federalize our waters and take control of our private land and leave our producers with more questions than answers, more cost than gain. in fact, get this. mitigation costs related to the current white house wotus may cost farmers and ranchers over $100,000 per acre. the value might be 1,000, 2,000, maybe $5,000 an acre, but litigation will cost it $500,000 an acre. should a dry creek that only has water run through it during the rain be waters of the u.s.? should ditches draining into a dry creek bed be a waters of the u.s.? should water trickling off the terraces my grandfathers built 50 years ago to avoid soil ee

regulation and the areas that is home to different wild life, should this be a rule? the army corps of engineers will attempt to answer these questions on a case-by-case basis. meaning the answer and cost might change every time. that's no way to do business. in a in a time of economic uncertainty, this ambiguous rulemaking will amplify inflation felt by ag producers and american consumers. no american industry will be safe from the impending rising cost, all while the biden wotus rule fails to improve the goal of improved water quality. regulated communities spent the better part of the last decade trying to operate under different definitions of waters of the u.s. we cannot allow the biden administration to take us backward yet again. farmers and other ag producers are the original stewards of the land and we all have a special

interest in protecting the quality of our nation's waters. con grinlt and clear -- consistent and clear guidelines and regulations are key to such protections. he we cannot keep moving the proverbial goalposts. the biden administration's failure to understand then ram -- to understand the ramifications is alarming. as congress we must ensure agriculture producers haved regulatory september to take care of our nation's -- certainty to take care of our nation's waters, the waters that we are leaving to the next generations, to my children, to my grandchildren. i therefore urge the support of the joint resolution for congressional disapproval, striking down this administration's revised definitions of waters of the united states. thank you, madam president. and i yield back.

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: mr. president, i believe i have 15 minutes to speak. can you confirm that for me? the presiding officer: there's not an order for time. mr. carper: thank you. i ask to be granted 15 minutes to speak, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. carper: thank you. madam president, i rise in support of h.j. res. 27, to disapprove the biden administration's rule defining the waters of the u.s., or wotus as it is popularly known. for many americans, the definitions of the waters of the u.s. may not seem like a

controversial matter. to understand why it is, though, we need to first ask ourselves how did we get here, how did we enter this point? well, a little more than 50 years ago, madam president, congress came together to pass the clean water act. in doing so, congress affirmed our nation's commitment to protecting and restoring waterways from industrial pollution. till that point, our nation's waters, which were and continue to be critical to our health, to our environment, our economy, were subject to ib discrim -- indiscriminate pollution and destruction. polluters could dump their waste into upstream waters without consequence. some of you may recall that the cuyahoga river in northern ohio was so polluted it caught fire in 1969, not far from where i went to college during the vietnam war. the memory of that fire remains with me still today. congress passed the clean water act and there was no confusion,

no uncertainty about what it was seeking to protect. at the time there was broad bipartisan concern over the health of our nation's waters. there was also consensus that we needed to fix a very real and very costly problem. america's waters needed once again to be drinkable. they needed to be swimmable. and they needed to be fishable. during the senate debate on the clean water act all those years ago, democrats and republicans alike spoke in support of the legislation. senator ed muskie, a democrat from maine, and the bill's lead sponsor said, i quote, the rivers of this country serve as little more than sewers to the sea. waste from cities and towns, from farms and forests, from mining and manufacturing poison thest yuaris, and threaten the other depths, the danger to health, the environmental damage

and economic loss can be anywhere. that's his quote from all those years ago. senator howard baker, you recall a republican from tennessee, also a republican leader in this body for a number of years, he had these words to say, the economy of this nation can absorb the costs of cleaning up pollution without inflation and without a loss and economic productivity. that's a quote. he went on to say, if we cannot swim in our lakes and rivers, if we cannot breathe the air god has given us, what other comforts can life offer us? senator baker's words were true then, and they ring true still today. thanks to the clean water act, the nation's waters are remarkably cleaner than five decades ago. the same cuyahoga river that caught fire all those years ago is cleaned up and home to more than 60 species of fish. the system fact is the clean

water act is our best tool to safeguard the nation's waters from persistent pollution, protecting our health and our environment. we cannot afford to turn back the clock on these protections for our nation's waters and those who depend on them. in a nutshell, that's why i support president biden's commonsense rule defining which of our nation's waters need to be protected under the law. it's also why i opposed what i believe to be a misguided congressional review actress lusion to invalidate it. after more pel administrations' failed attempts to create a lasting wotus definition, 2023 biden rule represents what i believe is a fair balance. the rule protects the nation's waters, wetlands, and provides flexibility for those who need it. that last and is important, and provides flexibility for those who need it.

particularly, the biden rule thoughtfully responds to many concerns that the agricultural community, in my state and other states, have voiced over the years. in fact, the biden rule makes agricultural exemptions careerer and -- clearer and more consistent with other existing regulations. for example, the rule includes express exemptions for farming on land designated by the u.s. department of agriculture as prior converted cropland, an exemption long sought by the agricultural community in my state and i suspect in most of the other 49 states. according to the american farm bureau, there are approximately 53 million acres of prior converted cropland in the united states. that's 53 million acres of farmland that the biden rule makes clear should not be regulated, should not be regulated. 53 million. that's million with an m. if the cra resolution of

disapproval becomes law, it would overturn this important clarification for agricultural activities under the biden rule, including the one i just mentioned. the environmental protection agency and the army corps of engineers would also be prohibited from developing substantially similar regulations in the future. all of this would lead to confusion and uncertainty from our farmers and ranchers. we don't need more uncertainty and confusion. we need less. many colleagues who oppose the biden rule say they prefer the trump administration so-called, this is a quote, 1/2 fastball waters -- navigable waters protection rule, closed quote. trump earned this name i think for good reason, trump's dirty water rule was vacated not just by one court but multiple courts. i think at luis two federal courts veii -- at least two federal courts. this go failed to fulfill the

clean water act, overturning the biden rule will not bring the trump rule back. i'll say that again. overturning if the biden rule will not bring the trump rule back. the courts have spoken, not once but twice with respect to the trump rule. instead, all that this cra would accomplish is to create a new phase of litigation and even more uncertainty, neither of which we need. we've also heard colleagues argue that protecting streams and wetlands under the clean water act is an overreach. the science is abundantly clear. the health of our waterways is inextricably linked to our streams and wetlands. wetlands are invaluable for our economy, our environment, and our planet. so how is that, you might ask? well, wetlands protect our communities from dangerous and costly flooding. one acre of wetlands can store up to 1.5 million gallons of

floodwater. in total, that means wetlands in the united states provide up to 2.$9 trillion in value just by reducing and delaying floods. that's more than the gdp of every state and territory. in 2022. except maybe for california. it's also worth noting that the nonflood plain wetlands buffer floodwaters by capturing runoff during storms. when i hear the criticisms that the biden rule is bad for our economy, put plainly, i could not disagree more. some might say our nation cannot afford a level of protection for our waterways and wetlands provided by the biden rule. the converse is true. we can't afford not to protect them. reality is that because of the interconnectedness of our waterways, our streams, wetlands, oceans and estuaries,

how private property owners manage their land has the potential to affect us all. if your upstream neighbor pollutes the water, that can impact your property too. similar to what one state does can impact neighbors states as well as states even further downstream. the clean water act reminds us of the moral obligation all of us have to follow the golden rule, to treat others the way we want to be treated. the biden rule requires us to be good neighbors and stewards of our planet, while also providing flexibility for those who need it. i foreone am grateful -- i for one am grateful for that. as the late howard baker put it on this floor, he said, i have found that the kind of natural environment we bequeath to our children and grandchildren is of paramount importance. those words were true then. they're even more true today.

let me say this again. our planet that we bequeath to our children, the planet that we bequeath to our grandchildren, is of paramount importance to us, and also to us, as their parents and grandparents. with that thought in mind, i strongly urge my colleagues to join me in opposing h.j. res. 27. madam president, i was thinking of coming down on the train today about a visit to a form about half a dozen years ago. it was a beautiful day, like today, and we had scores of farmers who were there. it was organized by the delaware farm bureau. we had people from the administration, it was then a democratic administration, had come to listen, to hear from the farmers that were gathered, their concerns, with an earlier version of this rule, the waters of the u.s. rule.

the farmers said we want some certainty, we want some predictability, we want to -- we want you to listen to us. we want you to listen to our thoughts and make sure that the next time you write something like this you've taken our thoughts into consideration. i don't have time in the short time allotted to me to go chapter and verse by how the words were spoken by farmers in my state on that day and the words spoken by farmers all over this country in the weeks, months since then have been taken into effect. simply saying they've been ignored is just not true. it's just not true. changes have been made and they're reflected in the document we're going to be voting on here in a bit. reflected in the good work done by the administration. how much time do i have left, madam president?

the presiding officer: you can speak as long as you like. mr. carper: that could be scary. the presiding officer: i'm sorry, the vote is in 15 minutes. mr. carper: thank you, madam president. i think we have another senator from west virginia that's ready to speak over there. i want to just close with this, the u.s. department of agriculture stands ready to work with farmers and ranchers to assist them with compliance. i'll say that again. the u.s. department of agriculture stands ready to work with farmers and ranchers to assist them with compliance. finally, i think this is moderately rule that responds to the concerns of farmers and ranchers, the administrator. i met with him personally. this is not the trump rule or the obama rule. it's a compromise and one that deserves to be supported. i ask for a vote of the measure

before us today. i yield to the gentlewoman from west virginia. mrs. capito: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: i want to thank the chair presenting his side of the argument and now we're going to hear from the other side of the argument about why taking down this rule will pass today because of the strong opposition to it. today we're going to have the opportunity to bring a divided congress together. united and rejected misguided and unnecessary overreach by the executive branch. and it's an attempt to regulate basically anything and everything the bidening administration once again overstepped its boundaries and the waters of the u.s. rule or wotus as we have heard and they did this past december. it's the third major change in eight years. the chairman talked about all the uncertainty. this is the third change in eight years to the definition of

what waters are and what is a subject of federal jurisdiction and with this comes more uncertainty, more red tape, more government for millions of americans. it's clear we needed to take action in the face of this burdensome rule. and it's exactly why i introduced the congressional review act resolution of disapproval that we are about to vote on. so let's take a look at the new rule as it's issued by the epa and the army corps of engineers. president biden's new wotus rule repeals the 2020 navigable waters protection rule that provided predictability and certainty for our farmers, our ranchers, our miners, our infrastructure workers, home builders, and land owners such that they can rely on. the 2020 waters rule properly implemented the clean water act by protecting america's waterways through coordination and cooperation between the

states and the federal government. who knows their states better than the state regulators. this new definition, however, drastically expands federal jurisdiction over streams, wetlands, and private property at the expense of the states and their citizens. it also adopts a subjective significant nexus test for determining what is and isn't subject to federal regulation under the clean water act. so up to and including dry ditches -- don't sound like navigable water to me -- that can fill with rain during a storm event even in the middle of a desert. to sum it up, the biden administration wotus rule tells states and individuals that the federal government knows best. it is true to form for this administration so we shouldn't be too surprised. it is also important to note that this is all happening when

there's a pending court case at the supreme court right now that will make many of these same determinations, but they couldn't wait. of course they couldn't wait. they had to grow the federal government's authority and redesignate waters that had never been designated before. so let's take a look at the impacts that this wotus rule would have on farmers. on small businesses, 17,000 small businesses are in the state, the small state of west virginia will be impacted by this rule. and our own ability to build in the future. we should be setting predictable, reliable policy for america's farmers and ranchers. instead under the biden wotus rule, if i'm a rancher in arizona or a cattle farmer in montana or family farmer in west virginia, i'll literally have less control over my own land.

