Floor Statements

Mr. President, earlier this year, the Senate made use of the Congressional Review Act to push back on a particularly dangerous part of the Biden administration's radical approach to environmental policy.

Our colleague, the senior Senator from Nebraska, put forward a resolution that would prevent the administration from implementing even stricter emission standards on the trucks and heavy equipment that literally drive our economy.

The nitrogen oxide emissions of new trucks on the market today are already 98 to 99 percent lower than they were in the late 1990s. So we are talking about regulation in search of a problem.

In order to keep up with the rule President Biden's EPA released in December, heavy-auto manufacturers would be forced to add a dizzying array of new technologies to their products. By one estimate, the new regulations could raise the cost of a new truck by $42,000--$42,000, just to keep pace with the changing whims of unelected bureaucrats in Washington.

As truckers themselves have warned, the EPA's latest overreach would drive many of them to stick with ``older, less-efficient trucks or leave the industry entirely.'' And, needless to say, higher costs for the men and women behind the wheel means higher costs for fuel, food, and other essentials at the store. But that didn't stop President Biden from vetoing Senator Fischer's commonsense resolution.

Well, today, we will vote one more time, and we will find out, once and for all, whether Washington Democrats care more about keeping pace with leftwing climate activists than helping

working families contend with the runaway inflation that they helped create.

National Security

Mr. President, on another matter, as I have discussed at length, America's partners in the Indo-Pacific understand the link between Russian aggression in Europe and the threat of Chinese aggression closer to home. Japan and Taiwan have devoted serious resources to Ukraine's defense, but our friends are also wisely strengthening their own defenses.

Last year, Taiwan's government put forward its largest defense budget proposal ever--ever--a 14-percent increase in top-line spending, along with greater attention to territorial defense, longer service requirements for conscripts, and a focus on whole-of-government resilience.

Japan has a new transformational strategy. Prime Minister Kishida's government is pursuing new long-range strike capabilities, increasing defense spending, and buying SM-6 interceptors. In a sign of deepening cooperation with the United States, it has expanded its defense industrial capacity by building facilities to assemble F-35s in Japan.

South Korea is also deepening its security cooperation with the United States, expanding its defense industrial capacity and providing military capabilities to key American allies over in Europe.

President Yoon and Prime Minister Kishida have also worked to improve relations between their two countries and open the door for increased cooperation with America in the face of an increasingly belligerent North Korea.

The Philippines is engaging in regular joint exercises in the South China Sea and working closely with the United States on enhanced defense cooperation sites that improve our interoperability.

And, earlier this year, Australia reached an agreement with the United States and the United Kingdom to procure nuclear-powered conventional submarines--the biggest defense investment in the nation's entire history.

In other words, our friends are putting their money where their mouths are. That is important because so has the People's Republic of China.

Beijing has made historic investments in its own military modernization. PRC defense spending has grown every year for almost three decades, but in each of the last 2 years, it has jumped by at least 7 percent. And, needless to say, China's official statistics tend to be obscure as much as they reveal.

While our most hostile strategic adversary is accelerating its military investments, the Biden administration asked Congress to shrink--shrink--spending on America's Armed Forces in real dollars.

Today, our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee will mark up the National Defense Authorization Act, beginning the Senate's annual work on tending to our Nation's common defense.

Facing down a common threat is a chance for the United States and our partners to grow the defense industrial base we will need to sustain effective deterrence in the Indo-Pacific. It is an opportunity to reform America's sluggish foreign military sales procedures, promote interoperability, and expand joint exercises and access agreements across the region.

If we are serious about deepening our defense industrial cooperation, America and our partners must make it easier to work together to share technology and intelligence and to align our defense investments. We need to streamline regulations that can prevent our partners from investing in their own defense bases in closer cooperation with the United States.

Of course, this is not a one-way street. America can also benefit from technologies our partners are developing, if our regulations and bureaucracies simply allow it. Our agreement with the UK and Australia could represent a transformational new approach to collective security.

