Floor Statements

Madam President, I rise to pay tribute to Mr. Rusty

Wilfong, who is being honored with the 2023 Bill Best Humanitarian Award by the Rotary Club of Ruston.

Mr. Wilfong, a first-rate cook, uses his talents to serve the 20,000- plus-strong community of Ruston, LA. He cooks at dozens of community events as part of the Karl Malone Toyota Cooking Team, sponsored by the Louisiana Tech graduate and retired 14-time NBA All-Star.

For example, Mr. Wilfong and his team cook every year at the Louisiana Tech student-athletes' welcome-back event and at every Tech home football game. He also cooks jambalaya for the annual radiothon sponsored by the Domestic Abuse Resistance Team. Based in 2023 at Super 1 Foods in Ruston, his jambalaya encouraged people to come by, donate, and go on Q94.1 FM to encourage others to donate. The organization supports shelters, counseling, and legal services for local abuse victims.

Mr. Wilfong volunteers for Rotary Club events, including at a crawfish boil for local first responders last spring. He does it all for free, for local causes that make people's lives better, and to honor others who serve and enrich the community. His neighbors and colleagues value his contributions, which is why he is receiving this distinguished award.

Rusty, thank you for supporting Ruston and all of North Louisiana through your time and your talents. You make our State a better place and give a little more joy to those who support it. I ask that all of Louisiana join me in thanks for his service.

Madam President, the Senate will soon vote on the Congressional Review Act, a resolution of disapproval to overturn President Biden's newest student loan scheme.

Just like President Biden's original student debt cancellation scheme, this IDR does not forgive debt. It transfers the burden of $559 billion in Federal student loans to the 87 percent of Americans who don't have student loans, who chose not to go to college, or who already responsibly paid off their debts.

I want to emphasize this point. There is much said in this Chamber about those who do less well and the implication that a policy like this would benefit those who do less well. This benefits folks-- couples--who make over $400,000. They went to college precisely to get a degree to earn more money, and many of them are earning more money. And this forgives--no, it doesn't forgive their debt. It transfers their debt to someone who never went; someone--he and his wife, she and her husband who are making $65,000 a year. They are going to have to pick up the slack for a couple making over $400,000.

This is not a benefit for those who are less well-off. This is a benefit--a political payout--to folks who have done quite well precisely because they went to college.

Under this rule, a majority of bachelor's degree student loan borrowers will not be expected to pay back even the principal. Ninety- one percent of new student loan debt will be eligible for reduced payments subsidized by the taxpayers. Where is the forgiveness for the guy who didn't go to college but is working to pay off the loan on a truck he takes to work? What about the woman who paid off her student loans and bought a less expensive home but is now struggling to afford the mortgage that she has? Is the administration providing them relief? No, of course not. Instead, the administration would have them not only pay their bills but the bills of those who decided to go to college in order to make more money or who made a decision not to pay back their student loans so they could buy a bigger house.

This is irresponsible. It is deeply unfair.

Aside from being unfair, this student loan cancellation scheme does not address the root cause that created the debt in the first place. For example, President Biden's policy does not hold colleges or universities accountable for rising costs. In the last 30 years, tuitions and fees have jumped at private nonprofit colleges--nonprofit colleges--by 80 percent. At public 4-year institutions, they jumped 124 percent.

College is one of the largest financial investments many Americans make, but there is little information for the student and her family to know that they are making the right decision for where they are attending or the amount they are borrowing. So my Republican colleagues and I recently introduced the Lowering Education Cost and Debt Act, a package of five bills aimed at directly addressing the issues driving skyrocketing costs of higher education and the increasing amounts of debts students take on to attend school.

By the way, some of these bills are by themselves. It is in a package, but you divide them out. Some of them are bipartisan in support and in sponsorship.

Our legislation puts downward pressure on tuition, empowers students to make the educational decisions that put them on track to succeed both academically and financially. We are providing solutions for students and working to solve the student debt crisis--not a bandaid that merely transfers the debt to someone else, someone who is oftentimes poor, less financially well-off, than the person who no longer has the responsibility to pay back the loan.

President Biden's student loan scheme is not a fix. It appears to be a politically motivated giveaway, forcing taxpayers to shoulder the responsibility of paying off someone else's debt. We need real leadership to address the issue.

