Floor Statements

Madam President, reserving the right to object, the AI Transparency in Elections Act echoes the Honest Ads Act and the DISCLOSE Act.

Those bills failed to become law because they created new Federal burdens on the foundational right of Americans to free speech. Adding a new definition of AI to these partisan bills does not resolve these concerns.

I would welcome a thoughtful policy proposal to address the actual concerns posed by AI-generated deepfakes. Instead, my colleagues are attempting to recycle an already failed proposal, and, therefore, I object.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be allowed to complete their remarks prior to the scheduled rollcall votes: myself, Senator Lankford, and Senator Rounds.

Mr. President, my colleagues and I are here today to honor the life of our former colleague, Senator Jim Inhofe.

Jim was a longtime legislator, a public servant, and a conservative champion. He was many things to many people. To me, Jim was a dear friend.

Jim and I are both from the heartland, so we shared a similar world view as well as a commitment to similar people--the humble, hard- working Americans from the center of this country.

Jim was fierce in his convictions. Jim was serious in his work. He was also kind-spirited, with a deep compassion for others. But perhaps more than all of these things, Jim was a visionary who used his positions in public life to build a better future for his State and for this country. He recognized the profound importance of public infrastructure investment. From highways, to airports, to levees and much more, Jim's legacy can be felt all across America's heartland.

Jim and I worked together on the Senate's Armed Services Committee. A veteran himself and an avid pilot, Jim was a fighter for the members of our military. All of our Senate colleagues knew that if Jim was leading an international trip to visit with servicemembers across the globe or to meet with America's allies that that trip would be all business. We would sleep on the plane, and we would be in a different country every single day.

I remember that, on one trip, we were forced to slow down a little bit when we lost a plane engine. You heard that right. We lost a plane engine, so we needed to stay in a country an extra day while the repairs were going to be made. That didn't mean we had a vacation. What Jim did is he found ways that he could be relentlessly efficient with all of our time, and his energy and his motivation to do the people's work was infectious.

Near the end of his Senate career, Jim served as the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee. He was one of the first Members of the Senate to recognize how seriously the world had shifted since the Cold War and how desperately we needed to rebuild our military in response to that. He had a very clear view of the global threats that America faces, both present and future, and he led accordingly.

Jim respected the design of the Senate as a place where every State's needs should be considered. He valued cooperation, he valued collaboration, and he wanted our annual Defense bill to reflect the concerns of all of the committee members.

He was resolute in his views and fierce in their defense, but he was always kind and caring. He built strong friendships with all of his colleagues, and despite many disagreements, he would have these relationships, so much so that a close Democrat colleague once described him as a brother to her.

Of course, you cannot speak of Jim without speaking of his family. Anyone who knew him knew how much he loved his wife Kay. He was a devoted husband, father, and grandfather. The only thing that convinced him to leave decades of public service to the people of Oklahoma was his desire to care for his wife.

My heart goes out to Kay and to his three surviving children, Molly, Jimmy, and Katy. May God comfort them in their sorrow, and may Jim's long life of love and service be a balm to their grief.

America knew Jim. America will remember him as a principled man, deeply committed to his values. The people of Oklahoma knew exactly who he was, and that is why they reelected him to the U.S. Senate five times.

His legacy will live on as a friend, as a husband and father, as a veteran, as an Oklahoman, as a U.S. Senator, and as a very good man.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Winnebago Land Transfer Act brings a simple issue of fairness to the Senate floor. I introduced this bill with my colleagues after hearing from members of the Winnebago Tribe about the trials they have faced over decades. These trials were sadly imposed by our own government, and that is why our government must resolve them.

In the mid-1800s, the government forcibly removed the Winnebago Tribe from their homeland. They settled in a new home in 1865--the Winnebago Indian Reservation in my home State of Nebraska.

The government promised that land to the Winnebago Tribe, and they promised it forever, but they did not keep that promise. In 1970, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers condemned 1,600 acres of the Tribe's reservation land for a proposed recreation project--a project that was never even started. The land seizure launched over half a century of legal battles between the Winnebago Tribe and the U.S. Government-- battles that never brought this matter to a just resolution.

But America is defined by our striving toward the ideals of justice and equality. Our government was established to protect these ideals, and that is what we will do by passing the Winnebago Land Transfer Act. Our legislation will restore the Tribe's rightful land, transferring the remaining tracts of land back from the U.S. Army Corps.

The House of Representatives passed this legislation earlier this year, and that is the version we are voting on today. They passed it because, like I said, it is a simple issue of fairness--one that all of us, no matter our political party, can get behind.

I am hopeful that today the Senate will follow suit, that we will uphold those ideals of justice and of equality. I am hopeful that we will pass this bill to return the land to its rightful owner, the Winnebago Tribe.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 411, H.R. 1240.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

I know of no further debate on the bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, this weekend, President Biden called for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza. What the President didn't acknowledge is that Israel and Gaza were not in a state of war until October 7, when Hamas broke a cease-fire. They stormed Israel's borders, and they raped, tortured, and killed innocent civilians.

Far-left, pro-Hamas activists are painting Hamas as freedom fighters that want to liberate their fellow Palestinians. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hamas uses innocent civilians--anyone from babies to the elderly--as human shields. They shelter themselves in schools and in hospitals. They have no regard for human life or dignity, not for Israelis and not for Palestinians.

Members of Hamas film themselves laughing as they maim and murder innocent people. They use sexual assault as a weapon of war. These are no freedom fighters; they are terrorists.

We saw a sobering example of that this weekend. The Israeli military recovered the bodies of four hostages who were captured, abused, and murdered by Hamas. They found them lying in a tunnel in Gaza. These included the body of Shani Louk, a young woman Hamas captured at the Nova music festival on October 7. She and the other hostages ran from the armed terrorists, who were killing people to their left and to their right, but Hamas caught up with them. They sexually assaulted and maimed Shani before they murdered her.

This weekend, the Israeli military returned the mutilated body of a young daughter to her grieving parents. These are not the deeds of freedom fighters. These are the deeds of terrorists.

