Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 15 minutes, Senator Moran for up to 7 minutes, and Senator Tester for up to 10 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall votes.

Mr. President, before I begin, I would like to take a brief moment to wish the U.S. Army a happy 247th birthday.

I had the special honor this morning to ``fall in'' with Secretary of the Army Wormuth, Army Chief of Staff McConville, Sergeant Major of the Army Grinston, many other Army leaders, and hundreds of soldiers for some morning PT.

I appreciated the opportunity to join in the Army tradition of a birthday formation run, and it was especially humbling to run through the hallowed grounds of Arlington National Cemetery.

Any time you are in Arlington--or any national cemetery in the States, like the Black Hills National Cemetery in South Dakota, or overseas, like the Normandy American Cemetery--you are reminded of the sacrifice and legacy of our Nation's warfighters. Every name and pair of dates on a headstone tells a unique story of selfless service to our Nation.

In running over the hills and around the turns this morning, you get a better sense of the magnitude of the more than 400,000 Americans who are honored at Arlington and the collective sacrifice of all of America's heroes.

Today, the U.S. Army proudly carries on the heritage and legacy established on June 14, 1775. Our soldiers and all our men and women in uniform stand guard around the world to protect our freedoms, and they make any adversary think twice about threatening them, as the U.S. Army has done for the past 247 years.

Thank you for all of your service to our country, your professionalism, and determination, and thank you for including me today. Happy birthday to the U.S. Army.

Rural Broadband

Mr. President, as a longtime member and former chairman of the Senate

Commerce Committee and as a resident of a rural State, I have long been focused on expanding rural broadband access and ensuring that the benefits of the next wave of mobile broadband, 5G, are fully realized in rural communities.

Expanding rule broadband access has been embraced by Members on both sides of the aisle, and Congress has appropriated billions of dollars in recent years to ensure that rural communities are able to access fixed broadband. It is encouraging to see Members on both sides of the aisle supporting this goal, but there are problems. While, as I said, Congress has appropriated billions of dollars toward this goal, the Federal Government lacks an overarching broadband strategy.

As a recent Government Accountability Office report highlighted, rural broadband funding is spread out over 15 separate Agencies and more than 130 separate programs in our government. That doesn't exactly make for outstanding efficiency or coordination. What it does make for is wasted taxpayer dollars and slower progress in ensuring that our rural communities have access to broadband.

Last week, the Senate Commerce Committee's Communications Subcommittee, of which I serve as ranking member, held an oversight hearing on one of the leading Agencies charged with expanding rural broadband access and promoting wireless access, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or the acronym is NTIA. I appreciated Assistant Secretary Davidson coming to testify before the committee.

Last year, Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which provided billions of dollars to NTIA to deploy broadband services to unserved areas throughout the United States. At the time the bill was debated, I raised a number of concerns about NTIA's ability to effectively and efficiently manage such substantial funding, given NTIA's past history on expanding rural broadband services. The last time Congress provided NTIA with broadband funding--a fraction, I might add, of the funding it is now responsible for--the Agency struggled with implementation and ended up overbuilding existing broadband networks, resulting in billions of taxpayer dollars being spent with little to show. And I have to say, I have not seen a lot to convince me that NTIA will do a better job this time around.

Last month, NTIA released its Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment--or BEAD--Program. The notice contains a number of troubling components. To begin with, I am concerned that NTIA is planning to base its funding allocations on maps that don't accurately reflect which areas of the country are unserved. This creates a substantial risk of misallocating the funding Congress appropriated and, once again, overbuilding existing networks at the taxpayers' expense.

NTIA's notice also makes clear that when it comes to expanding networks, they are planning to favor certain applicants; specifically, government-run networks and nontraditional broadband providers-- entities with no proven track record in deploying broadband networks.

What NTIA should be doing is taking a neutral approach that allows equal participation from all types of broadband providers, as long as they meet the technical, financial, and operational standards to deploy networks.

Finally, especially at a time of record high inflation, the last thing any Agency should be doing is pursuing extraneous political goals that will ultimately increase the cost for providers who are deploying networks. I am disappointed that NTIA, like other Federal Agencies under this administration, is seeking to score political points with certain constituencies--in this case, by leaning into net neutrality requirements, promoting burdensome labor standards, and focusing upon climate change initiatives.

NTIA's focus on requiring broadband providers to use a unionized workforce or project labor agreement not only puts providers that do not use union workforces at a disadvantage, but it is unworkable-- unworkable--for providers in rural communities like those in South Dakota that simply don't have access to a unionized workforce.

