Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, last week, the strongest and most successful military alliance in the history of the world marked an impressive milestone. Seventy-five years ago, at the dawn of the Cold War, with decades of superpower competition on the horizon, the founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization convened here in Washington to formalize a commitment to collective security.

In the years since, NATO has grown from 12 to 32 allies. The transatlantic alliance has always required management. Alliances always do. But, as Churchill observed, the only thing worse than fighting alongside allies is fighting without them.

While we have experienced periods of pronounced tension within the alliance, today is not one of them. Nations on both sides of the Atlantic have increasingly concluded that common threats are best met with shared resolve.

Most recently, of course, the alliance has been proud to welcome Sweden and Finland to our ranks. With highly capable militaries and advanced economies, our newest allies were already taking their own defense seriously. In the face of Putin's brutal escalation in Ukraine, they decided to share the burden of collective security.

But Russian aggression hasn't just expanded the NATO alliance; it has also prompted longtime allies to take their treaty obligations more seriously. Just last week, the Norwegian Government confirmed that it would meet the NATO 2-percent defense spending target this year and that it would nearly double its defense budget over the next 12. For a wealthy country like Norway, with one of the highest per capita GDPs in the world, this is a big deal. Across the alliance, members are making historic new commitments to strengthen their militaries and expand their defense industrial capacity. European allies have contracted to buy 600 cutting-edge American F-35 aircraft to add to their arsenals. On the whole, they are already meeting the 2-percent target, and NATO leaders expect more individual members to reach it by the July summit here in Washington.

There is still work to be done. Not every ally is taking its treaty obligations seriously enough. One of the most concerning laggards isn't even a European country, but it is our neighbor to

the north. Like America, Canada is at once an Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic nation, and it is time for Ottawa to take its obligations to NATO, to NORAD, and to its own defense more seriously.

That said, for our European allies, the holiday from history really is over. Their greater investments in collective defense also include growing contributions to Ukraine's defense. In fact, 18 countries are making larger relative contributions to helping Ukraine resist Russian aggression than the United States. Of course, this doesn't absolve America from playing a leading role. America is the glue that keeps the alliance together. We are a critical catalyst of allied contributions. Nations all over the world look to Washington for guidance.

From before Russian forces even advanced in February of 2022, I have urged the Biden administration to quit its hand-wringing and hesitation over delivering Ukraine the lethal tools it needed to defend itself. The President's unfounded fear of escalation deprived our friends of the advanced, long-range capabilities they needed to make a more decisive stand against Putin sooner. Avoidable supply shortages continue to prevent Ukraine from taking the fight to Russia across the frontlines.

The conflict is at a critical moment, and it is exactly the wrong time for folks on our side of the aisle to imitate and compound the timidity and shortsightedness of our Commander in Chief, which he displayed from the outset of the conflict.

The vast majority of armed conflicts end in negotiated settlements, but whenever and however this particular conflict is resolved, it is in America's interests that Ukraine operate from a position of strength.

Our own security, the security of our closest allies and most important trading partners, the credibility of America's commitments-- none of these interests are served by withholding assistance to Ukraine or withholding urgent investments in the sort of industrial capacity and capabilities that both our friends and our Armed Forces need.

Starving Ukraine of needed capabilities wasn't the smart way for the Biden administration to avoid escalation, and neither is it a political masterstroke by some of the administration's Republican opponents. It is strategic and moral malpractice that risks dooming Ukraine and undermining our own national interests.

From Europe, to the Middle East, to the Indo-Pacific, the world is watching to see whether the United States still has a will to lead the West and preserve the international order responsible for our own prosperity for the better part of a century.

So I will continue to urge our House colleagues to take up and pass the national security supplemental without delay.

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, while the Senate was away from Washington, we received some sobering reminders about the challenges facing America and our friends in a dangerous world and about how to meet them.

In Gaza, innocent people continue to suffer with the cowardice and hateful violence of Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Just last week, as Israel continued the difficult, necessary, and existential work of eliminating the terrorist threat, the tragic consequences of this war were brought once again into focus. The misidentification that led to

the deaths of seven aid workers in an IDF strike was a gut-wrenching reminder that even when a sovereign nation exercises the utmost restraint in the face of enemies to use violence as a first resort, even as our ally Israel takes great pains to minimize casualties among the innocent civilians who its enemies exploit at every turn, war is still hell. And for people in Gaza over the past 17 years since Hamas seized control, life has been its own sort of hell as well.

