[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 185 (Wednesday, November 8, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5416-S5422]
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 FEDERAL HIGHWAY 
  ADMINISTRATION RELATING TO ``WAIVER OF BUY AMERICA REQUIREMENTS FOR 
                      ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGERS''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume legislative session and proceed to the consideration of S.J. 
Res. 38, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A Joint resolution (S.J. Res. 38) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Highway 
     Administration relating to ``Waiver of Buy America 
     Requirements for Electric Vehicle Chargers.''

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                   Nomination of Brandy R. McMillion

  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, first, I will speak more tomorrow 
about Brandy McMillion, whom we just forwarded to a final confirmation 
vote tomorrow. She is an extraordinary nominee for the district court 
in Michigan, and I so appreciate the bipartisan support today.


                              S.J. Res. 38

  At this moment, Madam President, I rise in opposition to S.J. Res. 
38.
  The result of passing this resolution is actually the opposite of 
what the sponsor is going to say. It reminds me a lot of last week when 
we were debating school meals and when what was argued was exactly the 
opposite of what it would do. This is one of those similar kinds of 
situations. So let me just explain this.
  Last Congress, we worked hard to pass the Infrastructure Investment 
and Jobs Act despite the opposition from the senior Senator from 
Florida, who is authoring this resolution, by the way. From fixing our 
roads and bridges and airports and railways to expanding high-speed 
internet and creating jobs, this was a great bill with a great 
bipartisan effort. We are now seeing the profound effects of this 
historic law in every corner of the country.
  The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act included my Make It in 
America Act, which created, for the first time, a Made in America 
Office. This office is charged with reviewing waivers that have been 
around for a long time, toughening them up, requiring more 
transparency, in that any waiver be put on a website for businesses and 
workers and taxpayers to be able to see, and it ensured complying with 
other ``Buy America'' laws.
  So, as we are going forward on electric vehicles and electric vehicle 
charging, we have the administration now looking at waivers. We have a 
longstanding waiver called the Manufactured Products General Waiver. 
This

[[Page S5417]]

