During his tenure in the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship, we were proud to work with the senator to provide resources that encourage entrepreneurship and supported small business growth. 

Commitment to pursuing lending equity

It has always been clear that Sen. Cardin’s top priority as chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship was to use federal policies and congressional action to achieve equity for underserved entrepreneurs.

Eschewing typical partisan politics, Cardin put small business needs first and sponsored or introduced bipartisan/bicameral legislation. Since access to capital is the lifeblood of small businesses, our nation’s entrepreneurs must have sufficient protections that will allow them to safely access capital. Recently, the Small Business Financing Disclosure Act of 2023 was introduced and we were happy to see Cardin once again co-sponsoring this bicameral bill and recommitting to supporting efforts that will give access to clear and accurate lending terms that are necessary for small business growth. 

Cardin leads the way in introducing legislation that targets resources for under-resourced small business communities. In December, we were proud to support Cardin’s efforts to extend equity through the Small Business Administration Reauthorization and Modernization Act of 2022. Through this legislation, the senator committed to expanding the resources of the Small Business Administration (SBA) and creating a pipeline for innovation in minority, low-income, rural, and underserved communities. The New Start Act (legislation to create a reentry program and fund business counseling for justice-impacted people) and the UPLIFT Act (legislation to invest in underserved innovators by providing resources to Historically Black Colleges and Universities) are part of the Reauthorization and Modernization Act and will help to expand opportunities for access to responsible credit and capital. These pieces of legislation are yet another example of how Cardin has championed programs and policies that remove barriers to small business ownership for people in under-resourced communities and build long-term financial sustainability within the small business community. 

Leading role in targeting coronavirus relief for small businesses 

One of the biggest programs during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic was the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), which distributed more than $800 billion, sustaining millions of small businesses and tens of millions of American jobs. Cardin was one of the original authors of PPP and pushed to include provisions to increase the program’s flexibility. Equally important, Cardin introduced bipartisan legislation to allow self-employed individuals who previously applied to PPP to reapply for more funding.

The COVID Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) programs have allocated more than $380 billion in relief aid to more than 4 million small businesses in the hardest-hit, low-income areas through small grants and low interest and long-term loans. However, at the height of the pandemic, the SBA experienced setbacks in meeting the program’s goals leading to approximately 125,000 COVID EIDL applicants not receiving their approved funds and an additional 41,000 applicants never receiving a decision. Despite these challenges, the senator was instrumental in advocating for the continued processing of EIDL applications and the distribution of all funds. He pressed the SBA to continue the momentum of the programs and complete the program “in a way that represents the values of our committee and values the COVID EIDL program’s importance to small businesses,” as he once said during an oversight hearing. 

Additionally, in 2022, Cardin introduced the Hard-Hit Small Business Relief Fund, legislation that provided grants to hard-hit small businesses that demonstrated substantial losses in 2020 and 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This legislation complemented his ongoing efforts to replenish the Restaurant Revitalization Fund.

Moving forward

It’s almost impossible to address all of the work and influence Senator Cardin has accomplished during his many years as a true small business advocate within this piece. Each time he briefed our network at a Small Business Majority event, he supplied the attendees with interesting and helpful information about legislation that would help to level the playing field for small firms. It’s hard to capture in words his graciousness and positive attitude that may stem from his organic relationships with small business owners, driving his support for investments and policies that will give small businesses the best shot at success. And he has always endeavored to work in a bipartisan manner. Unfortunately, policymakers don’t always have their constituents’ best interests at heart and sometimes choose to pursue brinkmanship instead of the art of compromise. Cardin has consistently recognized that lawmakers should disavow partisanship for efforts that will bolster economic growth and support small businesses. We hope that whoever fills his shoes will practice the same strategies.

John Arensmeyer is the founder & CEO of the Small Business Majority

Though both rulings represented major conservative victories, most observers treated them as disconnected from one another. The first asked whether universities can consider race in admissions, the second whether a Christian web designer can refuse to build wedding websites for same-sex couples. But, ironically, the robust deference the court extended to the business owner in the second case may offer a pathway for certain private religious universities to continue considering race in their admissions decisions.  

To understand the connection between the two cases, recall that the affirmative action ruling involved two universities. In the case against the University of North Carolina, the court held that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — which only applies to state actors — barred that public institution from using race in admissions. But the case against Harvard, which is private, turned on the meaning of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars “discrimination” on “the ground of race” by any recipient of federal funds.

For over half a century, the Supreme Court had declined to equate affirmative action with prohibited “discrimination.” The Harvard ruling changed that.  Affirmative action in admissions now amounts to a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and “discrimination” under Title VI. 

The following day, in 303 Creative v. Elenis, the court exempted website designer Lorie Smith from a Colorado civil rights statute prohibiting discrimination. Because the websites she designs for her customers constitute her own protected expression, the court said, the First Amendment allows her to decide what kind of jobs she will take, even if her decision would otherwise amount to discrimination under the Colorado statute. The 303 Creative ruling added to a string of opinions offering First Amendment-based exemptions from generally applicable laws to Christian conservatives, including from anti-discrimination laws.

Over the past few years, the court has allowed a range of claimants, from the Boy Scouts to Hobby Lobby to the Little Sisters of the Poor, to sidestep a wide array of legal mandates, from the Affordable Care Act to anti-discrimination laws, in order to protect their freedom of expression and the free exercise of their religion.   

If Lorie Smith’s expressive right to decide which websites she will design overrides Colorado anti-discrimination laws because they interfere with the expression of her religious beliefs, can a private faith-based college’s expressive or religious freedom to determine whom to educate override the Supreme Court’s redefinition of discrimination under Title VI? 

The universities’ constitutional interests arise from the freedom of association or freedom of religious exercise rather than from speech, but that should not matter. As Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the 303 Creative opinion, the First Amendment “equally” protects freedom of association as a kind of speech. And when an institution’s actions have been rooted in religious faith, the Supreme Court has been particularly deferential in recent years.  The admissions decisions of religious universities to create diverse student bodies are expressive of those schools’ values  in ways that would seem to merit the same kind of protection from state interference the court has granted in cases like 303 Creative. Although virtually all of those cases have involved conservative Christian claimants, the expression of progressive religious beliefs should be entitled to no less deference.   

Our two institutions, Seattle University and Boston College, are Jesuit universities that seek to construct diverse and inclusive academic communities. Founded in the late 19th century initially to educate Catholic immigrants who were frequently excluded from other institutions of higher learning, over time we came to understand our missions more broadly as serving all of those who have been excluded from higher education and promoting a more just society by repairing the wounds caused by pervasive racism and unequal opportunity.  We also understand our mission to be the education and formation of our students as whole persons in all of their complex identities.  The pursuit of this kind of holistic education requires a student body that reflects the rich diversity of humanity.   