If the Biden administration wants this partnership to succeed, it should consider providing broader country exemptions for defense trade licenses for those closest allies, similar to what we already do with Canada. Very simply, it is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss.

So China's bid for hegemony in the Indo-Pacific extends far beyond investments in naval vessels and new missile technologies.

The PRC has poured billions of dollars into development projects in vulnerable island nations out in the Pacific. So make no mistake, if the United States and our partners fail to work together to maintain robust deterrence on behalf of a free and open Indo-Pacific, China will be all too happy--all too happy--to fill the void.

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

Madam President, Senate Democrats continue to dutifully advance the Biden administration's radical nominees.

This week, the Senate will decide whether to give yet another leftwing lawyer a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench: Natasha Merle, who is an activist lawyer with a penchant for staking out extreme and inflammatory positions that are thoroughly divorced from reality. For example, she attacked widely popular election integrity measures, claiming ``it's inconsistent to denounce White supremacy but not repudiate voter ID laws.''

Alongside the self-proclaimed ``wild-eyed leftist'' Democrats just confirmed to the bench last week, Ms. Merle went after the State of Alabama for daring to verify the identities of people who cast ballots in elections. Meanwhile, Ms. Merle has found time to attack what she calls ``unfounded yet repeated public assertions that there is a widespread lack of respect for law enforcement'' and criticize efforts to promote law and order as ``an illegal attempt to advance a false narrative that law enforcement was being attacked.''

Well, Madam President, President Biden's first year in office saw the largest number of law enforcement deaths in the line of duty in 20 years. But Ms. Merle doesn't appear to like grappling with facts that don't suit her narrative. Normally, a record like this would be shockingly disqualifying, but under the Biden administration, it is not an outlier. It is an essential qualification.

Unfortunately, the President's affinity for radical nominees applies to folks already on the job as well. Last week, Democrats on the EPW Committee rammed through the nomination of Jeffery Baran to another term as Commissioner at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Mr. Baran already has an extensive record as the NRC's resident liberal obstructionist. While his colleagues collaborate on regulatory frameworks that encourage safe and efficient energy production, this nominee prides himself on being a stick in the mud.

Even leading climate activists understand that Mr. Baran's dedication to hindering nuclear development ``harm[s] the environment in the process.'' They know that reducing carbon emissions means embracing safe nuclear energy. Mr. Baran, however, does not.

At every opportunity, this nominee has opposed commonsense efforts to revise regulations and keep pace with the smaller and more affordable nuclear technologies of the future. He has shown that his blanket antinuclear approach is both a tired relic and an active obstruction to American prosperity.

So no wonder even some Senate Democrats are thinking twice about rubberstamping Mr. Baran's nomination. I would urge each of our colleagues to oppose it.

Mr. President, as I have discussed all week, the war in Ukraine has forced some of America's closest allies to sober up and start investing more seriously in their own defense.

Germany is exhibit A. Yesterday, Germany's Government released a comprehensive security strategy--another important step forward for a key member of the transatlantic alliance--but, as I mentioned at the Munich Security Conference, questions remain about whether the encouraging changes in Germany will be sufficient or enduring.

Some of these questions are being answered. Germany's national security strategy is an incremental shift. It is the product of a rather divided government, like our own, reaching difficult consensus, except with three different, sometimes internally divided political parties rather than just two.

But just consider where our German allies were before Putin's escalation. Europe's most powerful economy had let a major portion of its military fall into literal disrepair. German military spending reached barely halfway--halfway--to NATO's member target of 2 percent of GDP. And the country's precarious reliance on Russian energy was actually only increasing.

But as Ukraine dug in for a fight last February, Germany changed course. In the last 18 months, Berlin has made major contributions of key lethal capabilities to the Ukrainian cause and is on track to provide even more. The new German security strategy is clear-eyed about the Russian threat, and in light of hard-learned lessons, it prioritizes reducing dependence on foreign energy and integrating economic and security policy.

