[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 57 (Wednesday, March 29, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1028-S1044]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




RELATING TO A NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARED BY THE PRESIDENT ON MARCH 13, 
                                  2020

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, 
the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 33, 
H.J. Res. 7, and that at 5:45 p.m. today it be considered read a third 
time, and the Senate vote on passage of the joint resolution without 
any intervening action or debate.
  PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the joint resolution by title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A joint resolution (H. J. Res. 7) relating to a national 
     emergency declared by the President on March 13, 2020.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the joint 
resolution.


                     Tribute to Dr. Ariel Marshall

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I now get to the reason that I came to 
the floor today, which is to recognize and express appreciation for a 
member of my staff, my legislative director, Dr. Ariel Marshall. Ariel 
will be leaving for a new opportunity next month, and I can't let her 
go without thanking her for her service and sharing how much she has 
meant to me, to her colleagues, and to the State of New Hampshire over 
the past 8 years. And all you have to do is look at all of our staff 
from our DC office who are here on the floor as part of this 
recognition of Ariel.
  Ariel came to my Senate office in 2015 through a congressional 
fellowship for scientists and engineers with an interest in public 
policy. As a chemist with a Ph.D. in hand, Ariel approached 
policymaking as if it were a research topic or an experiment. She asked 
questions. She identified problems. She dove into research to 
understand different subjects and issue areas and their relationship to 
one another. She formed theories based on her observations. She looked 
for creative ways to test her ideas and analyze her findings, and she 
eagerly shared her conclusions with her colleagues and with an open 
mind on how the process could be improved.
  With her background, it is no surprise that Ariel quickly developed a 
reputation as a capable and friendly team player. As her fellowship 
came to an end, Ariel made the decision to stay 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 adviser. And when the legislative director 
position opened on my team, Ariel was a natural fit, and she accepted 
her new leadership role with her trademark positivity, grace, and good 
humor.
  Over the last 8 years, there have been historic moments that I know 
will be the cornerstone of Ariel's memories in the Senate. At the top 
of that list--for me, anyway--is Ariel's success in getting the 
Shaheen-Portman--Portman-Shaheen energy efficiency bill across the 
finish line and signed into law.
  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 and effectiveness.

  Her work on Shaheen-Portman--and the work of others before her--is 
making a huge difference in the global fight against climate change.
  Ariel 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. Ariel led our legislative team at a time of great 
uncertainty here in the Senate. She was a key negotiator of the 
Senate's legislative response, including the historic CARES Act. 
Ariel's 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 concerned families across this country.
  Finally, Ariel was also our leading negotiator throughout the 
bipartisan infrastructure debate during the summer and fall of 2021. 
Ariel was particularly integral to both the water infrastructure and 
broadband investments, and she spent countless late nights--and had 
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 is one 
that will bring countless benefits to Americans for years to come. One 
of its most important accomplishments was proving that Republicans and 
Democrats could 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 am proud of all of the legislative work we have accomplished over 
these last 8 years in my office, and Ariel's leadership has been 
integral to these successes.
  The legislation, the negotiating, the policymaking--that is just one 
measure of Ariel's impact. With her background in research and 
chemistry, Ariel knows that it is 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 relationships she has built and the values she has 
instilled in her team--I think that is 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 is 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 U.S. 
Senate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.


                                 Energy

  Mrs. CAPITO. 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 take 
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. The 
Biden EPA has continued to layer regulation on regulation, though I am 
pleased to report that, earlier today, through the congressional 
resolution, we pulled down the WOTUS rule that the EPA recently put 
forward last December.
  These are just a few of the unreasonable and misguided policy 
decisions this administration has made that have 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 head of the Environmental Protection Agency, I was asking him 
about his Agency's budget. Administrator Regan admitted that, because 
of the Inflation Reduction Act,

[[Page S1029]]

coal capacity and natural gas generation will plummet in the future.
  This is the coal capacity with the IRA. It is way down here below 50. 
If there had been no IRA, it would have been somewhere here, around 80.
  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 is natural gas with no IRA, up here. With the IRA, it will be 
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 
closures 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 that are packaged in the American Rescue Plan have 
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-percent increase. And let's 
not forget what we just lived through 9 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 shortages have made it more expensive to 
manufacture goods, to deliver goods, and, ultimately, to provide what 
we want and need in this country. It 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. Add to this the 
price that Americans paid to heat their homes when winter came on. No 
matter what utility you used, it went up. Whether it was natural gas, 
electric, oil, or renewables, all prices went up. Those who heat their 
homes with natural gas are at the highest disadvantage in paying 25 
percent extra this winter just to keep their homes warm. This truly 
shows that, no matter what, there is no escaping the consequences that 
President Biden and congressional Democrats have created by turning 
their heads 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 
alike know it. We all know it. We must make genuine reforms to our 
Nation's permitting and environmental review processes. For example, it 
should not take 7 to 10 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. Projects that create jobs, that produce energy of all kinds, 
and that drive down costs should not be delayed or stopped because of 
burdensome regulations. The current system hamstrings States and 
employers that 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 jump-start 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 be very clear when I say ``projects.'' I mean projects of 
any kind. That means both renewable and conventional sources of energy.
  We have 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 United States rule, the WOTUS rule. It significantly 
expands the Federal Government's authority when it comes to water 
sources across the country, and it will mean more people will have to 
get more permits and deal with more redtape--many times, on their own 
private farmland.
  Fortunately, we challenged that rule through a Congressional Review 
Act, and it passed in a bipartisan way in both the House and the 
Senate, and it will go to the President's desk. It is up to him.
  Have you listened to the voices of the American people or will you 
continue with these tactics that you have been doing?
  So what do we need to do? Why do we need to do it? How do we get it 
done?
  I have been saying all along that I believe the best solutions are by 
going through regular order--bipartisan, through our committees--
through the Environment and Public Works Committee, through the Energy 
Committee--and through any other committee that has relevant actions 
toward permitting. It is where we can hear those who know these issues 
the best. We can formulate solutions, hash out our differences, and 
compromise. I believe that is the only way that we can get permitting 
reform across the line, and I am willing to do whatever I can.
  I am glad the House is taking the first swing at this and sending us 
a great starting point for how we can finally address America's broken 
permitting process and give a boost to energy production right here at 
home. There is no denying there is growing momentum in the Senate to 
get real, legitimate permitting reform across the finish line and 
signed into law. I have 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 
of the above'' solution, which we all say we want, that increases our 
national security, creates jobs, keeps good jobs at home, and that, 
lastly and very importantly, lowers the energy costs for American 
families.
  With that, I am proud to be here with my fellow Republican Senators 
who have the solutions to energy independence.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. HOEVEN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues today, 
the esteemed Senator from West Virginia and the senior Senator from 
Texas, to talk about the importance of producing more energy in 
America, which means that we have got to find a way to press back 
against the Biden administration's harmful policies that have caused 
energy prices to increase and have fueled inflation across our entire 
economy.
  Gas prices, today, are $3.46 nationally. That is the average--$3.46 
nationally. It has gone up 45 percent since President Biden took 
office. It is almost a 50-percent increase. That means everyone out 
there, every day, is paying 50 percent more at the pump. And it is not 
just that. It is the impact on inflation. There is an energy component 
in every good and every service that people buy. With a 50-percent 
increase in the price of gas at the pump, think about what that means. 
That is a 50-percent increase in energy cost in terms of inflation, 
which is hitting Americans so hard right now. Residential electricity 
prices spiked 25 percent during the same period. With natural gas, the 
price is up more than 50 percent--more than 50 percent.
  What is causing this? Clearly, it is the Biden administration's 
policies. They spent the last 2 years restricting and curtailing U.S. 
energy production in pursuit of this Green New Deal, starting with day 
1 when President Biden came into office with his canceling the Keystone 
XL Pipeline, and it has continued with the moratorium that he put on 
Federal oil and gas leases shortly thereafter.

[[Page S1030]]

