John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator from Texas Mr. (Cruz) and the Senator from Tennessee Mr. (Hagerty).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator from Tennessee Mr. (Hagerty).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz) and the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, before I begin, I would like to take just a moment this morning to recognize a pillar of the South Dakota press corps who has served at WNAX in Yankton, SD, for an incredible 47 years. His name is Jerry Oster, and he truly is an institution on the media landscape in South Dakota. Jerry joined WNAX as news director in September of 1976, and he has become one of the most familiar and beloved voices on the airwaves in South Dakota. I have had many great conversations with Jerry over the years on air and off, and I can say for certain that his departure will leave a very big hole in the South Dakota radio scene. But he has more than earned his retirement, and I know that he will relish getting to spend more time with his wife Cheryl--herself just recently retired from an amazing 43 years with Farm Credit Services of America--and with his sons and their wives and his six grandchildren. Jerry, congratulations on an incredible and award-winning career, and enjoy some well-deserved rest. H.J. Res. 45 Mr. President, last August, mere days after he had signed a bill that would supposedly reduce the deficit by $238 billion, President Biden announced a student loan giveaway that is said to cost taxpayers nearly a trillion dollars over the next decade. In a Presidency distinguished by bad economic decisions, this was a particularly notable one. There are two main parts to the President's scheme. There is the outright forgiveness of $10,000 in Federal student debt--or $20,000 for Pell grant recipients--which is set to cost American taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of half a trillion dollars. Then there is the President's radical revamp of the income-driven repayment system, which will bring total cost for the President's plan somewhere close to a trillion dollars. There are a number of obvious problems with the President's plan for forgiving student debt. I say ``forgiving student debt,'' but it is more like transferring the cost of student debt for the relatively small percentage of taxpayers in this country with student debt to American taxpayers as a whole. It is something of a slap in the face to Americans who chose more affordable college options or worked their way through school to avoid taking on student loans or whose parents scrimped and saved to put them through college. It is also a slap in the face to members of the military who signed up to serve this country and earned GI bill benefits to help with tuition or training. Not to mention that negating this popular benefit could drag down recruitment and retention. And, of course, it is deeply unfair to ask the many Americans who worked hard to pay off their loans or who never pursued college in the first place to take on the burden of student debt for individuals who took out loans for college or graduate school and agreed to pay them back. And let's remember, we are asking taxpayers, at large, to foot the bill for student loan cancellation for Americans who enjoy greater long-term earning potential than many of the Americans who will be helping to shoulder the burden for their debts. The President's student loan giveaway isn't a government handout for the needy; it is a government handout that will be disproportionately beneficial to Americans who are better off. It is ironic coming from someone who claims he wants to build the economy from the bottom up and the middle out. The President's student loan giveaway is decidedly more top-down, let's face it. And speaking of the economy, Americans continue to struggle with the effects of the Democrat-driven inflation crisis that has beset our economy for most of the President's administration. Prices are up 16 percent on average since the President took office, and we are nowhere near getting back to the target inflation rate of 2 percent. What is the President's student loan plan almost guaranteed to do? In the words of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget where the President's own Treasury Secretary served on the board, the President's student loan giveaway will ``meaningfully boost inflation''--``meaningfully boost inflation.'' I have talked about the forgiveness part of the President's plan and how fundamentally unfair it is, but that is only half of the President's student loan giveaway. The other half is just as problematic because it sets up a system in which the majority of Federal borrowers will never fully repay their loans. The Urban Institute, a left-of-center think tank, estimates that just 22 percent of those with bachelor's degrees enrolled in the President's new income-driven repayment program would repay their loans in full--22 percent--and many individuals would never be required to repay a penny. And who will be footing the bill for all those student loan dollars that aren't repaid? Well, you guessed it--the American taxpayers. Needless to say, the President's income-driven repayment plan will not only fail to curtail student borrowing, it will actually encourage it. If you can reasonably expect that you won't have to fully pay back your loans, you are much more likely to feel free to borrow and to borrow liberally. And, of course, neither the President's outright student loan forgiveness nor his forgiveness masquerading as income-driven repayment will do anything to address the problem of soaring college costs. In fact, the President's student loan giveaway is likely to make the problem worse. You only have to look at what happened when Democrats forced through their $7,500 tax credit for Americans who purchased electric vehicles. Car manufacturers, not surprisingly, raised their prices by a similar amount. Similarly, if colleges can expect that the Federal Government will pick up a sizable part of the tab for their students' education, they are extremely unlikely to feel any pressing need to cut costs or to stop tuition hikes. If anything, colleges might further increase tuition and fees. Currently, the outcome of the forgiveness portion of the President's student loan giveaway is unclear. The President's legal authority for this action is dubious, and his ability to unilaterally forgive student loans has been challenged in the Supreme Court, with a decision expected within weeks. And, today, the Senate looks likely to pass a resolution that would block the forgiveness part of the President's proposal. Unfortunately, the President is guaranteed to veto the measure, and there are not enough Democrats in the House and Senate willing to override his veto. Apparently, the possibility of garnering votes from Americans with student debt is reason enough for Democrats to ignore the blatantly regressive nature of the President's student