The creation of diverse communities of students, faculty and staff embodies and expresses our institutions’ Jesuit and Catholic religious commitments.  Admissions decisions and other practices aimed at achieving these goals therefore reflect some of our deepest beliefs. For us, and for many faith-based universities, a strict colorblindness requirement has the potential to interfere with our ability to construct and maintain the kinds of educational communities that reflect these foundational principles. Unlike Lorie Smith, who defines her business’s values by the messages (and, consequently, the customers) she wants to exclude, we define ourselves and express our values through those we want to include.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly said that rights of religious and associational freedom protect that kind of expression against state interference, including the kind of governmental micromanagement of admissions practices under Title VI envisioned by the Supreme Court in the Harvard case.   

Some of these arguments, particularly those rooted in the First Amendment’s protection of expressive associational freedom, might extend to certain mission-driven secular universities as well. Consider Berea College in Kentucky. Founded by abolitionists, it still operates under a charter prioritizing multiracial education for poor students from Appalachia. A colorblind Berea is a different Berea.

Other prominent institutions — Bates and Oberlin for instance — were also founded by abolitionists. To force these schools to become colorblind in ways that impair their ability to admit the very populations they were created to serve would be to coerce them to violate their foundational principles. If expressive freedom protects a web designer’s refusal to create a website on the grounds that would violate her deeply held beliefs, it should also protect the ability of a mission-driven university to decide how to craft its admissions policies to express the foundational values that have guided its operations for 150 years.  

After the Harvard ruling, President Biden announced plans to issue guidance within 45 days regarding what options remain for schools seeking to build diverse student communities. In that guidance, the Department of Education should announce that it will not enforce any colorblindness requirement against mission-driven schools where doing so would violate their foundational values, particularly when those values are rooted in religious faith. This carve-out would not cover all (or even most) colleges and universities, but it would protect the expressive and religious freedoms of an important and vibrant segment of American higher education. 

Kent Greenfield is a professor of constitutional law at Boston College.  Eduardo Peñalver is president and professor of Law at Seattle University. The views expressed in this opinion essay are theirs alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of their institutions. 

This dizzying refrain by President Biden and his team has been relentlessly repeated over the past month online, on television, and in speeches across the nation. The message is also heading to Pittsburgh and other cities across the country as part of the administration’s “Bidenomics” tour.

I will admit the slogan is largely true — but not in the way the White House intends.

Since the president took office in January 2021, the American people have watched as Bidenomics wreaked havoc on their 401(k)s, destroyed their financial security, and decreased their wealth by $33,000 just this year.

Remember the empty baby formula aisles amidst crippling supply chain shortages? That's Bidenomics.

How about the record gas and food prices, which forced some Americans to decide between feeding their family or filling up at the pump? That’s Bidenomics.

Or that American wages are failing to keep up with record inflation? That’s also Bidenomics — and has been going on for 26 straight months.

Unsurprisingly, the White House paints a much rosier picture of our national outlook. They’ve turned Bidenomics into a full-scale national press tour — misleading and deceiving the American public.

So, let’s examine each claim the Biden administration has made in recent days to misguide our families and what the reality is for many living in the United States.

“More jobs added in two and a half years than any president has ever created in a four-year term. And more reasons Bidenomics is working.” — President Biden on July 7, 2023

Let’s be clear: A job “recovered” from the pandemic is not the same as a job “created.” Biden gleefully smudges these numbers together and counts both as his own work — much like an ode to his law school days.

The claim that Biden created 13.2 million jobs is not only laughable but grossly inaccurate. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, President Biden has only created 2.2 million jobs over the past 29 months (discounting the pandemic recovery). That equals only 77,000 jobs per month created under his watch. Progress? Hardly.

“Inflation-adjusted income is up 3.5% since President Biden took office, and low-wage workers have seen the largest wage gains over the last year — helping power our economy.” — The White House on July 11, 2023

The president’s own federal government data doesn’t even support this claim. When President Biden took office, inflation-adjusted average hourly earnings were $11.41 per hour. Fast forward to today, and that number has dropped to $11.05 an hour.

I’m a lawyer and Navy veteran — not a mathematician — but even I know that’s a clear decrease, not an increase. Being told a lie doesn’t help American workers pay their bills. Real wage growth does.

“Bringing down inflation remains one of my top priorities.” — President Biden on July 6, 2023

It’s too bad this wasn’t the president’s actual focus on Jan. 20, 2021. He repeatedly fails to mention that his administration is the key driver for record inflation.

For months, President Biden and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen took to the airwaves to proclaim that inflation was “transitory” or passed the blame on others with the equally bogus “Putin Price Hike.”

Of course, this was all nonsense. As usual, American families bared the brunt for this failed leadership and dealt with price increases not seen in 40 years.

“I cut the deficit $1.7 trillion in two years. Nobody has ever done that.” — President Biden on July 6, 2023

This may be the biggest falsehood of the bunch. Contrary to the president’s claim, his policies have added $3.5 trillion to the national debt. So, what is President Biden taking credit for this time? The expiration of emergency pandemic spending, which the Biden administration unbelievably attempted to extend long after the pandemic was behind us.

These deceptions relayed by President Biden and his surrogates showcase how disconnected Washington elites are from the middle-class families they serve and represent. No amount of ridiculous rhetoric can underscore the fact that prices have increased nearly 17 percent under the president’s reign, causing 57 percent of workers to say they’re living paycheck-to-paycheck.

That’s unacceptable. Americans are rightfully angry about the state of the economy — and I don’t blame them. 

Until six months ago, Bidenomics ran freely through the House, Senate and White House with little resistance under Democrat control. One consequence of this open season of spending was the laughably misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, which cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. Prior to passage, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that its impact on inflation would be “negligible.” The University of Pennsylvania agreed, determining that “the impact on inflation is statistically indistinguishable from zero.” 

Ouch. 

Some may struggle to say it’s a mere coincidence that record inflation resulted from President Biden’s massive legislative spending. But not if you were a former economic advisor of President Obama — or have a massive slip-up in a congressional hearing like Yellen, who admitted in December 2021 that Biden’s spending led to this inflationary disaster.

But hey, remember folks — this is all no accident. It’s Bidenomics in action.

Guy Reschenthaler represents Pennsylvania’s 14th District and is the House chief deputy whip for the 118th Congress.

In China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), it is estimated that close to 1 million Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities are being detained by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In what the U.S. has deemed a genocide, reports show that the CCP is forcing Uyghurs into “re-education” camps, where they are suffering rape, abuse, forced sterilization, organ harvesting and slave labor, which has infected supply chains of goods around the world, from electronics to clothing.  

In 2021, Congress came together in a bipartisan way to pass into law legislation that advocates for human dignity in the XUAR and works to protect those who are being exploited for free or cheap labor. The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which we were pleased to support, took significant steps to ensure that American entities are not funding forced labor among ethnic minorities in the region.  

But there is more work to be done—especially in confronting companies that have failed to root out forced labor in their supply chains and refuse to be transparent. 

