Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, on Monday, the Democrat leader came down to the floor to discuss the continuing resolution the House proposed, and he criticized it for, among other things, making ``no attempt to reauthorize the FAA.''

Making ``no attempt to reauthorize the FAA.''

Well, apparently it slipped the Democrat leader's mind that the Senate is currently making no attempt to reauthorize the FAA either. That is right. It has been 97 days since the Democrat chair of the Commerce Committee halted consideration of the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization at the beginning of the scheduled markup because the Democrat leader objected to a bipartisan amendment that Senator Sinema and I planned to offer--an amendment to improve aviation safety by implementing a structured, rigorous training program for prospective airline pilots.

Current training requirements for airline pilots require 1,500 hours of flight time, primarily in the cockpit, although military pilots and those with a bachelor's or associate's degree in aviation can receive credit for some of those hours.

I recognize the value of cockpit experience and see time in real aircraft as an essential part of training airline pilots, but those 1,500 hours alone are not always the ideal preparation for flying commercial jets or training truly well-rounded pilots.

For starters, the majority of the 1,500 hours are generally completed in small, single-engine aircraft, which have very little relevance to regional or large jetliners in terms of flight characteristics and instrumentation. Little to none of the currently required flight hours, which aspiring airline pilots must seek out and complete on their own, are accumulated in the type of aircraft these pilots will be flying should they get a job with an airline. In fact, current rules would theoretically allow some of those hours to be completed in a hot air balloon--not exactly preparation for flying a 787 across the ocean.

To address these deficiencies and to better prepare pilots for airline jobs, 7 years ago, the Air Carrier Training Aviation Rulemaking Committee--a body of industry, labor, and safety representatives who meet regularly under the auspices of the FAA's Office of Aviation Safety--developed and recommended the implementation of an Enhanced Qualification Program that would create a structured pathway for pilots to obtain intensive training.

That is exactly--exactly--the type of program our amendment would create. Following the recommendations of the Air Carrier Training Aviation Rulemaking Committee, our amendment would implement a 2-month Enhanced Qualification Program, designed and audited by the FAA and administered by air carriers, that would give aspiring airline pilots intensive training both in the classroom and in simulators with experienced air carrier pilots and other experts. Individuals who successfully completed the program would be given a 250-hour credit toward their restricted airline transport pilot license, similar to the credits currently given for undergraduate work in aviation.

The Enhanced Qualification Program in our amendment would significantly improve pilot training and passenger safety. As I said, intensive training in the kind of air carrier environment where prospective airline pilots will be flying is something that is largely missing from current training. Getting the chance to work closely with seasoned pilots would help turn out highly qualified pilots who are better prepared for flying commercial jets.

In addition, our program's use of simulator training, whose proven value has resulted in its extensive use by our military, would give prospective airline pilots exposure to the cockpits of the jets they would be flying and, crucially, allow them to experience what it is like to handle challenging and dangerous situations in those cockpits.

For obvious reasons, standard flight training hours don't involve deliberately flying into perilous weather conditions or dealing with things like fires or engine failure, but simulator training offers prospective airline pilots a chance to deal with all those situations and more and deal with them again and again until their response to these situations is fine-tuned.

You don't have to take my word for it. A bipartisan group of former FAA Administrators and former presidents of the Air Line Pilots Association recently sent a letter to the chairs and vice chairs of the relevant House and Senate committees wholeheartedly endorsing the kind of simulator training our amendment would provide. Let me just read a little bit from that letter, and I am quoting here:

[F]acilitating the adoption of new technologies that

enhance safety should be a bedrock principle for government

and industry alike. . . . Since the tragic crash of Colgan

Air Flight 3407 almost 15 years ago, there have been

significant advances in technology that are incorporated into

a pilot's training upon an airline hiring them, but these

technologies have not improved the 1,500-hour path to

becoming an airline pilot. Modern, state-of-the-art airline

flight simulators accurately recreate the experience of

flight operations in a fully immersive experience, forcing

pilots to encounter aircraft malfunctions, including rare

events like rapid decompressions, emergency descents, high-

speed rejected takeoffs, dual engine failures, severe icing

conditions, flight control malfunctions and full stalls, all

without placing any lives in danger.