  President Biden, the Biden administration, along with Members of 
Congress, the 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 they not only put a moratorium in place on oil and gas production 
on Federal lands but then later came back and said, OK, they will start 
allowing some production, but only 20 percent of those Federal lands 
are available, and the Biden administration increased the royalty rates 
by 50 percent. When you restrict supply and raise the cost, of course 
that is going to raise the price of energy in this country, and it is 
going to reduce the supply.
  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 United 
States regulation. The waters of the United States rule absolutely 
impacts everybody across this country. It is a fundamental property 
rights issue. Again, it affects not only 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. Instead of producing more energy 
here at home, they are 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 United States produced 13 million barrels of oil per 
day, including 1.5 million barrels per day from my State, North Dakota.
  U.S. oil production remains down at about 12.1 million barrels per 
day, so that is 1 million barrels a day less than when the 
administration came into office--1 million barrels a day. For example, 
in our State, we are producing a little over 1 million barrels a day 
when we were at 1.5 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. To this 
end, I have 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 brings certainty to the permitting 
process for important cross-border energy pipeline and electric 
transmission line projects and prevents the President from taking 
unilateral action to cancel vital energy projects like the Keystone XL 
Pipeline.
  The Promoting Interagency Coordination for Review of Natural Gas 
Projects Act streamlines the review process for interstate natural gas 
pipelines and LNG projects, helping to more efficiently deliver natural 
gas to areas that need it the most.
  More pipelines are needed to deliver natural gas to areas, including 
New England.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, in your State, we need pipelines up 
there. There are still people up there who use fuel oil rather than 
natural gas because we don't have the pipeline capacity up there to 
bring it to them. That obviously increases their costs. Again, going 
back to environmental standards, it is clearly advantageous if they 
were 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 in States like North Dakota and others where you have split 
mineral estates, where the Federal Government has no surface acreage, 
but the minerals underneath the land is in some cases owned by the 
Federal Government, in some cases owned by private individuals and 
others, and they are 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 a 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 Cost Act, which is currently being considered on the 
House floor, H.R. 1.
  It is 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 at home for American consumers in this country.
  The United States is fortunate to have abundant and affordable 
reserves in coal, oil, and gas. These resources are one of our Nation's 
greatest strengths. It is an incredible asset.
  Nobody has better environmental stewardship than our country in 
producing energy. Thanks to the shale revolution, the United States 
became the world's largest oil and gas producer, and we have been able 
to do it while simultaneously reducing emissions. The carbon capture 
technologies we are advancing are actually reducing emissions.
  Once again, by encouraging domestic production by streamlining energy 
project approvals to get energy to market, we can unleash America's 
full energy potential to increase supply and bring down costs for hard-
working families.
  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 hard-working 
Americans to bring down inflation and also because it is such a vital 
component of our national security. Energy security is national 
security.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to thank our friends from North 
Dakota, from West Virginia, and from Nebraska for being here today to 
talk about producing low-cost energy, which would reduce emissions.
  I am from an energy-producing State. In Texas, we are an ``all of the 
above'' State. We actually generate more electricity from wind than any 
other State in the Nation.
  While I know many people think of the Lone Star State as being 
primarily an oil and gas producer, which we are, we really are an ``all 
of the above'' State because we found that, for example, 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. We have 
even had instances where, because of very, very cold weather, 100-year 
cold snaps, even 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.
  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 basket, 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 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 redtape. This process is not just cumbersome, it is also time-
consuming and expensive. On average, it takes 4\1/2\ years to complete 
the environmental review for potential projects. Again, that is just 
the average--4\1/2\ years. Many projects take longer. In fact, it takes 
more than 6 years to complete the environmental review for a quarter of 
the projects.
  Whether we are 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

[[Page S1031]]

the neck of America's energy producers; it raises costs for consumers, 
who need more, not less, energy; and it delays the jobs and investment 
that these projects would create.
  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 American Clean Power Association and the American Council on 
Renewable 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 is 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.
  I know that sometimes people think that building things is 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 is 
nuclear power, whether it is natural gas, whether it is wind. All of 
these require certain basic infrastructure, and they are all slowed 
down and made more expensive by the antiquated permitting process. This 
problem harms American energy security and stands in the way of new 
jobs and investments in communities all across the country.
  It is time--it is 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 have heard this week, 
they are 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.'' That is hardly the 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 
and 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 on point on this issue. She and Senator 
Barrasso, who is the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, are our leaders in trying to find a way to fix this broken 
process and promote America's energy security.
  As I said, there is strong bipartisan support for commonsense 
permitting reform, and I hope the majority leader will not stand in the 
way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                 Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, my colleagues and I are here today to 
discuss the importance of unleashing American energy. Especially during 
a time of international turmoil, we in the United States need to ensure 
that 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 is 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 is holding us back is outdated regulation of E15. 
Nebraska is an energy-producing State and has an important role in any 
discussion about unleashing American energy. E15 is a biofuel blend of 
gasoline with 15 percent ethanol. This critical fuel mix is proven to 
lower gas prices for consumers at the pump. One study found that the 
average price of E15 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. Consumers want 
the lower fuel prices of E15, and retailers know it. That is why the 
number of retailers offering E15 has more than doubled since 2017, 
rising from 1,200 to 2,700.
  E15 boosts our domestic energy security. Our country is blessed with 
ample natural resources, and we should take advantage of them--
including ethanol. Use of E15 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 are 
46 percent 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 E15?
  This issue is important to my State--very important. Nebraska is the 
second largest producer of biofuels in the Nation and generates over 2 
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 E15 during the 
summer months. The regulation restricting E15 is based on a measure 
called the Reid vapor pressure, or the RVP, which measures the 
volatility of certain gasoline blends. The irony of this is that E15 
actually has a lower RVP than E10, 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 Nebraska use biofuels like E15 to help fuel the rest of this 
country. For the sake of those Nebraskans, as well as the average 
American at the pump, I have been leading the charge for many years to 
end the legal limbo that we see around E15.
  This month, I introduced again the Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice 
Act, which would allow for the year-round, nationwide sale of E15. 
Eight different States have made admirable strides to allow the sale of 
E15 in their regions, but these efforts can only result in a patchwork 
of uneven regulations across the country, leaving many families without 
access to cheaper E15.
  The EPA could--and they should--take emergency action to allow E15 
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 E15 and its benefits.
  We have 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 is 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 E15 fuel.
  All of my colleagues should support more choices for lower cost fuel, 
especially as our country reels from high inflation.
  The Consumer and Fuel Retailer Choice Act provides families with the 
choice to purchase and retailers with the choice to sell E15. That is a 
major win for family farmers, for consumers at the pump, and for our 
American security.
  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.


                              H.J. Res. 27

  Mr. RICKETTS. 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 United States rule. This 
rule would change the definition of ``navigable

[[Page S1032]]

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 understatement. Quite frankly, it is embarrassing.
  I am from Nebraska. I get it. I am 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, and it says: 
``deep enough and wide enough to afford passage to ships.''
  If you put a boat on a roadside ditch, you are not going anywhere. If 
you put a boat on a puddle on a construction site, you are not going 
anywhere. If you put a boat on a pond, you are just going around the 
pond. You are not going anywhere besides that.
  To Nebraska 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 for 
producers, property owners, and small businesses.
  President Biden and liberal bureaucrats have absolutely no business 
regulating this, and I think the President knows it. You know why I 
think the President knows it? Well, because President Biden's EPA and 
Army Corps of Engineers quietly finalized this rule on the last working 
day of the year, just before New Year's Eve. It seems like the 
President and his cronies hoped that no one would notice.
  Well, guess what. We noticed. Nebraska's farmers and ranchers 
noticed. My Senate colleagues and I noticed, and we are pushing back 
hard. And, today, my colleagues and I are defending private property 
rights from this unconstitutional power grab. Today, we are sending a 
message to President Biden that our farmers and ranchers need relief, 
not regulation. Today, we are fulfilling our responsibility to provide 
oversight and accountability in response to Executive overreach. Today, 
we are defending the authority of the legislative branch.
  When I was Governor, I repeatedly opposed President Obama's efforts 
to expand the waters of the United States rule. As Senator, I strongly 
oppose President Biden's attempt to do the same.
  I want to again thank Senator Capito for her leadership on this 
issue. I am proud to have joined a bipartisan effort today to vote to 
rescind this unconstitutional rule. I hope President Biden will choose 
to sign this commonsense resolution as he did the DC crime bill. He 
agreed with a bipartisan group of Senators then, and he should do the 
same now.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Cortez Masto). The Senator from Missouri.


                    Unanimous Consent Request--S. 85

  Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, 4 months ago, the U.S. Senate, and then 
the U.S. House, came together to ban the app TikTok on all Federal 
Government devices--on 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 is time to act now because 
we have seen, just in the last week, the TikTok CEO come before the 
U.S. Congress and confirm that the reasons we acted 4 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 keystrokes. Now, 
think about this for a second. It is not just the videos you may upload 
if you have the app on your phone. It is not just the videos that you 
watch. It is the keystrokes that you enter--and not just while you are 
on the app. Oh, no. It tracks your keystrokes all the time--while you 
are texting, what you are emailing. It tracks your contact list. It 
reads your phone list.
  We believe, based on independent third-party analysis, that it can 
get into email. And it does this whether or not the user consents. In 
fact, there is 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 have got TikTok turned off on their phone.
  What else have we learned? Well, that TikTok is monitoring the 
location of Americans. It is not just your keystrokes. It is your 
location data. Where are you right now? What is it that you are doing? 
Where are you moving to? Are you in a car? Are you in a building? On 
what floor are you on? TikTok can use the settings of your phone to 
track exactly where Americans are.
  And we know that they have been doing this--TikTok has been gathering 
this data--not just on American citizens but also on American 
journalists. We know that they are able to see what journalists are 
saying, to see where journalists are going.
  New whistleblower revelations have shown 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 keystrokes, 
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 preferred the word ``surveillance.'' Maybe he preferred the 
word ``monitoring.'' Maybe he preferred the word ``tracking.'' But I 
actually think ``spying'' just about captures it.
  The problem with TikTok is not the videos on the app. The problem 
with TikTok is, it is 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 wholly owned 
subsidiary of the Chinese parent company ByteDance. We know that 
ByteDance has Chinese Communist Party members in its senior leadership. 
In fact, 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, in China.
  Whistleblowers have come forward 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 and is subject to Chinese law, which both the 2014 
espionage law in that country and their 2017 national security law, 
which required--required--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.

[[Page S1033]]

  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 are using the app TikTok 
to do it.

