John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, it is another day and another really bad idea that is coming from the Democrats to fund their reckless tax-and- spending spree. It seems like, to fund this massive amount of spending, they are trying desperately to come up with new revenue sources, so much so that, as of yesterday, still under consideration was a tax on unrealized gains--in other words, on income that people haven't received yet. Let's just put that into perspective. If carried to its full conclusion and it became a precedent as part of the tax policy in this country--and it never has been before--to put it in terms for people to understand, a lot of people participate in the 401(k) or they have some sort of retirement plan from their employers. If there were a gain in a particular year--say that the total value of the portfolios of assets in their retirement plans, those 401(k)s, went up by 20 percent--they could be taxed on that 20 percent even though they haven't received the income yet. That is what is being talked about here in terms of precedent. Never before has that been attempted or tried or implemented in American history, where you would actually have a tax on income before people actually ever received the income. Of course, if you carry that to its natural conclusion, as we all know, markets go up and markets go down. If you had a year wherein your total value went down by 20 percent, then what? Do you get a refund from the Federal Government? My understanding is that they would offer some sort of a tax credit, in a case like that, if you had a year when you had losses. Just think about the precedent that would establish, what that could mean for the American people, if at some point the government literally could tax you--tax you--on income that you hadn't received yet. That is the latest really horrible idea which I think is being shot down by Democrats because they recognize what a horrible idea that is. But it is a good example of the desperate lengths to which Democrats are trying to come up with new ways to fund this reckless tax-and- spending spree that they seem to be insistent on trying to force through Congress. With an evenly divided Senate and evenly divided House of Representatives, it is hard to imagine that you could do something that radical, but this entire proposal is that radical, which is why they are having such a hard time getting even people in their own caucuses to agree with it. Two years ago, Democrats introduced their original Green New Deal resolution. While the guiding principles of the Green New Deal was climate change and energy, Democrats didn't limit themselves to these issues. They outlined a radical, comprehensive socialist revamping of our society with the Federal Government inserting itself into nearly every aspect of American life. And while Democrats haven't advanced one all-inclusive bill to implement the Green New Deal--probably because of the absolutely staggering pricetag for a comprehensive piece of legislation like that--the Green New Deal socialist vision has rapidly become an organizing principle of the Democratic Party. For proof, look no further than the tax-and-spending spree Democrats are contemplating with its massive expansion of government and radical climate agenda. One major problem with the Democrats is they never fully consider the cost of their legislation, whether it is the actual dollar amount or other costs their proposals might impose. And nowhere--nowhere--is that more true than with the Democrats' tax-and-spending spree. I have spent a lot of time on the floor talking about things like the way this bill will further drive up inflation and the dangers it imposes for economic growth. Today, I want to address some of the costs of the bill's Green New Deal-esque energy provisions, starting with the cost to American families. We know some energy prices are increasing due to the rising demand from the lows of the pandemic. Yesterday's average price for a gallon of gas was $3.38. That is compared to an average price of $2.16 1 year earlier. Meanwhile, natural gas prices recently hit a 7-year high, and there are mounting concerns about supply. Americans are paying a lot more to drive their cars, to heat their homes, and to cook their food. The high cost of gasoline and natural gas are two more reasons why Americans are finding that their paychecks don't stretch as far these days. Given the situation, you would think that finding ways to lower energy costs would be among Democrats' top priorities right now, but you would be wrong. Democrats' tax-and-spending spree isn't going to lower energy prices; it is going to drive them even higher. The new energy policies that Democrats are considering would drive up the price of electricity, natural gas, and gasoline and subsidize Democrats' preferred technologies with Americans' tax dollars. And the icing on the cake is that Americans are likely to be paying higher electric costs for possibly worse electric service. A lot of Americans are familiar with the problems with California's electric grid--namely, blackouts. Well, if Democrats have their way, Americans around the country will be able to enjoy California-style electricity; in other words, expensive and inconsistent electricity delivery along with higher gas prices. This is what I mean when I talk about Democrats not fully considering the costs. Nobody--nobody--questions that clean energy is a good thing. I have been a strong supporter--a strong supporter--of clean energy innovation. My State of South Dakota leads the way, whether it is wind energy, biofuel, or hydropower. Most of the energy generated in the State of South Dakota comes from renewable sources. In 2020, 83 percent of the electricity generated in my State of South Dakota