John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, there has been a good discussion already on the floor this morning--I was listening to my colleague, the Democratic whip--discussing the upcoming challenges that we face this fall. We have got to fund the government, we are facing the debt limit issue, and of course the Democrats' reckless tax-and-spending-spree proposal that we will have to deal with at some point too. The issue that has been raised is, why wouldn't Republicans want to help raise the debt limit? And I think the answer is very simple. The Democrats control the entire government here. They control the House, they control the Senate, they control the White House, and they have a procedure here in the Senate that enables them to raise the debt limit with 51 votes. They don't need a single Republican vote to raise the debt limit. They keep arguing that, well, in the past, there have been, you know, previous times when the debt limit has been a bipartisan issue. And in most cases, those were times, of course, when there was divided government and there was actually negotiation over these issues, which there isn't right now. I mean, this tax-and-spending spree being proposed by the Democrats is the largest expansion of government as a percentage of GDP, I believe, in history--certainly going back to the 1930s. But there is no question that this is a blowout spending bill that the Democrats have decided to do all on their own. Not a single Republican will vote for it. And so the debt increase that would accommodate all of that additional spending--the massive amount of spending, in some cases financed with tax increases--but that is another issue, and I am going to get to that in just a minute. But the amount of debt that would be added as a result of the $3.5 trillion the Democrats want to spend, on top of the $2 trillion that they spent earlier this year in February-- again, done all on Democrat vote; no Republicans participated in that-- is a very, very different scenario than when there have been in the past attempts to actually work in a bipartisan way. My colleague from Illinois mentioned the fact of the increase in the debt under the previous administration--what the level had been, somewhere on the order of 6 or $6.5 trillion--and I have to remind people that 4.5 trillion of that was negotiated in response to the crisis of the pandemic. And that was a negotiation between Republicans and Democrats, where both sides sat together and said, ``We have to do something; we have to react in a quick way, a bold way, to what is happening around the country,'' and created programs like the PPP program, which helped a lot of small businesses survive, helped with payments to healthcare providers for PPE and other costs to get them through this, money for vaccines, money for people who had been unemployed as a consequence of the pandemic. These were all costs associated with the pandemic that were negotiated in a bipartisan way, Republicans and Democrats working together. What we have in front of us right now is the Democrats proposing the biggest expansion of government probably in the history of this country. And if you look at what they are calling $3.5 trillion, a lot of outside groups, like the Committee for Responsible Federal Government, say it is $5.5 trillion. Either way, it is a massive amount of spending, all of which would dramatically increase the size of the government in this country and people's dependence upon government. I call it the ``free everything'' bill because, essentially, that is what it is. What I would simply suggest to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is that if you want to spend $3.5 trillion or $5.5 trillion-- whatever that number is--and you want to do it with 51 votes, without any discussion or negotiation or attempt to even reach out to Republicans on this, then, you ought to do it. Republicans were in the room. They negotiated a bipartisan infrastructure bill, $1.2 trillion, that passed here with 69 votes, and would pass overwhelmingly, I think, in the House, unless coupled with this massive spending bill, and then it would be signed into law by the President. That is an example of what can happen when you sit down and negotiate. On this other $3.5 trillion they have decided to do, they have decided to expand massively the size of the Federal Government, and to do that, they are going to add to the Federal debt. And it seems pretty straightforward, I think--and I think most Americans would understand-- that if you control the entire government--the House, the Senate, and the White House--and it is all your spending that is going to be necessary or that is going to be responsible for requiring an increase in the debt limit, then you ought to do it with Democrat votes. I think that is a perfect way of looking at this that would fit with the views of where most Americans are, most of whom, I believe, don't want to see their Federal Government going another $3.5 trillion into debt or massively expanding the size of the Federal Government at a time when inflation is already out of control. I want to speak to that because inflation is rapidly becoming a serious problem. Currently, inflation is near a 13-year high. It has outstripped wage growth for many Americans, including the lowest earning workers. In other words, the rise in the price of everything from goods to groceries has resulted in a de facto pay cut for American workers. So why are we experiencing this level of inflation? Well, as I mentioned, one reason is Democrats' decision in March to flood the economy with unnecessary government