Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Ricketts), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Mr. President, regulations have been coming thick and fast from the Biden administration lately as the administration races to squeeze in regulations before the deadline, after which they could be overturned by a new Congress.

In fact, a recent spate of regulations brought the total regulatory costs imposed by the Biden administration in 2024 to over $1 trillion-- $1 trillion--in just one year.

All told, the Biden administration has imposed a staggering $1.47 trillion in regulatory costs since the President took office--$1.47 trillion.

Compare that to President Trump, who had actually reduced regulatory costs by this point in his administration. But, perhaps, I am not being fair. Perhaps, it is not surprising that a Republican President didn't impose a staggering regulatory burden.

Let's compare President Biden to his Democratic predecessor, President Obama. By this point in his first term,

President Obama had imposed regulations costing $303.5 billion-- certainly, of course, more than President Trump, but, I am afraid to say, still a long way away from President Biden. The total cost of President Obama's regulations at this point in his first term doesn't come anywhere close to President Biden's total.

In fact, the total cost of President Obama's regulations to this point was roughly 20 percent of the cost of President Biden's--20 percent.

The Biden administration has imposed regulations costing almost five times as much as President Obama's. President Biden is bringing new meaning to the phrase ``the heavy hand of government.''

What do we mean when we refer to regulatory costs? What do those look like in practice? They can look like forcing electric generation facilities to spend millions of dollars to install costly carbon capture systems, as the Biden administration is doing with its new powerplant rule.

They can look like an additional $7,000 in construction costs for new homes. See President Biden's energy efficiency requirements for affordable housing.

They can look like imposing new vehicle emission standards, effectively forcing car companies to spend enormous amounts of money to rejigger their supply chains and factories to produce a lot of new electric cars, even though Americans are not exactly clamoring for electric vehicles.

They can look like forcing farmers and ranchers and other private landowners to spend tens of thousands of dollars for permits or penalties concerning water features on their private land. And for that, I would have you see the Biden administration's waters of the United States, or what we call the WOTUS, rule.

I could go on.

All of these regulatory costs have consequences. It just stands to reason, if your family is facing a major, unexpected medical bill, for example, there is a good chance you are going to have to account for it somehow--either by cutting back spending, dipping into savings, or picking up extra hours at work, or perhaps a second job to increase your income.

Similarly, if you are a South Dakota nursing home facing a Federal requirement to hire additional staff--and for that, I would have you see the Biden administration's new nursing home staffing regulation-- you are likely going to have to do something like reduce the number of patients that you care for or close your doors altogether, which is becoming already way too common in my State of South Dakota.

Or if you are a small business facing the new overtime rule the Biden administration recently put in place--which imposes a massive 65- percent increase in the overtime exemption threshold--you may be faced with the unappealing prospect of either increasing prices on the goods or services that you provide, reducing the number of positions you have available, or lowering the base pay you offer to create room to be able to pay overtime wages.

Or take President Biden's powerplant regulations. His so-called good neighbor rule and his new carbon capture and emissions regulations will not only drive up energy prices for American families and businesses, they are also likely to result in a less reliable energy supply.

Our current assumption that we will automatically have the energy we need to power our businesses, operate our heating and air conditioning systems, run our appliances, and light our homes may not survive the long-term imposition of President Biden's powerplant rules.

Then there are still other costs. American taxpayers are now being forced to pay for abortion services at the VA--in defiance of Federal law--thanks to a Biden administration regulation.

This is far from the only attempt by the Biden administration to impose its far-left social agenda through Federal regulation and endanger conscience rights in the process.

We are facing serious consequences from the Biden regulatory regime, from threats to conscience rights to questions about the future stability of our energy supply to immense financial costs for families and businesses--$1.47 trillion in regulatory costs in less than 4 years. I shudder to think what that number will look like should we see another 4.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), and the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty) would have voted ``yea.''.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, this week, the Senate is finally considering the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act, and I am glad we are here--even if belatedly.

Our Nation depends on a safe, efficient, and robust national aviation system. The bill before us today will help strengthen aviation safety, address the pilot shortage, and improve airport infrastructure--all of which will contribute to a better experience for the traveling public.

I am particularly pleased that my proposal to create an enhanced qualification program for prospective airline pilots was included in the bill. The United States is facing a serious pilot shortage, which has resulted in reduced air service at airports around the country. This has real impacts on the flying public, particularly for those in rural States like South Dakota since smaller, regional airports have tended to see the greatest reduction in flights.

