is already beset by 8.5 percent inflation, not to mention the fact that agriculture should actually be regarded as a good investment when it comes to climate change considerations. American agriculture should be leveraged as part of environmental and conservation policies, and our farmers have a vested interest in our land and water. Add in the biofuels industry, and our agriculture sector can responsibly provide food, fuel, and fiber for the Nation. In fact, the Department of Energy has found that ethanol derived by increasingly higher crop yields has a more than 40 percent lower lifecycle carbon footprint than gasoline. Beyond all this, Mr. President, is the fact that the President's attempt to dictate investment by privately owned banks and credit unions and companies is a misuse of the financial regulatory system. The President's use of the financial regulatory system to pressure companies on energy investment has all too familiar echoes of the Obama administration's Operation Choke Point initiative, which used the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Department of Justice to target companies whose activities the Obama administration didn't like. The question also becomes, Where does this end? The government is already pressuring companies on firearms and energy investment, and now there are dangerous signs that agriculture could be targeted on perceived climate-related grounds. Well, what is next? Is the Biden administration going to pressure banks not to lend to companies who don't espouse the Biden administration's extreme abortion agenda or who donate to causes the Biden administration doesn't support? Is it going to pressure banks not to lend to States with laws the administration doesn't like? These are legitimate questions. As we have seen more than once, the Biden administration doesn't have a lot of tolerance for those who disagree with its far-left policy goals. Concerns like these are one reason why I led 10 of my fellow Republicans earlier this month in sending a letter to the President expressing our alarm with his administration's use of the financial regulatory system to attempt to choke off lending to conventional energy production and potentially target American agriculture. And I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that the Biden administration and its regulators are not making improper use of executive power to discourage investment in essential production and to pick winners and losers among American industries. Americans should not have to suffer because Democrats' climate agenda is out of control. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the Biden administration can't quite seem to decide on the status of the pandemic or the status of the economy. On the one hand, we are being told that we no longer need pandemic- era border restrictions intended to help limit illegal immigration and prevent the spread of COVID. On the other hand, the administration is still fighting to require Americans to wear masks on public transit and airplanes and is urging Congress to pass additional COVID spending to fight the pandemic the administration seems to believe is over at the border. It is a confusing message, to say the least. Americans know the pandemic can't simultaneously be over for migrants at the border but make it too dangerous for a South Dakotan to fly from Sioux Falls to Minneapolis without a mask. The administration's messaging is similarly muddled on the economy and student loans. On the one hand, the President is proudly touting ``record'' job creation and ``record'' economic growth even though most of what he is taking credit for is the natural consequence of an economic recovery from the pandemic. On the other hand, the President recently announced that he is extending the moratorium on Federal student loan payments, interest, and collections for another 4 months, until August 31, because Americans are still suffering economically as a result of the pandemic. Well, which is it? Is our economy thriving or are Americans economically distressed? The student loan repayment moratorium and interest freeze included in the CARES Act at the beginning of the pandemic made sense. Our economy was starting to shut down, and Americans' jobs were in jeopardy, but it made sense as a temporary measure for a genuine emergency. We are no longer having double-digit unemployment as we did during some of the worst moments of the pandemic. In fact, our current unemployment rate is a low 3.6 percent. For college graduates, the unemployment rate is a staggeringly low 2 percent. To paraphrase the Wall Street Journal's editorial board on the subject, if student loan borrowers aren't ready to return to making payments now, they will never be. Even the Washington Post editorialized against the President's latest extension, noting: What was a needed emergency measure at the start of the pandemic is no longer justified. It is hard to make an argument that college graduates are struggling right now. The unemployment rate for Americans with a bachelor's degree or higher is a mere 2 percent. There is a near-record number of job openings. That was from the Washington Post. It is true that Americans are facing economic challenges as a result of the inflation that President Biden and Democrats helped to create with their ill-considered American Rescue Plan Act, but, if anything, President Biden's latest student loan pause could help prolong our inflation problems, and, importantly, it will have the biggest benefits for those who are most able to deal with price hikes from inflation. This clearly regressive policy benefits high-debt, high-income borrowers significantly more than low-debt, low-income