loan giveaway--and the fact that it will almost unquestionably worsen the problem of rising college costs, not to mention the fact that it will drive up inflation and balloon the deficit. I haven't even mentioned the third part of the President's student loan legacy, which is the COVID-era student loan repayment pause that President Biden has extended six times during his Presidency with no reasonable justification. That pause, which has been in place for 3 years now, costs taxpayers $5 billion per month. Fortunately, this pause is guaranteed to end thanks to the Fiscal Responsibility Act, the legislation Speaker McCarthy and President Biden agreed on to raise the debt ceiling. But while the end of the pause is a victory for taxpayers, the savings that will result pale in comparison to the tremendous costs of the President's student loan giveaway. And if the Supreme Court doesn't overturn the forgiveness portion of the President's student loan giveaway, American taxpayers will be stuck with the full nearly trillion-dollar bill. It will be one more negative economic legacy from Democrats and the Biden administration. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Abigail Johnson, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Abigail is a graduate of Roosevelt High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, she is attending the University of South Dakota in Vermillion, SD, where she is pursuing degrees in political science and psychology. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Abigail for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, it may have taken a while, but it looks like the White House may finally be coming to the debt ceiling negotiating table in a more serious way. The President has now appointed members of his staff to negotiate directly with Speaker McCarthy's team--a logical and overdue step since the passage of debt ceiling legislation depends on an agreement between the President and the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. I was also encouraged by the White House's statement after Tuesday's debt ceiling meeting, which noted that the President is ``optimistic that there is a path to a responsible, bipartisan budget agreement if both sides negotiate in good faith and recognize that neither side will get everything it wants.'' ``[A]nd recognize that neither side will get everything it wants''-- that part is very important because previously the Democrats' and the President's position was that Democrats should get everything they want and that Republicans should get nothing--an extremely unrealistic position and one that suggested Democrats did not understand the nature of divided government. So I am grateful that the President seems to be taking a more realistic view of what is necessary for an agreement. It is unfortunate that it has taken the White House this long. Speaker McCarthy has been ready to negotiate for months, and the President should have engaged seriously months ago, but better late than never. I hope that over the next few days, the two sides will be able to swiftly reach an agreement. A good place to start would be with a good, long look at the policies in the House Republicans' Limit, Save, Grow Act, which pairs a debt ceiling increase with commonsense spending reforms, things like reclaiming unspent COVID money; modestly strengthening work requirements in Federal entitlement programs for able-bodied Americans--a move, I might add, supported by more than 60 percent of the American public--in order to help individuals move from welfare to work; capping discretionary spending for next year at the fiscal year 2022 discretionary spending level--the same level we were successfully operating at mere months ago; repealing the green energy subsidies in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act, whose estimated cost has ballooned since the bill was passed; passing permitting reform--a bipartisan priority--to help get both conventional and green energy projects off the ground more quickly, which could help grow our economy; repealing the President's reckless student loan giveaway, which could otherwise end up costing American taxpayers close to $1 trillion; and other commonsense measures. The provisions of the Limit, Save, Grow Act have been the subject of a lot of fearmongering from Democrats, who have been set against including any spending reforms as part of a debt ceiling package, but these are responsible ideas worthy of consideration as part of a debt ceiling agreement or, for that matter, in any other context. Our Nation has a massive national debt--$31 trillion and counting-- and a serious spending problem, and the Limit, Save, Grow Act is a reasonable and responsible attempt to get our Nation back on a more fiscally sustainable path, saving on the order of $4.5 trillion over the next 10 years. While, as the President pointed out, neither side will get everything it wants in negotiations, I hope ideas from the Limit, Save, Grow Act will make it into a final debt ceiling agreement. Despite the President's attempts to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility, the truth is that spending under the Biden administration has reached staggering levels compared to prepandemic Federal budgets, and if we don't get spending under control, we are going to be facing some very serious economic consequences. So, as I said, I am pleased that the President seems to be taking negotiations a little more seriously. I hope he will not allow himself to be distracted by extreme members of his own party, like the individuals who are suggesting that the President attempt to raise the debt ceiling on his own, using a dubious interpretation of the 14th Amendment, if Democrats don't like the debt ceiling agreement. Debt ceiling increases have a long history of being paired with deficit reduction measures or other budgetary policy changes. In fact, 7 of the last 10 debt ceiling increases have been accompanied by budgetary reforms and policy changes. It is time for all members of the Democratic Party to recognize what the President appears now to be recognizing, and that is that in divided government, both parties have to compromise to reach an agreement, so credit to the President for acknowledging this fact. I hope--I hope--that over the next few days, we will see a deal emerge that not only raises the debt ceiling but also puts us on a more sustainable fiscal path moving forward. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``no.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``nay''.