He goes on:

Simulators also present the opportunity to incorporate

actual accident and incident scenarios into training. . . .

Like training for an athletic endeavor, a high volume of

repetitions of high-quality exercises improves performance

and ``muscle memory.'' Requiring the repeated practice of the

prevention of and recovery from myriad real-world accident

scenarios in full-motion flight simulators will make better

pilots.

Again, that comes from former FAA Administrators and presidents of the American Air Line Pilots Association.

So, as I said, that is the message that was sent to the relevant chairs and vice chairs by a bipartisan group of former FAA Administrators and Air Line Pilots Association presidents, a letter that clearly demonstrates the value of the kind of program that Senator Sinema's and my amendment would establish for improving pilot training and passenger safety--precisely what we are talking about here with respect to our amendment.

I suspect that if put to a vote in the Commerce Committee or on the Senate

floor, for that matter, there is a good chance our amendment would pass, which is presumably why the Democrat leader is blocking any chance for a vote. It is less clear why the leader is opposed to the substance of our legislation. Does he really think that we can't improve upon the 1,500 hours of training largely undertaken in a single-engine prop plane? That is the way it is today. As I said before, that is not exactly the ideal preparation for flying a commercial jet.

A program that better prepares prospective airline pilots for the planes they will be flying seems really to me like a no-brainer. But regardless--regardless--the Democrat leader has every right to oppose our amendment. What is inappropriate is not his opposition but the fact that he is using his position as majority leader to block committee debate on this amendment, which has had the practical effect of blocking the entire bill.

The Commerce Committee and the Senate as a whole are set up for debate and amendment. That is what we do here, and we take votes here. If you don't want to take hard votes, don't run for the U.S. Senate. This place is not set up with the intention of having a single individual determine legislative outcomes.

When I was chair of the Senate Commerce Committee--and I chaired that committee for 4 years--bipartisan debate and amendment were the order of the day. That is how we did things, and it helped produce a lot of strong pieces of legislation, including, I might add, the longest reauthorization of the FAA since 1982.

The last time we did an FAA reauthorization, I chaired the committee, and we brought a bill to the floor that enjoyed broad bipartisan support, which is what we ought to be doing with the legislation this time around. And if the Democrat leader would loosen his hold and stop trying to engineer the legislative outcome that he wants, we would get another bipartisan FAA reauthorization bill out of the committee and onto the Senate floor.

As the leader correctly indicated, the FAA reauthorization is--is--an important piece of legislation. So I encourage him to allow it to proceed through the committee and come to the floor of the U.S. Senate for a vote.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. President, there is nothing like summertime in South Dakota.

While I am in Sioux Falls almost every weekend, August gives me the opportunity to spend more time at home. It gives me a chance to travel South Dakota's wide-open spaces to meet with constituents and have important conversations that shape a lot of what I work on here in the Senate. It is a busy month. We covered a lot of ground this August, both figuratively and literally.

To begin with, August is fair season in South Dakota. So this year, I made it to the Turner County Fair, the Brown County Fair, where I got my usual Tubby burger, and the Sioux Empire Fair. Fairs showcase a lot of the best of South Dakota, but they are an especially big deal for our agricultural community. Whether I am serving lunch to producers at the Sioux Empire Fair's Agriculture Appreciation Day or giving an update on the farm bill at Dakotafest, which happens every year in Mitchell, SD, I appreciate opportunities to hear directly from farmers and ranchers. I do this every year, but it is especially important in a farm bill year like this one.

