Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today for two reasons. No. 1, I am losing one of my best colleagues--she is sitting right here next to me--Ms. Jess Andrews. Jess has run my communications shop for--I don't know how many years--5 years.

I try to hire really good people, and, certainly, Jess is one of them. She is a very moral person. She is whip-smart. But when you hire good people, you know you are going to lose them because good people, capable people, like Jess, are ambitious people, and they want to move on to new positions.

Jess is becoming deputy chief of staff to our new Senator from Ohio. I wish her well, and I just wanted to thank her publicly.

Jess Andrews is the real deal, and she has just done an extraordinary job for the people in Louisiana and for the American people, and I am so, so grateful.

I congratulate our new Senator from Ohio. He is getting a good one.

So thank you, Jess.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 15, S.J. Res. 11.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have a resolution under the--we call it a CRA, to rescind one of President Biden's regulations.

In 1938, we drilled the first well in the ``Gulf of America,'' which some people still call the Gulf of Mexico.

Since then, 87 years have passed, and we have drilled about 6,000 wells in the gulf. We have laid hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines.

The oil and gas companies who did this have surveyed, they have x rayed every square inch of the seabed in the gulf. They have surveyed, they have x rayed 311,652 square nautical miles in the gulf. Put Texas and California together, that is the geographical area that has been surveyed by the oil and gas industry.

Why did they do that? For safety reasons. So before they put a platform in the gulf, they knew where they were putting it. And, No. 2, to preserve history, because we have--or had a lot of shipwrecks in the gulf, from which we can learn about the past.

In fact, as a result of this effort by the oil and gas industry to x ray the entire gulf, we have discovered 4,000 shipwrecks.

In the waning days of the Biden administration, September of 2024, the Department of the Interior, under the Biden administration, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management--we call it BOEM--promulgated a midnight regulation. This is what the regulation said: You have to survey it again. Even though the entire gulf has been surveyed, you have to do it again, oil and gas industry. If you want to drill a well, or if you want to lay some pipeline, you have got to x ray it again. Why? Because the government says so.

This is going to add anywhere from--I don't know--$20,000 up to, potentially, $1 million to the cost of drilling a well, to x ray after an x ray has already been done. That, of course, is going to increase the cost of the well, which is going to increase the cost of the oil and gas from the well, which is going to be passed on to the consumer, which is going to raise the price of energy, which is going to contribute to inflation in America.

You want to know why we had such outrageous inflation under President Biden? Because of regulations like this. And there are hundreds more that increased prices needlessly. That is why under President Biden, the average person's electricity bill in America went up 20 percent under President Biden.

We don't need this regulation. I do not know--well, let me put it another way. I am not saying that the person at the Department of the Interior who came up with this idea is the dumbest person in the world. I am not saying that. But I am saying that the person at BOEM who came up with this idea better worry that the dumbest person in the world doesn't die because he is in the running.

My CRA would kill this rule dead as Woodrow Wilson, and I hope my colleagues will vote for it.

I yield back all time on Calendar No. 15, S.J. Res. 11.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, with me today is Mr. John Lowery, who is one of my colleagues from my office, who has been a big help to me.

Mr. President, as you know, when Vice President Harris and President Trump ran against each other for the Presidency, one of the planks in President Trump's platform was that he was going to review every penny of Federal Government spending.

Why did he say that? Why did he promise to do that? Well, first, there is a moral principle involved. People work hard for their money, and when they give it to government, they are entitled to expect government to spend it efficiently.

Number 2, President Trump ran on that plank because of our debt. The Federal debt is $36.5 trillion. You know, we throw these numbers around--like a trillion, you know--and we start to take them for granted.

To give you a little perspective, this $36.5 trillion grows bigger by the second. It is going to increase--if we just keep doing what we have been doing, it is going to increase $1 trillion every 100 days. If we just keep doing what we have been doing, it is going to increase $10 billion a day. Today, nothing changed. We added $10 billion in debt. That is also $417 million an hour. That is $6.9 million a minute. I think I have been talking about a minute; we just added $7 million to our debt. That is why the President wants to get rid of spending porn.

