John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. THUNE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last week's Judiciary Committee hearing gave Senators the opportunity to hear directly from President Biden's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, to help them decide whether she is an appropriate candidate for the Nation's highest Court. My approach to deciding whether or not to vote for a Supreme Court nominee or any judicial nominee is pretty simple. I look at the character and qualifications, and most of all, I look at the question of whether the nominee understands the limited role of the judiciary and the separation of powers. Our Federal Government, of course, has three distinct branches: the legislative branch, which makes the laws; the executive branch--the President and executive Departments--which executes the laws; and the judiciary, which interprets the laws. Pretty simple, right? Civics 101. Too often, however, our colleagues on the left look to the judiciary to usurp the role of the legislative branch. They look for activist judges who will not just interpret the law but who will go beyond the law to deliver the policy outcomes that liberals are interested in, whether that is an aggressive abortion agenda, restraint of the free exercise of religion, or liberals' preferred approach to immigration. President Biden, for example, specifically noted that he would only appoint judges who could be relied on to rule in favor of Roe v. Wade and a right to abortion. Well, that is a big problem because delivering specific political outcomes is not the job of the judicial branch. In our system of government, policy decisions are vested in the legislative branch and are made there by the people's democratically elected representatives. Judges have discretion in applying the laws, but their discretion is to be guided by the plain text of the law and by the intention of the people's representatives in drafting the statute. Otherwise, we end up not with government of the people but with government by an unelected, unaccountable group of judges. President Biden has unfortunately placed himself squarely in the camp of those who would like to see the judiciary take an active role in making policy. ``The people that I would appoint to the Court,'' President Biden said during his campaign for President, ``are people who have a view of the Constitution as a living document, not as a staid document.'' Well, let me just talk about that for a minute. What is a Constitution if not a staid document? If there is no fixed meaning to the Constitution, if it can be stretched and adjusted and expanded by judges at their discretion, then why have a Constitution? The whole point of the Constitution--of written law in general, I would argue--is that it is fixed, ``staid,'' to quote the President. The rule of law, equal justice under the law--these concepts rely on the idea that the law has a fixed meaning, that there is one law that applies equally to everyone. If the Constitution does not have a fixed meaning, it cannot be the supreme law of the land. It cannot be a guide to which we can all appeal. A living Constitution is a meaningless one. Of course that doesn't mean that the Constitution will always stay exactly the same. There is a process, as we all know, for amending the Constitution so that needed changes can be made. But these changes have to be made through the amendment process, with the concurrence of three-fourths of the States. That is not what the President is talking about. When the President talks about a living Constitution, he is not talking about periodically amending the Constitution via the process laid out within the Constitution itself; what he is talking about is nominating judges who will take it upon themselves to amend the Constitution through their rulings by finding new rights and authorities as needed to advance a particular political agenda. That is deeply concerning, particularly when we are talking about a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land. Unfortunately, after watching last week's Judiciary Committee hearing and examining Judge Jackson's record, I am concerned that her jurisprudence reflects President Biden's belief in an activist judiciary. As has become clear, Judge Jackson has a strong point of view when it comes to sentencing guidelines in certain cases. That is not in and of itself a problem, of course. Judges can and do have strong opinions about any number of issues that come up in the law. What is a problem is it seems that Judge Jackson has allowed her personal opinions to shape her judicial decisions. For example, as a Federal trial judge, she repeatedly chose to reject sentencing guidelines and the recommendations of prosecutors in favor of lenient sentences for those who possess and distribute child pornography. It appears that she had a record of advocating for leniency with respect to these types of crimes during her time at the U.S. Sentencing Commission and that she then applied those opinions to her sentencing practices when she became a Federal judge. For this reason and more, I am deeply concerned that her record suggests that she would allow her personal opinions on issues like sentencing to shape her decisions on the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court Justice's allegiance must be to the plain words of the law and the Constitution, not to any personal political opinion, and I am not convinced that Judge Jackson meets that standard. My concern has only been heightened by Judge Jackson's inability or refusal to define her judicial philosophy. It should not be difficult for a nominee to the Supreme Court to lay out her theory of constitutional interpretation. Given how often her