[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 108 (Wednesday, June 21, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2151-S2156]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

  PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER CHAPTER 8 OF TITLE 5, 
    UNITED STATES CODE, OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL 
PROTECTION AGENCY RELATING TO ``CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM NEW MOTOR 
       VEHICLES: HEAVY-DUTY ENGINE AND VEHICLE STANDARDS''--VETO

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will resume consideration of the veto message with respect to 
S.J. Res. 11, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Veto message to accompany S.J. Res. 11, a joint resolution 
     providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 
     title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the 
     Environmental Protection Agency relating to ``Control of Air 
     Pollution From New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and 
     Vehicle Standards''.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.


                              S.J. Res. 11

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, earlier this year, the Senate made use 
of the Congressional Review Act to push back on a particularly 
dangerous part of the Biden administration's radical approach to 
environmental policy.
  Our colleague, the senior Senator from Nebraska, put forward a 
resolution that would prevent the administration from implementing even 
stricter emission standards on the trucks and heavy equipment that 
literally drive our economy.
  The nitrogen oxide emissions of new trucks on the market today are 
already 98 to 99 percent lower than they were in the late 1990s. So we 
are talking about regulation in search of a problem.
  In order to keep up with the rule President Biden's EPA released in 
December, heavy-auto manufacturers would be forced to add a dizzying 
array of new technologies to their products. By one estimate, the new 
regulations could raise the cost of a new truck by $42,000--$42,000, 
just to keep pace with the changing whims of unelected bureaucrats in 
Washington.
  As truckers themselves have warned, the EPA's latest overreach would 
drive many of them to stick with ``older, less-efficient trucks or 
leave the industry entirely.'' And, needless to say, higher costs for 
the men and women behind the wheel means higher costs for fuel, food, 
and other essentials at the store. But that didn't stop President Biden 
from vetoing Senator Fischer's commonsense resolution.
  Well, today, we will vote one more time, and we will find out, once 
and for all, whether Washington Democrats care more about keeping pace 
with leftwing climate activists than helping

[[Page S2152]]

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


                           National Security

  Mr. President, on another matter, as I have discussed at length, 
America's partners in the Indo-Pacific understand the link between 
Russian aggression in Europe and the threat of Chinese aggression 
closer to home. Japan and Taiwan have devoted serious resources to 
Ukraine's defense, but our friends are also wisely strengthening their 
own defenses.
  Last year, Taiwan's government put forward its largest defense budget 
proposal ever--ever--a 14-percent increase in top-line spending, along 
with greater attention to territorial defense, longer service 
requirements for conscripts, and a focus on whole-of-government 
resilience.
  Japan has a new transformational strategy. Prime Minister Kishida's 
government is pursuing new long-range strike capabilities, increasing 
defense spending, and buying SM-6 interceptors. In a sign of deepening 
cooperation with the United States, it has expanded its defense 
industrial capacity by building facilities to assemble F-35s in Japan.
  South Korea is also deepening its security cooperation with the 
United States, expanding its defense industrial capacity and providing 
military capabilities to key American allies over in Europe.
  President Yoon and Prime Minister Kishida have also worked to improve 
relations between their two countries and open the door for increased 
cooperation with America in the face of an increasingly belligerent 
North Korea.
  The Philippines is engaging in regular joint exercises in the South 
China Sea and working closely with the United States on enhanced 
defense cooperation sites that improve our interoperability.
  And, earlier this year, Australia reached an agreement with the 
United States and the United Kingdom to procure nuclear-powered 
conventional submarines--the biggest defense investment in the nation's 
entire history.
  In other words, our friends are putting their money where their 
mouths are. That is important because so has the People's Republic of 
China.
  Beijing has made historic investments in its own military 
modernization. PRC defense spending has grown every year for almost 
three decades, but in each of the last 2 years, it has jumped by at 
least 7 percent. And, needless to say, China's official statistics tend 
to be obscure as much as they reveal.
  While our most hostile strategic adversary is accelerating its 
military investments, the Biden administration asked Congress to 
shrink--shrink--spending on America's Armed Forces in real dollars.
  Today, our colleagues on the Armed Services Committee will mark up 
the National Defense Authorization Act, beginning the Senate's annual 
work on tending to our Nation's common defense.
  Facing down a common threat is a chance for the United States and our 
partners to grow the defense industrial base we will need to sustain 
effective deterrence in the Indo-Pacific. It is an opportunity to 
reform America's sluggish foreign military sales procedures, promote 
interoperability, and expand joint exercises and access agreements 
across the region.
  If we are serious about deepening our defense industrial cooperation, 
America and our partners must make it easier to work together to share 
technology and intelligence and to align our defense investments. We 
need to streamline regulations that can prevent our partners from 
investing in their own defense bases in closer cooperation with the 
United States.
  Of course, this is not a one-way street. America can also benefit 
from technologies our partners are developing, if our regulations and 
bureaucracies simply allow it. Our agreement with the UK and Australia 
could represent a transformational new approach to collective security.
  If the Biden administration wants this partnership to succeed, it 
should consider providing broader country exemptions for defense trade 
licenses for those closest allies, similar to what we already do with 
Canada. Very simply, it is an opportunity we cannot afford to miss.