blanket waiver has been in effect since 1983, and it has allowed 
foreign manufactured products to be used by the Federal Highway 
Administration.
  Our administration, the Biden administration, doesn't want to see 
that continue. So it put in place a short-term waiver. It took EV 
chargers out of that and put in place a short-term waiver until next 
July and said: We will give you a little bit of time, but then you are 
going to have to have American companies that are making EV chargers if 
we are going to buy them with Federal taxpayer dollars.
  So it was very significant in expanding ``Buy America'' policies. 
Now, you will somehow hear the opposite. This is expanding ``Buy 
America'' policies by basically saying: Instead of a permanent waiver, 
we will give you until July 1, 2024, to ensure that new chargers can 
meet ``Buy America'' requirements, and we can move forward with 
American-made products. So the key is temporary. This is temporary.
  Therefore, this resolution would actually weaken ``Buy America'' 
requirements. The resolution would result in EV chargers not needing to 
meet any U.S. manufacturing or any ``Buy America'' content requirements 
far in the future. This would significantly set back American jobs and 
American manufacturing. If you want American taxpayer dollars to be 
required to purchase American-made products, including EV chargers, you 
need to vote no on this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do 
that.
  I am so pleased to be here with another wonderful champion on this 
issue, Senator Tammy Baldwin from Wisconsin, who has really championed 
this effort in a very, very effective way.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the resolution 
submitted by Senator Rubio of Florida. I wanted to also start with sort 
of an explanation of where we find ourselves.
  You hear the expression ``Made in America'' and ``Buy America'' 
policies. What are those? That is the simple proposition that when we 
are spending Federal tax dollars, your tax dollars, we want to see 
those ultimately benefit U.S. workers and U.S. small businesses and 
medium-size businesses. That is what ``Make it in America'' or ``Buy 
America'' policies accomplish.
  But I want to start also with what this Congressional Review Act 
resolution would do. This resolution would prohibit the Federal Highway 
Administration's February 2023 rule, which, as you heard from Senator 
Stabenow, removes electric vehicle chargers from the Agency's blanket 
``Buy America'' waiver from taking effect.
  The Federal Highway Administration's rule implements what we would 
call a phase-in policy or an onramp policy that increases ``Buy 
America'' requirements for electric vehicle chargers. By July 2024, all 
EV chargers purchased with Federal Highway Administration dollars, your 
taxpayer dollars, must be in full compliance with the ``Build 
America,'' ``Buy America'' rules.
  If you eliminate this rule, as the Rubio resolution would do, it 
would remove all ``Buy America'' restrictions for EV charger purchases, 
allowing Federal taxpayer dollars, your dollars, to buy chargers from 
China, which is rapidly scaling up their charger manufacturing in order 
to offer the lowest cost product.
  Because of this FHA rule, manufacturers are locating their facilities 
in the United States. For example, Ingeteam, the European market 
leader, has built a facility in Milwaukee, WI, where hundreds of union 
workers will make half a million EV chargers. This is because this rule 
requires EV chargers to be assembled in the United States when they are 
funded with Federal taxpayer dollars.
  Under the Rubio resolution, those requirements go away. They vanish. 
The requirements go away because chargers will once again become 
subject to the Federal Highway Administration's blanket waiver for 
manufactured products, which has been in place since 1983.
  I am no fan of this blanket waiver. Since I got to the Senate, I have 
been pushing to get rid of it. Frustration with this waiver is one of 
the reasons I worked with my colleagues--Senators Brown, Portman, 
Stabenow, Braun, and Peters--to get ``Buy America'' requirements into 
the infrastructure law. Because of our work, that law requires the 
Federal Highway Administration to request public notice and comment on 
its blanket waiver--something it did in May of this year.
  If you are a Senator who opposes the Federal Highway Administration's 
blanket waiver, like me, you might, say, submit a comment during the 
open comment period--something I did--or ask the Secretary of 
Transportation to commit to rescinding the blanket waiver in a 
committee hearing--something I did--or maybe even vote for the 
legislation that requires the Agency to review the waiver--something I 
did, along with 19 of my Republican colleagues. But the sponsor of this 
resolution, Senator Rubio, did not do any of the things I just 
mentioned. It makes me think and the resolution itself suggests that he 
is more interested in scoring political points rather than doing the 
hard work of increasing the number of products and the number of 
programs that are subject to ``Buy America'' requirements.
  That is why United Steelworkers, who represent thousands of workers 
in Wisconsin and in Florida and who actually make things--that is why 
they oppose this resolution, and that is why I encourage my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Am I fully satisfied with the job this administration has done to 
implement ``Buy America''? The answer is no, I am not. But this 
resolution makes things worse, not better. If we want to improve the 
administration's implementation of ``Buy America,'' we need to give 
Agencies the resources they need to do outreach to industry.
  I have supported ``Buy America'' for as long as I have been in the 
U.S. Congress. It used to be a lonely battle, and it has been at times. 
So I am very pleased that I have many new allies on the Republican side 
of the aisle who claim to support ``Buy America.''
  Welcome to the team. I look forward to working with you and to 
getting this administration the resources it needs to successfully 
implement ``Buy America'' instead of supporting this resolution that 
would make things worse.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, good afternoon.
  I rise to join my two colleagues who just spoke in opposition to S.J. 
Res. 38, a Congressional Review Act resolution to disapprove of the 
Biden administration's temporary waiver of the ``Buy American'' 
requirements for the electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
  Why is this important? Why should Americans care about this issue? 
Well, we continue to see, on almost a daily basis, daily reminders that 
our planet is on fire. Scientists tell us that we are running out of 
time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to avoid the worst of the 
climate crisis. The rest the world is looking at us. The rest of the 
world is looking at us, the United States, for leadership right now on 
this issue. Instead, we are voting on a resolution that President Biden 
will certainly veto. That means it will not go into effect.
  Having said all of that, let me explain why I oppose the resolution 
offered by our colleague from Florida. The way this resolution works is 
more than a little bit confusing, so let's take a couple of minutes to 
try to make clear what it would actually do. My colleagues have already 
referred to this. To better understand that, it is important to 
understand how we got to this point.
  As I mentioned, addressing the existential threat of climate change 
is one of the most challenging events we currently face as a planet. We 
also know that our transportation sector, including the cars, trucks, 
and vans on our roads, is the largest source of greenhouse gas 
emissions in the U.S. economy. In fact, the cars, trucks, and vans we 
drive create nearly 30 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions in 
America.
  To that end, we included $7.5 billion--billion with a ``b''--in the 
bipartisan infrastructure law to help build out a national network of 
electric vehicle charging infrastructure, supporting our climate goals 
and creating jobs--lots of jobs--right here in America.
  We are already seeing the impact of our investment. Since enacting 
the bipartisan infrastructure law nearly 2