strong personal opinions have appeared to influence her decisions as a judge and absent a clearly expressed judicial philosophy that rejects personal opinion in favor of the plain meaning of the law and the Constitution, I am concerned that her judicial approach would follow the ``living Constitution'' model that President Biden embraces. Finally, I was deeply concerned by Judge Jackson's refusal to reject Court packing. Court packing, of course, is a long-discredited idea that has been revived by members of the far left and increasingly embraced by the Democratic Party. The idea behind it is simple. If the Supreme Court isn't delivering the decisions you want, expand the number of Justices until you can be pretty sure you will get your preferred outcomes. The problems with this approach are obvious, starting with the question, where does it end? It is easy to envision a Democrat-led Congress packing the Court with additional Democrat-selected Justices and then a Republican-led Congress coming in and matching those new Justices with additional Republican-appointed Justices and on and on and on. Pretty soon, the size of the Supreme Court would be approaching the size of the U.S. Senate. I can think of no approach more guaranteed to bring about a complete delegitimization of the Supreme Court. Do Democrats seriously think that there is any--any--American who would regard the Supreme Court as a nonpartisan institution after it had been packed full of Democrat Justices or, if it were Republicans who were advancing this Court-packing plan, with Republican Justices? Court packing would instantly turn the Supreme Court into nothing more than a partisan extension of the legislative branch, which is why it is so concerning that Judge Jackson has repeatedly--repeatedly--declined to oppose it. Both Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer spoke out against Court packing during their time on the Supreme Court, so this is a subject on which Judge Jackson can and should have felt free to speak. That she did not do so only underscored my concern that she is too open to allowing politics to shape the judiciary. I enjoyed meeting with Judge Jackson, and I respect her achievements, but I cannot in good conscience vote for a Supreme Court Justice whose record indicates that she will allow her personal political opinions to shape her judicial decisions. The rule of law depends upon having Justices who decide cases based on the plain meaning of the law and the Constitution, not on personal beliefs or political considerations. I can only vote to confirm a Justice who I believe will respect the separation of powers and the limited role of a Justice and refuse to allow her personal opinions to influence her decisions on the Bench. For these reasons, I cannot support Judge Jackson's confirmation to the Supreme Court. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. 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 text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the Biden border crisis continues. In February, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 164,973 individuals attempting to cross our southern border illegally--a 63- percent increase from a year ago and the highest February number in more than 20 years. Border encounters in February over the past decade or so have generally been low, with numbers far under 100,000--but not since President Biden was inaugurated. Almost from the day the President took office, our Nation has been experiencing an unprecedented border surge. In fiscal year 2021, the Border Patrol encountered more than 1.7 million individuals attempting to cross our southern border--the highest number ever recorded. We have had 12 straight months of border encounters in excess of 150,000. And these numbers only reflect individuals the Border Patrol has succeeded in apprehending. There is no question that many other illegal immigrants have crossed the border in the past year without being apprehended and have disappeared into the United States. The situation at our southern border is out of control--it is a security crisis, it is a humanitarian crisis, and it is an enforcement crisis. Our Border Patrol officers have done heroic work this past year, but they are stretched incredibly thin and are having to spend too much time caring for migrants and not enough time patrolling the border. This sharply increases the risk that dangerous individuals--from terrorists to drug smugglers to human traffickers--will slip across our southern border and into the country unnoticed. And apart from the serious security concerns that go along with not knowing who is entering our country, allowing this border crisis to continue also presents serious humanitarian concerns. There is nothing compassionate about encouraging individuals to undertake the dangerous journey to our southern border, to run the risk of exploitation and disease and exposure. Unfortunately, neither humanitarian nor security concerns have moved President Biden to meaningfully address this border crisis. Every month, we see massive numbers of individuals attempting to cross our southern border, and every month, the White House just doesn't seem to care. The President travels regularly, including regular weekends away from the White House, but he can't seem to bring himself to visit the border and see the situation firsthand. It is a disturbing abdication of responsibility from the man charged with defending our Nation's security. And let's remember, the President isn't just ignoring this border crisis; he is partly, if not largely, responsible for it. Immediately upon taking office, the President took steps that weakened our Nation's border security. On his first day in office--very first day in