came from renewable sources. But clean energy policies need to be realistic and practical for each region of the country. We have to, for example, understand that we are not yet at the point, innovationwise, where we can rely mostly on intermittent renewable sources to power electric grids. We need reliable baseload power from sources like clean natural gas and nuclear. Additionally, forcing older electric plants to close before the end of their remaining useful life, especially the most modern and efficient ones, will strand those assets. Our utilities make long-term investments, and when they can't recoup those facility investments, they pass the costs on to consumers. Overreaching clean energy policies that place heavy burdens on working families are unacceptable. Wealthy Democratic politicians and the wealthy donor class that supports them may not have to worry much if they have to spend more on their electric bill or an extra $20 to $25 filling up their gas tank. But that is a big deal to a family on a budget, especially when that family is also dealing with the increased price of food and other basics. Thanks to inflation and other pressures on gas prices, Americans are already having to spend a lot more money to fill their gas tanks, and with the Democrats' tax-and-spending spree, many working families would end up unable to fill their gas tank when they need to in a diminished oil and gas sector. Maybe that is the goal of some of the more extreme members of the Democratic Party, but it is an unacceptable one. Working families are likely to have a tough time thanks to the energy provisions in the Democrats' tax-and-spending spree, but wealthy families should do a little better. Not only are they more likely to be able to afford increases in the price of electricity and gas, but they will also be able to claim a tax credit from the Federal Government if they want to purchase an expensive electric vehicle. Democrats' tax-and-spending spree will offer tax credits of up to $12,500 for the purchase of an electric car or truck with the biggest credit naturally going to those who purchase union-made vehicles. That is right. Only electric vehicles produced at facilities under a union-negotiated collective bargaining agreement would be eligible for the $4,500 plus-up, which would take the credit up to $12,500. And anyone making up to $400,000 a year will be able to claim this credit. That is right. Under Democrats' legislation, you could be making nearly half a million dollars a year and still receive a substantial tax break for the purchase of an electric car. Meanwhile, more accessible and readily available clean energy technologies--notably, biofuels--take a backseat in this bill. Electric vehicles are Democrats' chosen winner in the transportation sector, no matter how impractical they may still be for a lot of working Americans. Speaking of impractical, if you want an electric bike to go along with your electric car, Democrats will also give you a tax credit for that as well. Yes, the Democrats' bill contains a tax credit for electric bicycles--a credit that would go to bicycles that can cost up to $8,000. Now, maybe it is just me, but if you can afford an $8,000 electric bike, I am not sure you need a tax credit for it from the Federal Government. Also, while electric bicycles may have their appeal in urban and maybe some suburban communities, they are a completely impractical option for most individuals in States like South Dakota. When you live 20 miles away from the nearest grocery store, an electric bicycle is not going to be your vehicle of choice for getting around. And I am pretty sure that South Dakota agricultural producers will back me up when I say that electric bicycles are not going to be much use for getting out to check the fences in the far corners of their ranch. However, I have got to say that tax credits for electric bicycles are far from the most wasteful use of government money in this bill. That honor may have to go for the new tax credit to higher education institutions for teaching environmental justice programs. That is right. I am sure Americans will be relieved to know that Democrats are planning to create a new tax credit for higher education institutions-- including Ivy league schools and other well-funded universities--so that they can teach courses on environmental justice, whatever that is. You would think colleges that charge students tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of dollars in tuition could perhaps afford to fund their own environmental justice programs. But, again, I guess you would be wrong. Then there is the $3 billion the bill provides for tree equity--tree equity. Now, I support and encourage the planting of trees, and I have introduced a straightforward bill to rapidly expand tree planting across the country without any Federal spending. But I am fairly sure the Federal Government cannot afford to spend $3 billion on tree equity, especially when Democrats need to save money for their civilian climate corps--a new government program to provide government jobs and subsidized housing to climate activists. There is so much more. The word is that Democrats will soon be releasing a new version of their tax-and-spending spree, and I can only hope that it will be less extreme than the current version because if the bill's current Green New Deal-esque energy provisions go into effect, Americans are going to be looking at a future of higher energy costs, diminished energy resources, and a weakened energy independence, not to mention a lot of wasted taxpayer dollars. Once again, it is abundantly clear that the Green New Deal is a bad deal for American families. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to complete my remarks before the start of the vote.