I close by encouraging all my colleagues to join me in voting to pass this Congressional Review Act resolution to prevent this unfair student debt cancellation scheme--unfair to the hundreds of millions of Americans who will bear the burden of paying off hundreds of billions of dollars of someone else's student loan, a student loan they took to make more money than almost all of those other people.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask for consent that the vote begin now.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, only in the United States of America can the son of a Shreveport firefighter, the first college graduate in his family--only in our country can a person like this win a seat in Congress and just a few years later be elected the 56th Speaker of the House.

Speaker Mike Johnson made history for our country and my home State by becoming the first Speaker of the House of Representatives ever from Louisiana. If you are from Louisiana--more particularly from Shreveport, Bossier, or Northwest Louisiana--or, by the way, if you graduated from Captain Shreve, you know Mike Johnson. He is the pride of them all. He is a straight shooter, a family man, a diligent man.

Jim McCrery was the Congressman who held that same seat at a time in the past. When I was first elected, he gave me this advice: Keep your word, show up, and do your homework.

I am sure he gave that same advice to Mike Johnson or, if not, Mike just was naturally that way, because it describes him to a tee. It is the reason why he is able to unify House Republicans, winning every Republican vote for Speaker for the first time since 2011.

He has the ability to bridge divides that a lot of very capable people were not able to do. Mike brought together people who disagreed and kept them talking until they found a way forward. That is what leaders do. He is strong in his convictions, but he is not someone looking to steamroll others. He is a unifier and has a talent for working with folks to find common ground.

We have all seen the push and pull between those who wish to govern and, frankly, those who are not very interested in governing. Mike wishes to govern. He wants to govern with conservative principles to get things done for the country and, hopefully, for my State as well. He has the temperament, intelligence, and integrity to do that as Speaker.

I look forward to working with him to address issues like investing in American energy, securing our southern border, addressing the insurance crisis in Louisiana and nationwide, and finally doing something about the long-term debt being driven, among other things, by a Social Security Program going insolvent. With a conservative Speaker working to secure conservative wins, the country will do well.

We both share a strong sense of duty, a deep faith, and a love for God. You

could see his faith shine through in his speech when he won the vote. Of course, we share a deep love for our home State, Louisiana. Having a Speaker from Louisiana will help bring some good Louisiana values, perspective, priorities, and maybe even a little boiled crawfish to Washington, DC.

Congratulations, Speaker Johnson, and to his wife Kelly and their four wonderful children.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, today I introduced the Congressional Review Act, a resolution of disapproval to overturn the Biden administration's newest student loan scheme: income-driven repayment. Just like President Biden's student loan cancellation scheme that was overturned by the Supreme Court, this policy does not forgive debt, it transfers the burden of almost $560 billion in Federal student loans from those who willingly took out the loans for college to make more money when they graduated to Americans who never attended college or who have already fulfilled their commitment to pay off their loans.

Under this rule, a majority of bachelor's degree student loan borrowers will not be expected to even pay back the principal. We have moved beyond forgiving the interest, and we are now not even asking them to pay back the principal.

Additionally, 91 percent of new student loan debt would be eligible for reduced payments subsidized by taxpayers. These policies are as unfair as they are irresponsible. Where is the forgiveness for the guy who didn't go to college but is working to pay off the loan on the truck that he takes to work?

What about the woman who paid off her student loans but now struggles to pay her utilities or her mortgage? Is the administration providing her relief? Of course not. Instead, the administration would have them not only pay their bills but the bills of those who decided to go to college in order to get a degree to make more money.

The resolution prevents average Americans, 80 percent of whom have no student loans, from being stuck with a policy that the administration is pushing not to be fair to all but rather to favor a few. The Supreme Court has already established the President does not have the authority to cancel hundreds of billions in student loans without direct consent from Congress. It is clear President Biden is trying to deflect the political fallout of the false promises that he never had the legal authority to make.

President Biden's plan did nothing to address the problems that created the debt in the first place. It doesn't hold colleges or universities accountable for rising costs. According to the College Board, in the last 30 years, tuitions and fees have jumped in private nonprofit colleges by 80 percent. At public 4-year institutions, they jumped 124 percent. The Biden administration has refused to propose any solution that actually addresses the underlying problems that created the debt crisis in the first place.

We cannot spend our way out of the problem of the ever-increasing costs of higher education. We need real solutions. That is why my colleagues and I introduced the Lowering Education Costs and Debt Act, a package of five bills aimed at directly addressing the issues driving skyrocketing costs of higher education and the increasing amounts of debt students take on to attend school.