office--President Biden rescinded the declaration of a national emergency at our southern border. He halted construction of the border wall. And he revoked a Trump administration order that called for the government to faithfully execute our immigration laws--all on the first day. And the President's Department of Homeland Security also issued guidelines that same day pausing deportations except under certain conditions. The effect of all this was to declare to the world that the United States borders were effectively open. And Border Patrol numbers ticked up accordingly, not surprisingly. And the President's anti-border security efforts didn't end there. The President has significantly limited the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection to enforce immigration laws. Deportations dropped precipitously during fiscal year 2021, as did arrests in the interior of the country. And earlier this week, the administration rescinded a 2019 rule expanding expedited removal for individuals here illegally. The administration is also, reportedly, expected to end its title 42 COVID-19 restrictions, which have provided for the immediate deportation of those who have crossed the border illegally. The result is almost guaranteed to be an even larger surge at our southern border, taking the situation from disaster to utter catastrophe. One media outlet reports that ``Department of Homeland Security intelligence estimates that perhaps 25,000 migrants already are waiting in Mexican shelters just south of the border for Title 42 to end.'' And there is no sign--no sign--that the administration has any substantive plan for how to deal with the resulting surge or how to deal with the enhanced criminal activity from drug smuggling to human trafficking that would likely accompany this influx. I get that President Biden would prefer to pretend that this crisis at our southern border does not exist, but it does exist, and as President, he has the responsibility to address it. He needs to get serious about fulfilling that duty for the sake of our Nation's security and for the sake of all those who are being encouraged by his lax immigration policies to undertake the dangerous journey to our southern border. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, Tax Day 2022 is fast approaching. Americans around the country are prepping their tax returns. If you talked to most Americans, I don't think you would find that the IRS is their favorite government Agency and with good reason. The Agency has gained a reputation for poor taxpayer service. The last tax filing season was particularly miserable for taxpayers. ``If you call the IRS, there is only a 1-in-50 chance that you'll reach a human being,'' noted a headline in the Washington Post last April. The national Taxpayer Advocate noted in her 2021 report to Congress: Calendar year 2021 was surely the most challenging year taxpayers and tax professionals have ever experienced--long processing and refund delays, difficulty reaching the IRS by phone, correspondence that went unprocessed for many months, collection notices issued while taxpayer correspondence was awaiting processing, little or no information on the Where's My Refund? tool for delayed returns. . . . And bad customer service isn't the only thing tarnishing the IRS's reputation. The IRS has also gained a reputation for mishandling the confidential taxpayer information it has access to. In fact, the IRS was recently subject to a massive leak or hack of private taxpayer information--information that somehow ended up in the hands of advocates at ProPublica, an outfit that promotes progressive causes and went on to publish taxpayers' private information last June. Months later, neither the Treasury Department nor the IRS has provided meaningful followup about the data breach, much less any accountability. Who could forget the IRS scandal during the Obama administration when the IRS targeted a number of organizations based on their political beliefs? Nor did the IRS inspire confidence a few months ago when it announced it would start requiring taxpayers to submit biometric data in order to access certain IRS services. Fortunately, after Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee and others weighed in, the IRS abandoned its plans to allow the harvesting of taxpayers' biometric data, but it was a concerning instance of government overreach from an Agency notable for repeated mishandling of private taxpayer information. The IRS was a frequent subject of discussion in regard to the Democrats' so-called Build Back Better plan. It would have been nice if this was because Democrats had proposed a real plan to improve taxpayer services and increase Agency accountability. But, no, what they proposed in their Build Back Better plan was a massive increase in funding for the IRS--$80 billion--essentially doubling the size of the Agency without any plan for ensuring improvements to basic taxpayer services. I am hard pressed to imagine why anyone would contemplate handing a massive budget increase to the IRS without simultaneously prioritizing a plan to substantially increase accountability and improve taxpayer services. But, of course, Democrats weren't interested in improving taxpayer services. Their main interest in handing the IRS a supersized budget increase was to increase tax collections to raise revenue to help pay for their partisan tax-and-spending spree. It is the same reason why they included a provision, until widespread public opposition forced them to remove it, that would have allowed the IRS to examine the details of Americans' bank accounts. Under one version of this provision, the IRS would have been able to sift through the bank records of any American with just $600 in annual