  So China's bid for hegemony in the Indo-Pacific extends far beyond 
investments in naval vessels and new missile technologies.
  The PRC has poured billions of dollars into development projects in 
vulnerable island nations out in the Pacific. So make no mistake, if 
the United States and our partners fail to work together to maintain 
robust deterrence on behalf of a free and open Indo-Pacific, China will 
be all too happy--all too happy--to fill the void.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.


                            Border Security

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, under Biden's leadership, the United 
States has experienced an unprecedented border crisis. That is not 
exactly news because for the last 2\1/2\ years, Customs and Border 
Protection has encountered more than 5.2 million migrants at the 
border, plus another 1\1/2\ million ``got-aways.''
  In other words, under our bizarre and broken immigration system, 5.2 
million people basically were welcomed at the border, while another 
million and a half simply fled the Border Patrol and made their way 
into the interior of the United States.
  Now, it is true out of the 5.2 million under title 42, the COVID-19 
order, basically public health order, that 2.6 million of the 5.2 were 
returned to their country of origin or at least expelled out of the 
United States. That was a public health order, but that is gone. That 
is expired. That has served its time.
  So under any scenario, you can conclude that under President Biden's 
tenure, millions of people have made their way into the United States, 
not using the legal pathways that are designed to make our immigration 
system safe, orderly, and humane--something that I know we all support, 
legal immigration--instead, President Biden's failures, when it comes 
to border policy, has resulted in transnational criminal organizations 
controlling immigration, and they also control the drug trafficking 
that makes its way across the border.
  And as was acknowledged by the Attorney General, Merrick Garland, 
when he was testifying before the Judiciary Committee, I believe he 
said he understood that this was part of the business model of these 
organizations, these criminal organizations. They would flood the 
border with people, and as the Border Patrol was diverted to try to 
deal with that mass of humanity, including unaccompanied children, that 
left huge gaps in the border which were then exploited by the drug 
cartels to move drugs into the interior of the United States.
  Rather than secure the border or make any attempt to deter illegal 
immigration, the Biden administration has allowed the chaos to continue 
for nearly 2\1/2\ years.
  Now, inexplicably, the President claims this is all part of his plan 
to promote safe, orderly, and humane migration, but there is nothing 
safe about the journey migrants take to the United States in the hands 
of cartels, coyotes, and ordinary criminals.
  There is nothing orderly about migrants using inflatable rafts and 
ropes to cross the Rio Grande where some meet their death when they 
drown. And there is nothing humane about what is happening in the 
United States now as a result of the border crisis.
  First, let's look at what happens to the children. Since President 
Biden took office, more than 300,000 unaccompanied children have been 
encountered at the border and then placed with a sponsor in the 
interior of the United States. To be clear, these children did not 
arrive in the United States with their parents. These children made the 
dangerous journey north with basically any adult who is willing to 
convey them from their home, across the border, into the United States.
  But the truth is, these children are not unaccompanied. They are 
accompanied by the criminals who make this their business. The sad 
reality is that many come to the United States in the care of cartels, 
human smugglers, and coyotes, and parents pay smugglers thousands of 
dollars to bring their children to the United States.
  I have no doubt that when those children reached the United States, 
their parents thought they would be safe. After all, this is the 
greatest country