previously converted crop land and even irrigation ditches may now require a permit under this new regulation. the american farm bureau says that farmers and ranchers should not have to hire a team of lawyers and consultants to determine how we farm our land. because you know what will happen? they won't hire the team of lawyers. they just won't farm their own farmland. that's what millions fear from this new waters of the u.s. definition. the national association of state department of agriculture says that this rule will, quote, significantly increase the regulatory burdens and create further uncertainty for state departments of agriculture. farmers and ranchers across the country along with those who live and work in rural america, this ruralling will target -- ruling will target employers of all sizes across our country as well. the national federation of independent businesses writes that the biden wotus rule will,

quote, make compliance a nightmare for small businesses adding if there was ever a time to not impose additional burdensome regulations, that time is now. end quote. often the cornerstone of our communities, small businesses, need policies that support, not penalize them. our nation's future depends on our ability to build. that includes transportation, infrastructure, and energy projects of all kinds. president biden knows that our nation's broken permitting system and process threatens to undercut some of our own shared legislative accomplishments on infrastructure investment. yet at a time when we should be streamlining our nation's permitting and review process, the biden waters rule makes things worse, and it comes at a time when we're trying to build here in america. it will require more people and

more projects to seek more federal permits which is time and money and doesn't improve the environmental overreach because -- the environmental oversight because the environmental oversight is there, but it will cause fear that the epa will take enforcement action at any given moment with eye-popping fines. the associated builders and contractors write that the biden wotus rule will, quote, cause building delays due to regulatory uncertainty plus increased permitting and mitigation costs which will make it more difficult and expensive to grow food, produce energy, and build critical infrastructure for the 21st century. we've heard our nation's farmers, small businesses, and our builders loud and clear. president biden's water rule is bad policy at an even worse time. i've been asked what a congressional review act resolution would do.

and during a recent environment and public works hearing, this issue came up. if approved by both houses of congress and signed into law, this resolution would overturn the overreaching and expansive wotus rule issued in december and return to a narrower and more practical definition that was in place and put in place prior to 2015. you may hear that this will lead waters unprotected. that is simply not true. the regulatory authority for waters that are not navigable nor travel the interstate will be returned to the states as congress intended in the clean water act. importantly, my resolution would prevent a substantially similar and overbroad definition from being written again. it would not prevent the epa and army corps from issuing a narrower replacement rule that actually has common sense and addresses stakeholders and

elected officials' concerns and seeks to clarify the status quo. as you just heard, states and the regulated community including farmers and ranchers have been very clear in their conclusion, and i agree. the biden final rule on wotus is a significant expansion and a narrowing -- not a narrowing of washington's role in regulating land and water across the country and creates more uncertainty than it cures. the expansion of federal authority and encroachment on states' rights and private lands is the precise reason we've seen overwhelming support for my cra resolution. when i introduced this resolution of disapproval, i was proud to do so with our friends and counterparts in the house of representatives led by house transportation and infrastructure committee chair sam graves. the house passed this measure with bipartisan support, including nine democrat votes.

it is important to note that two of these democrat votes came from the ranking member of the house agriculture committee and the ranking member of the house agriculture appropriations subcommittee. these are folks who know the needs of our farmers and rural americans very, very well and bravely put the best policy forward ahead of partisan politics. so i thank them for their support in this effort. it demonstrates again that it isn't about party. it's not about party lines. it's about standing up for the needs of those who live and work in rural america. we can stand by them today. we can also give a boost to our future transportation infrastructure and energy projects of all kinds across our country. with this resolution we are sending a clear message that congress, even a divided congress, will defend working americans in the face of executive overreach. so with that i appreciate the

support we've received in our effort to place this important check on executive overreach, and i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on my resolution of disapproval. i yield the floor. mr. carper: i ask unanimous consent that the vote occur immediately. the presiding officer: without objection. under the previous order, the joint resolution is considered read a third time. the question occurs on passage of the joint resolution. the yeas and nays have been previously requested. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: has every senator voted? does any senator wish to change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 53, the nays are 43, and the joint resolution has passed. mr. ricketts: map, i would -- madam president, i would ask the consent -- the presiding officer: the junior senator from nebraska. mr. ricketts: thank you. i ask that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: we're not in a quorum.

the senator is recognized. mr. ricketts: thank you very much. i rise today humbled and honored to stand in this chamber to represent the people of the great state of nebraska. the first time i walked into this chamber, i got chills. this chamber represents the hopes and dreams and aspirations of the american people. it represents the shared values we've had for nearly two and a half centuries. it represents just now exceptional our republic, how exceptional america is. today it is all too easy to take for granted just how exceptional our great nation is. our founders threw off the tyranny of a king with an idea. it was a really radical idea

that our rights come to us directly from god, not from a king. and that governments were instituted to protect those rights. it was a brand-new idea. that our rights are ours, that they are endowments from god. not the consent from some government. even today, after 246 years, our founding principles are just as true. these values, like the rule of law, checks and balances, federalism, they're critical to our republic. we're strongest when we follow them, and we're never weaker when we stray from them. we're also strong because of our

constitution. our constitution, forging a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, is the greatest governing document ever written. the primary purpose of our government is to secure people's liberty and happiness, their peace and prosperity, and we've done it really, really well for nearly two and a half centuries. this is incredibly rare. we have created a bubble in world history. for most of human history, people have worried that somebody bigger than them would come and take their stuff, or that a foreign army would rampage across the landscape, burning down everything. not here in america. another advantage of our system is that it unleashes the power of the individuals -- of the

individuals' unbounded potential. in america, it doesn't matter where you start. with enough grit and hard work, you can go anywhere. that's why the world wants to come here. that's why they send their best and brightest students to study and train here. that's why nearly every major innovation and breakthrough comes from america. that's why so many have sought a better life in our great nation. through our strength, we remain the cornerstone of global peace and prosperity. our greatness is also reflected in our commitment to defend freedom, here in this building, in our courts, and even on battlefields. it requires much of us as patriots and citizens. and if we're not vigilant, it

could easily slip away. to paraphrase ronald reagan, freedom is only one generation away from extinction. we don't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. it must be fought for, each and every day. we must not lose sight of the things that make america so exceptional. that's our commitment to our god-given liberties. our founders were concerned that as government got too big it would tend attorney tyranny and rob people of their -- tend toward tyranny and rob people of their freedoms. here in the senate, if we continue to allow the federal government to grow too big and too intrusive, we risk our peace and prosperity. we risk losing the very values that have always made america great.

however, if we hold on to those founding principles, we have a path to an even brighter future for this great nation. the framers of our constitution believed that government closest to the people is best able to serve them. this is common sense. what works in nebraska may not work in new york. it's why we have a tenth amendment to the constitution. that the powers, not specifically delegated to the federal government, are reserved to the states and the american people. that's why top-down federal mandates usually do more harm than good. in my home state of nebraska, we've shown america what's possible when the federal government gets out of the way and allowed states to lead. we have proven that limited and responsive government works

best. during my time as governor, we kept the size and scope of government small. we empowered people. we ran government more like a business. the reality is when government works better, people are served better. we dramatically improved the level of services that we provided to nebraska families. we got help to people in need faster than ever before. for example, we reduced toldhe ime for people calling in to our economic assistance phone line by 375%. -- by 75%. we made it easier for citizens and businesses to work with the state. as an example, we cut the time it takes to issue a permit by nearly half. and we achieved millions of dollars in savings while doing so. and you know what saving money allows you to do?

it allows you to give back people their tox dollars in the form of -- their tax dollars in the form of tax relief. we provided billions in tax relief, including to our veterans and seniors by phasing out of taxes on retirement income and social security. we attracted new investments in jobs to communities, big and small. we employed a record number of nebraskans, and our unemployment rate fell to a historic low. we made government work better. we proved that we can do a better job of providing services while controlling our costs. we also proved that we can respect people's freedoms and liberties while keeping people safe. during the pandemic, we kept kids in classrooms, people at their jobs, and government open.

and we were ranked the number one best pandemic response state. all of this reflects our conservative nebraska values. in nebraska we respect people's freedom. we value strong communities, family, and faith. we honor our law enforcement and our military. we expect a limited accountable government. we believe in personal accountability and responsibility. and the incredible potential of the individual. nebraska is what america is supposed to be. but nationally, we've strayed from these values. too many take our freedom for granted. too many focus not on what is

good but on their grievances. too often we hear resentment rather than reverence for the very principles that made this a great nation. too many have forgotten the old adage that a government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have. massive and reckless spending to fund big-government programs have seriously weakened our economy. families and businesses are struggling under the burden of high taxes, high inflation, and rising interest rates, and a wave of job-killing regulations from washington is harming american agriculture and industry. at the same time the federal government is failing in many of its most basic responsibilities, like keeping us safe.

undeniably, national security is paramount to the nation's freedom and prosperity. it's the federal government's most important responsibility. but the biden administration has turned a blind eye to the humanitarian and security crisis at our southern border. vulnerable people are dying. victims of the cartels. fentanyl and other dangerous drugs are flooding into our nation. so are suspects on our terrorist watch list. and what comes across the border, whether it's the drugs, the criminals, or the human trafficking victims, they don't stay there. they impact every community. it's costing americans their lives. terry griffin was a 24-year-old

mom of two when she died in lincoln, nebraska of a drug overdose. she was out with friends when she took a pill. she thought was a prescription drug. it was laced with a lethal dose of fentanyl. her mom liz said, our daughter is everyone's daughter. she's right. our sons and daughters, our friends and neighbors, they are paying the price for this crisis with their lives every day. it's shameful and unacceptable. this administration's incompetence on the southern border is matched by its foreign policy blunders. the disastrous withdrawal from afghanistan projected weakness to our friends and adversaries.

and american servicemembers were losing their lives, including a nebraskan, corporal day began page -- dagan-page. unbelievably we left americans behind and abandoned our afghani security partners. our allies are seriously questioning our commitment to our friends. and even worse, the bad guys, our adversaries, like the chinese communist party, regimes in russia, iran, north korea, they are questioning our resolve. our freedoms and way of life depend upon peace. how do we maintain the peace? we maintain peace through strength. not for the first time in our history do we find ourselves at a pivotal moment. what ronald reagan would term a

time of choosing. i believe the choice is clear. we must chart a path to greater freedom and strength. we must remain the world's beacon of peace and prosperity. it requires us to get back to basics, back to our founding values. those values have guided me as governor and will guide me here. as governor we spent eight years delivering on excellence. i didn't believe the nay sayers -- naysayers back then when i started and i don't believe them now. government can work better and it can do so while respecting our liberties. that's the goal i will work toward each and every day. i will strive to make the federal government work for the people of this country. i will reject every effort to restrict our liberties and

undermine our values. i will work to restore transparency and faith in the federal government, and i will work to control spending, curb unnecessary regulation, and limit the size and scope of government. i will work to secure our borders and provide the resources to defend ourselves against our enemies. i will work to assure that we have a well trained, well led, and quell equipped military to defend us. -- well equipped military to defend us. i will hold this administration and future administrations accountable to the people of nebraska. and i will always fight for the best interests and freedoms of the memberrians i -- of the nebraskans i serve. in spite of the challenges, i believe there has never been a better time to be an american. however, many don't feel this way. we must make the american dream real for them.

