John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, one of the big drivers of our inflation crisis was Democrats' decision to flood the economy with unnecessary government money last March with their $1.9 trillion spending bill. Another contributor to the problem has been supply chain bottlenecks. Americans are getting pretty used to long delays in receiving the goods they have ordered, to big holes on grocery store shelves, and to being unable to rely on a store to keep a product in stock consistently. Since the start of the pandemic, keeping goods in stock has been a challenge, but, as with the larger inflation crisis, the White House has seemed largely uninterested in addressing the problem. ``The tragedy of the treadmill that's delayed''--that was a quote of the White House Press Secretary, joking in October, a typically tone-deaf comment from an administration often oblivious to the difficulties facing ordinary Americans. In fact, supply chain issues are not a minor inconvenience; they are a real problem. It is not easy for an already overstretched mom or dad to have to run around town trying to find essential items--items they could previously rely on one store, at least, to have in stock. Businesses are struggling to maintain their profit margins and meet the demands of their customers, particularly small businesses, which have fewer resources to work around supply chain problems. Of course, supply chain problems are helping to fuel the price hikes Americans have been facing on everything from food and clothing to furniture, to used cars and trucks. These are facts that seem lost on the administration, which has largely ignored supply chain issues and the inflation crisis in favor of focusing on pet projects: a massive tax-and-spending spree and election legislation that it thinks will boost Democrat chances in the fall. On top of this, the administration has taken more than one action that is making or seems likely to make our supply chain problems even worse. Earlier this week, for example, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration implemented its entry-level driver training rule, which substantially expands training requirements for drivers seeking to obtain a commercial driver's license. The new rule is likely to make it significantly more challenging for trucking companies to train new drivers, particularly for smaller trucking companies, which may struggle to afford the enhanced training costs. The trucking industry has been hit hard by the supply chain crisis, with drivers working longer hours with fewer resources to keep goods moving across the country. They have been heroes. This makes it a very bad time to impose new burdens on truckers and tie up trucking companies with additional redtape. The administration should have delayed the implementation of this rule until the worst of the supply chain crisis eases. Unfortunately, the administration decided to push ahead anyway, and now truckdrivers and trucking companies will face additional challenges, which will likely exacerbate supply chain problems. The Canada-U.S. cross-border truckdriver vaccine mandate is another administration action that has created new pressures on a trucking industry already stretched thin thanks to the supply chain crisis. I am a strong supporter of vaccines, but mandating vaccines for cross-border truckdrivers has only served to worsen supply chain bottlenecks. You just need to look at the current situation in Canada to see the evidence of that. Truckdrivers do not pose a high risk of COVID transmission since they spend most of their workday alone. This mandate's main legacy looks likely to be increasing the supply chain problems we are facing. Then, of course, there is the administration's hostile attitude toward conventional energy production. The administration might not like it, but the fact of the matter is that our economy will continue to rely on conventional energy like gasoline for a while yet. Discouraging conventional energy production, as the administration has done, is doing nothing but worsening our inflation and supply chain crisis and driving up energy bills for American families. Energy prices have a substantial effect on prices in the store and on the availability of goods. The higher energy prices are, the more expensive it will be to produce and transport goods. The more it costs to produce and transport goods, the higher the final price of the goods is likely to be. The administration's hostility to traditional energy production has helped drive energy prices up, which is aggravating, making worse, our supply chain and inflation crises. Instead of imposing unhelpful new regulations, it would be nice to see the administration turn its focus to meaningful measures to address the supply chain crisis, like those in the bipartisan legislation I introduced last week with Senator Amy Klobuchar. For some time now, I have heard reports of ocean carriers refusing to transport certain goods--often American agricultural products, which impacts my State of South Dakota--in favor of more lucrative cargoes. Our legislation is designed to address this problem and create a more level playing field for American producers. Our bill gives the Federal Maritime Commission greater authority to respond to discriminatory ocean carrier practices, and it provides the FMC with tools to more quickly resolve detention and demurrage disputes. This legislation will bring greater efficiency and transparency to a process that leaves many shippers frustrated--especially small businesses--and bring long-term, positive changes to the maritime supply chain, which I hope will benefit exporters, importers, and consumers alike. These are the kinds of measures the White House should be focusing on, measures that open up the supply chain instead of weighing it down with government mandates and regulations. Given the administration's general lack of concern with the supply chain and inflation crises facing the American people, I don't have a lot of hope that the White House is going to do much to address either of these problems, but I will continue to work with my colleagues in Congress from both parties wherever possible to advance measures that will ease our supply chain problems and help to get back to a situation where goods move smoothly around our country and around the world. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I don't need to tell anyone--except perhaps the Democratic Party here in Congress--that our country has a major inflation problem. The first year of the Biden administration has been characterized by a huge increase in inflation. Inflation is currently at a 40-year high. Let me just repeat that. Inflation is currently at a 40-year high. The last time inflation was this bad, ``E.T.'' was just premiering in movie theaters and ``Return of the Jedi'' hadn't even come out yet. Inflation is so bad that despite wage increases in 2021, Americans saw a de facto pay cut. A December survey by the New York Times found that just 17 percent of Americans said their wages had kept up with inflation. The White House Chief of Staff may think inflation is ``a high-class problem,'' but for the mom at the grocery store wondering if she can afford to buy ground beef this week or for the young worker just starting out who is wondering if she can afford to fill up her car, inflation is a very real problem. Americans are struggling. They are facing huge price increases at the grocery store; huge price increases at the gas pump; big increases in the cost of household goods, like furniture and bedding and laundry equipment; massive increases in the cost of fuel oil and gas service; higher electric bills; and on and on. Inflation is weighing down businesses, too, from larger businesses to family farms and ranches. A recent survey from the National Federation of Independent Business found that 22 percent of small businesses consider inflation to be the biggest challenge facing their business, a 20-point increase from the beginning of 2021--a 20-point increase. It is no wonder that 69 percent of Americans disapprove of the President's handling of inflation and 56 percent disapprove of his handling of the economy. Inflation is a major burden for American families and businesses--a fact that seems utterly lost on members of the Democratic Party. While American families struggle, Democrats' focus is on anything but inflation. What is worse, many Democrats are still hoping to pass elements of their reckless tax-and-spending spree, the so-called Build Back Better plan, despite the fact that it was a bloated Democrat spending spree that helped get us into this inflation mess in the first place. Yes, while the pandemic created inflationary pressures, a big reason we are in our current inflation mess is because of Democrats' decision to push through an unnecessary and partisan $2 trillion spending bill last March. When Democrats took office last January, inflation was well within an acceptable range, what is known as the target inflation rate. It might have stayed there had Democrats not decided that they needed to pass a massive government spending spree under the guise of COVID relief and, I might add, mere weeks after Congress had already passed a major COVID bill. That is right. December 2020 saw Congress pass its fifth bipartisan COVID relief bill, and that one was a nearly $1 trillion piece of legislation that met essentially all current pressing COVID needs. But the ink was barely dry on the page before Democrats decided that they needed to take advantage of the COVID situation to pass yet another bill--this time, a hyperpartisan $1.9 trillion piece of legislation packed with unnecessary government spending and payoffs to Democrat interest groups. Again, there were five bipartisan COVID bills, the last of which passed in December of 2020. It was a $1 trillion bill that took care of all the outstanding COVID needs. Yet, within weeks, Democrats here in Congress were proposing another $2 trillion, most of which had little to do with COVID or the pandemic and a lot more to do with their partisan agenda. But the point is, the definition of ``inflation'' is ``too many dollars chasing too few goods and services.'' That is exactly the situation the Democrats helped create with their so-called American Rescue Plan. They sent too many Federal dollars into the economy, and the economy overheated as a result. Now we are sitting here with the worst inflation in 40 years, and instead of trying to address our inflation crisis, Democrats still--still--want to double down on the strategy that helped get us into this mess in the first place. ``Reckless and irresponsible spending'' is putting it mildly. In January, Senator Tim Scott and I introduced the Inflation Prevention Act, a bill to stop Congress from considering any legislation that contains new spending and is estimated to increase inflation if the year-over-year inflation rate exceeds 4\1/2\ percent. One would hope that legislation like this wouldn't be necessary at a time when inflation far exceeds the target inflation rate, but, as we have seen with Democrats' reckless tax-and-spending spree, that isn't the case. So Senator Tim Scott and I, along with several of