[[Page S2153]]

in the world, a country that values freedom, justice, and opportunity. 
I am sure their parents expected they would live safe and happy lives 
while their asylum claims are being considered, but we know the ugly 
truth.
  We know now that countless children have experienced a new hell right 
here in the United States. The New York Times, for example, published 
two bombshell investigative reports detailing widespread exploitation 
of migrant children here in our country. Some children are being forced 
to work in meatpacking plants, food processing facilities, and 
construction jobs--underage children. These are not part-time jobs 
after school; these are full-time jobs instead of going to school, in 
violation of many States' child labor laws.

  They are being treated as indentured servants as they try to pay off 
the debts they owe to the traffickers who brought them here. And there 
is no question the Biden administration understands what is going on, 
and, yes, their silence is complicity. Once unaccompanied children are 
apprehended and processed at the border, the Department of Health and 
Human Services has the legal responsibility to place these children 
with a safe sponsor.
  According to longstanding policy, the agent follows up with a phone 
call 30 days later to make sure that the child is safe. On both 
counts--the preplacement vetting and the post-placement wellness 
check--the Biden administration has completely fumbled its 
responsibilities.
  Health and Human Services actually loosened the vetting requirements 
in order to get children out of shelters fast--as fast as possible--
with little regard for the increased danger to these children.
  The New York Times has documented that at least 85,000 of those 
300,000 children cannot even be reached within 30 days. So the practice 
is to make a wellness call in 30 days, but 85,000 of those 300,000 
children, there is no answer.
  So the Biden administration can't tell you where these children are, 
whether they are being fed, whether they are going to school, whether 
they are being neglected or abused or forced into involuntary labor. 
President Biden's administration doesn't know, and I think the sad 
truth is they don't care--because if they did care, this would not be 
allowed to continue.
  This isn't breaking news. This isn't something I am announcing here 
today for the first time. Two major investigative pieces by the New 
York Times has exposed this scandal.
  Over the last couple years, the Department of Health and Human 
Services has received countless warnings that these children are in 
danger. Those warnings came through its own hotline, government 
contractors, and scores of employees who sounded the alarm. Not only 
did Health and Human Services ignore the warnings of whistleblowers, it 
tried to silence them.
  Department leadership retaliated against employees who shined a light 
on this massive abuse. As a result, countless children have remained in 
dangerous situations just so the administration could avoid an 
embarrassing PR headache.
  As we know, the tens of thousands of migrant children who have been 
lost--literally lost--by the Biden administration are not the only 
victims of the border crisis.
  Now, I sometimes ask myself, what is it going to take? How bad are 
things going to have to get before this situation registers with enough 
people of good conscience and good will that they are actually willing 
to do something about it? And I am constantly disappointed that in 
spite of the scandal, we can't find enough people of good will and good 
intentions here in the U.S. Senate to change this, to make it better, 
to throw a rescue line to these kids.
  But the story gets worse. We know the fentanyl epidemic has killed 
more than 70,000 people a year in the United States just last year, 
making it the leading cause of death for Americans ages 18 to 49--the 
leading cause of death. We know that the fentanyl epidemic does not 
discriminate. It kills young people. It kills old people. It kills rich 
people. It kills poor people, both those living in major cities and 
those living in rural America.
  And we know the overwhelming majority of this fentanyl comes across 
the U.S.-Mexico border. Again, this is not breaking news. This is 
something known to all of us, including the Biden administration.
  We also know where the precursor chemicals come from. These are 
chemicals shipped from China, shipped to Mexico, where the drug cartels 
mix them up. They use industrial-sized pill presses to gin out hundreds 
of thousands of pills that are contaminated with fentanyl.
  Now, most of the time people who get poisoned by fentanyl don't 
actually know they are taking fentanyl. They may think they are taking 
a Xanax or Percocet or some other more innocuous medication, something 
we would prefer our kids not to take, but we understand sometimes that 
happens.
  But they have no idea that a tiny dose of fentanyl can kill them and 
that many of these pills ginned out by the drug cartels, using these 
precursor chemicals in Mexico, are then shipped across the border and, 
unfortunately, routinely, take the lives of young, bright children who 
have the best of their lives ahead of them.
  Between October of last year and April of this year, Customs and 
Border Protection seized more than 12,000 pounds of fentanyl at the 
southern border. Again, if you have a pencil--and I don't have a 
pencil, but I have a pen--it is basically the part of the pen that 
sticks out of the end of the part you hold onto. It takes that little 
amount of fentanyl to kill you. And last year, Customs and Border 
Protection seized 17,000 pounds of it.
  Now, some people say: Well, that is great. We don't have a problem. 
The Border Patrol seized it. Well, you remember those ``got-aways'' I 
mentioned earlier, more than a million of them? They were running away 
from law enforcement, and I guarantee you it was for a reason. Either 
they knew that their criminal record and background would not make it 
possible for them to legally migrate into the United States or they 
were carrying drugs like this fentanyl. And we know a lot of it is 
getting through because we are seeing the devastation that it has 
wrought--again, with 71,000 fentanyl-related deaths last year alone. So 
we know CBP is not able to interdict every ounce of illicit drugs--far 
from it.