The Chinese fast-fashion company Shein has taken U.S. retail markets by storm, particularly gaining popularity through their intense advertising on TikTok and employment of social media influencers — and in the process raising ethical questions about how their products are sourced. We have serious concerns that Shein is not conducting the due diligence necessary to participate in our U.S. capital markets. What’s most unfortunate is how many unsuspecting Shein customers, especially those who discover the brand through social media, are not aware of the slew of forced labor and workplace abuse allegations against the company.  

Shein adamantly denies the use of any cotton produced in Xinjiang. However, the math simply does not add up. The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates about 90 percent of China’s cotton is now produced in Xinjiang, and only 20 percent of the cotton used by Chinese textile manufacturers is imported from other countries. Shein works with roughly 6,000 clothing factories throughout China and reportedly produces up to 10,000 new products a day. Based on how extensively the company’s business practices are intertwined with the Chinese clothing production industry, it is clear that greater scrutiny and transparency are necessary to ensure Shein is not complicit with the CCP’s pervasive forced labor scheme. 

Given reports that Shein is pursuing an initial public offering on the U.S. stock exchanges, we led 22 members of Congress from both sides of the aisle in writing to Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler demanding greater scrutiny before Shein is allowed to enter U.S. markets. Additionally, we requested that Shein undergo an independent audit — free of Chinese Communist Party influence — to prove its claims that none of the cotton it uses in its products comes from Xinjiang.  Any company that enjoys the privileges that come from listing on U.S. exchanges also has the responsibility to abide by our rule of law.  

We’re working in a bipartisan way in Congress to shine a light on Shein’s alleged reliance on forced labor because we believe there is an urgency to demand accountability, transparency and cooperation from these fast-fashion giants. Shein’s cheap fast fashion cannot come at the price of egregious human rights abuses. 

John Rose represents Tennessee’s 6th District and Jennifer Wexton represents Virginia’s 10th District. 

Now is the time for the U.S. government to take a leap of action by expanding our quantum technology program to include the development and deployment of near-term applications that promote U.S. innovation for solving critical real-world problems impacting American society.

Quantum computing is a game-changing technology that can dramatically increase the speed at which computers can help solve challenges facing the public and private sector, such as improving our supply chains, transportation networks, electric grid, and our communication resilience. According to the Quantum Economic Development Consortium, there are more than 200 identified applications for quantum computing in the electric industry alone.

As a world leader, the U.S. must pave the way for quantum applications. To ensure that our country promotes U.S. quantum innovation and does not fall behind other global leaders, I led my colleagues Reps. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) and Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas) in introducing H.R. 2739, The Quantum Sandbox for Near-Term Applications Act. This bipartisan legislation will accelerate the commercial development of quantum technology in the U.S. by creating a “quantum sandbox” program.

In simple terms, a sandbox is a live test environment that allows companies to safely build solutions which collectively test products or use streamlined processes to develop commercially ready applications. A sandbox approach speeds up innovation in a safe and secure manner and proves the viability of technology applications before they are fully deployed while the government monitors progress. 

The goal of our legislation is to create a quantum sandbox environment where public-private partnerships can develop quantum-enabled software tools for use by companies in a wide variety of critical sectors in the “near-term,” meaning less than 24 months.

The sandbox approach has also been instrumental in driving innovation in other industries. For example, remote deposit technology was developed in a financial technology sector sandbox after the 9/11 terrorist attacks to keep financial institutions operational in the wake of catastrophic events inhibiting the physical exchange of paper checks. The Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act made digital images of checks legally acceptable payments. Millions of people and institutions now use remote deposit capture technology.

Sandboxes are also a pillar of American competitiveness. By establishing a quantum sandbox program, the U.S. government can prioritize the development of technologies that many of our international counterparts are already pursuing.

The Australian government is exploring how quantum computing applications can improve the country’s transportation system. It is also evaluating how these applications can enable autonomous vehicles to conduct last-minute re-supply operations for the Australian Army.

The Japanese government is leveraging quantum applications to address a host of issues such as improving tsunami evacuation procedures and reducing waste. And the U.K. is assessing how to integrate quantum technology into a variety of industries, including manufacturing, transportation, and financial services, within an 18-month timeframe.

To remain global leaders, continual innovation by the U.S. quantum industry is crucial, and robust government and private sector leadership and investment in quantum research and near-term development is necessary to strengthen the economic and national security of our country.

Our government must promote and invest in quantum and quantum-hybrid technologies, including annealing and gate-model quantum computing, quantum communications and quantum sensing. At the same time, we must continue building long-term system advancements to protect against foreign bad actors.

Additionally, many of today’s quantum technologies are already accessible in the cloud, breaking down barriers to access and allowing American innovation to help key domestic industries, including energy, telecommunications, financial services, health care and defense.

The Quantum Sandbox for Near-Term Applications Act will augment the long-term basic research currently being conducted through the National Quantum Initiative, which is eligible for reauthorization this year. It will also amend the initiative to include the vitally important quantum sandbox program, allowing more U.S. businesses and consumers to realize the benefits of this critical technology. 

Sandboxes are a proven method for developing new technologies that can immediately impact individuals, industry, and America’s national competitiveness. A congressionally authorized sandbox program will help grow the U.S. quantum industry and ensure our country remains a global leader in quantum innovation. 

Congressman Jay Obernolte is a video game developer and business owner serving on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and as chairman of the Subcommittee for Investigations and Oversight on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. He is proud to represent California’s 23rd District including the High Desert and Inland Empire.

The business delegation came on the heels of our respective offices—the U.S. Chamber and the Greater Houston Partnership—joining forces to show Houston businesses how they too can succeed in Africa, during the first stop this year of the U.S. Chamber’s “Advance with Africa” roadshow.  

The African continent has a growing middle class and burgeoning population set to nearly double by 2050 to 2.5 billion. By then, the continent will be home to one in four of the world’s consumers, half of them under age 25, and its GDP has been projected by then to climb as high as $29 trillion. Africa’s fast-growing population and markets present vast possibilities for American business and the chance for mutually beneficial opportunities —from Tanzania to Texas.  

Africa’s potential as a growth frontier has been misunderstood by many for too long, but that has not been the case with the U.S. Chamber and in Houston. The U.S. Chamber has commended the Biden administration’s enhanced focus on Africa while also recommending how the U.S., following the success of the December 2022 U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, can honor the president’s vow to go “all in” on Africa. In addition, the U.S. Chamber was proud to host the U.S.-Africa Business Forum, the summit’s official private sector forum, where American and African firms achieved over $15 billion in trade and investment deals and partnerships. Now, ensuring that we continue meaningful commercial engagement with Africa long after the Summit will be the true test of its success. The U.S. government took a step in this direction by recently appointing President Biden’s former National Security Council Senior Director for Africa Dana Banks, who also directed the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, to the Chamber’s U.S. Africa Business Center as senior advisor, underscoring the recognition from the highest levels of government of the crucial role that business plays in advancing U.S. policy goals across Africa.    

While it is incumbent upon U.S. leaders to uphold their financial and rhetorical commitments to Africa, and for African leaders to continue with market-opening reforms, boosting U.S.-Africa economic ties begins as much on the American and African Main Streets as it does with politicians.  