Many of my farm bill priorities come directly from these discussions. In fact, these discussions can often get into the weeds on policy. But the bottom line from farmers and ranchers this year was really quite simple: We need to get the farm bill done. Farmers and ranchers need certainty that the programs they depend on will be there when they need them. And finishing the farm bill is one of the most important things on the agenda for the end of this year.

Agriculture is the lifeblood of South Dakota, but there is a lot more that keeps South Dakota moving. This August, I had the chance to meet with electric cooperatives that provide power in South Dakota communities. I joined Midco Communications as they announced a new broadband expansion in the Black Hills to bring faster internet to more homes. I was on hand for the new I-29 exit 130 interchange ribbon- cutting in Brookings, SD.

Throughout the month, I also visited a lot of local businesses and talked with business owners from across the State. I visited Showplace Cabinetry in Harrisburg, SD, Load King Manufacturing in Elk Point, Dimock Cheese in Dimock, Dady Drug in Mobridge, and I met with startup leaders in Sioux Falls. We had some important conversations. It was clear that business owners are facing some headwinds at the moment.

Business leaders in Yankton, for example, discussed challenges arising from the workforce shortages in South Dakota. With unemployment at 1.9 percent in South Dakota, there are workforce challenges in just about every sector. At the Midwest Agricultural Export Summit, we talked about the importance of trade and how the Biden administration has put expanding market access on the back burner, unfortunately. Business owners across the State expressed frustration with high interest rates and higher costs. Of course, we learned last week that inflation has ticked back up. Gas prices are on the rise as well.

And a majority of Americans say the Biden administration has made the economy worse. Bidenomics is making life harder for families and businesses around the country. If the President really wanted to help working families, he would abandon the tax-and-spending agenda that has been the hallmark of his administration for the last 2\1/2\ years.

As I travel around South Dakota, I know I can depend on South Dakotans to keep me informed and South Dakota restaurants to keep me fueled. Often, August becomes a bit of a tour or a bit of, I should say, ``taste of South Dakota'' tour. Sometimes I describe it as eating my way across South Dakota--Chislic from Waddy's in Hudson, SD; a milkshake from Mr. Bob's Drive-In in Selby; coffee from Black Hills Bagels in Rapid City. There is nothing like South Dakota hospitality and a good meal to keep you going during long days.

As much as I love summer in South Dakota, I always get particularly excited when summer turns to fall because there are few things I enjoy more than cheering on South Dakota's athletes. Kids go back to school; and high schools, college teams start competing. My grandkids' sports seasons have begun in earnest. I made it to football games in Brookings for South Dakota State University and Vermillion for the University of South Dakota to support the Jackrabbits and Coyotes in a couple of big wins as their seasons get underway.

And, of course, it is not long until pheasant season comes around next month.

Winter, spring, summer, or fall, there is always something to look forward to in South Dakota. I am lucky to be a son of our State.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``nay.''

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

Mr. President, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Iowa and just say that it is long overdue that this institution gets back to regular order when it comes to processing appropriation bills. If you look at the way that you govern a country and have as much spending and debt on an annual basis as this country does, you need to do it in a way that reflects each individual bill being considered so that individual Senators--not just those on the Appropriations Committee but those in the entire Senate--have an opportunity to have their voices heard.

In the last few years, we have ended up with, as the Senator from Iowa pointed out, a huge omnibus spending bill at the end of the year put together, cobbled together, by a bunch of people in a back room. That is not the way to run a government, a government of this size and scope, with as many moving parts as we have. We need the oversight that comes with the annual appropriations process, and we need the fiscal responsibility and restraint, hopefully, that comes with a regular appropriations process.

So I would echo that and am pleased that the Senate Appropriations Committee has reported the bills out to the floor of the Senate. I would hope, now, that the Democratic leader will ensure that that is job No. 1; that is, taking up these bills and passing them in a way that reflects not only the will of our constituents, which is to have more visibility and transparency and accountability when it comes to government spending, but also a way that reflects the rights and the prerogatives that their elected representatives have to consider these things in the light of day and to have their voices heard whether they serve on the Appropriations Committee or not.

School Hunting and Archery Program Funding

Mr. President, since taking office, President Biden has not hesitated to use the power of the modern regulatory state to advance his far-left agenda, at times in contravention of the clear intent of Congress.

Take his recent decision to cancel oil and gas leases in Alaska in defiance of congressional direction or his radical interpretation and implementation of the Green New Deal provisions of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which has left one of the bill's Democratic authors deeply frustrated with the White House.

But today I want to talk about another instance of Presidential overreach, and that is the Biden administration's decision to use the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to deny Federal funding to school hunting and archery programs. The provision of the bill the administration is citing as justification for its decision denied Federal funding for training or arming teachers and school resource officers. It was not intended to prevent hunting safety training or deny students the opportunity to participate in archery programs. In fact, neither hunting nor archery is ever mentioned in the legislation. But, characteristically, the Biden administration has decided to make use of this provision to further advance its far-left agenda.

Mr. President, for the sake of the Biden administration, which frequently seems completely out of touch with rural America, let me just talk about hunting for a minute. Hunting is a venerable institution in rural communities. It is about gathering meat to fill the freezer, yes; but it is also about much more than that. It is about community, tradition, coming together around the table, conservation, and respect for the land.

My dad taught me and my siblings to hunt, and while we learned how to bag roosters, we also learned a lot of life lessons, from patience to perseverance to gun safety. I cherish those times with my dad and the times I spend today hunting with my family, friends, sons-in-law, and people on an annual basis, just to get together for an opportunity to spend time together, quality time together, in the beautiful outdoors in South Dakota.

School districts should have the choice of spending their Federal extracurricular dollars on programs that teach kids how to carry on this venerable tradition safely and responsibly.

HuntSAFE for Schools, which teaches hunting safety in South Dakota schools, uses nonfunctional guns to teach kids about hunting, with ``an emphasis on firearm safety and responsibility.''

These kinds of programs have an effect. Learning to safely handle firearms results in a decrease in firearm-related injuries and accidents. Hunting education programs have contributed to a steep decline in hunting accidents. Funding these programs in schools seems like a good thing to do to promote safer communities.

As for archery, I am going to tell you, I am at a complete loss as to why the Biden administration would seek to deny Federal funding to these programs. The National Archery in the Schools Program, which has 1.3 million students in nearly 9,000 schools in 49 States enrolled in archery programs, offers students the opportunity to experience all the benefits of an accessible and inclusive sport that teaches everything from personal excellence to perseverance.

The National Archery in the Schools Program reports that 58 percent of participating students say they feel more connected to their school, 40 percent feel more engaged in the classroom, and a whopping 91 percent pursue or want to pursue other outdoor activities as a result of their archery participation.

Once again, school districts should have the choice of spending their Federal extracurricular dollars on programs like this that unquestionably--unquestionably--meet the goal of helping to offer students a well-rounded education. And it is a use of those dollars that Congress never sought to ban, as I suspect the Biden administration is well aware and already knows.

There have already been reports of schools canceling plans to include hunting or archery education in their curricula as a result of the Biden administration's directive. The Biden administration needs to immediately reverse its decision before more programs are canceled and more kids lose out on opportunities to develop the confidence, the skills, and the sense of community that come from participating in these programs.

I have little hope that the Biden administration will rein in its radical agenda or stop using its regulatory power to impose its far- left visions, but I am grateful that both Democrats and Republicans are raising questions about this particular instance of Biden administration overreach. I hope we can continue to work to curb the Biden administration's regulatory excesses and prevent Americans from suffering the painful consequences of this President's radical policies.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, 3 weeks ago, President Biden officially launched the second part of his student loan giveaway--his dramatic overhaul of the REPAYE program, an income-driven repayment plan for Federal student loans.

The President's revamp flew under the radar a bit when it was first announced, overshadowed by his plan to forgive up to $10,000 of student loan debt outright--or $20,000 for Pell grant recipients. But the truth is that the President's new income-driven repayment plan, which he has dubbed the Saving on a Valuable Education plan--or the SAVE plan--is just as problematic, if not more, as the President's scheme to forgive student debt outright because the new SAVE plan will create a system in which the majority of future Federal borrowers will never fully repay their student loans.

The nonpartisan Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that just 24.6 percent of future borrowers will repay their loans in full--in other words, less than a quarter of borrowers.

The Department of Education estimates that borrowers with only undergraduate debt enrolled in the SAVE program can, on average, expect to pay back just $6,121 for each $10,000 they borrow. That amount the Federal Government is taking on, on average, is almost 40 percent of the cost of these undergraduates' student loans.

Let's call this what it is: It is loan forgiveness by another name. You don't have to take my word for it.

One scholar from the left-leaning Urban Institute had this to say on NPR the other day:

I think it's going to be less obvious that it's a big loan

forgiveness program to both borrowers and onlookers as well.

But, yeah, it's a big loan forgiveness program. . . . So no

longer a safety net like it has been in the past for

undergraduates--this looks more like a broad-based subsidy

for undergraduate degrees through loan forgiveness.

That, from a scholar at the left-leaning Urban Institute. Let me repeat that: ``a broad-based subsidy for undergraduate degrees through loan forgiveness.''

Or, in other words, in the words of one scholar from the American Enterprise Institute, ``a functional entitlement program'' whose costs, he adds, ``will prove difficult to control.''

I don't need to tell anyone that the problems here are myriad. Just think about it. For starters, someone is going to have to bear the cost of all these unrepaid student loans. And that someone is the American taxpayers, including taxpayers who worked hard to pay off the full balance on their own student loans, without a handout from the Federal Government, and taxpayers who worked their way through school to avoid a heavy loan burden and parents who scrimped and saved to send their children to college debt-free and individuals who covered the cost of their education by enlisting in the military and risking their lives for their country. And I could go on.

I am at a loss to understand why taxpayers, as a whole, should assume a substantial part of the educational burden for individuals, who, if they graduated from college, have greater long-term earning potential than many of the Americans who will be helping to shoulder the burdens for their debts.

And, of course, this program isn't just being offered to help undergraduate debt. No. Graduate students, including those in professional degree programs like medical school and law school, will also be eligible for the so-called SAVE program.

And I don't need to tell anyone that the lifetime earning potential of a doctor or a lawyer is usually pretty good. But leaving aside questions of fairness, let's talk about the costs of this de facto new entitlement program. Again, the Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates the SAVE program will cost roughly half a trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

We have a national debt today of $32 trillion and a Federal budget that has increased by 41 percent since 2019. Contrary to what President Biden seems to believe, we can't afford to be constantly expanding government programs. We simply don't have the money to be subsidizing the college--and graduate--education of a group of people whose earning potential will exceed the earning potential of a lot of the people subsidizing their schooling.

Perhaps the worst thing about the President's new program is that we will be spending all that money and doing nothing--nothing--to solve the real problem, and that is the high cost of a college education.

President Biden's student loan giveaway provides actually zero-- exactly

zero--incentive for colleges to contain costs. In fact, there is reason to fear that it could actually encourage colleges to raise their prices or, at least, make them significantly less reluctant to do so.

And, of course, the President's proposal does nothing to discourage students from borrowing substantial amounts of money to finance their education. Indeed, there is a good chance students will increase their borrowing as a result of the President's plan.

The President's ill-conceived student loan giveaway is a tremendous disservice to taxpayers--and a terrible move for our economic health.

As I said, it does nothing to address the real problem, which is the high cost of higher education, which is why last week, I joined Senator Cassidy to introduce a resolution of disapproval to block the President's plan. And I encourage Members of both parties to support this resolution. Anyone who cares about actually addressing the cost of higher education should oppose a program that not only fails to solve the underlying problems but is actually likely to make things worse.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz).