Floor Statements

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 1182 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, Americans are hurting more than I think in any other time since I have been here for sure: high inflation--I calculate in the 5 years I have been here, we have added 15 trillion to our national debt--struggling to make ends meet and I think inflation, and all of this is DC's fault.

Starting in 2021, Congress kept passing huge spending bills. We have never gone off of it since then. We now borrow a trillion dollars every 6 months; it used to be annually. Massive spending packages sail through this place because they are packed with pet projects. We have even brought back earmarks. Earmarks give Representatives, give Senators, the incentive to be big spenders. We should cut every earmark out of this bill and ban them permanently and quit loading up our kids and grandkids with the debt to pay for all this.

Shameful, in my mind.

First of all, I echo the comments of Senators Collins and Murray on the tragedy in Maine. We see it all too often.

When it comes to this place, we don't do budgets anymore. We haven't done them--that we have adhered to--in over 20 years.

We piled up--to give you a little taste of debt--$5 trillion in debt in 2000. We added another $6 trillion, I believe, or $5 trillion by 2008. We added another 8 from 2008 to 2016. Where is it going to end?

Yes, Congressional Directive Spending would be OK if it was in the context of actually doing budgets and not borrowing all this money from our kids and grandkids.

This is symbolic mostly, but going back to earmarks just says we are putting a rubber stamp on the dysfunction that drives this place in the first place.

I yield.

Vote on Amendment No. 1182

And I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I was on that trip with Senator Scott back in, I believe, August of 2019.

What struck me about that visit, as we went to almost every perimeter in Israel, is how they had to be on guard constantly--constantly--to keep from having something flying into one of their towns or villages.

When we did visit the one that Rick referred to, what struck me is they had like a big locker by one of the homes that showed all of the unique ways--and I think it was the village nearest to the Gaza Strip-- of how many attempts that were made over time. Thank goodness, most of them had fallen short, but it gave me the impression that there was never a moment of real security.

Then we saw how, within those villages, you had to be on guard almost 100 percent of the time and scurry into a safe room that would disrupt the normal pace of your life. Imagine if you had to live under those conditions. And here, it has been a long time since anything of this magnitude has come along--probably nearly 50 years--but it shows that it never ends there.

When something like this does happen and when we have had legislation that looks like it was intended to prevent this and it went through--I think, according to the Senator, unanimously--this should be a slam dunk in that we would want to make sure that nothing can leak free out of any other type of aid that would help something like this either persist or happen again.

If the report in the Wall Street Journal is accurate, Iran was closely involved in the planning and execution of the horrible terrorist act on Israel. If that is the case, then it appears the $6 billion in cash, unfrozen for Iran, freed up resources to aid the attack. We should suspend those funds immediately and permanently. We must also take extra steps to make sure the United States is not inadvertently funding terrorist activities. This bill--a simple one-- the Stop Taxpayer Funding of Hamas Act, would do just that.

Under this bill, the President will have to certify that no U.S. funds are able to go to Hamas or members of Hamas. It would also make sure that funds are not benefiting organizations controlled or influenced by Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or any other terrorist organization. It simply puts in specificity what we all should be for.

With President Biden's announcement today that he intends to send $100 million in aid to Gaza, we need this legislation to become law immediately. The American people need to feel confident that their tax dollars are not going to fund the mayhem we saw in Israel at the hands of Hamas terrorists.

I yield the floor to the Senator from North Carolina.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

Mr. President, I would like to thank you, Chaplain Lundy, for coming all the way from Terre Haute. That is on kind of the west central side of our State, a pretty good trek out here.

You heard what the senior Senator from Indiana said. You have had a storied career in the military, but I think having a life led based upon strong faith, there is no substitute for it, serving there with the National Guard.

Indiana has the notoriety for having a lot of veterans in our own State, always coming to the call when there is a need, whether it is through the National Guard or through Active Duty.

You play such an important role because so often the troops who give the most, who serve, need the help of probably the Almighty more than any of us in that task. Thank you for doing that. Caring for that spiritual well-being, it is hard to imagine how that works in some instances. Again, doing it, you ought to feel good about the career you have made and spent, especially back home in Indiana.

We are a State where, I think, faith is the cornerstone of so much of what we do. Our families and our communities all intertwine. Every town, I think, needs that. Every State needs that.

Thank you, again, for doing this today, opened the Senate session in prayer, and for what you have done throughout your storied career.

Chaplain LUNDY. Thank you.

You are welcome.

I yield the floor.