The reaction here in Washington has been breathtaking. I understand Washington is not exactly a slice of America. I get that. I understand that Washington is not normal. Normal in Washington, DC, is a setting on the dryer. So I get all that. We are different in Washington. But the pushback to President Trump's effort through Mr. Musk and his team to reduce spending has just been extraordinary. I mean, people are barking and yelping and shrieking about it. They sound like the game room in a mental hospital.

I get that a lot of people don't like President Trump, and I get that many people don't like Mr. Musk. I get that Mr. Musk is different. I kind of like that. I mean, I like different. You know, he is the sort of guy that would wear--I don't know--he would wear Crocs to a wedding. I get that. I find it kind of refreshing. But nobody has ever called him a dummy. And he has found an incredible amount of waste and abuse of taxpayer money, what I call spending porn.

I am not going to repeat everything I have repeated or said the first time we talked about this, but it just seems to me to be, once again, extraordinary that people are mad at President Trump or Mr. Musk for the process they are using, but they are not mad about the money being wasted.

I mean, Mr. Musk, whether you like him or not, has found, for example, $7.9 million that we spent to teach Sri Lanka journalists to avoid binary gendered language. He found money that was given to an NGO to empower the LGBT community in Armenia. He found $1.5 million that we spent to rebuild the Cuban media ecosystem, $2.1 million to the BBC to strengthen the media ecosystem in Libya, and $8.3 million spent for equity and inclusion education in Nepal. Does no one care about how the money was actually abused and wasted?

It is not unusual for me to be disappointed for some things I see in Washington, and under the last administration, I have to admit, I was disappointed just about every single day. I had almost gotten used to it.

But last week--and this is what I want to talk about--I read a story. It

was a story about the abuse of taxpayer money in the last administration, and it was so nauseating that it triggered my gag reflex.

In April of 2024--not that long ago--the EPA, under President Biden, gave $2 billion in taxpayer money to an organization that had absolutely no experience, that was backed by a very prominent Democratic politician by the name of Ms. Stacey Abrams.

Here is what happened: In 2022, as you know, President Biden and my Democratic colleagues passed the Inflation Reduction Act. Not a single Republican voted for it--not one--either in the House or in the Senate.

We knew, at the time, that spending $1.2 trillion--that is what the Inflation Reduction Act cost--would only make inflation worse, not better. And even President Biden eventually admitted that the Inflation Reduction Act did absolutely nothing to lower prices. Even President Biden, at the end of his term, admitted that.

So where did all the Inflation Reduction Act money go? A fair question for taxpayers to ask. I mean, there is nothing wrong with wanting to know what they do with our money.

Let me say that again. There is nothing wrong with wanting to know what they do with our money.

So where did all the Inflation Reduction Act--this $1.2 trillion--go? Well, President Trump and DOGE, the group appointed by President Trump, and the EPA under new leadership, under Mr. Lee Zeldin, have begun to follow some of that money.

Now, this is where Ms. Stacey Abrams comes in. I think it is fair to say that Ms. Abrams is--I don't know. I would call her controversial. She has the right to believe what she believes. This is America, and she has the right to free speech. I am not criticizing that, even though I disagree with some of what she says. But I think it would be fair to describe her as controversial. She is probably best known for the fact that she ran for Governor of Georgia twice, and she lost.

In her career, Ms. Abrams has said the following. I don't want to just articulate hyperbole here. I want you to read her words, not mine. On April 20, 2024, Ms. Abrams appeared on MSNBC with Rev. Al Sharpton, and this is what Ms. Abrams said:

What we know is that the attack on diversity, equity, and

inclusion, DEI, is an attack on democracy.

On September 20, 2022, during a panel discussion in Atlanta, Ms. Abrams said this about a baby's heartbeat--a fetal heartbeat--the heartbeat of a baby in a mother's womb. This is what Ms. Abrams said about a fetal heartbeat. She said:

It is a manufactured sound designed to convince people that

men have the right to take control of a woman's body.

Her words, not mine.