  Over the past couple years, the unprecedented border crisis under the 
Biden administration has affected all of our missions at the border, 
including those that have nothing to do with immigration. Law 
enforcement has been shifted to the frontlines in order to process and 
care for the migrants. Instead of stopping dangerous drugs and 
criminals, many agents are pushing paper and changing diapers.
  No one is happier with this situation than the drug cartels and the 
criminals who smuggle migrants for money. They are getting rich. What 
is not to love from their standpoint? With fewer agents on the 
frontline, they have a clear and easy path to move fentanyl, heroine, 
methamphetamine, and other deadly drugs into the United States, and our 
communities are being ravaged by the overdose epidemic. The 
administration has given the cartels clear and easy corridors to 
traffic even more of their poison into the United States, as I have 
described.
  Well, this is hardly a picture of a humane response to the border 
crisis, as President Biden and his administration claim. This is not 
humane.
  Well, as I said earlier, sometimes I ask myself, what will it take? 
What will it take to get the attention of the people who actually have 
the authority to change this, to make it better, to save lives? Because 
hearing about these crises is enough to make your blood boil.
  The administration cut corners in order to place migrant children 
with sponsors. It exerted minimal effort to follow up with those 
children to ensure they are safe and healthy. At the same time, the 
chaos caused by the border crisis has led to a security breakdown which 
enables fentanyl and other dangerous drugs to pour into the United 
States, killing Americans--108,000 last year alone.
  Despite the widespread suffering caused by the Biden administration's 
policies, the President and his senior officials just don't seem to 
care. They don't care. If they did care, they would

[[Page S2154]]