Houston is proudly home to one of the largest African diasporas in the country, and is Africa's second largest urban trade partner in the U.S. In 2021, Houston added a Business Forum to its yearly Africa Day, a celebration each May to drive awareness around Africa’s global impact and the many contributions that Houstonians of African descent have made. The annual Africa Day Business Forum expands the already-strong economic linkages between Houston and Africa and helps more enterprises enter the African market, with attendance ranging from Houston small business owners to African Ambassadors alike. Last September, African energy ministers and presidential advisors flocked to Houston to attend the Houston-Africa Energy Summit to further discuss how Houston can fuel Africa’s future. And this month, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner will lead a trade mission to Nigeria, Côte d’Ivoire, and Ghana to further cement the city’s role as a critical partner in fulfilling the continent’s demand for energy and goods and services.  

The U.S. Chamber launched the nationwide “Advance with Africa” roadshow last September to increase U.S. businesses’ understanding of commercial opportunities in Africa and transform the narrative around Africa’s business climate. Of crucial importance to both the Chamber and the Greater Houston Partnership is Advance with Africa’s focus on empowering minority- and Black-owned small businesses, ensuring equitable growth for Americans and Africans alike.   

Houston was the ideal city for Advance with Africa to hold its first roadshow of 2023. The hundreds of Houston business executives that joined us left with a greater understanding of how to tap into Africa’s tremendous economic potential and added to the thousands of diverse U.S. companies Advance with Africa has already reached. As advocates of pursuing market-opening trade with Africa at all levels of government, we were also inspired to see community leaders, staff from congressional offices, federal agencies, and Consular Corps all rub shoulders with the hundreds of local business owners in attendance.  

There is still much work to be done.   

Throughout much of its history, the U.S. has viewed Africa through the lens of geopolitical competition. The latest frame of reference is China, courting the continent with investment, loans, massive construction projects, and hosting a Forum on China-Africa Cooperation every three years. This view is myopic and ignores Africa’s power and potential as a global force in its own right.   

The continent that gave rise to mobile money and digital payments has charted its unique growth path. Africa’s $115 billion digital economy is improving millions of lives and transforming societies—and the U.S. government has taken notice: Last December, Secretary of State Antony Blinken helped announce the latest winner of the U.S. Chamber’s Africa Digital Innovation Competition, recognizing an African startup helping ensure rural hospitals have the lifesaving supplies they need.  

Africa has room for many more entrepreneurs and investors—American and homegrown. We hope you will be one of them.   

It is high time that America answers the call of so many African governments to engage with them as partners, not patrons. And to bring investment and trade, not aid.   

To learn more about the Greater Houston Partnership’s International Development Committee, click here. To learn more about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce U.S.-Africa Business Center, click here.   

Scott Eisner is president of the U.S.-Africa Business Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Bob Harvey is CEO and president of Greater Houston Partnership    

Peck was barely in his 30s when he won that award and he lived to the ripe age of 87 when he died—which was nearly 20 years ago. Yet American employees still operate under many labor laws put in place when Peck was a young man. It’s time for change; Congress needs to modernize the law to support workers’ rights and autonomy through passage of the Employee Rights Act (ERA).  

The ERA would ensure that workers have five basic, common-sense protections.   

First, it would give employees the right to a secret ballot when determining whether or not to form a union. Employees shouldn’t be coerced or threatened into making a decision. They deserve the privacy of a secret ballot, exactly the same way Americans vote for their representation in government.   

The ERA would also require unions to receive permission from members of the union to use dues for purposes other than collective bargaining—put simply, unions could not use a workers’ dues to support politicians and causes that the worker does not support.  

Third, it would limit the amount of employee personal information a union receives during an organizing drive.  

Next, the ERA provides clarity on the joint-employer standard, ensuring Americans will still have the opportunity to start their own business as a franchisee. This is especially prescient as labor unions are attempting to eliminate the franchise model by expanding liability to entities not under a company’s direct control. In practice, this means fewer people will be able to open franchises, and current franchisees would become corporate middle managers rather than local entrepreneurs. 

Finally, the ERA updates current law to keep the definition of an “employee” in line with the common-law definition used by several state statutes and recent Supreme Court rulings.   

All five of these key provisions have strong public support — empowering employees isn’t a partisan idea, it’s just good business!  

As many Americans attempt to rebuild their lives and livelihoods from the economic devastation of government-mandated COVID lockdowns, rampant inflation continues to stifle growth. Unnecessary and onerous government regulations benefit unions at the expense of workers, making the current economic challenges even harder for working families and small businesses. 

We must modernize our laws to advance flexible work and eliminate a very dated and rigid system that fails to protect the interest of workers. Increased freedom and individual opportunity are the key to the American Dream and a successful workforce.  

We don’t have to search far to find an example of what happens when you eliminate those freedoms from workers. In California, the regulations have spiraled out of control, empowering unions to an unbelievable extent. As a result, California has lost hundreds of thousands of residents to states with more business- and worker-friendly environments. These families are voting with their feet and fleeing in droves as a direct result of California’s limited opportunity.  

The world has changed a lot since 1947. In the decades since, we’ve seen the invention of the credit card, the personal computer, the cell phone, and the internet — just to name a few. It’s time our federal labor laws caught up.   

Kevin Hern represents Oklahoma’s 1st District. John Tidwell is Americans for Prosperity Oklahoma state director.  

I wish I had all the answers. The truth is that there’s a lot we don’t know about AI, largely because it’s evolving so rapidly. Even ChatGPT cannot tell us what to do. Nevertheless, we do know some things, and the American people deserve to know what they are. 

First, we know what AI is. It’s not an alien consciousness, nor is it a magic eight-ball with the solution to every world problem at its fingertips. AI is simply the automated statistical analysis of data. Think of it as a computer program that uses what happened yesterday to predict what will happen today or tomorrow. 

This may not sound like much, but it’s actually a great deal. Because AI can analyze data faster, cheaper and often more accurately than people can — and because it can analyze mass data that no human mind could tackle unaided — it will exponentially improve our decisionmaking abilities. 

This brings us to the second thing we know: AI will revolutionize the information economy, for better and for worse. Americans will benefit when AI makes cancer screens foolproof, as they will when it unleashes next-generation formulation of life-saving biologics — and these examples barely scratch the surface of the programs’ positive potential.  

But Americans will also suffer when AI makes hundreds of thousands white-collar jobs (from translation to accounting to market research) obsolete. It’s no exaggeration to say we’re on the verge of an economic transition as significant as deindustrialization was at the turn of the millennium.  

If we just sit on our hands and watch events unfold, we will generate the same problems our leaders did during the last transition: lost jobs, hollowed-out communities and even more political strife. All of that will further weaken our country at a time when we desperately need strength. Consequently, policymakers must begin the hard work of preparing society for drastic economic change. 

Why not prevent the change from happening, some wonder? The answer is that there is no technology human beings have ever successfully rolled back, and AI is no exception. We can regulate AI in America, but the technology is already transnational. From China to Uganda and everywhere in between, the genie is out of the bottle. Congress can’t stop foreign actors from developing new code, as convenient as that would be. And when those developments occur, we will have to change ourselves accordingly. 