In May of 2022, during a Georgia gubernatorial debate--she is running for Governor of Georgia now--Ms. Abrams called Georgia ``the worst State in the country to live'' in.

In October of 2022, during another Georgia gubernatorial debate, Ms. Abrams accused the sheriffs--all the sheriffs in Georgia who endorsed her opponent, Governor Brian Kemp--of wanting ``to be able to take Black people off the streets.''

In October of 2022, Ms. Abrams appeared on MSNBC. She suggested that abortion is the solution to inflation. Here is what she said. She said:

Let's be clear. Having children is why you're worried about

your price for gas. It's why you're concerned about how much

food costs.

Her words, not mine. Let me say again, Ms. Abrams has the right to her opinion. This is America. You are not free if you can't express yourself. But I do think any fairminded person would have to conclude that Ms. Abrams is controversial.

So in March of 2023, not that long ago, Ms. Abrams went to work for an organization, a nonprofit, called Rewiring America. You have probably seen that name in the news: Rewiring America.

Ms. Abrams' title--she went to work for Rewiring America. Her title was senior counsel. She was paid for her work for Rewiring America. We don't know how much, though there will probably be an investigation to find out.

Now, nonprofits like Rewiring America, Ms. Abrams' group, they have to file documents with the IRS, and one of the documents they have to file is called Form 990. This form by the IRS asks a number of questions about nonprofits. One of the questions the IRS asks is for the organization--the nonprofit--to list its accomplishments.

Rewiring America, Ms. Abrams' group, told the IRS in 2023 on this Form 990 that this was Rewiring America's ``startup year for the organization,'' and the form goes on to say that the only accomplishment Rewiring America listed was that it had ``joined a coalition of other national organizations to apply for a grant from the Inflation Reduction Act's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.''

In other words, Ms. Abrams' organization told the IRS that this filing was their first-ever tax filing, in 2023; that the organization was a startup; and its purpose was exclusively to seek a grant from President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act--fair enough.

So what do we know about this coalition Ms. Abrams' group wanted to form? Rewiring America, Ms. Abrams' group, announced on October 12, 2023, that it was joining Habitat for Humanity, it was joining United Way Worldwide, and two other organizations, and these four organizations were going to form another nonprofit--a coalition of nonprofits--called Power Forward Communities.

So you have got Power Forward Communities up here. You have got Rewiring America and some other organizations down here. And all together, they make up Power Forward Communities. And they also announced that a gentleman by the name of Tim Mayopoulos, a former Obama administration appointee, would lead the coalition.

Now, as a nonprofit, I told you that Rewiring America had to file forms with the IRS. Well, so did this new group Power Forward. It had to file Form 990, as well, with the IRS.

According to its filings, Power Forward had just $100 in total revenues in 2023. According to the IRS filing, it didn't list a single accomplishment. I have seen Girl Scout troops with more business credentials. Yet Power Forward Communities, of which Ms. Abrams' Rewiring America was a part, had the audacity to ask the Federal Government for a $2 billion grant. For what, you ask? It was supposed to be ``to expand access to clean energy by prioritizing housing, equity, and resilience.''

Power Forward Communities said it wanted to take this taxpayer money and help people install energy-efficient upgrades to their homes.

What are we talking about? Heat pumps, getting rid of gas stoves.

Now, it is good to dream big in America. I am all for that. But under any reasonable standard--under any reasonable standard--one is entitled to ask how these organizations--Ms. Abrams' Rewiring America and Power Forward Communities--brandnew organizations, no business experience, $100 in the bank, are qualified to receive $2 billion of taxpayer money from the Biden administration.

Now, that didn't stop the Biden administration from cutting a check, though. They took our money and gave Power Forward Communities and Rewiring America $2 billion.

Do you want to know how we ran up $36 billion in debt? That is how.

Now, the EPA announced in 2024, under President Biden, just 6 months after Power Forward was formed--Power Forward was formed, and 6 months later President Biden and his team announced they were giving them $2 billion. And as I said, that is billion with a ``b.''