do something about it. So it is clear to me they don't care.
  There is a clear need to secure the border and stop the unprecedented 
migration crisis, but the majority of our Democratic colleagues refuse 
to address the border crisis unless Congress passes what they call 
comprehensive immigration reform. So, in other words, they are holding 
these children, they are holding the rest of the country hostage in 
order to achieve a legislative goal which they know is not possible--
one, because we have a divided government: a Republican-controlled 
House and a Democratic-controlled Senate and a Democrat sitting in the 
White House.
  There is no question that America's immigration system is in need of 
modernization. It is outdated, inefficient, and crippled by backlogs. 
But, as everyone knows, immigration reform is a very, very difficult, 
thorny issue. For 2 years, our Democratic colleagues controlled all 
three branches of government, and they couldn't even pass a partisan 
immigration bill. Now that we are operating in divided government, that 
calculus becomes harder, not easier.
  There is absolutely zero chance that the Democrat-led Senate and the 
Republican-led House will be able to reach an agreement on immigration 
reform anytime soon. I wish that were not true. It doesn't have to be 
true, but I think, unless attitudes change, that is a fact.
  Still, this elusive idea of comprehensive immigration reform has 
become a holdup for other problems relating to the border and 
immigration. In other words, these emergencies occurring at the border 
are being held hostage to an impossible goal, which is passing 
bipartisan immigration reform as a demand for solving these other 
problems.
  Right now, the major problem we need to address is the humanitarian 
crisis fallout from what is happening. We can't prolong the suffering 
caused by the border crisis while our Democratic colleagues try to 
build support for a massive immigration reform bill that many of them 
seem to have zero interest in, because if they had interest, I assume 
they would be rolling up their sleeves and doing the hard work, doing 
more than just talking about it.
  For example, in the Senate, the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee has jurisdiction to mark up and presumably pass with some 
combination of Republican and Democratic votes a bill to address the 
crisis that I mention. The Democratic majority leader has the authority 
to bring a bill to the floor, to open it to amendments so that all 
Senators can participate to try to find out if there is some path 
forward and some consensus. But in the 2 years our Democratic 
colleagues controlled all three branches of government, they did zero 
about it.
  That means that the young adults who are in a box because of deferred 
action on childhood arrivals--this is an illegal scheme that President 
Obama did unilaterally 10 years ago which has been tied up in 
litigation ever since and is likely to be held illegal by a court of 
last resort here very soon.
  So trying to address that, trying to address the drug crisis, trying 
to protect these 300,000 children--all of that is being held hostage 
for our Democratic colleagues to pursue an unattainable goal given the 
current political environment.
  Migrant children are being abused within our own borders. Drugs kill 
about 109,000 Americans a year. We cannot leverage these lives for 
unrelated and unattainable measures.
  There is nothing safe, orderly, or humane about the Biden 
administration's response to the border crisis, and until something 
changes, more people will continue to suffer and die.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Republican whip.


                   National Defense Authorization Act

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this week, the Senate Armed Services 
Committee is marking up the fiscal year 2024 National Defense 
Authorization Act. The NDAA is one of the most important pieces of 
legislation we consider literally every year. It is a bill that 
authorizes funding for our men and women in uniform and our defense 
needs and lays out our defense priorities. Hopefully, it is one of the 
things that force us to sit down and seriously consider the state of 
our national defense and what we need both now and in the future to 
ensure that America's military is prepared to deter and if necessary 
confront any threat.
  I like to say that if we don't get national security right, the rest 
is conversation. And it is true. All these other things we debate and 
talk about, if we can't protect the country, really end up being very 
secondary. The security of our Nation is the precondition for 
everything else--for the continued enjoyment of our freedoms, for a 
flourishing society, for a healthy economy, for the government's 
ability to do anything.
  My Democratic colleagues these days often seem to think we can let 
defense spending take a back seat to the latest Big Government issue, 
but that betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of reality. We 
live in a fallen world, and as long as we live in a fallen world, there 
will be evil people bent on aggression. So our national defense is not 
something we can ever afford to minimize or take for granted. We have 
to be prepared at all times to deter and to meet any threat.
  The United States has a reputation for having one of the strongest 
militaries in the world. While that reputation is deserved, the fact of 
the matter is that our military readiness is not where it needs to be. 
Thanks to budgetary impasses and increased operational demands, by 
2018, our readiness had eroded to the point that the bipartisan 
National Defense Strategy Commission released a report warning that we 
might struggle to win a war against a major power like Russia or China.
  While we have made progress since then, we are still a long way from 
where we need to be. Recent U.S. war games positing a U.S.-China 
conflict following an attack on Taiwan have had grim results, showing 
enormous military and economic costs on both sides. One news story on 
these war games noted, and I quote:

       And while the ultimate outcome in these exercises is not 
     always clear--the U.S. does better in some than others--the 
     cost is [clear]. In every exercise the U.S. uses up all its 
     long-range air-to-surface missiles in a few days, with a 
     substantial portion of its planes destroyed on the ground.

