Deb Fischer

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, China is on track to triple its nuclear arsenal by 2035. Russia continues its saber-rattling in Ukraine. North Korea is hell-bent on developing the capability to deliver nuclear weapons at longer ranges, conducting dozens of missile tests in this last year, and Iran is weeks away from obtaining nuclear weapons. But on Sunday night, President Biden said, and I am quoting him: The only existential threat humanity faces even more frightening than a nuclear war is global warming going above 1.5 degrees in the next . . . 10 years. The leader of the free world believes that global warming is a bigger threat to global security than nuclear war. Now, I am not dismissing the importance of our climate. We should continue to take responsible, commonsense action to address climate change, and we should support an ``all of the above'' energy strategy. We should promote policies to ensure that we have clean air, clean water, and we should do that without hindering economic prosperity or burdening hard-working Americans and their families. But the President's claim that global warming is more frightening than nuclear war sends the wrong signal to our adversaries and to our allies. It demonstrates a total ignorance of the instability of today's global threat environment. The Strategic Forces Subcommittee, where I am ranking member, specifically oversees our country's nuclear forces, and based on the hundreds of official hearings, briefings, and documents we have analyzed, I can tell you with all confidence that the most frightening threat to global security today is the Chinese Communist Party. The CCP made it crystal clear that it wants to fundamentally alter global deterrence dynamics. China's relentless military buildup has outpaced anything that we could have imagined. Like I said earlier, China wants to triple its nuclear arsenal over the next decade, and it is well on its way to meeting that goal, if not exceeding it. U.S. Strategic Command, or STRATCOM, is located in my home State of Nebraska, and they confirmed earlier this year that China possesses more intercontinental ballistic missile launchers than we do here in the United States. China is developing a subsonic stealth bomber that is essentially a copycat of our B-2 bomber. It is continuing work on Jin-class submarines capable of carrying over 12 nuclear missiles at a time. To the people of the United States, let me say this: For the first time in history, the United States will face two adversaries who are peer nuclear powers--China and Russia--and that is the biggest national security threat we face. When the President says that climate change is more frightening than nuclear war, he is downplaying the serious, terrifying possibility that China puts its nuclear weapons to use. This administration neglects our nuclear arsenal while our adversaries, well, they prioritize theirs. This administration has done things like try to cancel the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile Program, or SLCM. SLCM would fill a known--a known--capability gap. It would allow us to more effectively deter China or Russia from using a nuclear weapon, which is part of their ``escalate to deescalate'' strategy. Well, Congress has pushed back on the President in a bipartisan and a bicameral way when it comes to him canceling SLCM. It is past time for this administration to get serious about the existential threat that China poses. The President needs to tackle this issue head-on and not trivialize it. One way that President Biden can do this is by signing this year's National Defense Authorization Act. The Senate successfully passed this year's NDAA by a significant bipartisan majority, 86 to 11. I led provisions to accelerate the modernization of our nuclear triad--our land-, our sea-based nuclear weapons, and our air-based ones. These military capabilities that we have are essential to keeping adversaries like China in check. China will be less likely to use its weapons if it believes that we can and that we will hit back harder. Once the NDAA gets to the President's desk, he should sign this legislation without hesitating for a moment. Let's not put nuclear war on the back burner. Let us step forward. Let us show China that it has no chance against the United States of America. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, 22 years ago, Apple released the first desktop version of its macOS operating system. The first Harry Potter movie and the first Lord of the Rings movie both came out. Alicia Keys and Destiny's Child were topping the charts, and Bill Clinton left office. Twenty-two years ago was also the last time that mortgage rates were as high as they are now. Yes, they are higher now than they were during the 2008 financial crisis. Mortgage rates were the lowest in American history in January of 2021. Then Joe Biden became President. Over the past 2\1/2\ years, mortgage rates have almost tripled. In the meantime, inflation rates are still climbing higher. This past month, as I traveled Nebraska during the Senate's State work period, I visited with dozens and dozens of middle-class Americans. It is truly the best part of my job--meeting with small business owners, ag producers, schoolteachers, nurses, students, and employees all across my home State, but this year it was so frustrating to hear about the economic struggles that Nebraskans are facing. Middle-class Nebraskans are scraping by financially, and what is ironic is that they are doing it on the watch of a President who calls himself ``Middle-Class Joe.'' President Biden's line recently has been, ``When the middle class does well, everyone does well.'' You know, I agree with him. I would just add that, right now, everyone is not doing well. That is especially true for the middle class, and it is because this administration's ill-advised policies keep pumping air into an economy that is already bloated. The so-called Bidenomics agenda is poison, described as a ``cure-all'' for middle- class Americans. That is not an exaggeration. Last month, I saw Bidenomics up close in Nebraska so let me tell you how it is going. One Saturday this August, I visited a small town in Western Nebraska. That afternoon, a small business owner told me that his electricity bills had shot up over the past couple of years both for his home and for his business. Electricity, groceries, gas--you name it--these essentials are tough to afford, if not impossible to afford, for the average middle-class American. That is Bidenomics in Nebraska. Business owners and families alike shared that they can hardly pay increasingly high rents and mortgage rates. In fact, all year, an increasing number of middle-class Nebraskans has resorted to asking the Salvation Army for money so that they can pay their utilities. That is Bidenomics in Nebraska. As I traveled the State, the issue of childcare affordability came up over and over and over again. Childcare costs have skyrocketed, and dads and moms are at a loss as to how to afford these rising rates. That is Bidenomics in Nebraska. The Bidenomics agenda has made many promises, but I haven't seen the administration keep a single one. Remember the President's American Families Plan? Almost 2\1/2\ years ago, the President promised that low- and middle-income families would spend no more than 7 percent of their income on childcare. In leading up to the fourth year of Biden's Presidency, here is what family life looks like: Nebraska's families are already struggling due to inflation. They have seen price increases on bills, groceries, and almost everything else. In many cases, both parents need to work so they can make enough so that they can pay off debt or afford those high mortgage rates. When childcare costs are through the roof, it is impossible for both parents to work. According to the Economic Policy Institute, childcare costs rose 24.4 percent more per year than the average rent and 53.5 percent more than instate college tuition--53.5 percent per year. That is Bidenomics in Nebraska. From the American Families Plan to the Inflation Reduction Act, this administration's efforts to grow our economy from the middle class out have totally failed. My message to the President is this: When the middle class does badly, everyone does badly. We need to undo the harmful, excessive regulations that are making middle-class Americans suffer. We need to put the priority on reducing costs for everyday Americans. We need to unleash American energy to lower our gas prices. We need to support an economic plan that will lower inflation, and we need to pull the plug on wasteful policies that don't help anyone. So stop with the slogans, Mr. President, and spend more time listening to real Americans' concerns. Bidenomics is not working in Nebraska, and let's be honest, it is not working in the other 49 States either. This administration needs to hear this. It is 2\1/2\ years past time to make a change. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, earlier this month, the Chinese Communist Party's relentless propaganda efforts rose to the forefront of international discussion yet again. China's authoritarian government squashes opposition at home without hesitation, but its censorship and propaganda spreads far beyond China's borders. The CCP uses an array of insidious means to push its messages across national boundaries. Concerns that the CCP's influence is seeping into Hollywood continues to grow. This issue flared up once again this month. Why? Well, in a word, ``Barbie.'' You heard me right. A movie about a plastic doll is the last place you would expect national security questions to arise, but it has. One trailer for the ``Barbie'' movie depicted a cartoon map of the title character's world travels. On the map is a roughly drawn continent of Asia, but it might be more than just a cartoon character's doodle. The map includes a dotted line extending out from the east shore of China. Well, that line is curiously similar to what is known as the nine- dash line. Everyone in the defense space is familiar with this line. It is a Chinese-drawn boundary in the South China Sea. China uses this boundary to claim ownership of maritime territory, even though the United Nations International Court of Justice rejected its claims on that territory in 2016. The country's neighbors, including Vietnam and the Philippines, they certainly contest these claims as well. China appeals to this false boundary when its naval presence creeps into new areas of the South China Sea, and it intimidates boats, fishermen, and others from neighboring countries who cross that invisible line. Now, ``Barbie,'' the movie, it is a great movie. Americans loved it this past weekend, but the ``Barbie'' movie, well, it treads a little too closely to depicting what looks like the nine-dash line. Hollywood needs to become aware of the ways that the CCP tends to push its propaganda. Use of the line is a trigger for geopolitical sensitivities, including its likeness on a map, even as part of a child-like drawing, that has real global ramifications. Now, you may say: Oh, come on, it is just a movie. But Vietnam's authorities banned ``Barbie'' from playing in theaters because of its offensive, alleged depiction of the nine-dash line. And members of the Philippines Government, they raised concerns as well, eventually deciding to blur the map line in showings across their country. Despite the ``Barbie'' movie's content, allegations of Chinese propaganda in Hollywood are not child's play. China continues to take advantage of our unprecedented global media network to do real damage. It is no accident that China is financing some of the biggest films, and China runs the second largest box office in the world, second only to North America. When a movie doesn't play in China, Hollywood loses literally billions of dollars. Remember the controversy around ``Top Gun's'' sequel last year? The Department of Defense, they worked with Paramount Pictures to make that movie happen, but when ``Top Gun: Maverick's'' first trailer was released in 2019, viewers noticed that the Japanese and Taiwanese flags that were on Tom Cruise's bomber jacket, well, they had been replaced in an attempt to appease China. The studio wisely reversed course on that decision after a public outcry, but