That doesn’t mean we should throw our hands up and despair, though. America is the world leader in the field of AI. To ensure this remains the case, and to show we have learned our lesson from the consequences of U.S. complacency during past technological revolutions, we should take steps to ensure China does not benefit from our progress, whether through theft, coercion or corporate greed.  

This is especially the case when it comes to national security issues. AI will expand military and intelligence analysis capabilities for governments around the world. China and other major adversaries are already working overtime to gain the upper hand. We must be on guard against them — and against smaller states and independent actors whom AI will empower to punch above their weight. 

If all this seems overwhelming, that’s because it is. Just understanding AI, much less controlling it, presents huge challenges to our society. But it’s important to remember that there’s one more thing we know: AI will never replace the human element in policymaking. To those who believe otherwise, I ask: How much would you trust a computer to resolve a nuclear crisis, to adjudicate a case before the Supreme Court or to regulate a new technology — like computer programming itself? 

Coincidentally, the very questions people are asking about AI are the very questions AI cannot answer. Only humans can make the tough calls our country needs to survive and thrive in the 21st century — that much is certain. Whether we will make the right ones, on the other hand, remains to be seen. 

Marco Rubio is the vice chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence and a senior member of the Committee on Foreign Relations. 

ChatGPT seems to have captured public attention by its timing and its features. It promises to automate much of the work many of us procrastinate doing, from writing reports and documents to conducting research. It has made us pause and question what the future of work, school, even our personal lives will be if we are relying on AI to do it.  

How will we assess when an employee is performing their job duties effectively? Will lawyers trust the output of ChatGPT for its accuracy and confidentiality when using it to draft briefs or conduct relevant research for a case? Which professors will believe that a well-written paper from an underperforming student is actually a student’s work? Will content creators have any rights regarding their work? Can AI influence your political beliefs? Did your lover really write that sonnet?  

While technology leaders have called developers to halt the progression of AI, researchers in AI have simultaneously reinforced and questioned AI fears. How harmful is AI, really?  

The problem is that not all AI is alike, but many types of AI are hidden from public scrutiny. The focus on ChatGPT, a generative AI, has caused us to forget the many other AI, which can cause very serious harm. High-risk AI often adopts a “black box,” where how the AI makes its decisions cannot be observed. AI black boxes fly airplanes, guide surgical robots, power hearing aids, are integrated into cars, guide military drones and weaponry, diagnose cancer, streamline complex manufacturing, power diabetes therapy and insulin pumps, navigate space shuttles, optimize agriculture production, and will power long-distance trucking, to name just a few. AI are part of literally every sector. 

Almost no government requires public disclosure of any detailed AI information. Even the European Union’s proposed AI Law does not mandate detailed functionality disclosure to the public, though it does require organizations to disclose its existence, stop using high-risk AI, and conduct risk assessments. The People’s Republic of China’s Cyberspace Administration of China, the agency responsible for enforcing the PRC Cybersecurity Law, has also issued regulations taking a fundamentally different approach. The CAC requires any submission for security review, a mandatory licensing schemes, and obligations to “adhere to core socialist values,” anticipating the power of generative AI to influence users. These steps are not unexpected; they are consistent with existing obligations under the PRC Cybersecurity Law. 

For most countries, including the U.S., we can’t examine AI functions because we don’t even know when they are being used. While ChatGPT and other generative AI pose risk to the U.S. and our residents, a variety of other AI pose even more risk both because of how it’s used but also because we can’t even test it. For example, AI that has a physical effect on the human body or physical property create harms distinct (and arguably more severe) than generative AI. Because most AI systems are designed with a common interconnected technology, and with cyberattackers increasingly using AI-enabled attack vectors, compromised AI could harm thousands of people simultaneously. 

AI systems can fail because of a manufacturer’s faulty design and testing, including by encoding bias or failing to include representative data into the data sets that create algorithms. For example, failing to incorporate information about the terrain on which a smart combine will harvest wheat could lead to property damage or damage to the machine itself. When medical devices are not trained on the populations that will use them (including age, ethnicity, race and bodily variations), it is possible they will be unsafe for some populations or all populations to use, potentially malfunctioning in the body, during a risky surgery, or by misdiagnosing a patient.  

While ChatGPT could seed disinformation and disrupt how people interact within and across organizations, there are ways to neutralize these issues and use ChatGPT advantageously. While there is something deeply uncomfortable about accepting that human intelligence is limited, that looking inside the “black box” may not really be possible, examining the inputs and outputs of such systems can reveal a lot of things about the safety and fairness of such systems. The interface can be inspected by the general public, competitors, and regulators like the FTC. This means that ChatGPT’s harms can be identified through use and, over time, should improve.  

Non-generative AI, however, is not similarly open. These AI harms are not visible or testable, harms that may be blanketed in technical complexity and legal protectionism, frequently overlooked or underappreciated by regulators. In 2021, I proposed that the U.S. consider requiring a public version of complex AI algorithms be hosted for public testing and inspection. Although risk assessments and agency review could be useful, ChatGPT has shown us that widespread use and testing has, by far, revealed important truths about its functionality.  

The sooner we realize ChatGPT is but one of a far larger ecosystem of AI, an ecosystem that requires far more disclosure and inspection than ever before, the safer and more ethical our global society will be. 

ChatGPT has not been used in the writing of this article. 

Charlotte Tschider is Associate Professor, Loyola University Chicago School of Law.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has warned that TikTok allows the Chinese government to access location, biometric identifiers and browsing history, which could be shared with the Chinese Communist Party. This information led a bipartisan group of senators, led by Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), to recently introduce legislation providing the Department of Commerce the power to regulate the popular social media app. The Biden White House quickly endorsed the bill and called for its immediate passage. 

It's encouraging that the federal government is taking the TikTok threat so seriously. Many policy analysts even believe it should double its efforts to combat harmful social media companies’ data collection. After all, TikTok is not the first company that poses such a problem, nor will it be the last. Many other apps, such as WeChat, have equally dangerous connections to the Chinese Communist Party that lawmakers should watch closely.The data regulations that they impose on TikTok should apply across the board including American companies that may pose similar threats.

That said, Chinese-owned social media apps are not the only data collection threat that the American people currently face. Chinese-owned automakers present just as significant of a national security problem, if not an even greater one.  

Modern cars are becoming data collection vacuums. Their cameras and computers not only diagnose engines, but they also collect information about where you travel, what stores you shop at, what music you listen to, and how fast you drive. Electric cars, particularly autonomous vehicles, collect millions of terabytes of information that automakers rightfully see as digital gold. 

This data collection would be beneficial if consumers owned and controlled it, but currently, they don’t. The car companies do. 

Chinese automakers like Volvo and Lotus must comply with the same Military-Civil Fusion laws that TikTok and other problem Chinese apps must follow. That means the same data security concerns apply but with even more in-depth personal in play, from when they leave the house to their driving patterns and histories. 

American vehicle manufacturers have yet to modernize their security infrastructures with the modern-digital age. Over the last year, API attacks in the automotive industry have surged by over 380 percent, and 34 percent of auto employees admitting their company receives more security threats now than two years ago. China is one of the global leaders in API attacks, and U.S. attorneys have already warned automakers to watch out for the country’s theft of their personal information. 

For all these reasons and more, this information shouldn’t remain the property of the carmakers. The drivers should own and control it.

Reps. Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.) and Jan Schakowsky’s (D-Ill.) Innovation, Data, and Commerce Subcommittee should consider a comprehensive legislative framework that ensures transparency and accountability from car manufacturers and protects drivers against misuse of their personal information. This will turn a staunch national security problem — TikTok on wheels — into a valuable addition to the U.S. economy. 

Again, the problem is not that this auto data exists; the problem is that carmakers are the ones in control of it. From diagnosing and fixing vehicle malfunctions to providing insurance discounts, vehicles keeping track of this information is benefiting drivers in untold ways. If consumers own this data instead of the auto industry, they will receive the utility of this information without the baggage of it potentially falling in the wrong hands.  

Jianli Yang, Ph.D., is founder and president of Citizen Power Initiatives and author of "For Us, The Living: A Journey to Shine the Light on Truth" and "It’s Time for a Values-Based “Economic NATO”.

Who would have thought that a former college football coach-turned-U.S. senator would take Washington by storm in a courageous attempt to protect both life and American taxpayers. 

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), the former head coach of Auburn University’s winning football team, is now the bane of the Democratic Party and its media allies. President Joe Biden has called him out by name, and even sports writers are piling on this championship-winning coach they once applauded. 

What’s Tuberville’s crime? He is using the rules of the Senate to point to the Biden administration’s efforts to circumvent the law to use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions and travel reimbursement for military members to get abortions. Tuberville has placed a hold on military nominations and promotions until Biden stops this illegal use of funds. Congress approves military expenses through the appropriations process but has never authorized travel reimbursement for military personnel’s abortions.  

As a mom of a young man who will soon be an Army second lieutenant, I am appalled that Biden is disregarding the law and using money that should go for military readiness, training and weapons for our troops to satisfy his political agenda. This is not new. Democrats have repeatedly tried to use the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as a Trojan horse for their radical policies.   

Whether it is paying for transgender surgeries and hormone therapies for military personnel to change their gender, pushing pride month activities in the barracks, flying rainbow flags on our military installations or suggesting women should be drafted, the left’s goal has never been to support the military but to sacrifice it to satisfy their radical policy agenda.  

Now it is abortions and abortion travel as the Senate debated the NDAA this week. 

The Constitution gives the president the role of commander in chief, but where does paying for abortion fit into this role?   

Since 1977, the Hyde Amendment has prohibited taxpayer funding of abortion and has historically received support from most Americans and members of Congress, including then-Sen. Joe Biden. By reversing his position, Biden is sullying the military in this flagrant abuse of the law. 

Tuberville is standing for principle against Biden, the Democratic Party and most of the media. Even many of Tuberville’s Republican colleagues are asking why he’s holding up hundreds of military promotions.  

But a better question is: Where are the rest of the senators in calling out the administration as it attempts to force taxpayers to pay for abortions for military members? Instead of blocking and tackling for coach while he’s being pummeled by the left, his fellow Republicans are not even on the field; some even seem to be playing for the opposing team.  

They should take a page from coach’s playbook and muster up the courage to challenge Biden’s lawlessness on abortion.  

Penny Nance is CEO and president of Concerned Women for America, the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization.  

Across 15 years, the nominee attained law’s pantheon across a spectrum that spans clerking with Justice Stephen Breyer and distinguished federal and state jurists to pursuing many cases for global Jones Day law firm. The vacancy she would fill has been empty for more than a year. Thus, the chamber should quickly confirm the very competent, mainstream nominee.

The opening arose in December 2021, when able Sixth Circuit Judge Guy Cole announced he would assume senior status following much dedicated public service. The White House counsel systematically furnished capable, moderate picks for Biden’s analysis. The office canvassed talented prospects they carefully reviewed for this vacancy by avidly consulting Ohio Sens. Rob Portman (R) and Sherrod Brown (D), while Brown found Bloomekatz a highly “qualified nominee with impressive legal credentials.” The administration expeditiously considered and proposed two strong, mainstream choices, namely including Bloomekatz.

When tapping the candidate, Biden comprehensively reviewed her qualifications. Bloomekatz is a solo practitioner in Columbus, Ohio’s Bloomekatz Law, which she recently founded. From 2016 until 2019, the nominee was a principal with Gupta Wessler, a respected firm, whose focus is appeals, especially to the Supreme Court. Bloomekatz prepared briefs on complex issues before the Supreme Court, federal appellate courts, and state high courts. Between 2013 and 2015, she litigated with Jones Day, working on complicated appeals involving the firm’s corporate practice. Upon graduation, the nominee efficaciously clerked with revered Second Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi before analogously helping Margaret Marshall, the venerated Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court chief justice.

Bloomekatz’s powerful record shows she is an ethical, intelligent, diligent and diverse nominee, who enjoys measured temperament. Bloomekatz captured a well qualified rating, the highest, from the American Bar Association evaluation committee. When Brown introduced her at the Judiciary Committee hearing, the senator voiced support for the “highly qualified nominee [who has] impressive legal credentials [and critical expertise,] intellect, empathy and deep commitment to justice.” The senator contended she had represented ample clients “across the ideological and political spectrum,” lauding her practice’s breadth.

The senator also quoted a letter which 20 of her “fellow Supreme Court clerks [penned] saying: We hold diverse opinions on many areas of law. But we [concur] that Rachel is an extraordinary nominee who will uphold [the] rule of law, equal justice, and fidelity to the Constitution.” Brown productively read from an analogous letter by 25 Ohio appellate counsel. He suggested her “most powerful endorsement is [by] the Sixth Circuit [Judges], who appointed her to represent clients [with] fundamental rights [at] stake.” The panel chair, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), emphasized her proponents’ bipartisanship, wisely stating the Federalist Society Columbus chapter, a conservative legal group, supported Bloomekatz.

She exhibited these qualities when testifying in a June panel hearing, while Democrats seemed pleased with her comprehensive, perceptive responses and broad expertise. For instance, the nominee explained how she represented a wide spectrum of clients encompassing mammoth industry employers and many individuals who sue corporations. When queried about differences between her current role and being a judge, she assessed the sharp distinction between championing a position and being a neutral arbiter.

Nonetheless, Republican senators questioned Bloomekatz regarding clients she represented in cases involving gun control and related “culture war” issues. For example, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.) wondered how the nominee could separate her political perspectives respecting the Second Amendment when deciding matters. Bloomekatz responded by pledging she would strongly follow U.S. Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedents. Sen. John Kennedy (La.) pressed her about whether she personally agreed with Everytown for Gun Safety’s political views, especially banning many assault weapons. The nominee powerfully replied it would be inappropriate to “express personal opinions,” because, if confirmed, she could need to resolve the exact question at issue. Notwithstanding her careful responses, panel member Sen. Josh Hawley (Mo.) completely probed aspects of representation she proffered someone convicted for terrible behavior. The nominee conceded the defendant’s conduct was “atrocious,” but she responsively claimed every person charged “is entitled to a defense [and] a constitutional sentence.”

Early in August, the panel rigorously deliberated on her ample capabilities, which yielded a tie vote, purportedly because Democrats and Republicans and the nation disagree over the Second Amendment, notwithstanding Bloomekatz’s clear abilities. Views of both parties’ senators resembled ideas most espoused in the hearing. For instance, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) alleged Bloomekatz “had a history of progressive litigation that raises concerns [she’ll] be an activist on the bench.” Durbin defended the nominee by asserting her careful advocacy would not color how Bloomekatz treats questions, if confirmed.

At the 117th Congress’ end, deficient time remained to confirm this nominee or many other prominent, moderate Biden nominees, so their nominations expired on Jan. 3, 2023. Thus, Biden renamed many during this month. The panel then approved Bloomekatz 11-10 in early February.

Beyond her distinguished credentials and comprehensive record, many reasons support quickly chamber appointment. First, Judge Cole’s post has remained empty for plentiful months. Second, Biden tapped Bloomekatz over a year ago. Making well qualified nominees and candidates wait prolonged times can mean that some people will place their careers and lives on hold. This might have importance to Bloomekatz, who presently assumes vast solo practitioner duties. Third, the opening requires that Cole and his judicial colleagues decide abundant cases, although plenty of senior jurists address considerably fewer appeals. This judge has kept addressing substantial matters, which allows the tribunal to continue speedily, inexpensively, and equitably treating numerous cases. Litigants, counsel, and citizens are clearly indebted to the experienced jurist for robust ongoing service. However, the delay and partisan conflicts, which implicated both parties’ senators that have left his vacancy open, could be rather inequitable to the dedicated public servant who earned senior status months ago.

Now that the chamber has reassembled, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) must expeditiously proffer a robust floor debate and confirmation ballot, which appoints Rachel Bloomekatz to the Sixth Circuit post that has long remained empty. Her distinctive record means the able, diverse nominee merits immediate confirmation, and Bloomekatz’s competence will allow the tribunal to keep promptly, economically, and fairly resolving a huge docket.

Carl Tobias is the William Chair in Law at the University of Richmond.

As researchers who study the role of fathers in child and family well-being, wecelebrate the founding this year of the Dads Caucus. The existence and advocacy of the caucus is a powerful demonstration that issues such as paid family and medical leave, affordable childcare, and an expanded Child Tax Credit are not only women's issues.  As noted by Gomez in a Father’s Day op-ed, mothers disproportionately bear the burden of insufficient public support to families with young children. The Dads Caucus aims to disrupt this inequity, calling on fathers to take up their share of caregiving and play a key role alongside mothers and others in advocating for legislation that will ensure all parents and caregivers have the resources they need to care for their family.   

Ensuring all parents and caregivers have the resources they need to care for their family will require a focused look at the needs of fathers. From parenting programs to parenting research, fathers are often overlooked, their absence obscured by use of the umbrella term “parenting.” In the policy realm, well-meaning advocates often misdirect their advocacy by focusing attention away from fathers and towards parents.   

It’s crucial to talk directly and unapologetically about fathers and their needs. Fathers — particularly low-income, non-resident, and racially marginalized fathers — face unique barriers and damaging false narratives about their importance in their children’s lives. The systems of care that serve children and families frequently do not recognize or engage fathers as important and valued caregivers. Fathers need champions in Congress to raise awareness of their experiences and advance policies that will remove barriers and enhance opportunities for fathers, their children and families to thrive.  

One issue the Dads Caucus could take up is recognition and inclusion of fathers in efforts to promote maternal and child health. Fathers are influential in maternal and child health, yet we know little about, and do little to encourage, fathers’ involvement in pregnancy and support for healthy pregnancy. Since 1987, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and state health departments have collaborated to learn about mothers’ behaviors, attitudes and experiences across pregnancy through PRAMS, the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. The only question about dads on the PRAMS survey has been, “Did your partner hit, kick, beat or slap you during your pregnancy?” This is woefully inadequate.  

Northwestern University researchers partnered with the CDC and the Georgia Department of Public Health to develop and pilot PRAMS for Dads, a parallel survey to the original PRAMS designed to gather data on the behaviors and experiences of men as they enter fatherhood.  The first findings of this pilot study were published last month showing that fathers play a major role in infant feeding and sleep and need additional education about safe sleep practices for infants and how to support mothers who wish to breastfeed. This pilot demonstrates the need for national investigation of new fathers’ experiences and support needs. In the words of PRAMS for Dads developer Craig Garfield, “Just as we have had decades of federal funding to track the health of new mothers, we need the legislative will to build the public health infrastructure to track and respond to the needs of new dads, to help them truly be there for their child and family.” 

Another issue the Dads Caucus could take up is paternal mental health. Men experience as much as a 68 percent increase in depression symptoms in the first five years of fatherhood, and that can negatively affect parenting, family relationships and child development. While it’s increasingly common to talk about and screen for depression among new mothers, depression among new fathers, though common, is much less visible. Lack of awareness is a barrier to fathers receiving care for depression.

Every new parent who experiences depression deserves support. Building on recent congressional action to address maternal mental health, the Dads Caucus could help to raise awareness of the prevalence, presentation, and consequences for families of paternal depression, and call for a national strategy for paternal mental health.

As the Dads Caucus continues to build out its agenda, we hope to see the caucus advocate for fathers specifically as well as parents and families broadly, and this is especially so for marginalized fathers. Our own research in Wisconsin, conducted in partnership with the African American Breastfeeding Network, refutes the myth of absent Black fathers. We find that Black fathers are actively involved during pregnancy, including as a presence alongside mothers in perinatal health care, but the policy and services environment often impedes rather than facilitate father participation. As one father who participated in our research told us, “They’re looking for you to not care, to not be present…. I wanted to be there for her each and every step, and I was there … but as a Black man [it was on me] to have to say that I won’t allow anyone to separate me.” Addressing the marginalization of fathers and meeting fathers’ needs for support is vital to promoting child and family well-being.

Still in its infancy, the Dads Caucus is already making an impact by raising awareness of challenges that parents face and advocating for family-friendly policies. Recently, the caucus announced its first bill endorsements: the American Family Act and the Black Maternal Health Momnibus Act. We are delighted by these endorsements. And we look forward to the day when the Dads Caucus announces the Black Paternal Health Act and fellow members of Congress offer their endorsements for this much needed bill.   

Tova Walsh is an associate professor of social work at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Alvin Thomas is an assistant professor of human development and family studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the host of the Black Fatherhood Podcast.  They are both members of the Scholars Strategy Network.  

Washington’s establishment quickly took sides in a debate over whether cluster munitions — which can go undetonated for years after a conflict ends only to explode in the innocent hands of a civilian — were ethical or the proper method to kill Russians.

While D.C. mulled this over, the rest of America went back to work. They have to, in order to pay for the sky-high prices of gasoline (up 60 percent since January 2021), eggs (up 51 percent), chicken (up 29 percent), milk (up 21 percent), and electricity (up 25 percent). 

These are just a few of the necessities that have been made unaffordable since Biden took office. Combine the worst inflation in 40 years with the high cost of living, drained savings accounts, and a national debt that has topped $32 trillion, and Americans are learning the widespread and devastating impacts of “Bidenomics.”

Lawmakers do not seem interested in addressing the high cost of living for Americans, or accepting how much of this is their fault.

If they are concerned that we’re sending a weapon banned in 100 countries to Ukraine because our stockpiles of other weapons are running low, the answer will just be more spending — what got us into the cost of living crisis to begin with. 

Every month for many years, Gallup has been running a poll called “Most Important Problem,” where they ask Americans to identify the biggest issue facing the nation.

While the Russia-Ukraine war is the topic you hear most about from the Senate and the White House, in last month’s poll fewer than 1 percent of Americans reported the situation with Russia as the most important problem facing America today. 

Instead, the economy and the high cost of living came in at second and third on the charts. And what problem did Americans rate the biggest, more than any other? The government and poor leadership. No kidding. 

President Biden spent this week at the NATO summit, pledging American taxpayers’ unlimited and unconditional military support to Ukraine for as long as the conflict endures. It’s unclear whether Biden used this summit to ask any leader from the European Union — a trading area with an economy the size of ours — when they would start pulling their own weight in assisting their neighbor to the east.

The cluster bomb debate in D.C. perfectly shows how disconnected our elected leaders in Washington are with their voters. Do we need to send Ukraine cluster bombs? Or should the question be: what is the endgame here? Our $100 billion contribution has already eclipsed Russia’s entire military budget. When that number hits $200 billion, $300 billion, or a trillion dollars, will we just keep paying?

What we need is for Congress to get real about our dire financial condition and get to work on a real budget with spending caps rather than sending blank checks around the world. That would do more to help the average American than anything else. 

Washington’s establishment has long ignored the real day-to-day problems facing its country’s voters in favor of wars and foreign entanglements. The least we could do is stop adding to the problems Americans sent us here to solve.

Mike Braun is a member of the budget committee.

Americans had already experienced oil price shocks earlier in the ’70s and were suffering from the return of gasoline rationing, and Carter’s presidency was on the line. By November 1980 oil prices had reached $24 per barrel, and President Carter had lost his reelection bid. The series of events highlighted more than anything the risk to Americans’ economic wellbeing and way of life due to dependency on foreign energy suppliers.

Today, these events have gained renewed relevance in debates over minerals for clean energy. Part of the argument for more electric vehicles and renewable energy is that these resources reduce foreign dependence, which is especially important if those foreign suppliers are adversarial. When Russia invaded Ukraine last year, Europe was getting half of its natural gas from them. There was a quick realization of the vulnerability that comes from having your economy’s energy supply rely on Russian cooperation, and Europe has since heavily shifted to other sources of natural gas as well as more renewable energy.

The United States enjoys a somewhat mitigated risk from foreign dependency because it is the world’s largest oil and gas producer. But with a big push for clean energy, there is growing concern that one vulnerability could be traded for another since there is no escaping the fact that one country dominates minerals and clean energy markets: China.

For the global mineral processing needed for clean energy, China and its state-owned enterprises control 40 percent of copper, 35 percent of nickel, 65 percent of cobalt, 58 percent of lithium and 87 percent of rare earth elements. While minerals are important in today’s economy, that relevance is dwarfed compared to reality in a clean energy economy, which would require global production to increase 40-fold.

The idea of China being part of a minerals oligopoly, or even monopoly for some resources, is not appealing for a few reasons. One is China’s increasing hostility to the United States, with aggressive intercepts of U.S. aircraft in international airspace and even using lasers to blind American pilots in Africa. Another reason is China’s poor environmental record associated with its mining industry; one of its rare earth mines has a waste pond three times the size of Manhattan’s Central Park.

Even more concerning is China’s deteriorating human rights record. Chinese-funded cobalt mines use 40,000 child workers, and the Chinese have been accused of using slave labor in the production of solar panels. The United States has attempted to adopt policies that tariff and restrict the import of some of these products — namely solar panels produced with slave labor — but the Biden administration has consistently rejected such efforts, indicating that clean energy targets are a higher priority.

Complicating matters further, China has a history of embargoing mineral exports to countries with which they have disputes. And China has just implemented trade restrictions on gallium and germanium, two minerals utilized in clean energy and predominantly supplied by China. So it is reasonable to expect that if the United States is dependent upon China for minerals, it could attempt to use embargoes to influence U.S. policy.

The way to avoid such dependencies and risks is to focus on the opportunities that the free market brings — the first and most obvious being domestic mines. With mineral demand up, and prices increasing, there is substantial opportunity in the United States. Two of the biggest lithium mines in North America ––Thacker Pass and Rhyolite Ridge –– are expected to open in Nevada, and one of the largest undeveloped copper deposits in the world is expected to be tapped in Arizona as Resolution Copper.

My research has found that if the United States wanted to fully transition to clean energy, the proposed mines could close its gap on foreign reliance considerably for lithium and copper, with import reliance falling from 100 percent to 51 percent for lithium and 74 percent to 41 percent for copper.

But even if the United States opens every mine it can to reduce the market role of Chinese suppliers, it can’t escape that there are still minerals that just aren’t present in enough quantities in the United States to meet some of the proposed clean energy scenarios, especially cobalt and nickel. If policymakers want to cover those vulnerabilities, they need to ensure that consumption of those minerals even today is focused on “friend-shoring,” where the United States tries to source minerals from nations with which there are trade and security agreements. It is also crucial that the United States buys from suppliers that comply with U.S. trade rules, and enforces its trade rules across the board. If America doesn’t do this, potential suppliers may think they don’t need to follow the rules to access U.S. buyers.

The risks of foreign dependency on minerals for clean energy can also be mitigated by understanding that the potential price shocks are not quite what it has been for oil and gasoline. The effect of OPEC embargoes and supply disruptions on gasoline prices are practically immediate, but for lithium embargoes disrupting EVs the scarcity effects would be felt more gradually, with prices rising as vehicles would need replacing. Additionally, opportunities for recycling mean that the more we import the more material will be available within our borders to recycle, and that could mean less potential future imports may be required.

All in all, policymakers are right to see parallels between past vulnerability to OPEC, and a future clean energy vulnerability to China. But the good news is that these risks can be mitigated with good policy that is focused on domestic production, friendly foreign trading partners and long-term recycling policies. Americans might not have their necks over a fence for clean energy, but they still need to watch out for the quicksand.

Philip Rossetti is a resident senior fellow for energy policy at the R Street Institute