Now, look, I try to see the world from other people's bell towers as much as I can, but I cannot come up, not for the life of me, with a single rational justification as to why the EPA under the Biden administration thought it was appropriate to give Power Forward and Rewiring America--two brandnew nonprofits with no business experience, no accomplishments according to the IRS forms, and only 100 bucks in the bank--$2 billion of taxpayer money, especially to the exclusion of every other qualified applicant for that money, if there were any other qualified applicants. We don't know. I don't know. I don't know if there was a competitive bid.

Now, I do know that the EPA, under President Biden, gave Ms. Abrams' group--her two groups--$2 billion cash.

In the grant approval, President Biden's EPA said that Power Forward had to allocate this money to get rid of stoves and to put in heat pumps. They had to allocate the money--they had to spend it--in 21 days.

Now, that meant that Ms. Abrams' group, Rewiring America, which was part of the larger group, likely received or was supposed to receive a check for $490 million, about a quarter of the total of $2 billion, by the end of May 2024. And the other organizations, within 21 days, President Biden directed, were also supposed to receive their share of the money.

But get this: President Biden and his team directed these NGOs to distribute $2 billion in 21 days, but the Biden administration also told Power Forward, within 90 days, to go take a course. You know what the course was? The name of the course was ``How to Develop a Budget''--``How to Develop a Budget.''

So President Biden gave Power Forward 21 days to spend the money but said: You have got 90 days to go take a course about how to put together a budget.

And why would anybody in the Milky Way give $2 billion of taxpayer money to two organizations that had just been formed that, according to the IRS filings, had no accomplishments and one of them only had 100 bucks in the bank?

I think I know why. I certainly know what it looks like. I mean, this would be comical if it wasn't so odious--$2 billion.

You know, the last 4 years under the last administration have been very difficult for America. The cost of everything has gone up. The cost of many things have gone up by 20 percent, and our wages didn't keep up. The average electricity bill in America went up 19 percent. The average Louisianian, because of President Biden's inflation, had to spend an extra $890 a month--extra--for food and clothing and car notes, and they didn't get an $890-a-month raise.

President Biden and my Democratic colleagues told us that the Inflation Reduction Act--I remember when it was passed. They said: If you spend $1.2 trillion on the Inflation Reduction Act, it will be a lifeline to every family in America.

That is not what it looks like to me. It is starting to look like to me that it was really a slush fund--a slush fund for Washington insiders.

Now, I don't want to make accusations that are unfair. I think EPA Administrator Zeldin needs to get to the bottom of this. I believe in fairness. I believe in due process. Mr. Zeldin has announced that he is going to try to claw back as much of this $2 billion and other moneys as he can. Again, I think he ought to do it fairly and accord everybody due process.

But you know what, if the shoe fits, wear it, Cinderella. Here is what I see. I see two organizations formed in the last year or so of President Biden's administration--on their IRS filings, they say: We have no experience. We have no accomplishments.

One of them only has a hundred bucks in the bank. One of them--their senior counsel is Ms. Stacey Abrams, a well-known Democratic politician.

I see them asking the President of the United States and his EPA for $2 billion cash to fight gas stoves and getting it--and getting it--to the exclusion of every other applicant who might have been able to use that money.

Now, this is just the beginning of the type of spending porn that President Trump and Mr. Musk are uncovering that people are screaming about.

I am going to repeat what I started with. There is nothing wrong with wanting to know what they do and did with our money. That is all President Trump and Mr. Musk are doing.

Mr. President, I want to spend 5 minutes talking about another subject because President Trump tomorrow has a very important meeting with Prime Minister Starmer of the United Kingdom.

This is the Indian Ocean. You have heard me talk about this. A group of islands right here are the Chagos Islands. This is China over here. Down here is another group of islands called Mauritius that I will talk about in a second.

Why do I talk about the Chagos Islands? Well, from 1715 to 1810, the Chagos Islands were owned by France. In 1814, France gave the Chagos Islands to the United Kingdom. At the time, the United Kingdom--after France gave the islands to them--not only owned the Chagos Islands, but the United Kingdom also owned Mauritius.