throughout history, we have risen to meet every challenge. with our founding values as our guide, we'll again rise to meet the challenge of this moment. my experience in the senate so far has reaffirmed my faith that we have more in common than divides us. with that joy and faith in our nation, i ask god to continue to bless the great state of nebraska and the united states of america. madam president, i yield back. [applause] the presiding officer: the senior senator from nebraska. a senator: thank you, madam

president. i'm so happy to be joined in the united states senate by a nebraska colleague as sharp, as capable, and as ready to get to work as senator ricketts. mrs. fischer: as senator ricketts noted, nebraska is what america is supposed to be. i know senator ricketts cares deeply about the people of our great state and together we will work hard to deliver results for nebraska. senator ricketts served nebraska admirably as our governor for two terms, and i am confident that his time in the united states senate will further his legacy as an exceptional advocate for our state. just this month senator ricketts and i, we collaborated by traveling to the southern border to see firsthand the crisis that's unfolding there. we've partnered on a number of bills to push back on the biden

administration's bureaucratic overreach, including on wotus. and we held a tele-town hall for our constituents. i congratulate senator ricketts on his maiden speech here in the united states senate, and i look forward to many more opportunities to work together for the interests of our home state of nebraska. madam president, i congratulate the senator and welcome him to the united states senate. mr. thune: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: madam president, i want to welcome and we get to add another plainspoken nebraskan to the united states senate and people who bring a common sens, clear-eyed realism,

a solutions oriented approach to the senate and really grateful to have former governor and now senator pete ricketts join the united states senate along with his colleague senator deb fischer. that is a powerful, powerful dual and will be a great partnership for the great of nebraska and make great contributions to the united states senate and to the betterment of our country. and i know that like a lot of people from their region of the world, they understand, as he pointed out, his remarks, the importance of a strong and secure america, an america that projects strength in the world, not just militarily but economically, diplomatically, and so i -- as we work on these issues, we face lots of challenges, lots of dangers in the world today. i'm just delighted to have another united states senator who comes to us with a record of accomplishment as a governor, got lots of things done when he was the governor of nebraska and

as a neighbor state, a state that gets an opportunity to observe and actually share almost more than a border with senator fischer because she and i -- my hometown and her home area are literally, as we speak, as the crow flies in nebraska and the dakotas, a fuel miles apart. but to know that we're going to have two people here representing that state that i've been able to watch not only from afar but now upclose and just know how talented they are, how dedicated they are, and again just how practical and realistic and common sensical they are about the challenges facing our country and the solutions we need to put in place to meet those challenges. so congratulations on your remarks and welcome. it's great to have you here and we look forward to serving with you, senator ricketts, and continue to serve with senator fischer. thank you.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, madam president. mr. kennedy: madam president, with me today is mr. seth brazier who is one of my colleagues in the -- in my senate office. madam president, i'm going to talk about my city today. the city of new orleans. the city of new orleans is iconic and the whole world knows it. my first job in state government was with a reform governor back in the late 1980's named governor buddy roamer.

japan was doing extraordinarily well at that time economically making many foreign investments and governor romer traveled to japan to try to convince japan to invest in louisiana. and when the governor got back, he told me, he said kennedy, my first meeting was very enlightening. he said, my first meeting i met with about 50 japanese business people. he said i asked them how many of you have been to louisiana. the governor said three of them raised their hand. he said then i asked them another question. he said, i asked these 50 japanese business people how many of you have been to new orleans. he said 25 of them raised their

hand. the city of new orleans is iconic. every state, every country would love to have a new orleans. our city was founded over 300 years ago. we're one of the oldest in america. it was found in 1718. our city is known for our food, our music, our architect, our diversity, our dialects, our merriment, and our festivals. for our celebration of life. in new orleans we dance with or without music. but new orleans, madam president, is under attack. people there are being murdered.

they are being shot. they are being raped. they are being stabbed. their stuff is being stolen, and our quality of life is being degraded because of crime. because of crime, a cancer on our city. in 2002 -- i want to give you a sense of the breadth of our problem. in 2022, we had 280 murders in new orleans. the victims range from six months of age to 91 years old. 10% of these victims were under the age of 18. 70% were people of color. listen to this. one out of every eight black males who live in new orleans

between the age of 15 to 24 will be shot. one out of eight. statistically it is more dangerous to be young and black in new orleans than it was to be a marine in the battle of fallujah during the height of the insurgency in iraq. those are the numbers. last year my city had the highest murder rate in the country, twice the murder rate of atlanta, twice. we had the most murders since 1996. our murder rate was up 141% since 2019. and it's not just murder, madam president. shootings in 202 it were up 88%.

carjackings up 156%. armed robberies up 20%. and it's not much better in 2023 now, behind these sterile statistics are real live human beings, flesh and bones, blood and tissue. in one of the most appalling cases that we've had, about a year ago in an area in new orleans that we call midcity, four teenagers, a 17-year-old boy, a 16-year-old girl, and two 15-year-old girls -- four teenagers -- carjacked a 73-year-old grandmother.

the teenagers pulled the grandmother out of the car and drove away, but the grandmother's arm got tangled in the driver's seat belt. the teenagers kept going. they dragged her for a block, until her arm was severed. this lady bled to death at the scene. crime in new orleans is affecting all of us in our city. residents, visitors, every income level, every part of our city. but no one is hit harder than our low-income communities. that's true both in terms of public safety, and it's also true economically. most poor people are not criminals. they're not. but criminals often prey on our

lower-income fellow citizens, particularly in their own communities. existing businesses then leave, and they take jobs with them. and unemployment goes up, and we have more poverty. and those businesses that remain in our lower-income communities, they're often mom and pop shops with a small margin of profit. they have to pay more for insurance. they have to pay more for security. they have to pay more for credit. so they have to raise their prices, and that makes people even poorer. that's what crime does. we have tried -- we in new orleans, madam president, we have tried everything. we have around 900 police officers. we need 2,000. because many of our police officers retire every day.

we've tried paying higher salaries. we've tried paying better benefits. we've tried curfews. we've tried task forces. we've tried social programs. we've tried after-school programs. we've tried crime cameras. we've tried facial recognition. we've tried conflict management. we've tried mentoring. we've tried youth clubs. we've tried job training. we've tried enhanced educational opportunities. we've tried prosecuting juveniles as adults. we've tried hot spot policing. we've tried 12-hour shifts. we've tried hiring administrative personnel to take the paperwork load off our cops to get them back on the street. you name it, madam president, and we have tried it.

we've tried everything but one thing -- stop and frisk. stop and frisk. under the fourth amendment to the united states constitution, a police officer may stop a suspect on the street without probable cause, and that police officer can stop that person on the street without probable cause so long as that police officer has what's called reasonable suspicion to believe that the person stopped has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. and after that person is stopped, if the police officer has reasonable suspicion to

believe that the person stopped might be carrying a weapon, the police officer can pat down that person on the outside of his or her clothing. that's called stop and frisk. it's a very effective law enforcement practice. it is used by police officers every day in virtually every city all across america, and it has been used since 1968. in 1968, the united states supreme court decided a case, a very famous case called terry v. ohio. terry v. ohio. the very liberal chief justice -- i don't use the word liberal in a pejorative sense. i'm just describing him as many

scholarly works have. the very liberal chief justice earl warren actually wrote the opinion in terry v. ohio, and he was joined in that opinion by justices hugo black, justice john har land, justice william brennan, justice potter stewart, justice byron white, justice abe fortas, and justice thurgood marshall. they all said together here's our opinion, terry v. ohio. and what did that opinion say? that opinion said that under appropriate circumstances, stop and frisk is permissible. it is perfectly constitutional under the fourth amendment to the united states constitution. now i want you to note that a police officer cannot stop and frisk somebody on a whim, on a

hunch. a cop does not have unfettered discretion. in order for a police officer to stop a person on the street, that police officer -- let me say it again -- must have reasonable suspicion, reasonable suspicion to believe that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. and once again, once the person is stopped, the cop can frisk that person on the outside of his clothing, called a pat down, only if the cop has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person stopped is carrying a weapon. why does the cop have this authority? to protect the cop during the questioning.

reasonable suspicion is not a hunch. it's not a whim. it's an objective standard. it's not probable cause. you have to have probable cause to make an arrest, to conduct a search, for example, of someone's home. probable cause is a higher standard. but reasonable suspicion is an objective standard. reasonable suspicion exists, according to the case law, as you know, madam president, reasonable suspicion exists when an objectively reasonable police officer, given the facts and circumstances of that particular situation, and considering the cop's training and experience, would suspect that a person, as i have said, has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. and if probable cause has been established, of course, the person can be arrested.

every cop in america who goes through training academy, and every cop in america does, every cop in america knows about stop and frisk. every cop in america is trained in the law enforcement practice of stop and frisk. let me give you an example. let's suppose a police officer is driving by and he sees an individual late at night walking along the street with a coat hanger or a slim gym -- slim jim. do you know what a slim jim is? sometimes it's called a lockout tool, a way to get into your car if you lost your keys. if a police officer sees someone late at night walking down the street with a coat hanger or a slim jim looking in cars, the

police officer can stop that person. can he arrest that person? no, he does not have probable cause. no crime has been committed. but he has reasonable suspicion to stop and talk to that person. and once he stops to talk to that person, if he sees a bill bul dis be here in his -- a big bulje in his top pocket, he may have reason to believe he has a person. so the police officer, he can't make him take his jacket off or anything. he can just pat him down to see if there's a weapon. now i repeat, cops all over america stop and frisk suspects every single day, and they have for 50 years. and you know who endorses it? the united states supreme court.

now, like all police practices, it can be abused. stop and frisk can be abused. and when it is, it can be and it should be challenged in court. and the abusing officer should be held accountable. but most officers don't abuse it. as many people know, mayors rudy giuliani and michael blookberg -- bloomberg, two new york mayors back to back, used stop and frisk extensively during the crime wave of the 1990's and early part of this century to fight crime and gun violence in new york city. we've all read about that. crime fell dramatically. now some said, have said that's due in part to stop and frisk.

some have said that stop and frisk had nothing to do with it. some have said that in some cases the new york police department abused stop and frisk. and these who maintain that position said that too often police officers were stopping and frisking people on the basis not of reasonable suspicion, but on the basis of race or national origin. and that is wrong. a case was filed called floyd v. city of new york. floyd v. city of new york. it was a class action. it was filed against new york mayor bloomberg and others, alleging that the nypd was not stopping people on the basis of reasonable suspicion but on the basis of race and national origin. the federal district court in that case ruled in favor of the

plaintiffs. the nypd then set about the business of reforming its stop and frisk policy, but mayor bloomberg left office. mayor bill de blasio became mayor, and for all practical purposes, he completely stopped the practice of stop and frisk. so stop and frisk can be abused, and it is important to establish practices and procedures to guard against that abuse. but let me put this another way. this is how i look at it. some cops may and have violated the legal requirements for a proper terry v. ohio stop and africa. and when that happens -- -- when that happens, that may make that person a racist, or at least guilty of committing a racist act. but that does not mean that the

practice of stop and frisk is inherently racist, because some knuckleheads abuse it does not mean that the practice is inherently racist. in fact, the united states supreme court, with only one dissent, has said that properly applied, it does not violate the constitution of the united states and can be an effective law enforcement tool. so when there's an abuse, the abuse is on the cop. it's on the officer. and most officers don't abuse stop and frisk. and if it's proven that he did something wrong, he should be held accountable. the time has come, madam president, the time has come for my city of new orleans to try stop and frisk. it's time.

now, some of our public officials in minority leaders are going to probably disagree with me and some are going to say, well, we're using stop and frisk already, kennedy. they are every now and then, sometimes. but you go talk to the average cop on the street in minority leaders -- in new orleans, i have, there are many of them. they'll tell you that the people with the flags in their offices, the hot shots in the political hierarchy, they don't want us to use stop and frisk. i think it's time for us to allow -- we have tried everything else -- it is time for the men and women of the new orleans police departments to use stop and frisk without

losing their jobs. i do not believe the new orleans police department is racist. let me say that again. i do not believe the new orleans police department is racist, systematically or otherwise, i do not believe the new york police department police officers are racist. they are 90% black and people of color and 30% white. between the u.s. department of justice and the city of new orleans, it oversees the new orleans police department as we call it, nopd. it was signed and entered into by mayor mitch landrieu in 2010.

it doesn't stop stop and frisk. it provides stop and frisk. i have a quote from the consent decree, nopd officers may only conduct investigate tristops -- investigatory stops when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person has been is or about to be engaged in the commission of a crime. end quote. does that sound familiar? that's right out of kerry v. ohio where the u.s. supreme court almost unanimously said stop and frisk, when used appropriately, is a very effective law enforcement tool. now, the consent decree goes on wisely in my opinion. it mandates a stop and search data collection and review

procedure. so the consent decree says if you use stop and frisk, you have to collect all of the data. it also requires the police officers to document the stop and frisk and detail the reasonable suspicion in writing. in writing. in new york they call this a report uf-250. a uf-250 form. i don't know what it's called in new orleans. they've been using it so infrequently, i'm not sure they have one. it requires the cop who does the stop and frisk to sit down and say, here's the suspect, i had reasonable suspicion, and here with specificity is why. let me say, collecting the data and requiring the reporting after the fact is standard operating procedure.