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 West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) would have voted ``nay.''

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, Democrats continue to negotiate with each other on their reckless tax-and-spending spree. Democrats are currently working to lower the bill's top-line number in an effort to meet some of the demands of the few moderate Democrats who have reservations about unchecked government spending. Now, you might think that lowering the top-line number would involve deciding what programs and spending to eliminate to bring the bill in at a lower cost. Well, not exactly. Yes, Democrats are reportedly eliminating some spending, but the word is that, under pressure from progressives, who are dead set against curtailing their plans for expanding government, Democrats are planning to keep a lot of their most expensive proposals, but simply shorten the funding window to make the costs of these programs seem lower. Take Democrats' fantastically expensive child allowance. Democrats have every intention of turning their child allowance into a permanent government welfare program, but in order to bring the top-line number of their spending bill down, the word is that Democrats are now planning to officially extend the allowance for just 1 year. This is, in fact, a budget gimmick on top of a budget gimmick, as Democrats were already attempting to disguise the true cost of the child allowance by officially extending it for just 4 of the 10 years in the bill's 10-year budget window. They were never, of course, planning to eliminate the child allowance after 4 years, and they are certainly not planning to eliminate it now after 1 year, but by officially extending it for just a year in their tax-and-spending spree, they can manage to make the program look as if it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars less than it will actually cost. And they are apparently repeating this strategy with a number of their other spending measures. That paid leave program? Apparently, the White House has proposed a smaller version that would supposedly expire after 3 or 4 years. Those childcare subsidies? Apparently, those may also now, ostensibly, expire. The ObamaCare subsidies Democrats want to extend permanently? Well, once again, it sounds like they are going to try shrinking the apparent cost with a short-term extension. But, again, let's be very clear here. These short-term extensions and short-term programs are nothing more than a budget gimmick to disguise the true cost of the Democrats' plan. There isn't one program that I have named that Democrats don't fully intend to make permanent. Don't believe me? Just ask the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which outlined the strategy the Democrats are currently adopting in a letter to Speaker Pelosi. I quote from that letter: If given a choice between legislating narrowly or broadly-- the caucus wrote-- --we strongly encourage you to choose the latter, and make robust investments over a shorter window . . . This will help make the case for our party's ability to govern, and establish a track record of success that will pave the way for a long-term extension of benefits. So the plan is to make these programs permanent and to permanently and massively expand the size of government. Democrats hope to get Americans hooked on the government benefits they are offering while hiding the true costs of those benefits from the American people until it is too late. Frankly, it is not a bad strategy if your aim is to permanently expand the size of government because the truth is it is pretty hard to eradicate even the most inefficient and ineffective Federal program once it has been put into place. As Ronald Reagan used to say, the nearest thing to eternal life that we will ever see on this earth is a government program. That, of course, is what the Democrats are counting on. They believe that, once they put these programs in place, no one from either party will be able to get rid of them. What is less clear is how Democrats believe these programs are going to be funded in the long term, if, in fact, they have given any thought to that issue at all. I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't. It is important to note that the short-term programs and program extensions in the Democrats' tax-and-spending spree will be paid for by 10 years of taxes. That is right. It will take 10 years of taxes and other revenue-raising measures to pay for programs that are scheduled to last as little as 1 year. So what happens when Democrats want to extend that child allowance again next year or extend those childcare subsidies for the long term? Well, that is a really good question, and one for which I would love to hear the Democrats' answer. Are Democrats going to trot out more tax hikes to pay for extending the child allowance or making the childcare subsidies permanent? Or are they going to just suggest that we add hundreds of billions--and eventually trillions--to our already dangerously large national debt? And, if they opt for tax hikes, just who is going to be facing those tax hikes? The Democrats are eventually going to run out of money from millionaires and billionaires, and then they are going to start coming after the wallets of the middle class. Of course, when I say that the programs in the Democrats' tax-and- spending spree will be paid for with 10 years of taxes, I