The United Kingdom administered both the Chagos Islands and Mauritius from headquarters in Mauritius. Mauritius never owned the Chagos Islands--never. They were always owned either by France or by the United Kingdom, which owns them today. The only connection Mauritius had with the Chagos Islands was that the United Kingdom owned both at the same time and administered the two groups of islands from headquarters in Mauritius.

After the United Kingdom acquired the Chagos Islands here, the United States of America built one of the most important military bases in the world on one of the islands called the Diego Garcia--hugely important. The United Kingdom helped, but we put up most of the money.

Now, Mr. Starmer, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, has decided that he wants to give the Chagos Islands, with our military base, to Mauritius. He wants to give it to them.

We said: Wait a minute. We have a military base here. What about our military base?

Mr. Starmer says: Well, I am going to give all of the islands, including the military base, to Mauritius--even though Mauritius never owned them.

Now that Mauritius owns them, we are going to pay Mauritius $9 billion over time--I want to be fair, over time--for a military base that we built. What? Why? Well, I will tell you why. Prime Minister Starmer feels guilty because the United Nations--actually, it is not the United Nations; rather, a group called the International Court of Justice, which is loosely affiliated with the United Nations, issued a ruling that criticized the United Kingdom for actually owning the Chagos Islands.

They said: United Kingdom, you are an anti-colonialist. You should feel guilty, you should feel bad, and you need give the Chagos Islands away. You need to give them to Mauritius even though Mauritius never owned them.

That is what is going on. That is all that is going on.

Now, how did this get started? The Prime Minister of Mauritius--his name was Prime Minister Jugnauth--sued in the International Court of Justice--he sued the United Kingdom. He said: Give me Mauritius and the military base.

He filed a lawsuit. The International Court of Justice, based in the Netherlands, issued a ruling in Mauritius's favor. It is an advisory opinion. It is not binding on anybody. But Mr. Jugnauth got what he wanted on behalf of Mauritius.

A few weeks later, Prime Minister Jugnauth got beat, and he was replaced by a new Prime Minister, whose name is Prime Minister Ramgoolam. Prime Minister Ramgoolam said: Not only do I want the Mauritius Islands, you are not paying us enough, United Kingdom and America.

According to news reports, he wants not only 9 billion, he wants 18 billion for our own military base.

He said: We will lease you the base that you built, which we, Mauritius, now own, back to you, but you have to give us between $9 and $18 billion.

Isn't that special? Isn't that special? That is what is going on.

Now, there is one other thing you need to know. Mauritius is very close to China. Mauritius has a very lucrative trade agreement with China, and you might be surprised to learn that after all of this has been developing, China all of a sudden is Mauritius's best friend. Do you know why? Because if Prime Minister Starmer does this, Mauritius is going to own the base. They are going to own the base.

Now, Prime Minister Starmer is going to meet with President Trump tomorrow to try to talk President Trump into agreeing to this. The Prime Minister of the U.K. has already said: If President Trump is not comfortable with me giving away an American military base--I want to giggle when I say that--if President Trump is not comfortable, I won't do it.

Here is what the Prime Minister is going to tell President Trump tomorrow. He is going to say, No. 1: Mr. President, we need to do this because it is the right thing to do.

The United Nations' International Court of Justice, which is comprised of

a bunch of weeny wokers, has issued an advisory opinion saying that we and the United Kingdom should feel guilty because we used to own Colonies.

Prime Minister Starmer is going to say: Mr. President, we need to give these islands away and your military base, Mr. President, because it is the right thing to do.

The second thing he is going to tell the President is that if we don't do it, China is going to get really mad. He is going to say: China is going to get really mad if we don't do this.

The third thing he is going to tell the President is that if we don't do this, the United Nations could cut off the telecommunications for our military base--like the United Nations is going to all a sudden, out of the blue, cut off the spectrum and the telecommunications for an American military base. They have no jurisdiction to do that, and they also don't have the oranges to do that.