  Of course, that is 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 have done it. Think about the Confucius Institutes 
all across the country that the CCP funded on America's college 
campuses. Think about the researchers they funded and tried to place 
into key programs, key institutes and universities all across the 
country. Heaven's sake, think about the Chinese spy balloon that just 
went over this country, right over my home State of Missouri, just a 
few weeks ago, photographing everything that they could.
  Now, this is a pattern. The difference is, in those cases, we 
addressed it. We shut down the Confucius Institutes. Those who have 
lied about their 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.
  Now, we have 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 have 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 is no rush to judgment here. 
This is what administration after administration has concluded; that it 
is time to take action.
  Here is 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 would shut it down immediately. 
And we have done it in these other cases. But with TikTok, now TikTok 
says: Oh, no, 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 in law school where we covered the 
First Amendment right to spy. The last time I checked my Constitution, 
there was no such protection. And I can be darn sure that there is no 
special First Amendment carve-out for communists.
  Now, 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 Chinese Communist Party is trying to do in harvesting 
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 are 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, their ties to Beijing, their ties to the 
CCP, their ongoing efforts at espionage, and their 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 said that they weren't controlled by 
ByteDance. Now we know they are. They said that China's 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 will find on TikTok. I haven't talked 
about the risks to mental health that it may pose.
  And there is 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 
is because Beijing isn't stupid. They know it is ``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 
is designed to addict and then to be used as a portal to spy on 
American citizens.
  Now, I tell you what, here is 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 hired a fleet of lobbyists and have 
spent untold amounts of cash. I am told that even today TikTok 
lobbyists have been seen here in the building. I have no doubt that 
they are scurrying around right now. Maybe they are in the Gallery.

  I just say this: We have the opportunity today to send a message to 
this corporate interest that the U.S. Senate is not for sale; that we 
cannot be bought; that we cannot be purchased; that we cannot be 
influenced by their lobbying campaign, by their corporate money; that 
we will instead side with the American people. We will tell the truth 
about what this app is. We will do our jobs and protect Americans.
  Now, some say that we ought to have a broader bill that would not 
actually ban TikTok but would give new authority to the executive 
branch and leave it open. I don't agree with that. My view is, we 
should act decisively to ban TikTok directly. We shouldn't give new, 
open-ended authority to Federal bureaucrats; we should target this 
threat specifically. That is 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 sends the message to communist 
China that you cannot buy us.
  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 objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, 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 that the Constitution actually prohibits 
bills of attainder. You are not allowed to have a specific bill against 
a person or a company. So 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 has been attributed to TikTok 
could also be attributed to domestic big tech companies. In fact, one 
of the bills they are 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

[[Page S1034]]

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 percent of young women and 53 
percent 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 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 apps they worry are influenced by the 
Chinese.
  Before banning TikTok, these censors might want to discover that 
China already bans TikTok. Do we really want to emulate Chinese speech 
bans? Aren't we the ones who say it is wrong for China to ban speech? 
So we are going to be just like China and ban speech we are afraid of?
  The vice president of FreedomWorks, John Tamny, 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 are 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?
  Go to the app. They say 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 anti-communist religious sect that is persecuted in 
China. Go to TikTok and search for videos advocating Taiwan's 
independence; criticism of Chinese President Xi Jinping. Videos are all 
over TikTok that are critical of official Chinese positions. That is 
why TikTok is banned in China. Do we want to follow China's lead in 
banning speech?
  We should not let fear of communism cause us to ignore our First 
Amendment protections of free speech.
  This legislation violates not only the First Amendment rights of 
those who own TikTok--many of whom are actually Americans, 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 companies? There is not even a list of what percentage. What if 
the Chinese own 1 percent of a company or 10 percent of a company?
  One of the bills before us would allow the Department of Commerce to 
decide--there are five countries they list that are adversaries; these 
are big countries that have a lot of interactions with our country 
already--decide which country in addition to the five.
  The Department of Commerce can designate a country as an adversary, 
but then they can designate a company. But there are no specifics. Do 
the new people who are designated to be an adversary have to own 100 
percent of the company? 50 percent of the company? 1 percent of the 
company?
  This is a crazy gift of power to one person. I don't care which party 
they are in; it is a huge mistake.
  Doctors Mueller and Farhat 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. When the regimes 
collapsed, the people celebrated. They danced on the Berlin Wall and on 
the grave of communism.
  Have faith. Have faith that Americans are smart enough to 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 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 is no . . . First 
Amendment carve-out for communists.'' 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 it. 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 you 
appoint to be the head of your CIA. But this is a free country. You can 
actually have terrible ideas, and you can broadcast them. That is what 
freedom of speech is about. It is not about saying: You know, I love 
Mother Teresa. It is not about saying things uncontroversial. It is 
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 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 percent of government requests 
to hand over your personal data. So you are worried about the Chinese 
Government? Your government has all of your data, and they are sucking 
it up from all of Big Tech. So the thing is, is your next step to ban 
Big Tech in our country?
  There are some people who are promoting banning TikTok, and their 
next step is Facebook. This is on both sides of the aisle. This 
contagion is infecting the whole country--both parties.
  Realize that this means--with 85 percent of government requests to 
Big Tech being honored, this means that Facebook, Google, Apple, 
Microsoft, once presented with a subpoena or a warrant, routinely hand 
over the contents of emails, 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 is a big cable that runs from Big 
Tech to the government, and they snoop on every bit of our information. 
If you want to protect privacy, why don't we start by protecting our 
own privacy in this country?
  To those who are worried that the Chinese Government might somehow 
now have access to millions of American teenagers' information, realize 
that all social media sucks up personal data that people voluntarily 
provide. If you are going to ban TikTok, what is next?
  Arguably, several domestic apps censor conservatives more than 
TikTok. I know this because I have been censored and I have been 
banned. I have had speeches on the Senate floor that are protected by 
the Constitution banned and kicked off of YouTube. I despise these 
people, but 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. That is what happens in a free country. If 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 it is no big 
deal. This is the First Amendment right of 150 million Americans.
  I have a host of complaints about domestic social media platforms. 
They cancel conservatives. But I am not in favor of banning one of them 
or regulating their speech or telling them who can post and who can't 
post. That is 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 is something called the Committee on Foreign 
Investment in the United States--CFIUS--and TikTok has agreed to put 
all their data in Oracle's

[[Page S1035]]

Cloud, and they have agreed to 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 accusation that they are somehow part of the Communist 
Party, which is not true. It is a company that is owned--probably the 
majority of it--by Americans and Europeans and other Asians outside of 
China. Less than 50 percent of it is owned by any Chinese. There is no 
Chinese Government of the American TikTok.
  Even that being said, they are willing to put all of it under the 
Oracle Cloud. They are willing to have U.S. regulators be given access 
to it, all because they want to continue to make money. 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 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 more dangerous: videos of 
teenagers dancing or the precedent of the U.S. Government banning 
speech. For me, it is 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. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Would the Senator from Kentucky entertain a question?
  Mr. PAUL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  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 is what we are 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 them 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 is not the case. If you turn it off, it continues to 
collect information. You don't need 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 
for permission to share it with the Chinese Communist Party; it just 
does it. That is the problem.
  Scour the Constitution. Scour the First Amendment. I promise you, you 
won't find any right to espionage. You won't find any right to spy. And 
this novel right that the Senator thinks he has discovered for 
Americans to be spied upon--I never heard of such a thing in the 
history of this country. I am astounded 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 
have all of their data taken from them. That, apparently, is democracy.
  That is not democracy. That is 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 is where we have to draw the line.
  As to money, the Senator said--and I think he is exactly right--that 
TikTok wants to make money. No doubt about it. And, my, the money 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 is 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 are being sold for the wishes and the whims of Beijing, and 
they are being lied to every step of the way.
  I will yield to the Senator from Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, there are just a couple of points I want 
to address. I have been watching in the office; I am not here to make a 
motion or anything, but this is an important topic. We don't do this 
enough, which is this back-and-forth, so I will be brief.
  The first is, this is not a First Amendment issue, because we are not 
trying to ban ``booty'' videos. I don't know if there is a better term 
for it, but that is not what we are trying to ban. It is not about the 
content of the videos that are online, it is about the dangers to the 
national security that are presented by the way that this company 
functions. And that is what people don't understand and what 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 are doing but what you are 
doing across the platform, your pictures, everything. They want to 
learn from it, but not just because some guy is sitting and reading all 
this stuff. They feed it into an algorithm that is powered by 
artificial intelligence. It knows you better than you know yourself. 
That is why 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--at least the algorithm does.
  So who owns the algorithm? The algorithm is owned by a company named 
ByteDance that is in China. Now, listen, I don't care who owns 
ByteDance. I don't care if it is owned 100 percent by Americans. 
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. So 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 Ma 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 for a year and 
disappear. That is what happens.
  OK, so all these people have to respond, and ByteDance has to answer 
to whatever they are told. Now this thing about Oracle and the cloud, 
it sounds really good, but 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. No matter what, for TikTok to work, you have 
to give the engineers in China access to it because they control the 
algorithm.
  So it honestly doesn't matter where the data is stored. They still 
have to open it up for the engineers at ByteDance in China to 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 this talk of a 
forced sale, the Chinese Government says: We will block it. And I am 
like, how can the Chinese Government block the sale of a company they 
don't control? How can the Chinese Government block the sale of a 
company that is not theirs?
  The answer is, because under Chinese law, ByteDance cannot do 
anything that they are not allowed to do, and that algorithm can be 
used against us.
  The other one is we will 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 is