For years, the supposed authorities in the enclave have spent their time burrowing under the homes and mosques of innocent families and the schools of innocent children. They have used concrete and building supplies intended for civilians to build military bunkers instead. They have brazenly stolen the humanitarian aid their civilian subjects depend on. They have thrown Palestinians loyal to the political rivals off of buildings, and they have continually traded innocent lives for one more day to wage a war on Israel.

Iran's terrorist proxies in Gaza are responsible for the horrors of this war. Their hatred for Jews--and refusal to acknowledge the existence of the Jewish State of Israel--is the reason for this pain and suffering of the last 6 months.

America cannot afford to lose moral clarity about the conflict. But I am afraid that too many of our leaders are. President Biden expressed outrage at last week's deadly accident--an event his own administration acknowledges was a tragic accident--which begs the question of whether he is also outraged at the way Israel's terrorist aggressors violate international law by turning hospitals and schools into fighting positions.

Instead of welcoming Israel's swift investigation and efforts to hold personnel accountable for their mistakes--accountability that has been sorely lacking during President Biden's own administration--the President caved further to domestic political pressure.

He indulged his radical base and called for an immediate cease-fire. He embraced an alternate reality in which cease-fire wasn't exactly the state of play that Hamas exploited on October 7. A fantasy world in which leaving Hamas intact doesn't lead to further terrorism against Israelis and Palestinians alike. Unfortunately, the Democratic party has become unmoored from a long tradition of bipartisan support for Israel.

According to one headline this week:

Democrats fear Netanyahu may have undermined Biden's image

among voters.

Apparently, the leftwing activists who can't seem to distinguish between terrorism and self-defense aren't just calling the shots at the White House but also on the President's reelection campaign. They don't seem to care that it isn't just a sovereign ally's leader they disagree with, but the overwhelming majority of Israeli public who believe Hamas must be defeated.

Meanwhile, President Biden is reportedly taking a cue from the odious Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement and considering labeling goods from Israel's settlement communities in order to ramp up the pressure on the Israeli Government.

Of course, this sounds like child's play alongside the claim of one of our own Senate colleagues made just yesterday, that on legal grounds, Israel's campaign against Hamas is genocide.

What on earth should other friends of America think when they see the way we treat allies under attack? How should they square the Biden administration's pledge to support Ukraine's defense ``as long as it takes'' with support for Israel that is, apparently, as soft as the will of the most radical elements of the Democratic Party?

This cannot be the message America sends to the world. Leadership means standing up for America's interests--from the Indo-Pacific to Europe to the Middle East--even when the most active members of one's political base aren't willing to.

Right now, Congress has an opportunity to model this obligation for a President who clearly doesn't understand it. The House has an opportunity to pass the national security supplemental, and America has an opportunity to show our allies and partners that they can count on our support and show our adversaries that they can count on our relentless intention.

Madam President, America's adversaries are working overtime to undermine our interests and erode the alliances that protect them.

And it is easy to concede that these challenges as playing out exclusively on the high seas of the Indo-Pacific or the borderlands of Europe or the Middle East. But in reality, the competition is not an ``away game.'' America's greatest strategic rival is threatening our security right here on U.S. soil in tens of millions of American homes.

I am speaking, of course, of TikTok. Today, 170 million Americans are active users of the social media platform that the People's Republic of China treats as a tool of surveillance and propaganda.

TikTok officials like to insist that U.S. users' personal information, browsing histories, keystrokes, and other sensitive data are kept out of the reach of the PRC's teams of censors and propagandists. They claim that what it shows young Americans is what they want to see, not what the PRC wants them to think. But the company's own words shatter this fantasy:

Everything is seen in China.

That is the truth TikTok officials were willing to admit in a leaked recording from behind closed doors. And it shouldn't be all that surprising anyway: Chinese law requires that TikTok's Beijing-based parent company coordinate closely with the PRC.

All sorts of social media platforms can be fountains of disinformation and propaganda. Just look at last week's news about the PRC's efforts to manipulate Taiwan's elections with Twitter accounts driven by AI.

But with TikTok, we are not talking about meddling or hijacking an American platform. In this case, PRC influence and control has been baked in from the very beginning.

With Beijing's blessing, TikTok's algorithm pours gasoline on alarming trends from the glorification of Hamas terrorists to a particularly outrageous fad that emerged last year where young people ``discovered'' the wisdom of Osama bin Laden.

