John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in January of this year, a former Democratic Senator penned an op-ed urging Democrats to do away with the Senate tradition of blue slips. This was followed within weeks by an editorial from the New York Times and an op-ed in the Washington Post making similar arguments. While the Democratic chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee has indicated his desire to maintain the blue slip process, talk of abandoning blue slips remains concerning, especially given Democrats' attempt last year to do away with the legislative filibuster, a mainstay of Senate procedure and a guarantor of minority party representation. Blue slips--so-called because they are literally blue slips of paper requesting perspective on judicial nominees from their home State Senators--are a longtime Senate tradition. They serve the important function of ensuring that Senators are consulted about judicial appointments from their State, and that is particularly relevant when it comes to nominees to serve as Federal district court judges. The Founders set up the Senate in such a way as to provide a voice for States in the national legislature, and Senators continue to provide a voice for a whole State in a way that a Representative in the House of Representatives does not simply because he or she only represents a single district. State representation is of particular relevance when it comes to the most numerous type of judicial nominee, and that is Federal district court judges. Unlike circuit court judges or Supreme Court Justices, Federal district court judges are responsible for a limited physical jurisdiction that is entirely contained within a single State, and they are regularly required to interpret State law as well as Federal law. Now, given that fact, Senators, as the representatives of their States, should have a particular say in who will receive a lifetime appointment to interpret their State's laws. The Constitution gives the President the power to appoint judges by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and the blue slip process in the Senate encourages Presidents to seek that advice--not to just send a nominee over to the Senate for consideration and vote but to actually discuss a nominee with the relevant home State Senators before sending that name over. Blue slips also serve as a check on more extreme or problematic nominees, first, by encouraging the President not to nominate excessively controversial candidates, and second, by providing a way for home State Senators to block a nomination for their State if the President does nominate someone problematic. Senators of both parties regularly return blue slips for judicial nominees; in other words, they sign off on the nomination of judicial nominees who would not be their first choice but whom they recognize as suitable to sit on the bench. When the nominee in question has problems beyond just not being a home State Senator's preference, blue slips have provided a way for Senators of both parties to stop the nomination. In the pieces that have come out in support of abolishing the blue slip process, I have noticed two strands of thought in particular: one, that things have gotten so partisan that we should just do away with things that are meant to foster bipartisanship, and two, that doing away with blue slips is worth it for the political goal to be achieved, and that is getting more Democratic judicial nominees confirmed. When it comes to the first, the idea that things have gotten so partisan that we should just give up and embrace it, I would say that I think the last solution--the last solution--to increased partisanship is to abolish measures that promote collaboration and comity. Now, we have seen a lot of virulent partisanship around here lately, but the truth is that bipartisanship still exists even though it may not always receive the same kind of sensational coverage that major disputes between the parties receive. And anything that promotes bipartisanship, that encourages Members of both parties to work together, to listen to each other's concerns, and to compromise when possible, is a good thing. But while I may not agree that the solution to increased partisanship is to just give in to it, I am really troubled by the second idea put forward by those who want to abolish blue slips: that it is worth abandoning a significant Senate tradition--a tradition that promotes compromise, checks unfettered majority power, and serves as a critical check on the President--for the sake of temporary political gain. This, of course, is hardly the first time we have seen this attitude during the Biden administration. We have also seen it displayed with Democrats' attempt to abolish the legislative filibuster, the Senate rule that today almost unquestionably does more than anything else to preserve the Founders' vision of the Senate as a place of stability and deliberation and a check on the power of faction. I will be frank. The legislative filibuster can be frustrating in the extreme. When Republicans were in control of the Senate, we took multiple votes on the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a piece of legislation that would enshrine what should be the most commonsense thing imaginable, and that is that a living, breathing child born after a botched abortion should be granted protection. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would have passed without the legislative filibuster. So there is no question that the filibuster can stop good legislation from getting passed just as a blue slip could prevent a good judge from being confirmed, but that is not a reason to do away with either of these Senate procedures, and above all, it is not a reason to do away with the legislative filibuster. Yeah, the filibuster can be frustrating, and it can certainly be used to stop good bills, like the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, but it is a powerful protection against bad legislation. Without the legislative filibuster, there is very little, if anything, to prevent terrible legislation from getting passed by an extremely narrow or even merely technical Senate majority. The legislative filibuster offers a host of other benefits. It encourages compromise, it discourages extremism, and it provides a voice for Americans represented by whatever party is in the minority, who also deserve representation. The Founders knew that tyranny didn't just come in the form of individual despots and dictators. They knew that majorities could be tyrants as well and trample on the rights of Americans in the minority, and the legislative filibuster helps guard against that. So I believe very firmly in the Senate rules and traditions that preserve the Founders' vision of the Senate as a place of consensus and deliberation and that help prevent tyrannical majorities from trampling on rights and representation for members of the minority. While the legislative filibuster or the blue slip process may prevent a good piece of legislation from getting passed or a good nominee from getting confirmed, the alternative--the alternative--which is a system without meaningful representation for the minority party and the Americans it represents, without a meaningful check on extreme nominees or legislation that threatens our constitutional rights is, in fact, much, much worse. So before Democrats think about abolishing key Senate protections against extremism or the tyranny of the majority, I hope they will consider what things might look like when they are once again in the minority and they want to stop a nominee or piece of legislation that they view as dangerous or extreme, and I hope they will decide in favor of checks and balances in Senate institutions. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as the winter season drew to a close, South Dakota's high school and college athletes were busy. And from basketball and wrestling to track and field, they have a lot to be proud of. The University of South Dakota Coyotes swept the men's and women's Summit League titles for indoor track and field for the first time in program history. Black Hills State made a Final Four run in the Division II men's basketball tournament. And South Dakota State wrestler Tanner Sloan came in second at the NCAA tournament as the Jackrabbits wrestling team notched its second highest finish as the Division I program. As I traveled around South Dakota this month, I was able to see many of our student athletes compete. I saw Lower Brule take on White River in the high school boys' basketball semifinals in Aberdeen. I caught the girls' Class B, State B basketball tournament in Huron, where I got to see my hometown Jones County Coyotes cap off their historic season. And I was at the Summit League tournament in Sioux Falls as the South Dakota State women began their run for the tournament title. Being back in a high school gym--seeing student athletes playing hard and working together for the good of their team--always brings back good memories. And it makes me reflect on how sports have shaped my life. In addition to instilling important values like teamwork, humility, and service, playing sports taught me the importance of staying active and made me a lifelong fitness enthusiast. The benefits of living an active life are well-documented. Regular physical activity is associated with greater physical well-being, longer lifespans, and improved mental health. Staying active can help prevent a host of chronic conditions, including type 2 diabetes, various types of cancer, heart disease, and depression. And for those who do develop chronic conditions, exercise can help to manage them. For example, according to Mayo Clinic, physical activity can help prevent heart disease from getting worse and lower your risk of dying from the disease--or, to name another example, exercise's benefits for managing anxiety and depression are well-known. In fact, one study found that exercise may be more effective than medication when it comes to managing anxiety and depression. And the health benefits of exercise can also help individuals save money on healthcare as they age. One study found--and here I quote a New York Times article: People who start to exercise before or during middle age typically save anywhere between $824 to $1,874 annually on healthcare costs after retirement, and the earlier they start their workouts, the greater those savings can be. That is from a study conducted by the New York Times. Unfortunately, despite exercise's significant health and even financial benefits, a lot of American adults and children either don't exercise at all or don't get enough exercise. There are a number of reasons for that, of course, but one disincentive to exercising can be the cost of some exercise equipment and programs. Some of the tools that can help people be more active--like a gym membership or fitness equipment--can be too costly for some Americans. Even registration for youth sports leagues can be expensive, making it harder for some families to take advantage of these activities' health benefits. That is why I recently introduced the Personal Health Investment Today Act--it will be called the PHIT Act--with Senator Murphy. The PHIT Act would allow Americans to use a portion of the money in their pretax health savings account or flexible spending account for fitness-related expenses. It wouldn't cover things like an expensive new putter or fees at a country club. But it would allow individuals to use up to $1,000--or $2,000 for married couples--from their HSA or FSA to invest in preventive health tools like exercise equipment or a gym membership--investments that can result in meaningful long-term health benefits as well as healthcare savings. The PHIT Act would also allow families to use these pretax dollars for youth sports registration fees and some of the gear that kids need to participate in sports. The typical family pays hundreds of dollars a year for registration and equipment for youth sports. Many families say sports can