  Let me just repeat that line.

       In every exercise the U.S. uses up all its long-range air-
     to-surface missiles in a few days, with a substantial portion 
     of its planes destroyed on the ground.

  That is not a promising scenario, and it points to serious readiness 
shortages, particularly deficiencies in our inventory of munitions. I 
don't need to tell anyone that the side that runs out of munitions 
first is likely to be the side that loses in any conflict, which is why 
we need sustained investments in rebuilding our supply chain--an effort 
that is reinforced by multiyear purchases.
  China is flexing its power with increasingly aggressive actions in 
the Indo-Pacific. It is investing heavily--heavily--in its military. 
China's defense budget has doubled over the last decade, and this year 
it will increase by more than 7 percent for the second year in a row. 
That doesn't even count any additional defense funding that China 
hides. So it should come as no surprise that China is outpacing our 
military in modern capabilities like hypersonic missiles and has 
amassed a larger navy.
  I said that China is growing increasingly aggressive in the Indo-
Pacific, but China is also growing increasingly aggressive toward the 
United States. Everyone remembers the Chinese spy balloon that flew 
over our country earlier this year, but that is just the tip of the 
iceberg. Recent reports indicate that China is using Cuba as a base for 
intelligence gathering against the United States. Now it has emerged 
that China is in discussions with Havana to establish a new joint 
military training facility in Cuba. That is not even to mention the 
aggressive behavior of the Chinese military toward U.S. assets in the 
Indo-Pacific.
  It is impossible to overstate the necessity of ensuring that we have 
the

[[Page S2155]]

military and economic strength necessary to deter attacks from China 
or, in the worst case, confront and defeat them.
  While China is obviously a major focus, we cannot forget the threat 
posed by Russia, as we continue to see in Ukraine, which is why it is 
vital that the United States and the Western world continue to support 
Ukraine in its fight and that NATO members take seriously or exceed 
their commitment to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense.
  Outside of great power threats, there are rogue nations like Iran, 
which is deepening its ties with both Russia and China and is 
dangerously close to becoming a nuclear power.
  The legislation the Senate Armed Services Committee is considering 
this week is vital, and I hope the markup will produce a strong bill 
that helps address the shortfalls in our readiness.
  I put forward a number of proposals that I hope will be included in 
the final legislation, with full funding for development of the new B-
21 bomber, which will be housed at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South 
Dakota, at the very top of my priority list.
  I am also working to ensure that, in addition to funding for the B-21 
and the necessary support facilities, the Ellsworth area gets the 
resources it needs to support the military personnel and their families 
who will be coming to the area with the arrival of the B-21s.
  Ronald Reagan once said:

       We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of 
     freedom are strong, but when they are weak. It is then that 
     tyrants are tempted.

  Today, as ever, it is vital that we make sure the forces of freedom 
are strong, and I will do everything I can to help ensure that this 
year's National Defense Authorization Act advances our Nation's 
readiness so that we can be prepared to deter any threat or meet it if 
called upon.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Nomination of Natasha C. Merle

  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I am honored to stand in support of 
Natasha Merle, whom I was proud to nominate for the U.S. District Court 
for the Eastern District of New York.
  Ms. Merle is a deeply experienced litigator. She has practiced at 
virtually every level of the legal system, and she has litigated in 
both State and Federal courts, handling both civil and criminal 
matters.
  Ms. Merle doesn't just have the experience and training necessary for 
the Federal bench; she also brings a crucial and unique perspective as 
a former public defender. If confirmed, she would not only be the 
fourth Black woman on the district court but also the first person with 
experience as a public defender to fill this role in nearly 30 years.
  Ms. Merle has demonstrated fairness in the courtroom and will uphold 
the rule of law as a judge. Nineteen senior lawyers from prominent 
national and international law firms submitted a letter in support of 
her confirmation. And I can tell you that her high ethical standards 
and reputation for fairness will leave a powerful mark on our 
communities and on the Eastern District of New York.
  I hope she will receive a swift confirmation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.