[[Page S1036]]

just not called TikTok. TikTok U.S. is what they call it abroad, but 
there is an equivalent that uses the same AI 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.
  But, look, it is not about the content. All of these social media 
companies--there is a difference, though. I am not a fan of Facebook 
and how they handle things. I am not a fan of any of these social media 
companies. But the difference is, whatever they do wrong, they do 
because they want to do it. If the U.S. Government goes tomorrow to 
Facebook and says: We want you to do X, they will probably say no. They 
wouldn't need to listen to us under a law. You can subpoena them for 
records through a process that involves courts, but none of that exists 
in China. And that is the point that is being missed here.
  So last point I want to address: No evidence that they are doing 
anything now. You go on the video, you can search this and you can 
search that, absolutely. Because they understand that 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 are 
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. 
And yet 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 it happens. The truth of 
the matter is this: There is this powerful amount of data, 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 is why since 2019, I have been calling for this to be 
banned. There is no other way to get control of this. The dangers it 
poses to the country are real. I think before we ban a company that 150 
million Americans use, we owe them a better explanation than: Just 
trust us; it is bad. I agree with that. And we should be doing more of 
it. But 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 and now it owned them 
but told them: You must use it this way. Because that is what we are 
facing. That is 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 the future to a 
Chinese Government that can destroy their business at a moment's notice 
unless they can convince their elected officials that America shouldn't 
defend Taiwan or that America shouldn't be tough on trade.
  However they want to weaponize it, the risk is real. I don't waste my 
time going after social media platforms unless it is important. This is 
important. I hope we will talk more about it. It deserves the attention 
that it is starting to get.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, let me just finish with this, that the 
Senator from Kentucky decried the collection of personal data by 
American social media companies--and he is right to do that, by the 
way. I am concerned about that, too, no doubt. But he pointed out that 
many American social media companies collect all of this information, 
that they do it without users' 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 is not a market. It is 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. Just 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 accessed by anybody 
there who wants it, under China's national security laws.
  That is a threat to your personal security, and that is why we should 
act to ban it.
  Let me just finally ask the Senator from Kentucky--he and I talked 
about this before--would the Senator consider allowing us to set a 
rollcall vote, an up-or-down rollcall vote? Not unanimous consent 
passed but, as I said, a rollcall vote at a time certain. Would the 
Senator consent to that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object. I am unlikely to take First 
Amendment advice from someone who believes that the First Amendment 
doesn't protect the Communist Party. You will find no greater foe of 
Communism, no greater critic. I have been a longstanding 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. And 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 very wary of.

  We should beware of people who peddle fear. We should beware of 
people who peddle half-truths. Almost everything that has been 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 have all the young kids thinking and doing and trying to get them 
to click on different pictures or trying to get them.
  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. And if you are not putting enough conservatives on there, 
by golly, we are going to have a government commission that is going to 
determine what kind of content gets on there.
  These are scary ideas. Don't succumb to fear. Don't give up our 
freedoms. Don't say that, oh, my goodness, we are 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 are restricting what they can do, and you are restricting what 
they can use, all with innuendo. Everything that has been said about, 
oh, this is a channel and a funnel to the Chinese Government--these are 
all conjecture. These are all things they are saying happened. As far 
as the sale of the company, I don't think we should force them to sell, 
but I do believe, in a heartbeat, they could be sold.
  They are located in the Cayman Islands. They are incorporated in the 
Cayman Islands, and they can 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 the speech are in the wrong, and they will 
find that out when the Supreme Court rules on this.

[[Page S1037]]

  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I would just say in conclusion that the 
security risk from TikTok led us to ban it 4 months ago for 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 facts. The 
truth will carry the day, and we will continue to fight.
  I yield the floor.
  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 procedure 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? So you do not need time?
  In that case, I ask unanimous consent for Senator Lee, Senator 
Hirono, Senator Bennet, and Senator Marshall to be granted 5 minutes 
each prior to the scheduled vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to discuss the promotions and 
appointments of general 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 
2 months.
  There have been no substantive objections raised against these 
nominations. For the benefit of my colleagues who 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, in my view, 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 military officers who decide promotions 
purely on merit, considering the skill, talent, and the military's 
collective assessment of their potential to lead in the grades for 
which 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, our political process, our Nation, and this Senate.
  The senior Senator from Alabama placed his hold on February 16th, 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 backlogged nominations, if we are not already 
there, that will imperil our national security, degrade unit readiness, 
and place undue, and undeserved, hardships on military 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 degrading 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 the Senate's tradition and practice.
  And I want to turn to some specific claims made by the Senator from 
Alabama. He has asserted a number of times that the Department changed 
the law or that DOD somehow lacked authority. That simply isn't true.
  To be clear, under its new policy--and this is with respect to 
reproductive rights for female soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and 
guardians--the Department of Defense will provide administrative leave 
and paid travel if a member of the military or their dependent is 
stationed in a State or country that does not provide the healthcare 
needed.
  The Department has broad statutory authority to provide travel 
benefits to servicemembers and their dependents, and it does so 
routinely, including for the provision of healthcare services. I am not 
aware of any assertion from anyone knowledgeable of the law and of the 
Department's actions 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 administrative leave policies. 
They do not violate the Federal prohibition on DOD paying for 
noncovered reproductive health services. Such reproductive health 
services will still be paid for by members and dependents out of their 
own pockets. These policies merely facilitate the provision of health 
services for servicemembers and dependents who may be stationed in an 
area that does not provide the needed healthcare, including overseas 
locations.
  Further, the senior Senator from Alabama has publicly stated:
  ``If Democrats are so worried about the nominations, 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 ad infinitum, unable to do 
anything else.
  And there are currently 184 general and flag officers, including 11 
to be promoted to lieutenant general or vice admiral, subject to this 
political hold.
  And let me highlight just three to show you the impact and the 
consequences of these holds.
  One nominee is nominated to be Commander of the Navy's 7th Fleet. It 
is the largest of the Navy's deployed fleets and has responsibility for 
the Indo-PACOM area of operations.
  And I hear constantly in the Committee and elsewhere on the floor: 
The Chinese threat--we have got to do more. We just listened to a long 
diatribe about TikTok and how dangerous it is.
  I think what might be more dangerous is not having a confirmed leader 
for this fleet in the Pacific able to move out immediately to any type 
of threat coming from the Chinese.
  In addition, the Commander of the Navy's 5th Fleet is responsible for 
the naval and combined maritime forces in the Indian Ocean, Persian 
Gulf, Arabian Sea, and it is under the overall command of U.S. Central 
Command. And we hear every day--we heard it just recently--about how 
the Iranians are taking advantage of us. They say we are not responding 
strongly enough.

[[Page S1038]]

  Well, how effective will our response be if we are not quite sure who 
the Commander of this fleet is? We have got a nominee, but the officer 
is 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 seem around here to 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, therefore, against Russia.
  And, again, my colleagues would stand up and say: We have got to do 
more for Ukraine. We have to make sure they get the support they need, 
through coordination with NATO. We have to do all these things, but we 
really don't need anyone in Brussels to help with military advice and 
assistance. We will just ignore that.
  These are just three examples, and I would like to look ahead because 
this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
  Within the next 8 months, we expect the Department to nominate 
approximately 650 general and flag officers, including 80 three- or 
four-star nominees, all of whom will come through the Armed Services 
Committee and require Senate confirmation.
  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 Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff.

  We also expect nominations for the service chiefs of the Army, the 
Navy, and the Marine Corps. The Chief of Staff for the Army, the CNO of 
the Navy, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps are scheduled to 
retire.
  If this hold persists, we will not have leadership in the Army, the 
Navy, and the Marine Corps, and that would be devastating to readiness, 
to morale, to the whole history of our government in which we move 
nominees based on merit, not as political hostages.
  We are also talking about major combat commands--Cyber Command. Does 
anyone have to talk about the relevance of Cyber Command? Again, we 
just listened to a long, long discussion about cyber security and the 
stealing of information and governmental interference with that. Cyber 
Command is the key actor from the Department of Defense standpoint in 
all of those efforts. And, frankly, without a Commander of Cyber 
Command, I think the TikTok issue sort of diminishes in importance.
  We also have SPACECOM and NORTHCOM. They are 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, hypersonics--all those possibilities.
  There are also three Deputy Commanders who are coming on--CYBERCOM, 
CENTCOM, and AFRICOM.
  So what you can see is, if this policy continues or this practice 
continues, we are wiping out the leadership of the Department of 
Defense and doing an extraordinary disservice to the men and women who 
wear the uniform of the United States.
  We have always 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 serve with him or 
her.
  Now, I believe in a very strong military based on constitutional and 
professional values. We must not inject political theater into this 
process.
  If we do not have a coherent, organized leadership at the Department 
of Defense, then we are putting our troops at risk. That is quite 
simple, and, to me, it is unacceptable.
  With that, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to 
executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: 
Calendar Nos. 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 
89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 
105, 106, and 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 that 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 objection?
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, I reserve the right to object.
  I want to start out by mentioning the great respect I have for 
Senator Reed. I am deeply grateful for the chairman's service to this 
country, both the service in uniform and as chairman of the Armed 
Service Committee, of 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 that have been said about me by 
Democratic Members of the Senate.
  Every day this week, the majority leader has come to the floor and 
attacked me by name. It is not very often the majority leader of the 
Senate attacks a Senator by name 3 days in a row.
  Now, in my former profession, I have been called everything so it 
really doesn't bother me too much, but the majority leader has also 
tweeted about me. That is good.
  So let's get the record straight as we speak.
  Right now, I want to talk about what I have done and what I am doing. 
First of all, I am 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 civilian nominees is 
getting voted on this week. If Democrats are so worried about these 
nominations, let's vote. If we are not going to vote on taxpayer-funded 
abortion, then let's vote on these nominees. Voting is our job. It is 
not much to ask of the U.S. Senate to do our job, to vote.
  Senator Schumer and some of the other Senators have claimed that my 
hold on these nominees is unprecedented.
  Well, it is not. My hold is far from unprecedented. In fact, Senator 
Bennet himself threatened to do this exact same thing just a few months 
ago. Why? Because the Air Force planned to move Space Command from 
Colorado to Huntsville, AL. We have talked about this recently. Two 
years ago, we had a Senator from Illinois put a hold on 1,000 nominees 
over the promotion of one single officer. So far, my hold has affected 
184 nominations.

  I also will note that these Senators haven't said a word about our 
recruiting crisis that we have going on as we speak. Democrats are in a 
panic about 184 promotions for generals and officers, and yet I have 
not heard a word from them about the 15,000 enlisted soldiers we are 
missing right now from last year's recruiting class. That is an entire 
division.
  There is another 8,600 who were discharged over the President's 
vaccine mandate--kicked out. I don't hear a word about that from the 
Democrats.
  The military is down 23,000 enlisted soldiers due to the actions 
taken by the Biden administration and his Secretary of Defense just 
this past year. Yet Democrats are worried about 184 generals getting 
their promotion? Only one of those things threatens our security. It is 
not officer promotion.
  When my dad was serving in World War II, we had one general for every 
6,000 enlisted soldiers--one. Today, we have got one general for every 
1,500. We do not suffer from a lack of generals in this country. We 
suffer from a lack of recruits. Military experts have known for a long 
time that the Pentagon is top-heavy.
  This entire line of attack on me is absolutely false. The generals' 
jobs are being done. Yet 23,000 enlisted troops that we are missing, 
their jobs are not being done.
  My Democrat friends keep saying abortion is necessary for readiness, 
but I have yet to hear a shred of evidence to back that up. I have been 
asking for months. Yet again, my Democrat friends have absolutely zero 
evidence to show abortion makes our troops safer, stronger, or more 
lethal.
  And let's be clear about what we are talking about. We are not 
talking about access to abortion. We are talking about taxpayers 
funding for travel and extra paid time to get elective abortions.
  We already have a policy. We already have a policy in the Army about 
abortion, and it has worked fine. But this policy includes spouses and 
dependents. We are talking about taxpayer funding for somebody's kid to 
get an abortion

[[Page S1039]]

in another State. This has never been in the policy until now, because 
Congress has ensured that the Pentagon cannot perform or facilitate 
abortions except in legal circumstances, and limited.
  This morning, I received an email from a soldier's mom in Alabama. 
She said her son has had to pay thousands of dollars out of his own 
pocket to buy uniforms and bedsheets. She said it is absurd to force 
taxpayers to pay for travel for abortions while our troops--our 
troops--are paying out of pocket for their uniforms. She is right. She 
is exactly right.
  And that is what this is all about. Earlier today. Senator Schumer 
said this is about women making their own choices. That is not true. 
That is exactly not true. This is about taxpayer funding. That is what 
we are talking about. We have strict limits on taxpayer funding for 
abortions in this country. That has gone through this building right 
here. There has been a bipartisan consensus for 40 years. Yet, all of a 
sudden, Democrats are saying the military can't win wars without 
expanded abortion. It doesn't make sense.
  Frankly, we already have policies for abortion in the military. Over 
the last 5 years, there have been about 20 abortions a year performed 
in the military. These have been in cases of rape, incest, and threat 
to the life of the mom. Over the 40 years, I don't recall the military 
ever once complaining that we weren't performing enough abortions. Not 
one time have I heard that--not one time.
  According to one report cited by the Pentagon officials to my staff, 
the new policy would expand taxpayer-funded abortions from 20 abortions 
a year to 4,000--4,000. And who is going to pay for that? The people in 
this country are going to pay for it.
  This goes beyond the law without anybody taking a vote here in this 
building.
  We were elected to pass laws. We were elected to do our job. The 
Department of Defense wasn't elected. They were appointed.
  In fact, this contradicts what Congress has actually voted for. This 
includes some of the people complaining the loudest. Earlier this week, 
37 Democratic Senators went on record in asking for the Department of 
Defense to go beyond the laws that they themselves have voted for. Now, 
in fairness, I would note that the chairman and Senator Schumer were 
not on that list of 37 Senators.
  But the idea that more abortions make our troops safer and more 
lethal is absurd.
  This has been a coordinated campaign to pressure me to lift these 
holds. That doesn't bother me one bit, and it is not going to work. 
Frankly, it is just going to make me do the opposite.
  I am glad the majority leader is taking notes on these holds. If 
Democrats want to expand taxpayer funding for abortion, then let's vote 
on it. I am ready to vote on it. The majority leader, the last time I 
looked, controls this floor. He can make it happen. And if these 
nominees are so important, then we can vote on them too.
  So far this year, the Senate has already taken 24 days off. This is 
in addition to the 2-week recess in January and the 2-week recess which 
starts at the end of this week. I have only been here for 2 years, but 
I am told this is one of the slowest years in memory around here. I 
don't have anything to compare it to. Sometimes, we don't even vote 
until 5:30 on a Tuesday. People back home don't work those kind of 
hours, but they are expected to pay for what we are talking about.
  Yet the Democrats are in a panic over the idea of taking more votes. 
I don't mind working full weeks. I worked all my life. I had a full-
time job. I will stay here until hell freezes over. I am not going to 
be intimidated by a campaign of selective outrage.
  Let me remind the chairman that I gave the Pentagon fair warning. I 
gave them fair warning. They chose to go forward with this policy.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
this letter I sent to Secretary Austin on December 9, 2022.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 December 9, 2022.
     Hon. Lloyd J. Austin III,
     U.S. Department of Defense,
     Washington DC.
       Secretary Austin: Your October 20, 2022 memo directing the 
     Department of Defense to explore increasing access to 
     reproductive health care will have broad ramifications for 
     the department's readiness, manpower, and budget. On 
     Wednesday, December 7, my staff received a brief from the 
     (acting) Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs 
     and learned that you plan to implement these changes by 
     year's end. The brief also revealed estimates of how your 
     plan will expand the number of abortions subsidized by the 
     DoD. The estimates are as exponential as they are immoral.
       The department's authorities to provide for or fund 
     abortions are governed by 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1093 which limits 
     these to cases of rape, incest, or pregnancies that threaten 
     the life of the mother. For years, the department has 
     averaged less than 20 abortions per year. The brief revealed 
     the policy intentions put forth in your October 20 memo, 
     ``Ensuring Access to Reproductive Health Care,'' would 
     increase DoD-subsidized abortions by as much as 4,100 per 
     year. That estimate does not include dependents, which your 
     policy also intends to cover, who might seek assistance in 
     obtaining an abortion.
       This vast expansion of DoD-subsidized abortions is made 
     worse by how your plan will provide unrestricted access to 
     abortion. As six states and the District of Columbia have no 
     abortion restrictions, your policy would force taxpayers to 
     finance access to abortions without protections other states 
     have duly enacted such as waiting periods and prohibitions on 
     late-term abortions. Like me, many Americans find such 
     abortions morally repugnant.
       When questioned on these issues, the department could not 
     provide analysis or estimates of how this policy change will 
     impact its budget, readiness, and manpower. It is 
     irresponsible to push forward with such a controversial 
     change to department policy without thorough due diligence on 
     how this will impact the readiness of the force.
       Lastly, it is my conviction that this proposed policy 
     change is illegal, circumvents Congress, and exceeds your 
     authority. Should you implement these proposed changes to the 
     department's abortion policies, I will place a hold on all 
     future DoD civilian and general/flag officer nominations.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Tommy Tuberville,
                                            United States Senator.

  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Now, I didn't want to do this, and I told the 
Department of Defense that. I told the people who were in charge of all 
the nominations.
  This was the Biden administration's choice, and I am going to keep my 
word. And because of that, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, first of all, the notion that we can simply 
start confirming these officers is patently absurd. There are 184 
nominations that are on hold now. We anticipate another 650 general and 
flag officer nominations throughout the remainder of this year.
  Because we get very little cooperation--in fact, none at all--from 
the Republicans, we average about three nominations a week--Senator 
Durbin knows this well--because we have to wait, during quorum calls, 
to exhaust the hours necessary before we can take the final vote. So we 
would be working many months, just on this batch of 184, to confirm 
these officers. And then when we add 650 additional nominations--and 
they will keep coming and coming--that is absolutely preposterous. It 
is impossible. So that is not an answer to the problem.
  He mentioned Senator Duckworth. Senator Duckworth held nominations 
for 3 weeks. She was not trying to change the policy of the Federal 
Government under the Trump administration. She wanted factual 
information whether President Trump had had politicized the military by 
interfering with Colonel Vindman's promotion. That is the exact 
opposite of what the Senator from Alabama is doing. He is holding 
everybody's nomination as a political action, just like President Trump 
was trying to do with Colonel Vindman, as reciprocation and as 
retaliation.
  We had a hearing on recruitment at the request of the minority. What 
are the issues there? The issues are that we have a 3-percent 
unemployment rate. One of the most significant issues facing the 
military services is the low percentage of individuals who are eligible 
and interested in military service.
  The issue of whether or not this policy affects recruiting, I think, 
was refuted by the Senator when he has indicated that he expects 4,000 
people to take advantage of this policy. Well, that is not a trivial 
number. And I would suspect women considering the

[[Page S1040]]

military would think hard, regardless of their moral position. They 
would not like to be in a place where they cannot get access to 
reproductive care. Twenty percent of the military are women. It is 
going to have an effect on women. Just look at the polling across the 
United States about Roe v. Wade versus the Dobbs decision, and I think 
you will find that there is a significant number of women who are 
concerned.
  So this is very simple. We are either going to politicize and 
completely ignore military nominations, using military officers as 
hostages for political decisions, or we can return to tradition and 
confirm expeditiously. And one final point, this issue will be 
considered in the usual order because during the Armed Services 
Committee markup, I presume there will be amendments on both sides that 
will be considered fairly, and this issue will be addressed, as it 
should be, in the context of the National Defense Authorization Act.
  What the Senator of Alabama is doing is damaging the military of the 
United States, perhaps catastrophically, if he continues this policy 
for many more weeks. That is not appropriate.
  With that I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I am here to stand in support of my friend 
and colleague from Alabama, Senator Tuberville, as he stands in 
opposition and raises his legitimate objections, which I share, to the 
Department of Defense's plan to use Federal funds to facilitate the 
performance of abortions.
  Look, there has long been among the American people a pretty 
widespread supermajority of Americans--Republicans and Democrats making 
up that supermajority--who say, regardless of how they as individuals 
feel about abortions, they don't want U.S. taxpayer dollars going to 
fund or facilitate abortions. That overwhelming supermajority 
preference for that is reflected in legislation that Congress has 
enacted, codified in 10 U.S.C., section 1093.
  So what has happened here is the Department of Defense has very 
cleverly disguised and very cleverly meandered around that so to 
technically comply with that statute. Instead of funding abortions and 
performing them on Federal facilities with Federal resources, they are 
facilitating, paying for the travel expenses--air, land travel, ground 
travel, meals--giving 3 weeks of leave in order to perform these. So 
they are still using Federal dollars to facilitate abortion, just in a 
way that is carefully gerrymandered around the text of 10 U.S.C., 
section 1093.
  Now, I want to echo what Senator Tuberville said a moment ago about 
Senator Jack Reed. I have profound respect for him. I admire him as a 
Senate friend and colleague, as the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, as himself, somebody who has given enormously to his country 
with his service through the military and otherwise.
  I do want to respond to a couple of points that he made because I 
don't think they lead where Senator Reed intended them to lead. He 
repeatedly described this as a civilian policy decision. Yes, this does 
embody a civilian policy decision, and it is a policy decision that is 
fundamentally legislative in nature.
  Now, if he wanted this made, he could have easily come to Congress. 
The Congress, including the U.S. Senate, has long been deferential to 
the Department of Defense when they come to us and say: We need this or 
that. This will help us perform our mission to keep our Nation safe and 
protected from threats to our national security. We are a pretty 
generous bunch, especially when it comes to the DOD.

  So why didn't they do that?
  Well, I think they didn't do that--I know they didn't do that--for 
one simple reason: They knew that the answer would be no.
  So, yes, the civilian policy decision--the last I checked, the organ, 
the branch, of the Federal Government that makes civilian policy 
decisions that affect the country--that bind the country with law--is 
this branch. We are the ones who get to set that. Now, sure. They are 
authorized to make a number of their own internal operating decisions; 
but whereas here, a policy is so blatantly at odds with the fundamental 
spirit of the Federal statute enacted into law, they have gone around 
us. They have carefully written it so as to gerrymander this policy 
around 10 USC 1093. They wanted nothing to do with us. What Senator 
Tuberville is doing here is standing up for our prerogative as 
lawmakers.
  Article I, section 1, clause 1 says:

       All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a 
     Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a 
     Senate and a House of Representatives.

  They want to go around that. I get that. But when they want to go 
around that and start doing our job, our prerogative is to tell them: 
It is going to take you a little longer to get some people confirmed.
  While, yes, it would be very inconvenient if they had to go through 
the additional hoops--it is not impossible; they could do it; they 
could start; they could get a number of people confirmed--they are 
asking Senator Tuberville to make it easy for them. They want to have 
their cake and eat it too. So if they want his cooperation, they need 
to respect the legislative prerogatives of the Senate for which he is 
standing today. I admire him for doing that and stand with him in this.
  As far as not injecting politics--political decision making--into the 
Department of Defense itself, he has got that exactly backward. He is 
making a political decision overriding our prerogative to do that and 
then blaming us for the issue.
  Finally, with regard to Senator Reed's suggestion that we could deal 
with this in the National Defense Authorization Act that is coming 
before the Senate in the coming months, I get the point. If he is 
serious about that, I would like to suggest something to Senator 
Tuberville, and we can talk about this offline, perhaps after we vote. 
I suspect that if the Department of Defense wanted to really stand 
behind that, they could offer to suspend this regulation that they have 
issued--this policy memorandum they issued on February 16--until such 
time as we can debate it, discuss it, and work on it in the NDAA.
  Look, let this be a message to Secretary Austin: If you want to make 
the laws, run for Congress; but you can't legislate from the E-Ring at 
the Pentagon. You cannot do that. Until then, stand down and leave the 
lawmaking to lawmakers.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee and as chair of the Readiness Subcommittee, I rise today 
deeply opposed to the dangerous posturing of my colleague from Alabama 
in playing with our national security. That is what it is coming down 
to.
  In the Senate, we have a long history of bipartisan support for our 
armed services and our servicemembers. What is not usual is for one 
Member of the Senate to put a hold on hundreds of nominees--let's face 
it--for political and ideological reasons. I don't know how else you 
would characterize his actions.
  So while we may disagree about military policy--obviously, we do--we 
have always kept the readiness of our forces above politics. Now the 
Senator from Alabama is intentionally politicizing our military. The 
Senators can stand there all they want and say they are not 
politicizing.
  Oh, really? I beg to differ.
  The Senator is blocking numerous promotions simply because he is 
upset that the DOD is doing its part to protect our servicemembers and 
address their needs. Our servicemembers who are women have a need to 
access appropriate reproductive care.
  Now, this wasn't an issue before because--guess what--we didn't have 
a Supreme Court that upended almost 50 years of a constitutional right 
that women in this country had. Why is this important? Because we never 
had a Dobbs decision before. But now we have, and that is what we have 
to live with.
  Because of the Senator's reckless posturing and unyielding stance, 
the promotions of more than 160 flag officers--men and women who have 
dedicated their lives to serving our country--are already being 
delayed, and these delays pose a grave and growing threat to our 
national security and the readiness of our troops. In the next several 
months, we are set to consider the

[[Page S1041]]

nominations of nearly half--nearly half--of the members of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, including the Chairman.
  At a time when we face growing threats around the world, leaving 
these roles unfulfilled would have catastrophic consequences for our 
military and our national security. Just yesterday, Secretary Austin 
was before the Armed Services Committee, on which Senator Tuberville 
and I both sit. Secretary Austin told us that ``not approving the 
recommendations for promotions actually creates a ripple effect through 
the forces that makes us far less ready than we need to be.''
  What is worse is that this hold is all because the Department of 
Defense is allowing servicemembers to access reproductive healthcare--
something well within the Department's authority. As a result, as I 
mentioned, of the Supreme Court's disastrous Dobbs decision, 
nearly 80,000 women servicemembers--do you know what? If the Senator 
cares about recruiting and retaining servicemembers, how about wanting 
to retain and recruit female servicemembers?

  So with this Dobbs decision, we now have 80,000 women servicemembers 
who are stationed in States where they can't fully access reproductive 
care. To address this crisis brought on by the Supreme Court's 
decision, the DOD adopted a commonsense policy to allow those 
servicemembers to travel to get the care they need.
  To be clear, this policy does not cover the cost of abortions. We are 
not talking about taxpayer-paid abortions. It would be really great if 
we could just adhere to facts. The Senator says that this is really a 
roundabout way to pay for our abortions. No. This is a very direct way 
to meet the needs of our female servicemembers to get the healthcare 
and the reproductive care that they so plainly need.
  Secretary Austin has said that the health of our servicemembers must 
be a top priority. Who can argue with that? I couldn't agree more. I 
applaud Secretary Austin's leadership on this issue, but, clearly, my 
colleague from Alabama is more concerned with pushing his ideological 
agenda than the realities our troops face.
  Our servicemembers put their lives on the line for our country. They 
deserve better than to be used as political props. Frankly, this 
obsession that the Republicans have to have power and control over 
women's bodies--what is up with that?
  For the sake of our country and our troops, I urge my colleague from 
Alabama and my colleague from Utah to drop this dangerous crusade and 
confirm the military nominations en bloc.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 30 seconds. I 
would love to respond to that point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. To the Senator from Hawaii, I would be happy--I would be 
thrilled--to accept that request, and I will accept it right now. I 
can't speak for Senator Tuberville, but I can speak for myself. I will 
absolutely accept that right now. Let's get them all done. Get the 
Pentagon to lift this policy--to suspend it--until we can get it ironed 
out in the NDAA. I will agree to that right now. If this is as bad, as 
dire, as apocalyptic, dogs and cats living together in the streets, 
Book of Revelation stuff, as you describe it, then we should do that. 
But lift the policy. You can't legislate from the E-ring of the 
Pentagon. We will stand up for our rights. And we must.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, we are going to be working on the NDAA, 
and I suggest to my colleague to go ahead and put an amendment--or 
whatever he wants--in the NDAA. Then let's take a vote on whether or 
not this policy should stand.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Colorado is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I appreciate so much the Senator from 
Hawaii's perspective on this really important issue. And it is a really 
important issue.
  I mean, there has been some discussion on the other side about how 
for 50 years, there has been a consensus in this Chamber about how we 
treat these issues, ignoring completely what the Dobbs decision has 
done to this country, which is to strip a 50-year constitutional 
right--to strip a 50-year constitutional freedom--from the American 
people. It is the first time since Reconstruction that a right has been 
stripped from the American people by the Supreme Court. It has been a 
50-year crusade--an agenda by the allies of the people across this 
aisle to accomplish that.
  It was a lot earlier today that I heard: Well, I didn't learn that in 
law school, I didn't learn that in law school, about the First 
Amendment in their debate about TikTok. Well, when I was in law school, 
that is when originalism was injected into the bloodstream of 
conservative legal thought in this country. It had not existed before. 
It was something that was invented by Justice Scalia when he was a law 
professor, and it was grabbed onto by a lot of people on the other side 
of the aisle to justify a deeply conservative view of economic history 
in America.
  I would ask my colleagues to allow me to give the rest of my speech 
before they use profanity on the floor of the Senate to describe what I 
am talking about.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Members are asked 
to take their conversations off the floor.
  Mr. BENNET. I thank the Presiding Officer.
  I am not offended by that. I just think some of the people at home 
may not want to hear that kind of language on the floor of the Senate--
but that is because they know what I am saying is true about 
originalism.
  Because of their efforts and because they were able to elect Donald 
Trump, who was not actually read in on the joke, we ended up with three 
people on the Supreme Court who subscribe to that originalist view and 
who decided, following Justice Scalia, that if it were not a freedom in 
1868, then it is not a freedom in 2023, even though it has been a 
freedom and a right for the last 50 years in this country.
  So don't come here and say that there was somehow a consensus here 
when that freedom and that right has been stripped from the American 
people by the Supreme Court.
  To my colleague from Alabama, who has left the floor--by the way, 
just on that point, he has now twice misrepresented my actions on this 
floor. So I ask unanimous consent that this article from Politico, 
which my colleague from Alabama put in the Record the last time he was 
here, misrepresenting my record, be printed in the Record. I would like 
to put exactly the same article in the Record so people can actually 
see the truth of my record
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Democrats Step Up Pressure on Biden To Reverse Trump's Decision on 
                                Space HQ

                   (By Connor O'Brien and Lee Hudson)

       And one of the state's senators is even seizing on the 
     politics surrounding abortion and LGBTQ issues, arguing that 
     sending the command from a blue state to a red one takes away 
     the rights of service members.
       Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) ``has raised the issue of 
     reproductive health care access in his conversations about 
     the Space Command basing decision,'' said one congressional 
     aide, who asked for anonymity to discuss private 
     conversations between Bennet and the Pentagon.
       The senator, the aide added, ``has serious concerns about 
     the impact that abortion ban laws have on readiness and our 
     national security.''
       It's the latest turn in a saga that's dragged on for three 
     years after Trump personally directed the Air Force to choose 
     Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, as the command's 
     permanent headquarters. Alabama and Colorado were the two 
     finalists in the Air Force's search.
       The decision, if given the final signoff by the Biden 
     administration, would uproot the fledgling command from its 
     current location at Peterson Space Force Base in Colorado 
     Springs. Since the original decision, members of Colorado's 
     delegation in both parties have decried the move to a Trump-
     friendly state as political favoritism that will delay the 
     organization from achieving full operating status.
       ``I haven't found any Democratic senator who thinks it's a 
     good idea to allow a precedent to stand that encourages 
     politics to overrule the judgment of our military command,'' 
     Colorado Sen. John Hickenlooper said in an interview.
       The Biden White House vowed to reassess the choice after 
     lawmakers blasted the basing decision. The Air Force 
     secretary must

[[Page S1042]]

     still determine whether to follow through with Trump's 
     decision or keep the command in Colorado.
       The Air Force was expected to announce a final decision at 
     the end of 2022, but the deadline passed with no ruling.
       ``We don't have anything new on the decision timeline,'' 
     the service said in a statement. The service declined to say 
     why a choice has not been made.
       Lawmakers on both sides of the argument say they're in the 
     dark on when the Air Force might finally make a call, but 
     both states' delegations have said they believe they will 
     prevail.
       ``I do think the delay is, in my view, a positive thing,'' 
     said Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.). ``My read of that is that the 
     administration is taking a harder look and a fresh look at it 
     and revisiting certain elements of the decision. That's what 
     I hope they're doing.''
       The commander, Gen. James Dickinson, has said Space Command 
     won't be fully operational until the final basing decision is 
     made.


                             Pros and cons

       U.S. Space Command was restarted by the Trump 
     administration in 2019 as it sought to emphasize the 
     importance of the military's space mission, coinciding with 
     the creation of the Space Force. Space Command, which 
     oversees the operations of military space assets and 
     defending satellites, had been its own outfit since the 
     1980s, but was folded into U.S. Strategic Command following 
     the creation of Northern Command in 2002.
       Colorado Springs and Huntsville were two of six finalists 
     selected by the Air Force in late 2020 for the permanent 
     headquarters. The list included military installations in 
     Florida, Nebraska, Texas and New Mexico.
       Colorado lawmakers contend permanently keeping Space 
     Command in its temporary home is more efficient and will 
     ultimately prove better for national security because it will 
     be near Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense 
     Command.
       With a large military space presence already in the state, 
     Colorado's leaders argue that politics alone was the deciding 
     factor in the Trump administration selecting Alabama.
       They point to comments Trump made after leaving office 
     boasting that he made the call to move Space Command.
       ``I hope you know that. [They] said they were looking for a 
     home and I single-handedly said `let's go to Alabama.' They 
     wanted it. I said `let's go to Alabama. I love Alabama.' '' 
     Trump said on an Alabama-based radio show in August 2021.
       Alabama's almost entirely GOP delegation says Huntsville--
     dubbed Rocket City because of the large aerospace industry 
     presence there--checks all the boxes for the new command.
       The Pentagon visited each of the six prospective 
     headquarters sites between Dec. 8, 2020, and Jan. 7, 2021, 
     where experts gathered data and refined cost estimates. Those 
     cost estimates were not released publicly, according to the 
     Defense Department's inspector general.
       ``Democrats said it was political, but the best place to 
     put it is in Huntsville,'' Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) 
     said in an interview.
       ``The only reason you would leave it in Colorado is because 
     that's where it's at right now,'' Tuberville said. ``But we 
     need to make sure it's in the right spot. We have the missile 
     defense. We have Redstone Arsenal, NASA. You name it, we got 
     it.''
       Since a headquarters decision was announced in January 
     2021, both the Defense Department IG and the Government 
     Accountability Office released reports that questioned 
     whether the selection process was adequate.
       DoD IG found the Air Force base analysis that was conducted 
     under the Trump administration's direction ``complied with 
     law and policy'' when selecting Alabama as the headquarters 
     location, while the GAO asserted the service's base location 
     analysis had ``significant shortfalls in its transparency and 
     credibility.''
       Neither report determined whether Trump meddled in the 
     decision.
       Both oversight groups agree a resolution was reached during 
     a White House meeting with highranking officials on Jan. 11, 
     2021.
       Meeting attendees included the former president and top 
     Pentagon leaders who have since left--the acting defense 
     secretary, the vice chair of the Joint Chiefs, the Air Force 
     secretary and the assistant secretary of the Air Force for 
     installations, environment and energy.
       Days before the meeting, the Pentagon received new 
     information that if Colorado was selected the military could 
     renovate a building instead of having to construct a new one 
     to house the new headquarters.
       But the Space Force did not deliver an updated estimate to 
     Air Force officials ahead of the White House meeting, 
     according to GAO.
       The Pentagon is keeping the cost estimates private and are 
     not included in the GAO report because the information is 
     designated as ``sensitive and privileged.''
       Opting for renovation instead of new construction would 
     allow for the command to reach full operational much sooner 
     than the estimated six years.
       In interviews with the GAO, the head of Space Command, the 
     top Space Force general, and the former vice Joint Chiefs 
     chair, all said they conveyed in the meeting that the 
     headquarters should remain in Colorado because that was the 
     best way to reach full operational capability as quickly as 
     possible.
       Bennet echoed the same concerns during a speech on the 
     Senate floor this month.
       It is important the Biden administration not ratify ``a 
     political decision that was made in the last few days of the 
     Trump administration,'' Bennet said, referring to the former 
     president dismissing the counsel of Pentagon officials who 
     recommended the headquarters remain in Colorado.
       Bennet underscored it is not only expected to be cheaper 
     and faster to keep Space Command in Colorado, but the 
     military would not have to worry over the number of civilian 
     workers who won't opt to move to Alabama. Roughly 60 percent 
     of the Space Command workforce are civilians, he said.
       ``Decisions of this importance shouldn't be made this way. 
     It should be in the interest of our national security. And 
     the Biden administration has the opportunity to restore the 
     integrity of this process,'' Bennet said.


                             Renewed fight

       The Colorado delegation fought the move when it was 
     initially announced, but had gone quiet in the following 
     months. They rekindled their efforts last month when 
     Hickenlooper and Bennet were the only Democrats to join 
     Republicans in opposition to the confirmation of Brendan 
     Owens, the nominee to oversee facilities and energy programs 
     at the Pentagon. The pair said they opposed him because the 
     Pentagon had brushed off their efforts to meet with Austin to 
     discuss Space Command.
       Owens was still confirmed despite most Republicans also 
     opposing him.
       Bennet also threatened to hold up other nominees to secure 
     a meeting with Austin. Hickenlooper and Bennet met with 
     Austin to discuss the decision on Jan. 26, though no 
     resolution was reached.
       ``He's got a lot on his plate, so he wasn't versed in the 
     details of the issue,'' Hickenlooper said. ``But he listened 
     very thoughtfully and I think he took it very seriously.''
       But Bennet continued to press the issue. A spokesperson 
     said Bennet placed a hold on Ravi Chaudhary, Biden's nominee 
     to oversee Air Force installations. He dropped the hold this 
     month after meeting separately with Chaudhary and Air Force 
     Secretary Frank Kendall where he ``reiterated his 
     longstanding concerns'' with the basing decision. The behind-
     the-scenes maneuvering has not been previously reported.
       Some opponents are also highlighting how the climate in the 
     U.S. has changed since an initial decision was made in 
     January 2021. Many Democrats are unsettled by moving service 
     members from a blue to a red state after the Supreme Court 
     dealt a blow to abortion rights last year.
       With the end of nationwide federal protections for 
     abortion, many Democrats have raised the impacts on troops 
     stationed in states where the procedure is now banned or 
     significantly limited. Bennet has publicly raised similar 
     concerns in the proposed Space Command move.
       ''I'm deeply concerned about how the Dobbs decision and 
     state abortion bans will affect Space Command's workforce and 
     readiness if the command leaves Colorado,'' Bennet said in a 
     statement to Military.com in August.
       Another driver for the Biden administration to keep the 
     headquarters in Colorado and not move to a conservative state 
     are rights for LGBTQ people.
       ``It's hard not to think about the dramatically more 
     hostile environment in Alabama when it comes to reproductive 
     rights and LGBTQ+ rights,'' said one Democratic aide. ``It'll 
     mean many of the civilians who work for Space Command may not 
     move with it. And service members will be forced to move 
     somewhere where they'll lose those rights.''
       Though both Tuberville and Hickenlooper downplayed the role 
     the Supreme Court decision would play in the basing move, the 
     impact on troops has been in focus after the reversal of 
     abortion protections under Roe v. Wade.
       Even Austin, who is usually not outspoken on political 
     issues, moved to shore up troops' access for abortion. He 
     issued a memo in October directing the Pentagon to pay for 
     service members to travel costs for abortions, though not for 
     the procedure itself, arguing the ``practical effects of 
     recent changes'' in laws will hurt military readiness.
       Formal policies issued this month cover travel costs for 
     obtaining abortions as well as administrative leave, as many 
     troops are stationed in states where the procedure is now 
     illegal.
       Tuberville was among the GOP lawmakers who slammed the 
     move. He vowed to hold up civilian Pentagon nominations as 
     well as top military promotions over the new policy.
       The issue, however, isn't purely about red states vs. blue 
     states. If Space Command doesn't move to Alabama, the 
     headquarters will remain in reliably conservative Colorado 
     Springs. The area and its military assets are represented by 
     Republican Doug Lamborn, who chairs the House Armed Services 
     Strategic Forces subcommittee. Lamborn has also criticized 
     the move as one of political favoritism over national 
     security needs.
       The state's other two Republican House members, Reps. Ken 
     Buck and Lauren Boebert, have also protested the decision and 
     signed several letters with Democrats arguing to keep the 
     command in Colorado.
       Yet if the Biden administration decides to reverse the 
     earlier decision, it could open

[[Page S1043]]

     itself up to criticism that it's making a political call, 
     just like the Trump White House. A reversal also would draw 
     push back from Alabama's delegation, including Rep. Mike 
     Rogers, who has new tools at his disposal as the House Armed 
     Services Committee chair.
       In the meantime, Alabama lawmakers are confident the Trump 
     administration's decision will be upheld.
       ``Nobody's saying, but they've done several more reviews on 
     it in the last two years,'' Tuberville said of the final 
     decision. ``And we've pretty much passed all the tests.''

  Mr. BENNET. I want to thank--he is gone--the Senator from Alabama for 
finding an article about me in Politico because it is so seldom that 
any article is written about me. I am grateful that he has called 
attention to it. He is not here for me to say thank you for that.
  But he is now on the floor, doing something that no Senator has ever 
done--holding up every single flag officer's promotion in this 
country--180 of them or so, now maybe 600 of them. We have the head of 
the Seventh Fleet and the head of the Fifth Fleet. These are vital 
offices that he is holding up.
  He just said: We have got enough generals. We have enough generals.
  Why is he doing it? Why is he doing it? He is doing it because he is 
offended by a regulation that the Department of Defense has promulgated 
in the wake of the Dobbs decision of reversing Roe v. Wade--stripping 
the American people of this fundamental right, stripping the American 
people of this fundamental right. In the wake of that, the Secretary of 
Defense had the nerve to say: If you are serving--through no decision 
that you have made--in a State like Alabama which banned abortion and 
you have to travel to another State to get an abortion, we will pay for 
that travel--travel.
  If you need a little bit of extra time, the regulations say, before 
you go to your commanding officer and tell them that you have to have a 
medical procedure, like abortion, it gives you a little extra time to 
do that.
  The third thing it does is that it says that if you have to leave the 
State of Alabama because you can't have access to abortion there, then 
you don't have to use paid leave.
  Those are the three things this rule does. I am coming to an end, Mr. 
President. That is all it does. That is all it does.
  In his world, he would like to have a place where people did not have 
their travel paid for, they had to use their paid leave, and they had 
to tell their commanding officer immediately. That is the America he 
wants to live in because he lives in a State--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
  Mr. BENNET. I would ask the Senate for 30 more seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BENNET. Thank you.
  He is entitled to his opinion, certainly, and the State of Alabama 
has a totally different approach to a woman's right to choose than 
Colorado does, and I respect that even though we differ. But in 
Alabama, there are no exceptions for rape or incest. In Alabama, if you 
are a doctor who has committed an abortion, you could go to jail for 99 
years. In Alabama, they are trying to say that those women who use 
chemicals that many women use--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
  Mr. BENNET.--to end their abortion--all we are saying is--
  Mr. CORNYN. Regular order.
  Mr. BENNET.--we need to recognize what has happened since Dobbs, and 
we need----
  Mr. CORNYN. Regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
  Mr. BENNET. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.


                              H.J. Res. 7

  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of H.J. Res 7, a 
bill that will immediately terminate the COVID-19 national emergency 
declaration.
  Over a year ago, this body voted to end the COVID national emergency 
declaration. Actually, it has been a year and 26 days ago. Then, it was 
just 5 months ago that this body voted for a second time to end the 
COVID national emergency with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 61 to 
37. Today, we hope the third time is the charm, that the rumors are 
true that the President will finally sign this legislation and end this 
chapter of physical, mental, and financial strife seldom seen in our 
world's modern history.
  Emergency powers are given to the executive branch so the Commander 
in Chief has the flexibility to quickly act in the event of a crisis. 
That declaration was appropriate in 2020, but now it is time for the 
proper constitutional checks and balances to be restored. It is time to 
end any and all authoritarian control and unilateral spending decisions 
without congressional consent.
  Many, many Kansans have asked me, ``What's the holdup, why is the 
White House waiting to end this emergency declaration?'' Well, sadly, I 
have to tell them, because the emergency declaration has allowed the 
administration to justify increased spending and push harmful mandates.
  Under this national emergency, we have seen a massive increase in 
government spending across the board. This spending over the past 2 
years has resulted in the highest level of inflation Americans have 
encountered in 40 years. The gross Federal debt has increased by $3.7 
trillion--$3.7 trillion--since this President took office, an increase 
of 12 percent. We sadly watched as interest rate hikes, combined with 
skyrocketing inflation, have raised the amount of debt many Americans 
hold and made almost everything cost more.
  On top of all of this, the authority granted to the President by this 
emergency declaration has been the direct justification for the White 
House's efforts to cancel as much as $20,000 in debt for Federal 
student loan holders--a plan that would cost taxpayers an additional 
$400 billion.
  We all understand what it means when politicians say: Never let a 
good crisis go to waste. But it doesn't stop there. With the national 
emergency in place, the administration also moved to mandate vaccines 
for private companies with 100 or more employees. If not halted by the 
courts, this massive Federal overreach would have forced millions of 
Americans to choose between the jab or their job.
  Next, the White House tried to force healthcare workers, Federal 
employees, contractors, and even members of our military to receive the 
vaccine against their choice. Thankfully, these were also halted by the 
courts across the country.
  These are the consequences of a 3-year emergency declaration. Take a 
good look at the decisions made under this prolonged, supersized 
government rule, and you will quickly understand why our Founding 
Fathers warned of this type of abuse of power when they authored the 
Constitution and made it a top priority to keep each branch of 
government in line with systems of checks and balances.
  I come to the floor today hopefully for one last vote on terminating 
this declaration.
  Is the emergency indeed over? Well, our President himself said as 
much in a September 2022 interview on CBS's ``60 Minutes.'' I quote the 
President's direct words: ``The pandemic is over.''
  Enough is enough. It is time to end this chapter and let Americans 
get back to their own lives.
  I ask my colleagues to join me again in a strong bipartisan fashion 
in sending this resolution to the President's desk to end the national 
emergency declaration for COVID-19 once and for all today.
  I yield the floor.


                          Vote on H.J. Res. 7

  The joint resolution was ordered to a third reading and was read the 
third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. MARSHALL. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), 
the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein), the Senator from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mrs. 
Shaheen), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are 
necessarily absent.

[[Page S1044]]

  

  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. 
Blackburn), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), and the Senator 
from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).
  The result was announced--yeas 68, nays 23, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 80 Leg.]

                                YEAS--68

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Brown
     Budd
     Capito
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hassan
     Hawley
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Ossoff
     Paul
     Peters
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Warner
     Warnock
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--23

     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Duckworth
     Gillibrand
     Hirono
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murray
     Padilla
     Reed
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Welch
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Coons
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     Hagerty
     McConnell
     Shaheen
     Whitehouse
  The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 7) was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Hassan). The majority leader.

                          ____________________