borrowers. Again, to quote the Washington Post once more: Rising prices of gas, rent, food and cars are a hardship, but forgiving interest on student loans for four more months offers the biggest benefits to people who have earned degrees in medicine and law. These people go on to have lucrative careers. Meanwhile, the 64 percent of Americans who do not have a college degree don't benefit at all from Biden's pause on loan repayments. That was again from the Washington Post. And subsidizing all of those doctors and lawyers ends up being pretty expensive. The student loan repayment moratorium has already cost the Federal Government more than $100 billion. By the time the President's latest extension of the moratorium is up, it will have cost the Federal Government billions more. After a huge increase in our national debt, thanks to the pandemic and reckless Democratic spending, the government does not need to be forgoing billions of dollars by providing student loan relief to Americans with some of the highest earning potential, which is why, this morning, I introduced legislation--the Stop Reckless Student Loan Actions Act--to end the current deferment on student loan repayments and limit a President's authority to pause student loan repayments in the future. My legislation, which I introduced with my colleague Senator Richard Burr and Senators Braun, Cassidy, and Marshall, would continue to allow a President to temporarily suspend student loan payments during a future national emergency, but it would limit those suspensions to a period of 90 days and subject them to congressional disapproval. It would also ensure that relief is targeted to those who need it most by preventing Presidents from suspending payments for higher income individuals; and, importantly, it would prevent a President or a Secretary of Education from using a national emergency to cancel student loan debt, which leads me to, perhaps, my biggest concern in all of this. Deferring student loan payments is a bad policy that is costing the Federal Government money it doesn't have, but it pales in comparison to the ultimate goal for many Democrats--and that is canceling student loan debt entirely. Days ago, the President's Press Secretary, in referring to the payment deferment, said: Between now and August 31, it's either going to be extended again or we're going to make a decision . . . about canceling student debt. That was from the President's Press Secretary. Her statement made it alarmingly clear that the President isn't just temporarily deferring loan payments but is seriously considering canceling--canceling--a significant portion of Federal student loan debt. She doubled down on that idea on Monday, noting: What I would tell you is that not a single person in this country has paid a dime on Federal student loans since the President took office. My gosh, canceling student loan debt is a bad idea for so many reasons. In the first place, it is money the Federal Government simply doesn't have. Democrats often speak as if the Federal Government were able to draw from an unlimited pot of money, but, of course, we know that is not true. Government funds aren't anywhere close to being unlimited, and government coffers aren't filled from a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. They are filled by taxpayer dollars, and sooner or later, it will be taxpayers who foot the bill for any loan forgiveness program, including the many taxpayers who opted not to attend college or who chose a debt-free way of doing so. I can scarcely think of anything more unfair than forcing Americans who incurred no college debt to shoulder the bill for those who did, especially when a substantial portion of that debt is incurred by those with the greatest earning potential. Canceling student debt would also be grossly unfair to the Americans who worked hard for years to pay off their loans. An American who has just finished paying off his or her higher education debt would get nothing--nothing--from such a cancellation while a recent graduate who had made just a month or two of payments could see his or her debt disappear entirely. And canceling student debt would do nothing to address the real problem, which is the out-of-control cost of higher education. In fact, it would likely make that problem worse, not to mention the fact that student loan cancellation would take an already bad inflation situation and, almost undoubtedly, make it much worse. We think 8.5-percent inflation is bad, and it is, but canceling student loan debt this fall could take inflation to new and even more painful heights. Now, I strongly support finding ways to drive down the cost of higher education and educate students about the dangers of excessive debt. I also support measures to help students pay off their student loans without putting taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars or more. I would note the measure that I got included in the CARES Act and extended later that year to allow employers to make tax- free payments on their employees' student loans; but unnecessarily deferring student loan payments--or worse, the canceling of a significant portion of student loan debt entirely--is a terrible idea for many reasons. I hope that colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join the student loan bill that I introduced earlier today to end these endless and unnecessary loan deferment extensions. I hope at least some of my Democratic colleagues will recognize the unwisdom of canceling student loan debt, its blatant unfairness to individuals who have already paid off their student loans or who never went to college and the negative effect it would have on our inflation- ridden economy.