spending. President Biden and congressional Democrats took office mere weeks after Congress had approved a fifth--fifth--bipartisan COVID relief bill. And it was abundantly clear that we were not in immediate need of trillions more in government spending. But that didn't matter. It didn't matter to Democrats. Now that they were in control of Congress and the White House, they wanted to take advantage of the COVID crisis. So in the name of COVID relief, they pushed through a massive partisan piece of legislation, filled with unnecessary spending and handouts to Democrat interests groups. Schools, which had barely touched the tens of billions they had already been given, got billions more. State governments, the majority of which did not need more government assistance, got access to a staggering--staggering--$350 billion slush fund. Labor unions were made eligible for loans that were designed to rescue Main Street small businesses. And I could go on. At the time, Republicans warned about the bill's level of spending. And we weren't alone. More than one liberal economist warned that pouring that much money into the economy at that time could result in inflation. And 6 months later, here we are. Inflation is near a 13-year high, and Americans are, rightly, worrying about whether their paychecks will stretch to cover the higher prices that they are facing. In the face of that fact, and considering the substantial amounts of money we had to borrow to meet the COVID crisis, you might think that Democrats would be taking a moment to reflect and perhaps think about ways to rein in excessive spending. But you would be wrong. In fact, Democrats have decided to double down on their failed strategy and pass another massive government spending bill, even bigger--even bigger-- than the last one that I just mentioned. That is right. Now Democrats are putting together a $3.5 trillion spending bill to follow up on their $1.9 trillion spending bill from this last March. And to put those numbers in perspective, the entire Federal budget for 2019 was less than $4.5 trillion. Dumping that much money into the economy is pretty much guaranteed to continue to fuel the kind of inflation that Americans are currently experiencing. In fact, there is a good chance it could make things much worse. And that is not the only way Americans are likely to suffer as a result of Democrats' proposed tax-and-spending spree. Americans are going to also feel the pain of the $2 trillion in tax hikes the Democrats are contemplating. It always fascinates me how Democrats think that you can just pass tax increases without consequences. To hear Democrats talk, you would think that you can impose $2 trillion in tax hikes and everything will just keep going along unchanged. But, of course, we all know that is not the way it works. There is no such thing as consequence-free taxation. Raise taxes by any meaningful amount, and people are most likely going to change their behavior. A small business, for example, may think twice about hiring an additional worker if it is facing a tax hike. A larger business may decide not to open that new plant it has been planning or it may institute a hiring freeze or it may decide that it needs to encourage some early retirements. Democrats' $2 trillion tax hike would be the largest tax hike in decades. Democrats are proposing to raise taxes on large businesses, on small businesses, on investment, and on retirement savings. And the list goes on. And every one of those taxes will have consequences for ordinary Americans. Democrats are proposing a corporate tax rate higher than the one imposed by communist China. That is going to put American businesses at a disadvantage on the global stage. And when American businesses suffer, American workers suffer. Democrats always seem to forget that most Americans are employed by businesses, and that, as a result, when you raise taxes on businesses, ordinary Americans tend to feel the consequences. If Democrats succeed in passing their $2 trillion tax hike, it is going to have serious economic consequences for regular Americans-- consequences like fewer jobs and opportunities; slower or nonexistent wage growth, especially with higher inflation eroding household spending power; and fewer benefits. Americans can also expect to see higher utility bills, thanks to Democrats' proposed tax hikes on large businesses and on energy development. I have been talking for a while now, and I haven't even gotten to the spending side of the Democrats' tax-and-spending spree. Frankly, it is difficult to know even where to start. This proposal reads more like a spending encyclopedia. There is spending on pretty much every topic from A to Z. There are the big-ticket items, of course, the supposedly free stuff that Democrats are emphasizing, such as free community college and free pre-K. Then, there are the items Democrats aren't advertising as much, like the $200 million--yes, $200 million--for a park in House Speaker Pelosi's district that features a luxury accommodation and a golf course. Given that, I am not sure why this park needs $200 million from the Federal Government, but I guess being Speaker ``hath its privileges.'' In fact, one Democrat Representative admitted as much, noting that it seems that, and I quote, ``Speaker Pelosi gets maybe a little bit more . . . on some of these bills,'' but then went on to argue that she deserves it for being Speaker. But moving on, there is a nearly $80 billion increase in funding for the IRS--yeah, $80 billion. That is enough to nearly double the Agency's size. But I guess you have to have a lot of new agents