There is one other thing I want to mention. I didn't mean to go on this long, but this is an important meeting the President is having. Remember I told you about the Prime Minister who started all this, Prime Minister Jugnauth? He got beat--you will recall me saying it--in 2024.

A few weeks ago, former Prime Minister Jugnauth was arrested. He was arrested for money laundering. The Mauritius authorities searched his house and the home of one of his closest associates, and do you know what they found? They found $25 million in cash in various currencies. They found Rolex watches, they found Cartier watches, and they found United Kingdom visas. I am not saying that they are connected, but it is mighty interesting.

Here is what one of the generals who formerly worked for President Trump has said about this deal that stinks to high heavens--GEN Herbert McMaster:

Mr. President, it would put us, the United States, at a

significant strategic disadvantage, especially at a time when

China is trying to gain control of critical terrain and

chokepoints around the world in this effort to create new

spheres of influence.

So to President Trump, my President, tonight I say: Don't do it, Mr. President. Please don't do it. I don't care what Prime Minister Starmer promises you. The only reason he is doing this is because he feels guilty because the United Nations has said that the United Kingdom should be ashamed of its history and ashamed that it at one time owned Colonies.

People of the United Kingdom can feel what they want. That is none of my business. But we have an American military base there, and it is very important to defend the Indian Ocean against China.

Please, Mr. President--please, President Trump--don't let Prime Minister Starmer talk you into giving away an American military base that we need to combat China to another country that never owned it just because Prime Minister Starmer feels guilty.

I am sorry he feels guilty. He needs to go buy an emotional support pony. But he doesn't need to give away an American military base.

Mr. Trump, President Trump, please don't agree to this.

That is it. I am out of gas. My work here is done. This is important, this meeting with Prime Minister Starmer tomorrow. I don't want to lose a military base we need. So I appreciate your indulgence.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 97, which was submitted earlier today

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 96, submitted earlier today.

I know of no further debate on the resolution.

I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, February 26; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the order of February 18 in relation to S.J. Res. 10 be executed; further, I ask unanimous consent that at 12 noon the Senate proceed to executive session and vote on confirmation of the Greer nomination, as provided under the previous order, and that following disposition of the Greer nomination, the Senate resume consideration of S.J. Res. 10.

Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, Senators should also expect two votes tomorrow evening: passage of S.J. Res. 10, and No. 2, motion to proceed to Calendar No. 14, S.J. Res. 12, Senator Hoeven's CRA.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, it seems to me that it is important, as we conclude tonight, that we admit to the American people what we know to be true ourselves, and that is that most of these amendments are fiction. It is professional wrestling. It is the Undertaker v. Andre the Giant. They have been all foam and no beer. All salt and no tequila.

Unless you do your research on Instagram, you know that our bill is going to be not about taxes but about immigration and defense.

There will be time to consider my friend Senator Warren's amendment, but it won't be on this bill. There will be time to point out that 60 percent of tax cuts in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act affected the middle class. For that reason I ask for a ``no'' vote.

Mr. President, all foam, no beer.

Vote on Amendment No. 734

Mr. President, all foam, no beer. This proposal deals with healthcare spending. I would remind my colleagues and friends that NIH recently announced their intention to cap indirect costs for grants. Many of our universities are spending all of the taxpayer money on overhead. Harvard is spending 69 percent; Yale, 67.5 percent--on overhead. Isn't that special? Johns Hopkins, 63.7 percent. This will make Bernie Madoff blush.

I will revise and extend my other remarks: all foam, no beer.

Vote on Amendment No. 880

Mr. President, with me today is my colleague from my office Mr. John Lowery, and I appreciate his help.

Last week, I spoke a few minutes about the Corporation for Public Broadcasting--we called it the CPB--and the Public Broadcasting Service--most people know what that is, PBS--and the National Public Radio, which most people know is NPR.

And I am not going to repeat everything I said last week, but I do want to revise and extend my remarks.

The U.S. Congress created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting back in the sixties, 1967, I think. Those were very different times. There was no internet. There was no Facebook. There was no Twitter. There was no cable TV. There were no podcasts. There were basically a handful, maybe a few more, of radio stations throughout America. And the television was still pretty new. There were three main television stations with local affiliates.