mean that Democrats are claiming--claiming--that those programs will be paid for, because it is by no means clear that Democrats' tax hikes and revenue- raising measures will actually result in the revenue they are claiming. Democrats, for example, are claiming that their proposal to increase IRS enforcement measures, including a new requirement that would allow the IRS to look into the details of Americans' spending, will allow them to collect $700 billion in revenue; but the Congressional Budget Office hasn't confirmed that estimate, and there is substantial reason to doubt that Democrats will be able to collect anywhere even close to that amount even with a doubling of the IRS's budget, a massive expansion of a number of IRS employees, and a number of audits of everyday Americans. Even if Democrats do manage to rake in every dollar they are claiming, the tax hikes and revenue raisers they are proposing would have long-term costs beyond the dollar amount of the tax hikes. More than one of the Democrats' tax proposals would have a chilling effect on investment and economic growth, which would mean a less vibrant economy with fewer jobs and opportunities for American workers, and the IRS proposal I mentioned could put the details of Americans' ordinary bank activities into the hands of the IRS, an agency that we have seen repeatedly mishandle the taxpayer data it already has, as recently as earlier this year. Democrats may be able to come up with a smaller top-line number by hiding the true costs of the government programs they are contemplating, but their ``buy now and pay later or pay never'' approach to government spending is going to have serious consequences for our economy and for the American people. Unfortunately, by the time the full costs of Democrats' massive government expansion are felt, it may be too late to do much about it; and that, apparently, is what Democrats are counting on. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). 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 Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, is 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 Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, social media has become a big part of a lot of Americans' lives: TikTok, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram. People turn to social media for connection, for entertainment, to stay on top of the news, for pictures of the grandkids, for workout routines, and new recipes. Social media offers a lot of benefits and opportunities, but it is becoming ever more clear that social media has a darker side as well. Social media use can have a negative effect on mental health. It can foster negative and divisive engagement and serve as an outlet for illegal activity, from child pornography to human trafficking. It can have a particularly detrimental effect on the still-developing psyches of teenagers. The Wall Street Journal recently published a series of disturbing reports based on the information of a Facebook whistleblower provided that highlighted everything from the use of Facebook for criminal activity in developing countries to the company's own research showing the negative impact Instagram can have on teenager girls. Two weeks ago, the Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing where we heard firsthand from the Facebook whistleblower about the concerns that led her to come forward. And next week, the Commerce Committee will be holding a hearing with witnesses from Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube, examining how these companies treat younger users. A recent Wall Street Journal investigation into TikTok revealed how easy it is for younger users to be bombarded with wildly inappropriate content, from videos promoting drug use to disturbing sexual content. One major problem with social media that came through, once again, in the recent Commerce hearing and in the Wall Street Journal's recent revelations is social media platforms' use of algorithms to shape users' experiences. Gone are the days when you logged into Facebook and just consumed content that had been posted chronologically since your previous login. Now Facebook and other social media platforms use algorithms to shape your news feed and suggestions for additional content, emphasizing posts the platforms think you will be interested in and de-emphasizing other posts. Now, algorithms can be useful, of course. If you are looking for YouTube videos on how to build a bookshelf, you will probably appreciate it if YouTube suggests additional videos on how to build a bookshelf rather than videos on how to roast a turkey or sink the perfect jump shot. But algorithms have a problematic aspect as well. For starters, many people aren't aware just how much their experiences on these platforms are being manipulated and the negative emotional effects that that manipulation can have. Disclosure on these platforms can be confusing or nonexistent, so individuals can be largely unaware that the immense amount of personal data that social media platforms collect is being used to decide what posts they are being shown, what ads they are being offered, and more. Individuals end up being trapped in what has been termed the ``filter bubble''--their own world of filtered search results and tailored content. This can lead to everything from political polarization, as users are presented with a narrow, one-sided view of current affairs, to addictive behavior, as the platform doubles down on troubling content that users have shown an interest in. As the Wall Street Journal's recent articles on Facebook and TikTok demonstrate, the filter bubble can be particularly troubling in the case of younger social media users who may watch an inappropriate video and soon find that their feed is filled with similar material. In many ways, the filter bubble can and does shape a user's choices and behavior. As the former Commerce Committee chairman and current ranking member of the Commerce Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband, I have been following these issues for a while and have developed two bipartisan bills--the Filter Bubble Transparency Act and the PACT Act-- that I think would go a long way toward addressing the problems posed by social media platforms. My Filter Bubble Transparency Act, which is cosponsored by Senators Blumenthal and Blackburn, among others, would allow social media users to opt out of the filter bubble. In other words, it would allow them to opt out of the filtered experience tailored for them by opaque algorithms and, instead, see an unfiltered social media feed or search results that aren't based on the vast amount of information a platform has on them. Facebook, for example, would be required to provide a clear notification to users that their content is being shaped by algorithms. Then Facebook would be required to provide users with an easily accessible option to see a chronological news feed instead of a news feed powered by opaque algorithms that emphasize the posts that Facebook wants you to see. My Platform Accountability and Consumer Transparency Act--or the PACT Act--which I introduced with Senator Schatz, would also increase social media transparency. It would require sites to provide an easily digestible disclosure of their content moderation practices for users, and it would address censorship concerns by requiring sites to explain their decisions to remove material to consumers. Until relatively recently, sites like Facebook and Twitter would remove a user's post without explanation and without an appeals process. Even as platforms start to shape up their act with regard to transparency and due process, it is still hard for users to get good information about how content is being moderated. Under the PACT Act, if a site chooses to remove your post, it has to tell you why it decided to remove your post and explain how your post violated the site's terms of use. Then it has to provide a way for you to appeal that decision. The PACT Act would also explore the viability of a Federal program for Big Tech employees to blow the whistle on wrongdoing inside the companies where they work. We learned a lot from Frances Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower who spoke to the Commerce Committee 2 weeks ago, and I believe that we should encourage employees in the tech sector to speak up about questionable practices of Big Tech companies so that we can, among other things, ensure Americans are fully aware of how social media platforms are making use of artificial intelligence and individuals' personal data to keep them hooked on their platforms. As I said earlier, social media offers a lot of benefits--I think we all acknowledge that--but with the ever-increasing role that it plays in Americans' lives, it is essential that consumers understand exactly how social media platforms are using their information and shaping the news that they see and the content that they interact with. And I am hopeful that the recent troubling revelations about Facebook and TikTok published by the Wall Street Journal will create an impetus for bipartisan action on social media transparency. I am grateful to have bipartisan cosponsors for both the Filter Bubble Transparency Act and the PACT Act, and I look forward to working with my cosponsors to get these bills passed in the near future. Big Tech has operated in the dark for too long. It is time to shed some light on content moderation. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last week, President Biden's Chief of Staff retweeted a tweet from Harvard economist Jason Furman describing our current economic challenges--notably, the growing inflation crisis and supply chain issues--as ``high class problems.'' ``High class problems.'' Well, I guess working Americans struggling to stretch their paychecks to cover increases in the price of everything from groceries to gas can comfort themselves with the knowledge that they are experiencing ``high class problems.'' The White House Chief of Staff's tone-deaf tweet was, unfortunately, pretty typical of a White House that seems eager to minimize or disclaim responsibility for most of the problems occurring on its watch, whether it is the flood of illegal immigration across our southern border or the high prices Americans are currently facing. But as the White House Chief of Staff and the President should know, inflation has become a serious problem for working Americans. Inflation, of course, hits middle- and low-income families hard. If you are wealthy, price increases may be an annoyance, but they are not likely to break the budget. If you are living paycheck to paycheck, on the other hand, price increases may mean the difference between making it to the next paycheck or running out of money mid-month. Currently, inflation is costing a typical household $175 a month, and that is according to Moody's