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: The Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this week is National Police Week, which is a time set aside to honor the service of our Nation's law enforcement officers, to show appreciation for the sacrifices they make to keep our communities safe, and to pay tribute to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. Being a police officer is no easy task. An ordinary day for the men and women in blue takes extraordinary character. It takes courage to run toward danger, to take on the unknown. But if you ask a police officer, he or she will usually say: It's just part of the job. That job is a vital one. I am profoundly grateful to the brave Americans who step up to protect and serve in my State of South Dakota, in Washington, DC, where the U.S. Capitol Police work to keep us, our staff, and our constituents safe, and around the country. There is no denying that law enforcement is a dangerous job. Police officers face threats and confront suffering on a daily basis, and many officers bear the visible and invisible wounds of their job. Some officers make the ultimate sacrifice--laying down their lives to protect their fellow citizens. This year's National Police Week resolution honors the memory of the 443 law enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty last year as well as the 32 lost to date this year. And my thoughts and prayers go out to their families and to their fellow officers. Being a police officer has never been easy. Over the last few years, however, steady criticism and vilification and the enduring ``defund the police'' movement have made the job a lot harder and taken a noticeable toll on morale. Police retirements and resignations are up around the country, and there aren't enough applicants to fill available openings. The police department in Asheville, NC, is down 40 percent of its budgeted positions. Cleveland, OH, has its smallest police academy class in 25 years--just nine recruits. And here in Washington, DC, the Metropolitan Police Department has fewer officers than at any time in the last 25 years. Meanwhile, crime continues to surge around the country. Here in DC, violent crime is up 13 percent from the same time last year, and property crime is up 30 percent over the same period. In Philadelphia, retail and auto theft are surging. As one article recently noted, small business owners are hoping the next mayor will make public safety a top priority. Meanwhile, in Chicago, crime is up 42 percent compared to the same time last year, driven, in part, by a staggering 131-percent increase in motor vehicle theft. And the list goes on. Surging crime is almost unquestionably being aggravated by the rise of big city prosecutors who seem uninterested in actually prosecuting crimes. Philadelphia's district attorney, for example, actually campaigned on a platform of prosecuting fewer crimes. And then there is the U.S. attorney for Washington, DC, who declined to prosecute two- thirds of arrests last year--two-thirds. DC police data say the average homicide suspect has been arrested 11 times before he or she commits a murder--11 times. Think about that. Congress has the legal authority to block DC ordinances thanks to Federal legislation rooted in the Constitution which gives Congress legislative jurisdiction over the seat of the U.S. Government. When, in the face of a crime surge, the DC City Council passed a law weakening penalties for a number of crimes, Congress intervened and successfully blocked the bill. And, yesterday, the Senate successfully passed Senator Vance's legislation to block another DC City Council measure--a measure that would make it more difficult for police officers to do their jobs and could lead to the targeting of individual officers. Between soft-on-crime policies and prosecutors and antipolice rhetoric--too often amplified or accommodated by members of the Democratic Party--it has been a difficult few years for police officers. The Biden administration has presented yet another challenge for law enforcement--the crisis at our southern border that has raged for the past 2 years thanks to the President's refusal to take border security seriously. There have been a staggering 5 million attempted illegal crossings of our southern border during the Biden administration, an average of 6,300-some individuals per day, and that doesn't even count the so-called got-aways, who are individuals the Border Patrol saw but was unable to apprehend. And those numbers got even worse last week as the Biden administration prepared to lift pandemic-era title 42 authorities, which allowed the U.S. Customs and Border Protection to quickly turn back at least some individuals at the border. Our Border Patrol agents and our Nation's border communities are overwhelmed. Border Patrol agents in San Diego, last week, arrested an Afghan national on the FBI's terror watch list, underscoring that the immigration crisis directly affects our national security and public safety. Cross-border illegal activity is making life difficult for law enforcement agencies around the country. I have talked to sheriffs in South Dakota--about as far from our southern border as you can get--who are dealing with fentanyl that has been trafficked across the border from Mexico. Last year, Minnehaha County Sheriff Mike Milstead estimated that 90 percent of fentanyl and meth in our State comes through Mexico, and that trafficking is undoubtedly being facilitated by the chaos at our southern border. Despite the many challenges they face, particularly over the past few years, law enforcement officials and officers continue working around the clock to keep our communities and our country safe. This week and every week, we need to honor their service and remember their sacrifices. And this week and every week, we need to do the work of ensuring that our laws and policies support our Nation's law enforcement officers and their jobs, that our men and women in blue have the tools and resources they need to enforce the law, and that misguided policies don't endanger our officers and stand in the way of public safety. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Gettysburg, SD, which will celebrate its quadridecacentennial on June 23-25, 2023. Gettysburg will host many special events, including a parade, vendor fair, car show, flag ceremony, banquet, and street dance. Gettysburg is nestled in the middle of the breathtaking prairie, approximately 15 miles from the mighty Missouri River in central South Dakota. It has long been known as a tightknit agricultural community with more than 1,100 residents, including many vibrant businesses and a newly built hospital. Its nationally awarded school district is home to the famous Potter County Battlers, although the phrase that is often used is that these Battlers are from the ``Gettysburg where the battle was not.'' Since its beginning 140 years ago, the community of Gettysburg continues to serve as a strong example of South Dakota values and traditions. Like countless other South Dakota towns, you will find many neighbors coming together to lend a helping hand and provide support for each other. I offer my congratulations to the citizens of Gettysburg on the quadridecacentennial celebration and wish them continued prosperity in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

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