without a replacement, and before you know it they were dependent on a source of energy and a kind of energy and a country to get that energy from that didn't work out at all. from day one, the administration's advanced policies to restrict the production of affordable and reliable american energy. we've gone from a net exporter of energy to an importer. in fact, even a pleading importer of energy in an unbelievably short period of time. electric prices in that period of time have gone up nearly 20%. gasoline prices have more than doubled. if you're at the gas pump and you fill up your tank, whatever you're paying, cut that in half. that's what you would have paid under the policies just a couple of years ago. now you're paying 107% more than you were paying then. the push to rapid transition to renewable energy sources will

cause prices to go up even higher. we've already seen what happens. we should be able to figure out what happens if you do more of it without a plan. you know, what the administration wants to do here, it doesn't have to be painful. transitioning from fossil fuels over a period of time doesn't have to be a painful thing. you just have to have a replacement in mind. you have to understand the economic consequences and understand if your time frame is right there are no economic consequences. fossil fuels accounted for just over 60% of the electricity generated in the united states last year. nuclear power generated nearly 20% of the electricity. wind 9% of hydropower 6%. solar power, about 3%. and when you dedicate yourself to eliminating 60% of the electricity generated in the country, you've got to expect

that bad things are going to happen, and they are. we're seeing what happened with the reliability challenges in california. leading the way in this transition, but last summer the state was doing everything they could, as quick as they could, to build gas plants, natural gas plants to supplements its power and to avoid blackouts. you went from plenty of power to new sources of energy, then suddenly not enough power, back to fossil fuels to desperately try to replace the power. surely, we can learn that this doesn't have to be the way you make these realistic transitions from one way of powering things to another. just replace every vehicle in the country with electric models would require 25% more electricity than we produce today. forcing the electryification of homes and buildings will drive demand even higher, will cost more, families will suffer.

for now, all of the above still works, and for the long-term we have to find out what works for all americans and how we have reasonable energy policy moving forward. all of the above is serving us well as we move from that, we need to know what we're moving to, how we're moving there, and how we can do it with the least impact on the economy, on individuals, and on families. i'd yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: madam president, i want to join my colleagues here on an important discussion as it relates to american energy and my colleague from the great state of missouri said it well in so many different ways. now we're pleading from dictators to import more energy. that is one element, madam president, of what certainly has

been the biden administration's most colossal strategic mistake of their entire first year and a half. trust me, there's been a lot of mistakes on the biden administration's watch. there has been nothing that has undermined american interests in terms of working families, in terms of skyrocketing inflation, in terms of national security, in terms of energy security. and yes, i'm going to talk about it, in terms of environmental policy, for america and the world. nothing has been more harmful to america's interests and the interests of american working families than the reckless policies of the biden administration's approach to american energy. now, madam president, i've talked about this issue a lot because a lot of those policies

are zeroed in on my state and my constituents. but as many have already said, senator blunt just already said, it can be summed up in my view in kind of four key areas. number one, from day one, they have come in and said we're going to limit the production of american energy. that's happening. it certainly happened in alaska. day one, the president made an order on anwar. we got anwar done in this congress. shut that down, they're canceling lease sales. the national petroleum lease of alaska, taking half of that off the table. everywhere, they're trying to limit the production of american energy. that's a fact. makes no sense, but it's a fact. that's number one. number two, slow rolling and killing energy infrastructure. the ability to move energy through pipelines or lng terminals. they're stopping it, slow rolling it, or killing it. that's a fact.

okay? that is what they are doing, from day one. number three, they are going to the american financial community, john kerry, gina mccarthy, all these far-left crazy policy folks, and saying to american banks and insurance companies, don't invest in american energy. choking off capital to this incredibly important sector of the u.s. economy. when they're not doing that, they're appointing senior officials -- just think comptroller of the currency, federal reserve, sec chairman -- who are undertaking policies to choke off capital to the american energy sector. that's happening. and number four, when they've seen prices spike, hard-working american families, paying hundreds if not thousands of dollars more to get to work in their car or truck, the

administration's going around begging dictators for more energy production. madam president, this is an insult. we have the highest standards in the environment on american energy production. in alaska, other places. do you think the saudis care about their environment? do you think venezuelans care? do you think the terrorists in iran care? they don't. but the administration is going and begging dictators for more energy. so that's the policies of the biden administration on energy. and we all know it's not working. it's having the predictable cans against of driving up -- consequence of driving up energy costs on all american families. of course, giving pink slips to american energy workers, who i believe are heroic workers, junior workers -- union workers, others, empowering oured aer is saries. that's what's happening.

now, today the president is in boston. and i want to talk about a couple of policies, energy policies emanating from people in the communities of boston that further show just how irrational the far-left democratic party is on energy. let me first talk about this issue, which i like to trot out a lot, this chart. this is a factual chart, emission changes from major economies in the world from 2005 to present. you don't hear about this a lot, but take a look. take a look at this chart. what does it show? of all the major economies in the world, the one economy with the biggest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is? america. the united states of america. by far. take a look. we've reduced emissions since 2005 by almost 15%.

e.u. didn't do that. germany didn't do that. japan didn't do that. here you go, china, a new coal plant every couple days it seems. india, same thing. why am i bringing out this chart? a., people need to know we're the leader. we're not the bad guy. i know john kerry keeps thinking we're the bad guy, goes telling everybody we are. we're not. if every other country in the world had emission profiles like we did, you would see a much, much cleaner and less emitting planet. that's a fact. let me talk about a couple of these policies. john kerry, climate envoy, has been reported as going to certain countries in asia saying, you know, we really

don't like hydrocarbons in america, so don't by any of that american lng. what? we're paying this guy's salary to say that? whose side is he on? by the way, exporting clean-burning american lng to places like india, china, or japan is exactly what we need to do to reduce global emissions. so, you got this one guy out there, not sure why he's being paid by the us government. he should be paid by the communist chinese party government. and then now, madam president, there was recent press reports that john kerry's private jet that he flies all around the world on last year emitted over 300 tons of co2.

what? yeah. look, he's smug, hypocritical, his policies are hammering the middle class, and now this. john kerry is one of the single biggest polluters and greenhouse gas emitters in the world for an individual. so look, in boston one of the best things the president can do today is either fire john kerry or ask him to resign. that would be great. that would probably do a lot for climate in america. let me give another policy that should be raised in massachusetts. madam president, i would like to submit for the record, this is a "boston globe" editorial, very long one, from february 12, 2018. it's called our russian pipeline and its ugly toll. i'd like to submit it for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: so this again is far left policies that are having a negative impact on

actual environment and climate issues. this is "the boston globe" editorial page, not some right wing editorial page, and they're writing about how the massachusetts state legislature said we're not going to have any pipelines coming across massachusetts, to be able to take gas from pennsylvania and let people in boston use it. here's the editorial page. massachusetts reliance on imported gas. so what happens? so they're importing all their gas from? russia. in the arctic. how does that help america? you have american gas, american pipelines, produced by americans with the highest environmental standards, coming over across massachusetts to boston?

nope. the massachusetts state legislature says we're too good for that. we're not going to build pipelines. what do they do? they import all their gas from russia. madam president, this is an editorial that says this policy is insane. and that's in essence the definition of what we're seeing by the biden administration, by john kerry, by the massachusetts state legislature. all of this, these woke pronouncements that actually have the impact of degrading our environment, empowering dictators, laying off americans, and raising the price of energy on our economy, small businesses, and working families. so i'm hopeful that today in boston the president starts to get serious about american energy policy, that he starts to

reverse his administration's focus on shutting down the production of american energy, on permitting pipelines and infrastructure, and on helping finance energy projects and production. that's the reversal he could make and announce today. that would help the american people. it would help my constituents. unfortunately, i think that's unlikely to happen, and the people of our great nation are going to continue to suffer, and the environment is going to continue to suffer, because of these policies on energy that undermine american interests everywhere you look. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas.

mr. moran: madam president, thank you for the opportunity to address you and my colleagues here on the senate floor this afternoon. while kansans are dealing, americans are dealing every day with skyrocketing gas prices, record-high inflation, and supply chain shortages, president biden traveled to saudi arabia to make a plea for greater oil production availability, and what he should be doing is asking americans and giving them the opportunity to unleash the potential of our own ability to supply oil. we've seen days and enjoyed the days in which america was generally energy independent and it would be a wonderful day to return to. my state of kansas is an energy-producing state, and we could help increase supply and cut costs at the pump. but instead president biden chooses our foreign adversaries for assistance.