As Foreign Minister Baerbock put it this week:

We paid for every cubic metre of Russian gas twofold and

threefold with our national security.

None of us should want to make the same mistake when it comes to Beijing, and in this regard, Germany's strategy indicates incremental progress toward a more realistic understanding of the challenge a revisionist power and systemic rival like China poses not only to neighbors but to the West as well. Germany's governing coalition continues to debate its approach to the PRC, and answers to how Germany plans to manage it are still forthcoming.

The world will want to know how Germany will balance growing realism about Beijing's behavior with its stated desire for economic partnership with China. They will want to know what Germany is prepared to do to assist vulnerable Asian countries that are the most threatened by the PRC's military aggression, espionage, and economic or diplomatic pressure. Of course, these same questions can still be asked about our own government's approach to the PRC.

More broadly, I am encouraged that Germany's strategy explicitly recognizes robust defense as a pillar--a pillar--of German security.

I have criticized Germany's slow pace of defense spending to meet urgent needs, but I am encouraged by Germany's new Minister of Defense, Boris Pistorius, who has a focus on rebuilding Germany's military and cutting through its calcified military procurement bureaucracy. To be successful, he will need cross-party political support and sustained defense spending above 2 percent of Germany's GDP. This new strategy does not necessarily guarantee such a commitment.

Ultimately, the biggest question for our German allies is whether their strategy sufficiently defines the priorities of their government and whether it provides the resources necessary to execute it. The very same question still applies to America's own national security strategy.

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

Mr. President, the Biden administration has been sending the Senate a dizzying list of radical and unqualified nominees to both the executive branch and the Federal bench. In several cases, the President's picks have been so far outside the mainstream that this Chamber's Democratic majority hasn't even been willing to confirm them.

Right now, our Democratic colleagues are struggling to convince one another to confirm a State employment commissioner who was responsible for tens of billions of dollars in fraudulent unemployment insurance payments, and this nominee has been recommended by the administration for Secretary of Labor. They have had a hard time agreeing to give a lifetime judgeship to a self-described ``wild-eyed leftist'' who likened hate for conservative Americans to ``righteous indignation'' and ``moral clarity.''

All the while, the docket of downright radical nominees continues to fill. This week, the Democratic leader will file cloture on two new nominations to the Federal bench. First, Nusrat Choudhury is President Biden's latest pick to join the Eastern District of New York. This nominee has made statements ranging from reckless suggestions that crimes like theft do not threaten public safety to false and inflammatory assertions that police kill Black men ``every day'' in America. Unsurprisingly, these statements have drawn the ire and opposition of law enforcement groups across our country.

And second, Julie Rikelman is nominated to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Ms. Rikelman has described efforts to limit abortion as a ``vicious assault'' by ``hostile politicians'' and has even objected to restrictions on reprehensible practices like sex-selection abortions.

So, Mr. President, these are the nominees of a President who promised to unify our country. I would urge my colleagues to join me in rejecting each of them.

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, since President Biden took office, consumer prices have risen more than 16 percent. American families are paying 20 percent more to put food on the table than they did in January 2021 and 36 percent more on energy. But over more than 2 years of Washington Democrats' runaway inflation, President Biden's top advisers have refused to even admit that it is a problem, let alone that their policies are driving it.

In early 2021, after Senate Democrats helped ram through the administration's reckless taxing-and-spending spree, one top White House adviser insisted that any inflationary effect would be ``transitory.''

Eight months deeper into the administration's inflationary spiral, the same adviser insisted that inflation would be ``growing half as fast a year from now''--another fanciful prediction overcome by the harsh, painful consequence of Washington Democrats' reckless spending and another instance where Jared Bernstein--President Biden's choice to serve as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers--was simply dead wrong on economic advice, dead wrong.

The CEA was designed to produce objective, empirical economic analysis. With the rarest of exceptions, it has been led by a seasoned economist with a Ph.D. in the field. That streak would end with Mr. Bernstein.