Recognition of the Majority Leader

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, this bill is not about contraception; it is about abortion.

The bill defines ``contraception'' as ``any drug, device, or biological product intended for use in the prevention of pregnancy, whether specifically intended to prevent pregnancy or for other health needs, that is approved by the FDA.''

The FDA has approved dangerous chemical abortion drugs that can also be used as contraceptives off-label. There is a huge difference between a drug that blocks fertilization and a drug that can end a life.

This bill also includes a provision that would act as a guaranteed earmark for Planned Parenthood. Under the bill, the government could not directly fund a health organization unless it provides abortion drugs.

Finally, this bill does not respect freedom of conscience for healthcare providers. It would no longer allow for religious exemptions for organizations that have deeply held objections to providing abortions.

The bill uses intentionally vague language to hide its ulterior motive of protecting access to abortion drugs. For these reasons, I object.

Mr. President, I rise today to share a resolution of support for the Pledge of Allegiance as an expression of patriotism and to honor the 246th anniversary of the creation of our U.S. flag.

Today, we celebrate Flag Day. As we pause to recognize all that our flag represents, let us also honor those who have sacrificed everything to defend it.

In 2002, Senator Tom Daschle raised a similar resolution with unanimous support from the Senate. It passed on the floor uneventfully. Today, I ask this body to reaffirm our support of the Pledge of Allegiance.

I rise today also to honor a Hoosier who understood the innate value of the Pledge of Allegiance to our civic education. In 1969, Red Skelton, the American entertainer who was well known for his program ``The Red Skelton Hour,'' wrote a speech on the importance of the pledge. Reflecting on his time in Vincennes, IN--not many miles from where I was born and raised in Jasper--he spoke about the values instilled in the students by one of his high school teachers. After the performance of the speech, CBS received 200,000 requests for copies. The speech would go on to be sold as a single by Columbia Records and performed at the White House for President Nixon. To honor Mr. Skelton's memory and the importance of the pledge, I will recite his speech today on the Senate floor.

In the words of Mr. Red Skelton, as applicable today as it was many years ago:

When I was a small boy in Vincennes, Indiana, I heard, I

think, one of the most outstanding speeches I ever heard in

my life. I think it compares with the Sermon on the Mount,

Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and Socrates' speech to the

students.

We had just finished reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, and

he [Mr. Lasswell, the Principal of Vincennes High School]

called us all together and he says: `[Uh] boys and girls, I

have been listening to you recite the Pledge of Allegiance

all semester, and it seems it has become monotonous to you.

Or, could it be, you do not understand the meaning of each

word?

If I may, I would like to recite the pledge and give you a

definition for each word.

I--Me; an individual; a committee of one.

Pledge--Dedicate all of my worldly good to give without

self-pity.

Allegiance--My love and my devotion.

To the Flag--Our standard. ``Old Glory''; a symbol of

courage. And wherever she waves, there is respect, because

your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts, ``Freedom

is everybody's job.''

``Of the United''--That means we have all come together.

States--Individual communities that have united into 48

great States; 48 individual communities with pride and

dignity and purpose; all divided by imaginary boundaries, yet

united to a common cause, and that's love of country--

And, of course, 48 States dates when that was done--

Of America.

And to the Republic--A Republic: a sovereign state in which

power is invested into the representatives chosen by the

people to govern; and the government is the people; and it's

from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the

people.

For which it stands.

One Nation--Meaning ``so blessed by God.''

Under God.

Indivisible--Incapable of being divided.

With Liberty--Which is freedom; the right of power for one

to live his own life without fears, threats, or any sort of

retaliation.

And Justice--The principle and qualities of dealing fairly

with others.

For all--For All. That means, boys and girls, it's as much

your country as it is mine.

Afterwards, Mr. Lasswell asked his students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance together with newfound appreciation for the words.

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of

America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation

under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I call upon the U.S. Senate to recommit to the meaning of these words. This is why today, on National Flag Day, I am requesting unanimous consent from my colleagues that my resolution expressing support of the Pledge of Allegiance is passed.

Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 252, which is at the desk.

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.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have been here about 4\1/2\ years and come from that world where you could never do what we do here. When you run a business, you are competing. You are earning your revenues. They are not given to you like in government. Here, we just have to be smart enough not to spend more than we take in.

Sadly, when you look--all the data is there historically--we haven't balanced the budget since the late 1990s. Over 50 years, there are some things that are just criteria you need to take into consideration and maybe view as a given.