To help address this shortage and improve the quality of pilot training, Senator Sinema and I introduced a proposal to create an enhanced qualification proposal for prospective airline pilots. Our proposal was a direct response to a recommendation from the Air Carrier Training Aviation Rulemaking Committee--a body of industry, labor, and safety representatives who meet regularly under the auspices of the FAA's Office of Aviation Safety--which recommended the implementation of such a program to create a structured pathway for pilots to obtain intensive training.

While the United States has stringent requirements for the number of flight hours prospective airline pilots must complete before obtaining their pilot's license, the quality of that cockpit time is often less than optimal preparation for flying commercial jets. So, to better prepare pilots for airline jobs, our proposal will implement an

enhanced qualification program--designed and audited by the FAA and administered by air carriers--that will give aspiring airline pilots intensive training with experienced air carrier pilots and other experts.

Intensive training in the kind of air carrier environment where prospective airline pilots will be flying is something that is largely missing from current training, and getting the chance to work closely with seasoned pilots will help turn out highly qualified pilots who are better prepared for flying commercial jets.

In addition, our program's use of simulator training, whose proven value has resulted in its extensive use by the military, will give prospective airline pilots exposure to the cockpits of the jets they will be flying and, crucially, allow them to experience what it is like to handle challenging and dangerous situations in those cockpits.

For obvious reasons, standard flight training hours don't involve deliberately flying into perilous weather conditions or dealing with things like fires or engine failure, but simulator training offers prospective airline pilots the chance to deal with all those situations and more and deal with them again and again until their responses to these situations are fine-tuned.

Our proposal is a win-win. It will turn out better prepared pilots, and it will help address the pilot shortage by making training more accessible. I am very pleased it was included in the bill that is before us today.

I am also very pleased that Senator Klobuchar's Aviation Workforce Development and Recruitment Act, which I cosponsored, was included in the bill. This measure will help address workforce challenges across the aviation industry by expanding resources to help recruit and train pilots, aviation manufacturing workers, and mechanics.

Finally, with rural air service once again in mind, I am very pleased that my provision to allow communities to receive multiple Small Community Air Service Development Program grants for the same project was included in the legislation before us today. This will help make it easier to expand sorely needed air service for rural communities.

The bill also includes language providing small airports with more flexibility to use AIP funding for terminal improvements, which will be crucial for enabling rural airports to expand access as construction costs continue to rise.

On another topic, the legislation before us today includes my bipartisan Increasing Competitiveness for American Drones Act with Senator Warner, which will streamline the approval process for beyond visual line of sight drone flights and clear the way for drones to be used for commercial transport of goods across the country. The wider deployment of drones has potential to transform the economy with innovative opportunities for transportation and agriculture that would benefit rural States like South Dakota.

And my bill will help ensure that the United States remains competitive in a growing industry increasingly dominated by countries like China.

I am also pleased that legislation I cosponsored with Senator Duckworth to help improve the flying experience for individuals who use mobility aids was included in the final legislation that we are considering.

No bill is perfect, but I believe that the legislation before us today will make real progress toward a safer and more reliable aviation system and an improved flying experience for the American public.

I am grateful to all those who contributed to getting this bill to the floor today. As a former chairman of the Commerce Committee, I know how much work goes into the process of drafting and moving an FAA reauthorization bill, and I want to thank the chair and ranking member and all of their staff.

I particularly want to thank Ranking Member Ted Cruz for his tireless efforts, both in getting this bill to the finish line and ensuring that we ended up with a strong piece of legislation. His work to ensure that we have strong staffing mandates for air traffic controllers, as well as his efforts to reduce backlogs and improve the FAA's efficiency, deserves particular recognition.

I also want to thank Senators Moran and Duckworth for their leadership at the Subcommittee on Aviation Safety, Operations, and Innovation.

As I said, final passage of the FAA Reauthorization Act has been a long time coming, but the day is finally here. I look forward to seeing this bill enacted into law in the very near future.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul) would have voted ``nay.''