that is not where the CCP's influence ended. The film made no mentions or even implications of the United States' primary adversary, and that is China. Any movie related to our national defense that doesn't bring up China, well, it must be set in an alternative universe because that is the biggest defense challenge facing our country. This isn't a conspiracy theory. The Presiding Officer is on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and we know well China's strategy. The defense world is well aware that China maintains a well-oiled propaganda machine that is enmeshed in our modern media. So you may say: Oh, come on, it is just a movie. No, this is a serious problem, so serious that it is one our government should address. We can't allow our Federal Agencies to help elevate messages that support the CCP's goals, and we certainly cannot involve our own Defense Department and taxpayer dollars in entertainment projects that are beholden to Chinese propaganda. As a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have successfully secured language in the last two National Defense Authorization Acts to prevent our government's Department of Defense from participating in entertainment projects with ties to the CCP. Thanks to our persistent efforts, the Department of Defense recently released new regulations around how the Department of Defense can provide assistance to entertainment projects. Pursuant to these NDAA provisions, the Department is now prohibited from assisting with entertainment projects that censor the content of the project in a material manner to advance the national interest of the People's Republic of China. It is my hope that this new policy will ensure that taxpayer dollars are never involved in anti-American messaging efforts as well as send a clear signal to the CCP that we will no longer turn a blind eye to its propaganda efforts. This is just one example of the many provisions in this year's NDAA that stand up to China and advance our national security. I encourage my Senate colleagues to vote yes on the NDAA so that we can deliver a strong package that keeps China in line. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, last week, we celebrated the birth of our Nation. The first Americans took long, dangerous journeys across the Atlantic Ocean in search of better lives, far away from a regime that stripped away their God-given rights and their freedoms all too often. Our Founders fought a revolution against absolute power. They chafed against the control of the British Empire. Americans united against encroachments on liberty and emerged victorious, just as we have done many times since then from Great Britain to the Soviet Union. As we look back on our history, we should consider our future as well. The United States faces a threat environment growing more dangerous by the day. Authoritarian adversaries, including China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, are accelerating their efforts to chip away at global stability and undermine America's national security. A couple of weeks ago, a radio host asked me an important question: What is the point of modernizing our nuclear deterrents? Don't we already have the capabilities we need to defend ourselves? And, if we build up a stronger arsenal of nuclear weapons, doesn't that just increase the risk of nuclear war? My answer was related to the history I have just discussed: From the Revolutionary War to the world wars to the Cold War, Americans have prioritized a strong national defense and the tools we need to achieve that when we are faced with existential threats. The character of war changed after the advent of nuclear weapons. And during the Cold War, the United States recognized that we needed to have a strong nuclear deterrent to preserve the hard-fought peace that we had won. We worked overtime to ensure that our Commander in Chief had every option to deter and, if necessary, to fight back against threats. We were successful. We deterred the Soviet Union from using its nuclear weapons destructively because its leaders knew we could hit back harder with a push of a button. It is comparable to a game of chess: You are never going to make a move that leaves your king threatened on all sides. If the Soviet Union had deployed a nuclear weapon, it would have quickly been surrounded on all sides by a retaliatory strike Moscow knew it might not survive. A diverse and effective nuclear deterrent gives our country the ability to say: Checkmate. Not today. And it makes other nations think hard about what moves they might make. In other words, it deters authoritarian regimes from attacking the United States and attacking our allies. During the Cold War, we prioritized the production of nuclear weapons and delivery systems because we recognized their essential role in deterring nuclear conflict. We must return to that mindset if we want to get ahead of today's looming national security challenges. Our adversaries understand this. Earlier this year, the U.S. Strategic Command--STRATCOM--publicly confirmed that China possesses more intercontinental ballistic missile launchers than we do here in the United States. China is on track to triple--to triple--its nuclear arsenal by 2035. That is just a decade away. Stated plainly, one of the most ominous authoritarian regimes in modern history is building a nuclear force that is fundamentally altering global deterrence dynamics, and they are doing it at a pace faster than anyone imagined. As our adversaries race to expand their nuclear arsenals, what are we doing here in our country? Well, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, our Nation has sidelined our nuclear enterprise. We have underinvested in the modernization of our nuclear triad. That word ``triad'' refers to the three military fronts of land, sea, and air. The land-based leg of the triad is comprised of our intercontinental ballistic missile fleet. The sea-based leg of the triad refers to our ballistic missile submarines, and the air-based leg of the triad refers to our bomber fleet and certain fighter aircraft. A full triad expands the number of options that our Commander in Chief has at his disposal. Each leg of that triad presents unique advantages. Military planners need diverse capabilities to ensure that our Nation can act decisively in any scenario. If we can strike from anywhere at any time, our adversaries will hesitate before taking aggressive action. The problem is that we have been too slow to replace and upgrade those systems. As former STRATCOM Commander Admiral Richard testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee last year, we have ``submarines [that were] built in the `80s and `90s, an air-launched cruise missile built in the `80s, intercontinental ballistic missiles built in the `70s, a bomber built in the `60s--part of our nuclear command and control that predates the internet, and a nuclear weapons complex that dates back to the Manhattan Project.'' Our nuclear deterrent only serves to deter our adversaries so that no one will ever use a nuclear weapon if that deterrent that we have is safe, reliable, and effective. To ensure it remains so in the future, it must be modernized. Underinvesting is a huge mistake, and we need to tip the scales back in our favor by bringing our systems rapidly into the 21st century. The good news is that there is big bipartisan support for modernization. I am the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, and our subcommittee overseas STRATCOM, which is headquartered in my home State of Nebraska. STRATCOM does indispensable work at the helm of our Nation's strategic nuclear deterrence. Over the last 10 years, I have worked with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle so that we can get key modernization provisions into the annual National Defense Authorization Act. We have continued this vital support in the fiscal year 2024 NDAA, which the Senate will consider this month. This year, I have also fought to keep the Sea-Launched Cruise Missile Program--or SLCM--fully funded by the NDAA. In the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, where we have held multiple hearings and briefings, classified and unclassified, with senior military and civilian leaders as well as a number of outside experts, we concluded--again, on a bipartisan basis--that the Biden administration's attempts to cancel the SLCM Program would make our nuclear deterrent less effective in the 2030s and beyond. So we have included a provision in the bill to create a program of record for SLCM. This will prevent the premature cancelation of the program without future congressional consent. I also fought to secure provisions that would support the Sentinel Program, which will replace our aging ICBMs across the country. This program is the most significant and complex weapons system in recent U.S. history, and it will cover an aggregated land area almost as large as the State of South Carolina. Both Chambers of Congress are considering their versions of the NDAA this month. I am proud of the work that my colleagues and I have accomplished with this legislative package that is coming to the floor. I urge my fellow lawmakers as well as the President to support the vital measures that we have included in this bill. I will continue to support modernization efforts, and I am confident that we will produce a strong final NDAA to send to President Biden's desk. But our work in the Senate isn't done when the NDAA passes. We still have to back our defense priorities up with real dollars through the appropriations process. I am a member of the Appropriations Committee, as is the Presiding Officer, and I know that we are committed to working together to be able to allocate all the funds that are necessary so that we can maintain a strong national defense. The world has changed since the fall of the Berlin Wall, and we are now, for the first time in history, facing two peer adversaries with significant nuclear arsenals. Now is not the time to shortchange our national security. It is a time for us to work together to strengthen our national security. This means that President Biden needs to cooperate with Congress so that we can get our NDAA passed. America was born by uniting in defiance of outside threats, and we have done it many times since then. I am hopeful that we will live up to our history as new challenges loom. As a Member of Congress, I will continue working with colleagues from across the aisle to strengthen our national security. For the sake of our safety, our legacy, and our freedom, I urge my fellow Members and the President himself to do the same. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, when it comes to the economy, we hear a lot about numbers, the inflation rate, how much more groceries cost, or how many businesses are struggling to find employees. Those numbers are important. They tell us the big picture story of where our economy is and where it is going. And right now, that is not a pretty picture. But as elected representatives, we work for our people. It is critical that we listen to the voices of the people who live in our States and who are being deeply affected by the numbers we read in Bloomberg or the Wall Street Journal. In a speech he made last week, President Biden promised that his economic policy is helping across the board ``in rural America, the heartland, all across America.'' He claimed that Bidenomics is the silver bullet for financial struggles among middle-class Americans around the country. I don't know who the President is talking to, but my experience hearing from Americans in the heartland is a lot different than what he said in that speech. Many Nebraskans are struggling under an unforgiving load of inflation, kick-started by this administration's almost $2 trillion stimulus package in 2021. So today let's zoom in on Nebraska. When I am back in my home State, I am constantly hearing stories of hardship from my fellow Nebraskans, whether they are farmers, teachers, or small business owners. It is truly painful to hear about some of the experiences people are having due to inflation. So let me tell you about Bidenomics in Nebraska. When I stopped by a coffee shop in 2022, the owner told me his electric bill had skyrocketed from $40 a month to over $300 a month, and that coffee shop owner is now gone. He couldn't afford Bidenomics, and he closed his shop. That is Bidenomics in Nebraska. A year later, not much has changed. As one of our Nebraska farmers told me a few weeks ago, ``prices take the elevator up, but the stairs down.'' Inflation causes costs to rise quickly, and they stay up there for a long time. One big economically irresponsible move from the administration--well, that sets the stage for years of struggle. That is Bidenomics in Nebraska. Several rural businesses in the States shared their struggles with the local newspaper earlier this year. Many of these business owners feel ``at a loss'' for what to do as their livelihoods crumble under the pressure. A honey farmer shared that consistently rising prices squeeze his family into a difficult position when doing things as simple as putting their honey in jars. Sometimes they could only afford to get the container; sometimes they could only afford to get the lids--but not both. He said: We're kind of forgotten about way out here. That is Bidenomics in Nebraska. That doesn't line up with the President's boasts of an economy that works for middle-class Americans in the heartland. Instead, while the Biden administration chatters on about its support for the middle class, thousands of people in that category are pulling out all the stops to pay their necessary expenses. The Salvation Army of Lincoln, NE, reported a couple of months ago that it has seen a 50-percent increase in service requests in just a year. People are going to charities to get help paying rent and utilities as the economy suffers. A Salvation Army officer said: For people who are on medical equipment, having their electricity on is a very important aspect. That is Bidenomics in Nebraska. The President has a middle-class problem. Average Americans are hollowing out their savings, and they are taking on record debt just to keep up with the stunning levels of inflation--or as the White House likes to call it, Bidenomics. The President said last week: Bidenomics is just another way of saying restoring the American Dream. Wrong. Since when does the American dream include taking a second job just to be able to afford rent, or having to choose between containers and lids for honey jars, or racking your brain for ways to catch up on an electricity bill that will not stop rising? The President should step off the podium; he should stop delivering empty promises; and he should actually get down to business fixing the bloated economy that he has created. Nebraskans are not listening to the administration's inflated claims about helping the middle class, but they are listening to the mortgage increases and to their dwindling savings accounts. Americans know what Bidenomics looks like, and it looks like failed leadership. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

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.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following speech be printed in the Record.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service, 46 million Americans live in rural areas. This includes 35 percent of the residents in my home State of Nebraska. Often, in the government, we focus on the majority of Americans living in urban population hubs, but we have just as much of an obligation to the millions of rural citizens in our country. Communications access is foundational to our quality of life, especially in rural areas where the closest neighbor can be many miles away. And that is what I want to focus on today. As a member of the Senate Commerce and Agriculture Committees, I have the privilege of regularly advancing communications policy that benefits all Americans, including those in rural areas. I have led multiple pieces of legislation to improve broadband mapping to benefit unserved rural areas, including the broadband funding map that the President signed into law as part of the bipartisan infrastructure package. It is vital that every last mile and acre of our country has access to reliable internet, whether for telehealth appointments or to make use of the more efficient agricultural technologies. But broadband isn't the only type of communication rural communities rely on, especially for households without internet service. They rely on television programming to keep updated about the world around them. The well-being of rural Americans and a robust media made up of diverse viewpoints are important to me, and they are important to Nebraskans throughout the State. And access to rural and agricultural programming benefits all Americans. Farmers and ranchers in Nebraska depend on this content for relevant news, information, and lifestyle programming. We are talking about everything from in-depth reports on weather patterns, agribusiness news, and commodity market swings, western sports, and a lot more. This programming delivers essential information to producers that directly impacts the way that they manage their operations and the way they plan for the future. At the same time, Americans on the coasts and in major urban and suburban areas also benefit from programming that helps them understand major issues affecting the country that originate in the heartland. And we both know that rural programming doesn't mean old reruns of ``Green Acres'' or of ``The Beverly Hillbillies.'' Rural and agricultural programmers are in a unique position to educate the public and what it means to be a family farmer or a rancher, on how producers are some of the best stewards of our natural resources, and on what the future of agriculture and producing the food that we all need looks like. This is one reason that I was pleased, as ranking member of the Rules Committee, to recently approve RFD-TV to be added to the Senate TV network. RFD-TV is one of the preeminent sources of rural news in the country. Networks like RFD-TV work hard to cover issues affecting the agricultural sector and rural communities. The senior Senator from Minnesota and I approved its addition to the Senate TV network because that unique perspective and that expertise is a must-have here in Washington, where we all work on policies affecting rural America every single day. And it is not just TV programming that provides critical news and information to rural communities. Millions of Americans use AM radio to stay up to date on what is affecting them. In Nebraska, we have a long history of farm broadcasters who help farmers and ranchers thrive. Today, there are still over 40 AM stations that are based in my State. Unfortunately, there are some who have lost sight of the fundamental role broadcast radio plays in rural America. A number of automakers announced plans this year to remove AM broadcast radio access from some of their vehicles. This would deal a blow to the millions who need AM radio access in order to receive emergency alerts in remote areas as well as to be aware of local news, weather conditions. AM radio is not just a luxury; it is the backbone of our emergency alert system. It can be a question of life or death for people during natural disasters and severe storms. My colleagues and I are concerned about how this decision will affect the safety of Americans. And that is why we introduced a bicameral, bipartisan bill to preserve AM radio access, despite some automakers' efforts to get rid of it. Our bill, the AM for Every Vehicle Act, would direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue a rule that would require all motor vehicles to have access to AM broadcast stations. The legislation is already having an impact. It recently spurred Ford Motor Company to reverse course and to restore access to AM radio in its upcoming car models. But passing our bill is the only way to prevent other automakers from abandoning AM radio, and it is against the best interests of the millions of people in rural areas where wireless warnings--well, they can be difficult to impossible to receive. The American people who travel to work and school on rural roads each day are relying on us to ensure that they don't lose access to local news, weather, emergency alerts, and public safety announcements from AM radio. As Members of the U.S. Senate, we represent millions--millions--of people in rural communities across the country. We cannot let rural voices be set aside while we prioritize other issues. Let's continue to appreciate rural TV and radio and advance legislation that supports the critical services that they provide. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, this week is National Police Week. It is an opportunity to show our gratitude to the men and women in blue who risk their lives every day for our safety, as well as honor those who have lost their lives in the line of duty. This Police Week I want to tell a story of a police chief in my home State of Nebraska. Local broadcast outlet KETV recently interviewed the new police chief of Ashland, a city of about 3,000 on the eastern side of the State. According to KETV, Chief Ryan Brady worked 19 days in a row at one point last year. He logged over 170 hours in a 2-week period. Chief Brady clocked more than 800 overtime hours last year. But he is on salary. So he is not paid for any of it. I am amazed at Chief Brady's dedication to the job. He works day shifts, night shifts, and picks up his partners' shifts when they get sick. But why does he have to do all that work? Why does he have to do so much? Well, because his department has encountered a staffing crisis. Between retirements and trouble recruiting, the Ashland Police Department has dwindled down to only a handful of officers. Chief Brady told KETV: Somebody's got to work. So the buck stops here. So, you know, if no one else can work, I work. I have spoken with police officers and sheriffs all over my State, and I can tell you this is not a problem that is unique to Ashland. No, it is not even a problem unique to Nebraska. Severe police staffing shortages are affecting departments all across our country. The Police Executive Research Forum found that agencies are losing officers faster than they can hire new ones. There were 47 percent more resignations in 2022 than in 2019, in addition to 19 percent more retirements over the same time period. That means that large groups of officers are leaving the force while few are trickling in. Understaffed staffs are doing their best to keep up with these changes, but there are also roadblocks we can help them remove when it comes to hiring. Over the past year, I have worked with police departments across Nebraska, as well as national law enforcement groups representing departments across this country. From these conversations, I introduced the Recruit and Retain Act, which would help police departments tackle these staffing roadblocks. This bipartisan bill would boost officer recruitment opportunities through the Justice Department's Community Oriented Policing Services hiring grants. These grants can keep departments afloat. But recruitment expenses like background checks, psychological evaluations, and other tests are not currently included in the eligible expenses. So this bill would allow COPS grants to cover these specific costs and make it easier to onboard new officers. Reducing the cost of hiring would go a long way in helping law enforcement raise staffing levels. My bill would also establish the Pipeline Partnership Program, a new initiative aimed at fostering youth interest in law enforcement careers. Departments and local schools would work together to launch mentorship opportunities, job fairs, and other activities that give young people better insight into law enforcement work. This program would bolster community relationships. It would help to open up stronger local hiring pipelines for police departments too. Finally, the bill would direct the Government Accountability Office to study both the causes of this latest recruitment and retention challenge as well as the effects they have on public safety. I would like to thank Senator Coons for working with me on this bill for many months, as well as Senators Cornyn and Klobuchar. It was great that we saw the Judiciary Committee pass this bill by voice vote today, and I look forward to its advancement. I was also glad to join my colleague Senator Cornyn to help introduce two bills that further support law enforcement's