be a strain on their budgets, something that has only become more pronounced as inflation has gone up. And, unsurprisingly, some families have had to reduce their kids' level of participation in sports because of the cost. As I said earlier, I learned a lot by playing sports while I was growing up, and I am sure I am not alone. Youth sports are one of the best ways to build lifelong healthy habits. They help kids build strong friendships and learn important skills and values that they carry throughout their lives. And the PHIT Act would help reduce some of the cost barriers that many families face when it comes to getting their kids involved in sports. With more and more of our life spent with technology, we can't overestimate the value of spending time disconnected from screens and being active. Fortunately, no matter how well my bracket is doing, watching March Madness always makes me eager to ``lace `em up,'' as they say, and get on the court myself. Although, I will be honest, I spend, these days, more time trying to keep up with my grandkids than I do working on my jump shot. But whether you are playing in a rec league or with your kids, going to a gym or making a walk or a run as part of your routine, staying active throughout your life is an important part of staying healthy. And with the warmer weather inching closer every day, it is a great time to get active. The PHIT Act is a commonsense way to help encourage more Americans to invest in tools that make fitness goals easier to attain. And I will continue to work to pass the PHIT Act and promote healthy living for more Americans. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I want to welcome the Senator. We get to add another plain-spoken Nebraskan to the U.S. Senate--people who bring a commonsense, clear-eyed realism, a solutions-oriented approach to the Senate. We are really grateful to have former Governor, now-Senator, Pete Ricketts join the U.S. Senate, along with his colleague Senator Deb Fischer. That is a powerful, powerful duo and will be a great partnership for the State of Nebraska and make great contributions to the U.S. Senate and to the betterment of our country. And I know that, like a lot of people from their region of the world, they understand--as he pointed out in his remarks--the importance of a strong and secure America, an America that projects strength in the world, not just militarily but economically, diplomatically. And so as we work on these issues, we face lots of challenges, lots of dangers in the world today. I am just delighted to have another U.S. Senator who comes to us with a record of accomplishments as a Governor. He got a lot of things done when he was Governor of Nebraska. And, as a neighbor State, a State that gets an opportunity to observe--and, actually, I share almost a border with Senator Fischer, because my hometown and her home area are literally, just as we speak, as the crow flies, in Nebraska and the Dakotas, a few miles apart. But we know that we are going to have two people here representing that State whom I have been able to watch, not only from afar but now up close, and just know how talented they are, how dedicated they are, and, again, just how practical and realistic and commonsensical they are about the challenges facing our country and about the solutions that we need to put in place to meet those challenges. So congratulations on your remarks and welcome. It is great to have you here, and we look forward to serving with you, Senator Ricketts, and to continue to serve with Senator Fisher.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, providing for the common defense is one of the core responsibilities of the Federal Government. It is, in fact, a primary reason why the Federal Government exists. In fact, the Constitution states: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion. So how do we do that? How do we protect our Nation and ensure that Americans can live in peace and safety? The answer can be summed up in one word: ``strength.'' As Ronald Reagan 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.'' Or to put it in the words of another President, our first, speaking 200 years earlier, ``To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.'' That is from President George Washington. We secure peace by maintaining our strength. So what does that mean in practice? At its most basic level, of course, it means maintaining a strong military and national intelligence apparatus. It means ensuring that our military is well-funded, sufficiently manned, and fully equipped to meet current and future threats. Unfortunately, we are not doing the best job at that right now. We have military services that are struggling to meet recruiting targets. There is a persistent pilot shortage, and in a number of cases, we have too few mission-capable aircraft. Under the President's budget, Navy ships would be retired faster than we can replace them in our limited shipyards. War-gaming analysis suggests we would run out of certain long-range and precision munitions in conflicts with a great power much sooner than any American should be comfortable with. On top of that, last month, the spectacle of a Chinese spy balloon flying over U.S. military bases made it clear that there has been an alarming gap in NORAD's--the North American Aerospace Defense Command--monitoring of U.S. airspace. Our current situation isn't being helped by the fact that the President is deemphasizing investment in our military. The budget he just introduced for next year requests a massive hike in nondefense spending compared to a mere 3.2-percent increase for defense. In fact, the supposed increase in defense spending isn't really an increase at all. The increase the President is proposing fails to keep pace with current levels of inflation, which means that his defense spending hike is really a defense spending cut--and not for the first time. In November of 2018, the bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission released a report warning that our