I wish I was making this up. But let's be absolutely clear: This isn't a debate about restricting speech. After all, the PRC does enough of that itself. Chinese citizens are barred from accessing TikTok at all.

No matter how loudly TikTok's apologists claim that reining in PRC influence violates the First Amendment, the question we will face is about conduct, not content. I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting Americans' First Amendment rights. I have firmly defended American's right to even the most noxious forms of free speech like flag burning. But there is a serious difference between the views that Americans might express on TikTok and the actions taken by a platform that is beholden to our foremost strategic competitor.

Let me borrow an analogy from someone who has been relentless on this issue--FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr. Here is what he had to say:

You can use a pen to write salacious anti-American

propaganda, and the government can't censor that content. Nor

can it stop Americans from seeking such messages out. But if

you use the same pen to pick a lock to steal somebody else's

property, the government could prosecute you for illegal

conduct.

The PRC has spent years trying to pick the lock of America's communications infrastructure, and the Federal Government has a long history of frustrating Beijing's efforts.

Requiring the divestment of Beijing-influenced entities from TikTok would land squarely within established constitutional precedent, and it would begin to turn back the tide of an enormous threat to America's children and to our Nation's prospects in defining the competition of the 21st century.

This is a matter that deserves Congress's urgent attention, and I will support commonsense, bipartisan steps to take one of Beijing's favorite tools of coercion and espionage off the table.

Madam President, on a related matter, America's national security depends on sustained investment in both cutting-edge capabilities and expanded defense industrial capacity. That is why I continue to insist on overdue steps like the full-year Defense appropriations and national security supplemental the Senate passed earlier this year. As I have said repeatedly, outcompeting our top strategic adversary, the PRC, means projecting American strength far, far beyond the Indo-Pacific.

Beijing continues to menace Taiwan, the Philippines, and other Asian partners, but it is also conducting influence campaigns across the developing world and deepening its partnership with Moscow and Tehran.

Our closest and strongest allies in China's backyard understand this reality. Even as Japan deals with Chinese

maritime incursions and predatory trade practices at home, its leaders continue to remind us that the threats to Western prosperity and security are all connected.

Prime Minister Kishida, who will visit Washington this week and address a joint session of Congress, said just last week that ``Russia's aggression against Ukraine . . . shakes the foundation of the international order'' and that ``Japan will continue its cooperation [with] Ukraine.''

Critically, our ally's words are backed up by actions. Over the past 2 years since Putin's escalation, Japan has pledged $12 billion to Ukraine's resistance. Prime Minister Kishida's trip to Kyiv last year made him the first Japanese leader to visit a conflict zone since World War II.

Just as importantly, Japan's growing investments in its Self-Defense Force, including in cutting-edge capabilities like long-range strike-- have made Japan an essential partner in deterring aggression in the Indo-Pacific.

Today, there is still room to work even more closely with committed allies like Japan to protect our technology from Chinese theft, leverage our advanced industries to improve collective security, and build more resilient supply chains.

More and more, America's allies and partners--like the one we will welcome this week--understand both the gravity of the threats we face and the links between them. But, if America intends to remain the primary guarantor of our own security, we have to lead by example, and Congress has an opportunity to do that this week.

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

Mr. President, the task before Congress this week, completing annual appropriations, is important work every year. In fact, it is among our most basic, fundamental responsibilities.

But not in decades have the stakes of providing for the common defense been as high as they are right now. For the first time since the Cold War, America faces an era defined by great power competition. Of course, this is not news.

Two straight Presidential administrations have correctly recognized this fact, at least on paper, in their national security strategies. These documents have recognized that challenges from revisionist authoritarians in Russia and China pose the greatest threat to the endurance of American leadership that has defined world politics and economics for decades.

Today, we face major adversaries who wish nothing more than to bleed

American influence, sap our resolve, torch our credibility, and fill every void we leave behind with a new order built on fear and subjugation. And we face terrorists and rogue states committed to help them sow chaos. North Korea is sending thousands of train cars full of ammunition to fuel Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine; and Iran's Houthi proxies are signaling to Russian and Chinese ships that they will be permitted to traverse the Red Sea unharmed. But it is not enough to recognize these challenges or name-check them in policy papers. Both the administration and Congress have to act and invest and be willing to meet them.

President Biden's actions undercut any of his administration's apparent recognition of the grave moment we are facing. For 4 straight years, the Commander in Chief has requested defense budgets that don't even keep pace with inflation. De facto cuts to U.S. military funding do not signal seriousness about outcompeting our biggest strategic adversaries--China's defense, for example, is growing by more than 7 percent year-over-year--and neither did the President's hand-wringing and delay over equipping Ukraine with the capabilities needed to better defend itself against Russian aggression.