Our system is built on enterprise, sound regulation, not overbearing, taxes that you can pay without being a wet blanket on the economy. Over 50 years, other than 2 or 3 years that happened to coincide in the Clinton years when we balanced the budget, we have never generated more than 18 percent of our GDP in revenue through the Federal Government.

It is this simple: When you have high rates, you flush more into the Treasury the first couple years. You go from whatever the economic growth rate was to something a half to a percent and a half lower. When you cut taxes--and it was getting close; it wasn't quite there pre- COVID, the Trump tax cuts--you are going to deplete revenues the first couple years, but then you benefit from an economy that is growing more robustly.

We know all of that. The missing link here is that anywhere else, you have the rigor of the marketplace. When you are running something, it is not merciful. If you behave there like we do here, you are on the ash heap of enterprises that just don't survive in the long run. Nowhere else can you borrow up to 30 cents on every dollar you spend and expect that to be a good long-term business plan.

I am one--in the time I have been here, I have gotten along with a lot of Democrats on passing legislation that is practical. We can still do it. But when it comes to the big agenda items in terms of how much you spend, are you going to have the fortitude to do a real budget, we haven't done that. Whenever we have had moments of discipline with budget caps, sequestrations, they seem to unravel soon after we put them in place.

Again, look at the numbers. We, from the time we were founded until the year 2000, had very little debt. Most of that came after World War II. The ``greatest generation'' was the deepest in debt we had ever been historically as a country. They were savers. They were investors. They were hard workers. They paid it off and built the Interstate Highway System, the most capital-intensive thing we have ever done as a country.

When you morph into being consumers and spenders--that is what Greece did. That is what Italy did. That is what Spain did. That is what Portugal was doing until they had to get back on the wagon. Otherwise, the second largest economy in the world was going to be in trouble. They put basic discipline into their system. They spend more through the federal government there than we do, but they pay for it generally. They are not borrowing it from future generations.

We have to find a way as Democrats and Republicans to take the priorities that are important to this country. And I haven't mentioned so far the real drivers of our structural deficits. That is Social Security; that is Medicare; that is Medicaid--all programs we want to be there, but we want them to be solid.

Until we get the backbone, the political discipline, we are going to keep skirting the rigor that it takes to make this thing work long term, and you can expect more of the same. What you are seeing here today is no different; it is just punctuated with a little more drama than normal.

We know we have debt ceilings. If we didn't have those, we would probably even plow further into debt. But the numbers always win in the long run. We are running trillion-dollar deficits--both sides of the aisle generating them--from the Bush years. We had COVID come along. We politically enterprised, I think, through 2 years, not recognizing what the real capability of our economy would be, and we are in a pickle.

I am going to do a little math quiz here. I did it with a bunch of reporters 3 months ago. I said: What is 1 percent of 30 trillion?

Would the Presiding Officer venture to make a guess on that?

So 1 percent of 30 trillion is 300 billion.

After 30 seconds of silence, one reporter offered 300 million. I said: You are off by a power of a thousand.

That is how abstract these numbers become, but they become real over time when you take interest rates that have gone up 4 to 5 percent. Now that you know what 1 percent of 30 trillion is, try 5 percent. That is 1.5 trillion. That is what we are going to be pricing into our debt that we are incurring.

The only blueprint out there has been from the Biden administration-- puts us $20 trillion further in debt in just 10 years. And all this is going to do is knock it back to just $18 trillion more. That is shameful for future generations.

This institution needs to be healthy, and it needs to live within its means like households do, like local and State governments do, like all businesses do. Try talking to your banker, running a 30-percent loss, wanting them to lend you the money. They would laugh you out of the office before you got into the details of really what you need. It is a bad business plan.

I could go on about that, but it has been happening for now over two decades, both sides of the aisle. The deal is generally made by some on our side of the aisle who hold defense sacrosanct, don't want to budge at all. The other side views domestic spending as more important. But we generally work out this same deal. But do you know what the net result is? We are deeper in debt.

I did take finance 101. I spent 37 years running a business with full competition, the rigor of it, was on a school board, and was on ways and means in our State government. It can be done.

We have the printing press in the basement; that is the Fed. When they take all this fiscal stimulus that we did and put it on their balance sheet, that is how you print money. That is a bad business plan for future generations.

I am going to introduce an amendment called the no-default amendment. We should not be flirting with this year after year when we know it is going to happen anyway, and until we put real reforms into the system, expect the same.

The next time we hit the debt ceiling, when the Treasury says you are

entering into extraordinary measures, that is when the clock starts. My amendment--if you can't get a real deal done with reforms addressing the things I have talked about, we are going to start paring back this place, and it is going to be across the board, defense and domestic spending--every 30 days, a 1-percent cut. If you are so thickheaded that you can't get it done then, in another 30 days, you do it again. That would put some rigor into the process.

But if we are not honest with the public and really address the programs that are dearest to most Americans--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--and quit doing mandatory spending on things that aren't important, we are going to run this place into the ditch.

I fear for what my kids and grandkids are going to have to deal with, and I think all Americans should be worried about that. This would be at least a start of putting a little bit of discipline into an undisciplined system.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 91 and ask that it be reported by number.

This should be the easiest vote of the night. This is to take default off the table in future endeavors like this. This simply says that when we get notice that extraordinary measures are going to be incorporated--that happened in January, I believe, of this year; X date is this Monday--that if we do not do a bill that either raises the amount or changes the date, ideally with reforms, that on the X date, after we had 5 to 6 months to do it, we have 1 percent cuts across the board on discretionary spending. It is the No Default Act.

We should not be risking default. This would be simple. It gives us plenty of time and puts a little incentive. If you reach the X date, you are going to be encouraged to do it by then. If not, it would happen again in 30 days.

I ask for your support. Let's not default when we engage this same dynamic in the future.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I come here this evening because I have got a problem, and the problem is the IRS. It has a bad track record. They often fail to be good stewards of taxpayer money and to protect highly sensitive information as well. They don't do a good job at that.

Despite this, Congress and President Biden recently gave the IRS $80 billion in new funding--$80 billion--most of which we had to borrow, probably.

Last week, the IRS released a 150-page document outlining how it will spend $80 billion in new funding. The report is very vague about how that will be done. ``Enforcement activities''--I would love more specifics.

The IRS has a history of being weaponized against conservative organizations and for hassling hard-working taxpayers and small business owners with audits. I don't know that the wealthy are going to be held to account. They have got their lawyers, and they fight this stuff off routinely. I am worried that it is going to hit middle America. With this huge funding boost, these problems, I think, will only grow.

It is unacceptable to treat American taxpayers this way. The IRS does not need more power. It needs to be reformed to ensure that it serves the best interests of all Americans.

I have got a solution: Simplify, don't amplify, the IRS. And let's just put ``act'' right after that.

Last Congress, I introduced a bill with several IRS reforms to hold the Agency accountable and protect taxpayers. The Simplify, Don't Amplify the IRS Act would stop the Biden administration from continuing to grow the power of the IRS.

This bill would stop attempts to target Americans and small businesses by snooping in their bank accounts, credit union accounts, Venmo, PayPal, and Cash App.

The bill would also repeal the Democrat ban on cutting State taxes, hold IRS employees accountable when they release private taxpayer information, and ensure that the IRS spends its time helping taxpayers rather than on unofficial union activity.

We can debate how much money the IRS needs to do its job, but we also need commonsense policies like the Simplify, Don't Amplify the IRS Act. This bill would immediately add value to the American taxpayer and help restore faith to a dysfunctional government Agency that affects every American.

Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 1101 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I come here today--we are going to vote later this afternoon--on something else that involves overreach of the Federal Government, and I have witnessed it a lot.

I have been here just a little over 4 years. I jump in--I come from Main Street America--when it just doesn't make sense. The last time I was engaged in this was at the tail end of the COVID saga, when a rule from the Biden administration was going to force the vaccination on all Americans working, if you work for a company down to 100 employees. That is a lot of people.

We weighed in on that. It was bipartisan. The Supreme Court jumped in a week and a half or two later and, thank goodness, said enough is enough there.

Here, we are talking about something you hear the acronym, ESG-- environment, social, and governance. In a nutshell, that just means now, when we are looking at hard-earned money that you save, your retirement--let me tell you how much it is going to impact: $11.7 trillion, 152 million Americans.

I really am OK with what you want to invest in, as long as it is going to push the best rate of return. Over the long run, if something changes, that is different. But, currently, this rule now allows the criterion of using those ESG goals, which would be simplified, being able to push a certain ideology, a certain point of view, into how retirement earnings are invested.

You have got to remember, this is a fiduciary thing. Most people, when they give money to their financial adviser, their broker, you would think they would think that it is going to get the best return. Bloomberg tracked it. If you would actually invest according to ideology over the last few years, it would have been the difference between an 8.9-percent return and a 6.3-percent return.