And many Americans, particularly in rural areas, didn't have access to radio and television for their news because that is all there was. I remember those days.

And so Congress decided to start providing money for what it called, at that time, public broadcasting, to make sure that everybody had access to news, radio, and television, even if they didn't live near a big city.

And Congress intended that that news be news, factually based. Now, those were the days in America of true journalism. I remember them, perhaps the Presiding Officer does too.

Those were not the days that we experience today, opinion journalism, where young journalists are taught to report on who, what, when, where, how, and their opinion. Those were days when the news was really the news, and it was fair and balanced.

So the U.S. Congress created the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. CPB still exists, and here is its relationship--CPB's relationship--to NPR and PBS. We give CPB, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, about half a billion dollars a year, a lot of money.

And the Corporation for Public Broadcasting turns around and picks certain local television and radio stations and gives most of that money to them.

And then those local television and radio stations, the chosen few that get money from the American taxpayer through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, buy programming and content from two other organizations. If they are a radio station, they buy that from NPR, and if they are a television station, they buy that content from PBS.

So up here you have got Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The American taxpayer, through Congress, gives them a half a billion dollars a year. That money flows down to certain select local television and radio stations, and those local television and radio stations then buy content from NPR, if they are a radio station, or PBS, if they are a TV station, which were loosely affiliated with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Since this scheme was established, the American taxpayer has given all of these entities about--oh, I don't know--$14.5 billion, $14.5 billion. That would be enough to build 2,700 miles of paved roads throughout America. And I based that on--the roads I am talking about are not gavel roads--regular paved roads, 10 feet each lane, actually 12 feet each lane, with a 3-foot shoulder on each side.

But instead of building 2,700 miles of roads in our rural areas and in urban areas that need infrastructure, we have decided to give this money to CPB, which gives it to the local stations, which gives it to PBS and NPR.

I mentioned the local stations. Only a select few local stations get this taxpayer money. And in my State, we have over 500 radio stations. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, in its unfettered discretion, only picks seven to give the money to. The other 493 get nothing.

We have over 150 TV stations in Louisiana. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting only gives the taxpayer money for 3 of them, so 147 get nothing.

Now, I probably wouldn't object to this if the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and NPR--National Public Radio is what I am referring to, of course--and PBS had been consistent with its original mission, which is to report factually the news to the American people.

The government doesn't need to subsidize the media anymore because the world has changed. Ninety-seven percent of the people in America have the internet, but I still probably wouldn't object that much if the reporting by these entities were fair and balanced. But it is not.

No fairminded person in America can look at this programming and believe that it is unbiassed. It is decidedly prejudiced in favor of one point of view. That is not just my opinion. I think most Americans would agree with that because most Americans see the headlines that are produced by these three entities.

I talked about some last week. This is what Americans' taxpayer money is going to, to provide.

Here are just some headlines from NPR. I mentioned these last week. I won't belabor them.

``Michael Avenatti: A Profile Of The Media-Savvy Attorney.''

This is NPR. They love Michael Avenatti, who of course is in jail today. He is a crook. But NPR loved him because he was anti-Republican, and he was anti-President Trump.

NPR published another article:

``How racism became a marketing tool for country music.''

Now, you don't have to be Euclid to see the implication here that country music is racist, according to NPR. I don't think any fairminded person would call that factual or fair and balanced.

Here is another headline from NPR:

``Donald Trump's Long Embrace of Vladimir Putin.''

I also talked last week about a few other headlines from NPR.

Here is one:

``Monuments And Teams Have Changed Names As America Reckons With Racism. Birds Are Next.''

That is what your tax dollars paid for.

``Eating less beef is a climate solution. Here's why that's hard for some American men.''

``How the Taliban adds to Afghanistan's woes when it comes to climate-fueled disasters.''

No fairminded person with an IQ above a single-cell organism would conclude that this is anything but biased to certain points of view.

And there are more. I could do this all night, but I am not.

Here are some more headlines from NPR:

`` `There is no neutral': `Nice White People' Can Still Be Complicit In A Racist Society.''