this is nothing new. it's standard operating procedure in every police department in america. it's also common sense. there was a gentleman in new -- new orleans by the name of mr. ronald surpas. he was the superintendent. he is a former nopd superintendent. he is also a former chief of the washington state patrol and he's now a professor of i think criminology at loyola university. i don't speak for the superintendent and i don't want to, but he's written a null of -- a number of articles in

support of stop and frisk in new orleans. he said that the nopd today has been reduced to only responding and reacting to a crime after the crime has been committed. he said what we need is more proactive policing to prevent crime like stop and frisk. now,, the former superintendent has analyzed the publicly available data on the nopd consent decree. we collect data on our consent decree. it's publicly available. in fact, the city council has put up a dashboard for the consent decree. and one of the provisions in the dashboard has a stop and search

feature. you can go on the stop and search feature on the internet and see how many stops and frisks the police department has done in the past 180 days. so you have a date and it looks back 180 days. this is what the former superintendent found after he analyzed the stop and search feature on the website. and i'll give you an example. i don't know clear if i was clear about the 180 days. for example, january 2, 2015, on that day if you went back 180 days, the nopd had conducted 32,913 stops in the prior 180 days. let me say that again. january 2015, eight years ago, in 180 days prior the nopd ubt

conducted 33,000 stops. as of january 18, 2023, eight years later, really seven because it's january, nopd had ducted 5,095, let's call it 5,000 stops over 180 days. 5,000 down from # 3,000 and -- down from 33,000 and that is spread over six months. during covid, mr. president, as you can expect, stop and frisks in new orleans was down. people were inside. following covid, stops increased according to the superintendent, increased to 13,303 in the 180

days before august 17, 2021. so think back to august 2021, over the prior six months, the nopd did 17,000 -- i'm sorry, yes, 17,000 -- no, i'm sorry, 14,303 stops. but after that date, there was an uninterrupted decline in the number of stops. down to 5,095 today. so the stops were up here, they came down, they went down further because of covid, they went up to 14,000 and in -- in august of 2021, and then they kept going down. that doesn't exactly, but it

closely tracks crime rate in new orleans because stop and frisk is used to proactively prevent crimes. look, mr. president, i want you to understand the problem in new orleans -- i love my city. i love my state. i love my city too. the problem in new orleans is -- i don't want you to think we have thousands of previously law-abiding new orleanians turns to crime. that's not what's going on. we don't have a bunch of law-abiding people now turning to crime in my city. that's not what's happening. the problem we have is with career criminals and they're running rampant. and our cops are spread thin and we have some public officials, not all of them, but there are

some, that think cops are a bigger problem than criminals. and they think that criminals really shouldn't be prosecuted. they're not bad, they're just sick. this is america, you can believe what you want, but that's what's going on in my city. it's not a majority but it's more than a handful. we need -- we tried everything. we need to allow our police officers to stop and frisk. we need to allow our police officers to stop and frisk. it should be carefully monitored. it should be down legally, but it should be done. we have tried everything else -- everything under the sun to stop the extreme recidivist. nothing has worked. and maybe it's perfect -- this

perfectly legal, very effective police practice, stop and frisk, which is used every day across america will help. mr. president, i yield the floor to my colleague from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i ask unanimous consent that my defense fellow quintin miller and alisa meadows be given floor privileges for the remainder of the 118th congress. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: i ask that the senate proceed to hj7 and it be voted on at 5:15 and it be passed without intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there

objection? without objection. the clerk: . the clerk will report calendar number 33, h.r. resolution joint resolution of a national emergency declared by the president. mrs. shaheen: i now get to the reason of why i came to the floor which is to recognize and express appreciation for a member mf my step, my -- of my staff, aerial marshall. i want to thank her for how much she has meant to me and her colleagues and the state kf new hampshire -- of new hampshire over the eight years. all you have to do is look at our staff who are here on the floor in recognition of aerial. she came to my office with an

interest in public policy. as a chemist with a ph.d. in hand, she approached policy making as if it were a research topic or experiment. she asked questions, she dove into research to address different subjects and their relationships to one another, she looked for creative ways to test her ideas and analyze her findings and eagerly shared her conclusions with her colleagues and with an open mind on how her process could be improved. with her background, it is no surprise she was known as a capable and friendly team player. as her fellowship came to an end, she stayed on staff as a legislative assistant with a focus on energy and environmental issues. her responsibilities grew in a very short time when she became a senior domestic policy

advisor. when the senior legislative position opened on my team, she was a natural fit and accepted it with her trademark positivey, grace and good humor. there have been historic moments that will be the cornerstone of her memories in the senate. at the top of the list is her getting the portman-shaheen bill across the finish line. her steady, unwavering efforts to move that bill forward year after year, piece by piece should be taught to every incoming legislative staffer in the senate. it is a study in perseverance. the work of that is making a huge difference in the deplorable fight against climate

change. she was also instrumental during one of the most difficult, most intense, and most important crises this body has had to face, the fight against covid. she led our legislative steam in a time of uncertainty here in the senate. she was a key negotiator of the senate's legislative response, including the historic cares act. her work on that bill, particularly on the small business provisions and the ppp program in the midst of a nationwide pandemic and a potential economic collapse helped to save millions of jobs around the country. her efforts kept workers employed and food on the table for countless families across the country. finally, she was also our leading negotiator throughout the bipartisan infrastructure debate during the summer and fall of 2021. she was particularly integral to both the water infrastructure and broadband investments.

and she spent countless late nights and numerous slices of cold pizza with me, with senator collins, and with the other bipartisan members of that group. the infrastructure bill is a huge legislative achievement. it's one that will bring countless benefits to americans for years to come. one of its most important accomplishments was proving that republicans and democrats can still work together to get big things done, even in this difficult political climate. this would not have happened without the work of people like ariel who is tough, patient, effective, and focused on making a difference. i'm proud of all the legislative work we've accomplished over these last eight years in my office and ariel's leadership has been integral to these successes. the legislation, the negotiating, the policymaking,

that's just one measure of her impact. with her background in research in chemistry, ariel knows it's a community or a team that finds innovations and makes discoveries. that much is clear in her leadership of our legislative staff. she has shaped a team that approaches issues and problems just as she would. by asking the right questions, by searching for solutions, by evaluating all of the options, by getting the job done. all who work with ariel view her not only as a wealth of knowledge but also as a dear colleague, a sympathetic ear, and a treasured friend. the relationship she has built and the values she's instilled in her team, i think that's an equal part of her legacy and long tenure on my staff. these last few weeks have been bittersweet because while all of us are excited about what's ahead for ariel, we will also miss her wisdom, her counsel,

her can-do attitude, her humor, and her infectious laugh. thank you, ariel for giving so much to me, to your colleagues, to new hampshire, and to the country during your service in the united states senate. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mrs. capito: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to talk about the importance of unleashing american energy. the consequences of president biden's refusal to invest in american energy, the impact this is having on energy states like west virginia and texas, and what steps we can do to move forward to fix the mistakes made

by the white house and the jeopardy that they have put our country in. president biden has made his stance on american energy clear since day one of his administration. as president, his policies and personnel choices have delivered on his campaign promises, and high prices are just part of the bargain. the administration has canceled pipelines, rescinded previously issued approvals for others, and raised barriers to building new ones. they have frozen oil and gas leasing and proposed raising royalties, costs that will be passed on to the consumer. and the biden epa has continued to layer regulation on regulation though i'm pleased to report earlier today through the congressional resolution, we pulled down the wotus rule that the epa recently put forward in last december. these are just a few of the unreasonable and misguided

policy decisions the administration has made that has led to what we are facing today. congressional democrats have not been shy about their stance on an all-of-the-above energy future. look no further than the two pieces of legislation that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle boast about the most. the american rescue plan and the so-called inflation reduction act. just last week while i was questioning president biden's environment -- head of the environmental protection agency, i was asking you about his agency's budget. administrator regan admitted because of the inflation reduction act, coal capacity and natural gas generation will plummet in the future. this is the coal capacity. with the ira, it's way down here below 50. if there had been no ira, it would be here somewhere around 80. so let me say that again. through data generated by the

epa and admitted to be true by the head of the administration, coal capacity and natural gas generation will be significantly lower in our country because of the inflation reduction act. here's natural gas. no ira up here. with the ira, way down here by 2040. he went even further, administrator regan did, and admitted the misguided policies with the inflation reduction act will lead to the closure of coal and natural gas plants. this will lead to the shuttering of proud energy-producing communities across my state of west virginia and our country moving us further away from the energy independence that we desperately need and want. this clearly spells out the priorities of this president and underscores the urgency needed in reversing these policies. on top of all of this, the out-of-control reckless spending

and green new deal priorities packaged in the american rescue plan have cost energy price -- caused energy prices to soar alongside record inflation. so let's take a look at the consequences of president biden's war on american energy by the numbers. when he took office the average price for a gallon of gasoline was $2.39. now the average price is $3.44. a 44% increase. but let's not forget what we just lived through nine months ago when the record was set, when gas prices averaged about $5 a gallon for the first time in history. high gas costs like this just create a domino effect. in fact, increased fuel costs and short annuals have made it more -- shortages have made it more expensive to manufacture goods, to deliver goods, and ultimately to provide what we want and need in this country has made everything more expensive.

this creates additional strain on our supply chains and feeds into the inflation that so many families continue to struggle with. think about the cost of food at the grocery store. adding to this, the price that americans pay to heat their homes when winter came on, no matter what utility you used, it went up. whether it's natural gas, electric, oil, or renewables, all prices up. those who heat their homes with natural gas are at the highest disadvantage paying 25% more extra this winter just to keep their homes warm. this truly shows that no matter what, there's no escaping the consequences that president biden and congressional democrats have created by turning their head on american energy. the good news is we know what we need to do to unleash american energy and move critical projects forward. republicans and democrats know

it alike. we all know it. we must make genuine reforms to our nation's permitting and environmental review processes. for example, it should not take seven to ten years to permit a mine or a large transportation project in the united states. it should not be typical for endless legal challenges to be filed one after another for the sole purpose of postponing and ultimately killing key energy projects. and projects that create jobs, produce energy of all kinds, and drive down costs should not be delayed or stopped because of burdensome regulations. the current system hamstrings states and employers who are trying to build anything here in the united states, and it needs to change. we need to provide regulatory certainty to our states. we need to expedite permitting and review processes while ensuring all environmental considerations are completed.

we need to codify substantive environmental regulatory reforms, and jumpstart key projects like in my state the critically important mountain valley pipeline. together we should address section 401 of the clean water act. we should streamline the nepa process with real deadlines for agency reviews, and we should limit judicial review to avoid endless litigation that delays and sometimes cancels projects. i want to see -- be very clear when i say projects, i mean projects of any kind. that means both renewable and conventional sources of energy. we've made great strides in advancing cleaner energy sources but without the ability to build and build quickly, we will not capitalize on that process. unfortunately, at every turn the biden administration has made it harder for any of these projects

to move forward. i mentioned earlier the waters of the u.s. rule, the wotus rule. it significantly expands the federal government's authority when it comes to water sources across the country and will mean more people have to get more permits and deal with more red tape many times on their own private farmland. fortunately we challenged that rule through a congressional review act and it passed in a bipartisan way both the house and the senate and will go to the president's desk. it's up to him. have you listened to the voices of the american people or will you continue with these tactics that you've been doing? so, what we need to do and why we need to do it and how do we get it done? i've been saying all along that i believe the best solutions are going through regular order, bipartisan, through our committees, through environment and public works, through the energy committee, through any other committee that has

relevant actions towards permitting. it's where we can hear those who know these issues the best. we can formulate solutions, hash out our differences, and compromise. i believe that's the only way that we can get permitting reform across the line. and i'm willing to do whatever i can. i'm glad the house is taking a first swing at this and sending us a great starting point for how we can finally address measure's broken permitting process and give a boost to energy production right here at home. there's no denying there's growing momentum in the senate to get real, legitimate permitting reform across the finish line and signed into law. i've had many, many conversations. i encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to heed the increased call for energy independence and help us deliver that all the bof solution that we all say -- all-of-the-above solution that we all say we want that increases national security, creates jobs and keeps

good jobs at home and lastly and very important, lowers the energy cost for american families. with that i'm proud toen here -- proud to be here with my fellow republican senators who have the solutions to energy independence, and with that i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: thank you, mr. president. i'm pleased to join my colleagues, the esteemed senator from west virginia and the senior senator from texas today to talk about the importance of producing more energy in america. that means that we've got to find a way to press back against the biden administration's harmful policies that have caused energy prices to increase. and fueled inflation across our

entire economy. gas prices today, $3.46 nationally. that's the afternoon. $3.46 nationally. that's up 45% since president biden took office. almost 50% increase. and that means everyone out there every day is paying 50% more at the pump. and it's not just that. it's the impact on inflation. there's an energy component in every good, in every service that people buy. and 50% increase in the price of gas at the pump. i think what that means is that 50% increase in energy cost in terms of the inflation that's hitting americans so hard right now. residential electricity prices spiked 25% during the same period. and natural gas prices up more than 50%, more than 50%.