[[Page S5418]]

years ago, the electric vehicle charging industry has announced 
investments of over $500 million in more than 40 plants for assembling 
American-made EV chargers. Let me say that again. The electric vehicle 
charging industry has announced investments of over $500 million in 
more than 40 plants for assembling American-made EV chargers. These 
plants in States like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and North 
Carolina are bringing more manufacturing jobs back to the United 
States--back to the United States. That means relying less on countries 
like China to enable our clean energy transition.
  If enacted, Senator Rubio's resolution would undermine this progress. 
His resolution would create greater uncertainty for our domestic EV 
charging industry, directly contradicting our goal of having this 
equipment made and assembled right here in the U.S. of A. That is why 
groups like the AFL-CIO and, as we have just heard, the United 
Steelworkers oppose the Rubio resolution. They oppose it. The reason 
why they oppose it is because its adoption would mean shipping jobs 
overseas instead of building our supply chain right here at home.
  So, in reality, this resolution would actually weaken ``Buy 
American'' requirements. It would result in more EV charging products 
being built overseas, not here. It would undermine American workers and 
our Nation's ability to be global leaders in electric vehicles.
  Put simply, a vote for this resolution is a vote against American 
manufacturing of EV chargers. That is why I oppose this resolution, and 
I urge my colleagues to do so as well.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I am looking to see if there is anyone else to speak. I don't see 
anyone, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                   Remembering Nestor R. Weigand, Jr.

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, today, I join many who mourn the passing 
and I honor the life of a Kansan I had the privilege of knowing and 
working with: Nestor R. Weigand, Jr.
  Mr. Weigand was a blessing to all who knew him, and he improved the 
lives of many around him each and every day of his life.
  He was raised in Wichita. Nestor's family later moved to Minnesota, 
where he attended St. Thomas Academy school, and later graduated with a 
degree in finance from the University of Notre Dame in 1960. Nestor 
then went on to serve his country in the U.S. Army Reserve.
  Following his time in the Reserve, Nestor devoted much of his adult 
life to the real estate business. It was a tremendous passion of his. 
It wasn't just a job; it was something he enjoyed and loved doing, 
something he found satisfaction in, in putting a buyer and a seller 
together, in making a project work.
  He originally joined the family real estate business in Kansas in 
1961. His hard work led him to become the president and CEO of J.P. 
Weigand & Sons in 1983. Through this role, he succeeded in building one 
of Kansas's most respected businesses.
  Continuing his passion for real estate, Nestor was elected to be the 
president of the Kansas Association of Realtors in 1978 and eventually 
became the president of the National Association of Realtors 10 years 
later. Nestor worked tirelessly in his role to improve the lives of 
Kansans and Americans by fighting for fair housing laws throughout the 
country.
  Weigand real estate agent Alissa Unruh said:

       One of the most impressive of his personal attributes was 
     that Nestor would call every employee and agent on their 
     birthday like clockwork. [He] never missed my birthday in 20 
     years.

  Nestor cared about details, and he cared about people. In 1990, with 
no prior political experience, Nestor made the decision to run for 
Governor of the State of Kansas, and while he ended up, by a very small 
margin, on the short end, his expertise and knowledge was something I 
truly admired and have learned from during my time in public service. 
His race for Governor earned him an appreciation by many Kansans who 
might not otherwise have met him.
  Before running for public office, one of the first people I sought 
out was Nestor Weigand, for some advice. I enjoyed conversations with 
Nestor over breakfast and lunch and greatly benefited from those 
conversations and his wisdom.
  Often in Washington, DC, here in the Nation's Capital, or in my 
travels across the country and certainly across Kansas, when I would 
tell somebody outside the State of Kansas that I am from Kansas, they 
would say: Well, do you know Nestor Weigand?
  He had many, many friends in many places. He was a giant in the real 
estate industry and made a huge difference in people's lives.
  Not only was he an expert in real estate, but he was also a leader of 
the Wichita community and understood the people of the State of Kansas. 
Nestor was a booster for Wichita, for Sedgwick County, and for our 
State.
  Nestor took his commitment to his community seriously. He sat on so 
many boards, including being a board member and chairman of Wesley 
Hospital for over 40 years.
  Nestor's life truly reflected the love for business, for real estate, 
his passion for public service, and his dedication to people. He knew 
lots of people, but he knew them well, and they knew him and they 
respected him.
  You meet Nestor Weigand, and you decided this was the real deal, a 
person who cared about you and who wanted to see good things happen in 
your life.
  His legacy will not be forgotten. He is already dearly missed. Robba 
joins me in our prayers for his children, his grandchildren, and the 
entire Weigand family.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Unanimous Consent Request--S. 85

  Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, on October 7, Hamas terrorists crossed 
the border of Israel and committed atrocities, the full extent of which 
we are only just now coming to understand.
  Thousands of innocent Israelis have lost their lives. Israeli babies 
were beheaded--literally beheaded--put into ovens, according to news 
reports. Innocent civilians were shot in their homes when they answered 
their front doors. Soldiers who were asleep in their beds were 
executed. And the terrorist attacks have continued.
  Amazingly, in the United States--even as this terrible attack was 
unfolding in Israel--in the United States, hundreds and thousands of 
students and others took to America's campuses to express solidarity, 
not with innocent Israelis who had lost their lives but with Hamas, and 
to voice support for the genocidal campaign that Hamas has sought to 
carry out and continues to advance and advocate even as we stand here 
today.
  Take a look at just some of the things that have been said by 
students on America's college campuses. Students at Harvard University 
said they held the Israeli regime ``entirely responsible''--entirely 
responsible--``for all the unfolding violence.'' You had students at 
the University of North Carolina who said they believed it was their 
``moral obligation to be in solidarity with the dispossessed, no matter 
the pathway to liberation they choose to take. This includes 
violence.''
  Oh, and Hamas is violent. There is no doubt we have seen 
extraordinary violence, unbelievable violence, in the most brutal 
attack on Israel and the Jewish people in 50 years.
  Students at New York University School of Law wrote that they 
expressed first and foremost their unwavering and absolute solidarity 
with Palestinians and their resistance against oppression toward 
liberation and self-determination. ``Israel,'' they said, ``bears full 
responsibility for this tremendous loss of life.''
  I could go on. And I am happy to say that this body has unanimously 
condemned these statements--this progenocidal rhetoric--by students in 
this country.
  I wish that it had stopped at rhetoric, but it hasn't. We have seen 
the assaults

[[Page S5419]]

on Jewish students right on our campuses. We have seen Jews barricaded 
in university libraries, unable to leave, as pro-Hamas demonstrators 
shout and scream outside calling for the destruction of Israel. We have 
seen Jewish students physically assaulted--if you don't believe me, 
just go look on the internet--physically assaulted on American campuses 
by pro-Hamas demonstrators.
  We have even seen it in high schools, where students are chanting:

       From the river to the sea, Palestine must be free.