kansas ranks 11th in oil production, 14th in the production of natural gas. kansas is also the ninth largest ethanol-producing state. support -- that industry supports over 115,000 oil and gas jobs in kansas. our producers and our refiners stand ready to meet the growing demand for american energy. but since the first day in office and really before assuming office, the president has sought to constrain the oil and gas sectors' access to capital. how many times in the banking committee we were dealing with this issue of whether or not a regulator could regulate financial institutions with the goal of eliminating their ability to finance oil and gas production. in addition to trying to limit access to capital, blocked construction of pipelines and has proposed burdensome new regulations on oil and gas producers.

my guess is that this is done for the purposes of reducing the use of fossil fuels. the environment climate agenda. but it is so hypocritical for us as americans for president biden to be asking others who produce oil to increase their production. if it's about the environment and about climate, you wouldn't ask anybody to produce their -- increase their production. and i have no doubt that what here in the united states we do it right as far as refining oil and gas into other products in a way that is the most environmentally sound way of doing it compared to places like venezuela, libya where the president also asked that they increase their production for the benefit of american consumers. the thing to do for us to

increase our energy production and reduce the price at the pump, and we talk about price at the pump so easily. the cost of oil and natural gas has a consequence on things way beyond the price at the pump. it's not just about gasoline. natural gas, for example, is used in the production of fertilizer for our farmers who struggle today with the cost of production being astronomically higher than it was before. but almost every product that we buy that is more expensive today than it was previously has an oil and gas component to it. the request for -- by president biden to reach out to our adversaries for oil on the world stage, appealing to our adversaries for increased production not only signals -- singles out our weakness but it's necessary. we have, the united states has

the resource, the expertise, and the domestic demand to be an energy independent nation and kansas has the opportunity to be a participant in that with additional jobs and a better america. we should see the impending energy crisis in europe as a case study for why domestic energy production ought to be supported to the fullest extent in the united states. additionally, our dependence upon energy from some place else has huge consequences in our foreign relations, our military preparedness, and our national security. a far more enduring solution than wandering around the world with a tin cup out, a far more stable and affordable energy prices to fill our vehicles, power our homes, or to operate our farms is for the president to support an all out,

all-of-the-above domestic energy strategy. this includes investment in new infrastructure, refineries, ethanol production, new e.v. manufacturing. incidentally, although -- it's certainly not an innocence dental thing, a panasonic e.v. manufacturing plant we announced last week for kansas, we ought to be interested again in solar and wind energy. kansas is the third highest producer of wind energy, wind power in the united states. the biden administration must -- i asked them to shift course and promote an all-of-the-above strategy that produces more u.s. energy from all sources and it benefits america and it benefits the world and especially benefits the consumers who are hurting so much at the grocery store and the gas pump and utility bills. we need to weaken our reliance on foreign adversaries. and we need to increase the

production of energy in the united states. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: madam president, i ask to speak up to five minutes and senator durbin up to 15 minutes prior to the scheduled vote. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my second session summer interns for the month of july through august 5. thon than forward, matthew agron, isabella, joslin cannon, nicole, matthew park, and herald monroe. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. murkowski: thank you, madam president. i am happy to come to the floor today to join my colleagues, the senator from alaska, senator sullivan, as well as my colleague from kansas to talk about where we are with this administration or where, unfortunately, we aren't when it comes to prioritizing

american-made energy. as has been voted -- noted here on the floor by my colleagues, the president has just returned from the middle east and it wasn't for a sightseeing trip. it was for -- it was really all about oil. he was talking about oil. above all, the president made that trip to ask the leaders of several foreign nations, members of opec, to increase their production levels. okay, we get it. gasoline prices are way too high. we know that. we've hit national records in recent weeks. they're averaging right now about $5.32 a gallon in my state. that's actually down a little bit from where we were last month. but it's up over 50% from where we were last year. and as has been said repeatedly and if we don't need to say it here on the floors of the senate, people are feeling it in their homes. they're feeling it in their pocketbooks, families are. businesses are.

and whether you are in places like anchorage or fairbanks, your budgets are stretched thinner and thinner and thinner. and it's increasingly difficult for small tourist operations whether you're trying to take people out on flight-seeing trips in the air or on the water. our fishing fleets having to fill up their fishing vessels. but especially particularly our outlying villages. these villages that are off the road system that are -- have already faced high prices. now the prices are astronomical. i met with some leaders from the northwest arctic b borough. they shared with me communities were paying $5.25 on average. but these were prices that were locked in from last fall when the last fuel bank came into -- into those northern waters and was able to make its way up the river systems. now with the first spring barge

come literally, literally in one day going from $5.25 to over $8 a gallon. that's a lock-in price that they're going to be living with until that next barge. so think about what that means when you are a community that is locked into these extraordinarily high prices. so when that last fuel bank comes, you're going to have small villages that are going to be looking to see how much -- not how much do we need to get through the winter but how much can we afford. they don't have much of a tax base. how much can we afford. my fear is that they're only going to be able to buy as much as they can, and it's not going to be enough to get them through the winter. so halfway through the winter in the darkest and coldest when everything is locked in the ice, they're going to run out of fuel. and you've got to be able to keep the heat on or everything breaks. and so how do you get the fuel? madam president, you fly it in. think about what those costs

then become. so for us in alaska, this is -- this is not only frightening, but it has the potential to just be catastrophic as we look at no end in sight for these prices. now, i don't begrudge the president for meeting with world leaders. we expect him to do this. and i think it's a great idea to do what we can to increase supply to reduce prices. this is kind of the basics of supply and demand. i've championed this for years. let's increase our supply. but the question is whether that energy is going to come from. where should we focus our time? where should we focus our efforts? and i think it just has to begin at home. it has to be here. but a i apparently this administration has decided they're going to go elsewhere. they're going to seek oil from the middle east. they're sending envoys to venezuela. they're pushing for a weakened iran deal signaling that oil from the two worst regimes in the world could somehow come

back online. this makes zero sense to me. it just makes no sense. why would we do this? why would we go abroad when we have the resources here? why choose oil produced at lower environmental standards? like my friend from kansas just said, you're going to countries that have lower environmental standards and track records when it comes to human rights abuses that we're just going to turn our eye to it. we're just going to close our eyes and say that's okay now? no, it's not okay. why? why do we give fist bumps to foreign leaders while sucker punching the producers, the refiners, and the gas station owners in our own domestic industry? and unfortunately that's what we're seeing. we're seeing it happen in our state. with we have billions of oils in our federal areas. a world class pipeline that is

one-quarter full and general refusal from the administration to help us do much of anything about it. we can talk about the 1002 area, largest untapped conventional oil field in north america is what is projected. but you're not seeing this administration pushing forward with that, even though we mandated, even though congress mandated this in 2017. not a chance. they're not moving forward with that. they've halted all development illegally, i might add. but also take the five-year plan, the proposed five-year plan. it's long overdue. now we're learning that the administration may not hold a single offshore lease through 2028. they're preparing a single sale in alaska after canceling the one that was just supposed to have been held suggesting that they're okay. they're somehow okay with crimping the only source of natural gas for hundreds of thousands of alaskans. again, madam president, this

direction just makes no sense to me. we need a course correction from the biden administration. even as we are -- as we're moving forward on so many other initiatives, we need to have a strategic plan that assures that our own energy security, our own energy security is addressed and also helping to improve the energy security of our allies. and i believe that we can do this without taking our eye off the ball of what we need to do to reduce emisses, to a-- emissions, to address the challenges that face us when it comes to climate. but we've got to acknowledge the world has changed. there is still, though, no substitute or equal for american energy. so what we need is for common sense to prevail over wishful thinking. we need resource development here at home in places like alaska, like in kansas.