Earlier this month, I heard firsthand from the folks who are building out networks in my home State of South Dakota about the challenges they face with respect to supply chain shortages and increased construction costs, and including unnecessary requirements in broadband contracts will only exacerbate that problem.

I will continue to urge NTIA to work with States to reduce, rather than increase, regulatory burdens so that the funding Congress provided could be used to provide broadband access to as many Americans as possible.

I also continue to work on other measures to expand broadband access in rural communities, including the Reforming Broadband Connectivity Act, which I joined colleagues from both parties to introduce last year.

This legislation will help guarantee a stable funding stream for the Federal Communication Commission's Universal Service Fund, which promotes universal access to broadband and other telecommunications services. And I am hoping--I am hoping--we can get this legislation enacted into law this year.

Having reliable rural fixed broadband services is also key in ensuring that rural communities are able to access the next wave of mobile broadband internet, 5G, and I am committed to smoothing the path for 5G services.

Mr. President, 5G offers tremendous potential for rural communities, whether it is better access to telehealth or the opportunity to implement precision agriculture. And we need to ensure that we build out 5G networks not just in cities and in suburbs but in rural communities across the United States.

I have introduced a number of bills to help keep the United States at the forefront of the 5G revolution and ensure that 5G technology makes its way to rural communities.

My STREAMLINE Act, for example, would expedite the deployment of the small cells that are needed for 5G installation, while respecting the role of State and local governments in making deployment decisions. And, importantly, it would make it more affordable to bring 5G to rural areas by addressing the costs of small cell deployment.

On the spectrum side of the equation, this year, I introduced the Spectrum Innovation Act, along with the Communications Subcommittee chair, Senator Lujan, to free up additional midband spectrum for 5G deployment, an action that will simultaneously improve 5G coverage and bring in revenue for deficit reduction.

Since freeing up additional spectrum requires proper coordination between NTIA, the FCC, and other Federal Agencies, I joined Senators Wicker, Blackburn, and Lujan to introduce the Improving Spectrum Coordination Act to ensure that our Federal partners are effectively managing our Nation's airwaves.

On the workforce side of things, my Telecommunications Skilled Workforce Act, which was enacted into law last year, is designed to help increase the number of workers enrolled in 5G training programs and identifying ways to grow the telecommunications workforce to meet the demands of 5G.

I will continue to work to support every part of the 5G equation-- from physical technology to spectrum, to a 5G workforce--so that the United States can stay at the forefront of this internet revolution. I will also continue to make fixed broadband and 5G access in rural communities a priority.

Too often, rural areas, like those in my home State of South Dakota, have lagged behind when it comes to getting the most modern internet technology, and I am committed to ensuring that the full benefits of next-generation technologies make their way to rural communities.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-

Smith), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde- Smith), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

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

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. President, former Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, in writing with Jared Cohen, once said:

Modern technology platforms [are] even more powerful than

most people realize [and that] our future world will be

profoundly altered by their adoption and successfulness in

societies everywhere.

There is no question that Big Tech plays an ever increasing role in our lives. I imagine most of us wouldn't even be able to count the number of times a day we interact with technology platforms, from checking our email to spending time on social media to searching on Google, and the pandemic only accelerated that trend as our reliance on technology for everything from social connection to food delivery increased.

I don't need to tell anyone that technology platforms offer lots of benefits. They are sources of entertainment and information. They make it easier to stay close to distant loved ones. They allow us to shop, to conduct business, and to connect with friends, and to advocate for causes that we believe in.

But I also don't need to tell anyone that technology platforms have a more problematic side as well. One big problem arises from the increased ability Big Tech has to shape the information we see through the use of opaque algorithms. Gone are the days when you logged into Facebook and just consumed content that had been posted chronologically since your previous login. Now, Facebook and other social media platforms use algorithms to shape your news feed and provide suggestions for additional content, emphasizing posts that the platforms think you will be interested in and deemphasizing other posts.

Now, obviously, algorithms are not all bad. Most of us like it when YouTube automatically plays another video by our favorite band instead of switching to something completely unrelated. But if a 15-year-old kid watches a video and then YouTube's algorithms lead him or her down a path of inappropriate videos--well, I think you could see that is a problem.

A 2021 Wall Street Journal investigation into TikTok revealed how easy it is for young users to be bombarded with inappropriate and disturbing content. And thanks to limited or opaque disclosures, people are often not aware of just how much their experience on technology platforms is being shaped by opaque algorithms.

When we search for something on Google, most of us don't spend a lot of time thinking about the fact that Google is tailoring our search results to what it thinks we want to see or what it wants us to see. But the fact of the matter is that almost all of the information being presented to us by Big Tech platforms like social media and Google is being filtered and tailored to us. And while, again, this can have a positive side, it can also have negative consequences, ranging from political polarization to addictive behavior.

As technology platforms play an ever more dominant role in our lives, I believe platforms should be required to make users aware of the fact that an algorithm is controlling the content they see. To that end, I have offered multiple pieces of legislation to increase Big Tech's transparency and to give consumers more control over their experience.

My bipartisan Filter Bubble Transparency Act would require large- scale internet platforms to notify users that the content they are seeing has been selected for them by secret algorithms, creating a unique universe of information for each user--a phenomenon that is often referred to as the ``filter bubble.'' Platforms would also be required to give users the choice to switch to a version of the platform that is filter bubble-free.

I have also introduced the bipartisan Platform Accountability and Transparency Act--or the PACT Act--to shed greater light on the secretive content moderation processes internet platforms use.

The PACT Act would require internet platforms to prepare biannual transparency reports outlining material that they have removed from their sites or chosen to deemphasize. These reports would have to be made available to the public and not in intentionally complicated legalese. Platforms would have to provide clearly understandable versions of these reports to consumers.

The PACT Act would require technology platforms to provide consumers with greater due process when it comes to content these platforms remove or otherwise moderate. So if Facebook, for example, removed one of your posts, it would have to tell you why and would have to provide a way for you to appeal that decision.

Today, I am introducing a third piece of legislation to increase transparency and accountability at Big Tech. This bill is called the Political Bias in Algorithm Sorting Emails Act, otherwise known as the Political BIAS Emails Act. The Political BIAS Emails Act is intended to address the problem political campaigns on both sides of the aisle have faced in getting their campaign emails to Americans.

A recent study from North Carolina State University found that during the 2020 election, Google's Gmail--the largest email provider in the United States--sent greater numbers of Republican campaign emails to spam folders, while Yahoo! and Outlook sent greater numbers of Democratic campaign emails to spam, albeit by lesser margins than Google did for Republican campaign emails. Well, that is a problem.

Americans should have access to political communications from both parties so that they can make their own informed decisions on what candidates they wish to support. Disproportionately filtering out information from candidates of one party--or from a certain candidate within a particular political party, as happened during the Democratic Presidential primary--skews the information available to Americans.

I do not believe that Big Tech should be deciding what information individuals receive. Americans are free to opt out of whatever email communications they wish, including political communications, but Big Tech should not be making that decision for them. My Political BIAS Emails Act would prohibit email services from using filtering algorithms on emails sent from political campaigns where the candidate is running from Federal office.

Gmail and other email services' inboxing practices are a black box to consumers, and they operate with very little accountability. To address this, my legislation would require email services to submit transparency reports noting the number of emails from both Republican and Democratic campaigns flagged as spam, as well as provide information to political campaigns on request to help ensure that voters are receiving relevant information on every candidate's policy positions.

This legislation would help ensure that Americans and not Big Tech--I emphasize not Big Tech--are making the decisions on what campaign communications they want to receive.

Internet platforms have enhanced Americans' lives in a number of ways, as I have already mentioned. But as these platforms play an ever- greater role in shaping the information we receive, it is vital that we insist on adequate transparency and ensure that Americans are given the opportunity to opt out of the filter bubble. American people ought to be in charge of what they see, not Big Tech companies.

I will continue to work to advance the various bills that I have introduced to promote greater transparency in Big Tech. And as ranking member of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband, I will continue to focus on ways to ensure that Big Tech is accountable to consumers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, former Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, in writing with Jared Cohen, once said:

Modern technology platforms [are] even more powerful than

most people realize [and that] our future world will be

profoundly altered by their adoption and successfulness in

societies everywhere.

There is no question that Big Tech plays an ever increasing role in our lives. I imagine most of us wouldn't even be able to count the number of times a day we interact with technology platforms, from checking our email to spending time on social media to searching on Google, and the pandemic only accelerated that trend as our reliance on technology for everything from social connection to food delivery increased.

I don't need to tell anyone that technology platforms offer lots of benefits. They are sources of entertainment and information. They make it easier to stay close to distant loved ones. They allow us to shop, to conduct business, and to connect with friends, and to advocate for causes that we believe in.

But I also don't need to tell anyone that technology platforms have a more problematic side as well. One big problem arises from the increased ability Big Tech has to shape the information we see through the use of opaque algorithms. Gone are the days when you logged into Facebook and just consumed content that had been posted chronologically since your previous login. Now, Facebook and other social media platforms use algorithms to shape your news feed and provide suggestions for additional content, emphasizing posts that the platforms think you will be interested in and deemphasizing other posts.

Now, obviously, algorithms are not all bad. Most of us like it when YouTube automatically plays another video by our favorite band instead of switching to something completely unrelated. But if a 15-year-old kid watches a video and then YouTube's algorithms lead him or her down a path of inappropriate videos--well, I think you could see that is a problem.

A 2021 Wall Street Journal investigation into TikTok revealed how easy it is for young users to be bombarded with inappropriate and disturbing content. And thanks to limited or opaque disclosures, people are often not aware of just how much their experience on technology platforms is being shaped by opaque algorithms.

When we search for something on Google, most of us don't spend a lot of time thinking about the fact that Google is tailoring our search results to what it thinks we want to see or what it wants us to see. But the fact of the matter is that almost all of the information being presented to us by Big Tech platforms like social media and Google is being filtered and tailored to us. And while, again, this can have a positive side, it can also have negative consequences, ranging from political polarization to addictive behavior.

As technology platforms play an ever more dominant role in our lives, I believe platforms should be required to make users aware of the fact that an algorithm is controlling the content they see. To that end, I have offered multiple pieces of legislation to increase Big Tech's transparency and to give consumers more control over their experience.

My bipartisan Filter Bubble Transparency Act would require large- scale internet platforms to notify users that the content they are seeing has been selected for them by secret algorithms, creating a unique universe of information for each user--a phenomenon that is often referred to as the ``filter bubble.'' Platforms would also be required to give users the choice to switch to a version of the platform that is filter bubble-free.

I have also introduced the bipartisan Platform Accountability and Transparency Act--or the PACT Act--to shed greater light on the secretive content moderation processes internet platforms use.

The PACT Act would require internet platforms to prepare biannual transparency reports outlining material that they have removed from their sites or chosen to deemphasize. These reports would have to be made available to the public and not in intentionally complicated legalese. Platforms would have to provide clearly understandable versions of these reports to consumers.

The PACT Act would require technology platforms to provide consumers with greater due process when it comes to content these platforms remove or otherwise moderate. So if Facebook, for example, removed one of your posts, it would have to tell you why and would have to provide a way for you to appeal that decision.

Today, I am introducing a third piece of legislation to increase transparency and accountability at Big Tech. This bill is called the Political Bias in Algorithm Sorting Emails Act, otherwise known as the Political BIAS Emails Act. The Political BIAS Emails Act is intended to address the problem political campaigns on both sides of the aisle have faced in getting their campaign emails to Americans.

A recent study from North Carolina State University found that during the 2020 election, Google's Gmail--the largest email provider in the United States--sent greater numbers of Republican campaign emails to spam folders, while Yahoo! and Outlook sent greater numbers of Democratic campaign emails to spam, albeit by lesser margins than Google did for Republican campaign emails. Well, that is a problem.

Americans should have access to political communications from both parties so that they can make their own informed decisions on what candidates they wish to support. Disproportionately filtering out information from candidates of one party--or from a certain candidate within a particular political party, as happened during the Democratic Presidential primary--skews the information available to Americans.

I do not believe that Big Tech should be deciding what information individuals receive. Americans are free to opt out of whatever email communications they wish, including political communications, but Big Tech should not be making that decision for them. My Political BIAS Emails Act would prohibit email services from using filtering algorithms on emails sent from political campaigns where the candidate is running from Federal office.

Gmail and other email services' inboxing practices are a black box to consumers, and they operate with very little accountability. To address this, my legislation would require email services to submit transparency reports noting the number of emails from both Republican and Democratic campaigns flagged as spam, as well as provide information to political campaigns on request to help ensure that voters are receiving relevant information on every candidate's policy positions.

This legislation would help ensure that Americans and not Big Tech--I emphasize not Big Tech--are making the decisions on what campaign communications they want to receive.

Internet platforms have enhanced Americans' lives in a number of ways, as I have already mentioned. But as these platforms play an ever- greater role in shaping the information we receive, it is vital that we insist on adequate transparency and ensure that Americans are given the opportunity to opt out of the filter bubble. American people ought to be in charge of what they see, not Big Tech companies.

I will continue to work to advance the various bills that I have introduced to promote greater transparency in Big Tech. And as ranking member of the Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband, I will continue to focus on ways to ensure that Big Tech is accountable to consumers.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the latest inflation numbers came out on Friday, and it has become par for the course in the Biden economy that they weren't pretty.

Inflation hit 8.6 percent in May, the worst inflation since December of 1981. Grocery prices increased nearly 12 percent on average. Eggs were up 32 percent; chicken was up 17 percent; milk was up 15 percent; and the list goes on and on.

Gas prices were up 48 percent. Since President Biden took office, the price of gas has more than doubled. Gas is at $5 a gallon, and the price of diesel, so essential to our Nation's farmers and ranchers, is even worse. The problem is, there is no end in sight. JPMorgan estimates that gas prices could exceed $6 a gallon by August. Other energy costs have also increased with electricity up 12 percent and utility gas service up 30 percent.

By one estimate, inflation is costing American households $460 per month. That is right: $460 per month. It is no surprise that in a recent poll, 83 percent of respondents--83 percent--describe the state of the economy as ``poor'' or ``not so good'' or that just 27 percent said they have a good chance of improving their standard of living.

President Biden likes to talk about creating ``an economy that works for working families.'' Well, I have news for the President. This economy is not working for working families. Working families can't absorb an additional $460 a month. They have to cut back. They have to put off needed car repairs or eliminate a family vacation or cut down on milk for their kids. The President said the other day that ``[the economy] is strong as can be but for inflation, but for gas and food.''

But for gas and food? Well, I have to tell you, gas and food prices are two pretty essential economic measures for families.

Moms and dads wondering how they can afford to fill up their cars to get to work or get their kids to baseball practice don't care how good the President says the economy is when the price of a tank of gas has more than doubled since the President took office.

I guess we can at least be glad the Democrats and the President have finally started acknowledging our inflation crisis. For months last year, as inflation climbed, the administration dismissed those concerns. Even as it became more and more clear that we had a long-term problem on our hands, the President and congressional Democrats spent their time focusing not on solutions to our inflation crisis but on a massive spending spree almost guaranteed to make our inflation problem worse.

That is right. Let's remember how we got here. When President Biden took office, inflation was at 1.4 percent, well within the Fed's target inflation rate of 2 percent. And it might have stayed there had Democrats not decided to pass a massive and partisan $1.9 trillion spending spree under the guise of COVID relief mere weeks after the Congress had passed a fifth bipartisan COVID bill that met essentially all current pressing COVID needs.

The Democrats' so-called American Rescue Plan sent a lot of unnecessary government money into the economy, and the economy overheated as a result.

And you don't have to take my word for it.

Here is what one Democratic economist who worked in the Obama administration had to say on the subject:

The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan passed in the early

days of the Biden administration will go down in history as

an extraordinary policy mistake.

Let me just repeat that.

The $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan passed in the early

days of the Biden administration will go down in history as

an extraordinary policy mistake.

That is a direct quote from a Democratic economist who worked in the Obama administration.

Democrats were warned that the American Rescue Plan ran the risk of overstimulating the economy, but they went ahead anyway. What is almost worse was their subsequent decision to pursue another massive spending spree, their so-called Build Back Better plan, even after it had become clear that their first spending spree had helped plunge our economy into a serious inflationary crisis.

Even now--even now--as Americans deal with the worst inflation in decades, it is looking like Democrats are trying to revive elements of their Build Back Better plan and use reconciliation rules to pass yet another partisan spending spree. It is the triumph

of Big Government ideology over economic reality. If Democrats succeed in passing another partisan spending spree using reconciliation rules, Americans' economic situation is going to get even worse.

Unfortunately, there is no easy solution to the Democrats' largely self-inflicted inflation crisis, but the first priority is to do no more harm. That means no more partisan spending sprees like the Democrats' Build Back Better plan.

Another big priority should be unleashing American energy production--in particular, the domestic production of oil and gas--to ease energy prices. High gas and energy prices fuel higher consumer prices across the board--no question about it. Unleashing American energy production would not only help reduce the price of gas, but it could also help rein in prices for other commodities. Unfortunately, the President has demonstrated a clear hostility to conventional energy production, which is discouraging investment in American energy and prolonging the current gas price situation.

Another thing we should be doing to help make life easier for consumers is trying to ease supply chain woes whether that involves removing burdensome trucking regulations or passing legislation like my Ocean Shipping Reform Act.

I am pleased that both Democrats and Republicans have come together to support my bipartisan bill, which I introduced, along with Senator Klobuchar, earlier this year. I am particularly grateful to my fellow South Dakotan, Representative Dusty Johnson, who helped usher this legislation through the House of Representatives.

The Ocean Shipping Reform Act would help ease supply chain pressures by addressing unfair ocean carrier practices, speeding up the resolution of detention and demurrage disputes, and improving the movement of goods at our Nation's ports. It won't solve our Nation's inflation crisis, but it should help make life easier for U.S. exporters, importers, and consumers alike.

I am very pleased that this legislation passed the House of Representatives yesterday and that it will soon be on its way to the President's desk, and I hope that we will be able to pursue more bipartisan propositions to help make life easier for American families.

Democrats' big-spending, Big Government agenda has resulted in a lot of pain for working families. If President Biden and Democrats really want to make life better for ordinary Americans, they will decisively reject any further spending sprees and work with Republicans to do what we can to alleviate the inflation crisis the Democrats have helped create.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

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

Madam President, before I begin, I would like to express my dismay at House Democrats' decision last night to block legislation to provide enhanced security for Supreme Court Justices and their families.

Due to the unprecedented leak of an early draft of the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision and the resulting hysteria from members of the pro-abortion left, the Supreme Court asked Congress for additional authorities to protect Justices' families. This happened 4 weeks ago. And yesterday's arrest of an armed man near Justice Kavanaugh's home--a man who told police that he intended to kill a Supreme Court Justice and has been charged with attempted murder--made clear just how needed that protection is.

The Supreme Court security legislation in question passed the Senate unanimously 4 weeks ago but has faced inexplicable delays in the House of Representatives.

This should not be a partisan issue. The Senate Democratic Whip said just yesterday that the House should pass this legislation.

And I really thought that yesterday's arrest of an individual bent on assassinating a Supreme Court Justice would have forced House Democrats to abandon political gains and provide this urgently needed protection.

There is no excuse for further delay. One press report suggests that Democrats may be rethinking their opposition. I hope that is true. House Democrats should abandon the political games today and pass this legislation.

Student Loans

Madam President, recent reporting suggests that President Biden may be contemplating forgiving $10,000 in Federal student loan debt per borrower. That is a bad idea for many reasons. It is difficult really to know where to start, but let me begin by pointing out the obvious: that forgiving $10,000 in Federal student loan debt will do absolutely nothing to address the underlying problem and, in fact, would likely make things much worse.

The price of higher education has risen stratospherically in recent decades. The cost of 1 year of attendance at some colleges--just 1 year--is more than many Americans' yearly salaries. And that is a problem. But forgiving $10,000 of student loan debt would do absolutely nothing to fix the problem of soaring tuition costs. As I said, it would very likely make things worse.

What incentive would colleges have to rein in costs if they could be confident that part of their students' bill would eventually be picked up by the Federal Government; because, of course, no one should be deceived into thinking that student loan forgiveness would be a one- time thing?

One estimate suggests that the student loan burden in this country would return to its current amount within 4 years--4 years--of $10,000 in debt being forgiven, and calls to forgive more debt would undoubtedly come much sooner.

Future graduates are very likely to want the same deal that would be offered to graduates today--the wiping away of $10,000 in debt--which brings us to another problem: some students opting to take on unrealistic levels of debt to finance their educations.

How much greater is that problem going to be if students think that the Government is likely to step in and forgive some of the debt that they have agreed to repay? It is very easy to imagine a student feeling free to take on more debt than he or she otherwise would, believing that the Government is likely to reduce the resulting debt burden.

Another massive problem with President Biden's plan is, of course, its complete unfairness. Under President Biden's plan, an individual who just finished paying his or her student loans after years of work would not receive a penny. Meanwhile, a student who graduated a month ago and hasn't yet paid a dime on his or her loans could see a substantial part of his or her debt wiped away.

The President's plan is also incredibly unfair to the tens of millions of Americans without any student loan debt who would be asked to subsidize a student loan debt of a small percentage of Americans. Somewhere around two-thirds of millennials have no student debt, either because they didn't attend college or didn't take out any loans to attend college. The president's plan is unfair to those who avoided loans by working their way through school or choosing a lower-cost college option. It is unfair to parents who worked for years to ensure that they could finance their kids' education. And it is unfair to those who chose not to attend a traditional 4-year college and, instead, trained in one of the many essential trades we depend on, from plumbing to air conditioning to broadband installation, at a significantly lower-cost community college or technical school.

Another problem with the President's plan is what it would teach about the sanctity of contracts. While it may, at times, be ill- advised, students freely enter into the agreements when they take out a loan. Should we really be teaching that agreements and contracts mean nothing, that people can incur debt and then not have to pay it off?

Another important point to make here is that the average debt for undergraduate education in this country is not as crippling as it might be portrayed. Now, there is no question that there are students out there who were encouraged to take on unrealistic levels of debt and are currently struggling with huge debt burdens made up of private as well as Federal loans, but the average debt, the average debt for an undergraduate education is somewhere around $29,000. That is not chump change, for sure, but it is also not an unmanageable level of debt for the average college graduate--especially with the availability of extended repayment plans and income-driven repayment programs.

Average student loan debt rises substantially for those with advanced degrees, and there are certainly those who take on far too much debt for graduate education, but it is also important to know that those with advanced degrees have higher--and in some cases much higher-- earning potential.

Doctors, for example, take on medical debt north of $190,000 on average, but once they have completed their education and training they can expect to make a robust--sometimes a very robust--six figures per year, making repaying debt of that size a very feasible proposition.

There is no question that the cost of higher education is out of control and that students sometimes take on unrealistic levels of debt to pay for it. But forgiving student loan debt is not the answer for the reasons I have mentioned, among others. Instead, we should be exploring ways to drive down education costs.

We should be also highlighting affordable education options like our Nation's community colleges and technical schools. These institutions, like the outstanding tech schools we have in South Dakota, provide students with associate's degrees, certificates, apprenticeships, opportunities to learn a trade, and more.

There are also things we can do to help students pay off loans without forcing taxpayers to shoulder the burden. In December of 2020, Congress passed a 5-year version of legislation that I introduced with Senator Warner to allow employers to help employees repay their loans. Our Employer Participation in Repayment Act amends the Educational Assistance Program to permit employers to make tax-free payments on their employees' student loans. It is a win for employees, who get help paying off their student loans. And it is a win for employers who have a new option for attracting and retaining talented workers.

Our bill isn't a cure-all, but it will certainly help ease the pain of paying back student loans for a number of Americans. I am pleased that it was enacted into law for a 5-year period, and I hope at some point Congress will act to make it permanent.

Another big thing we can do, of course, is to make sure that graduates have access to good-paying jobs. This is key to enabling people to pay off their debt, and we should resolve to build on the economic progress that we had made prepandemic and focus on policies that will allow our economy to thrive.

Republicans are not alone in thinking that forgiving $10,000 in student loan debt is fraught with problems. As one Democrat Senator said:

An across-the-board cancellation of college debt does

nothing to address the absurd cost of college or fix our

broken student loan program. It offers nothing to Americans

who paid off their college debts or those who chose a lower-

priced college to go to as a way of avoiding going into debt

or taking on debt. . . . [R]really importantly, it ignores

the majority of Americans who never went to college, some of

whom have debts just as staggering . . .

That is from one of our Democrat colleagues here in the Senate.

The New York Times editorial board, not exactly known for toeing the Republican line, noted:

Canceling this debt, even in the limited amounts the White

House is considering, would set a bad precedent and do

nothing to change the fact that future students will graduate

with yet more debt--along with the blind hope of another,

future amnesty. Such a move is legally dubious, economically

unsound, politically fraught and educationally problematic.

That was from the New York Times editorial board.

With inflation near a 40-year high, with the President's approval rating hitting a new low, and with Democrats' prospects for November looking less rosy, it is not exactly surprising that the President would look toward student loan forgiveness as a way of distracting voters or that some Democrats are reportedly pushing for student loan forgiveness as a way to boost their chances in November; but I very much hope that the President will decide that temporary political gain is not a good reason to put American taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars in student loan debt that is not their own.

As the New York Times noted, the President's plan is ``legally dubious, economically unsound, politically fraught, and educationally problematic.''

I strongly, strongly encourage the President to abandon a plan that even the Democratic Speaker of the House has suggested he doesn't have the authority to implement.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).