to collect all of those new tax hikes. Then there are new and expanded subsidies for electric vehicles. Under the Democrats' proposal, a couple could be making well over half a million dollars yet still claim more than $12,000 from the Federal Government to purchase an electric car. There is a Civilian Climate Corps--several of them, in fact--at various government Agencies, $20 billion for a National Climate Bank to subsidize Democrats' pet environmental projects, and--I am not making this up--a new tax break to subsidize membership dues to unions--plus much, much more. And, of course, with all that government spending comes new government regulations--a long, long, long list of them. The consequences of the Democrats' tax-and-spending spree could be devastating--for our economy and for American families. And, unfortunately, Democrats have the ability to force this legislation through on a solely partisan basis. I know there are at least some Members of the Democrat Party here in Congress who are uncomfortable with the stratospheric levels of spending the Democrats are proposing, and I hope that their cooler heads will prevail. Meanwhile, I and every Republican will do everything we can to protect Americans from Democrats' reckless tax-and-spending legislation. 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. 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 Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in just a moment, I want to talk a little bit about the situation in Afghanistan. But before I do that, I just wanted to speak to something that the majority leader said earlier regarding some of the upcoming business that we have to deal with this fall. We have a whole series of deadlines in front of us. The fiscal year ends on September 30, meaning that we have to at some point fund the government, which presumably would be in the form of a continuing resolution. We are told that the House of Representatives, when they move that and send it over here, will include a debt-limit increase. The debt limit does run out, and we will hit that at some point. There are varying estimates of when exactly that would be--some say as early as mid-October; some say perhaps mid-November--but inevitably that will be upon us. There has been a discussion here about how that ought to be lifted and who ought to deliver the votes to get that done. I just want to make the point that the majority leader, as he was down here making his remarks earlier, indicated that this was all debt that was accumulated during the previous administration. Certainly there was some debt because, obviously, during the coronavirus pandemic, all of us responded in a very bipartisan way. Most of the debt was at that point in time. It was the votes that we made in March of 2020 and subsequently to that. Of course, there was another $2 trillion earlier this year in February, which no Republican voted for--that was all Democratic votes--most of which had nothing to do with the virus; most of which had to do with other elements of their agenda, including expanding the government. But, nevertheless, when the debt limit hit its expiration at the end of July, it reset, and it covered everything up until that point. What we are talking about now is raising the debt limit to accommodate trillions and trillions of new spending proposed by the Democrats here in Washington and by the President and his administration. It strikes me, at least, that that being the case, if the Democrats on their own, without a single Republican vote--and there won't be any Republican votes for the $3\1/2\ trillion bill they are talking about, which the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says really isn't $3\1/2\ trillion; it is $5\1/2\ trillion--$5\1/2\ trillion of new spending, massive expansion of the government, financed some with tax increases but inevitably some with adding to the debt--that it would make sense, since the Democrats are going to do that through reconciliation, which is a purely partisan exercise, with only their votes, that it could accommodate an increase in the debt limit to pay for all of that spending. I think that is a fair--very fair way to look at this. It strikes me, at least, that since the Democrats have embarked upon this one-party- rule approach, that if they are going to spend another $3\1/2\ to $5\1/ 2\ trillion, that they ought to raise the debt limit to accommodate all that additional spending. I think that is a reasonable way to approach this, and I, frankly, think it is consistent if you look at what has happened in the past. The last time we raised the debt limit was in the summer of 2019. That was a bipartisan deal, and it was a bipartisan deal that actually put caps on spending. We were limiting spending as we were raising the debt limit. Republicans and Democrats joined together at the time to do that. The spending that I referenced in March of 2020, the $4\1/2\ trillion or thereabouts that was spent on the response to the pandemic, was also bipartisan. In fact, it was so bipartisan, it passed in the Senate 96 to 0. Does anybody here ever remember anything around here passing 96 to 0, particularly of that consequence? Clearly--clearly--there was strong bipartisan support for doing something that needed to be done in response to the worst pandemic we have seen in this country in a century. Those were things that were done in a bipartisan fashion. Now, this is an entirely different scenario. And I don't think anybody can dispute the fact that the Democrats, as they embark upon this $3\1/2\ trillion reckless tax-and-spending spree, and, again, other estimates-- the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says it is not $3\1/2\ trillion; it is actually $5\1/2\ trillion when you look at the spend out in the various budget windows and timelines. But let's just say for the sake of argument that it is $3\1/2\ trillion to $5\1/2\ trillion. It is still a massive amount of spending, none of which is related to the coronavirus, all of which is part of a dramatic expansion of government, which I have referred to before here on the floor as the ``free everything'' bill--literally cradle to grave, the government, the Federal Government, will take care of you-- in addition to a lot of other leftwing agenda priorities like green energy provisions and all sorts of things in this that are Democratic priorities with no buy-in from Republicans, no attempt to reach out to Republicans or to do anything in a bipartisan way. This is a strictly, purely partisan exercise in which the Democrats are trying to include things that have absolutely no relationship to spending, debt, or revenues, which is what the reconciliation process is designed for. They are talking about doing immigration--immigration--major, major policy that needs to be done on a bipartisan basis that affects this country in a profound way, as we can see from the crisis at the border. Already in the month of July of this year, there was a 420-percent increase over the previous year in the number of illegal crossings. Two hundred and twelve thousand people came across the border illegally just in the month of July. It is a major, consequential crisis. The Democrats are going to try to do something to legalize people who are here illegally without addressing the other elements of the immigration debate on a strictly partisan basis as a part of the reconciliation bill. This is a purely, purely partisan exercise done without any input from Republicans. I don't think there is a single Republican who ought to be pushed into or feel like they in any way need to support the massive expansion of government we are talking about here, the trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars in new spending. That is what the debt limit is about. It is about raising the amount of debt, the amount that this country can borrow, to pay for a massive expansion--massive expansion, reckless expansion--of our government that moves us more in the direction of a Western European social democracy rather than the American country that I think we all know and love. We have a heritage in this country. It is built around freedom. It is built around individual responsibility. It is built on the need to protect our country and maintain a strong national defense. I think that is one thing I hope that, as we look at spending, we can agree upon. But this massive expansion of what they call social or human infrastructure is nothing more and nothing less than the biggest expansion of government that we have seen literally in decades, and it will be financed--some--with tax increases, which I could spend a lot of time talking about, which will harm the economy, but also with additional debt. And that debt, the debt that is acquired for the huge runup in spending that will be supported purely by Democrats through reconciliation, a procedure that is a partisan procedure, that ought to be paid for--that ought to be done by Democrat votes. And it can be done. There is a way in which the reconciliation procedure can be used to raise the debt limit to pay for all of the new spending that the Democrats have in this bill. So when they get down here and talk about how important it is to be bipartisan, well, it would be one thing if there was actually any kind of a bipartisan negotiation going on, but there isn't. And the last time the debt limit was raised, there was, in 2019, and at that time it was about caps. It was about reducing spending. There was a bipartisan agreement to reduce spending as the debt limit was being increased. The other thing I would mention in response to what the majority leader said earlier is that the debt that was accumulated in the previous administration, much of which was done on a bipartisan basis in response to the biggest pandemic that this country has seen in a hundred years, in March of 2020--$4.5 trillion of that debt was put on the bill because of a bipartisan agreement that was reached, as I said earlier, 96 to 0. Ninety-six to 0 was the vote here in the U.S. Senate. So Democrats want to go down this path. If they want to spend, spend, spend like there is no tomorrow and tax, tax, tax like there is no tomorrow and borrow, borrow, borrow like there is no tomorrow, then they ought to pay, pay, pay with their votes when it comes to raising the debt limit and, unfortunately, handing the bill for that to our kids and grandkids.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) would have voted ``nay''.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) would have voted ``nay''.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) would have voted ``nay.''

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. 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 Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and 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. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

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

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

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

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

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

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