Imagine trying to explain that in a way where someone trusted that you would be doing the best thing with their hard-earned money to get the best financial return. That is nearly a 30-percent cut in what you would have had otherwise. I have got to believe everybody would be thoroughly upset with that.

It is a step too far. It is injecting the Federal Government, and how it has enterprised over the last couple of years, into many different arenas. I think it is a wake-up call.

We are going to vote on this later this afternoon. Everyone will be able to, I think, hopefully, vote in a way that they would tell their constituents would make sense, give me the best rate of return. Figure out all this other stuff here on the legislative floor, but don't make it impact hard-earned retirement funds.

The House just last night passed this in a bipartisan way. Hopefully, we will do the same thing later this afternoon. It makes sense to Hoosiers. It makes sense to Americans.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to let these comments be made before the vote, and I will keep them brief.

Madam President, yesterday, I spoke about a new law passed by the DC City Council. This law lowers penalties for crimes like carjacking and robbery. Thankfully, Congress is stepping in to stop this legislation.

DC, Washington here, should be an example of our American ideals. Sadly, it is becoming an example of the crime we are experiencing across the country in our larger cities. In Chicago, the Midwest, there are new records being broken in the wrong way each week, in New York, and even in places like my State capital of Indianapolis. It should be a wake-up call to crack down. Yet city governments keep going the other way.

The first priority of any government should be the safety of its citizens, especially at the local level, where you live each day. We know a big part of this is not about the laws we have. We have a lot of laws on the books. They are not enforced. In my State capital of Indianapolis, I have a prosecutor who will not enforce those laws, and even in the heart of our country, the Midwest, you have the same issue.

I guess the most disturbing part of all of this is the hatred for our police. They place their safety at hazard to protect ours. Too often, they pay the ultimate price in doing so.

(The remarks of Mr. BRAUN pertaining to the introduction of S. 459 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Madam President, we lost a Hoosier recently who spent 7 years fighting ALS. I was proud here, along with Senator Coons, to start the ALS Caucus. ALS is one of those diseases, when you are diagnosed with it, for which there is not a very good prognosis--3 to 4 years, maybe, sometimes.

Corey Polen from Indiana was able to stretch it out to 7 years and fought valiantly along the way. He was involved in trying to take his cause and help others. Currently, there is no cure, and there is severely limited access to treatment options.

Since I have been here, I have been trying to reform healthcare in general. That is a task when you have one side of the aisle that doesn't think there is anything to do there or isn't interested in it and the other side maybe wanting to have more government when I think we need to reform it in an underlying way and make it more transparent, more competitive, and remove barriers to entry so that you have doctors and nurses wanting to come into the profession.

Let's take this commonsense part of it. This is a disease, along with several other diseases, for which, once you are diagnosed, you do not have time, and you are beset by a cumbersome process that keeps people from getting into and even staying in treatment. We need to fix that to where, through the Promising Pathway Act, which I have had out there and which is gaining stride, we need to make an exception for those ailments that have treatments in progress and where the individuals suffering from them are willing to take the risk. They want to do that because there is no other option, especially when there are promising treatments that you are working with.

In Corey's case, his journey began in October 2015. He was hiking with his wife Jennifer in Arizona. On that hike, he kind of hurt his ankle and noticed more. He then returned to his hometown and wanted to look into it further. That is when he got that bleak diagnosis.

All along the journey, as his condition was getting worse, he was out there to help others with it. His main goal for us here in Congress was for us to get something like the Promising Pathway Act across the finish line, which would give hope to him and to all of the others with similar diseases who are frustrated by the fact that we can't move quickly enough, especially when there is stuff in the works that looks like it is going to be someday, if not a cure, at least a mitigation to the disease. We weren't able to get that done.

I would ask my fellow Senators and someone else in the House to carry it. We need to get this across the finish line. A panel of FDA advisers voted 7 to 2 that there was enough evidence to do something different. That gave hope to people like Corey and others that something would get done, but it hasn't happened. We have this under our own control to get it done, and it is well past time to get it done.

I have been here going on now into my fifth year, and we have been dragging our feet. I am going to roll up my sleeves and get it done, and we are going to keep pursuing this effort through our ALS Caucus. Senator Coons and I have done it, and we have made headway. But why wouldn't we, when we have been dawdling with this issue for so long, not give the benefit of the doubt to treatments that are promising and get this across the finish line for these individuals who have no other hope but for us to get it done?

I yield the floor.

Madam President, Indiana has lost several officers in the line of duty in the last 2 years, like Terre Haute Officer Greg Ferency and Richmond Officer Seara Burton.