transactions--$600. In other words, the IRS would have been able to look through the bank records of just about every American and find out just how much you spent on Starbucks or your last doctor's bill or that new pair of running shoes. Republicans are not opposed to enhancing resources for the IRS if needed to improve taxpayer services, but any enhanced resources for the IRS must be paired with serious reform, including measures to improve customer service, ensure that existing resources are being used optimally, and promote smarter and more effective audits. I am a cosponsor of Senator Crapo's Tax Gap Reform and IRS Enforcement Act, which would codify additional protections for taxpayers against IRS overreach. Among other things, the legislation would help ensure that the IRS is not able to target taxpayers for their political and ideological beliefs, and it would prohibit the kinds of bank reporting requirements that Democrats sought to impose in their Build Back Better spending spree. It would also take steps to increase IRS expertise and improve the audit process. It would improve the information that we have on the tax gap, which is the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid. Reducing the size of the tax gap and improving enforcement of our tax laws is something we should look at, but any effort has to be balanced with taxpayer responsibilities and taxpayer rights. Vastly increasing the size of the IRS without any new accountability or Agency oversight, as Democrats wanted to do with their Build Back Better spending spree, would be more likely to result in increased harassment of law-abiding taxpayers than in a meaningful reduction in the tax gap. Just in case anyone thinks I am exaggerating about harassment, I would like to note that a provision in the House version of Democrats' reckless tax-and-spending spree would repeal a measure requiring written approval of a supervisor before an IRS agent can assess any penalties. The provision was intended to prevent overreaching IRS agents from threatening Americans with unjustified penalties. It is hard to imagine why Democrats would try to repeal this measure if they were not trying to pave the way for much more aggressive IRS pressure on American taxpayers. In her 2021 report to Congress, the National Taxpayer Advocate noted that ``there is no way to sugarcoat the year 2021 in tax administration. From the perspective of tens of millions of taxpayers, it was horrendous.'' Taxpayers deserve better. They deserve an efficient and accountable IRS and timely and effective customer service, and Congress should focus on giving it to them. I hope to be able to move away from Democrats' intrusive and reckless Build Back Better IRS proposals and toward bipartisan efforts to reform the IRS and ensure the taxpayers can reliably depend on the Agency. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the Russian assault on Ukraine continues unabated. Each morning seems to bring a fresh horror. In the last few days alone, we have seen the Russians bomb an arts school where as many as 400 civilians had taken cover. We have seen the bombing of a theater where an estimated 1,300 women and children and the elderly were sheltered--not a military target, a theater providing shelter to civilians, to children--a theater that was clearly labeled with the word ``children.'' That is right. On the pavement outside, in large white letters, visible in satellite images, was the word ``children'' written in Russian. So it is pretty impossible that the Russians didn't know what or who they were bombing. But they bombed anyway. And this is just one example of the depravity of the Russian siege of Mariupol, which has largely destroyed this port city. Residents in Mariupol are without electricity, without running water, at times without food. As important as words are, they fail when it comes to describing the horrors that Ukrainians are experiencing, the inferno that so many of them now exist in on a daily basis. As we go about our lives in peace and security, most of us have no notion of what it means to live where air raid sirens have become commonplace, where bombed-out buildings line the streets you used to walk on, where crossing a road or leaving a building at the wrong moment can mean your death. The pictures convey some of the horror--the postapocalyptic streetscapes, the buildings gray with ash, the gaping holes in apartment blocks and businesses--images akin to the bombed-out cities seen in old World War II photographs, the total destruction of once vibrant places. Mariupol is perhaps the foremost example of the devastation Russia has wrought. The last EU diplomat to leave that city summed up the situation in stark words on Sunday: What I saw, I hope no one will ever see. Mariupol will become part of a list of cities that were completely destroyed by war. ``What I saw, I hope no one will ever see. Mariupol will become part of a list of cities that were completely destroyed by war.'' We don't have to look far for the source of these horrors; they can be attributed to one man, to Vladimir Putin. To achieve his vision of a Russian Empire, he has laid waste to the country of Ukraine; thousands of lives sacrificed, on both sides, because he wants Ukraine, because he thinks Ukraine should be part of Russia. It doesn't matter that the people of Ukraine have made it unmistakably clear that they are their own people and a sovereign nation willing to lay down their lives for their freedom. Putin wants Ukraine, and he is apparently willing to destroy Ukraine to get it. All this evil, all this destruction, so many--so many--human lives wasted all because of one man's fixation on a Russian Empire. More than 3.3 million refugees have fled Ukraine, including