John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Ricketts), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Ricketts), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Ricketts), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Ricketts), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Ricketts), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have noted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Ricketts), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have noted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the Supreme Court finished up its term recently by releasing several decisions that did not result in the Democrats' preferred outcomes. The hysteria was instant and, unfortunately, predictable. ``Disappointing and cruel,'' the Senate Democratic leader chastised one decision. ``Unacceptable and indefensible'' said another Democratic Senator. ``Horrifying'' was another response from a Democratic Senator. Then there was the President of the United States who said: This is not a normal court. Not a normal court--never mind the fact that this Court, like others before it, is composed of nine Justices duly nominated and confirmed in accordance with the Constitution, sitting and interpreting the law. Apparently, the fact that this Court has issued decisions Democrats disagree with makes this ``not a normal court.'' Well, here is the list of thoroughly unradical decisions that have so horrified members of the Democratic party: The Court ruled that universities cannot make admissions decisions based upon the color of someone's skin. The Court ruled that the President does not have the right to create a massive student loan forgiveness program without clear authority from Congress. The Court ruled that the First Amendment does actually protect Americans from being forced by the Government to speak messages with which they disagree. These are the rulings that Members of the Democratic party consider ``cruel and indefensible.'' Continuing with the theme of Democratic hysteria, the Democratic leader said on Sunday that the Supreme Court had achieved ``dangerous'' and ``regressive'' policies ``completely at odds with what the vast majority of Americans want.'' Now, I am not sure he has that quite right. I know the recent decisions are at odds with what the Democratic party wants, but the vast majority of Americans do not seem to be at odds with the Court's decisions. Take the Court's decision in favor of the First Amendment. It turns out that more Americans support that decision than oppose it. The same goes for the Court's student loan decision. Public opinion is decidedly in favor of the Court's decision ruling that the Constitution does not allow universities to make admissions decisions on the basis of race. One poll found that 52 percent of the American people approve--approve--of the Court's decision, while just 32 percent disapprove. Another poll found that 59 percent of Americans approve of the Court's decision, while just 27 percent disapprove. It seems that the Court is a lot more in line with Americans than the Democratic party would like to think. Let me offer a few more statistics about this supposedly abnormal court. Let's put things in context here for just a moment. Nearly half of the cases decided by the Supreme Court in this term were decided unanimously--almost half. That means that all of those ``extreme'' Republican-nominated Justices and all of the Court's Democrat-nominated Justices were in unanimous agreement almost half the time. That is not all. At least one of the Court's so-called liberal Justices was in the majority in more than 80 percent of cases. That means that more than 80 percent of the time, at least one liberal Justice agreed with the Court's conservatives. It kind of makes the Supreme Court seem not very extreme. Eighty percent of the decisions had Justices from so-called both sides--conservative and liberal sides. Yes, there have been a handful of decisions where all of the liberal Justices have disagreed with the majority opinion. But that is hardly unprecedented. There have been plenty of cases in previous years where most or all of the so-called conservative Justices have disagreed with the majority opinion, and I don't remember Democrats having any problems with the legitimacy of those outcomes. Democrats' utter hysteria in the face of some pretty mainstream Supreme Court decisions could almost be amusing, but it is not, because Democrats' rhetoric and proposed response to a Supreme Court that issues decisions they disagree with has crossed a line. Now, I completely respect Democrats' right to be upset at and disagree with Supreme Court decisions. I disagreed with quite a few myself. But there is disagreement, and then there is attempting to undermine a branch of our government. And Democrats are engaged in the latter. Over and over, Democrats' responses go beyond disagreement or outrage at the Court's decisions and cross the line into attacking the Court's legitimacy. A number of Democrats have gone even further, directly or indirectly calling for expanding the Court or otherwise altering it to create a Court that will rule in line with where Democrats think it should be. It is difficult to overstate just how dangerous Democrats' rhetoric is. Democrats are not only fostering a sense of distrust about a Court that is completely legitimate in every way--save for the fact the Democrats don't like some of its decisions--that they are proposing so- called solutions that would permanently and completely destroy faith in the Supreme Court as an impartial interpreter of the law. Do Democrats seriously imagine that their proposal to ``restore faith'' in the courts would do anything but further divide the American public and encourage one half of the population to regard the Court as an arm of the Democratic Party? Do Democrats seriously think they could pack the Court with their preferred Justices and not set off a permanent battle in which the party in power adds or subtracts Justices to achieve what it decides is balance? If Democrats have their way, we will be looking at a future in which the Supreme Court is nothing but an arm of the party in power in the other two branches, with the number of Justices constantly changing to achieve the governing party's preferred outcomes. There are names for systems of government in which the party in power controls the outcome in the courts. They are names like ``dictatorship'' and ``despotism.'' Not getting your way at the Supreme Court is a pretty poor reason to undermine our system of government. But I am starting to wonder just how well Democrats understand our system of government, given their apparent belief that the outcome should always be in their favor. That is not the way it works in our democratic Republic. In our system of government, you win sometimes and you lose sometimes. When you lose, you fight hard to gain ground and persuade others of the rightness of your position. You do not--you do not-- attempt to rig the system so the outcome will always be in your favor. Hopefully--hopefully--you do not set out to undermine faith in the system by suggesting that any outcome that you don't like is not just incorrect but illegitimate. It is deeply disturbing that so many Democrats and Democratic leaders are participating in this campaign to attack the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. I hope--I truly hope--that cooler heads will prevail before they do permanent damage to our system of government. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Ricketts), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Natalia Stys, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Natalia is a graduate of Creighton University in Omaha, NE, having earned a degree in psychology. Currently, she is pursuing a law degree at the University of South Dakota Knudson School of Law in Vermillion, SD. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Natalia for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Taylor Neely, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Taylor is a graduate of O'Gorman High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, she is attending the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in Lincoln, NE, where she is pursuing a degree in nutrition, exercise, and health sciences. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Taylor for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Keely Larson, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Keely is a graduate of Harrisburg High School in Harrisburg, SD. Currently, she is attending the University of Arizona in Tucson, AZ, where she is pursuing a degree in philosophy, politics, economics, and law. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Keely for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Leah Brengle, an intern in my Rapid City, SD, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Leah is a graduate of Sturgis Brown High School in Sturgis, SD. Currently, she is attending South Dakota State University in Brookings, SD, where she is pursuing a degree in criminology. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Leah for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Noah Greble, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Noah is a graduate of O'Gorman High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, he is attending Augustana University in Sioux Falls, SD, where he is pursuing degrees in government and marketing. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Noah for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this week, the Senate Armed Services Committee is marking up the fiscal year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act. The NDAA is one of the most important pieces of legislation we consider literally every year. It is a bill that authorizes funding for our men and women in uniform and our defense needs and lays out our defense priorities. Hopefully, it is one of the things that force us to sit down and seriously consider the state of our national defense and what we need both now and in the future to ensure that America's military is prepared to deter and if necessary confront any threat. I like to say that if we don't get national security right, the rest is conversation. And it is true. All these other things we debate and talk about, if we can't protect the country, really end up being very secondary. The security of our Nation is the precondition for everything else--for the continued enjoyment of our freedoms, for a flourishing society, for a healthy economy, for the government's ability to do anything. My Democratic colleagues these days often seem to think we can let defense spending take a back seat to the latest Big Government issue, but that betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of reality. We live in a fallen world, and as long as we live in a fallen world, there will be evil people bent on aggression. So our national defense is not something we can ever afford to minimize or take for granted. We have to be prepared at all times to deter and to meet any threat. The United States has a reputation for having one of the strongest militaries in the world. While that reputation is deserved, the fact of the matter is that our military readiness is not where it needs to be. Thanks to budgetary impasses and increased operational demands, by 2018, our readiness had eroded to the point that the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission released a report warning that we might struggle to win a war against a major power like Russia or China. While we have made progress since then, we are still a long way from where we need to be. Recent U.S. war games positing a U.S.