  What does that mean? It is a call for the destruction of the State of 
Israel. It is a call for the execution of Jews in the Middle East, in 
this country, everywhere. That is the Hamas agenda.
  And so many Americans, including me, have been absolutely stunned to 
see so many students and others echoing these claims. And it has raised 
the question: Where is this coming from? Where are these students and 
young people--teenagers--where are they hearing this? Where are they 
seeing it? Where are they being fed this propaganda? Because 
propaganda, it is.
  At least one of the answers is, they are finding it on TikTok. Yes, 
TikTok, that Chinese-based, Chinese-owned social media app that is a 
back door for the Chinese Communist Party to track the movements, the 
key strokes, the whereabouts, the information of every American who has 
the app on their phone.
  What we know now is that for many, many younger Americans--the so-
called Generation Z; those in their teens and early twenties--so many 
of them--74 percent of them, in fact--use TikTok as a search engine. 
And, in fact, a majority of them prefer TikTok to Google as a principle 
search engine. So where are Americans and Generation Z increasingly 
getting their news? What are they using to search for information? They 
are using TikTok. They are getting their news from TikTok.
  At the same time, this same cohort of young Americans, more than 50 
percent of them--this is young Americans between the ages of 18 and 
24--more than 50 percent of them say they believe Hamas's murder of 
civilians was justified. Let me repeat that. More than 50 percent of 
young Americans--Gen Z, between the ages of 18 and 24--believe Hamas's 
murder of civilians was justified.
  These are the same people who are going on TikTok to get their news, 
to get their information, to be influenced. And they certainly are 
being influenced. Media reports have analyzed the prevalence of anti-
Israel, anti-Semitic, pro-Hamas content on TikTok. It is really quite 
astounding.
  Just take a look at the trending hashtags: ``Stand with Palestine,'' 
285 million views, impressions, according to the news site Axios and 
their recent analysis. By contrast, ``Stand With Israel'' has far, far 
less--64 million. This doesn't actually begin to tell the story because 
the truth is, there are other hashtags, other pro-Hamas, pro-
Palestinian sources of information where the views are even larger. 
Take, for instance ``Free Palestine.'' That has received actually 917 
million views, far outpacing even ``Stand with Palestine'' and 
dramatically outpacing the content that is actually supportive of the 
State of Israel.
  Here is my point. TikTok has become a haven for anti-Semitic content, 
a haven for propaganda for genocide. Of course, TikTok denies this, as 
they deny any responsibility for anything they actually do.
  They have tried to say, in fact, these numbers are skewed. But you 
can't change the facts. You can't deny the reality that their site is 
absolutely awash with this content. And we know that part of the 
problem, the danger of TikTok, is it gives the Chinese Communist Party 
enormous influence--enormous influence--to shape the news, the content 
of the information of the folks who look at it.
  They have done this before. Back in 2019, the Chinese Communist Party 
used TikTok to suppress content that criticized the Chinese Government 
over their oppression and enslavement of the Uighurs in that country. 
They have a pattern of using this application to try and shape the 
narrative in the way they want it shaped. How they are shaping it now 
is pumping out the most virulent, toxic pro-Hamas propaganda.
  Madam President, the time has come to take another look at TikTok. I 
will say this: As virulent and offensive as this content is, that is 
not a reason to ban them. The real reason to ban TikTok is that it is a 
spy app for the Chinese Communist government. Let's just look at what 
we have learned since I was last on this floor trying to pass 
legislation that would hold TikTok accountable and ban it from American 
phones.

  On the 24th of this year, the New York Times reported that driver's 
licenses, addresses and photos--just to be clear, Americans' driver's 
licenses, addresses, and photos--were accessed by TikTok engineers 
based in China. What is extraordinary about this is TikTok has told us 
over and over and over again that this was impossible. They have come 
to this Congress, they testified before us and said this never happens. 
American data is absolutely sequestered. You can't access it in China. 
It is completely safe.
  Yet we learned this year what, really, we already knew: That simply 
is not true. Let's not forget, the law of China--the People's Republic 
of China, a dictatorship--their law requires all major corporations, 
including, especially, data corporations, to make information available 
upon request to the Chinese Communist Party. That means your data. That 
means our personal information.
  On May 30, Forbes magazine reported that TikTok creators'--that means 
American users'--financial information, Social Security numbers were, 
in fact, being stored in China. We had also been told this wasn't true. 
We have been told by TikTok: No, no, no, Americans' data is always 
stored in America. It can't be accessed anywhere but in America. There 
is a firewall between America and China.
  Not true. Not true.
  Americans don't realize that their data is being tracked. They are 
just on there to make their videos and put out their content. And what 
is happening? The Chinese Government is able to access it. Their 
personal information is being stored, not in this country, but in 
China, with full availability to the Chinese Communist Party.
  On November 1, just a few days ago, Forbes further reported that a 
platform storing TikTok corporate secrets was inspected by the Chinese 
Government. Of course, it was. Chinese law requires it. It requires 
TikTok and its parent company ByteDance to make available all of this 
information to the Chinese Government.
  We have confronted dangers like this before from China. Huawei is a 
prime example. Huawei, another Chinese-based corporation also subject 
to the laws of China requiring the sharing of personal information and 
data. And what did we do? We stood up a sanctions regime that 
sanctioned Huawei and prevented its use here in the United States. And 
we went further than that. We actually went to our allies and partners 
and said that we would not cooperate with them and offer them security 
assistance. We are talking about other countries right now. We would 
not cooperate with them or offer security assistance unless they took 
Huawei out of their 5G networks.
  We should do the same with TikTok. We should protect the people of 
this Nation. We should be honest with them about what TikTok actually 
does. And we should protect them from the relentless spying and 
surveillance by a foreign government.
  I want to be clear. I don't like a lot of what American Big Tech 
does. I doubt you will find a harsher critic of Big Tech than I am in 
this Chamber. But there is a big difference between an American company 
looking at Americans' data--accessing Americans' data--and a foreign 
government tracking Americans, building dossiers on Americans, and 
using it as a back door into the life of every American citizen who has 
that app on his or her phone.
  It is time to put an end to this. We have already voted to do it. We 
voted to strip TikTok off of every government device just 10 months 
ago. States are doing it all across the country. It is time we took the 
step to protect the American people, to protect the integrity of 
Americans' personal information and their personal privacy.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further 
consideration of