There are still over 100 hostages being held in Gaza, many of whom are believed to be dead. Eight of those hostages are Americans, three of whom are dead as well--three Americans.

When President Biden calls for a cease-fire--one neither party has agreed to yet--he is just calling for Israel to surrender. He is emboldening Hamas and abandoning the dozens of people still being abused by these terrorists. He is equivocating because of political pressure.

President Biden must stop sacrificing a moral backbone for political gain. You don't negotiate with terrorists. Hamas is using hostages as political pawns, and no amount of diplomacy is going to change that.

The Biden administration should not be telling Israel's democratically elected government what they must do. Israel must make those decisions to protect their people and protect their country.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, in 1969, the city of Montreal, Canada, discovered what it is like to live in a world without police. For 16 hours on October 7, the city's full police force went on strike. What ensued is now called Montreal's ``Night of Terror.'' The city rang out with gunshots, glass shattering, and flames erupting.

Just 3 hours after the strike began, the first bank was robbed. Robbers stormed nine more before the police returned. Thefts, vandalism, and mob violence took the city by storm. There were 450 break-ins and over 30 armed holdups. A crowd 800 strong overturned a bus and sent vehicles ablaze.

The government sent Provincial police and army officers into the city. But by then, the chaos was already in full force. A sniper shot one officer, killing him. The result of Montreal's ``Night of Terror'' was two dead men, dozens of injuries, over 100 arrests, and close to $3 million in property damage.

Less than a day without police was a nightmare for Montreal.

Here in America, we often take our strong police force for granted. We enjoy the safety and protection of law enforcement, sometimes without even realizing it. But if trends continue, we will inch closer to living the nightmare of a world without police.

In 2022, almost 50 percent more officers resigned than in 2019. Almost 20 percent more officers retired. The number of police officers nationwide decreased by 4,000 between 2020 and 2023.

A study in 2023 found that over the prior 2 years, at least 12 American towns completely dissolved their police departments.

I have been speaking with law enforcement in Nebraska and around the country about growing staffing challenges for years. I greatly respect the State and local control of law enforcement agencies so I always ask them how I can make existing Federal tools more supportive of their work. Based on those conversations, I introduced the Recruit and Retain Act, which the House passed last week.

I am thankful to the Nebraska officers and sheriffs who collaborated with me to craft legislation with bipartisan appeal. As retirements increase and new applications decline, departments are shrinking, burdening the officers who are trying to keep them afloat. Understaffed departments are doing their best to keep up, but they don't always have the resources to hire all the officers that they need.

The Recruit and Retain Act offers them better access to resources to reverse this trend. My legislation improved the Department of Justice's community-oriented policing services, or COPS, a hiring grant program. The bill expands COPS grants for specific onboarding expenses like background checks and psychological evaluations.

It also provides clear guidance to the understaffed agencies applying for this funding, and it alleviates administrative burdens that come with those applications. These changes will allow departments to consider more applicants and hire more officers.

Recruit and Retain also establishes the Pipeline Partnership Program to promote student interest in law enforcement careers. Departments and local schools will work together to launch mentorship opportunities that give young people an inside look at law enforcement work. This will not only create a hiring pipeline for police departments, but it will also strengthen community relationships with law enforcement.

Finally, my bill directs the Government Accountability Office to investigate the causes of recent recruitment challenges and those effects on public safety. We see some of these causes and effects already: Anti-police movements like far-left ``defund the police'' that has demonized our law enforcement. We have seen rising crime levels in places like Portland, in Minneapolis, in

New York City after they cut funding for their police departments. Nonetheless, we haven't seen comprehensive studies that evaluate all levels of law enforcement in agencies of all sizes across the country. To address staffing issues, we need to have the data on exactly what is causing these problems and how they are compromising the safety of our communities.

These are practical changes that take our law enforcement a step forward in rebuilding their departments, a goal that will serve officers, will serve local communities, and it will serve our Nation as a whole. Our police and other law enforcement officers do the essential work to keep us safe and secure. Choosing not to support them is to choose chaos, lawlessness--a nightmare.

But by passing my bill, the House and the Senate have both chosen to support our police as they face these staffing challenges. I urge President Biden to do the same by signing the Recruit and Retain Act into law.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, we have been hearing from my colleagues about the FAFSA fiasco, and I join them in expressing concern about it; telling you about some of the complaints that we have heard from Nebraskans; and, hopefully, draw more attention to this so that we can see it fixed.

This failed FAFSA launch: It was late. It was chock-full of glitches and complications. It threw a wrench in the plans of both students and universities. I know this not just because I have read the news but because my office has heard from these students and these schools. Both public and private universities in Nebraska, as well as local education nonprofits--they have reached out with their frustrations over this rollout and the chaos that it has caused.

High school seniors have a hard enough time making weighty decisions about their futures, but the FAFSA fiasco is multiplying the stress and the complications of that decision process.

One high school guidance counselor in Lexington, NE, said the FAFSA delay is creating barriers and curveballs for students who need those scholarships.

A counselor in North Platte said it is causing serious problems for her students as well.

Students don't get the different scholarships they would

like to have, and they're not getting enough money to pay for

college.

Almost 18 million students across the country usually complete FAFSA in a typical year. This year, the number is only closer to 5 million. Millions less will get the financial aid they need to attend school because of the Department of Education's failed rollout.

So this is a national crisis, and it is not just affecting college applicants. It is affecting colleges themselves. The director of financial aid at Nebraska Wesleyan said the FAFSA problem is forcing them to condense what would normally be a 7-month financial aid process down to only 3 months.

The chancellor who oversees financial assistance at the University of Nebraska in Omaha said they are ``way behind.''

Each additional blunder by the Department of Education puts them even further behind. He said they are going to have to adjust their decision, orientation, and onboarding processes all because of FAFSA.

So how did we get to this point? I would say, in short, it is due to political pandering. The Department of Education put FAFSA on the back burner because they wanted to prop up President Biden's splashy student loan cancellation scheme.