I would like to say a few words about Elwood Police Officer Noah Shahnavaz, who was killed in the line of duty last year in a little town in Indiana. He was only 24 years old. He was shot during a routine traffic stop by a violent career criminal who should have been behind bars. His parents, Laurie and Matt, remembered their son to my office with these words:

All that Noah ever wanted to do is help others. Society has

been robbed of the many positive impacts he would have had on

our world.

When a police officer is killed in the line of duty, it sends a shock wave through the community, and it is happening in far too many places.

I decided after his death that I wanted to take the lead in reintroducing the Thin Blue Line Act. This bill would make targeting police officers an aggravating factor in favor of the maximum sentence. It has already passed through the House of Representatives once before. We need to do it again in this Congress and get it through the Senate as well.

Supporting our police shouldn't be a partisan issue. This law wouldn't apply in every case, but it would make criminals think twice before targeting our police. We have to do everything we can to protect those who protect us. The one thing we could do to fight back against crime is to support those on the frontline. We need to give them the resources they need and send a clear message to those who wish to do them harm: If you target a police officer, you are going to pay the highest price possible.

We need to get that done.

Madam President, Indiana has lost several officers in the line of duty in the last 2 years, like Terre Haute Officer Greg Ferency and Richmond Officer Seara Burton.

I would like to say a few words about Elwood Police Officer Noah Shahnavaz, who was killed in the line of duty last year in a little town in Indiana. He was only 24 years old. He was shot during a routine traffic stop by a violent career criminal who should have been behind bars. His parents, Laurie and Matt, remembered their son to my office with these words:

All that Noah ever wanted to do is help others. Society has

been robbed of the many positive impacts he would have had on

our world.

When a police officer is killed in the line of duty, it sends a shock wave through the community, and it is happening in far too many places.

I decided after his death that I wanted to take the lead in reintroducing the Thin Blue Line Act. This bill would make targeting police officers an aggravating factor in favor of the maximum sentence. It has already passed through the House of Representatives once before. We need to do it again in this Congress and get it through the Senate as well.

Supporting our police shouldn't be a partisan issue. This law wouldn't apply in every case, but it would make criminals think twice before targeting our police. We have to do everything we can to protect those who protect us. The one thing we could do to fight back against crime is to support those on the frontline. We need to give them the resources they need and send a clear message to those who wish to do them harm: If you target a police officer, you are going to pay the highest price possible.

We need to get that done.

Mr. President, I rise today--Joe has gone over this, I think, very clearly; I support him in just sticking with the letter of the law. He said China produces 75 percent of the world's lithium-ion batteries; we, only 7 percent. China controls 80 percent of the facilities that convert critical minerals into usable battery parts.

Making things in America is not just about promoting our own manufacturing--which we need to do better generally--it is also about not funding

the human rights abuses by the Chinese Communist Party.

And to give them even more of a leg up, when you see what they have done trying to fit into the world economic chain, where they still steal intellectual property, they do things that take them out of the norm that we are all familiar with.

This is just simply to fix something that was recently passed in a reconciliation bill. I didn't vote for the reconciliation package because of disagreements with it in general. I do that on a lot of things, even when I like components of what is in something if it doesn't have that fiscal responsibility to go along with it.

So whether you agree with me or Senator Manchin about trying to do things here in America whenever we can and not to end up supporting our main geopolitical enemy in the process, I think you have to be careful.

Senator Manchin mentioned, also, we just recently did it and it is clear, and the IRS was sleeping at the wheel. This should not have come down to where we are right here, even having to argue about it. It is the letter of the law.

I have got, in my own home State, Stellantis and Samsung making a big investment in Kokomo, IN, for this very issue of getting our own foot into this kind of business. What is it going to do? What is the message going to be sending to them?

Allison Transmission is conducting R&D efforts on electrifying their own components. I think it sends a bad message if we are given the letter of the law, going to make exemptions, even when it might not be expedient for other concerns.

I think this is a type of investment that we need to make sure stays here. We recently put it in law to do so. It may delay a little bit, not give the speed at which some want to move. But when you look at everything we have talked about--the fact that it gives more to the Chinese economy when you look at what they are doing on the world stage--it is going to send a bad message to people in our own country about making the investments. And, clearly, in my own State, there is a vested interest.

So I am with Senator Manchin on this. We ought to stick with what we just passed, not let the IRS get by with being delinquent on what they should have done in the first place.

With that, I yield back to the Senator from West Virginia.