[[Page S5420]]

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 (Ms. Cortez Masto). Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, reserving the right to object, we are here 
once again faced with the proposal to ban TikTok and to forbid millions 
of Americans from expressing their opinion.
  This is not a subject that we should entertain lightly. If there is a 
better national strategy to permanently lose elections for a 
generation, I have not heard of it. Banning TikTok, a social media app 
used by 150 million Americans, primarily young Americans, is a recipe 
for electoral disaster for Republicans.
  This GOP strategy comes just after an election year in which a 
national survey indicated that 71 percent of young women and 53 percent 
of young men voted for the Democrat candidate for Congress. Now, 
admittedly, many Democrats have also joined Republicans in calling for 
this ban, but like most issues, the blame tends to stick to Republicans 
more.
  The banning TikTok strategy also comes while the GOP simultaneously 
complains of liberal U.S. social media companies canceling and 
censoring conservatives. So without a hint of irony, many of these same 
``conservatives'' now agitate to censor viewpoints they don't like.
  So on the one hand, Republicans complain about censorship, while with 
the other hand, these same Republicans advocate to censor social media 
apps that they worry are influenced by the Chinese. The concern over 
TikTok seems to be over what the social media app might do. Propagating 
hysteria and fear of subtle communist subversion from the People's 
Republic of China through a social media app in the 21st century, is 
similar or akin to basically McCarthyist paranoia.
  Today, in a move that Chairman Mao himself would approve, the Senate 
considers banning a platform because it seems one Member doesn't 
approve of how it handled content about the war between Israel and 
Hamas.
  Just this week, the Senator from Missouri wrote to Secretary Yellen:

       While data security issues are paramount, less often 
     discussed is TikTok's power to radically distort the world-
     picture that America's young people encounter.

  The Senator from Missouri wants to censor TikTok users who are biased 
against Israel. The Senator from Missouri wants to ban the speech of 
young TikTok users he disagrees with. Sounds more like a Chinese 
solution than an American one.
  The Chinese solution to combating speech those in power do not like 
is to ban it. In fact, TikTok is banned in China. So is YouTube, 
Twitter, and Facebook.
  There is an app similar to TikTok called Douyin that operates in 
China, but it is heavily censored. Try to search for ``Tiananmen 1989'' 
on Douyin, and nothing will come up.
  The American solution, with the high value that our country places on 
the free exchange of ideas, is to counter flawed ideas--flawed ideas--
or falsities with more speech and better arguments that persuade and 
reveal the truth.
  Do we really want to emulate China's speech bans? Do we really want 
to intrude into the lives of Americans and deprive them of their First 
Amendment right to receive and consider information?
  The ham-fisted ban under consideration today empowers the government 
to determine what Americans are allowed to see, hear, and contemplate. 
The headline of an opinion piece recently by John Tamny says it all: 
``Nauseating Harassment of TikTok Presumes Americans Will Be Saved From 
Chinese Authoritarianism If U.S. Politicians Act Like Chinese 
Authoritarians.''
  A ban on TikTok is what they do in China. You are worried about 
Chinese communism and Chinese authoritarianism, and you want to ban 
speech in our country? It is inconsistent with our very American 
primary principles. TikTok must be banned, the censors say, because 
they are owned and controlled by the Chinese Communist Government. In 
actuality, TikTok is owned by international investors and two Chinese 
software engineers who designed the app.
  Does TikTok do the Chinese Government's bidding? Well, 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 Premier Xi Jinping. These 
videos are all over TikTok that are critical of Chinese positions. That 
is why TikTok is banned in China.
  TikTok is banned in China, but you want to ban it in the United 
States. We are going to become like the Chinese to prevent the Chinese 
from taking over our country?
  As Drs. 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 [very] system of 
government more effectively than any Chinese propaganda could ever 
do.''
  We will be doing what the Chinese want. If you are worried about 
becoming Chinese communists, you will now be emulating them by banning 
speech. To those who were worried that the Chinese Government might 
somehow have access to millions of American teenagers' info, realize 
that all social media, regardless of whether their ownership is foreign 
or domestic, sucks up all your personal data, and this is what people 
provide voluntarily.