Our legislation puts downward pressure on tuition, empowering students to make the educational decisions that put them on track to academically and financially succeed. It also simplifies the student loan borrowing and repayment process so students don't take out more loans than they need and can navigate the student loan process without confusion. Unlike President Biden's student loan schemes, these are commonsense solutions that actually address root causes of the student loan crisis. In fact, some of the bills included in the package already have strong bipartisan support.

President Biden's student loan scheme is not a fix; it is merely a bandaid forcing taxpayers to shoulder the responsibility of paying off someone else's debt. We need strong leadership.

President Biden's failure to address rising tuition costs won't hurt the rich; only the middle- and lower-income Americans who will continue to be punished, forced to take out more and more loans just to get an education.

I will close by urging all my colleagues to support my Congressional Review Act resolution to prevent President Biden's reckless student loan scheme and to work together on real solutions to tackle the rising cost and debt of students. If we don't act, students will continue to drown in debt without a path for success.

(Mr. MARKEY assumed the Chair.)

Mr. President, today marks 175 days since Julie Su's nomination for Secretary of Labor was officially transmitted to the Senate. This is the longest a Cabinet-level nominee has waited for a floor vote when the same party controls the White House and the Senate.

Under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, an individual can only perform the role of a Cabinet-level position without Senate confirmation for 210 days. The law was created to prevent the President from appointing unelected bureaucrats to roles that require the advice and consent of the Senate.

Now, the White House has acknowledged that Ms. Su is unable to reach the 51 votes needed for confirmation. Instead of allowing the Senate to do its constitutional duty and reject the

nomination, the Biden administration is attempting to circumvent Congress and the Constitution to invoke the Department of Labor Succession Act, which they claim allows them to have Ms. Su serve as Acting Secretary of Labor indefinitely, even though lacking the votes for confirmation.

This is unacceptable. Not only is this use of the Department of Labor's succession statute a violation of the advice and consent provision of the Constitution--which should offend both Democrats and Republicans as the Executive attempts to usurp the role of the legislature--but it will open up any action taken under her leadership to legal challenges. In fact, major business groups have indicated they are prepared to bring legal action against the Department of Labor if a rule on independent contractors is finalized while Ms. Su remains Acting Secretary. That is why I am introducing legislation that will prevent Ms. Su from serving as Acting Secretary of Labor beyond 210 days. This bill aligns the Department of Labor succession clause with the Vacancies Act to prevent further abuses of the Constitution, ensuring the Senate's role in providing advice and consent is preserved.

It is not surprising that Ms. Su's nomination has received such widespread bipartisan opposition. A qualified Secretary of Labor needs to be able to do three things: act impartially, effectively manage a large organization, and successfully handle labor negotiations. Unfortunately, we have not seen much evidence of Ms. Su's ability to do any of these three.

Ms. Su has a decades-long record of partisan activism and promoting policies that undermine workers to the benefit of politically connected labor unions.

As secretary for the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, Ms. Su was the chief enforcer of AB 5, a controversial law dismantling the gig economy that is used by companies such as Uber, DoorDash and Lyft, removing the flexibility of individuals to work as independent contractors.

Even in California, AB 5 was unpopular. The Governor and State legislature had to pass over 100 exemptions after its implementation. In fact, the statutory exemptions are longer than the text of the bill itself; and 59 percent of Californians voted to further erode the bill, which, naturally, labor unions challenged that 59 percent in court.

As Acting and Deputy Secretary of Labor, Ms. Su would oversee the Biden administration's new regulation stripping 21 million individuals of their ability to be independent contractors and enjoin the inherent flexibility. As I said before, a law rejected in California is not a policy to spread across the Nation.

There are also serious concerns about Ms. Su's ability to manage an agency. The only large agency she has run, the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, lost at least $31 billion--billion with a ``b''--$31 billion to unemployment fraud under her watch. Despite repeated warnings, she chose to waive crucial verification safeguards recommended by the U.S. Department of Labor. This was confirmed by the California Office of the Inspector General.

Lastly, there are 150 labor contracts expiring this year. When labor disputes are not handled properly, there can be massive supply chain implications and economic impacts, worsening the inflation that is already too bad.

President Biden has sidelined Ms. Su in the United Auto Workers labor dispute, suggesting even he recognizes she is not up to the task. Instead, he has tasked Gene Sperling, an advisor who the President feels is better equipped to handle such an important issue.

We shouldn't have a Labor Secretary that the President ends up outsourcing the job to others.

The President should not be allowed to bypass the will of Congress. It is unacceptable and yet another example of weak leadership from this administration.