at least 1.5 million children, and around 6.5 million Ukrainians are internally displaced. That amounts to roughly one-quarter of Ukraine's population forced from their homes. And the numbers continue to grow. Last week, President Zelenskyy addressed Congress. In powerful words, he outlined a situation in Ukraine and asked for additional help as Ukrainians battle for their country. I am proud that the United States has provided Ukraine with substantial military assistance and has put in place strong sanctions against Russia, including sanctioning the lifeblood of the Russian economy, which is the Russian energy sector. But, Mr. President, we have to do more. However much current sanctions have hit the Russian economy, Putin is still prosecuting his war of aggression in Ukraine, and so we have to do more. We have to send the message, unequivocally, that Russia will be an outcast from the free world until it withdraws from Ukraine. There are additional sanctions the United States can put in place, and we need to immediately get to work unleashing American energy production so we can provide energy to our allies in Europe and lessen their dependence on energy from Russia. Every dollar--every dollar-- that goes to purchase Russian energy is a dollar that Russia can use to finance its war of aggression. The United States has correctly banned Russian oil and gas imports; now we need to help our allies in Europe permanently divest themselves of their reliance on Russian energy. Congress needs to act immediately on legislation to suspend Russia's favorable trading status. Membership at the World Trade Organization should be limited to countries that don't launch unprovoked wars on their neighbors. We also need to continue our shipments of arms to Ukraine. And the President needs to find a way to further enhance Ukrainian air defenses, whether that involves sending the S-300 air defense systems that President Zelenskyy asked for, or armed drones, or facilitating the transfer of MiG aircraft from NATO countries to the Ukrainian Air Force, or all of the above. Russia is currently unleashing devastation from the skies of Ukrainian cities, and we need to find a way of helping Ukrainians to reduce or eliminate that threat. Finally, we need to make sure that while we are sanctioning Russia on the one hand, we are not enriching it on the other with things like an Iran deal that could see Russia benefit to the tune of $10 billion. The people of Ukraine are not waiting for anyone to come and save them. They are fighting with everything they have to save their country, but they are asking for our help. They need arms and resources and humanitarian assistance to sustain their fight against Russian forces that are increasingly showing less and less restraint. And they are relying on us--on us--on our shared belief in freedom and self- determination, on our shared commitment to human liberty. The Ukrainian people know what they want to be and that is a free people in a free country, and they have the will to stay in this fight. They just need our help. Let's not let them down. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. 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 text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the Senate Commerce Committee recently voted on the nomination of Gigi Sohn to be a member of the Federal Communications Commission. I voted against her nomination for a number of serious reasons, as did the 13 other Republican committee members. I was deeply disappointed that not one of my Democratic colleagues on the committee stepped forward to affirm what should be glaringly obvious: that Ms. Sohn is not an appropriate candidate for a position on the Federal Communications Commission. One substantial concern I have with Ms. Sohn's nomination is her extreme position on net neutrality. Back in 2014, the Obama administration decided that the Federal Government wasn't regulating the internet enough. So in 2015, the Obama Federal Communications Commission passed what was known as the Open Internet Order--mislabeled, I would add, but which dramatically expanded the Federal Government's power over the internet. The justification for this massive regulatory expansion was net neutrality. Now, net neutrality is a concept that enjoys broad support in both parties. I support net neutrality and rules that prevent blocking, throttling, and the paid prioritization of internet traffic. I don't think a major service provider should be able to block a small news startup. But what the Obama FCC did in 2015 went far beyond net neutrality. The Obama FCC asserted broad, new government powers over the internet using rules that were designed for telephone monopolies back during the Great Depression. This opened the door to a whole host of internet regulations, including price regulations, and unsurprisingly, broadband investment declined as a result. That was a problem for Americans generally, who benefit when the United States is at the forefront of internet growth and expansion, and it was particularly bad news for Americans in rural States like South Dakota. Getting broadband to rural communities is already more challenging than installing broadband in cities or suburbs, and the possibility of heavier regulations acted as a further disincentive to expanding access. Fast-forward to 2017, and the Federal Communications Commission under Chairman Pai voted to repeal those heavyhanded regulations passed by the Obama FCC, and here is what happened: Broadband investment rebounded, and broadband access expanded. Internet speeds increased. Our Nation positioned itself at the forefront of the 5G revolution. While European internet providers were slowing internet speeds during the pandemic, American providers were increasing them. All this despite the repeal of the heavyhanded internet regulation Democrats claimed we needed--or more accurately, because of the repeal of the heavyhanded regulation Democrats claimed we needed. Why do I go into all this history? Well, because Ms. Sohn not only wants to bring back the heavyhanded internet regulation of the Obama administration, but she wants to go further and have the FCC regulate broadband rates and set data caps. Just as service providers are working to implement nationwide 5G networks, Ms. Sohn wants to reinstate rules that will discourage broadband investment and diminish access opportunities for Americans outside of major cities and suburban areas. That is a big problem. The light-touch approach to internet regulation that the Federal Government has historically taken has resulted in growth and access, both of which would be threatened by Ms. Sohn's agenda. Now, while I was very pleased that the FCC under Chairman Pai repealed President Obama's heavyhanded internet regulation, I believe the best solution for the long term is for Congress to step in and pass bipartisan net neutrality legislation. Swings in net neutrality policy from administration to administration do not encourage long-term broadband investment. I believe there is bipartisan support for a long-term legislative solution but not, it would seem, from Ms. Sohn, who has openly disparaged bipartisan work on this issue. Now, I think Ms. Sohn would be fine if Congress produces a bill to her liking, but I have serious concerns that if she thought a bipartisan solution didn't go far enough, she would ignore the will of Congress and use her position at the FCC to impose the heavyhanded regulatory regime she favors. As a resident of a rural State, I am also concerned about Ms. Sohn's position on expanding broadband access to rural communities--an issue every Member of this body cares deeply about. She has been publicly hostile to the efforts of rural broadband companies in expanding reliable internet access to rural areas, while at the same time supporting the use of scarce government dollars to build new internet networks in already well-served urban areas. As someone who has worked long and hard to expand internet access for unserved Americans, I find her hostility to rural broadband companies very troubling. The vast majority of these companies have spent years building out reliable networks to some of the most remote parts of the country, allowing more rural areas, like those in South Dakota, to reap the benefits of advanced services in healthcare, education, and economic development. It is not only Republicans who have taken note of her hostility to the needs of rural Americans. Our former Democratic colleague from North Dakota has also questioned how one could support rural broadband and Ms. Sohn. Ms. Sohn's policy positions alone would lead me to oppose her nomination, but there are other even more troubling factors that should be leading Members of both parties to oppose her nomination. To start with, Ms. Sohn was not forthcoming to the Commerce Committee about her past history on the board of a company that was ordered to cease operations after being found in violation of copyright laws. This raises serious concerns about her fitness to sit on the FCC. After questions were raised about her involvement with this company's settlement with broadcasters, she did volunteer to recuse herself, if she is confirmed, on a variety of issues related to broadcasting and copyright violations. But why on Earth--why on Earth should we choose a Commissioner who would have to recuse herself from participating in substantial parts of the FCC's work? How does it serve Americans to have an FCC Commissioner who can't fully do her job? Surely, there are other qualified nominees who don't have Ms. Sohn's conflict of interest. But my objections don't end there. While I am concerned about Ms. Sohn having to recuse herself from doing parts of her job, I am most concerned about whether or not Ms. Sohn can do any part of her job in a fair and impartial manner. Ms. Sohn has a history of virulent partisanship and far-left activism, including support for such far-left initiatives as defunding the police. She has publicly expressed her disdain for Republicans, and she has a record of outspoken criticism of the very same conservative media outlets that she would be responsible for regulating. Perhaps the most notable example is her hostility towards FOX News, which she has referred to as ``state-sponsored propaganda'' and accused of playing a role in ``destroying democracy.'' ``Destroying democracy.'' And yet we are supposed to believe that she would approach cases involving the FOX corporation impartially? I think it is pretty clear that would not be the case. I don't expect a Democrat nominee to the FCC to agree with Republicans on all the issues--far from it. But I do expect a Democrat nominee to do his or her job and do it in an impartial and unbiased manner. In the case of Ms. Sohn, President Biden has nominated someone who cannot fulfill part of the responsibilities of FCC Commissioner and whose record strongly suggests that she cannot be relied upon to fulfill any of her responsibilities in an impartial manner. Americans deserve an FCC nominee who can do her job impartially, no matter what the matter before the Commission. And I hope that if Ms. Sohn's nomination comes to the floor, at least some of my Democrat colleagues will join Republicans in opposing her nomination. We should all be able to agree that virulent partisanship and an inability to fulfill the responsibilities of one's job are disqualifying characteristics for a role on the FCC. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).