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

Mr. President, over the past couple of weeks, we witnessed a wave of anti-Semitism sweep college campuses across our country. Under the guise of protest, an old hatred has made an ugly return and not in some far corner of the world, which would be bad enough, but here, in the United States, in 2024. Intimidation of Jewish students, support for terrorists, calls for violence against fellow Americans--we have seen it all, and more, on college campuses over the past few weeks.

And too often this repugnant behavior has been abetted by the action--or inaction--of campus faculty and administrators. Jewish students simply walking around their campuses have heard things like: ``Hamas, we love you.'' ``Burn Tel Aviv to the ground.'' ``From the river to the sea.'' ``We are Hamas.'' Every one of those slogans has been used at protests.

A CBS article from a few days ago reported:

Near Columbia University, antisemitic slogans including

``go back to Poland'' were heard among the protesters'

chants. In one video, a demonstrator can be seen holding a

sign near Jewish students that reads: ``Al-Qassam's next

targets.''

Al-Qassam, of course, is the military wing of Hamas.

``Go back to Poland,'' ``Al-Qassam's next targets''? Anyone hearing this could be forgiven for thinking that we are in 1930s Germany instead of the United States of America, where I had hoped anti- Semitism was a thing of the past, but apparently it is a thing of the present.

And I have to wonder how we as a society have failed our young people when they are incapable of opposing Israel's policies without attacking the Jewish people, when they think that any means are justified in pursuit of their goal, including the deliberate targeting and slaughtering of the innocent. How have we gotten to a point where apparently substantial numbers of young people are identifying with terrorists, with an organization that mere months ago conducted a deadly rampage that left hundreds of Israeli civilians, including children, dead and saw more than 200 individuals, including children, taken into captivity?

How have we gotten to a point where we have Jewish students afraid to walk across their own campuses and, in some instances, being prevented from entering campus buildings? Because that is where we are.

Jewish students on too many campuses right now are living in fear as intimidation and harassment of Jewish students becomes increasingly commonplace.

One Jewish student at the University of Washington, which has also seen a protest encampment, had this to say:

``When that [the protests] starts up, I do feel my heart

pounding, and I'm very anxious to be here.''

This is Olivia Feldman, a senior at the University of Washington and copresident of Students Supporting Israel. She goes on to say:

``No, I do not feel safe on campus. I've been called names,

I've been spit at'' . . . Feldman is a great-granddaughter of

holocaust survivors.

She goes on to say:

``It is a very visceral feeling in me when someone tells me

to go back to the gas chambers,'' [she] said.

Another student--this one at Columbia University--said in February:

We have been attacked by sticks outside our library. We

have been attacked by angry mobs and we have been threatened

to ``Keep F-ing running.''

This is sickening. And the fact that this kind of behavior has become widespread on some of these college campuses should be prompting some serious soul-searching as to how we have let things get to this point-- and an immediate reckoning for students engaged in harassment, assault, or other unlawful behavior.

And in addition to action from universities and local law enforcement, the Biden Department of Education and Federal law enforcement should immediately step in to investigate and prosecute Federal offenses.

Protest is one thing. Colleges should be forums for debate and discussion, and every American--every American--has a right to free speech. But we are a long way beyond mere lawful protests. We are talking about the harassment of and assaults on Jewish students. And it is time for immediate action, including law enforcement action, where warranted, to protect these students and ensure that they can attend school in safety.

It is hard to believe that here in the United States I am having to say something about ensuring Jewish students can attend school in safety. And I hope that in addition to swift action from school administrations and from law enforcement, we spend some time thinking about what has gone wrong--what has gone wrong--with education in this country that we are facing a situation where Jewish students are scared to go to class because of the actions of their fellow students.

Something has gone seriously wrong when we have students at some of our top schools embracing the actions of--and identifying with-- terrorists. That should be an unthinkable position. And I hope it will become one again.

Finally, where is President Biden? The President has barely managed to summon up a word on this most recent wave of anti-Semitism.

I understand that he was preparing for the White House Correspondents' Dinner, but perhaps he could have taken a moment away from cracking his jokes to address the fact that there are Jewish students right now in the United States of America who are afraid to walk across their campuses.

I am also waiting to hear the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education's response to a letter I sent with a number of my Republican colleagues regarding the administration's plans for enforcing Federal law in relation to the anti-Semitism and protests on our college campuses.

``No, I do not feel safe on campus. I've been called names,

I've been spit at. . . . It is a very visceral feeling in me

when someone tells me to go back to the gas chambers.''