so what's causing this? well, clearly it is the biden administration policies. they've spent the last two years restricting and curtailing u.s. energy production in pursuit of this green new deal. it started day one when president biden came into office with his canceling the keystone pipeline, and it's continued with the moratorium he put on federal oil and gas leases shortly thereafter. president biden -- the biden administration, along with democrat members of congress, then passed a partisan bill that levied $735 billion in new taxes, including a new tax on natural gas and higher fees and royalty rates on federal energy production. so not only putting a moratorium

in place on oil and gas production on federal lands, but then later coming back and saying, okay, they'll start allowing some production, but only 20% of those federal lands are available, and they increased -- the biden administration increased royalty rates by 50%. well, when you restrict supply and raise the cost, of course, that's going to raise the price of nrc in this country -- of energy in this country can and it's going to reduce the supply. so now the biden administration is doubling down with an onslaught of regulatory overreach specifically designed to make american energy production more expensive. this includes the waters of the u.s. regulation. the waters of the u.s. rule absolutely impacts everybody across this country. it's a fundamental property rights issue.

and it, again, not only affects our production of energy but ag products and everything else. it makes no sense that while energy prices are high, instead of embracing america's energy producers, president biden has drained our strategic petroleum reserve to its lowest level in 40 years while going to the middle east and places like venezuela for our energy. think about it. think about their record on environmental stewardship. think about their record on human rights. and instead of producing more energy here at home, going to places like venezuela and allowing them to export their energy to the united states. the biden administration should not turn to places like iran and venezuela for more oil. countries with little to no environmental standards when we have the capability to ramp up production here in this country. in 2019, the u.s. produced 13

million barrels of oil per day, including 1.5 million barrels per day from my state, north dakota. u.s. oil and production remains down at about 12.1 million barrels per day. that's a million less than when the administration -- a million barrels a day less than when the administration came into office. a million barrels a day a -- a million barrels a day. for example, in our state we're producing a little over a million barrels a day when we were at one point five million barrels a day at the beginning of the biden administration. increasing the supply and lowering the cost of energy is key to attacking inflation. as i said earlier, the cost of energy is built into every other good and service consumed across this country. now, to this end, i've introduced some legislation to expand our domestic energy production and enhance the energy security of the united states and our allies. the north american energy act bringsceptor to the permitting

process for -- brings certainty to the permitting process for energy pipelines and electric transmission line projects and prevents the president from taking unilateral action to cancel vital energy projects like the keystone x.l. pipeline. another act streamlines the review process for lng projects helping to more efficiently deliver natural gas to areas that need it the most. and more pipelines are needed to deliver natural gas to areas, including new england -- the presiding officer, your state, we need pipelines up there. are there are -- there are still people up there that use fuel oil instead of natural gas because we don't have the pipeline capacity up there to bring it to them. that obviously increases their cost. and, again, going back to environmental standards, clearly advantageous if they were able

to utilize natural gas. the bureau of land management mineral spacing act is the third act i would mention that i have put forth that improves the permitting process where you've got split mineral estates. our federal government has -- they have no surface acreage but the minerals underneath the land is in some cases owned by the federal government, some cases owned by private individuals and others, and they're held up from producing those minerals because of the federal ownership, even when the federal government doesn't own any of the surface acres. removing this duplicative requirement for federal drilling permit in these cases would empower private mineral holders to develop their resources and produce more energy while enabling the federal agencies like blm to actually better utilize their resources. these three commonsense permitting reforms are included

in h.r. 1, the lower energy costs act, which is currently being considered in the -- on the house floor, h.r. 1. and it's time for us toss go to work on a bipartisan -- and it's time for us to go to work on a bipartisan basis in this chamber, take the handcuffs off our energy producers and produce more energy here in our country. the united states is fortunate to have abundant and affordable reserves of coal, oil, and gas and these resources are one of our nation's greatest strengths. it is an incredible asset, and nobody has better environmental stewardship than our country in producing energy. thanks to the shale revolution, the u.s. became the world's largest oil and gas producer and we've been able to do it while simultaneously reducing emissions. with the carbon-capture technology we're advancing are actually reducing emissions.

one again by streamlining energy project approvals, we can unleash america's full potential to increase supply and bring down costs for hardworking families. and and i now will yield the floor to my colleague from the lone star state, who can speak on these issues as well. we are absolutely committed to producing more energy for american -- hardworking americans to bring down inflation and also because it's such a vital component of our national security. energy security is national security. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. cornyn: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i want to thank our friend from north dakota, from west virginia, from nebraska for being here today to talk about producing low-cost energy, which

re-- with reduced emissions. i'm from an energy-producing state. in texas, we -- we're an all-of-the-above state. we actually generate more electricity from wind than any other state in the nation. and while i know many people think about the lone star state as being primarily an oil and gas producer, which we are, we really are an all-of-the-above state. when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, then you need a baseload from some source, whether it is nuclear, whether it is natural gas. and we've even had instances where because of very, very cold weather -- 100-year cold as soon as possible -- that even in the natural gas -- even the natural gas does not supply that baseload. but here again it is a reminder of how vulnerable we all are to a secure and affordable energy supply. and if we needed a recent

historical reminder, when mr. putin invaded ukraine and threatened to cut off the sole source of energy for essentially all of europe, they had to scramble for alternative sources and diversify their energy supply. that ought to be a lesson to us that we should not put all of our eggs in one basketball but we should pursue an all-of-the- above energy strategy. one of the biggest hurdles to energy development in america today, whether it is fossil fuels or it is green energy, is the permitting process. any project with a federal nexus, whether it touches federal land, crosses state lines or uses federal funding, has to wade through a swamp of red tape. this process is not just cumbersome. it's also time-consuming and expensive.

on average, it takes four and a half years to complete the environmental review for potential projects. again, that's just the average, four and a half years. many projects take longer. in fact, it takes more than six years to complete the environmental review for a quarter of the projects. whether we're talking about drilling for oil and gas, building wind farms, mining critical minerals, building pipelines or any other energy project, the permitting process is a major impediment. it puts the boot on the neck of america's energy producers that raises costs for consumers, who need more, not less energy, and it delays the jobs and investment that these projects would create. earlier this year a coalition -- excuse me, earlier this week a coalition of more than 340 organizations sent a letter to congress advocating for

commonsense permitting reform. this group includes organizations that represent traditional energy producers like the american petroleum institute and the american gas association. but it also, notably, includes renewable energy groups such as the earn in clean power association and the american council on american energy. it includes industries that are supported by american energy production, like pipeline contractors, builders, truckers and engineers, as well as groups that advocate for small businesses and consumers. this is a very diverse range of stakeholders, and they agree on this one thing. it's time to fix america's broken permitting system. they described it as the biggest obstacle to building the infrastructure of the future, and i agree. and i know that sometimes people think that building things is all going to encourage more

fossil fuel production, but the simple fact is, the same transmission lines that carry electricity from wind-generated turbines, you need those for any type of electricity, whether it's nuclear power, whether it's natural gas, whether it's wind. all of these require certain basic infrastructure. and they're all slowed down and made more expensive by the antiquated permitting process. so this problem harms america energy security and stands in the wait of new jobs and investments in communities all across the country. it's time -- it's really past time for congress to simplify and expedite the permitting process. this is at the top of the to-do list for our republican colleagues in the house. as we've heard this week, they're expected to pass a package of bills to overhaul the broken permitting process and make other reforms to boost energy production and bring down

energy costs for consumers. unfortunately, the majority leader -- the senator from new york -- didn't waste any time attacking the house bill. he called it a partisan dead-on-arrival and unserious proposal. well, that's hardly a recipe for productive bipartisan negotiations between the house and the senate. as the majority leader knows, senator manchin, the senator from west virginia, his permitting reform didn't have the votes to pass the senate, let alone the house. but the good news is that senator manchin, senator capito, both from the great state of west virginia, are leading the efforts in this chamber to work on a bipartisan permitting reform bill. the only way to fix the broken system is to work together, to utilize our committees and to craft a bill that can gain the requisite support of at least 60

senators. as a top republican on the environment and public works committee, senator capito has been point on this issue. she and senator barrasso, who is the ranking member on the energy and natural resources committee, are our leaders in trying to find way to fix this broken process and promote america's energy security. as i said, there's strong bipartisan support for commonsense permitting reform, and i hope the majority leader will not stand in the way. mr. president, i yield the floor. mrs. fischer: my colleagues and i are here to discuss the importance of unleashing american energy, especially during a time of international turmoil, we in the united states need to ensure we reduce our

dependence on unstable foreign countries for our energy. but right now, as the senator from texas alluded to in his comments, there is a tangled web of unnecessary regulations that's holding our nation back from an all-of-the-above energy agenda that would benefit consumers, producers and our national security. one example of what's holding us back is outdated regulation of e-15. nebraska is an energy producing state and has an important role in any discussion about unleashing american energy. e-15 is a biofuel blend of gasoline with 15% ethanol. this critical fuel mix is proven to lower gas prices for

consumers at the pump. one study found that the average price of e-15 during last year's summer driving season was 16 cents less per gallon than regular unleaded gas. as any driver can tell you, after years of escalating gas prices under this administration, these savings add up quickly and consumers want the savings of e-15. that's why the number of e-15 has more than doubled, rising from 1,200, to 2,700. e-15 -- our country is blessed with natural resources and we

should take advantage of it. including ethanol. use of e-15 unleashes american energy here at home, dealing a blow to our dependence on foreign oil. and ethanol is good for the environment. emissions from ethanol is 46% lower than from traditional gasoline. one study found that corn ethanol contributed to a reduction of 500 million tons in emissions between 2005 and 2019. so why not make use of e-15? this issue is important to my state -- very important. nebraska is the second-largest producer of biofuels in the nation and generates over two billion gallons of renewable

fuel each year. but when we look at these overly restrictive regulations, they are threatening to rob consumers of that choice. one outdated law needlessly restricts the sale of e-15 during the summer months. the regulation restricting e-15, it's based on a measure called the read vapor pressure, or rvp, which measures the volatility of certain gasoline blends. it has a lower rvp than e-10, which is less restricted. ultimately this outdated law doesn't make much sense and it harms consumers. in nebraska, we have 24 operating ethanol plants, and they have created almost 1,500 good-paying jobs across our state. family farmers in be in neb use

biofuels like e-15 to help fuel the rest of this country. for the sake of those nebraskans, as well as the average american at the pump, i've been leading the charge for many years to end the legal limbo that we see around e-15. this month i introduced, again, the consumer and fuel retailer choice act, which would allow for the year-round nationwide sale of efn-15 -- of e-15. eight different states have made admirable strides to allow the sale of e-15. but these efforts can only result in a patchwork of uneven regulations across the country, leaving many families without access to cheaper e-15. the epa, they could and they

should, take emergency action to allow e-15 sales this summer, but let's remember, that would only be a temporary solution. we need a permanent, nationwide solution, and that happens to be what my bill provides. the bill is the opposite of a mandate. it puts consumers in the driver's seat by providing them with the completely voluntary option to take advantage of e-15 and its benefits. we worked hard to build a very diverse bipartisan coalition for this bill. the nation's largest oil and natural gas trade association, the american petroleum institute is one of our bill's most notable supporters. it's time that congress joins together to pass legislation

that truly advances an all-of-the-above energy solution that ensures americans access to lower cost e-15 fuel. all of my colleagues should support more choices for lower-cost fuel, especially as our country reels from high inflation. the siewrm and fuel -- the consumer and fuel retailer choice act provides families with the choice to purchase and with retailers the choice to sell e-15. that is a major win for family farmers, for consumers at the pump, and for our american security. thank you, mr. president. i see my colleague, the junior senator from nebraska, is here on the floor, and i would yield to him.