our Republican colleagues, have introduced this bill, which would help prevent reckless spending legislation, like the Democrats' so-called Build Back Better Act, when inflation is high. Again, let me just point out that on top of a $2 trillion spending bill a year ago in March--less than a year ago in March--the Democrats' prescription now is another $5 trillion in spending, financed in part with tax increases, which also fuels inflation, and about $3 trillion in debt on top of the $30 trillion in debt we already have. So we have rampant pandemic inflation, attributable largely to the massive spending bill passed on a partisan basis last March. Now, instead of tackling inflation and putting policies in place that would help drive inflation down, the solution Democrats are proposing is a $5 trillion spending bill. Americans are struggling. Everywhere they turn, they are facing higher prices, stretching their budgets to the limit. If Democrats really want to help American families, they should abandon the reckless tax-and-spending spree once and for all and focus on mitigating damage they have already done with their inflationary spending. I yield the floor.

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, 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 South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. 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 text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to complete my remarks.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. 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 North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville). 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 North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I rise today to speak on a topic of global importance and mounting urgency, and that is Russia's continued aggression toward Ukraine. After months of shifting tens of thousands of troops and military equipment, some from its easternmost military district, Russia has built up a military presence around the northern, eastern, and southern flanks of Ukraine. Russia has also amassed forces in Belarus under the guise of joint military exercises. Unfortunately, there are no indications that the situation with Ukraine and Russia has taken any steps toward deescalation. If anything, Ukraine and our European partners are beginning to accept the U.S. assessment that Russia's buildup is continuing on a trend to permit a well-resourced and supported attack in mid- to late February. As the cost of his deployment adds up and the so-called exercises in Belarus come to an end on February 20, Vladimir Putin will reach a decision point. I say this not to provoke alarm but to emphasize that the United States and our security partners must do what we can while we can. It is critical to demonstrate that there will be a unified response from the West, including when it comes to sanctions and providing military equipment to Ukraine, so that we send the message to Putin that an attack would be a severe miscalculation on his part. Is an attack from Russia truly imminent? Well, so far, Putin's demands are nonstarters. Russia demanded that NATO deny Ukraine or any other free nation in Eastern Europe the ability to join this defensive alliance. Russia also demanded that NATO revert to its 1997 posture and capabilities. These aren't serious demands, and the administration rightly rejected both. Unfortunately, at this point, Putin would likely find it humiliating to back down from such a costly military buildup without getting any concessions from the West. Many fear that he has backed himself into a corner where he may feel like his best option is to attack, as disastrous as that would be. Now, the Ukrainians will say: How can Russia start a war with Ukraine? We have been at war for 8 years. That is a critical point to remember, particularly when Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov are accusing the United States and NATO of stoking tensions and assuming a threatening military posture. Think about it: Russia has illegally occupied Crimea and backed separatist forces in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine for 8 years as of this month. Yet Russia has the temerity to call NATO, which is a defensive alliance, and Ukraine--a free country that wishes to join that defensive pact--the aggressors. I should add that this is not a case of NATO's moving east, as the Russians will claim, but of independent countries seeking, of their own volition, to cast off old, imperialist Soviet influence and align with the West. Make no mistake about it. Russia is the aggressor here, and we know that Putin wants to destabilize an independent Ukraine and bring it back into Russia's sphere of influence, similar to what he has done with Belarus, and that includes making it unthinkable for Ukraine, Georgia, or any other nation to seek or join NATO. There are many possible scenarios for a Russian attack, including an attempt by Russia to try to solidify control of eastern Ukraine, pick up territory along the coast, or connect a land bridge to Crimea. Any Russian attack would also surely include cyber and information operations--behavior which we have already seen. Russia could overwhelm Ukrainian defenses and strike command, control, and communications centers in an opening salvo before crossing the border, but its long- term course of action remains less certain. Ukrainians of all ages are showing their renewed willingness to put up a fight and to determine their own future, and Putin has to weigh any possible gains against the risk of