-China conflict following an attack on Taiwan have had grim results, showing enormous military and economic costs on both sides. One news story on these war games noted, and I quote: And while the ultimate outcome in these exercises is not always clear--the U.S. does better in some than others--the cost is [clear]. In every exercise the U.S. uses up all its long-range air-to-surface missiles in a few days, with a substantial portion of its planes destroyed on the ground. Let me just repeat that line. In every exercise the U.S. uses up all its long-range air- to-surface missiles in a few days, with a substantial portion of its planes destroyed on the ground. That is not a promising scenario, and it points to serious readiness shortages, particularly deficiencies in our inventory of munitions. I don't need to tell anyone that the side that runs out of munitions first is likely to be the side that loses in any conflict, which is why we need sustained investments in rebuilding our supply chain--an effort that is reinforced by multiyear purchases. China is flexing its power with increasingly aggressive actions in the Indo-Pacific. It is investing heavily--heavily--in its military. China's defense budget has doubled over the last decade, and this year it will increase by more than 7 percent for the second year in a row. That doesn't even count any additional defense funding that China hides. So it should come as no surprise that China is outpacing our military in modern capabilities like hypersonic missiles and has amassed a larger navy. I said that China is growing increasingly aggressive in the Indo- Pacific, but China is also growing increasingly aggressive toward the United States. Everyone remembers the Chinese spy balloon that flew over our country earlier this year, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Recent reports indicate that China is using Cuba as a base for intelligence gathering against the United States. Now it has emerged that China is in discussions with Havana to establish a new joint military training facility in Cuba. That is not even to mention the aggressive behavior of the Chinese military toward U.S. assets in the Indo-Pacific. It is impossible to overstate the necessity of ensuring that we have the military and economic strength necessary to deter attacks from China or, in the worst case, confront and defeat them. While China is obviously a major focus, we cannot forget the threat posed by Russia, as we continue to see in Ukraine, which is why it is vital that the United States and the Western world continue to support Ukraine in its fight and that NATO members take seriously or exceed their commitment to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Outside of great power threats, there are rogue nations like Iran, which is deepening its ties with both Russia and China and is dangerously close to becoming a nuclear power. The legislation the Senate Armed Services Committee is considering this week is vital, and I hope the markup will produce a strong bill that helps address the shortfalls in our readiness. I put forward a number of proposals that I hope will be included in the final legislation, with full funding for development of the new B- 21 bomber, which will be housed at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota, at the very top of my priority list. I am also working to ensure that, in addition to funding for the B-21 and the necessary support facilities, the Ellsworth area gets the resources it needs to support the military personnel and their families who will be coming to the area with the arrival of the B-21s. Ronald Reagan once said: We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong, but when they are weak. It is then that tyrants are tempted. Today, as ever, it is vital that we make sure the forces of freedom are strong, and I will do everything I can to help ensure that this year's National Defense Authorization Act advances our Nation's readiness so that we can be prepared to deter any threat or meet it if called upon. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 South Carolina (Mr. Graham).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the threat that China poses is widely recognized. Recent events laid bare the Chinese Communist Party's interest in spying on Americans. The Chinese military is growing more aggressive in the Indo-Pacific, especially toward Taiwan. And China is aligning itself with other adversaries like Russia, whose war against Ukraine China has helped support. We need to make the right decisions now to ensure that the United States is able to counter China from a position of strength, which brings me to the majority leader's current China proposal. Last month, the Democrat leader launched an initiative Democrats are calling China Competition bill 2.0. While this proposal has some laudable goals, a lot of Republicans are rightly skeptical of this initiative. Leader Schumer's last China initiative massively ballooned in cost, and now it is being implemented by the Biden administration as a vehicle for advancing progressive policies. I am not alone in fearing the Democrats' latest initiative will turn out to be just more of the same. If Democrats are serious about competing with China, one thing they should be doing is making passage of a robust National Defense Authorization Act a priority. Unfortunately, the NDAA has not exactly been a priority for the Democrat leader over the past 2 years. In fact, last year, Senator Schumer refused to bring the bipartisan Senate Armed Services Committee-passed bill to the floor. This critical legislation was allowed to languish for months before a negotiated bill with the House and the Senate finally passed in December of last year. Our national security should not be an eleventh-hour concern. I am encouraged that the Senate markup of the NDAA is occurring next week and that the majority leader is inclined to bring it to the floor in July. And I hope that holds. China has made investment in its military a priority. Over the last 10 years, China's defense budget has doubled. This year, it will increase by more than 7 percent for the second year in a row, not counting any additional defense funding that China hides. It comes as no surprise that China is outpacing our military in modern capabilities like hypersonic missiles and has amassed a larger Navy. Recent U.S. war games positing a U.S.