the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. ricketts: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to fight a blatant land grab by the federal government. my colleagues and i support the senator from west virginia's resolution disapproving of the waters of the u.s. rule. this rule would change the definition of navigable waters to include things like roadside ditches, puddles on construction sites, farm ponds. think about that. president biden's epa and army corps of engineers apparently believe that drainage ditches, construction-site puddles and farm ponds are navigable waters. to say this statement defies all common sense is an under statement. quite frankly, it's embarrassing. i'm from nebraska. i get it. i'm from a land-locked state. but to me navigable means you

can put a boat on a body of water and go somewhere. but you don't have to take my word for it. we have the merriam-webster definition of navigable right here. it says deep enough and wide enough to afford the passage of ships. you put a boat on a roadside ditch and you're not going anywhere. you put a boat on a puddle in a construction site, you're not going anywhere, you put a boat on a pond, you're just going around a pond, you're not going anywhere besides that. to nebraska's farmers and ranchers, this is just dumb. beyond that, the biden administration is trying to change the law without coming to congress. the 1972 clean water act said navigable waters 50 times.

congress's intent could not have been more clear. as a legislative branch, we must protect our authority. the biden administration is trying to subvert our laws, and it must be stopped. if allowed to stand, this rule would increase costs and uncertainty to producers, property owners and small business. president biden an liberal bureaucrats -- and liberal bureaucrats have absolutely no business regulating us. and i think the president knows it. you know why i know he knows it, because president biden's epa and the army corps of engineers fienlzize -- ienlized this -- finalized this on new year's eve. it seemed like they thought no one would notice. we noticed, nebraska's farmers an ranchers noticed and my colleagues noticed and we're

pushing back hard. today my colleagues and i are protecting property rights. today we are sending a message to president biden that our farmers and ranchers need relief, not regulation. we are providing oversight and accountability in response to executive overreach. today we are defending the authority of the legislative branch. when i was governor, i opposed president obama's waters of the u.s. rule and i oppose president biden's attempt to do the same. i want to thank senator capito for her leadership on this issue. i'm proud to have joined a bipartisan effort today to vote to rescind this unconstitutional rule. i hope president biden will choose to signed this commonsense resolution as he did

the d.c. crime bill. he agreed with a bipartisan group of senators then and he should do the same now. thank you, mr. president. i yield back.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: madam president, four months ago the united states senate and then the united states house came together to ban the app tiktok on all federal government devices orks tablets, on phones, on computers, on federal contractors and their devices as well. we acted just a few months ago with a sense of urgency because we decided that tiktok was a

national security threat, a privacy threat, yes. a data threat, yes. but above all, a national security threat. and we were right to act just those few months ago. and now we must take the next step to ban tiktok nationwide to protect the security of every single american whose personal lives, whose personal data, whose personal security is in danger from the chinese communist party in beijing. and it's time to act now because we've seen just in the last week the tiktok ceo come before the united states congress and confirm that the reasons we acted four months ago were right and valid and that the need at this hour is urgent. in this last week we learned -- i should say we confirmed from the testimony of the tiktok ceo that tiktok has the ability to track americans' data, to track americans' location, to track

americans' personal lives whether they want it to or not. what am i talking about? well, tiktok tracks your key strokes. now think about that for a second. it's not just the videos you may upload if you have the app on your phone. it's not just the videos that you watch. it's the key strokes that you enter and not just weil you are on the app. -- while you're on the app. oh, no. it tracks your key strokes all the time, while you're texting, what you're e-mailing. it tracks your contact list. it reads your phone list. we believe based on independent third-party analysis, that it can get into e-mail. and it does this whether or not the user can sense -- in fact, there's no way to turn it off. americans are subject to this ongoing data collection at all hours of the day and night, even if they got tiktok turned off on their phone. what else have we learned well, that tiktok is monitoring the location of americans. it's not just your key strokes.

it's your location data. where are you right now? what is it that you're doing? where are you moving to? are you in a car or a building or what floor are you on? tiktok can use the settings of your phone to track exactly where americans are and we know they've been doing this, tiktok has been gathering this data not just on american citizens but also on american journalists. we know that they aren to see what journalists are saying, to see where journalists are going. new whistle-blower revelations show that tiktok has spied on particular american journalists and tried to track them, tried to learn what they are writing, tried to control in essence or at least get an understanding of what their message might be. think about this. an app on your phone that tracks your key strokes, that reads your personal information, that tracks journalists around, that tracks your location, you can't do anything about it, and we haven't even gotten to the worst

part. the worst part is all of this information is accessible to engineers based in china, accessible to the chinese communist party. when he was asked about this last week, the ceo of tiktok didn't deny this espionage. no. what he said instead is well, i don't think spying is the right way to describe it. maybe he'd prefer the word surveillance. maybe he's prefer the word monitoring. maybe he'd prefer the word tracking. but i actually think spying just about captures it the the problem with tiktok is not the videos on the app. the problem with tiktok is it's a backdoor for the chinese communist party into the personal lives and information, into the most intimate details of every american's life. and we know the link between tiktok and the chinese communist party is real, and we know that it is strong. tiktok is a whole hi owned sub--

wholly owned subsidiary of the chinese company bytedance. it has members in its senior leadership. bytedance's editor in chief is a communist party secretary. we know the communist party has done trainings for tiktok and bytedance personnel. we have video of it being done in beijing, china. whistle-blowers have come to my office and to others and given us evidence that china-based engineers are able to access americans' personal data at any time that they want. again, the ceo did not deny that last week. no, the links to the chinese communist party are real and they are inscribed in chinese law. this isn't just a matter of what tiktok may want to do. no, tiktok is a wholly owned subsidiary of the chinese parent company, is subject to chinese law which both the 2014 espionage law in that country and their 2017 national security

law which require, require the company to turn over data that the chinese communist party that beijing may request under those laws they must make americans' data available, must make it available to chinese communist officials. this is in addition to the ccp members who are actually senior officials in these companies who work in these companies, who have access to americans' data as i stand here and speak to you today. the intent of china in all of this is quite clear. they want to build a profile on every single american. we know that many of the recent data hacks of credit agencies, of other digital repositories of americans' personal information have been carried out by communist china. they are hungry for information about the american people. they are gathering it on

everybody that they can as much as they can just like they do to their own citizens, and they're using the app tiktok to do it. of course that's not the only way that the chinese communist party has tried to gather information on americans. this is certainly not the only time that they've done it. think about the confucius institutes all across the country that the ccp funded on america's college campuses. think about the researchers that they funded and tried to place into key programs, key institutes and universities all across the country. heaven sakes, think about the chinese spy pal loon that just went over this country, -- balloon that just went over this country, right over my hometown photographing everything that they could. this is a pattern. the divided congress -- the difn those cases we addressed it. we shut down the confucius institutes. those who have lied about the

money that they have gotten from china, the funding that they have gotten have in some cases been prosecuted for attempted espionage on america's college campuses, and the spy balloon was belatedly shot down but shot down at least. no, we've taken action in these other instances to protect americans, to stop the efforts of the ccp to spy on america, to collect americans' data, to put americans at risk, and now we must do the same thing with tiktok. this is why president trump and the previous administration tried to ban it. let's not forget this isn't the beginning of this debate. this is the end of it. we've been at this for years now. years ago the last administration tried to ban tiktok for all of these same national security reasons that led us as a congress to ban it on federal devices. this has been a long time coming. there's no rush to judgment here.

this is what administration after administration has concluded. that it's time to take action. here's the real truth, that if it were the confucius institutes, the chinese spy balloon, if it were some american company that was coordinating with a foreign ally, we'd shut it down immediately and we have done in these other cases. but with tiktok now tiktok says oh, no, no, no. you can't do that to us. you can't hold us accountable. we have a special carve-out. no, we have the first amendment. the first amendment protects us. well, i must have missed the class if law school where we covered the first amendment right to spy. last time i checked my constitution, there was no such protection. and i can be darn sure that there's no special first amendment carve-out for communists. no, the first amendment may protect dance videos, sure. upload those all you want but the first amendment does not protect the right to spy on

american citizens. it does not protect espionage. it does not protect what the communist chinese party is trying to do, harvest the data of millions of americans. now, tiktok has no special first amendment carve-out. they don't get special privileges that no other entity or an american company would get. they're subject to the same rules. and when you try to spy on american citizens, when you try to use americans' own phones as portals for collection, that ought to be stopped. you ought to be banned. and the fact that they are a china-based company shouldn't help them or hurt them. the fact is they're ties to beijing, ties to the ccp. they're ongoing efforts of espionage and ongoing lies, by the way, to this body. this is a company that has come before this body and lied time and time again. they say that they weren't

controlled by bytedance. now we know they are. they said china-based engineers couldn't access american user data. now we know they can. they said that the ccp had no influence and yet last week the ceo of tiktok couldn't even confirm that the ccp hadn't helped write his talking points. now this is an entity, this is a corporate interest that is influenced if not controlled by the chinese communist party. the national security risks are severe and growing worse. and i haven't even talked about, i haven't even talked about the materials on suicide promotion that you'll find on tiktok. i haven't talked about the risks to mental health that it may pose. and there's a reason that tiktok isn't even available in china. did you know that? in china tiktok isn't available. why is that?

well, it's because beijing isn't stupid. they know it's digital fentanyl. tiktok wasn't designed to make our lives better. tiktok is designed to addict and then to be used as a gateway into our personal lives. it's designed to addict and then to be used as a portal to spy on american citizens. now, i tell you what. here's one thing that has changed since just december, a few months ago when we banned tiktok on federal government devices. tiktok has gone into full damage control mode. and as big tech companies do all the time, they've hired a fleet of lobbyists and have spent untold amounts of cash. i'm told that even today tiktok lobbyists have been seen here in the building. i've no doubt that they are scurrying around right now. maybe they're in the galleries. i just say this. that we have the opportunity today to send a message to which

corporate interest, that the united states senate is not for sale, that we cannot be bought. that we cannot be purchased, we cannot be influenced by their lobbying campaign. by their corporate money. that we will instead side with the american people. we'll tell the truth about what this app is. we'll do our jobs and protect americans. now, some say we ought to have a broader bill that would not ban tiktok, that would give broader that is right to the executive branch and leave it open. i don't agree with that. we should ban tiktok directly. we shouldn't give new open-ended authority to federal bureaucrats. we should target this threat specifically. that's what this bill does that we have before us today. it goes right at the problem. it bans tiktok in this country. it protects the american people, and it send the message to communist china that you cannot buy us.

and so i ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 85 and 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. the presiding officer: is there an objection? a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to be, there are two main reasons why we might not want to do this. the one would be the first amendment to the constitution. speech is protected whether you like it or not. the second reason would be is that the constitution actually prohibits bills of attain dear. you're not -- attainedder. this fails on two egregious points, pretty obvious points. i think we ought to think about that. i think we should be aware of those who peddle fear. i think we should be aware of those who use fear to coax

americans to relinquish our liberties, to regulate and limit our first amendment rights. every accusation of data-gathering that's been attributed to tiktok could also be attributed to domestic big tech companies. in fact, one of the bills they're looking at doing is broad enough that the president will be given the power to designate whatever country he sees fit to be an adversary and whatever company underneath that definition, it would basically be a limitless authority for the president to ban speech. if republicans want to continuously lose elections for a generation, they should pass this bill to ban tiktok. a social media app used by 150 million people, primarily young americans. this brilliant strategy comes while polls indicate that 71% of young women and men, 53% of young men, voted for a democrat candidate for congress. admittedly, many democrats have

joined republicans in calling for this ban, but like most issues, the blame will stick to the republicans more. the republican strategy to ban tiktok comes simultaneously with gop complaints of domestic social media companies canceling and censoring conservatives. without a hint of irony, many of these same conservatives now rail against censorship while advocating for censorship against social media oops they worry -- apps they worry are influenced by the chinese. they might want to discover that china already bans tiktok. hmmm ... would really want to emulate chinese speech bans? we're going to be just like china and ban speech we're afraid of? the vice president of freedom with, john tammany, perhaps described this situation best. nauseating harassment of tiktok presumes americans will be saved

from chinese authoritarianism if u.s. politicians act like chinese authoritarians. we're going to be saved from speech if we ban it in our country. my goodness, could we think of anything more antithetical to the freedom of speech? well, go to it the app. they say, oh, the app is full of propaganda and your young people will be dancing into communism. go to the app and search for falun gong, the religious sect that is persecuted in china. go to tiktok and search for videos advocating taiwan's independence. the chinese of the chinese president xi. videos are all over tiktok that are critical of official chinese positions. that's why tiktok is banned in china. do we want to follow china's lead in banning speech? we should not let fear of communism.

this legislation violates not only the first amendment of those on tiktok, many of whom are actually earns in, not chinese, but it also violates the first amendment rights of the millions of young americans who use this social media app. i ask the american people, do you want joe biden to be your censor? do you want to give unlimited power to any president regardless of party to decide who is our adversary and which countries and then which countries -- there's not even a list of what percentage. what if somebody -- what if the chinese own 1% of a company, or 10% of a company? one of the bills before us would allow the department of commerce to decide -- there's five countries they list that are adversaries. these are big countries that have a lot of interaction with our country already, decide which country in addition to the five. the department of commerce can designate a country as a adversary but then they can designate a company. but there's no specifics. do the new people that are designated to be an adversary

have to own 100% of the company, 50% of the company, 1% of the company? this is a crazy give of power to one person. it is a huge mistake. doctors mueller and farheart of georgia tech write, if nationalist fears about chinese influence operations lead to a departure from american constitutional principles supporting free and open political discourse, we will have succeeded in undermining our system of government more effectively than any chinese propaganda. throughout the 20th century, millions of people were fed communist propaganda every day for their entire lives, and when the regimes collapsed, the people celebrated. they danced on the berlin wall and on the grave of communism. have faith, have faith that our americans are smart enough to the hear bad ideas and reject those ideas. have faith that our desire for

freedom is strong enough to survive a few dance videos. have some faith and freedom -- have some faith in freedom. we don't ban things that are unpopular in the united states. our constitution even allows a communist party. the previous speaker said, and i quote, there's no first amendment carve-out for communism. well, actually there is. in our society you can be a communist. i don't advocate it. i think it is a terrible idea and almost no americans choose t but there is a communist party here. we actually had a former cia director who said he voted for the communist candidate in 1976, someone i don't advise to be appointed to the cia. that's what freedom of speech is about. it is not about saying, oh, you know, i love mother teresa. it is not about saying things uncontroversial. it's about the ability to say things that people don't like.

have some faith in freedom. our constitution does protect even despicable speech, even the communist party. it operates today. nobody wants to join the communist party, but you still can if you wish. america is a country that celebrates free expression, that cherishes free association, that is confident in the calls of -- in the cause of liberty. if you want to address the evils of big tech, it is not the chinese government you have to fear but your own. in june 2021, "newsweek" reported that big tech complied with 85% of government requests to hand over your personal data. so you're worried about the chinese government? your government has all of your data, and they're sucking it up from all the big tech. so the thing is, is your next step to ban big tech in our

country? this is on both sides of the aisle, this contagion is infecting the whole country, both parties. realize that this means with 85% of government requests to big tech being honored, this means that facebook, google, apple, microsoft, once presented with a subpoena or warrant, routinely hands over the documents of e-mails, text messages, photos, documents, calendars, contact lists and more to your government. big tech puts up virtually no legal fight to protect your privacy. they could go to court to stop this. instead, there's a big cable that runs from big tech to the government. and they snoop on every bit of our information. soy you want to protect privacy? why don't we start by protecting our own prief say in this -- privacy in this country. those who are worried about china have access to militia of

americans teenager information? all big tech suction up data. if you're going to ban tiktok, what's next? several domestic apps censor conservatives more than tiktok ox i know this because i've been censored and banned. i've had speeches on the senate floor that are protected by the constitution, banned and by yew tube. i am not going to vote to ban them because i realize that intellectually in a free country i don't have the right to tell "the new york times" to publish my op-ed or youtube to publish my speech. i don't like what they do. quit using them. you don't like tiktok, quit using them. but don't disenfranchise 150 million americans who are using a social media app and just say is no big deal. this is the first amendment rights of 150 million americans. i have a host of complaints about domestic social media platforms. they cancel conservatives. but i'm not in ifr if a of banning one of them or regulating their speech or

telling them who can post and who can't post. that's what the first amendment is about. if you don't like tiktok or facebook or youtube, don't use them. but don't think that any interpretation of the constitution gives you the right to ban them. tiktok's mission appears to be like most other companies -- to make money and lots of it. tiktok is actually cooperating with our government. there's something called the committee on foreign investment in the u.s., cfius, and tiktok has agreed to put all of your data in oracle's cloud and work with the u.s. government because they so much want to make money, they will do anything to try to get rid of this -- this accusation that they're somehow part of the communist party, which is not true. it's a company that's owned probably the majority of it by americans and europeans and other asians outside of china, less than 50 of it is owned by -- the chinese. but even that being said, they're willing to put all of it

under the oracle cloud. they want to have u.s. officers to have access toss this. they don't want to be shut down by the censors. the first amendment isn't necessary to protect speech that everybody accepts. the first amendment exists to protect speech that might be unpopular or might be controversial. u.s. courts have already struck down the trump ban on tiktok. it amazes me now that it the other side that was so horrified by the idea of president trump banning something has now jumped on board to ban it themselves. i hope saner minds will reflect on which is is more dangerous -- videos of teenagers dancing or the precedent of the u.s. government banning speech. for me it's an easy answer. i will defend the bill of rights against all comers, even if need be, from members of my own party. i object.

the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. hawley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. haw would the senator from kentucky -- mr. hawley: would the senator from kentucky entertain a question. mr. paul: i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. hawley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: madam president, i have never before heard on this floor a defense of the right to spy. i didn't realize that the first amendment contained a right to espionage. the senator from kentucky mentions the bill of rights. i must have missed the right of the chinese government to spy on americans in our bill of rights. because that's what we're talking about here. the senator from kentucky can watch as many dance videos as he wants. i have no objection to that. he can watch on this floor, for all i care. fine. what i object to is the communist chinese party using this app on americans' phones to

spy on americans without their consent. the senator says that americans can simply not use this app, just turn it off. that's not the case. if you turn it off, it continues to collect information. you don't get to consent. tiktok doesn't ask you, do you want to share your information? it takes it. it doesn't ask you for permission to track your location. it takes it. it doesn't ask you to share it with the chinese communist party. it just doesn't. that's the problem. scour the constitution. scour the first amendment. i promise you, you you won't find any right to espionage. you won't find any right to spy. and this -- this novel right that the senator thinks he has discovered for americans to be spied upon, i've never heard of such a thing in the history of this country. i'm astounding to learn that americans have the right to be spied upon. so not only does china apparently get the right to spy in the first amendment, americans have the inalienable right to be spied upon and all have all of their data taken from them.

that's not democracy. that's the abuse of our laws, the abuse of our economy, the abuse of our people by a foreign government for its purposes. so i say again, watch dance videos to your heart's content, but spy on americans, that's where we have to draw the line. as to money, the senator said, and i think he's exactly right that tiktok wants to make money. no doubt about it. and my, the money that they are making. and my, the money that they are showering on this building, and it is having an effect. but in the end the american people don't want to be treated as commodities to be bought and sold, because make no mistake, it's the american people who are being bought and sold here by tiktok. they are being sold to the chinese communist party for influence and money. they're being sold for the wishes and the whims of beijing. and they're being lied to every step of the way. i'll yield to the senator from

florida. the presiding officer: the senator from florida is recognized. mr. rubio: thank you, madam president. there's just a couple of points i want to address. i was watching in the office. i'm not here to make a motion or anything, but this is an important topic. we don't do this enough, this is go back and forth. this is not a first amendment issue because we're not trying to ban booty videos. i don't know a better term for it. it is not about the content of the dangers online. that's what people don't understand. we owe people an explanation on. the reason why tiktok and all the social media companies for that matter are addictive is two. they collect a tremendous amount of data on the individual user. not just what you're doing but what you're doing across the platform, your pictures, everything. not just because some guy is reading all this stuff. they feed it into an algorithm powered by artificial intelligence. the more you use it the more

attractive the videos become to you because they know exactly how your mind works better than you know how your mind works dleeft the algorithm does. who owns the algorithm? a company called bytedance. bytedance operates out of china and this is what we need to understand. there are no such things as private companies in china. they do not exist. under chinese law, their national security law, their national intelligence law, every company in china has to do whatever the communist party tells them. if the communist party goes to bytedance and says we want you to use that algorithm to push these videos on americans to convince them of whatever, they have to do it. they don't have an option. they may not want to do it but ask jack maw what happens no matter how rich you are when you don't want to do what the communist party tells you to do. you move to singapore and disappear for a year. that's what happens. all these people have to respond and bytedance has to answer to whatever they're told. this thing about oracle and the cloud, it sounds really good.

here's the problem with it. it doesn't matter where you store the data. you could store the data in my backyard in a locked safe. i have to, no matter what, for tiktok to work you have to give the engineers in china access to it because they control the algorithm. it doesn't matter where the data is stored, they still have to open it up for the engineers at bytedance in china and look at it or the algorithm doesn't work and without the algorithm there is no tiktok. you can't buy the algorithm. do you know why you can't buy the algorithm? because in 2020 the chinese government imposed a law that says it is illegal. you cannot transfer the algorithm out of china. what made me chuckle last week is when there was a talk of a forced sale the chinese government said we will block it. i'm like how can the chinese government block the sale of a company they don't control? how can the chinese company block the sale of a company that they, that's not theirs? the answer is because under chinese law, bytedance cannot do anything that they're not allowed to do. and that algorithm can be used against us. the other one was we'll just

sell tiktok. again, tiktok is the name of this platform in the united states. i heard an argument made that there is no tiktok in china. there is an equivalent to tiktok in china. it's just not called tiktok. tiktok u.s. is what they call it abroad but there is an equivalent that uses the same a.i. formula and the like. the difference is that the videos they allow over there are ones that don't encourage you to choke yourself to death or drink poison or things of that nature. all these soashed companies, there is a -- all these social media conditions, there is a difference. i'm not a facebook and how they handle things. but the difference is whatever they do wrong they do because they want to do. if the u.s. government goes tomorrow to facebook and says we want you to do x, they'll probably say no. they wouldn't need to listen to us under our law. you could subpoena them for records through a process that involves courts. none of that exists in china and that's the point being missed here. the last point i want to address, no evidence they're

doing anything now. you go on the video, you can search this, search that. absolutely because they understand they want to grow their market share. but i would make the same argument about the weapons. china has hypersonic missiles. there is no evidence they're firing them at us today but why do they have them? the soviet union and now russia has intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads on them. they never fired them on us. we spend a lot of money making sure they don't and trying to shoot them down if they do. every threat is theoretical until the moment happens. there is a powerful algorithm entirely controlled at any time they want by the chinese government operating in our country, and there is no other way to handle this. not the sale of the company, not the storage of the data. if there was a lesser way to deal with this, i would be for it. but there isn't. and that's why since 2019 i've been calling for this to be banned. there is no other way to get control of this, the danger it poses to the country are real. i think before we ban a country that 150 million americans use,

we owe them a better explanation than just trust us, it's bad. i agree with that and we should be doing more of it. be under no illusion, this is a weapon and i will close with this. think about all the people here that were freaking out because russia was using bots to influence voters in america on twitter, facebook, what have you. imagine if russia owned facebook or twitter. imagine if there was a law in a not only owned them but told them you must use it this way. that's what we're facing, what we have on our hands here and not to mention the millions of small businesses in america that have grown because of tiktok they will be hostages in a future to a chinese government that has, can destroy their future in a moment's notice. the risk is real. i won't waste my time going after social media platforms unless it's important. this is important. i hope we talk more about it. it's starting to get the

attention it deserves to get. mr. hawley: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. hawley: madam president, let me finish with this. the senator from kentucky decried the collection of personal data by american social media companies, and he's right to do that, by the way. i'm concerned about that too, no doubt. but he pointed out that many american social media companies collect all of the information, that they do it without the user's consent. sometimes they sell it to third parties for profit and you can't necessarily opt out of it. all fair enough. but he is protecting exactly what he decries. the difference is with tiktok that information is going to a hostile foreign government. it's not a market. it's total control. so i would just say this to americans out there who are using tiktok. just know this, we need to tell you the truth about this app. know this. if you have it on your phone, it is tracking your key strokes, it is tracking your movements, it is tracking your location, and it is sending that information, whether you want it sent or not, to

beijing, to the communist chinese party where it can be academies -- accessed by anybody there who wants it. that is a threat to your national security and that is why we should act to ban it. let me finally ask the senator from kentucky, he and i talked about this before. would the senator consider allowing us to set a roll call vote, an up-or-down vote, not unanimous consent to pass, but a roll call vote at a time certain. would the senator consent to that? mr. paul: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: reserving the right to object. i'm unlikely to take first amendment advice from someone who believes that the first amendment doesn't protect the communist party. you'll find no greater foe of communism, no greater critic. i've been a long-standing critic of really the funding of research in wuhan that led to the virus. and yet i still want to protect the basic bill of rights, the first amendment that protects

speech whether we like it or not. if someone doesn't understand that communism actually is included in the first amendment, that terrible speech we object to is included under that, this is something we should be wary of. we should beware of people who peddle fear. we should beware of people who peddle half-truths. almost everything said about collecting data is in all likelihood true. all the social media companies collect data. they devise algorithms. some of the domestic ones have psychological experiments that might horrify you to see what they get all the young kids thinking and doing and trying to to get them to click on pictures. this is a marketing strategy, and they all do it and they all want to make money and they all want to get clicks. the difference is this. many people on the right, in fact some on the left, they are horrified by big tech in our country. they are consistent in being horrified by the abuses of big tech here and also tiktok. but look at their legislative

proposals. many of them would actually ban big tech here as well, or put it under the thumb of government, or set up government agencies or panels to determine what speech would be acceptable. if you're not putting enough conservatives on there, by golly, we're going to have a government commission that's going to determine what kind of content gets on there. these are scary ideas. don't succomb to fear. don't give up our freedoms. don't say oh my goodness, we're going to ban 150 million americans. this isn't just about the company. this is about the rights of 150 million americans to get their content. you're restricting what they can do and you're restricting what they can use all with innuendo. everything that's been said about this is a channel and a funnel to the government, these are all -- to the chinese government. these are all conjecture. these are all things they are saying happen. as far as the sale of the company, i don't think we should force them to sell, but i do believe in a heart beat they could be sold. they're located in the cayman

islands. they're incorporated in the cayman islands and they could be sold at any minute. i don't think we should force them to sell. the majority of the shareholders are not chinese. the two engineers that developed it are. but to say that the algorithm has to reside in china and is in one tiny place and isn't anywhere else is a simplistic notion of the way technology works. the company has bent over backwards to work with our government to try to set up something that would be reasonable, including more government oversight. so i for one will say that i will continue to defend the first amendment, and those who believe that the first amendment doesn't protect this speech are in the wrong, and they'll find that out when the supreme court rules on this. i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. hawley: madam president, i would just say in conclusion that the security trisks from tiktok led us to ban it four months ago from the federal government. the facts cannot be denied which is why the tiktok ceo had

nothing to say a week ago. he could not deny any of these fact. the truth will carry the day and we will continue the fight. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: madam president, i understand that there is a vote scheduled at 5:45. and in order to clarify the voting procedures this evening, i would initially ask unanimous consent that i be able to complete my remarks and the following senators be permitted to speak for five minutes each prior to the scheduled vote. i also presume that senator tuberville will speak while he reserves his right to object. is that correct? you do not need time? thank you. in that case i ask unanimous consent that senator lee, senator hirono, senator bennet and senator marshall be granted five minutes each prior to the scheduled vote. the presiding officer: is there

objection? without objection. mr. reed: thank you, madam president. i rise to discuss the promotions and appointments of generals and flag officers in the united states military including several appointments to lieutenant general and vice admiral. these are officers who would hold positions of particular importance and responsibility to the nation. the promotions of these military leaders were reported out of the armed services committee over the past two months. there have been no substantive objections raised against these nominations. for the benefit of my colleagues who do not, may not appreciate the nature and volume of military promotions and nominations considered by the armed services committee, last year the committee considered and the senate confirmed nearly 20,000 military officers, including 656 general and flag officers. the senate confirmed 20,000

nominations through bipartisan unanimous consent because the tradition of the committee and of the senate is to consider military nominations as apolitical. and thus, process them in a timely and respectful manner so our troops do not experience delays in their promotion or appointment or in their pay and benefits. moreover, the sheer volume of nominations we consider means we cannot subject them to the ordinary political gamesmanship we see with civilian nominations. the senior senator from alabama has made these promotions a political matter. he and he alone placed a blanket hold on these officers unrelated to their qualifications because of a policy disagreement with the administration that these officers played no part in deciding. this,

this is a profound assault on the professionalism of the men and women of the armed services. the vast majority of these officers were selected by promotion boards which are panels of miltd officers who -- military officers who decide the promotion purely on merit, considering the skill, talent and the military's potential assessment for what they have been nominated. blanket political holds on military officers in an attempt to overturn a civilian policy decision sets a dangerous trend for our military, a political process for our nation and this senate. the senior senator from alabama placed his hold on february 16, and as a result, not a single general or flag officer nominated in this congress has been confirmed. let me repeat that. due to the senior senator from

alabama's hold, not a single general or flag officer has been promoted. as the senator's hold moves into its third month, we will quickly reach a critical mass of backlog nominations, if we are not already there. that will imperil our national security, degrade readiness, and place undue and unnecessary hardships on american families. it may not be his intent, but he is effectively accomplishing what our adversaries could only dream of, denying our military of its leadership and degrade our ability to fight and win the nation's wars. the bottom line is that military promotions are not a political matter and they are not toys for political gains and military officers are not tokens in such a game. they are not hostages to issues

that are determined by civilian authorities. an administration's civilian nominees may be fair game, and they have been repeatedly, but not professional military officers. that has long been the committee's and senate's tradition and practice. and i want to turn to some specific claims made by the senator from alabama. he said a number of times that the department changed the law or dod somehow lacked authority. that simply isn't true. to be clear, under his new policy, and that is with reproductive rights of soldiers, the department of defense will provide administrative leave if the military member is in a state or country that does not provide the health care needed. the department has broad statutory authority to provide

travel benefits to servicemembers and their dependents and does to routinely, including for the provision of health services. i'm not aware of anyone who said that the department does not have the authority to do this. indeed, to the best of my knowledge, no serious lawyer has made this argument and there has not been a single lawsuit filed on this matter. these policies are, again, travel and administration leave policies alone. they do not violate the federal prohibition on dod paying for noncoverred reproductive health services. such reproductive health services will be paid for by members and dependents out of their own pockets. this merely facilities the provision of health services for military and dependents who may be stationed in an area that does not provide needed health

services, including overseas locations. further, the senator from alabama stated, and i quote, if democrats are so worried about the nominees, then they can bring them up for a vote. we have more than enough time to vote on nominees. setting aside the deeply troubling implication that certain members of the republican party do not care enough about our national defense to ensure that senior military leaders are in place in a timely manner, it would take several months of constant attention on this floor just to move through the current batch of general and flag officers that are presently on the senate calendar. and this is not even accounting for all the nominations still to come. if we took this path, this senate would be consumed entirely by nominating and confirming military officers

item for item, unable to do anything else. madam president, there are currently 184 general and flag officers, including 11 to be promoted to liewt liewt general or -- lieu tenant general and admirals. let me show you the impact and consequences of these holds. one nominee is nominated to the commander of the navy's seventh fleet. it has the responsibility for the indo-pacific area of operation. and i hear constantly in the committee and elsewhere on the floor the chinese threat. we've got to do more. we just listened to a long dia tribe about -- diatribe about

ticking toc and how -- tiktok and how dangerous it is. it is more dangerous not to have a military leader not able to move out immediately from any flet coming from the chinese. and in addition, the navy's fifth fleet, that is in the indian ocean, persian gulf and arabian sea and it is under central command. we heard every day. we heard recently about how the iranians are taking advantage of us. we are not responding strongly enough. well, how well will our response be if we're not quite sure who the commander of this fleet is? we've got a nominee, but it's not confirmed. we have an officer who may have to leave for another assignment. this causes readiness problems, morale problems, and undermines the military that we all stand around here and suggest is our

primary concern. another one. the u.s. military representative to nato, who is the senior uniformed representative to nato during a time when nato is critical to our support of ukraine in its war against russia. and again my colleagues will stand up and say we have to do more for ukraine, we have to coordinate nato and do all of these things, but we don't really need anyone in brussels to help with military advice and assistance. we'll just ignore that. these are just three examples. and i'd like to look ahead because this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. within the next eight months, we expect the department to nominate approximately 650 general and flag officers,

including 83 -- four-star generals. these include the nomination of the next chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. by law general milley will retire in september. if this hold persists, then we will be without a chief of staff of the united states -- the chairman of the joint chiefs, rather. we also expect nominations for the service chiefs of the army, the navy, and the marine corps. the chief of staff for the marine corps, -- army, navy, and the commandante of the marine corps is scheduled to retire. if this hold persists, we will not have leadership in the army, navy or the marine corps. that would be devastating to the

readiness, morale and the whole history of our government in which we moved nominees based on merit, not as political hostages. we're also talking about major combat and commands, cybercommand. does anyone have to talk about the relevance of cybercommand? again, we just listened to a long, long discussion about cybersecurity and the stealing of information and governmental interference with that. cybercommand is the key actor from the department of defense standpoint in all of those efforts and, frankly, without a cybercommander, i think the tiktok issue diminishes in importance. we also have spacecom and north com, they're responsible for the defense of the united states so that we do not find ourselves here at home devastated by any type of attack, which today

includes cyber, missile, hypersonic, all of those responsibilities. there's also three deputy commanders coming up, cyber com, centcom and afrih com, as this continues, we are wiping out the leadership of the department of defense and doing an extraordinary disservice to the men and women that wear the uniform of the united states. we've already treated military nominations appropriately, as beyond the political fray and we must continue to do so for the good of the service and all those who take the oath and their families too because no military member serves alone. the families who are with him or her. now i believe on a very strong military and we must not inject

political theater. with if we do not have a coherent, organized leadership and department of defense, then we're putting our troops at risk. it's quite that simple and to me it's unacceptable. with that, madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc, calendar numbers 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 9, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 01001, 1004,

105, 106, 107. that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and no further motions be in order to any of the nominations. that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and the senate then resume legislative session. the presiding officer: is there an objection? mr. tuberville: madam president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. tuberville: madam president, i want to start out by mentioning the great respect i have for senator reed. i'm deeply grateful for the chairman's service to this country, both his service in uniform and as chairman of the armed service committee, which i am a member. i believe the chairman and i agree on a lot, more than we disagree on, but i take exception to several things said about me by democratic members

of this senate. every day this week the majority leader has come to the floor and attacked me by name. it's not often that a majority leader attacks a senator by name three days in a row. in my former profession, i have called just about everything, but the majority leader tweeted about me. right now i want to talk about what i've done and what i'm doing. first of all, i'm not blocking anyone from being confirmed or promoted. every single one of these nominees can receive a vote if senator schumer wants it. in fact, one of the civilians nominees is getting voted on this week. if democrats are so worried about these nominations, let's vote. if we're not going to vote on taxpayer-funded abortion, then let's vote on these nominees. voting is our job.