                              S.J. Res. 11

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, in just a moment, the U.S. Senate will 
vote to override President Biden's veto of my legislation that would 
stop yet another aggressive environmental regulation.
  This specific regulation is an EPA rule that would impose stricter 
emissions standards on heavy-duty vehicles. While this might sound 
well-intentioned, let's be very clear about the facts.
  First, the EPA's own economic analysis projects that the cost to 
Americans associated with this new regulation could reach up to $55 
billion from 2027 to 2045. That is because, when you force truckers to 
purchase new, expensive equipment in the name of climate, you are 
asking the American people to foot the bill. Any product transported by 
trucks, whether that is food headed to your local grocery store or 
something that you bought off of Amazon, each one of these products 
will cost more due to massive inflationary burdens this rule will place 
on the trucking industry. That means every American consumer will feel 
the effects of this rule and its price increases.
  Every agriculture producer and every local business will feel its 
effects. If you are an ag or an energy-heavy State like Texas, 
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Illinois, Nebraska, California, or 
Montana, your local economy will be especially impacted by these higher 
freight costs.
  That is not to mention the 3 million Americans who work as commercial 
truckers. Many truckers work for mom-and-pop operations--small 
businesses that simply don't have the financial resources to handle a 
spike in cost. Many of these businesses and the good-paying jobs that 
they support won't survive this rule.
  And do you know? The real irony here is that the way this ``green'' 
regulation is structured, it actually undermines its own stated goal of 
reducing emissions. Think about it. If the price of newer vehicles 
shoots up, the government is incentivizing businesses to hold on to 
their older, higher emitting trucks.
  So let's tell it like it is. The Biden administration's emissions 
rule is a political move that won't even be effective. The 
administration is making an ineffective climate statement at the 
expense of millions of Americans' livelihoods.
  We in the Senate should know that we are not playing a political game 
of chess. We are dealing with real people. We are not moving pawns. 
That is why my CRA passed the Senate and the House with bipartisan 
support, and that is why we need to push back against the President's 
insistence on playing these regulatory games, because working families 
don't have the luxury for these games. They are reeling from inflation 
and economic turmoil caused by this administration.
  So I would encourage my colleagues to join me in choosing our 
economy, our truckers, and, ultimately, the American people over 
another politically charged mandate from a power-hungry White House.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.


                       Tax Convention with Chile

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, this year marks the 20th anniversary of 
diplomatic ties between the United States and Chile and 20 years since 
Congress approved a free-trade agreement between our two countries.
  In April, I led a codel to Chile. I had a chance to meet with Chile's 
leaders and American businesses operating there. We were a bipartisan 
group. I went with Senator Kaine, Senator Hagerty, and Congressman Tony 
Cardenas.
  We met with tech companies. We met with insurance companies. We met 
with mining companies--you name it. Do you know what every single one 
of them said to us? Do you know what they all wanted from the U.S. 
Senate? To approve the Chile tax treaty.
  They said, if the United States doesn't ratify the treaty, they will 
continue to be at a huge disadvantage. The world is changing--we are 
undergoing an energy transition--and without this treaty, we are going 
to fall behind on critical minerals and manufacturing of the future.
  And they are right. China already has a tax treaty with Chile. If the 
United States wants to level the playing field for American businesses 
and deepen our ties with Chile, we need to act.
  Chile is one of our strongest democratic partners in the Americas, 
and the Chileans want us to ratify the treaty as well. We heard that 
message loud and clear when we spoke to the President and senior 
Members of Chile's Senate. We heard it from the Speaker of the Chilean 
Congress, and we heard it directly from President Gabriel Boric, a 
strong democratic leader who seeks closer ties with the United States.
  We live in a world with increased global competition and in a contest 
between democracy versus