tireless work. The Project Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2023 would reauthorize the Project Safe Neighborhoods program through fiscal year 2026. The PSN program is an effective bipartisan solution to violent crime that has been working since 2001. In Nebraska, PSN coordinates enforcement and prosecution partnerships among Federal, State, and local law enforcement, in addition to involvement with Nebraska communities to bring violent offenders to justice. The second bill, the Back the Blue Act, would protect police officers by creating new Federal criminal penalties for attacking law enforcement officers. Too often police officers are harmed rather than honored in our country, and it is time that we make a Federal statement that attackers will be punished. Another vital area to continue addressing is the mental health of our police officers, who face daily strains from the intensity of their jobs. I am planning to reintroduce a bill that would direct the Department of Health and Human Services to create a publicly accessible online dashboard so that organizations, including law enforcement groups, can easily search for Federal funding opportunities that support mental health. Potential applicants would be able to search for the right mental health grants and track the status of those grants. This bill could truly be a lifeline to officers reeling from staffing issues or difficult cases. In his interview, Ashland Police Chief Brady said: I love this community. The hours that I'm putting in are because of my care for the people. That dedication is what we honor during National Police Week, but let's not leave our appreciation for our selfless hard-working police officers behind on Saturday when Police Week ends. I urge my colleagues to continue backing the blue throughout the year and, especially, to pass these very critical bills. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

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

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, over a decade ago, when President Obama was in office and Apple's iPad was just hitting the market, our intelligence agencies began to notice a disturbing pattern. Chinese- made communications equipment was multiplying across our country, placed on top of cell towers throughout the Midwest. Equipment made by Chinese State-backed companies like Huawei and ZTE spread across my own home State of Nebraska, as well as nearby Colorado and Montana. Curiously, these technologies were clustering near critical military locations in midwestern States. Nebraska is home to sensitive areas, like Offutt Air Force Base and a number of nuclear missile silos. Well, the FBI looked into it. And they discovered that at least one Chinese company--Huawei--was regularly selling its equipment to rural providers at cheap prices that appeared unprofitable. But once installed, the equipment would be located right next to American military assets. The Chinese Communist Party is actively seeking ways to disrupt Department of Defense communications. And that is why we cannot allow communications equipment made in China next door to our military sites. This is just one example of the pervasive threat Chinese-made equipment in our communications networks poses to our national security. We know that the Chinese Communist Party intends to exploit these vulnerabilities for all kinds of activities, including espionage. That is why, in 2020, the Federal Communications Commission banned the use of its funds to expand or maintain networks containing any Huawei or ZTE equipment. Since then, the Commission banned all equipment authorizations for several Chinese tech firms that pose threats to national security--blocking their imports and sale. We also passed a law in Congress approving $1.9 billion to secure our communications infrastructure--to rip out the Chinese network gear and replace it with secure equipment. It has been years, but not all of this dangerous Chinese gear has been replaced. Approximately 24,000 pieces of Chinese-made equipment remain in 8,400 different locations across our country. Nearly all of the 85 companies approved by the FCC are still waiting for that Federal reimbursement money, because they aren't able to pay to replace the technologies without help. The FCC's program is facing a budget shortfall of $3.08 billion. The sum of money that we first approved based on initial estimates is not going to cut it. That financial uncertainty means smaller, regional carriers--after being mandated by the Federal Government to rip out the equipment-- won't receive the money they need to replace that high-risk Chinese technology. I have heard from rural carriers that this basically leaves them with two options: one, go out of business; or, two, to never replace the equipment after they remove it, and, instead, that would reduce the size of their wireless networks. Either option would be devastating for communities, especially communities in rural areas. We need more, not less, connectivity. And we need more, not fewer, jobs. That is not just true in Nebraska but across this country. Think about it. If these carriers go out of business or they reduce coverage, that is going to leave thousands of residents without wireless services--services that are essential for work, emergencies, and life in the 20th century. And people traveling through these vast areas of our country, they often won't have any services either. Addressing this funding shortfall is urgent. The FCC has a July 15 deadline by which reimbursement requests are due. If Congress doesn't act quickly to fix this issue before that July deadline, there won't be enough funds to cover costs. This would impact communities in 49--49-- States, plus our United States territories. Without action now, we face incomplete removal of high-risk Chinese equipment from U.S. networks--wasting the money that Congress has already passed. I have introduced the Defend Our Networks Act to remedy this problem. Protecting our national security is vital, and it is also vital that we ensure the government's response to protect our security does not put smaller companies out of business. The Defend Our Networks Act does both. It would allocate $3.08 billion of unobligated COVID-19 emergency relief funds to the rip and replace program. That is only 3 percent of the unobligated emergency funds. I introduced this bill with my colleague Senator Hickenlooper because securing our communications infrastructure, it is a national, it is a bipartisan, issue. The FCC commissioners, including Chairwoman Rosenworcel, have come out in strong support, demonstrating the importance of getting this done. Just a week ago, I had the opportunity to question Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo about this big problem that we have, and she agreed that we must address it immediately. Over the coming weeks, I expect that we will continue to gain more bipartisan momentum. And I will continue to push for the swift passage of the Defend Our Networks Act, even as standalone legislation. Spy balloons and secret police stations have recently reminded us of the Chinese Communist Party's sly and underhanded espionage tactics. If we cannot completely remove risky Chinese telecommunications equipment, how can the American people expect us to defend them from the threats that China poses? We did the right thing when we passed the Secure and Trusted Communication Networks Act to establish the rip and replace program. Now, let's do the right thing again by completing the funding so that we can follow through on what we said we would do. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, today, the U.S. Senate will vote on my Congressional Review Act resolution to overturn the Biden administration's rule establishing stricter emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. My Republican colleagues have joined me in this effort. Senator Manchin announced today that he is cosponsoring my legislation. I hope more of my Democratic colleagues will join us as well. This Environmental Protection Agency rule is an aggressive mandate on truckers that would force them to purchase new, expensive equipment, burdening their work and livelihoods. The irony of this rule is that it would undermine its own stated goal of reducing emissions. New emissions standards will increase demand for newer, environmentally cleaner trucks. But there are only so many of these new trucks, so the massive increase in demand will cause the prices of trucks and manufacturing equipment to spike. Truck dealers and manufacturers say the rule will ``worsen an already-tight equipment market.'' And the EPA itself estimates that the technology required to meet this new rule's standards will cost between $2,568 and $8,304 more per vehicle. The irony is, the prices of newer vehicles will escalate, incentivizing truckers and businesses to hold onto their older, higher- emitting trucks. Todd Spencer, President of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, said, ``If small business truckers can't afford the new, compliant trucks, they're going to stay with older, less efficient trucks, or leave the industry entirely. Once again, EPA has largely ignored the warnings and concerns raised by truckers in this latest rule.'' This expensive rule won't just negatively affect truckers. It will have a negative impact on our economy as a whole. The EPA's own economic analysis projects that the costs associated with the new regulation could reach up to $55 billion from 2027 to 2045--$55 billion. During this administration, inflation has hit record highs. Additional inflationary burdens on the trucking industry will mean that any product transported by trucks--whether it is food, clothing, or other commodities--each one of those products will cost more. Smaller, more affordable trucking businesses will close up shop, and the ones that can afford higher prices will raise their rates. This means consumers will be paying more money to a smaller group of businesses. Every American consumer will feel the effects of this rule and its price increases. Every agricultural producer and every local business will feel these effects. If you are an ag or energy heavy State, like Texas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, or Illinois, Nebraska, California, or Montana, your local economy would be especially impacted by 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 costs. These businesses and the jobs they create will be jeopardized by this rule. In my home State of Nebraska, 1 in 12 people are employed by the trucking industry. The livelihoods of real Nebraskans--and real Americans--are at stake here. During a period of high inflation and supply chain disruptions, the last thing this country needs is more expensive freight costs and fewer truckers. The Biden administration is yet again trying to push through a rule that sounds nice but has wide-ranging negative implications for regular Americans. My CRA will stop this rule in its tracks--before it has the chance to damage the livelihoods of truckers and consumers across our country. I encourage my colleagues to join me in prioritizing the economic well-being of Americans over this politically charged and ineffective topdown regulation from the EPA. I yield the floor. Vote on S.J. Res. 11 I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 3 minutes.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, this Presidential administration has consistently been marked by egregious overreach. Over the past few months, we have seen them trying to regulate everything from our State water to our personal retirement funds. Now the Biden administration wants to control which cars Americans are able to drive. Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency issued new regulations cracking down on vehicle emissions. These new standards make it harder for people to drive gas-powered cars in an attempt to coerce Americans into purchasing new electric vehicles, or EVs--vehicles that cost about as much as the average family makes in a year. These regulations are part of a so-called emissions plan, but there is nothing realistic about what the Biden administration is trying to do. The administration says it wants 67 percent of the cars in this country to be electric by 2032--just 9 years from now. Last year, EVs only accounted for 6 percent of new car sales. And the International Energy Agency predicts that, by 2030, EVs will only make up 15 percent of the vehicles in our country. We need to tell it like it is. The White House's plan is based on the speculative wish that EVs will make an inconceivable jump from a tiny fraction of our vehicles to the majority of them in less than a decade. The so-called plan is really a pipe dream, and the facts show that the EPA's goals are highly unlikely, if not impossible. The administration is using its imagination to try and create a world that real Americans don't even want, and, in the process, it is ignoring the many complexities at play when it comes to electric vehicles. Let's talk about some of those complexities. Electric vehicles rely on the electric power grid, and a massive increase in EV use, like the Biden administration wants, could cause serious issues with the grid. During a heat wave last September, power authorities in California had to ask residents to avoid charging their electric cars in the evenings for fear that the power grid would malfunction from being overwhelmed. Imagine what would happen if EV use increased exponentially like the Biden administration wants. If EV use is going to increase, it should be a natural growth driven by consumers rather than an artificial spike manufactured by the government. That way, power producers and electrical grids would have time to grow and adapt to new spikes in electricity demand. The EV mandate also overlooks some serious public safety concerns. Electric vehicles can weigh up to three times as much as gas-powered cars because of their heavy batteries. The force of an EV hurtling toward another car in a crash is intensified by all that weight. A heavy EV accidentally crashing into a lighter, older car is a recipe for severe injury or death--the heavier the car, the higher the risk of fatality in a crash. The Biden administration itself admits this. National Transportation Safety Board Chair Jennifer Homendy said that she was ``concerned about the increased risk of severe injury and death for all road users from increasing size, power, and performance of vehicles on our roads, including electric vehicles.'' I would point out that this safety risk disproportionately affects women. A report released last month by the Government Accountability Office found that crash tests, which identify car safety issues that might endanger passengers in an accident, don't use physiologically accurate female dummies. Some only use male dummies. They don't even attempt to test car safety on the female body. This is part of why crashes injure and kill women at higher rates than men. Before mandating a rush of electric vehicles on the roads, the Biden administration needs to find a solution to the risk these cars can pose, especially to women. Heavy cars, like EVs, put extra stress and damage on our roads as well. Their weight pulverizes the roadbed, causing more maintenance, more upgrades, and more costs. But, right now, only gas-powered cars pay into the highway trust fund, or the HTF, which provides 90 percent of Federal highway assistance. This fund repairs wear and tear from vehicles on the highway. The sale or charging of EVs doesn't contribute anything to the highway trust fund, but the highway trust fund exists to fix exactly the type of damage that heavy EVs can cause. So it is only fair that both gas-powered and electric vehicles pay into that fund. I plan to introduce a bill soon that would fix this discrepancy. We need to do this to address some of the complexities at play with electric vehicles and especially a unilateral government mandate that would push for so many on our roads so soon. The electricity and road concerns related to EVs should be enough to temper the Biden administration's fanciful ambitions for a massive electric vehicle push, but the repercussions of a Federal EV mandate go beyond America's borders. We know that China completely dominates the EV battery supply chain, and, you know, that is not going to change anytime soon, as 60 to 100 percent of all battery minerals are processed in China, according to an energy think tank known as SAFE. Our domestic supply--well, it is not anywhere near the demand that would result from this new legislation. And it is so ironic that many of the same activists who support an electric vehicle mandate oppose--they oppose--the U.S. mining needed to make EV batteries. They would rather use horrible mining practices in other countries and support very dangerous working conditions for those miners. Also, this means that a push for EVs is a push for energy dependence on China, and China, we all know, is not our friend, as news this week about a secret Chinese police station in New York City reminds us. Our turbulent relationship with the Chinese Communist Party means it will use any dependence that we have on China to its own advantage. Americans don't want to rely on China for our vehicles, but studies also show that Americans aren't even interested enough in EVs to merit a government mandate. A recent Pew Research poll found that the majority of Americans opposes the Biden administration's plan to phase out gasoline-powered cars and trucks by 2035. A Gallup poll found that 4 percent of Americans own an EV--4 percent--and that only 12 percent are seriously considering getting one. And 41 percent claim that they would never buy an EV. Sixty percent of people say they think EVs are too expensive. The price of EVs would have to come down by about $15,000 for the average American to see them as real competitors to gas-powered cars. Americans have the right to buy electric vehicles if they so choose, and I support that right, but they should also have the right not to buy one. Our government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, but, frankly, this Federal mandate is of the EPA, by the EPA, and for the EPA. It is not based on the interests of the American people, only the interests of a power-hungry White House. President Biden is prioritizing electric vehicles--and, by extension, the small slice of Americans that wants and can afford EVs--without adequately considering the effects of a top-down government mandate on energy security and the lives of the American people. In closing, the Biden administration's plan for a utopia of perfectly green vehicles is a cute idea, but it is completely out of touch with reality. It is also out of touch with Americans' real needs and desires. This administration has got to stop with these top-down mandates that force Americans into outcomes that they wouldn't choose themselves. In the meantime, I hope my Senate colleagues will join me in advocating for what Americans really want and pushing back on this administration's overreach. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

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.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, I am so happy to be joined in the U.S. Senate by a Nebraska colleague as sharp, as capable, and as ready to get to work as Senator Ricketts. As Senator Ricketts noted, Nebraska is what America is supposed to be. I know Senator Ricketts cares deeply about the people of our great State and that together we will work hard to deliver results for Nebraska. Senator Ricketts served Nebraska admirably as our Governor for two terms, and I am confident that his time in the U.S. Senate will further his legacy as an exceptional advocate for our State. Just this month, Senator Ricketts and I collaborated by traveling to the southern border to see firsthand the crisis that is unfolding there. We have partnered on a number of bills to push back on the Biden administration's bureaucratic overreach, including on WOTUS, and we held a tele-townhall for our constituents. I congratulate Senator Ricketts on his maiden speech here in the U.S. Senate, and I look forward to many more opportunities to work together toward the interest of our home State of Nebraska. I congratulate the Senator and welcome him to the U.S. Senate.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, almost 20 years ago, a family in Idaho purchased a lot in a residential area near Priest Lake. They were looking to build a home. They obtained county building permits and started placing sand and gravel on their property to get it ready for the build. But shortly after the family began preparing their lot, the Environmental Protection Agency told them to stop. There was water on their building plot with no surface water connection to any body of water. But because of its proximity to Priest Lake, the EPA said that placing sand and gravel on the property violated the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants, such as the rocks and sand used to prepare a building plot into navigable waters. Navigable waters are ambiguously defined by the Clean Water Act as ``waters of the United States.'' That is more commonly known as WOTUS. Normally, navigable waters are defined as waters that are deep; they are wide; and they are calm enough for boats or ships to go across. The surface water on the Idaho family's lot certainly doesn't fit that bill. The Idaho family tried to challenge the EPA. They sought a hearing, but the EPA chose not to grant them one and, instead, continued to assert the Clean Water Act jurisdiction against their land. So Michael and Chantell Sackett sued. They had been to the Supreme Court once, and they are back again this year. They still haven't been able to build on the property that they first acquired in 2004. The Sackett v. EPA Supreme Court case centers on interpretation of the Clean Water Act. What counts as waters of the United States? In 2015, the Obama administration published an unprecedented expansion of the definition of WOTUS, giving the Federal Government jurisdiction over a State resource--that is, Nebraska's water. It doesn't belong to the Federal Government. I fought former President Obama's WOTUS rule since my very first term here in the U.S. Senate. The rule was the Federal Government at its worst. It encroached on families, on communities, and on businesses by its brazen intrusion into the precious water resource of my home State of Nebraska--and all the rest of our States as well. The Trump administration rescinded Obama's WOTUS rule, but when President Biden took office, he reversed that. The President issued a new rule allowing EPA officials in Washington, DC, to make case-by-case determinations of what should be considered water of the United States. Privately owned land containing ponds, puddles, and even dry ditches can now be regulated by the Federal Government. This needless power grab only places more people under restrictive regulations and rules. The Federal Government should not have the power to regulate Nebraska's water; Nebraskans should. Nebraska has a special system of natural resource districts that empower locally elected community members to manage water resources based on river basin boundaries. Regular people living their lives at home know better than DC bureaucrats how to use and how to manage their State's natural resources. That is why I have partnered with my colleague Senator Capito in introducing legislation to overturn President Biden's WOTUS rule. The Biden administration is determined to impose an overly restrictive rule right now, and that is before the Supreme Court has an opportunity to decide the Sackett case. We cannot let that happen. In the past, I have cosponsored a bill targeting the flawed science used by the EPA to expand its definition of WOTUS. I have also helped to introduce legislation that would require Presidential administrations to consult with States and to consult with stakeholders before they impose these restrictions on our State-owned natural resources. This is essential. States understand the complex geological and hydrological factors that affect their own water resources. There is no way that the Federal Government can take all of that into account with its one-size-fits-all regulations. I dealt with these issues during my time in the Nebraska Legislature, and I know that there are not benefits when the Federal Government tries to take control of State resources through these onerous regulations. Leave water management to the experts. The States know their own water. The Federal Government needs to stay out of issues that are handled much better under State jurisdiction. WOTUS is not the issue that everyone wants to talk about, but it is important to regular Americans in Nebraska, in Idaho, and in many other States, and those Americans--well, they are who we are here to represent. WOTUS has a real, tangible impact on American lives. So let's come together. We can solve this problem that was created by the administration's rash and reckless regulating. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I am sure you have seen news reports about a group of four Americans who were recently kidnapped after driving across the U.S.-Mexico border. This week, two of them were tragically found dead. My heart goes out to the families affected by this devastating development. This is the latest in a string of incidents that underscore just how chaotic the situation is at our southern border. I know firsthand because I visited the border last week, along with a delegation of Republicans led by my colleague Senator Cornyn. We can read about what is going on down at the border. We can watch the news. But until you travel south and see the chaos there with your own eyes, you really can't fully understand the gravity of this situation. The numbers we hear reported are overwhelming. Migrant encounters this fiscal year have already stretched past 770,000. December hit a record for monthly encounters, at over 251,000. Sure, we talk about these numbers, but what really brings home what a crisis this is, is walking past an unfinished border wall, boating up and down the Rio Grande River, riding through the brush, and seeing the paths migrants use to sneak into our country. It is touring a raided stash house where a weapon was found, an illegal immigrant was detained, and a human smuggler was arrested. The faces and the voices of people on the ground in Texas who are directly hurt by border insecurity--that is what really brings home what a crisis this is. My colleagues and I talked to Border Patrol officers, illegal immigrants, and South Texas landowners. Each of these conversations unveiled a new side of the tragic situation at the border. Our agents are doing good and honorable work to protect migrants, to defend our national security, and to stop criminals in their tracks, but it is all with little support from this administration. Along the border wall, we spoke with illegal immigrants, some of them single men and women and some of them with families. We met a 6-month- old baby. All had been detained by Border Patrol, and they were being identified before being sent to a processing center. This is a sad situation, not just what these migrants face to get here, dealing with the coyotes and the cartels, but then what they will face in their future. These migrants will head north, and they will be forced to work off what they owe the coyotes for getting them across our border. Many of them will be funneled into lives of indentured servitude, some of them into human trafficking and sex trafficking. But this is not only an enormous humanitarian crisis and a drug crisis; this is a national security crisis. I am a senior member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Our trip to the Rio Grande Valley reaffirmed that the frenzy at our southern border is nothing short of a national security disaster. The United States does not have control of the southwest border. Do you know who does? The Mexican cartels. When we cannot control who is entering our country, when we cannot control what they are bringing into our country or where they are going, that is a serious national security risk. In fiscal year 2022, border agents arrested 98 suspected terrorists who were trying to enter the country illegally between our ports of entry. During the previous administration, this number was never higher than six. Since October, border agents have arrested another 53 people on the terror watch list. President Biden's mismanagement of the border has created a total catastrophe, and thanks to him, we are experiencing not only a homeland security crisis but also a homeland defense crisis. This visit to the border was so frustrating because we know that the dangerous criminal activity going on there is preventable. But the President's refusal to enforce our country's laws, our current laws, means that trafficking of people, drugs, and weapons occurs unabated at our border. In the Senate, we are trying to find solutions to the border crisis. I introduced a resolution with Senator Britt, who joined us on last week's border trip, which simply acknowledges the crisis at the southern border. Let's just say there is a crisis that exists. That should be simple. I joined Senator Britt to introduce the Keep Our Community Safe Act, which would close the gaping catch-and-release loophole allowing illegal immigrants to escape into our country. I helped introduce Sarah's Law, sponsored by my colleague Senator Ernst, to require mandatory detention of illegal immigrants charged with violent crimes in our country and, in turn, better protect the public. I will keep urging my colleagues to join these bills, but there is a limit to what we can do while the President and his border czar Vice President Harris continue to turn a blind eye to what is going on in Texas. Throwing taxpayer dollars at a smartphone app that facilitates border crossing appointments for migrants is not going to cut it. We need the President and Vice President to do their jobs and enforce the laws that keep our country safe. Step out of the White House, President Biden, and take a look at what is happening. When you say you travel to the border, go to the border. The administration continues to release thousands of migrants into the United States each and every month, holding onto the pipe dream that they will voluntarily show up in court next year. And there are thousands more ``got-aways'' who continue evading Border Patrol and entering this country illegally. The President needed to deal with this mess yesterday. It is far past time for this administration to show us some recognition that the President understands how dangerous this is. Time is up for President Biden to move past the photo ops and to reach across the aisle to find serious solutions. Maintaining our national security should not be a partisan goal. It should be an American goal. Neglecting our border means more drugs brought into our country, more women and children facing a life of sex trafficking, and more threats to the security of our Nation. Let's get our border security bills passed and deal with the situation once and for all. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Madam President, my colleagues are here today to shine a light on the Biden administration's obsession with unhelpful and unnecessary regulations. We know that excessive redtape devastates our economy, and it harms communities. That is why the President's agenda needs to be stopped, and we can do it right here in the U.S. Senate. I have introduced legislation this Congress to push back against the administration's misguided rule intensifying emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. In my home State of Nebraska, 1 in 12 people are employed by the trucking industry, making it the third largest industry in our State. In the United States as a whole, over 3 million people work as commercial truckers, and American truckers transported almost 11 billion tons of freight in the year 2021. Consumers all across the country rely on trucking to bring goods to markets quickly and affordably. Truckers play an essential role in our communities and our economy, but the Biden administration doesn't seem to agree with that fact. Instead, our President routinely chooses to prioritize excessive environmental regulations over people's livelihoods. Nowhere is this clearer than in the Environmental Protection Agency's recent rule establishing stricter emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles. The Biden administration--well, they want to saddle hard- working drivers with an onerous regulation that is going to increase vehicle costs and is going to deal a serious blow to good-paying jobs. This aggressive EPA rule will hit mom-and-pop truck operations the hardest. For trucks to be compliant with the new overregulation, it will be cost prohibitive for small business owners. Don't get me wrong. Nebraskans--over a quarter of whom work jobs related to agriculture--care deeply about environmental stewardship, but the EPA's emissions rule wouldn't actually accomplish its stated purpose of cleaning up our environment. The EPA itself estimates that the technology required to meet this new rule's standards will cost between approximately $2,500 and $8,500 per vehicle. This means that many truckers will choose to keep their old heavy-duty vehicles, which do have higher rates of emissions, instead of buying vehicles that are both affordable and more climate-conscious. During a period of high inflation and supply chain disruptions, the last thing this country needs is more expensive freight costs and fewer truckers. Congress needs to vote to overturn this excessive rule--one that will hurt both the transportation sector and consumers at large. The bottom line is that we have an obligation to stand up and push back against out-of-touch, far-left policies. I appreciate the work so many of my colleagues are doing toward this goal. Senator Braun is leading the charge to overturn the President's new environmental, social, and corporate governance rule on retirement funds. The Biden administration should not be playing games with Americans' hard-earned money like this. My friend Senator Tuberville is pushing back on the administration's Veterans Affairs rule that would funnel taxpayer dollars toward abortions. As Senator Capito shared earlier, she is leading us in resisting the Obama-era WOTUS rule implemented late last year. The WOTUS rule, which I have been fighting since my first term here in the U.S. Senate, is the Federal Government at its worst. It encroaches on families, on communities, and on businesses by its brazen intrusion into States' precious water resources. The Biden administration has a track record of prioritizing politically charged regulations over the financial and economic well- being of Americans. My colleagues and I are here to stop these rules from taking effect on more and more Americans' lives before they damage the livelihoods of even more Nebraskans and more Americans across this country. As long as I have the honor of working in the U.S. Senate, I will continue to oppose radical, far-left rules and promote commonsense solutions instead. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle should join me. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, in April, Border Patrol agents encountered an unaccompanied 2-year-old boy at the southern border of Texas. Let me read you part of what the Customs and Border Protection released: The boy, a Honduran national, who had lost his shoe in the mud while crossing, was traveling within a group of 38 individuals. Agents questioned the group to obtain any information on the boy--however, no one claimed to know the child. In 2022, CBP arrested at least six dozen convicted violent sex offenders--many of them child sex abusers--according to media releases. Vulnerable, unaccompanied children, as well as young women traveling alone, draw criminals like these to our country. They want to take advantage of the chaos overwhelming our border. Our border has become a hotbed of criminal activity, especially of trafficking helpless women and children. Last month, I came before you to address the deadly effects of drug trafficking across our border on American citizens. But the out-of- control situation at our border puts migrants in danger too. The effect of these numbers on children is just heartbreaking. And 2022 beat the record for the number of unaccompanied migrant children encountered by Border Patrol, an overwhelming 152,057. The State Department reported this year that child sex tourism is expanding in the border cities of Mexico. The Biden administration claims that its laissez-faire border policies stem from valuing immigrants, but the choices it has made have worsened conditions for those trying to migrate to the United States. On his first day in office, President Biden ended the national emergency declaration at the border, halted construction on the border wall, and scaled back ICE enforcement. The very next month, the President canceled the Trump administration's asylum procedures, a move that aggravated the rush at the border. President Biden reinstated wide-scale catch-and-release practices, requiring border officials to release unprocessed migrants into our country while they await court hearings. Since President Biden's inauguration, 4.5 million people have arrived at our border. Last week, the President of the National Border Patrol Council told me he estimates that 7 million more migrants will arrive by the time Biden's term ends. Folks, that would mean a total of 11 million migrant encounters during the Biden administration. That number is larger than the population of 43 of the States in our Union. Despite the damage that the President has done at the border, he dedicated a total of 1 minute out of last week's 75-minute State of the Union Address to discussing immigration--1 minute. President Biden didn't even present any substantive solutions to our border problems. This administration is unable to manage the surges of immigrants it has welcomed to our border, so the President has cut corners left and right. Biden officials have weakened vital safety measures, including waiving certain background check requirements for the adult sponsors of unaccompanied migrant children. People entrusted with the care of unaccompanied children no longer have to undergo public record and sex offender registry checks, all in the interest of moving migrants into our country and out of Federal custody more quickly. The Department of Health and Human Services also has no way to track these children or ensure their well-being after they are placed with sponsors. The President's indifference to border safety and security means that abusers and traffickers have easy access to helpless kids. From the very beginning, President Biden's campaign promises to loosen border security rallied waves of migrants to make that treacherous trip north. Biden promised hope, but let's be clear--the reality is that this journey is one of suffering, whether it is forced labor, sex trafficking, or death. It has encouraged more criminals to take advantage of that frenzy. The Biden administration has yet to resecure the border, and it has yet to form a serious plan to remedy the problems it has created. It has taken 2 full years for the administration to produce what I think is a silly smartphone app, funded by your taxpayer dollars, to help migrants schedule their crossing times--schedule their crossing times. That is barely a bandaid for the massive gash that is our southern border. But while the President ignores this humanitarian crisis, my colleagues and I want to fix it. We can address the disaster at the border by providing our dedicated Border Patrol agents with more resources and more time to process migrants, equipping them to do their jobs thoroughly. We need to put up barriers against sex trafficking and drug trafficking by ending catch-and-release and imposing penalties on those who skip out on their immigration hearings. President Biden called on us as a nation last week to embrace civility over chaos. He should take his own advice and help us to stabilize the chaos at the border. The administration must finally open its eyes to this border crisis, and the Senate must implement real, lasting solutions for the sake of migrants, for the sake of legal immigrants, and for the sake of American citizens. As I have said before, we are a nation of immigrants, but we are also a nation of laws. Failure to enforce them doesn't help anyone. Well, it doesn't help anyone except predators looking for a chance to manipulate the chaos. Security will benefit those on both sides of our border. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FISCHER

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

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, when I joined the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2013, I encountered a new world of information. Along with that information came a new world of security measures. As a member of that committee, I reviewed document after document apprising me of critical national security developments. I also received strict orders not to share the classified information that I encountered. The American people expect Senators tasked with this solemn duty to take our responsibility seriously. Let me illustrate just how restrictive the rules are around these classified documents. When I receive classified information, I have to go to a secured place known as a SCIF to read the documents. There, a security manager and often a Capitol police officer will perform checks when I enter and when I exit. My background on Armed Services is one of the many reasons that I am shocked at the news that classified documents dating back to President Biden's time in the Senate were found sitting haphazardly in his garage this month. The President's personal attorney confirmed that some of those documents came from the Senate, and they have apparently been collecting dust next to the President's Corvette for years. It is also concerning that the President's documents were found, in the first place, by personal lawyers without the necessary clearances to view those classified materials. We have all learned recently that the executive branch has issues regulating documents. I have refrained from commenting on that issue because I have never been a part of that branch of our government, and so I cannot speak to their regulations. But in the Senate, we have strict protocols that protect classified information. Based on the rigorous security standards of the Senate, it is important that we now ask hard questions. How did classified Senate documents make their way from the Capitol Complex past Senate security managers and all the way to the President's House in Delaware? I think most people believe that this demonstrates incompetence, at best. If a newly elected Nebraska Senator in 2013 could figure out how these security procedures work, surely, a career politician like then-Senator Joe Biden could do so. As chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, former Senator Biden likely had access to information that could have jeopardized lives, especially those of patriots serving in sensitive roles overseas. President Biden should know that leaked information puts people in danger. This affects all Americans, including the many Nebraskans that are serving abroad, not to mention that it impedes our national security here at home. Of course, we have no idea what is in the Senate documents that found their way to Wilmington, DE, because the President and his personal attorneys refuse to share them with Congress. The Biden administration argues that it cannot brief us on the mishandled documents because of the ongoing special counsel investigation. There is precedent for intelligence briefings coinciding with special counsel investigations. As my friend Senator Cornyn said last week, there are public safety and national security concerns that make this an exceptional case. If there was a breakdown in Senate protocols to protect classified information, then we need to know that and we need to know it immediately. That is the only way that we will know how to rectify the potential problems caused by the President's unsecured Senate documents. We, at least, need to know what the general subject of the documents or the area of the world that they cover. I am proud of my colleagues on the Intelligence Committee, both Democrats and Republicans, for realizing the seriousness of this issue. I hope that we can continue to set aside partisan politics and that we can uncover the truth in this matter. President Biden's comment on his handling of documents a couple of weeks ago was that he has ``no regrets.'' Let me tell you, Mr. President, if a sitting Senator was found to have mishandled classified information, it would be more than just regrettable; it would call into question his or her capacity to serve in this Chamber, and it would be a slap in the face to the hard-working men and women of the Intelligence Committee. By the time we uncover the truth about these documents, I hope that the President will have learned to regret his bad decision. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I would thank my colleague, the senior Senator from Texas, for his comments and his perspective and his insight, as a Senator serving from a border State, on what they are facing every single day. I would say to my colleague that Nebraska has become a border State. I know Colorado has become a border State. Every State in this country now is feeling the effects of the chaos that we see at our southern border, so my thanks to the senior Senator from Texas for offering his perspective on that. I would say that on January 13 in Nebraska, we had two Nebraska State Patrol officers who pulled over two separate vehicles that were hours away from each other. One car contained 50,000 suspected fentanyl pills. The other contained a suspected fentanyl-cocaine mixture. Both cars were driven up from the border. These are only the latest instances of synthetic opioid trafficking in my State of Nebraska. In 2022, the Nebraska State Patrol confiscated 66 pounds of fentanyl, and that is up from 25 pounds the year before and 10 pounds in 2020. In Nebraska and throughout this Nation, the numbers of drug seizures are staggering. At the southwest border, there was a 55-percent increase in fentanyl seizures from just November to December. Heroin seizures increased by 52 percent the month before. Methamphetamine seizures increased as well. We know what is driving these drug trafficking numbers: We have a crisis at our southern border. The effects of that crisis are rippling across the country, felt by communities in Nebraska and beyond. When we cannot control who is entering the United States, what they are bringing in, or where they are going, that is a serious national security risk. Let's go over the numbers. Customs and Border Protection encountered 2.3 million migrants at the southern border this past fiscal year--more encounters than any other year in our history. Migrant encounters in December reached the highest monthly level ever recorded, with over 250,000 encounters in 1 month. That number had tripled in just 2 years. And it gets even worse. Border Patrol agents have stopped individuals on the government's terror watch list 38 times so far since October. Suspected terrorist encounters will hit record levels if this trend continues through 2023. Gang-affiliated encounters skyrocketed last year as well, from 348 to 751. These historic statistics should concern anyone who cares about our country's security and the safety of our communities and the safety of American families. But this administration doesn't consider what is going on at the border to be a crisis. In fact, our President hardly seems to consider what is going on at the border at all. Despite his recent trip south for what I thought was a photo op, his administration has exacerbated the border crisis. In case anybody has forgotten, let me refresh your memories. With simple strokes of his pen, President Biden ended the national emergency declaration at the border. He halted construction on the border wall, and he scaled back ICE enforcement in the first few months of his Presidency. No amount of photo ops can change what we all know: This administration has not only failed to prioritize the safety and security of our border, it has put forward policies over the past 2 years that have worsened this crisis. Only a month ago, President Biden himself insisted that ``there are more important things going on.'' I happen to think the national security threat posed by an influx of suspected terrorists across the border is important. I think that human trafficking overrunning our border is important. I think the massive increase in overdoses due to drug smuggling across the border is important. Across the country, fentanyl is now the leading cause of death for Americans ages 18 to 49. Between 2019 and 2021, Nebraska's largest county saw an appalling 400- percent increase in fentanyl overdose deaths. Complacency is not an acceptable response to this atrocious uptick in loss of life. My Republican colleagues and I have real, commonsense solutions to the problems that our border is facing. We need to invest more in new border security measures and resources for the men and women who serve us honorably as Border Patrol agents. We need to end the lenient policies like catch-and-release and increase penalties for people who don't show up for their immigration court hearings. We need the Department of Homeland Security to create a serious, comprehensive strategy to address those issues. Simply throwing more tax dollars toward a smartphone app that offers migrants appointments to cross our border--well, that is what the Biden administration has proposed. It is not the right response to the mayhem we are seeing. Their policies do nothing to secure the border and to reinforce our Nation's security. Until President Biden and my Democratic colleagues seriously work with us to fix this border chaos once and for all, we can expect to see more drugs brought into our country, more women and children facing a life of sex trafficking, and more threats to the security of our Nation. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate ADM Charles ``Chas'' A. Richard on his retirement from the U.S. Navy. I would also like to give my warm regards to his wife Lisa and children Chase, Ally, and Emily for supporting him throughout his years of selfless service to our country. Born in Decatur, AL, Admiral Richard is a dedicated officer who represents the best our Nation's military has to offer. I have had the privilege of knowing the admiral since he took over for Gen. John E. Hyten at U.S. Strategic Command in 2019. As the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee's Strategic Forces Subcommittee, we have direct oversight over STRATCOM's mission areas. STRATCOM also happens to be located in Nebraska, the State I proudly represent in the U.S. Senate. For these reasons, I have had the opportunity to work closely with Admiral Richard, and I have come to appreciate his thoughtful insights and brilliant strategic mind. I know many in this Chamber have come to rely on him and his expertise, especially those of us working on nuclear deterrence. Like other distinguished STRATCOM commanders, he can say with pride, ``We deterred great power conflict and nuclear war'' during one of the most challenging national security environments of the last six decades. For any STRATCOM commander, that is truly their greatest accomplishment. Admiral Richard has had a decisive impact on U.S. Strategic Command. He spearheaded the creation of the Risk of Strategic Deterrence Failure Assessment. This assessment distilled a decade's worth of analytics down to a set of fundamental questions and answers that were vital to reevaluating our strategic posture and reemphasizing the importance of strong deterrence. You only need to look at Russia's continued war of aggression against Ukraine to understand the value of such analysis. Given STRATCOM's mission is a global one, Admiral Richard never let one region of the world overshadow the serious threats posed by another. With respect to the Indo-Pacific, Admiral Richard worked tirelessly to alert our country to the scope and speed of China's military buildup, including Beijing's breathtaking expansion of nuclear capabilities. He has been the canary in the coal mine, warning us all about the growing threats we face and the role nuclear deterrence must play in the 21st century. His foresight wasn't just restricted to the rise of China. From day one, Admiral Richard understood the need to address our electronic warfare capabilities. Under his leadership, STRATCOM created the first ever doctrine on Joint Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations, and he helped lead the development of NATO's electronic warfare doctrine. Under his watch, STRATCOM accomplished more on electronic warfare in the last three years than in the previous 20. He also always understood the importance of America's nuclear triad, and he fought to ensure it remained our top defense priority. Overseeing the modernization of all three legs of the nuclear triad is a herculean task, and Admiral Richard has done a remarkable job working with the services and the National Nuclear Security Administration to keep these programs on track. STRATCOM has also made huge strides in the modernization of our Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications--NC3--architecture over the last 3 years. He oversaw the creation of the state-of-the-art NC3 Intelligence Fusion Center and the first-ever NC3 enterprise dashboard with critically needed quick-status viewing. Here, too, the admiral broke records. I am told that more was accomplished in the last 3 years than in the previous 10 in the modernization of our nuclear arsenal. Admiral Richard's leadership weathered challenging times. And his steady hand during the pandemic was a masterclass in true leadership. As our Nation and our world were grappling with the first global pandemic in over a century, he kept STRATCOM on the right track. In just 4 short days, he oversaw the largest shift to telework in STRATCOM's history, from just a few individuals to nearly 1,400+ people. And many of them had to conduct telework at a classified level. If you ask Admiral Richard about any of his many accomplishments, he will avoid the spotlight and heap praise on others. But he was the leader, and STRATCOM is all the better for his leadership. When I learned Admiral Richard was retiring, I knew we would be losing a great leader. I also knew that we would be losing a great man, and I knew I would be losing a friend. I learned something every time I met with him, and I appreciated his thoughtful insights on the many threats our country faces. His clear-eyed, straightforward, and honest advice to the Senate Armed Services Committee directly led to stronger, safer policies to protect our Nation being signed into law. After over 40 years of exemplary service, Admiral Richard's retirement is well-earned. I wish him and Lisa the very best, and I thank him on behalf of myself and the people of Nebraska for his dedication and service to our country.

Mrs. FISCHER

Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, over the years, many historians have studied how exactly the United States was able to rapidly mobilize during World War II. It was truly a remarkable thing. One book, ``Freedom's Forge'' by Arthur Herman, summarizes the feat well. American manufacturers produced ``two-thirds of all Allied military equipment used in World War II. That included 86,000 tanks, 2.5 million trucks and a half a million jeeps, 286,000 warplanes, 8,800 naval vessels, 5,600 naval merchant ships, 434 million tons of steel, 2.6 million machine guns, and 41 billion rounds of ammunition--not to mention the greatest super bomber of the war, the B-29, and the atomic bomb.'' In the blink of an eye, entire manufacturing industries retooled their factories, and they began pumping out everything from fighter planes to ships to critical munitions. There is no doubt that our immense production capacity was a critical factor behind why the Allies won the war. The threat environment that we face today is much different. There are a wide range of scenarios that our Nation has to be prepared for. And, of course, the way our economy is structured is also much different. This raises an important question: Are we prepared to respond to the changing threat environment of the 21st century? Repeating that incredible moment in American history would not be easy. What we can and what we should do is identify which investments we can make to effectively meet these threats and deter any adversary. For years, we have underinvested in our munitions production capacity. We can start to reverse that by expanding already hot production lines, which would have an immediate positive effect on readiness. If we don't make these investments now, it will be harder for us to surge munitions production in a time of emergency or global instability, and that is a concern we must take seriously. During a crisis, surge capacity is one lever the Department of Defense must be able to pull to ensure that decisionmakers have a range of options at their disposal. In fact, the ability to surge production of munitions is going to be vital to respond to most types of modern conflicts. How do we know this? Let's just look at Ukraine and Russia and how quickly they are running through munitions. According to the Royal United Services Institute, or RUSI, Ukraine needs approximately 500 Javelin missiles every single day. Well, Lockheed Martin only produces around 2,100 missiles a year. When the report was published in June, RUSI also estimated that Russia had used between 1,100 and 2,100 missiles during their invasion of Ukraine. That means ``in three months of combat, Russia has burned through four times the US annual missile production'' for those cruise missiles. These examples are important benchmarks. You can do the math, and you can pretty quickly come up with future scenarios where demand starts to strain supply. Another important factor is the People's Republic of China, which both the Biden administration and the Trump administration identified as America's pacing threat. China has spent the last two decades dramatically building up its military. According to the DOD's 2019 Missile Defense Review, ``a key component of China's military modernization is its conventional ballistic missile arsenal designed to prevent [the] U.S. military access to support regional allies and partners.'' Since then, China's arsenal has only continued to rapidly grow-- again, another important reference point that our Nation will have to navigate. This should not be interpreted as fearmongering. I want to be clear that I have every confidence in our military's ability to defend this Nation and to defend our allies. Army Assistant Secretary for Acquisitions, Logistics, and Technology Doug Bush recently told reporters, for example, that he was ``not uncomfortable'' with our stockpile levels. However, as Assistant Secretary Bush noted, the Army is ``doggedly working with industry . . . to boost the production of certain weapon systems to keep Kyiv armed and the US well stocked.'' In August, the Wall Street Journal reported that ``in the [United States], it takes 13 to 18 months from the time orders are placed for munitions to be manufactured, [and that is] according to an industry official. Replenishing stockpiles of more sophisticated weaponry such as missiles and drones can take much longer.'' The United States, our allies, and our partners need those munitions. The challenge is that years of underinvestment has reduced our production capacities and speed at which we can respond to that increased demand. Clearly, there are significant benefits to expanding that capacity. Again, we have to be able to meet the changing threat environment and the rise of our near-peer competitors, like China. Congress, I believe, needs to take a few actions to address this challenge. First, invest more in our munitions production capacity. Second, pass a clean national defense authorization act without delay. I secured an amendment in this year's Senate NDAA to require the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to produce an annual report on our industrial base and the potential constraints for our munitions production. This type of reporting should help to further identify gaps in our production capacity so that we can further refine future investments. Overall, these actions would be an important step in the right direction. We know that our adversaries will continue--continue--to threaten our global security. We know, as shown by Russia's horrific invasion of Ukraine--that our allies and partners will continue--they will continue--to need munitions. And we know the United States needs to be prepared for any scenario that threatens our national security. The best response to those stark and immediate realities is to expand our ability to produce the things that we need to defend ourselves. If we do that, the greater our capacity is to project strength, react to any scenario, and better support allies and partners. I yield the floor.