As a Republican, I don't expect to agree with the political positions of a Biden nominee, but I will remind my colleagues that former Labor Secretary Marty Walsh received strong bipartisan support for his unquestionable experience running organizations and handling negotiations. He worked to develop trust with both labor unions and the business community.

However, Ms. Su does not appear to be in that mold. And for this reason, she has been unable to receive the votes necessary for confirmation, even when the President's party is in the majority. I urge President Biden to withdraw Ms. Su's nomination and put forward a nominee who is committed to the fair enforcement of our Nation's labor laws.

Mr. President, it is my privilege now to speak to the pastor from my home State who gave the prayer today, the Reverend Asriel McLain of Shreveport.

Reverend McLain is a graduate of Bishop College in Dallas, TX, and he earned his master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary. He has been a pastor, ministering to others in Louisiana, Texas, and Michigan.

Reverend McLain is the son of Mrs. Mildred Oliver McLain and the late Reverend Claude Clifford, the former pastor of the historic Little Union Baptist Church, which was the epicenter of the civil rights movement in Shreveport.

I had breakfast with Pastor McLain this morning and learned of the courage of his father and that of his congregation, while in the face of official oppression, in making sure that one Martin Luther King got to speak in Shreveport and that those in their community had a voice about how they wanted their community to evolve. The courage that his father showed and that the parish showed--I am an Episcopalian--that the congregation showed was quite remarkable.

Much like his father, Reverend McLain has spent much of his life preserving the civil rights history of Louisiana, and much like his father, he is a man of profound faith and is a messenger of God's grace.

He is a proud father of four kids and is a grandfather of four. He is also one of five siblings--Pat, John, Gene, and Clifford--and Clifford is here with him today. Pastor McLain is also accompanied by his son David and grandson Jayden.

It was a pleasure to have Pastor McLain lead us in prayer today, and I look forward to perhaps having him join us once more.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, Social Security is a sacred trust between the American people and the American government. For the worker who is

about to retire with no savings other than Social Security, the woman who relies on Social Security to pay for medications, they need to know that the government is not going to break this sacred trust.

That is why I have been leading a bipartisan group of over a dozen Senators to develop a solution. And we have what we call the Big Idea. But before describing the Big Idea, I have to tell you, right now, it does not matter what big ideas--or any idea--are being discussed. President Biden made it clear in his State of the Union speech that he was going to run for reelection attacking Republicans on the issue of Social Security.

Now, by the way, he has not introduced legislation on Social Security himself. He spoke about one in his previous campaign, but it was not serious. And the money he said he would use for his unserious plan he has already spent on other priorities, or at least proposed to spend. President Biden was not even willing to acknowledge the problem that Social Security faces.

But, in a bipartisan sense, let's be fair; he is not alone. Former President Trump refuses to acknowledge the issue. He never introduced or sought to work with Congress when he was President, and now he criticizes anyone who suggests that Social Security might be going insolvent. But, unfortunately for us all, Social Security is going insolvent.

It is not me who says this; it is the actuaries, those who are told to come before the American people and tell what is the current state of Social Security. They tell us that in 9 years, it is insolvent. At that point, beneficiaries will see a 24-percent cut in the amount they are receiving. There is no grandfathering in. You might be already receiving, but when that deadline hits--2033, 2032--boom, 24-percent cut for those who are currently receiving. Poverty among the elderly doubles.

And even though it is against the law to borrow money to pay the difference between what is coming in and what is going out, let's imagine that we did. If we do decide to break the law and borrow that money, it would end up causing a $562 trillion debt to pay these benefits over the next 75 years. That would give us a debt-to-GDP ratio similar to that of Greece and Venezuela, and that is independent of the money that would be required for Medicare benefits and other such benefits.

So what does our Big Idea do? Our Big Idea avoids this problem by setting up an investment fund separate from Social Security--no Social Security money whatsoever--an investment fund in which we place money and allow it to grow over 75 years; and, in so doing, we address 75 percent of the issue.

We don't raise the retirement age to 70, as people suggest. We don't touch the way Social Security benefits are distributed. We make sure that no one has a disruption in their benefits that they are promised to receive. And in our plan, we have work incentives and we work to address issues of WEP and GPO and poverty among the elderly.

It is an idea that could work and pass Congress, but there has been zero Presidential leadership. And we have had no engagement from this President, and there was no engagement from the previous President.