high casualties or an insurgency. Putin could also threaten Kyiv and try to force concessions elsewhere, but his calculus must already include the likely response of crippling sanctions and isolation, not to mention driving other nations like Sweden and Finland to align more closely with NATO. There have also been reports that Putin, whether by military attack or his little green men, could seek to overthrow President Zelenskyy. Russia has, of course, denied the claim, but Putin would certainly prefer a puppet regime to that of President Zelenskyy. The uncertainty surrounding what Putin could do does not lower the threat of a Russian attack on Ukraine. And the latest indicators suggest Russia is still pressing forward to prepare for an imminent attack. Reports show that Russia is moving blood supplies, medical materials, and more fuel tankers to its west and to Belarus. Blood supplies are especially not required for a so-called exercise with Belarus; they are meant for casualties. We need to take these developments seriously, pursuing a diplomatic deescalation, while making sure Ukraine can put up a fight and that NATO is ready and able to defend against any direct Russian aggressions. On the diplomatic side, the United States and Russia have traded negotiation letters. As I noted earlier, Vladimir Putin is demanding a ransom for Ukraine's safety--a permanent ban on Ukraine's inclusion in NATO--and demanding that NATO, a freely associating defensive alliance, take steps to weaken its own security. These aren't serious demands. So with no resolution in sight, the United States and its allies continue to move security assistance to Ukraine, including ammunition, missiles, and rockets, while preparing to reinforce NATO troops in border states. The Javelins and Stingers the West is sending Ukraine may do little to stop Russian long-range fires or airstrikes, but they could still impose a significant cost if Russia tries to hold significant territory, especially in urban areas. Ukrainians are prepared to put up a fight, and we should provide them with the arms that they need to dig in. I hope the administration and the majority party will take this threat to Ukraine seriously, utilize any remaining levers of American influence to deter a renewed attack, and, if Putin proceeds, make him immediately realize that it was a miscalculation. This will take coordinated, lethal military assistance and strong sanctions, including against the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. It will be critical that Democrats come to realize that Nord Stream 2 is one of Putin's top geopolitical priorities. When this administration waived sanctions on the pipeline, despite the overwhelming opinion that the pipeline will make Europe more reliant on--and vulnerable to--Russian energy and will be an economic blow to Ukraine, Putin saw that he wouldn't be challenged. This is a crisis of Putin's making, but we didn't get here overnight. Waiving sanctions in Nord Stream 2 is one of the many missed opportunities to signal strength against Putin. We first saw Russia amassing troops on Ukraine's border last April. Yet here we are, roughly 10 months later, scrambling to deliver lethal defensive military aid. The Biden administration has been too slow to respond to the mounting crisis and is now playing catchup. Exhibit A is that the administration just this Monday named its pick to serve as Ambassador to Ukraine. Of all the times to have a top diplomat in a country to prove that we are taking its situation seriously and to coordinate assistance, this is it. This follows a year of the administration slow-rolling assistance to Ukraine and seemingly springing to action only after the United Kingdom and others began overtly equipping Ukraine. It is essential that we present a credible threat to Putin, but, unfortunately, I think he has pegged our President as a benign counterpart. Putin can look at America and see an unpopular President as risk-averse and spinning his wheels on a polarizing and flailing domestic agenda, not to mention that he can look at President Biden's botched withdrawal from Afghanistan and the risk to our defense modernization efforts from another continuing resolution and conclude that Democrats and the President pose little threat to Russia's ambitions. Given the Biden administration's record, I have concerns about the President's willingness to stand up to Russia, but I very much hope these concerns are unfounded. We simply cannot afford to fail in this situation. This is Ukraine's fight, but the implications of an attack will go far beyond its borders. We cannot accept that one nation can simply attack and subjugate another. And we cannot be so naive to think that Russia would stop with an invasion of Ukraine. The bear would still be in the woods, and Putin would love nothing more than to challenge or break the credibility of NATO or the United States. We cannot accept that scenario or allow Russia to dictate our own security posture with respect to NATO. The only way to reject that future is by standing with our partners and staring down Putin's open aggression. Shoring up our NATO presence and putting troops on high alert are steps in the right direction. I am sure Ukraine currently feels surrounded and outgunned, but we need to make clear to Ukraine and to Vladimir Putin that Ukraine is not alone; that the free nations of the West will stand with Ukraine against Russian aggression and that the United States will make good on its NATO commitments. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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