-China conflict following an attack on Taiwan have had grim results, showing enormous military and economic costs on both sides. These war games also made clear that the United States would run through its inventory of munitions, especially for long-range strike, in a matter of weeks, blunting our ability to sustain a protracted conflict. The United States, along with our allies and partners, need to maintain a credible deterrence to ensure that the cost is prohibitively high and the odds of success are extremely slim for China to attack across the Taiwan Strait or further attempt to assert any absolute control within the so-called First Island Chain. To do that, we have work to do on boosting our military's resources and readiness. At the very least, that starts with taking up each year's Defense authorization and appropriations bills in a timely fashion. Besides building up our military, one of the best ways to ensure our competitiveness with China is to strengthen American industry so we continue to lead in the breakthroughs, innovations, and advanced technologies that will define the future. How we attempt to do that matters. The President and Democrats in Congress have shown their preference for heavy-handed and often costly industrial policy that bestows taxpayer-funded subsidies on certain select industries, and it would be wise to ask where this will put us in the next 5, 10, and 20 years. Will it stifle innovation in our most important engines of growth? What will be the result of government picking winners and losers? Will small businesses and new enterprises be able to compete with large, established, and government-subsidized firms? The way the Biden administration has so far been implementing its subsidy programs makes me suspect that we are well on our way to having government bureaucrats play an outsized role in our economy, with correspondingly negative effects. Look no further than the strings that the Commerce Department has attached to funding for semiconductor manufacturers. The Department is giving preference to companies using union workers and, in some cases, conditioning funding on companies offering employee benefits that align with the Biden administration's agenda. It is the opposite of creating a level playing field. America succeeds when innovators and entrepreneurs are empowered to do what they do best, and government steps out of the way. Government should be focused, not on heavy-handed regulation or picking winners and losers but on creating the conditions on which all businesses, large and small, can thrive. Republicans have shown how pro-growth policies like this lead to greater investment, more opportunities for workers, and a stronger economy for all. Take our 2017 tax reform legislation. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lowered tax rates for owners of small- and medium-sized businesses, farms and ranches, and made it easier for them to recover the cost of investing in their businesses, which, in turn, freed up cash for them to invest in their operations and their workers. It lowered our country's sky-high corporate tax rate to make American businesses more competitive in the global economy. And it brought our international tax system into the 21st century so that American businesses no longer operated at a disadvantage to their foreign counterparts. And it worked. In the wake of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, incomes grew, unemployment fell to a 50-year low, the income gap in this country narrowed, and the list goes on. Business investment increased, inversions--which is tax speak for companies moving their headquarters overseas--stopped. Companies created new jobs and invested in their employees, and they opened new opportunities for American workers by moving production and capital into the United States and bringing substantially more than a trillion dollars in offshore funds home. One major thing--one major thing--that we could do to help boost our economy and increase our competitiveness with China is to extend the expired provisions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to give certainty to American businesses and entrepreneurs, and in Democrats' case, commit to not repealing key Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions. In the defense space, we can enhance the certainty for businesses by authorizing more multiyear acquisition contracts for key munitions like those used by the B-1 bomber, something that would both enhance economic growth and strengthen our Nation's defense. We also need to resume a real and robust trade policy. For the last 2\1/2\ years, the Biden administration has put trade on the back burner to the detriment of our economy and our place in the world. Trade opens new jobs and opportunities for American workers. It helps businesses and agriculture producers access new markets, which grows our economy, and it provides an opportunity to develop important strategic relationships, foster ties with our allies, and advance U.S. priorities abroad. Under the Biden administration, the United States has been essentially inactive--inactive--on trade, but the rest of the world has not. China, for one, is currently negotiating or implementing a number of new trade agreements, adding to its already large portfolio of trading partners. These agreements aren't just economically advantageous, they are allowing China to build sometimes predatory relationships that serve to expand its sphere of influence. One of the most important things we can do to ensure that our country remains competitive with China is to reengage on the trade front and get to work on trade deals that expand market access and strengthen our relationships with other countries, particularly those that neighbor China. There are a number of other steps we can take to boost our competitiveness with China, things like unleashing American energy production to increase our energy security and to boost American industry, developing critical mineral resources here at home instead of relying on China for so much of our critical mineral supply, expanding our own security and technological partnerships so we have a more agile and resilient supply chain, and more. If the Democrat leader is serious about improving our competitiveness with China and not just funding progressive priorities, these are the kinds of things that he should focus on for his bill. There is no question in my mind that the United States can successfully compete with and deter aggression from China. But to do that, we have to make sure that we are doing the right things to build up our military and ensure that American industry can thrive. And I hope that as we move forward, we will make securing our competitiveness with China a priority and ensure that any China initiative does not simply become a vehicle for more spending on progressive fantasies. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas Mr. (Cotton), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).