So a few weeks ago, we decided to take our issue to the people, and we called it Bill on the Hill. Kind of a nice rhyme, huh? I took a walk around the Capitol grounds and spoke to Americans from across the country who were visiting the Nation's capital. There was a couple from Louisiana, a family from Pennsylvania, a veteran who is also a pastor from Massachusetts, and several others who gave their unvarnished opinions on what they want Washington to do about Social Security.

The bottom line: Americans want to see Social Security saved. They-- we--deserve a real solution, not grandstanding. One blue-collar worker I spoke to from rural Pennsylvania told me--I am going to try and imitate his voice:

Jobs that I have had haven't necessarily had retirement

plans.

He said it was ``very discouraging'' to hear a 24-percent cut was coming if we do nothing.

There was a doctor from Opelousas. Now, this doctor has as much gray hair as I do, but, if you can imagine, he was once one of my former students. The doctor from Opelousas--Opelousas, LA, for those who don't know about that--he put it in stark terms when I told him that doing nothing means that poverty among his patients would double--among the elderly in general, but he has got a patient population a little bit older. He said the people he knows ``would have to start choosing between their medicines and food.''

Now, these are people who rely on Social Security, who put faith in that sacred trust that they would not have to choose between medicine and food. Yet that is the choice they are going to be forced to if we do nothing.

And then there was Dr. Paul Kim--a pastor, a veteran--who was up here for a convention from Massachusetts. And he told me what he wanted from a President:

He has to be honest and keep the promise [of Social

Security].

Dr. Kim is right. The President needs to be honest with the American people about Social Security; but this President is not. He refuses to even acknowledge that the problem exists.

The fact is, as I have already mentioned, Social Security--according to the actuaries, the people we entrust to tell us the state of it--is going insolvent in 9 years. But President Biden is steadfast in his position that there is nothing wrong, there is no need for a serious plan. Oh, yes, he introduced a plan when he was on the campaign trail; has done nothing since. And the money that he would use to pay for this unserious plan he has already proposed to spend on other things.

By the way, $4.5 trillion he has proposed in new taxes and not a dime going to Social Security. And as I mentioned, it isn't just President Biden; it is former President Trump, who did nothing while he was President and, even now, criticizes people who wish to do something. It appears that the Biden-Trump plan is the same plan. It is a plan to do nothing and demagogue those who choose to responsibly address the issue.

When I told one of these folks, the woman from Opelousas, LA, that President Biden and Donald Trump have the same plan, she was going: Whoa, whoa, that is something. But when she heard it was a plan to do nothing, her reaction was:

I want to laugh, and I want to cry at the same time.

Americans are watching as Washington flounders, as the deadline until retirees get a 24 percent cut approaches. By the way, we have seen polling on this. When people understand that the program is going insolvent in 9 years, 75 percent--from the very liberal to the very conservative and every point in between--think that we should address the issue now. That is the American people speaking, but that is not our leading Presidential candidates.

We owe it to the American people to take this sacred trust seriously. We owe it to them to save Social Security before it is too late.

Now, I am open to discussing my big idea, anyone else's idea. You name it. But there has to be a serious conversation. And since it has to be signed into law, a participant must be the President of the United States. We need the political courage from those who aspire to be our Nation's leader to actually show leadership.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Gwyn Shelley, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges until June 13, 2023.

Mr. President, last Tuesday, President Biden formally nominated Julie Su to be the Secretary of the Department of Labor. Now, as ranking member of the committee that oversees her nomination, I felt it was important to express some concerns that have only grown since her previous nomination.

Deputy Secretary Su has a troubling record and is currently overseeing the Department of Labor's development of anti-worker regulations dismantling the gig economy.

This does not inspire confidence in her current position, let alone confidence that she should be promoted. Ms. Su's record now and in her previous position as secretary for the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency deserves scrutiny. I look forward to a full review and hearing process for her nomination.

In California, Ms. Su was a top architect of AB5, a controversial law that removed the flexibility of individuals to work as independent contractors.

Now, independent contractors, you can call them freelancers. They make their own hours, and they choose the type of work they wish to do. I was recently taking a Lyft. The driver told me he was able to clear $500 a day. He has Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash on his phone. He flips between the apps, he chooses the job from whichever one is immediately available, and through it all, he clears 500 bucks a day. I said, wait a second, man, you gotta pay your gas, you gotta pay your insurance; are you still--Oh, yeah, I clear 500 a day.

Now, if he is working five days a week, he is doing $10,000 a month. Independent contractors are shielded from forced or coerced unionization that could strip that flexibility away. This, of course, has made eliminating this classification a top priority for large labor unions who benefit from more workers being forced to pay mandatory union dues.