they need to be our first and our highest priority. and the longer it takes for that to happen, the greater the price that alaskans will be paying and all americans will be paying. with that, madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. durbin: madam president, i was on the floor two days ago when the republican senate leader came to the floor and said something which i still don't quite understand. and i'd like to refer to it in a statement after i make two requested statements by the staff. i have eight requests for committees to meet during today's session with the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. durbin: i ask consent to withdraw the cloture nomination with respect to the merle nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: i ask unanimous consent the following the confirmation vote on the williams nomination, the senate

vote on confirmation of executive calendar 920, the nomination of bernadette meehan to be the ambassador to chile. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: now back to my statement, madam president. i came to the floor and heard a speech by the republican leader mitch mcconnell of kentucky. it wasn't the first. i've heard many of them and i listened closeically so i can divine the strategy of senate republicans. and for weeks we have heard speeches about the plight of american families dealing with inflation. it's a real problem. you go to buy anything these days, you're shocked by the price, starting at the gas pump. if you have aspirations to buy a car or truck, ordinary food items, much more expensive. most families are not seeing any increase in income, so it is a real hardship for them to keep

up. well, the senator from kentucky has given that speech so many times, i can almost repeat it verbatim. inflation is painful for working families. but then -- but then he went into an area of pricing and took an exactly opposite point of view. what he said was he thought if there was an effort to control the price of prescription drugs, it was -- quote -- socialist price control -- close quote. it was really asking for something for nothing. and he didn't support it. and i stopped to think for a second, wait a minute. all the polling when you ask american families what they worry about tells you that this is a big headache for families. they go to a doctor. somebody is sick. a doctor prescribes a drug. they take the prescription to the drugstore. they get it filled, and then comes the moment of truth, the

moment at the cash register when a family is told incidentally that'll cost you $100, $200, $300 over your insurance coverage. and you know what some families say? i wish i could afford that. i can't. they don't pick up the drug or they pick it up and instead of taking it, they kind of wait and see -- say, i'll wait and see if i get better myself. so when the republicans come to the floor and talk about family expenses, it comes as a hock to know that -- as a shock to know that they are planning to oppose the democratic effort to establish prescription drug price controls -- not -- drug pricing, i should say. they don't seem to want to do anything when it comes to prescription drugs. americans pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, an average of four times

as much paid by an american family for exactly the same drugs that are being sold in canada and europe. four times. where are those drugs made? all made in the same place, all made by the same company. four times the cost for america. to add insult to injury, many of these prescription drugs only exist because of a successful investment by american taxpayers in the national institutes of health. the national institutes of health is an amazing research organization. they do the research, the basic research. the drug companies capitalize it on it, make the drugs and sell them for profit. so taxpayers pay on the front end for the drugs. american taxpayers and taxpaying families pay on back end for the actual cost of the pharmaceuticals. out-of-come prescription costs aren't just hurting people financially, they hurt the health of americans.

one in five americans don't take the prescription as indicated because they can't afford it. your money or your life. you expect to hear that from a stickup artist, not from a pharmaceutical company. that's the choice americans face. so we want to do something about it. democrats don't want to give speeches about the cost to families. we want to do something. we want to bring down the cost of prescription drugs for seniors first and then for families in general. if you really care about inflation, most families would say, start with prescription drugs. that's what we're doing. and the republicans are going to oppose this. ironically, senator mcconnell gives a speech calling it socialism to deal with the cost of prescription drugs and within an hour the senior senator from iowa gives a speech on the floor of the senate -- republican senator -- how he wants to cut prescription drug prices for seniors. one of them didn't get the message in the caucus. i think the senator from iowa is

right, incidentally. some democrats are -- so democrats are proposing to allow medicare to negotiate fair prices for drugs. we've been doing that for a long time when it comes to the veterans administration. the veterans administration buys a lot of prescription drugs for our veterans -- and i'm glad they do -- and they negotiate with these companies to get a fair price. we think medicare ought to do the same thing. it makes them more affordable for seniors. now a lot of people say, well, if you do that, then the prescription drug companies, the pharmaceutical companies, just aren't going to be able to make it. well, here's the reality. studies have found that big pharma could lose $1 trillion in sales over the next decade and still remain the most profitable industry in america. lose $1 trillion in sales and still be the most profitable industry. higher profit margins in pharma than in the telecom industry,

than in the defense industry, in the banking industry, and the republicans are saying they're afraid that they're going to get hurt if consumers can buy drugs at lower prices. but good news for those who fear that if you cut the amount of money going to pharma it will cut research. that's not what we've learned. we know bayer. it's been around a long time. started off as a german company, made aspirin. now they've made some sizable acquisitions in the business. they make a drug called xarelto. you'd have to watch that television ad 10 or 12 times to be able to spell xarelto. but they are trying to convince american consumers that they can't live without it. bayer spent $18 billion on sales and marketing last year compared to $8 billion for research on drugs. johnson & johnson, $22 billion on sales and marketing, $12 billion on research.

glass so smithkline, $15 billion on sales and marketing, $7 billion on research. there's more money being spent on advertising than on research for new drugs. americans get bombarded with nine drug ads on tv every day telling them to ask their doctor for the newest wonder drug. there are only two nations on earth where you can legally advertise prescription drugs on television. one of course is the united states. the other, for some reason, is new zealand. filling the airwaves with ads. so the claim that allowing medicare to negotiate a reasonable price for seniors have freeze out big pharma's innovation just doesn't wash. senator mcconnell says, quote, there is no free lunch when it comes to prescription drug pricing. let's keep in mind that the 14 largest drug corporations spent more on stock buybacks lining the pockets of their c.e.o.'s

than on research and development over the past five years. so here's what it comes down to. look at these -- just as an illustration -- i'll do this quickly because members are showing up to vote. insulin, discovered by canadian researchers at the beginning of the 20th century. they discovered the patent for a dollar so it would never be overcharged to consumers because it's a life-and-death drug for those suffering from diabetes. take a look from the year 2004 until 2020 -- 2022 what has happened to the drug insulin costs -- insulin costs -- on a regular basis. the manufacturing price by year, you can see it tracks -- all the companies that make insulin. it's as high as $300 a dose.

$900 for insulin a month. so let's take a look at what insulin costs in other countries. the united states, while it is paying $98 for a dose of insulin, look ... japan is paying $14, canada, $12,germany, $11, france, $9, u.k., $7, australia, $6. these are the same companies charging a fraction of the cost for the drug insulin. i'm going to close by saying this. if you care about the cost that families face, if you care about inflation, and you care about life-or-death medications and you want to make them affordable, don't take the position of senator mcconnell that this is socialism to demand negotiation on pricing. don't take his position that it's just a free lunch to say that people will never have to pay more than $2,000 a year out

of pocket for drugs. this is a life-or-death decision. even 70% of republicans agree with that. i wish the senate republicans would agree with it and join us in supporting this bill. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired. the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 52.

the nays are 43. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's actions. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: department of state, bernadette m. meehan of new york to be ambassador of the united states of america to the republic of chile. the presiding officer: the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: the yeas are 51, the nays 44, and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate will resume legislative session.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on energy and natural resources be discharged from further consideration of senate 3086 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. 4571 which is at the desk. further, i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president, i

object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: across the country american families are fighting harder every week to make ends meet as they deal with president biden's raining inflation crisis. food prices are up. gas i prices remain at unbearable high levels and too many families are having to make the impossible decision to put gas in the tank or food on the table. it's tough to be a family in that position. i know all too well this feels and the impact these prices have on families. i grew up in a poor family with a mom who worked long hours at her job and picked up odd jobs. we never had any extra money, so when prices went up, we had to go without. families all across the country are in that same spot. people who never visited food banks are having to turn to them to feed their families. folks are being forced to pawn their things to afford gas. it's heart greaking and makes me furious. it's happening across america.

reno, nevada, washington, and my home state of florida like pensacola and fort myers. these people have to turn to their local pawnshops as they see their monthly bills grow higher and higher. when president biden said we were going through a, quote, incredible transition, is this what he meant? mom and dad having to sell bobby's play station and susie's doll collection so they request afford to take them to school. president biden has led a campaign against energy independence. the white house, the e.p.a., the department of interior and department of energy have done everything in their power to make life more expensive for american families. they've implemented one policy after another toe raise the price of gas to make life tougher and tougher for hardworking families. the american people deserve trairms and -- transparency. that's why i introduced the gas price act last october. even then far before the horrible war in ukraine began, gas prices were sunning higher. my bill is simple t. would

require the energy administration to report to congress on any federal agency policies and regulations that it determines will cause energy prices to rise. all it does is ask the federal agency to provide information to congress with the statement of facts on what's causing rising energy prices. then we can take this information, see what needs to be fixed and help the american people. i want to thank senators blackburn, kennedy and others for cosponsoring this legislation. i also want to thank senator sullivan and senator lee for joining me here on the floor today to talk about the energy inflation joe biden is imposing on americans. considering that we as senators are trusted by the people of our state to enact policies take improve their lives, i cannot imagine why anyone would oppose this legislation. sadly when i came to the senate floor last year to pass this bill, senate democrats opposed it. at that time i noted that the national average cost was $3.36 per gallon. sounds like a bargain today. since then the price of gas has

risen dramatically. the afternoon has increased to $4.46. in 15 of 17 months joe biden has been in office, the price of gas has risen. when i introduced my bill in october, president biden said he, quote, didn't have a near-term answer for reducing gas prices. well, clearly not. his answer was to raise prices and continue his radical green new deal agenda. senate republicans meanwhile do have a plan and have offered solutions. i've introduced the free american energy act to expedite the federal agencies review process of applications for permits, waivers, licenses or other authorizations related to energy production. but we can take a simple first step today by giving ourselves more information on rising energy prices and passing my gas price act. mr. president, for the sake of american families, we need to figure out what the heck is going on. so while my colleagues on the over side the aisle blocked my bill from passing last year, my hope as they have watched their constituents suffer for months now under biden's leadership they would have a change of heart.