Frankly, President Biden seems to have a deep-seated discomfort in cultivating and exercising hard power--a necessary, foundational part of the statecraft that protects America and preserves our interests.

Of course, Congress has a say and a responsibility. Our work on fiscal year 2024 defense appropriations represents a critical down payment. But important requirements will remain unmet even after the needed investments this Defense bill will make.

Republicans recognized the constraints of the budget caps, and we worked hard to ensure that the national security supplemental we passed in the Senate will make further critical investments in our own military and defense industrial capability.

Earlier this week, the Commander of the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, Admiral Aquilino, made the case for passing the supplemental to our House colleagues, saying ``any win for Russia . . . is a win for China,'' and so what we do ``supporting the Ukraine problem set also provides a deterrent value'' in the Indo-Pacific.

Together with full-year appropriations, the supplemental is a serious, urgent, and necessary investment in American hard power. And I will continue to urge the House to take it up and pass it without further delay.

But as the Senate prepares to finish our work on annual government funding, I want to once again thank our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for the diligent work required to get to this point. Senator Murray and Senator Collins made a commitment nearly a year ago to restore as much regular order to the process as possible and to work constructively across the aisle.

I am especially grateful to my friend Susan Collins, whose leadership and skill have continued to improve this legislation on behalf of Senate Republicans at every step of the process.

I am particularly proud of how the legislation before us will deliver on the priorities of my fellow Kentuckians. In significant ways, the work of rebuilding American hard power begins right here at home. It means good-paying manufacturing jobs for hard-working Americans across the country, including in Kentucky, in communities like Sterns and Somerset, where Kentuckians develop cutting-edge tools and technologies that give our servicemembers the upper hand on the battlefield or Brandenburg, where they produce new armor systems to enhance the next generation of combat equipment; or Louisville and Lexington, where they are spurring innovation in areas critical to our warfighting capabilities through partnerships with the University of Louisville and the University of Kentucky.

Of course, funding the government this week also puts more weight behind missions even closer to home, like our fight against the substance abuse epidemic which has had a staggering--staggering--impact in my home State. We are devoting more resources to the Kentucky National Guard to reinforce State and local law enforcement as they combat the flow of illegal drugs literally pouring over our border. And we are directing billions toward States like Kentucky so we can promote long-term recovery, find new ways to treat addiction, and spare more lives from this deadly crisis. Through prevention, treatment, and enforcement, we are taking direct aim at a health crisis that has hollowed out our communities and hit middle America especially hard.

Our work is far from finished, but I am proud of what my Senate colleagues have accomplished to close out the annual appropriations process. It is now time to finish the job.

Mr. President, on another matter, I have spoken repeatedly about the nomination of Adeel Mangi to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in New Jersey. As I explained, his radical associations are truly staggering. And this fact seems to have rubbed some of our Democratic colleagues the wrong way.

Yesterday, one of my esteemed Democratic colleagues objected that we were unfairly ignoring Mr. Mangi's record as a lawyer. Well, I have looked at that record and encourage Democrats to do the same.

Our colleagues may not mind Mr. Mangi's cavorting with apologists for terrorism and cop killing. That much wouldn't be surprising, considering that their party is in the process of succumbing to noxious strains of anti-Semitism and soft-on-crime radicalism.

But it is a bit odd that more of our colleagues don't seem to care that Mr. Mangi has spent his entire career in ``white shoe'' corporate law, working as a hired gun for causes Democrats love to hate.

For example, did you know that Mr. Mangi defended monopolists accused of fixing the prices of chocolate? Just in time for Easter.

While Democrats promote the Green New Deal, Mr. Mangi defended a foreign conglomerate as it pursued a fossil fuel contract.

It is hard to count the number of cases Mr. Mangi has litigated in defense of companies accused of fixing the price of prescription drugs. This is a practice that the senior Senator from Vermont says ``rip[s] off the American people.'' Mr. Mangi says it demands compelled arbitration. In at least three of these pharmaceutical suits, Mr. Mangi fought against union pension funds. Curiously, none of these cases are on Mr. Mangi's committee questionnaire.

I don't begrudge a lawyer based on their clients--and I am sure Mr. Mangi was handsomely paid. And besides, we are talking about perfectly defensible and often successful legal arguments. But do my Democratic friends feel the same way?