Now, it is important to note, even in California, AB5 is extremely unpopular. And 59 percent of California voters supported a measure to exempt ride-share drivers from AB5.

The law is so flawed, the Governor and State legislature have had to pass multiple laws to exempt over 100 occupations. The statutory exemptions are longer than the text of AB5 itself.

But Ms. Su has taken her support for this anti-worker, pro-union policy to the U.S. Department of Labor. During her tenure as Deputy Secretary of Labor, essentially the Agency's chief operating officer, the Biden administration pushed to eliminate independent contracting via Federal Executive rulemaking.

Now, there was never any hope of getting AB 5--an AB 5-like law through Congress, so they pursued their goals through regulation.

And, if finalized, the new regulation strips 21 million Americans of their ability to classify themselves as independent contractors and enjoy the flexibility this provides.

This regulation would undermine the business model of services like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash that provide valuable services and give drivers the ability and freedom to set their own hours and even hop between States.

I got off at the airport in New Orleans, Louis Armstrong International Airport, and the guy that picks me up has Maryland plates: Oh, yeah, I moved here like six months ago, wanted to come down for jazz fest, and so I just notified the different--you know, Uber and Lyft, and now I am down here working instead of back where I started.

We are talking maximum flexibility. By the way, it is not just the Uber and Lyft drivers affected; truckers are severely impacted.

Many truckers are independent owner-operators. They own their own trucks. This regulation could devastate the freedom of these truckers. It could potentially impact the supply chain in the process, as trucking moves more than 72 percent of the goods in the United States annually.

Now, as a conservative from a conservative State--but I think as an American from any State--I can say that we don't need the application of a law from one of the most liberal States to the entire Nation.

A law rejected in California is not a policy to be pursued on a Federal level. We need to support the right of workers and their ability to choose what is best for them, not put them in a straitjacket to serve other people's goals.

I also want to hear Ms. Su's position on DOL's effort to uproot the franchise model, which employs over 8 million Americans. Deputy Secretary Su has made public comments indicating that she will pursue attempts at DOL to forcibly impose a joint employer classification on the almost 800,000 franchises operating in our communities,

the same as any other small business. Sadly, franchisors with liability for thousands of franchise owners that actually operate the small business would be a sure way to destroy the system of franchising, a model which has allowed those underrepresented in the business community--women, people of color--to have the ability to live the American dream, becoming successful small business owners as they help create jobs, lifting other workers out of poverty.

No one is surprised that the joint employer rule is a major priority for large labor unions. It is easier for them to pressure one company to unionize to increase their union dues than to pressure thousands of independent businesses.

The priority of the Biden administration should not be to do whatever makes it easier to forcibly and coercively unionize workers while undermining the business models of the establishments they work for. It should be to increase individual freedom and opportunity.

What comes to mind, there is a fellow north of Baton Rouge who moved here from West Africa to attend LSU. After he attended LSU, he became a citizen, and now he is a franchisor for multiple outlets. And he talks about the American dream: coming here from Nigeria as a transfer student; getting his citizenship; and now being an owner, involved in rotary, running for political office--a better American than most Americans. Somehow, this threatens the Department of Labor.

Now, in addition to our policies, we should ask questions about how Ms. Su presided over a mismanaged California unemployment insurance program during the pandemic and why California paid $31 billion in fraudulent claims when she chose to suspend the eligibility determination process.

Some of these payments went to inmates and known domestic and international criminals. To put into context, the Department of Labor's requested budget is $15 billion and employs more than 17,000 people. This means that Ms. Su lost more than double the annual budget of the Agency she will be responsible for managing in Washington, DC. This calls into question her qualifications as a manager.

Unfortunately, there will be many reasons to be concerned about Ms. Su's nomination to head the Department of Labor, and I look forward to a full hearing process to further discuss.

Student Loans

Mr. President, today we introduced the Congressional Review Act, Resolution of Disapproval, to overturn the Biden administration's unfair student loan schemes that transfer the burden of $400 billion in Federal student loans from those who willingly took on that debt--and took on that debt to get a degree that would help them make more money--to American taxpayers who, perhaps, never went to college or already fulfilled their commitment to pay off their loans, oftentimes sacrificing to do so.

The resolution would also end the pause on student loan payments, which, by August, will have cost taxpayers almost $200 billion. President Biden has extended this pause six times, for a total of 31 months, far beyond the original justification of an ongoing pandemic. I am joined by 38 of my colleagues in offering this resolution.

Last August, President Biden announced his plan to cancel up to $20,000 in Federal student loans from most borrowers and to extend the payment and interest accrual pause in student loans via executive fiat.

Make no mistake, this reckless student loan scheme does not forgive debt. It does not forgive debt at all. It just transfers the burden from those who willingly took out these loans for college--and, again, in order to make more money when they graduate--to Americans who never attended college and who have already paid off their loans.

And I would ask: Where is the forgiveness for the guy who didn't go to college but bought a truck, went to work, and is now working to pay off that loan? Is his truck loan going to be forgiven? It will not be.

And what about the woman who paid off her student loans but is now struggling to afford her mortgage? Does she get a refund to help her with the mortgage?

Is the administration providing them relief? And the answer is no. Instead, the administration had to not only pay their bills, but the bills for those who decided to go to college in order to make more money and then have their student loans forgiven. This is irresponsible and unfair.

And, by the way, the plan does nothing to address the problems that created the debt in the first place. It doesn't hold colleges or universities accountable for rising costs. According to the College Board, in the last 30 years, tuition and fees have jumped at private nonprofit colleges by 80 percent and at public 4-year institutions by 124 percent.

And it doesn't ensure that students are prepared for life after college. Indeed, it creates a terrible moral hazard that tells students that Federal student loans aren't real commitments and tells colleges that no matter how high they raise their prices or what product they produce, the Federal Government will cover the tab, courtesy of the American taxpayer.

Our resolution prevents average Americans, the 87 percent of whom currently have no student loans, from being stuck with a policy that the administration is doing, not to be fair to all but, rather, to favor the few.

Our resolution also protects the rule of law, which President Biden must know he is violating.

During Supreme Court arguments on the legality of the student loan forgiveness in February, Justice Roberts clearly indicated that if $400 billion was to be spent on student loan cancellation, it would and should require congressional approval. That has not been given.

It is a clear example of this administration attempting to subvert Congress for what appears to be purely political purposes. It is a wildly dangerous precedent if left unchecked.

For Americans who cannot afford their debt or want a proactive approach to paying off their loan commitments, Congress has already authorized--again, let me just say this. For someone who can't afford their debt or wishes to be proactive to pay off their loan commitments, Congress has already authorized 31 different programs to help pay or forgive student loans.

I ask unanimous consent that the list of Federal programs already available to Americans who are struggling to repay their loans, work in public service, or who are in high-demand fields be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, they range from total forgiveness under public student loan forgiveness, the PSLF; Stafford loans for teachers; and Perkins loans cancellations for law enforcement officers, military, early childhood educators, and social workers, to name few.

There are also repayment programs for high-demand fields, where education is specialized and the need is a public good. For example, through the Department of Health and Human Services, therapists and behavioral health providers who are needed to help our children as we face a mental health crisis are eligible for loan forgiveness.

In addition, there are repayment policies related to the income of an individual. There are five different programs to keep payments low compared to an individual's income and to cap the total time for repayment.

These are quite different from this mass transfer of debt under this reckless student loan scheme, which forgets that these existing programs were set up to target limited taxpayer resources to benefit those using their degrees to serve and to fill broader public needs or who can demonstrate that they, themselves, have a personal, individual need.

By the way, what benefit does the GI bill hold when students can just wait to have their student loans forgiven? Why contribute to your community by teaching in a public school while getting your Federal loans paid off through your service when you can just wait for President Biden to forgive your loans? Irresponsible policies like President Biden's student loan scheme weaken these incentives and discourage Americans from going into public service.

President Biden and Secretary Cardona, come to the table. There are real problems in the student loan system and Federal financing of higher education. Let's fix them legally through a lasting, bipartisan solution.

I close by encouraging all my colleagues to join me in supporting this Congressional Review Act resolution to prevent this unconstitutional student loan forgiveness scheme. It is unfair to the hundreds of millions of Americans who will bear the burden of paying off hundreds of billions of dollars of someone else's student debt.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am speaking about Social Security.

Secretary Yellen spoke before the Senate Finance Committee last week, and, to me, it was incredibly frustrating. When asked if the President would be willing to work with Congress, she held up a piece of paper and read that he stands ready to work with Congress, to meet with Senators to find a solution to Social Security. We are speaking about the President personally meeting with us. There is no evidence that is true. That has not been our experience.

It has been well reported in the press that there is a bipartisan-- bipartisan, bipartisan--group of Senators working to find a solution to save Social Security. The President knows this. We have been unable to get an appointment with the President.