sadly that's not what happened today. it's an absolute shame what has happened in this chamber. i came here with my republican colleagues to promote and pass legislation that would improve the lives of american family and make america less dependent on foreign oil. we came here asking for answers into biden's green new deal agenda. we're here responding to the pain american families are facing at the gas pump and trying to solve problems. senate democrats have come here to obstruct and blame shift. they didn't come here to solve problems. they didn't come here with a different proposal that would alleviate gas prices and ensure long-term energy independence and sustainability. they came here to make the problem worse. they want to -- where rolling blackouts and energy rations are a looming threat and where gas has spent most of this year at over $6 per gallon. this is not the way forward, mr. president. the senate needs leaders who are going to come in and put americans first. i'm grateful for colleagues like

senator sullivan and senator lee. i hope the american people have been watching what's happening today and see who it is that really cares about the problems they're facing. mr. president, i yield the floor to my colleague from without. -- from utah. mr. lee: thank you to the senator from florida. mr. president, president biden has wasted no time, no time at all embarking on his crusade to hamstring american energy production. on day one of his presidency, president biden halted all new oil and gas lease sales on federal land. now americans are paying the price. across the nation people struggle to fill their gas tanks as prices climb to over $5 a gallon. but, mr. president, there's apparently no need to worry. according to the president, americans' pain at the pump is merely part of an energy transition as he puts it. it's important to note here that

this transition is a transition away from affordable, reliable fossil fuels. it's not that high gas prices are a problem to be fixed but rather high gases -- high gas prices somehow are the solution. they are what will facilitate this transition. the president is getting the results that he wants. this is a feature, the ultimate feature, it's the end goal, not a bug in his plan. despite this being part of the plan and in fact his objective, it didn't take long for the president to realize how unpopular high gasoline prices really are. now he's trying to take credit for even a slight reduction in gasoline prices. first by no means is this reduction sufficient. second, we can't attribute that reduction to the president's policies. to be clear, placing a

moratorium on the sale of oil and gas leases on federal land is outside the president's authority. if the president actually possessed that authority, he wouldn't have attempted to portray this as a temporary pause. it's clear that this is a thinly veiled amendment to enact the most radical climate policies our country has ever seen, policies that have never been enaked by congress and poll -- enacted by congress and policies that congress would not enact. our suspicions were confirmed when the president's climate adviser said during an interview, quote, president biden remains absolutely committed to not moving forward with additional drilling on public lands, close quote. so much for a temporary moratorium. confused as to whether ms. mccarthy's statement represented the administration's policy, i asked interior secretary deb holland whether it was indeed the administration's

intention to indefinitely pause the sale of all federal oil and gas leases. she responded, quote, i don't know. i don't know, mr. president, is not an acceptable answer to the utah communities who rely on those oil and gas leases. i don't know is not an acceptable answer to americans paying over $5 a gallon for gas. i don't know isn't an answer to the americans who have found every aspect of their lives rendered unaffordable by this administration's policies. and now this only adds insult to injury. the american people simply cannot endure president biden's clear as mud policies any longer. i've introduced legislation to reaffirm that under the mineral leasing act, the president of the united states absolutely does not have the authority to hold the country's domestic energy production hostage.

their continued efforts are coming at the expense of struggling families. the biden administration is fighting in court for presidential authority to enact sweeping changes to american energy policy on a whim. now, i believe the courts will arrive at the same conclusion. we can act now to ensure citizens and companies receive the certainty that they deserve. we can end this crusade. we could end this crusade today if we enacted this legislation and get to work securing american energy independence for generations to come. it's for that reason, mr. president, that i was disappointed when my friend and colleague on the other side of the aisle came and objected to passing this by unanimous consent today. it does in fact state what the law already provides anyway. it shouldn't hurt us to make it obvious. and yet he objected even though this policy is harming the

american people. it's disappointing that it had to end this way today but this is not over. no, we will be back. we will be back as often and for as long as it takes in order to give the american people the relief that they need and that they definitely deserve. and now, mr. president, i yield the time to my friend and colleague, the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: thank you, mr. president. thank you to my friend from the great state of utah and the great state of florida, senator scott, senator lee. mr. president, i want to explain to any american who's watching just what happened here because to be honest, it's kind of shocking, kind of shocking what just took place. senator scott came down to the floor. he had a bill, senate bill 3086, and normally when you have a bill that is considered pretty noncontroversial, you can come down and do what's called a

unanimous consent, which is you ask the senate that you want to pass the bill. and if anyone objects, they actually have to come down and object in the senate chambers. so what is senate bill 3086 do? here's the language, to require the energy information agency to submit to congress and make publicly available an annual report on federal agency policies and regulations and executive orders that have increased or may increase energy prices in the united states. that's it. that is it. that's the bill. it's one page. less than one page, two paragraphs. so all we were doing was asking why are energy prices in america going through the roof and is

the federal government contributing to that through its actions and regulations? it's a really important question. why is it an important question? it's an important question because when you get out of this bubble in d.c. and you go home, like i was just home in alaska last weekend, energy costs and inflation are the number one issue hurting american families, the number one issue. so shouldn't we in the senate want to know why it's happening? now, look, what else happened here, a little bit of inside baseball in the senate, when a senator comes down and objects to a u.c., usually he gives a strong reason why. strong. here's my reason why this bill is bad for the country and i'm going to object. okay. you may have seen my colleague object and said i'm getting the heck out of here. i'm not going to explain this because there's no reason to

object to this. none. so he objected and left. he didn't try to defend objecting this because every american wants to know. so it's the biggest issue back home. but here's another reason we need the bill. because this president has come up with excuse after excuse after excuse on why energy costs since he got into office have gone through the roof. okay. let me give you a couple of examples. he first said well, we're emerging from the pandemic and the supply chain couldn't keep up with demand. all right. if that's really true, let the energy information administration of the biden administration, by the way, see if that's one of the reasons. okay. then he said, well, shoot, the pandemic is kind of over so it's putin's invasion of ukraine that is driving the increase in

energy prices. putin's unprovoked brutal war which it is unprovoked and brutal has led to higher energy prices and president biden then started to say it's putin's price hike. mr. president, no one is buying that one either because energy prices were spiking way before the brutal invasion of ukraine. so then the president started saying well, it's covid and putin. okay. then he started blaming the oil companies. then he started to say well, we have all these amazing permits we want the oil companies to drill on but they're not using them. so, mr. president, we need senator scott's legislation because the biden administration, the president himself, has put out all these ideas on why americans are getting crushed by inflation and high costs at the pump and yet

the one thing the president hasn't done is never talked about is he hasn't looked internally and said maybe it's my own administration's policies that are driving up energy costs. maybe. by the way, it is not maintain. it is certainly. and my colleagues have talked about this. heck, i talked about this earlier today. i talk about it every day because it is crushing my home state and my constituents. but what we want the energy information administration to look at is possibly these reasons. day one this administration came and it said, we're going to limit production of american energy. okay, anyone that went to econ 101 in college knows that when you start to limit supply, prices go up. well, that's a culprit. number two from day one they

said we're going to shut down, delay, and kill moving energy through infrastructure. pipelines, lng terminals. they're doing that all the time. those a policy limiting the ability to move energy. that sends up cost. number three is that they have actively gone to the american financial skeeter, the biden administration -- sector, the biden administration, and told them not to invest in american energy. choking off capital. that increases prices. so, mr. president, senator scott's bill would simply ask the experts in the federal government, the energy information administration, to just take a look. what is driving up the cost of american energy? what is crushing middle-class working families? and the reason my colleague objected and then ran off the floor without saying anything is

because everybody here knows what the answer is going to be -- joe biden has done this. it's his policies that are driving up energy costs. and here's the thing that senator lee touched on, and this is the thing that should scare everybody. it's likely purposeful. pain is the point. they're all talking about this wonderful, glorious transition. gina mccarthy talks about hey, if the prices go up, it will, quote, accelerate the transition to renewables. who doesn't -- they don't give a damn about the people who are suffering. it's all this green utopia stuff. all we're asking for is, what was driving up the cost of energy on the backs of working-class americans. that's it. a two-paragraph bill. and my colleagues came and objected to it. and every american should know this. they don't want you to know what

we all know, which is this -- the pain at the pump is the purposeful policies of the biden administration, and the american people are paying for it. we want the federal government to look into the details of this, and the democrats just now objected to that transparent information request. and in my view, it's shameful. i yield the floor.