That is what your tax dollars paid for.

Another one:

``Ibram X. Kendi Says No One is `Not Racist'. So What Should We Do?''

Another one:

``How [artificial intelligence] could perpetuate racism, sexism, and other biases in society.''

Another:

``Scientists Debunk Lab Accident Theory of Pandemic Emergence.''

Here is another one:

``As Trump Pushes Theory of Virus Origins, Some See Parallels In Lead-Up to Iraq War.''

Your tax dollars at work.

``As U.S. Confronts Russia, Trump's Admiration Of Putin Is Consistent.''

Another headline from NPR:

``The History of Policing And Race In The U.S. Are Deeply Intertwined.''

Another:

``After Biden's debate performance, the presidential race is unchanged.''

This was the debate performance that President Biden gave after which he got out of the race.

If you believe that headline, you believe in the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny and that Jimmy Hoffa died of natural causes, but that is what NPR reported with your tax dollars.

Here is more:

``Democracy on Trial, Part One: A Blueprint For the Case Against Trump.''

Is that fair and balanced? That is from PBS.

``Racism in the Era of Trump: An Oral History.''

Another headline, January 13, 2020.

Another, this one is really special:

`` `A Serial Liar': How Sarah Palin Ushered in the `Post-Truth' Political Era in Which Trump Has Thrived.''

Now, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and NPR and PBS have the right, whether I like it or not or whether you like it or not or whether Americans like it or not to publish these articles and to broadcast this news. That is the First Amendment, but they don't have the right to do it with taxpayer money.

At least half of America would look at these headlines and be offended. They would be offended, first, because they would--really for three reasons: No. 1, they disagree with opinion journalism; No. 2, they would disagree with the headline; and, No. 3, they would disagree with the fact that these headlines are not fair. They are not objective. They are obviously slanted to one point of view, and they are using taxpayer money.

If someone introduced a bill tomorrow--I will just pick a publication--to prohibit the New York Times, I would vote against that bill and argue against it. If someone introduced a bill to get rid of FOX News, I would have the same position. If someone introduced a bill to get rid of the Washington Post, that would be my position as well. Whether I agree with those media outlets or not, we have a First Amendment that we cherish, and I am rather fond of the Constitution.

But if somebody introduced a bill to give money to CNN, taxpayer money to CNN or to the New York Times or to FOX News, I would oppose that as well.

This is simply wrong, and we are spending half a billion dollars a year, $14.5 billion over time, to give to people at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and NPR and NPS to participate in opinion journalism, which they are entitled to do. But they can't do it on the taxpayer dime. They are doing it on the taxpayer dime, but they shouldn't be able to.

I would also point out that the folks at PBS and NPR and PBS are doing pretty well for themselves. NPR just bought a $201 million office space just up the road from the Capitol--$200 million. It came from the American taxpayers so they could publish this stuff.

NPR pays its hosts as much as $532,000 a year, taxpayer money. It pays its chief diversity officer about $320,000 a year.

And you know what? Despite all this money that the American taxpayers are giving to these left-of-center entities, their viewership has declined because people don't need them anymore. So why are we giving them money?

I have introduced legislation, not to eliminate the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, not to eliminate the Public Broadcasting Service, and not to eliminate the National Public Radio--they can go exist on their own if they want to, but I do want to defund them.

We are running $36 trillion in debt. This is disgraceful in 2025. It is disgraceful whether it is left-of-center opinion journalism or right-of-center opinion journalism. It is disgraceful to the American people to have to fund this rot. It doesn't mean the rot doesn't have a right to exist, but they don't have a right to taxpayer money.

It is late. So I am not going to go to my second topic.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader, but no later than Friday, February 28, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of S.J. Res. 10, and the Senate proceed to its consideration; further, that there be 6 hours for debate only, with the time equally divided between the leaders or their designees on the joint resolution; and that following the use or yielding back of that time, the joint resolution be read a third time, and the Senate vote on the joint resolution with no further intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I have one request for a committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committee is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: