Floor Statements

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 103.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 109.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, Republicans are continuing our work on a reconciliation bill that delivers for the American people. And if I had to summarize this bill in one phrase, I would say it is about building a stronger America.

A stronger America is a safer America.

Last week, I discussed the importance of strengthening our border security, something we are addressing in our reconciliation bill. Today, I would like to discuss another aspect of that bill: strengthening our military to meet today's and tomorrow's threats.

The world has grown increasingly unstable in recent years. America's interests, our allies, and, worst of all, American servicemembers have come under attack. Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran and its terrorist proxies have all grown more brazen.

Meanwhile, the previous administration regularly telegraphed weakness on the world stage and put investing in our military on the back burner.

There is never a time when we can afford to let our military readiness slide. But above all, at this time of increased instability, it is vital that we ensure that our military has the resources it needs to deter our enemies and defend our country.

ADM Samuel Paparo, the commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, last year called deterrence ``our highest duty.''

He said:

Deterrence is effective when it is credible: The adversary

believes the defending side will act on its threats when it

is capable. A robust military with the ability to project

power globally and inflict significant damage on the

aggressor is essential.

Let me just repeat that:

A robust military with the ability to project power

globally and inflict significant damage on the aggressor is

essential.

That is the kind of military we need to secure with this bill.

Our aim is to reverse the trend of underinvestment in our military, to rebuild our military capabilities, and to ensure that our adversaries will think long and hard before attacking us--in other words, peace through strength.

One area where that is especially critical is in our strategic competition with China. Leaders of the intelligence community testified this year that China represents the most comprehensive, robust military threat to U.S. national security. Its designs on Taiwan are obvious, and its brazen actions, from cybertheft and espionage to its aggressive territorial claims and its harassment of American pilots are alarming.

But we have allowed China to outpace us in building new military capabilities. China produces two submarines per year for every 1.4 submarines built in the United States. China can build naval surface warships three times faster than we can. And in the defining technologies of tomorrow's wars--space, AI, hypersonics, and cyber-- China is gaining quickly or already has an edge.

Republicans' reconciliation bill is about reestablishing the U.S. advantage in all those areas. We are going to invest in shipbuilding to expand and enhance our fleet. We will restock our munitions stockpiles and expand weapons production. We will modernize our nuclear deterrence and build a Golden Dome for missile defense here at home.

Our bill will expedite the delivery of innovative weapons to servicemembers on the frontlines. It will enhance the readiness of our military units and modernize infrastructure at depots and shipyards. And it will make improvements to servicemembers' quality of life.

To be clear, the investment we are making here in this bill, while critically important, is no substitute for robust annual defense funding levels. But it will help us catch up after years of the Biden administration's deprioritizing defense investments.

We can't afford to let our military readiness slide any further. We need to reverse the current trend and put our national security on a better trajectory for the future, and that is what our reconciliation bill will do.

A stronger America is a safer America, and that, Mr. President, is what Republicans intend to deliver.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 2228 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 85, S.J. Res. 55.

Vote on Motion

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

Madam President, we are facing a novel situation here in the Senate. For the sake of my Democrat colleagues, who seem more than a little confused as to what is going on here, let me just review the situation.

We have received from the House joint resolutions of disapproval that meet all the statutory requirements under chapter 8, title 5, of the U.S. Code, the Congressional Review Act.

In the past, the Senate has treated any such joint resolution as being eligible for expedited floor consideration procedures prescribed under the Congressional Review Act. But here is the twist: Senate Democrats claim that we can't consider these resolutions under these Congressional Review Act procedures because the rules addressed in the resolutions in question are not, in fact, rules.

Now, the rules in question, the California waiver rules, were submitted to Congress's rules, which has always been all the Senate needed to consider something as eligible for consideration under the Congressional Review Act, and they are clearly rules in substance given their nationwide impact and scope. But, in an unprecedented move, the Government Accountability Office has inserted itself into this situation and declared that these rules submitted to Congress by the EPA as rules are not, in fact, rules.

Now, for years, the Senate has turned to the Government Accountability Office, the GAO, to determine if something not submitted by an Agency is actually a rule that should have been submitted to Congress as such. That is not part of the Congressional Review Act statute, but the Senate has relied on GAO for this to prevent Agencies from flouting the law and ignoring Congress's statutory right to review Agency rulemaking. In other words, GAO has acted as a failsafe to ensure Congress's rights are protected from encroachment by the executive branch.

That is not the situation we find ourselves in today. In fact, it is the inverse. The situation we are facing today is an Agency submitting to the Senate actions that the Agency says are rules and GAO, for the first time in history, inserting itself into the situation and offering its own opinion that the rules in question are not, in fact, rules.

Well, so what do we do about this? I believe that when the Senate is facing a novel situation like this one with disagreement among its Members, it is appropriate for the Senate to speak as a body to the question--something the Senate does when questions over application of the rules arise.

For example, just last year, a Republican Member of the Senate brought a resolution to the floor under a fast-track procedure, the War Powers Act, and a Democrat Member of the Senate argued that it was not entitled to those

procedures. He then made a point of order to that effect, and the Chair submitted the question to the Senate, and the Senate voted on what qualifies for that fast-track procedure. That is what we are doing today.

Nobody at the time cried nuclear. Nobody said the Democrat Member was blowing up the Senate. In fact, most Members probably don't even remember the situation because it was just the Senate doing what the Senate is supposed to do, and that is voting on how to apply the rules when faced with a new situation.

I think at this point it should be abundantly clear that what we are doing has nothing to do with the legislative filibuster. But while I would love to think that reality will prevail, I fully expect Democrats to continue to misrepresent the situation, and I think there are probably multiple reasons for that.

One is that I think a lot of Democrats support an electric vehicle mandate and are perfectly happy to allow California to set an EV mandate for the whole country. In fact, I think they are somewhat frantic at the prospect of losing this ``Green New Deal'' policy.

Two, I suspect Democrats are trying to use the situation as cover to justify abolishing the filibuster next time they are in charge. I think they think that they can make dismantling the Senate filibuster a lot more palatable by claiming--however mendaciously--that Republicans attacked it first.

I would love to believe--I would love to believe--the Democrats have suddenly come to the realization of the importance of the legislative filibuster no matter how misplaced their concerns would be in this particular instance. I think there is perhaps no Senate rule today that does more to preserve the character of the Senate as developed by our Founders, and there is nothing I would like more than to see Democrats recognize this.

But despite the rank hypocrisy the Democrats have displayed by embracing the use of the filibuster this Congress repeatedly after campaigning to overturn it mere months ago, I suspect that their newfound enthusiasm for the filibuster is situational only--something to be used when it helps them and to be destroyed when it doesn't.

As I said, I strongly suspect they are attempting to use the situation as cover for destroying the filibuster the next time they are in power; hence the misrepresentations and hysteria.

I can't control what Democrats do the next time they take the majority here in the Senate, although if they attempt to abolish the legislative filibuster and destroy the institution of the Senate, I can safely promise to fight them on it tooth and nail. But I can say this: While Republicans are in charge, the legislative filibuster will remain in place, and you can take that to the bank.

I yield back all time.

Madam President, I make a point of order. The points of order are in order under the Congressional Review Act, given sections 802(d)(1), 802(d)(2), and 802(d)(4) are in conflict with each other.

Madam President, I move to table the appeal, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Vote on Motion to Table Appeal

Mr. President, for the information of Senators, for the balance of the evening, we are going to confine votes to 15 minutes in duration.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I make a point of order that joint resolutions that meet all the requirements of section 802 of the Congressional Review Act or are disapproving of Agency actions which have been determined to be rules subject to the CRA by a legal decision from GAO are entitled to expedited procedures under the Congressional Review Act.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I understand the Senate has received H.J. Res. 88 from the House.

I move to proceed to H.J. Res. 88.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, May 22; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration of H.J. Res. 88, the joint resolution be read a third time, and the Senate vote on passage of the joint resolution; finally, if passed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

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

Mr. President, this week, we are going to be moving to take up Congressional Review Act resolutions to overturn Clean Air Act preemption waivers the Environmental Protection Agency granted to California that allow California to dictate emission standards for the whole country, effectively imposing a nationwide electric vehicle mandate.

Now, Clean Air Act waivers are nothing new. The Clean Air Act allowed for waivers to address specific pollution problems, and over the decades, a number of them have been granted.

But the waivers the Biden EPA handed to California on the Biden administration's way out the door go far beyond the scope Congress contemplated in the Clean Air Act. The waivers in question allow California to implement a stringent electric vehicle mandate, which, given California's size and the fact that a number of other States have signed on to California's mandate, would end up not just affecting the State of California but the whole country.

Under California's electric vehicle mandate, automakers around the country would be forced to close down a substantial part of their traditional vehicle production, with serious consequences: diminished economic output, job losses, declining tax revenues. And that is just the start.

Consumers around the country would face fewer choices, higher prices, and reduced automobile availability, and our already shaky electric grid would quickly face huge new burdens from the surge of new electric vehicles--if, of course, automakers were able to ramp up production as fast as California wants them to, and charging stations, which typically take several years to approve, could be built in time.

Our Nation is already facing serious problems on the energy supply front. We are, to quote a Washington Post headline from last March, ``running out of power,'' as the surge in demand and the premature retirement of fossil fuel-fired powerplants push us to the brink. Our electric grid is simply not in a position to absorb a huge surge in electric vehicles.

Unfortunately, that didn't seem to register with President Biden, who implemented a nationwide electric vehicle mandate that the Trump EPA is currently working to undo.

But while the Biden EPA's EV mandate was bad, California's is much worse. And if we don't act, the consequences to our economy, to consumers, and to our electricity supply could be devastating.

The House has already passed a CRA resolution to repeal California's mandate, and the situation is so grave that not just Republicans but 35 Democrats supported this repeal.

But here in the Senate, Democrats are attempting to derail a repeal by throwing a tantrum over a supposed procedural problem. The California waivers are not rules, Democrats claim, and thus the Congressional Review Act cannot be used to repeal them.

Let's be very clear. The EPA has submitted the waivers to Congress as rules, which is all that Congress has ever needed to decide to consider something under the Congressional Review Act.

The House, as I said, passed a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval--a resolution that garnered 35 Democrat votes in the House and was passed without objection from the House Parliamentarian. And there can be no question that these waivers are rules in substance, given their widespread effects.

But it is true that we are facing something of a novel situation because, for the first time ever, the Government Accountability Office has decided to insert itself into the process and affirmatively declare that an Agency rule submitted to Congress as a rule is not a rule.

It is an extraordinary deviation from precedent for an Agency that should be defending Congress's power instead of constraining it. And, frankly, I think we need to act to ensure that this intrusion into the Congressional Review Act process doesn't become a habit and that the Senate doesn't end up transferring its decision-making power on CRA resolutions to the Government Accountability Office. That is why this week I intend to bring the question of GAO's unprecedented interference to the floor.

But, in the meantime, I want to make one thing very clear: This debate is not about destroying Senate procedure--or any other hysterical claim the Democrats are making. And I have to say that my colleagues' newfound interest in defending Senate procedure is touching, if a touch surprising.

After all, it was only last year that the Democrats were planning to destroy one of the bedrocks of the Senate, the legislative filibuster. And, of course, the Democrats' concern about overruling the Parliamentarian is a bit unexpected, given the Democrats' documented history of attempting to do exactly that. But I am glad to see Democrats demonstrating an interest in safeguarding the Senate.

However, the fact of the matter is that their purported concerns here are entirely misplaced. We are not talking about doing anything to erode the institutional character of the Senate.

In fact, we are talking about preserving the Senate's prerogatives. And I would like to see Senators from both parties vote to uphold the Senate's rights under the Congressional Review Act, even if Democrats support the California Green New Deal rule in question.

The California waivers rules are an improper expansion of a limited Clean Air Act authority and would endanger consumers, our economy, and our Nation's energy supply, and I look forward to overturning these rules in the very near future.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.