mr. manchin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: are we in a quorum call? officer we are not. mr. manchin: i rise to acknowledge the months of bipartisan hard work that has gone into two bills that we're filing today -- the electoral count reform and presidential transition improvement act. i repeat, the electoral count presidential transition improvement act. i'd like to commend my dear friend, senator susan collins, for her leadership throughout this process. she has been shepherding this through and working diligently, as only she can do, and does it so well. we started these discussions

back in january when partisanship around here was at a fever pitch. the toxic environment was absolutely not kunduz i have to things that -- conducive to things that need to be done. we're in the middle of a debate on voting rights, with both sides equally dug in in their positions and it was kind of toward move people off of that. the insurrection january 6 and the situation that's been going on since 1887 that should have been corrected and had not been, but no one ever felt that we would have what we had. so now we need to take care of t and everyone stepped into play. by january 19, my democratic colleagues were so frustrated that they force add vote on repealing the filibuster to allow that bill to pass with a simple majority along party

lines. it appeared to many, both inside and outside of washington, d.c., that the senate was fundamentally broken, but senator collins and i have worked together for a long time, and we never gave up. we were not convinced it was broken. and you just have to work a little bit harder. they call us the most deliberative body. well, to deliberate means to talk, to converse, and when that fails, then the deliberate body is no longer the deliberate body and we were not going to let that happen to us. we asked our colleagues and friends to come together to start trying, to see if we could work together and find a pathway and find common ground. well shall guess what? they did. i'm hear to thank those who sat down, senator rob portman, we had senator murr first, we had senator romney, senator shaheen, senator murkowski, senator warner, senator tillis, senator sinema, senator capito, senator

cardin, senator young, senator coons, senator sasse and senator graham. that was truly a team effort when you think about it. this has gone on for quite some time. what we learned is there was bipartisan support for some important commonsense reforms that would help restore americans' faith in our democracy and how we basically aplay our democracy and how do we select our representative form of government. specifically, most of our group felt that we could and that we should reform the electoral count act to remove the ambiguity that we saw weaponized after the last election. we were all in agreement. enhance the protections for local election officials that were facing unprecedented threats and indimations. these are people who volunteer most basically and it's basically family handing down generation after generation, people who always believe that their civic duty to be able to

perform during the election times. we wanted to stab the best practice for the u.s. postal service to improve the handling of mail-in ballots. mail-in ballots has been so convenient to older people, shut-ins and in the situation where we had this pandemic, my goodness, it was the only way that people could vote. so reauthorize the election assistance commission to help states improve the administration and the security of federal elections. the most important thing that week do is when that -- that we can do is when that vote is cast and counted accurately, it has to be counted and reported accurately. that's what we have to and make sure there is no -- not even a shred of a thought that a person might think, that's not a valid count. and we have done everything we possibly can to make sure that we've cleared that up. this is not everything that people on both sides of that wanted.

some in our bipartisan committee wanted a lot more, and some didn't want to basically interfere with the states' rights. so we were caught in betwitch and between. we tried to put the guardrails on that gave guidance. we think we came up with a piece of legislation. and when you have every member i just mentioned all sign on with the diversity of this membership, we have almost 20 -- 20 senators that have been involved, coming equally between democrats and republicans and able to come to an agreement. this is a piece -- a bill that we should put forward. i was proud to be an original sponsor of both the freedom to vote act and the john lewis voting rights advancement act. i still believe that we can and we must continue working to protect every american's sacred right to vote. but we also have an obstacles to the american people -- obligation to the american people to do the most good that

we can right now, right now. the confusing language that we have on the books today is a real and present danger to our democracy. we can fix that and that's exactly what we intend to do. the increased threats and attacks across the country on poll workers and election volunteers, we can fix that too. even more importantly than the provisions in the bills, we have republicans and democrats standing arm in arm posing commonsense reform laws to restore faith in our democracy. when benjamin franklin was asked if the constitutional convention gave us a republic or monarchy, he famously replied, a republic, young man, if you can keep it. he understood that a democracy

is fragile and can be lost if we're not careful. while today's introduction is an important step in this process, we do have a much -- we have much work yet to do. i look forward to continuing our bipartisan effort to get this bill to the president's desk as quickly as possible and signed into law. and our journey begins. and with that, i would like to yield to my dear friend from the great state of maine, senator susan collins. the presiding officer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i am pleased to join my close friend and dear colleague senator manchin in introducing bipartisan legislation to reform the archaic and ambiguous electoral count act of 1887. the important law that governs

how congress tallies each state's electoral vote for president and vice president. mr. president, on january 6 of 2017, i was amused to learn that i had received one electoral vote for vice president of the united states, an office for which i obviously was not a candidate. but on january 6, 2021, i realized that my unearned vote from four years earlier was really not funny at all. rather it was an indication of deep structural problems with our system of certifying and counting the electoral votes for president and vice president.

these unfortunate flaws are codified in the 1887 electoral count act. mr. president, in four of the past six presidential elections, this process has been abused with members of both parties raising frivolous objections to electoral votes. but it took the violent breach of the capitol on january 6 of 2021 to really shine a spotlight on the urgent need for reform. over the past several months senator manchin and i have worked with a terrific bipartisan group of senators who are united in our determination to prevent the flaws in this

135--year-old law from being used to undermine future presidential elections. i want to express my gratitude to my friend senator manchin and to all the members of our bipartisan group for their hard work, their constructive work to craft this legislation, specifically, i want to thank senators portman, cinema, -- sinema, shaheen, warner, tillis, capita, cardin, coons, and sasse for their work over several months. i also want to thank senators klobuchar and blunt who head the rules committee for their advice and counsel throughout this process and senator lindsey

graham for his insights and for joining as a cosponsor. the legislation that we're introducing, the electoral count reform and presidential transition improvement act will help ensure that electoral votes totaled by congress accurately reflect each state's popular vote for president and vice president. our bill includes a number of important reforms, but i want to highlight just a few. first, it reasserts that the constitutional role of the vice president in counting electoral votes is strictly and solely minutes steeral -- minutes steeral, that any president can

accept or reject or halt the electoral votes is antithetical to our constitution and basic democratic principles. second, our bill raises the threshold to lodge an objection to electors to at least one-fifth of the duly chosen and sworn members of the house of representatives and the united states senate. currently, mr. president, only a single member in both houses is required to object to an elector or a slate of electors. third, our legislation will ensure that congress can identify a single conclusive slate of electors by clearly

identifying a single state official who is responsible for certifying a state's electors, requiring congress to defer to the slate of electors submitted by a state pursuant to the judgment of state or federal courts and providing agreed presidential candidates with an expedited judicial review of federal claims related to a state certificate of electors. let me be clear this does not create a new cause of action. instead it will ensure prompt and efficient adjudication of disputes. to help promote the orderly transfer of power, our bill also includes clear guidelines for when eligible presidential candidates may receive federal

resources to support their transition into office. and i want to particularly thank senators portman, coons, and sasse for their hard work on those provisions. mr. president, we're also introducing a second bill, the enhanced election security and protection act to address other issues pertaining to the administration of elections. in the interest of time, let me just quickly note the major provisions of this bill. it would reauthorize the election assistance commission for five years and require it to conduct additional cybersecurity testing of voting systems, a concept put forth by senator warren. it would improve the postal services handling of election mail. it would enhance current