The reason we keep requesting a meeting with him is because we are told that no deal will be made without his personal signoff. He has to be the one who tells those who work for him that this is the deal he wants. So if the President chooses to do nothing, that choice guarantees that someone currently receiving Social Security will get a 24-percent cut in the benefits she receives.

Let me just emphasize that. I was on talk radio with KEEL in Shreveport, LA. Erin McCarty says: Well, I will be OK.

I don't know how old she is, but she thinks that, because she is of a certain age, she will not be affected.

No, current law is, if the President chooses to do nothing, Erin and everyone else who would be currently receiving Social Security would get a 24-percent cut in their current benefits. Someone who is depending upon this income to pay her bills and buy her groceries, she gets a 24-percent cut in the amount she is receiving.

There needs to be a choice between a massive, by law, 24-percent benefit cut--again, current law--and a real plan, a real choice to strengthen, to save, and to secure Social Security.

To reference President Reagan, this is a time for choosing. We can't wait

because the longer we wait, the more expensive and the more drastic the solution becomes. And we shouldn't allow politicians to use Social Security as a political weapon to beat people into submission to claim that one side wishes to do something and they are going to rescue it while offering nothing to stop this scheduled 24-percent cut. It may be good politics, but it is irresponsible.

I will point out that President Biden's two Democratic predecessors, Obama and Clinton, both offered serious plans to address this looming Social Security fiscal cliff; President Biden, no plan, not in his budget. In fact, when I asked Secretary Yellen if they had modeled any of the things she was referencing as a solution, they have not modeled it, which tells me they have not worked on it.

There should absolutely be a sense of urgency. He should feel it the way that I feel it. I used to work in a hospital for the uninsured. Many of my poor patients depended upon Social Security to pay their rent, to buy their groceries, to pay their utilities. I know what a 24- percent cut would mean to them.

By the way, on the solutions that we have been trying to come up with--an approach, if you will, certainly not a final plan--there is a lot of partial and inaccurate information. By the way, we did that on purpose. The President has a right to have an imprint upon the final thing that we come up with. So we have things which are, yes, we could do it this way, but maybe do something else.

We do add something to it, though. We think it is a novel solution that helps Social Security bridge the solvency and protects the Americans that rely upon it.

We have added some things. One thing we have spoken about, perhaps locally but not nationally, is that those who are most cut by a 24- percent cut will be the police officers, firefighters, teachers, and many other State and local government officials who are unfairly penalized by two provisions in current law known as WEP and GPO. From my perspective, repealing WEP and GPO should be part of any conversation we have with the President, if he agrees to meet, and should be part of any final proposal.

But Americans of all generations--the Silent Generation, baby boomers, Gen X, Gen Z--they want to know that the program they paid into their entire lives will be there when they need it.

It is a political truth that some issues are seen as a ``political third rail.'' I say choosing to do nothing, which means choosing that Social Security benefits will be cut by 24 percent, should be the third rail. We can't be guided by the fear of politics. We should be guided by the courage of our commitment to the American people and, particularly, that American senior--that he or she will not get this 24-percent cut.

I ask once more: President Biden, please personally meet with a bipartisan group of Senators. If I said something I shouldn't have to Secretary Yellen, I will, at that point, apologize.

President Biden has a reputation as a dealmaker. Let's make a deal.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letter from the Government Accountability Office be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to formally enter a legal opinion from the Government Accountability Office into the Record. The contents of this legal opinion confirms that the Biden administration's reckless student loan scheme has gone too far, violated process, and must be submitted to Congress as a rule, subject to the Congressional Review Act.

The Biden administration proposes to transfer the burden of $400 billion in Federal student loans onto taxpayers, citing COVID-19. The administration continues to charge the U.S. Treasury $5 billion per month to extend the loan pause, preventing any return to repayment on student loans while it works to cancel them. Meanwhile, Americans who chose not to attend college or already sacrificed to pay off their loans will be forced to carry the burden of the student debt from those who willingly took on these loans.

GAO's determination means that the Biden administration is not playing by the laws of this land in attempting to implement their mass student loan scheme and extend the payment pause via executive fiat.

This GAO legal opinion will allow Congress to exercise its oversight prerogative and move forward with a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval, while we await a Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the policy.

I implore all of my colleagues to join me in support of a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval to stand for the 87 percent of Americans

who chose not to take student loans or paid off their debt responsibly.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following letter from the Government Accountability Office be printed in the Record.

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