Analytics. That may not sound like much to a wealthy Democratic politician, but for an ordinary American family, it is a lot of money. That $175 a month may be the difference between whether or not parents can afford to get braces for their daughter. It may be the difference between going to visit family for Christmas or staying home and not seeing them. It may be the difference between having money for the extras, like family dinners at a restaurant or little league fees or ballet lessons or just being able to cover the bare necessities. For families making less than the median U.S. income, $100 or more a month can be the difference between making it to the next paycheck or running out of money. It can mean the difference between paying the heating bill or going cold during the winter. Americans have seen increases in food prices and the price of bacon or beef or poultry, pork, peanut butter, fruits and vegetables, eggs, and the list goes on. The price of children's shoes is up. So is the price of furniture and gas and electricity and rent. A recent AP article entitled ``Winter heating bills set to jump as inflation hits home'' noted ``the U.S. Government said . . . it expects households to see their heating bills jump as much as 54 percent compared to last winter.'' Fifty-four percent. Show me the working family that can easily absorb that increase. Inflation happens when you have too much money, too many dollars chasing too few of goods. Democrats helped trigger our inflation situation earlier this year when they decided to pour a lot of unnecessary government money into the economy, despite being warned their partisan $1.9 trillion spending bill could stoke inflation. Now, with inflation clearly becoming a long-term problem, Democrats are preparing to double down on the government spending with a massive $3.5 trillion tax-and-spending bill filled with priorities like $200 million for a park in Speaker Pelosi's district--a park that features luxury housing and a golf course--and billions of dollars for a Civilian Climate Corps to provide government jobs for climate activists. The massive government spending this bill--the biggest expansion of government, for sure, in decades, maybe in history--would authorize would pretty much guarantee that our country would be left with an even more persistent and widespread inflation problem. Flooding the economy with government dollars isn't even the only way that the bill will contribute to inflation. The bill also contains big tax hikes on businesses, which are already raising prices thanks to the higher cost of shipping and materials and the challenges of hiring an adequate workforce. Raising taxes on those businesses could result in even higher consumer prices and/or reductions in the quality of services provided to consumers. Government revenue for fiscal year 2021 saw a huge increase, driven in large part by tax receipts from corporations and well-off Americans. Those are the same companies and individuals the Democrats like to accuse of not paying their fair share. But since Democrats' appetite for government spending is apparently insatiable, record-high government revenues don't look likely to stop them from passing their huge tax increases and driving up prices for consumers further. Along with the flood of government spending Democrats passed in the spring, another major contributor to our inflation crisis has been supply chain bottlenecks. The White House has largely failed to do anything to address the problem. The President finally took one step forward when he announced the other day that the Port of Los Angeles will join the Port of Long Beach in operating 24/7. Well, it is about time. Major ports around the globe already operate around the clock, but here in the United States, unions have largely stood in the way of round-the-clock operations. And even now, the Port of Los Angeles/Long Beach will not be fully 24/7 for a while. Only one of the container terminals is currently open around the clock, and then only for part of the week. The others are only slowly moving toward 24- hour operations with no deadline in sight. Other than moving toward 24/7 operations in Los Angeles, however, the President is doing almost nothing to address the supply chain bottleneck. Infrastructure upgrades for ports, trucking, and rail are stuck in limbo while Democrats debate their $3.5 trillion tax-and- spending spree. And, while the President's Transportation Secretary has talked about loosening trucking regulations, his Department is actually pursuing an aggressive regulatory agenda that is likely to make transporting goods around this country more, not less, difficult. And I don't even want to think about the transportation challenges that are likely to result from the government mandates and regulations that will emerge from the Democrats' $3.5 trillion tax-and-spending spree. It is unfortunate that Democrat elites cannot seem to grasp that inflation is a serious problem for working families and that the solution to our inflation problem is not to flood our economy with even more government money. If Democrats succeed in passing their reckless tax-and-spending spree, high inflation may be the order of the day for many, many days to come. Let's hope that Democrats think better of their spending plans before American families end up paying the price. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

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