That is something, I repeat, that Olivia Feldman, a student, has said.

It is time to take action to close this disgraceful chapter and to ensure that there are no more stories like Olivia Feldman's.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, ``Amid explosive demand, America is running out of power.'' That was the title of a Washington Post article this March highlighting some of the challenges facing our Nation's electric grid.

Vast swaths of the United States are at risk of running

short of power as electricity-hungry data centers and clean-

technology factories proliferate around the country, leaving

utilities and regulators grasping for credible plans to

expand the nation's creaking power grid.

The state of our Nation's electric grid is becoming a matter for serious concern. Our grid has been weakened by increased demand and the move away from conventional energy sources, and we are rapidly approaching a situation in which there will not be sufficient electricity to keep up with demand.

And it is against this backdrop, against the backdrop of an aging, weakened grid struggling to meet even current needs that the President is attempting to force the widespread adoption of electric vehicles.

Last month--the same month in which the Post published its report on how America is running out of power--the Biden administration finalized emissions rules for cars and light- and heavy-duty trucks that will have the practical effect of forcing car and truck companies to electrify a huge portion of their sales lots.

That will place incredible new demands on our power grid--demands that our grid is unlikely to be able to sustain. And to add insult to injury, at the same time that the President is preparing to place enormous new demands on our grid, he is also implementing regulations that will weaken our grid even further.

After endangering existing powerplants with its so-called ``Good Neighbor'' rule last year, last week, the Biden administration issued new carbon capture and emissions regulations that will reduce the amount of electricity plants provide to the grid and almost, unquestionably, force coal-fired plants--which still, by the way, make an essential contribution to our Nation's electricity supply--it will force them to close.

If not overturned, these rules are likely to result in a gaping hole in the U.S. electricity supply, just as the President is forcing more Americans to turn to electricity to power their cars, not to mention the fact that they will saddle consumers and businesses with higher energy costs for less reliable energy.

When he is not trying to weaken our electric grid or force a move to electric vehicles that our grid cannot support, the President is taking aim at conventional energy production.

Less than 2 weeks ago, the administration announced that it would be

banning oil and gas development across more than half of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.

Well, think about that. Of course, it is not the first time the President has moved to restrict conventional energy development, but it was notable for the scale of the restrictions and for the fact that his target was the National Petroleum Reserve.

I mean, think about this. The National Petroleum Reserve was established specifically for the purpose of providing the United States with energy resources, of leveraging our abundance of natural resources to promote our security. Now more than half--half--of that area will be closed to development.

The President's anti-conventional energy policies have consequences. By discouraging investment and curtailing the areas available for domestic production, the President is setting us up for a future in which we could have to rely on other countries for a significant part of our energy supply. And that is a problem, particularly when you consider the fact that that could mean relying on hostile countries. As European countries learned the hard way after Russia invaded Ukraine, relying on hostile nations for your energy supply is not a winning proposition. Plus, foreign production can be far less environmentally friendly than producing oil and gas here at home in the United States.

While the President fantasizes about eliminating the use of oil and natural gas and forcing all Americans into electric vehicles, the fact of the matter is that we are a long way away from being able to rely on alternative energy production to supply our Nation's energy needs.

We are going to need conventional energy for quite a while yet. And the best way to get that conventional energy is by developing the abundant domestic resources of the United States in an environmentally responsible way. We need an ``all of the above'' energy policy that embraces the full spectrum of available resources from alternative energy technologies to existing coal-fired and future natural gas-fired generation.

Between overloading our electric grid and discouraging future conventional energy production, the President's energy decisions and regulations are painting a bleak future for American consumers.

But there are things that we can do to check the President's irresponsible policies. Thanks to the efforts of Senator Sullivan and Senator Ricketts, we will soon have a chance to vote on a Congressional Review Act measure to overturn the emissions rules that will force car and truck companies to electrify a huge portion of their sales lots and strain our electric grid even further.

I anticipate that Senate Republicans will also soon challenge last week's powerplant rules, and I hope--I really hope--that there are at least a few Democrats who will join us to overturn these regulations.

Our grid simply cannot bear the burden of the President's new policies. And if Democrats care about more than winning votes from environmental radicals, they will see that and vote with us to overturn these regulations.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford) and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).