  And, people, if you don't want your information--don't join these 
groups. If you are going to ban TikTok, what is next? Arguably, several 
domestic apps censor conservatives more. I know because I have been 
censored and banned by American companies. I have got no love lost with 
any of these companies. I have a host of complaints about domestic 
social media platforms that cancel conservatives, but I am not in favor 
of banning them or forcing them to accept my opinion. They are private 
companies. They have speech rights. I have speech rights, but I don't 
have the right to force them or to ban them if they don't post my 
stuff.
  If you don't like TikTok or Facebook or YouTube, don't use them. But 
don't think any interpretation of the Constitution gives you the right 
to ban them. The First Amendment isn't necessary to protect speech that 
everybody likes or everybody accepts. The First Amendment exists to 
protect speech that might be unpopular or might be controversial.
  I hope saner minds will reflect on which is more dangerous, videos of 
teenagers dancing or the President 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. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, let's just be clear about one thing. The 
Chinese Communist Government is not covered by the U.S. Bill of Rights.
  The Chinese Communist Government does not have free speech rights, 
and we are not talking about free speech. We are not talking about 
speech at all. The sanctions that I am proposing have nothing to do 
with speech; they have everything to do with spying, for the same 
reasons that we have banned Huawei in this country.
  If the Senator would like to have a debate about whether or not 
Huawei and its affiliates ought to be banned, whether it ought to be a 
sanctions regime for those that engage in espionage, I welcome it. That 
is the same debate we are having here.
  I just say this. If all of those teenagers and other creators from 
around the world who are putting all of the pro-genocidal Hamas content 
onto TikTok want to go do it on other platforms, be my guest. I will be 
right here to criticize them and call them out for their moral 
atrocities wherever they do it.
  But the reason to ban TikTok in this country is that it is a spying 
apparatus of the Chinese Communist Party. The facts simply cannot be 
disputed. ByteDance is subject to the laws of China, which make 
American data available to, accessible to, upon request for Chinese 
corporations and the Chinese Government.

[[Page S5421]]

  I just lament that we cannot seem to move forward with a step that we 
have already taken with regard to Huawei, with sensible protection of 
Americans' privacy and their personal data.
  But let me just close with this. With regard to the speech itself, 
while the content of the speech on TikTok is no reason to ban them, I 
just want to say, since we are here in this moment of great dispute, 
apparently, in some quarters of this country over whether it is right 
or wrong to call for the genocide of Jewish people, I want to say, 
clearly, it is wrong. And I want to say to those creators who are 
pumping out this content on TikTok: You may have a First Amendment 
right to do so, but you don't really have moral standing.
  We need to be clear. There is a right. There is a wrong. There is 
good. There is evil. And calling for the genocide of Jewish people, 
whether it is in the Middle East, the State of Israel, or in this 
country is wrong. Whether you do it on TikTok or Meta or YouTube or 
just on the streets and plazas of your college campus, it is wrong.
  And at this time, above all times, I think, we need to stand and make 
that clear.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Madam President, the bill before us to ban TikTok is 
clearly infringement of the First Amendment. It would ban 150 million 
people who regularly post on TikTok from expressing themselves.
  It is without question speech. These folks, the 150 million users of 
TikTok, would have standing in court to sue over infringement of their 
speech.
  This isn't about who was advocating for this or that in the Middle 
East or in Israel or in the Hamas situation. The Supreme Court has 
looked at speech over time, and there is some speech that is not 
protected.
  But in Europe, they have gone one step further, in the sense that 
they ban all kinds of speech in Europe. You have certain opinions that 
can't be expressed. We have never done that in our country. You can 
have a foul, despicable opinion in our country, and we counter it with 
better ideas. We counter it with better speech. It is very, very 
dangerous to the primary principles of our founding, of our government, 
of our Bill of Rights, of the Bill of Right that is listed first, and 
that is freedom of speech. And my hope is that this will not be seen as 
a serious proposal and will be rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. RUBIO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up 
to 5 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              S.J. Res. 38

  Mr. RUBIO. So I think one of the things that has become increasingly 
accepted here is that deindustrialization was a terrible mistake for 
America. No. 1, it hurt us and wiped out good-paying jobs that we 
relied on to build strong communities, and the other is it left us 
vulnerable in our supply chains.
  And one of the things that is talked a lot about in terms of 
industries is these provisions called ``Buy American.'' We have laws 
called ``Buy American.'' I think it is especially important when we are 
spending taxpayer dollars on propping up an industry that it have 
strong provisions that do so.
  What is called the infrastructure bill has $5 billion of American 
taxpayer funds to build electric vehicle charging stations in the 
United States, and it has, in that bill embedded, very specific ``Buy 
American'' requirements that those funds may be used only so that all 
the iron, the steel, the manufactured products, the construction 
materials that are used are produced in the United States.
  It is very simple. It is pretty straightforward. That is what the law 
reads, both a broader law that already exists and then the provisions 
of this bill.
  The Biden administration, after passing this, however, didn't just 
fail to implement this provision--they were almost a year late in even 
issuing any findings on it, but they have now come out with this 
waiver. A waiver of that ``Buy American'' requirement that allows 
foreign-made EV chargers--translation, Chinese-made electric vehicle 
chargers--up until October of 2024.
  But there is more. They actually give the Federal Highway 
Administrator the ability to extend that deadline by 5 years. And so we 
are now facing, under this waiver they are requesting, the real 
prospect that significant portions of the $5 billion that is going to 
go to electric vehicle charging stations is going to be spent on 
Chinese companies--taxpayer dollars.
  So we are either serious about restoring America's industrial 
capabilities or we are not. We should be especially serious about it 
when we are spending Federal funds on it.
  Now, I have watched some of the debate, some of the things the 
administration is telling people about how somehow this is going to be 
the opposite effect. There is this 1983 general regulation that they 
have written or waiver that they have in place. Everyone knows here 
that specific statutory language, such as that that exists both in this 
bill and in other law, supersedes any of these. But the other is very 
simple. The administration, as they have done with a bunch of other 
regulations, can either amend it or get rid of it. But they are using 
that as a threat.

  What they are basically telling people is, if you vote for this, if 
this thing passes, we will interpret that 1983 general provision to 
just do anything we want with regard to this.
  So it is pretty straightforward. Get rid of it. Don't use it that 
way. Commit yourself to rebuilding American industry, American jobs.
  The bottom line is this. You can play all the jiujitsu games you want 
with regard to language, the bottom line is this: If we are going to 
spend $5 billion of taxpayer money to build electric vehicle charging 
stations in the United States, it should be made by Americans, in 
America, using American products.
  And if you agree with me, I am going to give you a chance right now 
to vote for something that wipes out this waiver that the Biden 
administration wants to put in place that will guarantee that that may 
never happen and that most of this money--taxpayer money--will go into 
the hands of Chinese companies to build electric vehicle charging 
stations in the United States.
  We shouldn't allow that to happen. I urge everyone to vote for this.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for up to 1 
minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I just want to make clear, as the 
person who authored the Make It in America Act in the infrastructure 
bill--which my colleague from Florida did not support--that we have a 
Made in America Office now, and I am so appreciative of what the Biden 
administration is doing to make sure that we are not giving waivers 
unless absolutely necessary.
  We had a general manufacturing waiver for years--years and years and 
years. What they have done is taken the EV chargers out of that and 
said: OK, we will give you until July of next year. We will phase out 
any kind of a waiver because we want these American made. We want these 
American made.
  And so the effect of voting for this resolution is to forever have EV 
chargers as part of the waiver, where they never have to be American 
made. They can always be Chinese made.
  We want them American made, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this 
resolution.
  The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading 
and was read a third time.


                          Vote on S.J. Res. 38

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The joint resolution having been read the 
third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
  Mr. RUBIO. 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 legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Iowa (Ms. Ernst) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 48, as follows:

[[Page S5422]]

  


                      [Rollcall Vote No. 303 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

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

                                NAYS--48

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Butler
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Ernst
     Scott (SC)
       
  The joint resolution (S.J. Res. 38) was passed as follows:

                              S.J. Res. 38

       Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
     United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress 
     disapproves the rule submitted by the Federal Highway 
     Administration relating to ``Waiver of Buy America 
     Requirements for Electric Vehicle Chargers'' (88 Fed. Reg. 
     10619 (February 21, 2023)), and such rule shall have no force 
     or effect.

                          ____________________