[[Page S2156]]

authoritarianism. The United States needs to be strategic about how we 
deepen our relationships with key democratic partners like Chile and 
President Boric. We must avoid unnecessary delays that undercut our 
competitiveness.
  Remember, we signed this agreement in 2010--that was 13 years ago--
and this would be only our third bilateral tax treaty in all of Latin 
America. China is not waiting around. So, if we want to be competitive, 
we need to move forward with the same determination, and the Chile tax 
treaty is an incredible opportunity in that regard.
  Chile is an important market for U.S. goods and manufacturing, 
including aircraft, vehicles, and machinery. Chile is a leading 
producer of copper, and Chile has the second largest lithium reserves 
in the world. This critical mineral is the building block for many 
modern technologies.
  As global demands skyrocket in the coming years--by as much as nearly 
4,000 percent--this tax treaty will make it easier for U.S. businesses 
to be competitive in this emerging sector.
  U.S. businesses and their Chilean counterparts want predictability 
and consistency in tax treatment. As they continue to scale up 
operations and as the United States and Chile forge even stronger 
economic ties, they want to know that they won't be taxed twice on the 
same income in two different countries. That is why the Chile tax 
treaty has overwhelming support from the U.S. private sector.
  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has expressed its resounding support for 
the treaty. It has support from U.S. companies across a range of 
industries and sectors. And the treaty enjoys strong bipartisan support 
as is evidenced by the fact that it passed the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee by a nearly unanimous vote of 20 to 1.
  By approving this treaty, we not only give the Senate's stamp of 
approval right now, but we have high hopes for where this treaty will 
take our two nations in the future.
  While we are debating this tax treaty, I do want to take a minute to 
speak about how we engage on treaties more broadly. Treaties are a 
shared constitutional responsibility of the Senate and the executive 
branch. Nonetheless, as we worked last year to move the Chile tax 
treaty through the Senate, the Biden administration withdrew from our 
tax treaty with Hungary without consulting with the Senate or providing 
advance notice, let alone having approval. It is deeply disappointing 
that Presidents of both parties have advanced these types of unilateral 
actions and omissions in the past.
  Let me be clear. Such actions are completely inconsistent with our 
constitutional structure. I have asked the President to commit, at a 
minimum, to meaningful consultations with the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee prior to terminating any treaty. Without such a commitment, I 
will work to address this issue in future resolutions of advice and 
consent, as well as in legislation, and I will continue to work to make 
sure the Senate protects our constitutional prerogative on 
treaties. Abiding by our Constitution--standing up for our democratic 
values and institutions--this is what binds us with close partners like 
Chile.

  It was in 1823 that this very Senate confirmed our first diplomatic 
representative to Chile. This established, for the first time, official 
relations between our two young nations. We took that action then 
because our countries were determined that the rest of the world take 
us seriously as independent states.
  Our shared values and ambitions have given us 200 fruitful years of 
working together--in science and technological innovation, on 
immigration visas and academic exchanges, and, yes, on the question of 
critical minerals and renewable energy, which this treaty will take to 
new heights.
  This treaty will advance U.S. interests by building partnerships that 
will position our country, our economy, and our manufacturing sector 
for the future.
  I appreciate the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee. We 
had some issues originally. We worked together, and we came to a 
conclusion that is satisfactory to all. I urge my colleagues to vote to 
advance this treaty and to ultimately vote to provide advice and 
consent to its ratification.
  With that, I yield the floor.


                          Vote on Veto Message

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is, 
Shall the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 11) pass, the objections of the 
President to the contrary notwithstanding?
  The yeas and nays are required under the Constitution.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 167 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--50

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 
50.
  Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being present, not having 
voted in the affirmative, the joint resolution on reconsideration fails 
to pass over the veto of the President of the United States.

                          ____________________