And we know all about that scheme in my State of Nebraska. Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers spearheaded the Biden v. Nebraska Supreme Court challenge to the President's $400 billion student loan giveaway. The proposal was nonsensical, and it was deeply, deeply unfair. It forced American taxpayers to bear the burden of loans that they never took out.

Sources told the publication Inside Higher Ed that the Education Department neglected FAFSA overhaul in favor of plans that were more politically high profile--primarily, that student loan scheme.

The administration bulldozed millions of students. Why? To pander for votes. My colleagues and I are here today to call out this catastrophe, but we are also urging the administration to fix it.

In January, I joined Senator Cassidy in sending a letter to the Government Accountability Office asking them to investigate the negative impact the FAFSA rollout is having on students. We pushed the administration on what they plan to change for the next cycle.

President Biden's Department of Education is accountable to the American people for this failure, and they are responsible for fixing it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, tomorrow, the Biden administration's Environmental Protection Agency will release new tailpipe emission standards formulated to push electric vehicles on the American people. The administration says that because of EVs ``the future of American transportation is on track to be cleaner, safer, more affordable, and more reliable than ever before.'' And Vice President Harris has said that our Nation's embrace of electric vehicles will determine ``the health of our communities, the strength of our economy, and the sustainability of our planet.''

The way the administration and their activist friends paint EVs, you would think these cars are a time-tested environmental blessing with transportation, economic, and community benefits to boot. But behind the curtain of this climate crusade there is little supportive evidence and plenty of problems--problems the administration has tried to hide.

So what is the truth of the matter? The truth is that electric vehicles are not a magic bullet for the environment. They are underdeveloped and they pose safety risks and they create more problems than they solve, both at home and abroad.

So let's talk science. Climate activists say electric vehicles are bringing on a Green Revolution, but the facts--the facts--do not support that claim. The President said in a recent speech that ``when I got elected President . . . we vowed to enact the most ambitious climate and environmental justice campaign in American history.''

That campaign, according to President Biden, includes ``moving to all-electric vehicles in the future.'' And Vice President Harris has styled the push for electric vehicles as ``an approach that is about clean energy and being smart around a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.''

When the administration makes these inflated claims about electric vehicles, they are only looking at what comes out of the exhaust pipe, but there is much more to the life of an electric vehicle. We will start at the beginning. The production of electric vehicle batteries requires a massive amount of electricity, usually produced by generators that burn fossil fuels. The manufacturing of EVs produces at least 60 percent more carbon emissions than that of gas-powered cars.

EVs, they start their lives with carbon debt. But even after they are on the road, EVs have their problems. They weigh significantly more than gas-powered cars because of those heavy batteries. This extra weight, it wears down an EV's tires as it drives. One study compared an electric car to a hybrid car and found that the electric one emitted about a quarter more particulate matter because of tire wear. Driving the electric car heightened overall emissions compared to a hybrid.

The climate activists pushing EVs aren't just ignoring this science; they are actually trying to hide it. When the California Air Resources Board analyzed the facts of the State's proposed ban on gas-powered cars over the next decade, it assumed both EVs and gas-powered cars have the same tire wear. The agency said it would be ``speculative'' to assume that electric cars will continue being heavier than gas cars. If that sentence was confusing, well, it is because it doesn't make sense.

Public policy should reflect reality, not the baseless future dream of featherweight electric cars. What is speculative, obviously, is assuming that the weight of EVs will change over the next decade, but there is no evidence to support that claim.

Here is another instance of sham science: Under an Energy Department rule, automakers were encouraged to greatly overestimate the fuel efficiency of electric vehicles. By fudging the numbers, carmakers claimed that EVs had absurdly high fuel efficiencies, up to 430 miles per gallon. Well, then--then the government granted subsidies to those automakers for supposedly meeting those high efficiency standards. It was a fake science racket designed to juice the EV industry.

Well, how did they fudge the numbers? The Energy Department included what they called a fuel content factor in their fuel efficiency equations, which multiplied the efficiency rates for EVs by 6.67. According to the rule, they chose that specific multiplier, ``for simplicity and ease of use.'' In part, the rule reads that ``it is included to reward electric vehicles' benefits to the Nation relative to petroleum-fueled vehicles.''

Well, people found out about that multiplier and how arbitrary that it was, and they pushed back. So now, in response, the Energy Department itself admitted that this multiplier ``lacks legal support'' and has ``no basis''--``no basis.'' They finally buckled, and they eliminated that step.

So why did it take so long? Activism is getting in the way of truth when it comes to electric vehicles. Suppressing the facts won't help us make the most environmentally sensible choices. Administration activists aren't just wrong about the environmental benefits of electric vehicles; they are also wrong about their performance. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg claimed that ``we see the superiority of [EVs] in terms of performance, not just in terms of climate.''

And the Department of Transportation says ``EVs provide lower operating costs, reduced maintenance needs, and improved performance.'' But the truth is that electric vehicles are often undeveloped, inefficient, and they are unsafe.

We all heard about EVs malfunctioning this winter. Freezing temperatures and hot temperatures drain batteries and reduce driving range, and they leave stranded drivers helpless. Even in normal weather, EVs have been plagued with glitches. Ford recalled some F-150 Lightning trucks with defects. General Motors told dealers to stop selling the Blazer SUV because of design flaws. A Consumer Reports survey found that new EVs have 79 percent more problems than internal combustion cars.

Why is this administration trying to speed up EV production when they are clearly not ready for prime time?

Electric vehicle charging stations malfunction just as badly as the vehicles. Last year, researchers visited every public fast charger in the San Francisco Bay area--every single one. They found that almost 23 percent of them had ``unresponsive or unavailable screens, payment system failures, charge initiation failures, network failures, or broken connectors.''

Auto analytics company J.D. Power found that one in five charging sessions at public stations failed to deliver any charge at all. This problem is more serious than just a glitch. Performance issues create safety issues.

As I mentioned before, EV batteries can weigh thousands of pounds. They make electric vehicles 30 percent heavier, on average, than gas- powered cars. That extra weight makes a lot of difference when one crashes into you going 60 miles per hour.

The University of Nebraska actually tested how EVs performed in a crash against safety guardrails and roadside barriers earlier this year. And what they found was disturbing. Because they are so heavy, electric vehicles crash with up to 50 percent more impact, smashing through and destroying roadside barriers. Our current safety infrastructure can't stop an EV, and that is a major problem-- especially for other drivers.

The Center for Auto Safety Executive Director Michael Brooks says that ``we are likely to see many additional deaths and injuries attributable solely to the added weight of EV batteries.''

These deaths and these injuries also disproportionately affect women and children. A report released last month by the Government Accountability Office found that crash tests across the country--well, they don't use the accurate female crash test dummies. Some only use male dummies. They don't even attempt to test car safety on the female body.

This is part of why crashes injure and kill women at higher rates than men. Women are 80 percent more likely to sustain lower leg injuries. And these current crash test dummies don't even provide data on that type of injury.

Before mandating a rush of electric vehicles on the roads, the Biden administration needs to find a solution to the risks that these cars can pose, especially the risks that they pose to women.

So what happens if you are driving your new EV, crash, and it catches on fire? Would you call the fire department or the highway patrol? Well, if so, you may be out of luck. EVs pose special risks to first responders as well.

Their batteries contain so much energy that any contact with fire can cause them to explode. High-voltage lithium-ion batteries also pose a risk of electric shock to first responders. Firefighters have been caught off guard by electric vehicles that erupt in fire. If cells in an EV battery are damaged, they can experience an uncontrolled increase in temperature and pressure. That volatility can reignite a fire in a battery even after it has been put out.

One fire chief described an EV fire as a ``trick candle.'' You never know when it will reflame.

We have debunked the claim that EVs are better for our environment. We have debunked the claim that they are technologically superior. But what about the claim that electrifying our vehicle fleet will boost America's energy independence?

President Biden said this year that ``investing aggressively in electric vehicles and battery production now . . . is . . . important for strengthening our long-term economic security.''

The reason he gave is that 75 percent of EV battery manufacturing is done in China. In his words, ``For some battery components, critical materials, China controls nearly half the global production.''

President Biden's logic is severely flawed. If we invest aggressively in electric vehicles now--like he wants to--we will just boost China's dominance in sourcing and in manufacturing.

China is the world's largest manufacturer of electric vehicles. A senior research scientist at MIT admitted that when it comes to EVs, ``we still are going to be dependent on China for many, many years.''

The EV industry is effectively run by the Chinese Communist Party. The Biden administration is not only encouraging Americans to support an industry monopolized by the CCP, they are supporting it themselves through Federal rulings.

In December, the Treasury Department released guidance to make it easier for Foreign Entities of Concern to use the clean vehicle tax credit when they route our EV supply chains through China.

One Washington Post article released last year tracked China's EV operations to another interesting location: Afghanistan. Shortly after his inauguration, President Biden ordered our troops out of Afghanistan, paving the way for a Taliban takeover of the nation's government.

Well, that got China's attention. Afghanistan is home to large lithium reserves, one of the minerals essential for EV batteries. With the United States out of the picture, Chinese mining companies have flooded Afghanistan. These companies have developed a symbiotic relationship with the anti-American Taliban leadership, and that relationship continues to grow.

The electric vehicle supply chain fuels our adversaries. At the same time, it fuels human rights violations across the world. These so- called ``clean'' cars use dirty manufacturing methods.

The Biden administration is sending millions of dollars to the Congo to support cobalt mining for electric vehicle batteries. A few years ago, human rights groups investigated Congo's mining sector, and they found it full of young children working in hand-dug tunnels that often collapse, burying these kids alive. The massive demand for cobalt only encourages that industry to keep using inhumane and environmentally irresponsible mining methods.

One Congolese mining expert said it best. He asked:

How can you base a green revolution on trashing Congolese

environment and exploiting Congolese workers?

This phenomenon stretches across Africa into Asia. In Indonesia, miners use an intense acid-leaching process that sickens the local environment.

One man told reporters that the rivers he used to drink from have turned dark red since the nickel mine added its acid-leaching refinery. Pollution in those rivers has killed rows of coconut trees and schools of fish. Not only are locals deprived of clean water, but many local fishermen have to travel farther to support their livelihoods.

The Biden administration does not acknowledge or address the dark side of their self-proclaimed Green Revolution. They keep it tucked away in Congo and Indonesia, hidden away from their climate soapbox. But it is time for the administration to stop hiding this truth. They have spearheaded a

reckless push toward a future run by electric vehicles.

If they have integrity, they will stop burying evidence and come clean about the electric vehicle record on environment, on safety, and on human rights. And if they have good judgment--well, they will tap the brakes on this climate charade.

Electric vehicles are ridden with problems, as any developing technology is. The problem is not so much electric vehicles as it is this administration's blind insistence on electric vehicle mandates that harm Americans and that harm the environment.

The White House is forcing electric vehicles on our country in a hasty, overzealous political play. And they are spurning the science, the facts, and the reality: Americans don't want the electric vehicle revolution and for good reason.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I want to talk today about deterrence and escalation.

In 1988, the American frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian mine in international waters. Thankfully, no Americans were killed. But, wisely, President Reagan didn't wait for tragedy to occur before acting. Just 4 days later, the United States destroyed two Iranian oil platforms, three warships, two fighter jets, and multiple other vessels.

The message was clear: If you put American lives in danger, you will be destroyed. There was no escalation. The conflict did not spiral into an uncontained war. Deterrence was restored.

Compare that powerful and effective example of deterrence to where we are today. Another Iran-backed group, Hamas, attacked our ally Israel on October 7. The President said that the United States would stand with Israel and that he would not tell Israel how to conduct its war against this terror. Since then, his administration has all but folded to the demands of those in his party who want to condition aid and support to our ally.

Since October 7, Iran-backed militias have attacked U.S. troops not once, not twice, but more than 150 times. President Biden has allowed not days, not weeks, but months of unanswered attacks by Iran-backed Houthis on U.S. ships and civilian cargo vessels in the Red Sea. What was the inevitable result of the President's hesitation? The tragic deaths of three American troops at the hands of an Iran-backed militia, with dozens more seriously injured in that attack. And let's not forget that two Navy SEALS gave their lives just days before. They died trying to stop Iran from supplying weapons to similar militia groups across the region.

This administration likes to say that it doesn't want to escalate the situation. President Biden doesn't want Israel to escalate its justifiable war, and he doesn't want the United States to escalate our defense of Americans. His administration has said it wants to avoid escalation so much that it is beginning to seem like he is more afraid of being blamed for escalation than he is afraid of Americans being killed. But we should be clear: The only attacks President Biden is deterring are our own.

It is time to realize that our enemies have already escalated. Our response must be strong enough so that we can restore deterrence. Militants, they have attacked Israel, targeted civilian ships, and now they have killed Americans--all funded and supported by Iran. To stand up for our country, to stand against the murder of Americans and to stand with Israel, we must clearly demonstrate to Iran that they will pay a price for their continued support of terrorism.

Public reports say that President Biden is considering options for a retaliatory strike against Iranian forces. Whatever he decides to do, it must not follow his now well-established pattern of too little, too late. President Biden must finally restore credible deterrence, which is the only way that we will prevent escalation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, last week the Biden administration announced over half a billion dollars in subsidies for electric vehicle, or EV, charging stations. That half billion follows 2 billion more that has already been handed out to States, despite the fact that only 4 percent of Americans own EVs.

This is a common trend for this administration: forcing untested, expensive solutions onto the American people in the name of climate change.

But according to the Wall Street Journal, only two federally funded EV charging stations have been built since Biden became President, even though billions of taxpayer dollars are subsidizing those projects.

And Americans remain hesitant to drive these expensive cars. Last year, 84 percent of Americans said they are not considering buying one. The EV malfunctions that have happened over the past few days of this winter weather that we have been having across my part of the country only serve to confirm their choices.

The administration's plan for massive adoption of EVs over the next 8 years is a pipedream. But there are realistic, practical reforms we can make that would benefit the environment without limiting freedom or harming our economy. One of them is approving the sale of gasoline blends with 15 percent ethanol, or E15.

My legislation, the Nationwide Consumer and Retailer Choice Act, would cut redtape and remove roadblocks to the sale of E15.

Today, California is the only State that hasn't approved the sale of this partially renewable fuel, an unusual stance for a State that styles itself as a leader in protecting the environment.

Should California join the other 49 States in approving E15, that nationwide approval would benefit our environment, our economy, and our energy independence.

Emissions from ethanol are 46 percent lower than from traditional gasoline. One study found that corn ethanol contributed to a reduction of 500 million tons in emissions between 2005 and 2019.

Studies show that if all the gas in California had been E15 in 2022, there would have been a 450 million-gallon reduction in petroleum consumption. That switch, it would have resulted in greenhouse gas savings of 2.2 billion metric tons, and that is in California alone. These environmental benefits would increase exponentially if E15 were used more across this country.

Not only do higher ethanol blends of gasoline emit less greenhouse gases, but the corn used in its production soaks up massive amounts of additional CO2. This is a doubly positive effect that should please even the most skeptical of our environmental friends.

It has been proven by NASA--by the scientists at NASA with data that they have gathered from their satellites--that during the summer, the Corn Belt in the United States of America has more photosynthetic activity than even the Amazon rainforest.

Family farmers in the Corn Belt are helping our climate by producing cleaner fuel, and they don't have to own an EV to do it.

Unlike EV subsidies, E15 is a sensible way to advance environmental goals that do not weigh down our economy. This fuel does not require taxpayer money. It is cheap enough to be market driven. The average price of E15 during the 2022 summer driving season was 16 cents less per gallon than regular gas. In an age of record inflation, that makes a big difference.

It benefits retailers that can profit off of E15, and it benefits millions of American drivers who can switch to a more affordable fuel. Access to E15 will free retailers and consumers from a dependence on energy that is produced abroad. Instead, we will be relying on producers here at home.

This is the way that we can unleash American energy, prioritize our domestic production, and take advantage of the wonderful natural resources that we have.

California's approval would make E15 a nationwide fuel option, and my bill eliminates Federal regulatory roadblocks to the year-round nationwide sale of E15, a lower cost, lower carbon fuel.

Congress and President Biden must come together to pass legislation that will truly advance an ``all of the above'' approach to energy, one that uses many resources that we produce right here in America.

E15, the approval of that is a win. It is a win for family farmers who produce ethanol; it is a win for consumers at the gas pump; and it is a win

for our environment, which makes it a win also for American energy security.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, our first session of the 118th Congress is coming to a close. But in the flurry of last-minute legislating, I want to call attention to one of the most important stories that I have read this year.

Now, I don't want to ruin anyone's Christmas, but this isn't good news. It is deeply sobering.

The Wall Street Journal article titled ``Alarm Grows Over Weakened Militaries and Empty Arsenals in Europe'' is what I would like to talk about. And here is how it begins:

The British military--the leading U.S. military ally and

Europe's biggest defense spender--has only around 150

deployable tanks and perhaps a dozen serviceable long-range

artillery pieces. So bare was the cupboard that last year the

British military considered sourcing multiple rocket

launchers from museums to upgrade and donate [those then] to

Ukraine, an idea that was dropped.

France, the next biggest spender, has fewer than 90 heavy

artillery pieces, equivalent to what Russia loses roughly

every month on the Ukraine battlefield. Denmark has no heavy

artillery, submarines or air-defense systems. Germany's army

has enough ammunition for two days of battle.

The war in Ukraine has exposed just how serious our friends' readiness and supply problems are.

Think about what I said. The largest defense spender in Europe has considered raiding museums for scraps of usable equipment. When it comes to heavy artillery, Russia blows through France's entire arsenal every month. At least, Germany is prepared to do battle, as long as the war doesn't last longer than a 3-day weekend.

Europe's ``bare cupboards'' problem began many years ago at the end of the Cold War, when European nations began slashing defense budgets and drawing down troop numbers. Amazingly, the dire situation today is actually an improvement from 10 years ago. Since Russia's invasion of Crimea in 2014, the European Union has increased defense spending by 20 percent.

That is not nearly enough, and it has virtually nothing compared to our adversaries. Russia's spending increased by 300 percent and China's by almost 600 percent over the same time period.

European nations still rely on the military strength of the United States, which was responsible for 70 percent of NATO defense spending last year. But last year, America's defense spending was 3.1 percent of GDP, which is very nearly the lowest since the Second World War. Even if you add in the aid to Taiwan, Israel, and Ukraine, America's defense spending would still be far, far below 4.6 percent of GDP--the amount spent during the height of Iraq and Afghanistan operations in 2010.

Although it is on the lower end historically, increasing spending isn't the U.S. military's only concern. The past few decades show that we are unprepared to increase munitions production at the scale and at the speed to win a large war. In the Gulf and in the Iraq wars, it took over 2 years for our munitions procurement and deliveries to reach the necessary levels. And once these crises ended and demand for munitions dropped, we again sidelined production and we cut our workforce.

We need to build up the weapons stockpiles required to deter or, if necessary, fight and win a conflict against a peer adversary. To do so, we must commit to sustained increases in munitions and weapons production. Tools like multiyear procurement authority for additional munitions, which we included in this year's NDAA, can contribute to that long-term stability.

This boom-and-bust cycle we have of production has put the United States dangerously behind adversaries like China and Russia, whose capacity to build and replace equipment far outpace ours right now.

Take, for example, a war game that was recently conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In the hypothetical scenario where war breaks out over Taiwan, China could replace lost naval ships three times as quickly as the United States.

And if Russia wins in Ukraine, it could rearm itself completely-- completely--in 3 to 4 years. The nation's finance ministry estimates that national defense spending will grow to 6 percent of its economic output next year, increasing by 2 percent. That 6 percent would be the highest level since the downfall of the Soviet Union.

The U.K. has gone the opposite direction. The nation hasn't had a fully deployable army in over 30 years. And its defense spending is stuck at 2.2 percent. Britain has pledged to increase that number by a meager .3 percent--but only when economic conditions allow.

And, unfortunately, industrial capacity will always lag behind spending. Even if Britain and other nations of Europe massively increase defense spending today, it would be years before we see that spending translated into an increase in production capacity. And, by then, it could be too late.

A new axis is forming. Russia and China have pledged new levels of cooperation, and both have humming military production machines.

Our allies must invest more in their defense. They must prepare themselves for what is coming. But they will not be alone.

Russia's war on Ukraine has highlighted a weakness in our collective security. When the next crisis arises, NATO will be unequipped to respond. But we cannot allow our alliance to remain unprepared. Instead, we must make the necessary sustained investments--and we must start making them now.

The United States must do everything in our power to accelerate our own production. And we must strongly encourage Europe to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, earlier this year, I visited our Nation's southern border. My colleagues and I joined several patrols to see the problems firsthand, and at each of our stops, what we saw was very, very alarming. Dozens of people sat on the ground at midnight at the border, waiting to go to a crowded processing center for illegal immigrants. As we patrolled the Rio Grande Valley, we passed trail after trail used by illegal migrants to traffic drugs and people into our country. Meanwhile, we walked past an open, unfinished border wall. We toured a raided stash house, where a weapon was found, an illegal immigrant was detained, and a human smuggler was arrested.

These experiences--they just scratch the surface of the chaos overwhelming our southern border. Our border is a frenzy--a frenzy--of illegal activity, and because of neglect and inaction from this administration, this disaster is out of control.

There is a humanitarian crisis at our southern border. There is a deadly drug crisis at our southern border. Perhaps most critically, there is a national security crisis at our southern border.

Since President Biden took office, over 8 million migrants have illegally crossed our southern border. Border Patrol agents have seized over 51,000 pounds of fentanyl. We have seen an uptick in encounters with illegal migrants from adversaries like China. That is not even to mention the 295--294; I don't want to exaggerate because we don't need to exaggerate on numbers like this--the 294 known terrorists who have been identified at our border. Hundreds of people on the Terror Watchlist are flooding our border. To put those numbers in perspective, Border Patrol agents encountered a grand total of 11 people--11 people--on that list during the 4 years of the last administration.

My Democratic colleagues support security for Taiwan, they support security for Ukraine, and they support security for Israel, but what they won't support is basic border security for the United States of America. Yesterday's classified briefing on the supplemental underscored how ridiculous this is. The United States is the leader of the free world. We are supporting the security of our partners and allies around the globe. Yet we are told by the Biden administration and my Democratic colleagues that we can't support the security at our own border? We are told that our own border security is not related to this national security supplemental? That is absurd, and the American people know that it is absurd.

Many of my Republican colleagues and I have been willing to compromise, but we have had it. We have had it with the evasive answers and the total neglect of our own border.

Border security is not a fringe issue. According to an NBC poll, 53 percent of voters support more military funding for Taiwan, 55 percent support more funding for Ukraine, and 55 percent support more funding for Israel, but 74 percent of voters support more funding for our border security. That is 20 percent more than anything else that voters support in this supplemental.

My Republican colleagues and I are siding with the American people on this funding request. Yes, we should address the conflicts raging around our world. We must stand by our allies and our partners. But we cannot forget the catastrophic issues that we are seeing on our own doorstep. We must secure our own Nation before anything else. If this supplemental funding bill truly aims to protect our national security, it must address our security from all sides, and the side that is in the most dire need of support is our battered and chaotic border.

But money alone is not going to repair the border. We must make commonsense policy changes to address this crisis. Let's tighten our asylum standards. Let's limit the use of parole to the required, case- by-case basis. Let's close the catch-and-release loophole.

I urge the rest of my colleagues and our President to look at this border crisis seriously and to respond with urgency--the urgency that this requires. The security supplemental is the right opportunity to do so.

Side with the American voters. Side with common sense, and let us protect our border.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, across the country, over 1.2 million Americans live in nursing homes. Many of our own parents, grandparents, and other loved ones are among them. Nursing facilities provide specialized attentive care to seniors in critical need of their services.

Long-term care facilities are especially indispensable in small towns and rural areas like much of my home State of Nebraska. In those areas, a larger percentage of the population is over 65.

Unfortunately, the Biden administration has released a rule this fall that could force many nursing facilities around the country to close their doors. The new rule, introduced in September by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, mandates new minimum staffing standards for long-term care facilities. It requires each facility to staff a registered nurse on site 24/7 and would require staff to provide each resident with at least 3 hours of direct care per day. The administration believes this rule would improve the quality of care in our nursing homes.

Unfortunately, the rule, as written, would simply force many facilities to shut down, denying care to seniors entirely.

According to CMS, 75 percent of nursing homes would have to increase staffing to comply with these proposed standards, but across our country, these homes already face historic staffing shortages. According to Federal labor statistics, nursing homes lost more than 200,000 workers from February of 2020 to December of 2022. The industry is still rebuilding its workforce after a devastating pandemic.

Under this rule, nursing homes would be forced to go to great lengths to find staff in the midst of these overwhelming shortages. If they failed, they would likely need to shut their doors and deprive seniors of care.

Even one nursing home closure could be detrimental to seniors in certain rural communities. Highly populated urban areas may host several long-term care facilities, a lot of different options are available, but for these facilities in rural areas, they are few and far between. If one facility closes, the next closest one could be many miles or even hours away. It might not be feasible for every senior to move so far from their home.

So this mandate from CMS, it would devastate facilities across Nebraska, across rural America, and across this

country. It would devastate families who are relying on these facilities to serve their loved ones, and it would devastate the seniors who urgently need care.

After the release of this proposed rule in September, I joined the rest of the Nebraska Federal delegation in sending a letter to CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure opposing these new standards. We have never received a response.

So I plan to introduce legislation that would prevent these misguided standards from going into effect. My bill would also establish an advisory panel on the nursing home workforce. The panel would host members representing various stakeholders, including members from rural areas and underserved areas.

The Biden administration must hear from voices outside the big cities on the coasts. This proposed rule is a one-size-fits-all attempt at a solution, but the so-called solution simply doesn't fit. It is a misguided mandate that will prove destructive for communities that most need the care.

I am going to keep fighting for our rural communities and for the seniors who rely on long-term care facilities, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same by joining me in support of this legislation to protect nursing homes and to protect the Americans they serve.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

As Americans in 2023, there is plenty that we disagree on, but, last week, USA Today released a new study on something we can all agree to hate--potholes. The study ranked all 50 States based on how many potholes covered their roads. It also included that the average car repair after a tussle with a pothole costs over $400.

That is a lot of money for Americans to pay unexpectedly after a road incident, and, unfortunately, our pothole problem is about to get much worse.

For the past 67 years, the Highway Trust Fund has largely funded road maintenance across our Nation. The fund repairs wear and tear from vehicles that travel our highways. That is critical for our roads, for our infrastructure, and for our transportation.

But the Highway Trust Fund is running on empty. It is projected to run out of money in the next few years. The insolvency of the fund would necessitate a total restructuring of our highway repair system, and it would throw our national infrastructure under the bus.

So how do we prevent this from happening? The main source of revenue for the fund is the Federal gas tax, which is a user fee. The money that drivers pay in taxes when they fill up with gas automatically goes toward road construction. But as a smaller percentage of vehicles fill up with gas, a smaller amount of money goes into the Highway Trust Fund.

The use of electric vehicles, or EVs, has shot up over the last several years, and, of course, EVs don't use gas. Since they don't fill up with gas, they don't pay the gas tax, and they don't pay into the Highway Trust Fund.

As more EVs have been adopted, the fund has become more unstable. It is not receiving the same revenue as it used to. According to Deloitte, U.S. adoption of EVs will increase to 30 percent of new car sales by 2030. So that is 30 percent of new car drivers not paying into the Highway Trust Fund.

But if anyone should be paying into Federal road repair, it should be EV users. EVs can be up to three times heavier than gas-powered cars, due to their large batteries. This significant weight puts extra stress onto our roads. It pulverizes the road bed, causing more maintenance, more upgrades, and more costs.

The Highway Trust Fund exists to fix exactly the type of damage that these heavy EVs can cause. So it is only fair that all highway users, both gas-powered and electric vehicles, pay into that fund.

My recent bill, the Stop EV Freeloading Act would fix this discrepancy. This new legislation would require EVs to contribute to the Highway Trust Fund through a two-tier fee structure. The first tier corresponds to the Federal gas tax. Under my bill, buyers would pay a one-time $1,000 fee on EVs at the point of sale. That money would contribute to the highway trust fund. This $1,000 fee equals the average amount consumers currently contribute to the fund from gas taxes over 10 years. Ten years is the average lifespan of an EV battery. This fee would tax EVs the same amount once that gas-powered cars pay over the lifespan of an EV battery.

The second tier corresponds to the heavy-vehicle use tax, which also contributes to the highway trust fund. Under my legislation, manufacturers would pay a one-time fee of $550 on each EV battery module with a weight greater than 1,000 pounds. The average EV battery weight is a little less than 1,000 pounds, so taxing those heavier than average would ensure that the highway trust fund has enough money to cover any damage these vehicles inflict on highways. The $550 tax is comparable to the fees imposed on heavy trucks because of the additional stress they cause to roads and bridges.

The current structure of the highway trust fund doesn't account for damage EVs can and do cause to our roads, and it is only fair that EVs and gas-powered vehicles pay those same fees. Both types of vehicles should contribute to the fund for the vital repairs and maintenance we need.

Ultimately the changes included in the Stop EV Freeloading Act would help the fund escape its impending insolvency. Right now, the highway trust fund is losing to the EV industry, and that means our roads are going to lose to heavy electric vehicles. When our infrastructure starts deteriorating, the American people are going to pay the price. My bill would stop that from happening.

Let's put gas-powered vehicles and electric vehicles on a level playing field. That is the only way we would all win.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, last winter a restaurant and a bakery near Omaha NE, well, they both closed their doors. The restaurant owner said: We have to close. There is no way around it. The owner simply couldn't keep up with food and labor costs that were going through the roof, costs that have been catapulting higher and higher ever since President Biden implemented his so-called Bidenomics agenda.

The bakery owner, well, she had a similar story as she closed her doors. She said that rising costs made it impossible to continue. Inflation took a sledgehammer to those small businesses as well as the livelihoods of their owners and their employees. That is Bidenomics in Nebraska.

Starting and sustaining a family business is already a massive undertaking. That work, combined with the burden of oppressive inflation, becomes too heavy for some families to carry. And the coming months may add even more to that heavy load.

As we close in on the winter season, days are getting colder; days are getting darker; and that means that many family-owned shops--well, they are going to lose significant business. Fewer customers are going to venture out to shop at small businesses and they will do it for fewer hours during the day and that is going to cut down on the amount of profit that these businesses make.

But not only that, while profit decreases, costs will go up. Because it is colder, small businesses will spend more of their money on energy bills to heat the buildings. Winter in Nebraska, well, it can pose challenges for family-owned businesses every year. And this year, that is especially the case.

Since President Biden took office, energy prices have risen by 44 percent. The burden of a higher energy bill during the winter months is 44 percent heavier. Fuel oil is 51 percent more expensive. That is an astounding number. Electricity has gotten 26 percent more expensive, and natural gas, well, it is 22 percent more expensive.

This winter, there may be Nebraska businesses that follow in the footsteps of that Omaha restaurant and that Omaha bakery, losing so much money to inflation that they are going to be forced to close up shop.

Spending hundreds more dollars on basic business necessities is unsustainable for a family-owned business, and that is Bidenomics in Nebraska.

Inflation burdens businesses, but that is not where it stops. Inflation is costing the average Nebraska household $988 a month. That is almost $12,000 more a year. Families are paying more for everything, from eggs to gas to their mortgage payments, and this October--for the second year in a row--candy. Candy inflation hit double digits. When buying Halloween candy contributes to a middle-class family's financial struggle, we have got a serious problem. And that is Bidenomics in Nebraska.

Nebraskans know Bidenomics isn't working and so do the American people. In a New York Times poll this weekend, 81 percent of respondents said that the economy is less than good. Over half said that economic conditions are poor. Our economy is sick, and this administration is making it sicker with every reckless financial decision.

Since January 2021, this administration has been trigger-happy with heavy-handed regulations, instead of listening to people and putting a stop to these outrageous levels of inflation.

We know how to heal the economy. It is just a matter of getting it done. The administration has got to stop with its reckless spending. The President needs to reverse course on damaging regulations like his ineffective Inflation Reduction Act, and he certainly needs to refrain from passing more of it.

We need to unleash American energy so our economy can breathe again. Bidenomics means sky-high prices, hollowed-out savings, and costly interest rates. We can combat it with less spending, less regulation, and more American energy.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, we have heard story after story this past month about Hamas's brutal ground attacks on Israel. Hamas militants murdered Israelis and Americans alike as they stormed places, from border towns to music festivals. Hamas didn't just attack from the ground; they continue to rain rockets on Israel. These rockets have destroyed people's homes, ruptured their livelihoods, and taken their lives.

Throughout this conflict, Israel's Iron Dome defense system has played a crucial role. The Iron Dome acts as a shield, detecting rockets and firing missiles to intercept them before they hit the ground.

The United States has stood by Israel--our closest ally in the Middle East--since the country's inception. We have always pledged our support in times of crisis. So it is critical that my colleagues and I on the Senate Appropriations Committee work together to ensure that Israel receives the defensive and offensive capabilities that it has requested from the United States. That includes replenishing the Iron Dome system so that Israel is able to protect its people from rocket attacks by terrorist groups. It includes replenishing Israel's David's Sling system and investing in the development of the Iron Beam system. These defensive systems set Israel up for an effective response to the havoc that Hamas and Hezbollah continue to wreak.

We must provide Israel with the time and resources its government needs to eliminate those threats. But as we consider the aid we will provide to Israel, we also need to consider the question, how do we better position the United States to support our allies as well as bolster our own defense systems amid the escalating global threats?

A few days after the heinous attacks on Israel, a bipartisan, bicameral congressional commission released its report on the strategic posture of the United States. This report, based on the consensus of respected national security experts from across the political spectrum, concluded that the United States will be woefully underprepared for the threats we are facing.

Our two peer nuclear adversaries, Russia and China, have dramatically expanded their nuclear forces over the decades. They continue to develop novel nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Meanwhile, the United States is barely keeping up with modernizing our nuclear forces.

The report emphasized the need to grow our nuclear and conventional forces and, above all else, to expand our production capability, including our workforce, supply chain, and infrastructure.

As Senators, we regularly receive briefings and intelligence reports that clearly outline the threats we face from actors like Russia and China. I have often said that if the American people had access to more of this information themselves, they would better understand the nature and the severity of the threats we face. Investment in national security would move to the top of their priority list.

These events--the release of a disquieting defense report and the assault against our ally Israel--should serve as a wake-up call for the United States of America. We must expand our production capacity to meet the needs of our country. If we don't expand our production capacity, we also won't be able to support our allies and our partners or supply them with the lethal aid they desperately need.

Building out our capacity so we can meet future threats--that is going to take time, and it is going to take resources. But we can start now, and we can start by making targeted investments in munitions production.

The administration's supplemental request includes $25 billion just to replenish our own weapons stockpiles and expand the critical munition production capacity--initiatives that, frankly, should have already begun. Including this funding in the supplemental will be a step in the right direction.

The supplemental request must bring together our goals of strengthening our own military readiness, supporting our troops in Europe and the Middle East, and providing our allies and our partners with lethal aid. I look forward to

working with my colleagues to ensure that the supplemental includes these priorities.

We have been asleep to changes in the global threat environment for too long, and now is the time to wake up.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.