Fortunately, a growing number of our colleagues are saying they are unwilling to walk the plank for Mr. Mangi's radical affiliations. But his remaining supporters? They might land among the sharks themselves if they insist he be judged on his legal record.

Mr. President, I have spoken repeatedly about the nomination of Adeel Mangi to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Notwithstanding his anti-Semitic affiliations, it seems every week a new law enforcement organization announces its opposition to this nominee for his record of associating with the most radical type of anti-police activists--those who support cop killers.

Apparently, some Democrats are finally listening to law enforcement and the Jewish groups sounding the alarm.

Last week, a number of Democratic Senators reportedly told the White House that they didn't think Mr. Mangi has the votes. This, of course, produced a panic on the left. This week, a New York Times columnist accused Republicans of Islamophobia for criticizing Mangi and his dalliance with anti-Semitic activists. Democrats, on the other hand, were urged to get in line and vote for him.

Who is giving this advice?

Well, the author of the piece herself had previously speculated that Israel may be engaged in genocide in Gaza. She called the Israeli war of self-defense a ``charnel house of horrors.'' She defended the anti- Semitic Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, and she even got mealymouthed about the October 7 attacks, saying:

[T]wo can play the game of who started it and who is to

blame, rolling back the clock to biblical times to try to fix

ultimate responsibility for the catastrophe of Israel and

Palestine.

So, again, what has Mr. Mangi done to deserve friends like these or, indeed, to merit such a vehement, blinkered defense from the Biden administration?

Just yesterday, the White House called opposition to Mr. Mangi's nomination a "smear campaign solely because he would make history as the first Muslim to serve as a federal appellate judge.''

How insulting. What self-respecting attorney wants to hear that a President cares more about the demographic tick boxes than their life's work?

Besides, in the case of Mr. Mangi, Senate Republicans' opposition has absolutely nothing to do with his Muslim faith. Rather, it has everything to do with his longstanding sympathy for and association with some of the most radical elements in society.

I happily voted for the first Muslim article III judge at the outset of the Biden administration, also of New Jersey--so did 31 of my Republican colleagues--in one of the largest bipartisan votes for a judge in the Biden Presidency. But we didn't support this nominee because he was Muslim; it was because he had an extraordinary personal and professional background.

Mr. Mangi's associated center at Rutgers asks convicted terrorists if we overly ``exceptionalize'' 9/11. Judge Quraishi, on the other hand, thought 9/11 was exceptional and joined the Army soon after, rendering honorable service in Iraq.

Mr. Mangi spent his career making millions in defending corporate clients like foreign energy companies, massive drugmakers, and even chocolate monopolies, all while volunteering his time to support anti- police activists. Judge Quraishi, on the other hand, supported law enforcement professionally, first at Immigration and Customs Enforcement and then as an assistant U.S. attorney.

We are told that any questioning of Mr. Mangi's record is Islamophobia. On the other hand, the terrorist-adjacent Council on American-Islamic Relations demanded that Senators probe Judge Quraishi's experience in the Army and in law enforcement, saying their concerns ``must be addressed.''

According to Democrats' rhetoric, shouldn't this organization also be condemned for Islamophobia?

Two Muslim Biden nominees with records as different as night and day--Republicans happily supported the nominee who served his country and backed the blue. We have and we will continue to oppose the nominee who has repeatedly chosen, instead, to mingle with supporters of terrorists and cop killers.

I hope more Democrats will join us in opposing Mr. Mangi, and should they fall victim to spurious associations of bias, perhaps they should remind the White House of an alternative candidate, rested and ready, in the Federal courthouse in Trenton, NJ.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, more than 5 months after the butchery of October 7, Israelis are overwhelmingly united behind their government's unity war Cabinet in support of ongoing military operations against Hamas. By contrast, some prominent American Democrats are increasingly vocal in their belief that Israel's unity government and Israeli voters are wrong.

That is, after all, what we are talking about here. As much as some of our colleagues might like them to be, Democrats' egregious and hypocritical attempts to influence Israeli domestic politics aren't some simple or narrow critique of a particular Prime Minister; they are an affront to the very independence of the State of Israel--a sovereign nation, a robust democracy, and one of America's closest allies and friends; not a colony, not a vassal state, not some appendage of our own domestic politics.