penlites for violent threats against election workers and increase the maximum penlites for tampering with voter systems, including certain electronic systems. that was the work of senators romney, shaheen, and sinema, among others. mr. president, we have before us an historic opportunity to modernize and strengthen our system of certifying and counting the electoral votes for president and vice president. january 6 reminded us that nothing is more essential to the survival of a democracy than the orderly transfer of power, and there is nothing more essential

to the orderly transfer of power than clear rules for effecting it. i very much hope that congress will seize this opportunity to enact these sensible and much-needed reforms before the end of this congress. thank you, mr. president. mr. manchin: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. manchin: while my dear friend is here, i wanted to tell her that six months ago -- we worked on this for six months. we started in january. and it was 14 senators that came at that time. we just started talking, with your support, mr. president, also, we had support from everybody saying something had to be done. as delicate as this is done, so nobody thinks that we're picking on one side or the other sporting or defending one side

or the other, there was only one thing, how do we defend our constitution and this wonderful capitol that we have so this never happens again. january 6 is a black mark on the history of the united states of america and if you want to erase, you better do what we did, bring people together to find a pathway forward so that type of opportunity if for some looking for an opportunity to degrade our government and our country and our form of governing ourselves could never ever encourage them thinking they could do something here at this capitol and disrupt us. now, when that day happened, the thing i was most proud, we were all down in the security room, and senator collins remembers. we didn't know what the extent of this was going on. we knew one thing, they didn't come for a friendly visit. we were talking and someone said, let's just conduct our business down here.

remember that? and everybody in that room says, no, no, no, they're not going to run us out of our body here and we all came back here later that night and finished our business. what we did -- and senator collins has led this admirably, is making sure we finish our business. we are doing this to protect our democracy, this form of democracy that we have is a representative form and i'm so proud to be a part of it and she's my dear friend. we worked many, many years together. we'll continue to. i want to thank you, senator, for the hard work, our staffs worked together, i'm very proud for all of our staff that they worked together for the betterment of our country. when people think that bipartisanship is not capable of happening in washington, i want to say, watch, we've proved them wrong. we've done so many things together. we will continue to. again, i say thank you, and all those who participated for

hanging in there. it took us six months to get here, but we've just begun. ms. collins: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: i too want to salute and thank all of the members of our group who worked so hard over many months. as is always the case when you delve into a complicated issue, it turns out that there are far more nuances and complexities than you would think when you first look at the issue, but everyone continued to work for the common good to strengthen the procedures, to update this archaic and ambiguous law that was written in the language of another era, and we have accomplished that. and i really hope our colleagues will all join together and that in the end we can have an overwhelming vote.

finally, i too want to thank our staff members for their extraordinary work. they worked literally night and day to work through the many thorny issues and to help bring us together so my thanks not only to the members but to their staffs as well. i yield the floor. thank you, mr. president.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: thank you. so if this body were to look at the tests and the homework, the quizzes and the essays, the department of homeland security and give them a grade, based on their performance for the last year and a half, what would the grade be? d.h.s. says they have six

missions. they detail out those missions. one of those missions reads secure u.s. borders and approaches. then they give this little piece behind it to describe that. the department of homeland security secures the nation's air, land, and seaboarders to prevent illegal activity while facilitating lawful travel and trade. what would their grade be on that and is anyone going to hold them to account for their grade? or is this body going to continue to just ignore what's happening on the southern bo border. it is the role, it is the task, it is the responsibility of the department of homeland security to help secure our nation but this department is currently facilitating illegal immigration, not stopping illegal immigration. i wish i was wrong on that. but i'm not.

in fact, as recent as the last two weeks i've met with dhs leadership who describe to me the new method that they've laid out so that you can apply for asylum, come to the united states, and come to any airport in the country, so you wouldn't have to come through the southern border. you'd just come in. but it would be the same process as what's happening on the southern border where people from 150 countries just this year have crossed our border, been checked in by border patrol who know full well they're not legally present here. then they're released into the country and given eight years until their hearing. eight years. and instead of responding to able to slow down the more than two million people who have illegally crossed in just the last year, this administration is actually working to say it's actually not enough people.

they're increasing the access points to increase the number of people rather than decrease. the administration was proud to be able to say in may and in june the numbers went down slightly from what they were in the previous months. the problem with that is the previous month was a record and so was the month before that. and if you look at just the june number, yes, it was slightly down from may. it is still the highest june ever recorded by the administration. we're being overwhelmed with the number of people coming in illegally across our border. the administration is currently releasing people and their soul focus -- sole focus seems to be on making illegal immigration more efficient rather than more enforced. what grade would you give dhs?

a more specific question, mr. president, do you want to stop illegal immigration? because i don't think you do. and i think it's clear the policies that you put in place are directly leading to this record influx of illegal immigration from all over the world. and i wish you could even say well, at least we vetted them but i know that's not true and so do you. not a single one of these people entering the country has their criminal background check from the country they're from. we're doing a quick fingerprint analysis to see if they've committed a crime here. but we have no idea the 150 countries-plus they're coming from because right now the goal is not to check their criminal history.

it's to get them released into the country within eight hours. keep it moving. keep it moving. you don't want a clog at the border. when they cross the border, the goal is to keep them moving into the country. last weekend i spent the weekend again at our southern border serving on the homeland security committee, i spend a lot of time back and forth across the border to be able to evaluate what's happening now because it changes week to week. i was in the rio grande valley last weekend spending time with cvp, border patrol individuals from air marine operations, from department of dps from texas, from the national guard, all of them expressing incredible frustration. when i got there last thursday night late, we went on a midnight patrol with border patrol. literally within minutes we ran into our first group of folks that were coming across the border, a group of teenagers.

minutes later literally while that group is being processed, another group is interdicted coming across the border not far away, this time it was 6 and 7-year-old children and a couple of families. while we watched them being processed, they called us on the radio and said about two miles down they just picked up another group. this time it was adults, including one pregnant lady who was deep into her eighth month that was coming across the border to make sure she delivered here in the united states. 150-plus countries just this year crossing the border because it is open. as i hear secretary of dhs say they've secured the border, as i just came from the border, i wonder when the president of the united states is actually going

to go to the border to be able to see what's actually happening on the border and the policies that have been put in place. the president has been able to make it to saudi arabia but notten able to make it to our southern border to look even once at what's happening on our southern border. if he goes some day i hope, i hope he meets with border patrol because the border patrol agents i talked to tell me about a time when the border was secure. they tell me about a time not long ago that we had enforceable borders and where the policy wasn't to release within hours and the enforcement priority wasn't to get them moving as fast as possible. it was to actually secure the border. you could meet with the land owners like i did last weekend who live in that area. some of them have lived there for generations and they're absolutely furious because though they have lived there and their family for generations, they have never ever experienced this.

they tell me about how when they were children, they used to play in this area, and now literally they will not walk out their own door without a firearm on their hip. they told me about multiple vehicles being stolen from their property, from windows being smashed at all hours of the day and night, people walking up to their windows and peering in inside. one rancher told me about his wife who is pregnant, his child who is 2, how they literally fear for their lives every day. because of the number of people that are coming across their property and for him personally, the number of dead bodies that they found on their property just this year. this wasn't happening before. and they had a very simple request. their simple request was i'm an american. why does my property not count? why do my rights not count?

the only rights that seem to count are people who are illegally crossing the border. their rights seem to count, but the rights of americans do not. mr. president, would you be willing to answer his question? would you be willing to talk to his wife and explain to her why there are bodies on their ranch and people are peering in their windows at all hours? and they can't live in safety on their own ranch. and that was different just three years ago. would you be willing to explain to them what has changed in your policies? because the goal of this administration seems to be efficient movement of illegal immigration, not stopping illegal immigration. i met this monday with leadership from the oklahoma bureau of narcotics who explained to me the overwhelming

amount of methamphetamine that's coming into my state. the number of people that are dying in my state because much of the meth is laced with fentanyl and it's killing people in my state. and i asked them is the meth being cooked in oklahoma as it used to be, and they said no, we hardly ever find a lab making meth anymore. it's call coming from mexico. all of it. where mexican cartels are actively working in my state to distribute methamphetamine, partnering with chinese groups that are doing not only the supplies but the distribution network in my state. when i was in the rio grande valley this weekend, individuals with customs and border protection showed me the numbers just this year just in the rio grande valley, 144 pounds of fentanyl that's come in.

27,550 pounds of meth that they've interdicted just in the rio grande valley just this year. let me run that past you again. 27,550 pounds just in that one area just this year. oklahoma bureau of narcotics was explaining to me if you go back to 2020, we didn't have the drugs moving this way because the border was not open at that time. now the drugs are flooding into our state because the border is open. what grade would you give the department of homeland security? when they are allowing our country to be flooded with drugs, when they are choosing to make illegal immigration more efficient rather than stopping illegal immigration.

what grade would you give them? when is this going to change? i have to tell you i believe one of the main rolls of the department of homeland security is to be able to shut down transnational criminal organizations from functioning inside my state. but instead just in the rio grande valley when i talked to them this week, just in that one sector, they estimate that the cartels make $153 million a week, $153 million a week just in that area of the rio grande valley moving people across the border illegally because each of them have to pay the cartels. in fact, we saw the wrist bands take they all wear, that once they paid the cartels they're marked, that they can actually be moved across the border.

they paid their amount. $153 million a week that the biden administration is facilitating in payment to transnational criminal organizations just moving people based on a liberal policy of we're going to open the border up to be nice. that policy is facilitating the cartels in mexico being enriched. they make more a week, a week in moving people than is the budget for border patrol in a year in that area. and that's all being facilitated based on this administration making it easier to cross the border and more efficient to cross the border than stopping it. i'm tired of hearing about the number of people that illegally crossed the border and many in

this body just ignore it. i'm tired of hearing from the fbi in my state that the price of methamphetamines is going down in my state. the price of gasoline has soared, the price of food has soared, the price of housing has soared by the price of meth has gone down. why would that be? because the supply of meth is going up, because it's coming from the cartels in mexico, and this administration is just looking the other way. when is this administration going to talk to the land owners in south texas like i did and hear from them the threats that they face? they are american citizens. when does their life matter? it's time we address this issue.

it's time we actually step up and say that dhs is failing in its most basic task of securing the nation. it's time we stop the illegal drugs coming into our country and killing our kids. it's time. and i'm going to continue to come to this floor and to show what the media will not show anymore. they've looked away, and many of my democrat colleagues have done the same thing, while two million people illegally cross the border. one more stat. right now we have somewhere between 4,500 and 8,000 people a day illegally crossing the border. between 4,500 and 8,000 a day illegally crossing the border. may i remind you, president obama called it a humanitarian crisis when 2,000 people day crossed the border. now we have between 4,500 and

8,000 a day, day after day after day after day. this administration is not only opening up the borders, they've also changed the enforcement policies. we have round numbers, 6,000 people day entering the country. the biden administration has changed the rules. we're currently allowing,000 people a day to cross -- allowing 6,000 people a day to cross the border. but we're only deporting 161 people a day from the country. 6,000 a day every day, day after day after day, illegally coming into the country. 161 people now that we're deport ago day. what would be your grade for dhs? for their task of securing the country. i know what mine is. it's time this body actually does something rather than just look away.

>> mr. president the whole concept of going where real people live is an important one and when people are facing higher you to any bills every month and a bigger bill every time they fill up their gas tank it doesn't take long for them to figure out policy decisions somewhere have changed something and something that dramatically affects their quality of life and then it didn't take long to figure out that those policy decisions in washington are decisions that have made that kind of difference. when they blackout causes the

lights to go out in the refrigerator to stop working, the impact of policy pecans tangible and you understand pretty quickly that this is impacting you. that's the prospect that a lot of americans are facing this summer. it's not theoretical that too many places it's happening and happening over and over again. in late made the north american electric reliability corporation released a report that said nearly two-thirds of the united states could experience blackouts this summer as a result of reliability challenges to the electric grid. that group is a nonprofit regulatory agency that monitors the grid in the united states and canada and some of northern mexico. they could see this coming and americans can now see this happening. they said it was sobering and they said it was an

understatement in many ways to see it any other way. the understatement that is in particular. the report said in the west in the midwest there was a heightened risk of reliability challenges and energy shortfalls. this report on the electric grid cited several reasons for heightened risk people are facing. one of them is there is too little electric generating capacity in the country where i live following the closure of older base load generators. you can't make these decisions about energy policy without having a replacement in mind and not expect to see bad things to happen to families and individuals and our economy. that's what we are seeing now. earlier now. earlier this year the energy information administration projected 85% of the generators

closing this year would be coal-fired power plants so if you close these plans and don't have a replacement in line look what happens. maybe we should ask germany what happened when they shut down one of their major energy sources without a replacement and before they knew it you are dependent on a source of energy and a kind of energy in the country to get that energy from it didn't work out at all. from day one the administrations advance policies restrict the production of affordable and reliable american energy. we have gone from a net exporter of energy to an importer and in fact even a pleading importer of energy and in an unbelievable short period of time to electric prices in that time have gone up nearly 20% and gasoline prices have more than doubled. if you are at the gas pump and

you fill up your tank if you cut that in half as what you would have paid under the policies just a couple of years ago and now you are paying 107% more than you are paying them. the rapid transition to renewable energy sources will cause prices to go up even higher. we party seen what happens. we should be a list to get what happens if you do more of it without a plan. what the administration wants to do here it doesn't have to be painful. transition from fossil fuels over period of time doesn't have to be a painful thing. you just have to have a replacement in mind and you have to understand the economic consequences understand if your timeframe is right there are no economic consequences. fossil fuels accounted for just over 60% of the electricity generated in the united states last year. nuclear power generated nearly

20% of electricity when 9% hydropower and 6% solar power down to 3% and when you dedicate yourself to eliminating 60% of the electricity generated in the country, you've got to expect the bad things are going to happen and they are. we are seeing what happened with reliability challenges in california. in this transition last summer the state was doing everything they could as quick as they could to build gas plant, natural gas plants to supplement its power and to avoid blackouts. they went from plenty of power to new sources of energy and suddenly not enough power back to fossil fuels to desperately try to replace the power. surely we can learn this doesn't have to be the way you make these realistic transitions from one way of powering things to

another. to replace every vehicle in the country with electric models would lac 25% more electricity than we today. homes and buildings will drive demand even higher and will cost more and families will suffer. for now all of the above still works. and for the long-term we have to find out what works for all americans and how we have a reasonable energy policy moving forward, all of the above is serving us well as we move from not. we have to know what we are moving to how we are moving there and how we can do it with the least impact on the economy and individuals and on families. i yield the floor. >> the senator from alaska. >> madam president i want to join my colleagues here on an important discussion as it relates to american energy and

my colleague from the great state of missouri said it well in so many different ways. now we are pleading with dictators to import more energy. that is one element of madam president of what certainly has been the biden administration's most colossal strategic mistake of their entire first year. there have been a lot of mistakes on the biden administration's watch. there has been nothing that is undermined american interest in terms of working families in terms of skyrocketing inflation in terms of national security, in terms of energy security and yes i'm going to talk about in terms of environmental policies for america and the world. nothing has been more harmful to america's interest than the interest of american working

families than the reckless policies of the biden administration's approach to american energy. madam president i'm talking about this issue a lot because a lot of those policies are zeroed in on my state and my constituents. as many have art he said he can be summed up in my view in four key areas. number one, from day one they have said they are going to limit the production of american energy. that is happening and it's happening in alaska. day one the president made an order on anwar. we got and were we got and were done in this conference. shut that down and canceled lease sales in the national petroleum reserve of alaska taking that off the table and everywhere you look they are trying to limit the production of american energy. that's a fact. it makes no sense but it's a

fact. that's number one. number two killing energy infrastructure, the ability to move energy through pipelines in lg terminals. they are stopping it logrolling it or killing it. that's a fact. that is what they are doing day one. number three, they are going to the american financial community john kerry gina mccarthy of these far left policy folks in saying to america -- american banks and insurance companies don't invest in american energy. choking off capitol in this incredibly important sector of the u.s. economy when they are not doing that they are pointing to senior officials the comptroller of the currency to ftc chairman who are undertaking

policies to choke up capital capitol from the american energy system this subject for nearly three and a half years that i've been a senator. i will tell you why i think it is important. we have the grown the federal government -- we've grown the federal government to a level where all people that look to it are dependent upon it, have to work with it, need to know honestly where this all ends up if we do not change the trajectory. i t -- i think the easiest way up to understand how we've gotten to where we are now is to look to what we used to do in the past. the country was never founded upon the principles that you borrow money to consume it. any household, any local or state government knows you can't be successful doing that. money should only be borrowed if you're going to invest it or get

