Quantcast

Hawkeye Reporter

Tuesday, November 5, 2024

“Biden Administration (Executive Session)” published by Congressional Record in the Senate section on Feb. 23

Politics 6 edited

Volume 167, No. 34, covering the 1st Session of the 117th Congress (2021 - 2022), was published by the Congressional Record.

The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.

“Biden Administration (Executive Session)” mentioning Chuck Grassley was published in the Senate section on pages S800-S801 on Feb. 23.

Of the 100 senators in 117th Congress, 24 percent were women, and 76 percent were men, according to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.

Senators' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.

The publication is reproduced in full below:

Biden Administration

Mr. President, I wish that we could write off this nomination as an anomaly, but we can't. It is part of a pattern of behavior on the left that has destabilized our already fragile political discourse and convinced the American people that the Biden administration will prioritize their radical liberal agenda above the rights of the people they were elected to serve.

I have to tell you, I hear about this every single day as I am talking with Tennesseeans. Since the earliest days of the Republic, our Union has managed to survive because of the people's willingness to return to our founding principles--those first principles upon which we stand.

However much that they disagreed, they knew that they were stronger united than they were divided. So they would come together in the public square. They would have robust, respectful debate. They would agree to disagree, but they respected the fact that they lived in a free country, and they could do this without fear of persecution, without fear of being ostracized, and without fear of losing a job.

Today, Americans are looking for that same commitment to unity. Oh, they heard about it during the inaugural address. Unity--we are going to work for unity. But what has happened is a cord of panic and fear has been struck in their hearts as they see Executive order after Executive order and as they see Executive orders that are preferencing other countries and not the U.S.A. And as they hear from the left words that are, We are not looking for unity; what we are looking for is you to submit to our agenda, conform to our way of doing things. What they are doing is leaving no room for discussion, even on issues of international importance.

For decades, the various schools of thought represented in this Chamber have advocated for different approaches to foreign relations. Some revere international bodies and sweeping multilateral agreements, and others approach these constructs with caution, prioritizing national sovereignty over surface-level diplomacy.

When former President Trump formally withdrew from the Paris climate accords in 2019, economists, business owners, and budget watchdogs all breathed a sigh of relief because they knew that adherence to the Paris climate accords would put the United States at a competitive disadvantage. This wasn't a partisan debate, mind you; this was U.S.-

based companies--U.S.-based companies that were saying thank you for withdrawing because adhering to this, when other countries that are our competitors will not adhere, puts us at a disadvantage.

Now, with the climate accords, by 2035, we would have seen hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs, household electric bills go up as much as 20 percent, and an aggregate GDP free fall of $2\1/2\ trillion. That is the cost. That is the cost of my way or the highway. That is the cost of putting other countries and their agenda ahead of us, the cost of their noncompliance.

Fast-forward to a little over a year later, and the Biden administration has thrown us back into the accords and back into that predicted economic free fall.

This week, I worked with my colleague Senator Daines to introduce two pieces of legislation that will hopefully do a little bit of damage control on that issue.

The first is a bill that would prohibit taxpayer dollars from being used to rejoin the Paris Agreement. It makes sense. The reason it does is you are taking jobs away from U.S. employers. You are causing employees to become former employees or the unemployed. So it makes sense. If you want to do this, don't use taxpayer dollars. Don't make people pay for things that are going to take away their jobs.

The second is a resolution that would call on President Biden to submit the Paris Agreement to the Senate for approval. It makes sense. Where are treaties to come? Here. If you want unity, send things to the Senate. If you are proud of the step you are taking, send it to the Senate. Let there be a vote of the people's representatives. Let there be discussion. Do we fear discussion? Do we fear debate? Are we so given to the cancel culture that we just say it is our way or the highway?

I would note that submitting these types of agreements for consideration is a bare minimum standard set out in the Constitution, and there is no legitimate reason anyone in this Chamber should object to that. They should welcome respectful, robust debate.

I think we can all agree that this oversight duty is an important one, and I would ask my colleagues to join me in letting the administration know we are not going to abandon it simply because it would make things more convenient for them.

Freedom and preserving freedom are not always convenient. It takes a lot of hard work. It takes this body doing its job. It doesn't take

``my way or the highway'' Executive orders coming out of the White House.

On Inauguration Day, President Biden promised unity: all for it, wanted to see it, going to work for it--nice words. But so far he has done nothing but hide behind those Executive orders and force through policies that even members of his own party object to.

In Tennessee, I have talked to many who have, for most of their lives, been Democrats, and they are stunned--indeed, they are very concerned--about this authoritarian approach to running the country. Sign an Executive order and be done with it, hearing that the Speaker of the House has a few people who can vote proxy for people, seeing all this fencing around the Capitol causes Tennesseans to say: What in the world is going on up there? This is not how we are supposed to act.

And I will tell you, to my friends across the aisle, one day this tactic is going to backfire on the millions of Americans who are standing up. They are contacting us. They are speaking out. They are having buyer's remorse. It will be something that will backfire because this is not the way we should be running our country.

I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Iowa.

(The remarks of Mr. Grassley pertaining to the introduction of S. 391 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Texas.

SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 34

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

!RECEIVE ALERTS

The next time we write about any of these orgs, we’ll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.
Sign-up

DONATE

Help support the Metric Media Foundation's mission to restore community based news.
Donate

MORE NEWS