As I said last week, our Democratic colleagues don't have an anti- Bibi problem; they have an anti-Israel problem. What else are we supposed to make of the way Democrats have fallen in line behind the position the Democratic leader expressed here on the floor last week? It is absurd enough for American Senators to masquerade as duly-elected members of the Knesset, as if their views should have any bearing on how Israel conducts its domestic politics. But unfortunately it now seems important to remind our President that he is America's Commander in Chief, not some supreme allied commander with authority over Israel's war operations.

I was worried to see the U.S. intelligence community opine publicly last week on the stability of the Israeli Government. It seems to me we should ask our intelligence professionals to keep their assessments of our closest partners a bit closer to their chest.

Think about just how embarrassing our colleagues would find this behavior if it was directed toward any other democratic U.S. ally. Think about how we might be received if the DNI or the CIA Director publicly commented on political tensions within Germany's coalition government or on the decision-making processes of President Macron or on the declining public support for the Trudeau government in Canada.

America is best served when our intelligence professionals refrain from public comments on politics--both our own and our allies.

The war thrust upon Israel by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad has already brought a host of profoundly embarrassing revelations to light.

It has exposed the United Nations Relief and Works Agency as irredeemably corrupt and appallingly complicit in both the violent kidnapping of Israelis and the indoctrination of Palestinians in a culture of hate, violence, and terror.

It has exposed the rank anti-Semitism that America's most elite universities have allowed to fester on their campuses and some of these institutions' weakening grasp on moral resolve.

Now it is exposing Democrats as unwilling or incapable of resisting the political pressures of their radical base. Just look how our colleagues have staked out bizarrely vocal support for policies for which even the Israeli left has said it has no time.

So membership in the U.S. Senate does not come with voting rights in the Knesset or the Bundestag. It certainly doesn't entitle colleagues who spent years decrying foreign interference in American politics to decide one day to flip the script on our allies.

Let's get one thing straight: This violence and this humanitarian crisis rest entirely on the shoulders of Hamas. This entire conflict would end if the cowardly terrorists who rule Gaza from beneath schools and hospitals released their innocent hostages.

And the people they oppress every day--the people of Gaza--have a say in the matter. They can turn on Hamas, turn in terrorist leaders like Yahya Sinwar, and turn over the hostages whose seizure by Palestinian terrorists started this conflict in the first place. Until then, the Israeli government ought to do what the overwhelming majority of Israelis expect of it: bring the innocents home; bring the terrorists to justice; and bring peace and security to its citizens.

And, I might add, pay the peanut gallery no mind.

Mr. President, on a different matter, this week the Biden administration's radical EPA is finalizing yet another regulation that will force ordinary Americans to conform their lifestyles to coastal elite sensibilities. This latest rule would use strict emissions requirements on auto manufacturers to effectively ban gas-powered vehicles.

The President's energy agenda just keeps on putting climate activists in the driver's seat and leaves American workers in the dust. From canceling new oil leases and clean energy projects like LNG to threatening to ban gas stoves, the Biden administration has made it abundantly clear that they are willing to trade working families' livelihoods for kudos from their radical base.

But this week, the House Republican majority is actually fighting back. Our colleagues have dedicated this week to considering commonsense legislation to undo some of the worst offenses of the Biden administration's regulatory state. They will take up bills to clear radical roadblocks that are preventing the completion of so many urgent energy infrastructure projects, to protect energy sector jobs against freezes on fracking and other energy development, to repeal a multibillion-dollar taxpayer slush fund for green energy projects, and to warn about the disastrous effects of a carbon tax on the U.S. economy.

The Biden administration keeps trying to sell working families on electric vehicles, but the American people aren't buying the hype. The average EV costs over $14,000 more than the average gas-powered vehicle. Auto dealers around the country have noticed that demand for electric vehicles is stagnant. And at least one rental company is selling off its stock due to a lack of interest.

Meanwhile, State utilities are growing concerned that their power grids are already straining under soaring demand for electricity. Just imagine what would happen to our fragile electrical grids if we forced people to drive electric cars. Now, that doesn't seem to concern the Biden administration; neither does the fact that the supply chains for the critical minerals in EV batteries run straight through the People's Republic of China.

The EPA's new emissions standards are so stringent that they would require electric vehicles make up two of every three vehicles on the consumer market within 8 years, regardless of whether charging infrastructure is ever available. Apparently, rolling blackouts are just one of the many costs of admission to the Biden administration's green future.

So I would like to commend our House Republican colleagues for putting serious solutions on the table, and I hope Washington Democrats will snap out of their climate daydream before it becomes a nightmare for working families.