a tangible return on it, even maybe an intangible one, when you look at investing in education or something like that. but there's been no system that has ever worked that ends up borrowing money from the future, from its kids and grandkids to where that's a good business plan. you get immediately derailed in the real world. imagine in a household if you take in money and you spend 20% more than whatever that is. you'll go to a financial counselor. they may get you out of trouble. you keep doing it, you end up in bankruptcy court. businesses have the rigor of competition in addition to earning revenues, balancing their own budgets, and being

able to invest into the future. if you follow principles that work everywhere else, it can work here too, and we owe it to the american public, like i said earlier, so many look to this place to be their partner in some fashion, and it ought to be one that's going to be there in the future. let's look where we've come. from the founding of the country, we raised revenues generally on the basis of need. you would go into debt, you'd pay it off. you look at 1920, world war i. it's way over here. you borrowed money, defend the country, save others, you paid it off. look what happened during the great depression, world war ii. that is the deepest we've ever been in debt until we just

eclipsed it recently. that's generally measured by how much debt you have as a percentage of your gdp. great depression, world war ii. look where we went after that. we were savers. we were investors then. we weren't consumers and spenders by nature, and we especially didn't do it through the federal government. we kept our debt in check, even through the great recession which occurred 08-09, you were starting to see problems crop up. that's when we put too large on a credit card. i think the other side of the aisle said if you're going to do that, there are a lot of needs in our own country, and certainly there, from health care, education, across the

spectrum, social security, medicare. look what has happened since then. we have gone from being in relatively good shape pre-gulf war, afghanistan, borrowed that money, and then ran into the great recession and spent, it seems like very little compared to how significant that was, $800 billion to $900 billion. and from that time to the present, i think we just said we're borrowing money, we might as well do more, and then you start doing it for things that don't make sense. i got here three and a half years ago, $18 trillion in debt. we were just approaching the percentage coming out of world war ii, here.

we've now passed that and doubling down and going way beyond that. we are now here after the pandemic, where we spent close to $4 trillion in 2020, a lot of it out of uncertainty. we didn't know much about it. we should have treated that with respect. we now know a lot about it. and we probably didn't need to shut the economy down, which cost us a lot, but we're through it. we certainly shouldn't have doubled down and spent another $3 trillion in 2021. i'm not going to could go over, you hear it on the news, you see it. we got inflation embedded into the economy currently. the last time this occurred back in the late 70's and the early 80's when inflation peaked around 10% or 11%, it took five

years to get it back to 2%, where we were pre-covid. we can expect probably something similar. we don't know. the big difference between now and then is we've got a lot more debt, especially in government, so it's going to be trickier. so how do we get out of it? well, unless we turn the tide, unless we start doing things differently, medicare, which isn't even being addressed here, is completely depleted its trust fund in about four and a half or five years. automatic benefit cuts when that occurs. social security, which has been around since the depression paying into it, that's depleted in about ten years. those are two large trust funds that will have no balance in them. then you'll have to borrow even more money to pay the benefits. let's show a comparison of where we stack up now with other major

economies. look at that. we've known for a long time, japan, which is the third-largest economy, has struggled to figure out how it's going to grow, how it's going to do for future generations what it's done since world war ii. it has taken debt to where it's a stranglehold on its economy. its debt is 237% of its gdp. now look who's in second place. this isn't something you want to be in second place on. the united states. our debt currently is 107% of our gdp. india, germany, china. china, our main geopolitical competitor, under half of the sovereign debt as a percentage

of its gdp. that's not a good place to be. they are our geopolitical competitor, and i sense they know that you need to be savers and investors if you're going to be successful in the future, if you're going to give your people what they're going to need out of a government. financially we're going to be up against them, and they, to me, look like they're doing a lot of things that someday pivot to where we're caught by surprise, and then you don't have the options. we start increasing to be more indebted to what we are, it will be even harder to compete with somebody like them. we now have a 9.1% inflation rate. that is a pay cut for everyone. we now know, i think, what caused it. we need to just quit digging the hole deeper. let's get out of it, let's go

back to what we know was working at least financially pre-covid. we had no inflation, nominal that's built into what's considered zero inflation, wages rising in the toughest places, and a growth rate that was better than what we had before, close to 3%. we need to start spending less through government, return the productive capacity back to the private sector, and then look at, once we get the ship righted here, what we do better policy-wise. i'm a believer. we need to fix health care. it's a broken system. it drives our structural deficits more than anything. medicare each year, like warren buffett says, health care in general is a tape worm on the economy. what i want to do is face reality. regardless of the tax rate,

over 50 years we average about 17.5% of our gdp in federal government revenues. if that's all you can get, regardless if you have high tax rates that gives you a lower economic growth or lower tax rates that maybe gives you a percent or more in economic growth, we need to acknowledge it. my plan does two simple things. acknowledges what our revenue has been over 50 years -- 17.5% of our gdp -- tapers what we spend into it, takes what we've done here as a maneuver to escape budgeting and appropriating by putting spending on mandatory versus discretionary, which is nothing other than saying i don't want to budget, i don't want to

allocate resources. we're just going to do more each year. we keep doing it, we're not going to be able to fund the programs that we all consider important. so it acknowledges a reasonable revenue level. it moves $375 billion that used to be discretionary that is now mandatory back to discretionary. and then it's going to be up to all of us as stewards of the federal government to see how we're going to make the right decisions to take that amount and get it down to where we cut it out of the budget. that would put us in ten years in primary balance, meaning that the only thing that contributes to our deficit is our interest. it would clearly show too how the big drivers of our current deficit -- medicare, social

security, medicaid, other mandatory spending features -- are driving it. and, yes, if we want to get to a real balanced budget that covers your interest, you'd have to actually find ways to do the same things with less money. defense is always a topic on my side of the aisle. this spends on defense, arguably the most important thing we need to do as a federal government -- i think there's a lot of bipartisan interest in defending our country and financing it accordingly. this spends on p defense above the cbo line and gets its numbers from the senate armed services committee, plugs it in. it is going to be more robust there than what the cbo has by a little bit, because i'm a believer that what's driven this issue over the long run is what

i call the unholy alliance. folks on my side, whatever it takes, will spend it on defense, said it's the most important thing we do. medicare, social security, medicaid, those are important too. they're going broke over time. so we need to work on all that to rein it in, but defense, the most important thing, keeps us secure. if we don't exercise fiscal restraint, if we don't make the tough decisions that everyone does in running their own budgets, whether it's in a business, a local, state government or even a household, it's going to be a hard landing someday that none of us will like. a lot of what is about running anything successfully is having a good plan. i don't think our plan makes sense for the future.

but the other component -- and i'll never forget the first budget i was in here, one of the senators said, mike, the reason this keeps coming back and back is we do not have political will. and whether it's political will that you need to make things work here, whether it's determination, whatever you want to call it, it's the marketplace when you run a business, it's a balanced budget amendment and statute when you've got a state government. there's got to be more discipline. let's put that last chart up here. i want to reemphasize because i got some on my side that think we aren't being robust enough on defense. and we just looked at that chart where it is the most robust, but i want to go back to this one again. this one says it all. look at where we've come, where

the greatest generation left us. remember, paid off the debt from world war ii, built the interstate highway system to where we are now, and literally 40 years. that is shameful. all i'm saying is my budget makes it to where we've got ten years, don't even have to cover the interest, but we need to bring it back into what's called primary balance. and what i would hope, i have some friends on the other side of the aisle that see that this will make sense because we'll need it for their priorities. all i can tell you is if we have to remediate this by running the system into the ditch, it will be a lot harder proposition to get it back where it was when the greatest generation left us

in good shape. madam president, i yield the floor.

quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call: mr. carper: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader following consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to the consideration of calendar number 3999, h.r. 7776, that the carper-capito-cramer substitute

to be agreed to, upon the use or yielding back of time if a budget point of order is made and the motion to waive is made the senate vote on the motion to waive and if the point of order is waived, t the bill be read a third time, the senate vote on the bill and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. carper: thank you, madam president. madam president, i might just add, what is all this about? it's water resources development act. we're trying to move it along and expedite it. i don't know if senator capito son the floor. but senator cardin is here and senator cramer and many thanks to all of them and the

leadership on both sides of the aisle. it's important legislation. we're happy to get it moving. i yield back. mr. braun: madam president. the presiding officer: senator from indiana. mr. braun: move to proceed to calendar number 448, s. con. 43. the clerk: motion to proceed to s. con. res. 43, setting forth the congressional budget for fiscal year 2023 and so forth. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. mr. braun: madam president. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: