Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young).

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, at the end of May, Facebook announced that it would no longer censor claims that the coronavirus was man-made. The mainstream media, which had savaged the story during the previous administration, suddenly started backpedaling, and the Biden White House, which had reportedly canceled the previous administration's investigation into whether the novel coronavirus originated in a Wuhan lab, announced a 90-day inquiry into the virus's origins.

The occasion for all this backpedaling was apparently a report in the Wall Street Journal that three researchers who worked at Wuhan Institute of Virology ``sought hospital care'' in late 2019 for symptoms consistent with the coronavirus. In the wake of that report, it became impossible for the President or the mainstream media or Facebook to deny what had always been a plausible theory: that the virus came from the virology lab in Wuhan.

Journalists moved to explain their previous rejection of this theory, and some of them openly admitted what had been obvious: that they rejected the theory not because of flaws in the theory itself but because of those who had advanced this hypothesis.

We don't know what these revived investigations will ultimately show, but the Wuhan reversal illustrates multiple issues. One, of course, is the need to remember that our social media experience is heavily curated. The posts and ads we see are selected for us by complex algorithms that analyze the data social media companies have collected on each of us and curate our experience accordingly.

On top of that, as the past year or two has illustrated, social media companies actively censor certain material, meaning that there are posts we will never see.

As chairman and now ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee's Communications and Tech Subcommittee, I have pushed for transparency requirements for social media companies, and I have introduced two bipartisan bills that would increase internet transparency while preserving the light-touch approach to regulation that has allowed the internet to flourish.

My Filter Bubble Transparency Act would allow social media users to opt out of the filter bubble--in other words, to opt out of the filtered experience tailored for them by opaque algorithms--and instead see an unfiltered social media feed or search results.

The Platform Accountability and Transparency Act, which I introduced with Senator Schatz, would increase transparency and accountability around content moderation. Sites would be required to provide an easily digestible disclosure of their content moderation practices for users, and, importantly, they would be required to explain their decisions to remove material to consumers.

Under the PACT Act, if a site chose to remove your post, it would have to tell you why it decided to remove your post. The PACT Act would also require sites to have an appeals process. So if Facebook, for example, removed one of your posts, it would not only have to tell you why, but it would have to provide a way for you to appeal that decision.

Let me be clear. Private entities are free to have their own opinions and viewpoints and should not be compelled by the government to publish alternative views, but that is not what we are talking about with these large social media platforms. Most strongly deny that they are publishers and instead hold themselves forth as neutral platforms for the free exchange of ideas from all corners. That is the promise they make to consumers.

The Wuhan reversal is more than a reminder that our social media experience is actually a heavily curated one. It also raises serious questions about censorship and the maintenance of the marketplace of ideas that is a hallmark of a free society. There is no free society without the free exchange of ideas. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to speak in the public square--all of these are essential elements of a free society. The more a government or other entities crack down on freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas, the more we move away from a free society and toward tyranny.

I say ``or other entities'' because the responsibility for protecting the free exchange of ideas extends beyond the government. Government, of course, has an absolute obligation to defend our fundamental freedoms, but other institutions in society also have a role. You can't have a free society without free institutions. I am thinking here particularly of the press, universities, and in this day and age, social media companies.

If the press or social media companies only sanction one narrative-- the narrative preferred by the government or by social elites or by any other group--the marketplace of ideas shrinks substantially. If multiple groups that should be fostering the free exchange of ideas combine to limit or advance a particular narrative, they start to control public opinion instead of allowing individuals to form their own opinions based on a free flow of information.

Unfortunately, as the Wuhan story illustrates, today we are seeing a real movement to restrict the free flow of ideas. Whether we are talking about speech codes or social media censorship, more and more, we are seeing a preferred narrative being advanced and opinions outside of that preferred narrative being censored or marginalized.

We see it in government with bills like S. 1, which would, among other things, allow the IRS to consider an organization's views before deciding whether or not to grant it tax-exempt status, or the Equality Act, which would crack down on freedom of speech and freedom of religion in unprecedented ways. We see it outside government when media outlets engage in selective reporting to highlight an accepted narrative instead of reporting the news and the facts, whatever they are, or when social media censors legitimate theories or stories or when universities crack down on free speech.

In the wake of the Wuhan lab story, we saw widespread censorship across government, social media, and the press for political reasons. President Biden seemingly shut down the former President's investigation into the virus's origin because it was the former President's investigation. Democrats in Congress pressured social media companies to censor information that contradicted the narrative that they

were embracing. The mainstream media savaged the lab origin story. Social media sites censored it. And all of this happened because of the political affiliation of the people advancing this reasonable hypothesis.

You can only have a marketplace of ideas if ideas actually get out there, which is why censorship, as I have said, is antithetical to a free society. It is also important to note--and this is a critical, critical point--that having a free marketplace of ideas means allowing some ideas that might be wrong, that might seem offensive, that might seem silly. We are not talking about content that, for example, promotes violence but ideas that are provocative, debatable, or out of the mainstream. The alternative is allowing the government or some other entity to decide what information we see and what we believe.

It is important to remember that sometimes ideas that seem silly or wrong initially turn out to be right. More than one widely accepted scientific theory started out as a fringe position. A prevailing opinion may turn out to be wrong, and political or social power doesn't necessarily equal truth.

I hope that their abrupt reversal on COVID's possible origins makes media organizations and social media platforms think twice the next time they consider censoring a story. I hope it reminds them of the dangers of restricting the free flow of ideas and of their obligation to separate their politics from their jobs

In a speech he delivered in 1967, Ronald Reagan, marveling at our government by the people, said this:

Perhaps you and I have lived too long with this miracle to

properly be appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing, and

it's never more than one generation away from extinction. It

is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and

defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only

once to a people.

I fear that long acquaintance with the blessings of liberty--with the blessings of a free press and freedom of speech and freedom of religion--has sometimes made us careless about the preservation of these freedoms. We are used to them, and we assume that they will always be with us. But, as Ronald Reagan pointed out, freedom has to be actively safeguarded, or it will be lost.

I have seen too many instances lately where our cherished First Amendment freedoms are subordinated to a political and social agenda, and I hope, I hope that the Wuhan story reminds us of the responsibility that each one of us has to safeguard these freedoms, lest they slip away from us.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

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

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

Mr. President, unfortunately, predictions about the negative economic effects of the so-called American Rescue Plan seem to be coming true.

In March, Democrats pushed through this massive partisan spending bill. They claimed it was urgently needed COVID funding. In reality, the bill was filled with unnecessary spending, from a staggering $350 billion slush fund for States, a majority of which didn't need any more government money to weather the rest of the pandemic, to almost $129 billion for schools, even though schools had spent just a tiny fraction of the tens of billions of dollars Congress had already given them.

At the time, Republicans warned about the bill's level of spending. More than just one liberal economist warned about the size of Democrats' spending plan, with former Obama adviser Larry Summers noting that the bill could ``set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.''

Well, it turns out he was right to be worried. Last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its report on May's consumer prices, and the news was not good. Inflation reached its highest level in nearly 13 years, with consumer prices up 5 percent from a year ago. Core inflation, a measure of inflation that excludes food and energy prices, soared to its highest level in nearly three decades.

And what does that mean? Well, higher prices for Americans. The price of everything from bikes to bacon has shot up. Auto insurance costs 17 percent more than it did a year ago. Used cars cost 30 percent more. Shoes and whole milk cost 7 percent more. Inflation is starting to look like it could become nontransitory, or what most Americans call a serious problem.

And Democrats' government spending spree is contributing, but, of course, that is not causing Democrats to hit pause on the economic overstimulation. Democrats are looking at more trillion-plus-dollar spending bills.

The President just released a budget proposing to hike government spending by trillions of dollars over the next 10 years. Under the President's plan, the Federal budget would be $6 trillion for fiscal year 2022, rising to $8.2 trillion for fiscal year 2031. Now, to put those numbers in perspective, the entire Federal budget for 2019 came to $4.4 trillion. The President is proposing to nearly double that by 2031.

It is disturbing that the overspending in the American Rescue Plan hasn't made Democrats think twice about future government sprees, but it is not all that surprising because in the Democratic Party these days, dogma tends to triumph over reality--or practicality. Democrats are ever more fanatically committed to expanding government and taxing Americans, and they are not slowed down by little details like damaging the economy.

Take the increased unemployment benefits situation. Congress provided a Federal increase in unemployment benefits early in the pandemic when businesses were closed and workers had few alternatives to keep their families afloat, but as early as last fall, there were signs that our economy was rebounding. And with the arrival of the COVID vaccines, it became clear that America would be able to get fully back to work sooner rather than later.

But Democrats insisted on continuing the increased unemployment benefits until September of 2021, and the effect has been predictable. Despite record-high job openings, many people are declining to return to work because they can make more money staying home and drawing unemployment benefits.

Businesses hit hard by the pandemic are desperate to return to full operating capacity, but they are being slowed down by the fact that they can't find workers. In response to the worker shortage, a number of Governors around the country decided to stop accepting the Federal increase in unemployment benefits. They wanted to help businesses in their States and get their residents back to work.

And how did Democrats respond to that? Well, more than one Democrat responded by suggesting that the Federal Government step in to make sure these payments continue. That is right. Despite evidence that the increased unemployment benefits were discouraging workers from going back to work, some Democrats wanted to prevent Governors from halting these payments.

Nowhere is Democrats' devotion to dogma over reality more notable than in their proposed capital gains tax hike. Now, I don't need to tell anyone that ``tax the rich'' has become the rallying cry of the Democratic Party. And one of the ways that the President plans to tax well-off Americans is by doubling the top capital gains rate to almost 40 percent.

The problem is that a 40-percent capital gains rate substantially exceeds the revenue-maximizing rate. In nonaccountant speak, what that means is that Democrats could collect more

government revenue if they raised the capital gains tax less. Let me repeat that. Democrats could collect more government revenue if they raised the capital gains tax less.

Now, you would think that the President would want to maximize the revenue the government could collect, especially with his plans for 10 years of massive government spending, which I alluded to earlier. But in today's Democratic Party, taxing the rich is more important than maximizing government revenue, just like tax hikes on corporations are more important than making sure our economy grows and that American companies can compete on the global stage--or raising taxes is more important than passing legislation to boost American infrastructure.

That is right. The President would have reached an agreement with Republicans on a substantial infrastructure bill, but he tanked negotiations because he was insistent that any bill repeal parts of the 2017 tax reform legislation, the same legislation that had driven up wages and boosted our economy before the pandemic hit.

Democrats are so committed to taxation that they included a provision in the bloated COVID legislation that they passed specifically prohibiting State governments from using COVID relief money to cut taxes. Apparently, Democrats are fine with government payments to Americans, but allowing them to keep more of their own money is off the table.

Democrats have long been interested in higher taxes to pay for more government spending, but to today's Democrats, taxation is rapidly becoming a good in itself. Democrats are no longer just interested in raising taxes to raise revenue. If they were, they wouldn't be planning to jack up the capital gains tax rate to over 40 percent. They are interested in raising taxes because they believe that success should be punished.

In the increasingly socialist Democratic Party, it doesn't matter how hard you work to get where you are, how many people you have created jobs for, or how much good you are doing with your money; if you have been successful, you should be heavily taxed for your efforts, even if those heavy taxes actually cost the government money or hamstring the American economy.

The growing commitment in the Democratic Party to an increasingly rigid, socialist dogma is deeply disturbing, and it is certainly not limited to a fanatical commitment to taxation or spending. It embraces everything from a social agenda that is increasingly hostile to freedom of religion and freedom of speech to a fundamental belief that government knows best when it comes to how Americans run their lives.

But, for today, I am just going to limit myself to taxes and spending. Let's hope that Democrats rethink their planned government spending sprees before inflation really gets out of control and hard- working Americans end up paying the price.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

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

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse) would have voted ``nay''.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).

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

Mr. President, last night, the Air Force announced some historic news for South Dakota, and today I am proud to share that Ellsworth Air Force Base in Western South Dakota has been officially named Main Operating Base 1 for the future B-21 Bomber, home of the Raider. This designation not only means that Ellsworth will be the first base to host the B-21 Raider, but it will also host the formal training unit and the first operational squadron.

Those who have heard me talk about the importance of this decision likely know the outlook for the base wasn't so rosy 16 years ago. I had just arrived here in the Senate in 2005 when Ellsworth was placed on the base realignment and closure, or BRAC, list that May. It was an all-hands effort by the congressional delegation and Ellsworth and State and community leaders to make the case to the Bush administration and to the BRAC Commission to remove Ellsworth from the closure list.

Many thought South Dakota might not have the clout to make this stand; that we didn't wield enough influence. We were only given about a 12-percent odds of pulling through, but we were determined that we weren't going to lose Ellsworth.

We started by challenging the cost-savings assumptions of the BRAC Commission, which began to unravel under

scrutiny, and we proved it would actually cost money to close Ellsworth. We also pressed the Commissioners not to put all of our eggs in one basket when it comes to our Nation's security interests, highlighting the organizational risk of consolidating all of our B-1s at one location. The outlook was grim, but we stood our ground and we won the day and we were removed from the BRAC list that August.

But we didn't stop there. We got right to work on building up the base so that we would never again find ourselves in the same position. In 2007, we saw the Air Force Financial Services Center open at Ellsworth; 2011, saw the arrival of the 89th Attack Squadron and its command and control stations for MQ-9 Reapers. In 2015, a decade-long mission paid off with the quadrupling of the training airspace for the base. The Powder River Training Complex is now the largest training airspace in the continental United States and can be used for large- force exercises that draw combat aircraft from across the country, and it is well suited for B-21 training. This is just one of the efforts that we undertook to put Ellsworth in the best position possible to secure this new mission, and it is wonderful to see it pay off with yesterday's announcement.

I know that while South Dakota is celebrating today, others are disappointed in this decision. For those who were seeking to have the Main Operating Base 1 in their State but will now follow Ellsworth in the sequencing and wait a little longer for the B-21 mission to arrive, know this: My support for the B-21 enterprise will not lessen because we are at this milestone.

As I said, we argued 15 years ago that the United States should not put all its eggs in one basket when it comes to strategic assets. I stand by that reasoning to this day. Under the current bomber roadmap, every bomber base will keep a bomber mission well into the future. The Stealth B-21 will eventually replace our B-1s and Stealth B-2s at bases around the country. Meanwhile, our fleet of B-52s will be given new modern engines through a service life extension program. All of our bomber bases which have played and continue to play an essential role in our national security will continue to do so. Long-range strike will remain a team effort.

The core of our military strength is our men and women in uniform. They volunteer to lay down their lives, if necessary, in the service of our Nation, and it is incumbent on us here in Congress to do our part to ensure that they have the tools they need to succeed in their missions.

The B-21 is an essential part of that equation. I remind my colleagues that the United States is one of only three countries in the world that operate a strategic bomber. The other two countries are Russia and China, and they are both working to develop their own next- generation bombers. We cannot afford to cede any ground.

The B-21 is scheduled to take its first flight in 2022 and should enter service around 2027. It will replace our aging B-1s, which have proven a workhorse over the last several decades, as well as two squadrons of B-2s.

But our small bomber fleet is growing smaller. Seventeen of the most structurally fatigued B-1s are being retired this year, which has actually permitted maintainers to concentrate resources on the remaining aircraft. Flight hours are up, and the B-1 has been a key component of the new Bomber Task Force missions.

But that doesn't mean a smaller bomber force is sustainable in the long run without reinvestment and modernization. Our national security requires that the B-21 Program move full-speed ahead. Fortunately, public reports indicate the B-21 Program is on-budget and on-time. ``B- 21 speeds to IOC,'' or initial operating capacity, reads a headline recently from June 3.

In an interview, the Air Force Global Strike Commander, Gen. Timothy Ray, detailed the agile and adaptive B-21 process. He noted that adding certain capabilities to the bombers could take one-tenth of the time it has for previous airframes.

The ability to incrementally add new capabilities and upgrades, instead of being forced to make wholesale block upgrades, should keep B-21 development moving quickly. And Congress--Congress can do its part by providing stable funding for the B-21.

Now, with the record of decision for Main Operating Base 1 signed, we also need to restart in earnest on the investments necessary to prepare Ellsworth for the B-21. We can now get to work building the high-end maintenance facilities for the B-21's stealth coating, training, and operations buildings for the new missions and a secure weapons facility for the nuclear mission.

Ellsworth has come a long way since it was placed on the chopping block 16 years ago.

I am grateful to the Air Force for this decision and the hard work by so many to get us here today. From BRAC to B-21, I am humbled to have been a small part of this effort, and I remain steadfast in my support for the mission and the men and women of the 28th Bomb Wing. I can't wait to get to work on this new chapter of Ellsworth's story.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

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