The nominee the Senate will consider this week can more accurately claim expertise in partisan warfare than economics. He has been labeled in the press as President Biden's ``man on the left.''

In his own words, Mr. Bernstein's long record of progressive fantasies speaks for itself. For example, he said:

We should not kid ourselves into thinking . . . that we can

pay for Medicare for All and a jobs guarantee solely by

taxing the rich.

The nominee has called abortion ``at its core an economic issue.'' He urged Democrats to ``take the Green New Deal seriously.'' And last year, he praised a nearly $80 billion plan to expand IRS enforcement as one of his favorite parts of President Biden's so-called Inflation Reduction Act. What a staggering--staggering--lack of awareness of the way his party's policies have hurt working families across our country. So the American people cannot afford Jerry Bernstein at the wheel of

Madam President, public reports indicate that the armed forces of Ukraine have begun their long-planned counteroffensive in earnest. Having blunted Putin's unprovoked escalation last year, Ukraine is aiming to drive Russian forces back and out of occupied Ukrainian territory on multiple fronts.

Reaching this point in the conflict is, of course, due in large measure to the heroism of the brave Ukrainians defending their homeland, but their success is also--also--a credit to the tangible support of the United States, NATO allies, and friends around the globe who value the same sovereignty and territorial integrity which is under attack in Ukraine.

The acute threat of Russian aggression helped wake many of our European friends from a holiday from history. Putin's escalation drove many of our closest allies to start investing more seriously in their own defense and contribute more readily to collective security. This is, of course, a positive development and a critical one as we look toward deterring aggression from China.

At the same time, America's support for Ukraine has done much more than sustain their defense. As I have said repeatedly, sending lethal Western capabilities to the frontlines has been a direct investment in our own security in a number of concrete ways.

First, equipping our friends on the frontlines to defend themselves is a far, far cheaper way, in both dollars and American lives, to degrade Russia's ability to threaten the United States.

Second, Ukraine's effective defense of its territory is teaching us lessons about how to improve the defenses of partners who are threatened by China. It is no surprise that senior officials from Taiwan are so supportive of efforts to help Ukraine defeat Russia.

Third, most of the money that has been appropriated for Ukraine's security assistance doesn't actually go to Ukraine; it gets invested in American defense manufacturing. It funds new weapons and munitions for U.S. Armed Forces to replace the older materiel we have provided to Ukraine.

So let me be clear: This assistance means more jobs for American workers and newer weapons for American servicemembers.

I know that media reports about U.S. assistance to Ukraine have been really quite confusing--so has the Biden administration's messaging. Last week, for example, the administration announced what it called a ``new'' package of security assistance to Ukraine.

In reality, this is the latest tranche of assistance. It is not a new appropriation. It is just the latest in a slow and steady disbursement--perhaps too slow and too steady--of assistance previously approved by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in Congress.

I will have more to say as Ukraine continues to push Vladimir Putin's forces backward, and Senate Republicans will continue our efforts to invest in America's own national security.

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

Mr. President, as I outlined earlier this week, the Senate has a great deal of work to do to fulfill

our most basic responsibilities: keeping America safe, keeping America fed, and keeping the lights on.

Our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee intend to fund the Federal Government through regular order. The Armed Services Committee has an urgent responsibility to set the Senate's national security priorities so we can face growing threats and fund our Armed Forces accordingly.

And also this year, the Agriculture Committee has to pass the farm bill. This legislation is the cornerstone of the government's approach to helping growers feed America. It includes essential provisions that support farmers, create good-paying jobs, and strengthen rural communities.

In my home State of Kentucky, nearly 75,000 farms help keep dinner plates full and grocery stores stocked throughout the entire country. But thanks to endless redtape from unelected bureaucrats and partisan foot-dragging here in Washington, it is more difficult than ever to be a farmer in Kentucky.

Washington Democrats' runaway inflation has bogged down small family farms. With production costs on the rise, the Department of Agriculture projects that net farm income will decline by--listen to this--20 percent in 2023.

Naturally, farm families are looking to Congress to deliver much needed help and stability. In Kentucky, farmers are stalling investments and taking on unforeseen risks as they wait for Washington to make up its mind. Farmers in Kentucky and across the country deserve certainty from Congress so they can plan for the future.

With less than 4 months to go until many current farm bill provisions expire, time is running out. That is why Congress needs to do its job and get this legislation across the finish line swiftly.

Last week, negotiations between a Democratic President and a Republican Speaker allowed the Senate to take an important step toward fiscal sanity and avert economic catastrophe. In the coming months, we will need further collaboration to produce legislation that puts farmers first and secures our food supply. Senate Republicans stand ready to do our part.

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

Mr. President, for someone who campaigned as a moderate and promised to unify our country, President Biden has chosen to staff his administration with a roster--a roster--of alarmingly radical or unqualified personnel.

In recent weeks, the President's nominees who have made the biggest headlines have been the ones so far outside the mainstream that even a Democratic Senate majority would not confirm them, like the appeals court nominee who defended a school against a teenage victim of sexual assault or the traffic safety nominee whose real passion turned out to be extreme environmental regulations. This week, the Senate is considering yet another slate of radical nominations that are entirely unworthy of confirmation.

First, is the nomination of David Crane, a self-described ``climate activist.'' President Biden would like him to serve as Undersecretary for Infrastructure at the Department of Energy.

Mr. Crane's nomination is bad news for Kentucky, for coal country, and for any American who enjoys making their own choices about which cars to drive, which products to consume, and how to earn a living.

This nominee has been outspoken about his so-called ``green dream'' to force a massive chunk of the world's economy to go carbon free in 8 years--8 years--and then use their influence to ``compel society'' to follow suit.

He even observed that Democratic Presidential nominees hadn't made extreme climate policy enough of a priority in their campaigns. In other words, Hillary Clinton, who once bragged that ``we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business,'' was not radical enough--not radical enough--for David Crane. So we are talking about an unabashed, top-down social planner. As we have learned over the past 2 years, that is exactly what the Biden administration ordered when it handed the keys to the American energy policy to the radical left.

Unfortunately, Mr. Crane is not the only nominee on this week's agenda with a reputation for wearing his radical liberal sympathies on his sleeve. The Senate will also vote on the nomination of David Ho to serve on the Federal bench in the Southern District of New York.

Mr. Ho has described himself--listen to this--as a ``wild-eyed leftist.'' Let me say that again. President Biden would like a self- identified ``wild-eyed leftist'' to rule on cases in the largest Federal court in the country.

Mr. Ho's legal record indicates that this radical sympathy runs very deep. This is a nominee who has publicly lamented ``originalism is not a method of constitutional interpretation that can reliably lend itself to progressive outcomes.'' Imagine that. It turns out that actually following and applying our laws and our Constitution as they were written is not a one-way ticket to leftwing utopia.

And, by the way, that should be an argument for the radical left sidelining their bad ideas, not an argument for sidelining the Constitution. Somebody who wants a lifetime appointment as an impartial judge must be committed to putting the rule of law ahead of personal views, not the other way around.

Ah, but Mr. Ho hasn't limited his public criticism to the basic legal principles that underpin the Federal judiciary. During the Obama administration, he railed against the Fraternal Order of Police for expressing their concerns about a particularly anti-cop Justice Department nominee. He called the FOP's opposition a ``disgrace.''

He has also taken to attacking members of the Judiciary Committee on Twitter. And throughout his career, Mr. Ho has been outspoken-- outspoken--in denigrating basic mainstream efforts to ensure the integrity of American elections. He has likened overwhelmingly popular practices like voter ID requirements to be ``a very thinly veiled call for racial profiling.''

Let me be absolutely clear: Senate Republicans will not participate in rubberstamping radical nominees. I would urge our colleagues to join me in rejecting each of these unfit nominations this week.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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