Madam President, less than 2 weeks ago, Iran attacked Israel with a barrage of more than 300 missiles and drones. The attack was a notable escalation on Iran's part since the weapons were fired not just by Iranian proxies but also directly from Iran.

It was a reminder of two things:

First and foremost, the attack was a reminder of the need for the United States and the free world to make it clear to Iran that we are not going to stand idly by while Iran attacks Israel and continues to foment terror in the Middle East.

Iran's malign activities have been allowed to go on for far too long, and it is past time not just for the United States but for nations in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere to call a halt to Iran's activities.

On a larger scale, Iran's attack on Israel was a reminder that bad actors and hostile powers are going to fill any space that they think they can fill. And if the United States and other free countries abdicate leadership or telegraph weakness on the global stage, bad actors are going to be happy to step in to fill the vacuum.

I would not be surprised if the Biden administration's all-too- frequent posture of appeasement toward Iran--and the lack of clarity the administration

has telegraphed about U.S. support for Israel--has emboldened Iran to reach further and engage in the kind of escalation that we saw this month.

Bad actors around the world are flexing their power right now: Iran in the Middle East, Russia in Europe, China in the Indo-Pacific and beyond. And these powers are forging alliances with each other to advance their activities.

Iran has provided Russia with weapons to use in its war on Ukraine and is working with Russia to produce drones at a Russian facility. Meanwhile, Russia has committed to supplying Iran with fighter jets and air defense technology--assets which, as a recent Washington Post article noted, ``could help Tehran harden its defenses against any future airstrike by Israel or the United States.''

When it comes to China, the Secretary of State recently reported:

We see China sharing machine tools, semiconductors, other

dual-use items that have helped Russia rebuild the defense

industrial base that sanctions and export controls had done

so much to degrade.

In the face of increased aggression from these powers, the United States' response needs to be one of strength. That includes not just having a strong military and a strong economy but engaging on the global stage.

As I said, bad actors will fill any space they think they can fill. And when the United States and other free countries abdicate leadership on the global stage, bad actors will step in to fill the vacuum.

The foreign aid contained in this bill is an important part of telegraphing America's refusal to cede the global stage to hostile powers.

It will help demonstrate to Iran our support for Israel and help our ally rid itself of the threat of Hamas on its border.

It will help make it clear to Russia that the United States is not going to give Russia free rein in Eastern Europe.

It will help make a credible investment in our own industrial base and replenish interceptors that we have used in the Red Sea.

And it will let China know that while Taiwan may be small, its backing is not.

Sending these messages is important. It is in our Nation's interest to ensure that a newly victorious and emboldened Putin isn't sitting on the doorstep of four NATO states that we are bound by treaty to protect.

It is in our Nation's interest to ensure that a China inspired by a Russian victory in Ukraine doesn't decide it is time to invade Taiwan.

And it is in our Nation's interest to ensure that Israel is equipped to defend itself from Iran and its terrorist proxies.

I am pleased that in addition to the funding for Israel, Taiwan, and Ukraine we considered before, the bill before us today includes some new measures. Notable among them is legislation to ban TikTok if the company is not purchased by an entity unaffiliated with the Chinese Communist Party.

Currently, the Chinese Communist Party is able to gain unlimited access to the account information of TikTok users if it so chooses. And the news that emerged last week that the Chinese Embassy has actually lobbied congressional staff against legislation to force the sale of TikTok was a stunning confirmation of the value the Chinese Government places on its ability to access Americans' information and shape their TikTok experience. So I am very pleased that the bill before us today would ban TikTok if it is not sold to a company without ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

I am also pleased that this legislation includes the Rebuilding Economic Prosperity and Opportunity for Ukrainians Act--or the REPO Act--which would direct frozen Russian assets to rebuilding efforts in Ukraine. Russia has caused a horrifying amount of destruction in Ukraine, and it is right that Russian assets should go toward its rebuilding.

This bill also contains additional accountability measures for our support for Ukraine, including a provision that would turn some of the funding into loans to be repaid by Ukraine when it is back on its feet.

Does this bill cover everything we should be doing on the national security front either at home or abroad? No, it doesn't. But it will provide essential support to our allies that will not only help them preserve their freedom but will advance U.S. interests around the globe.

So I look forward to the Senate's passing this legislation this week and sending a clear message about American resolve and about American strength.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).