readiness had eroded to the point where we might struggle to win a war against a major power like Russia or China. The Commission noted that we would be especially vulnerable if we were ever called on to fight a war on two fronts. We have made some progress since then, but we are definitely not there yet. We have to make continued investment in our military and our readiness a priority. We need to be prepared to meet any threat because that will allow us to deter almost any threat. Reducing investment in our military--as the President has proposed-- would leave us in a situation where we could have difficulty defending our Nation or our Nation's interests if attacked. It is worth noting, too, that while the President deemphasizes funding for our military, hostile powers are not doing the same. China recently announced that it is increasing its defense budget by 7.2 percent this year, after increasing it 7.1 percent last year. We need to continue to reinvest in our military, address recruitment challenges, and ensure that our men and women in uniform--and our intelligence personnel--have what they need to meet and deter the threats of the 21st century. The most basic requirement of national strength is a strong military. And that isn't the only requirement. Investment in our military and national security apparatus needs to be accompanied by commitments to border security, energy security, and more. Border security--and here, I am talking not just about physical security at our borders but also enforcement of our immigration laws--is an essential part of keeping our Nation secure. Porous borders--or lax immigration enforcement that allows things like visa overstays--are an invitation to criminals, terrorists, and others who would seek to harm our country. The fact that 16 individuals on the terror watch list were apprehended attempting to cross our southern border illegally in February alone should be all the reminder we need that people who do not wish us well are seeking to enter our country. And we need to ensure that we are enforcing our immigration laws and maintaining our borders to stop them. I also referenced energy security as a component of national strength and security. What does energy security mean? It means developing our domestic energy resources--both conventional and renewable--to ensure a stable and reliable supply of energy that does not depend on imports from hostile countries. The energy challenges and soaring costs countries like Germany have faced over the past year owing to their heavy reliance on Russian energy are a timely reminder of the importance of developing domestic energy supplies. Depending on imports from hostile nations or unstable regions not only enriches those nations, it places us in a position of vulnerability. So far, I have talked about what we should be doing domestically to build the kind of strength that will protect our Nation and deter aggressors. But security is not just a matter of working at home to strengthen our military and secure our borders. We also need to engage globally--to build relationships with allies, support free nations, and stand against hostile actions by hostile countries. Now, standing against hostile actions or hostile nations doesn't mean fixing every country's problems or getting militarily involved in every conflict around the globe. We are not--and cannot be--police officer to the world. But an isolationism that would recede from any world event unless it directly and immediately affects us is dangerous and contrary to our national security interests because sooner or later, world events--particularly those that involve powerful and hostile nations--do affect us. We ignore the importance of security challenges, like Ukraine, at our peril. Putin is already making it clear his ambitions don't end with Ukraine. He is also occupying territory in Georgia and, seemingly, working on asserting Russian influence in Moldova and the Balkans. A Putin victorious in Ukraine would be on the doorstep of four former Soviet satellite states--now NATO members whom we are bound by treaty to protect--and he would likely be emboldened. War could spread, which would compound the existing humanitarian catastrophe cost, cost U.S. lives, and spell economic disaster not only for European countries but for the United States, which trades heavily with Europe. For the sake of our own security, we cannot afford to sit by and ignore the Ukrainian conflict. Helping Ukraine fight its fight degrades Russia's capability and helps ensure that the United States and NATO troops won't have to fight a war with Russia. And it sends a clear message to Russia and other nations with imperial ambitions that aggression will not go unanswered away. I would also note that along with isolationism, we need to be wary of the tendency to focus on one global threat to the exclusion of others. China, which is flexing its military and economic power and threatening the safety of Taiwan, should rightly be a major focus right now. But it cannot be the only one. For those who, for example, contend that U.S. support for Ukraine is a distraction from the threat that China represents, I would argue that the outcome in Ukraine and upholding Ukraine's sovereignty has significant implications for China and Taiwan. It appears Japanese Prime Minister Kishida would agree, as he traveled to Kyiv 1 week ago--a trip not undertaken lightly given that Japan is neighbors with Russia, China, and North Korea. We know that Chinese leader Xi Jingping is watching the West's response to the war in Ukraine closely. And our support--and NATO's support--of Ukraine can send a powerful message to General Secretary Xi that he should think twice before making any move across the Taiwan Strait. In addition to confronting the dangers posed by great powers, we also need to continue to maintain focus on threats in the Middle East and Africa, including ISIS and Iran and their proxies. In the past week, there have been multiple strikes on American forces in Syria, with attacks tracing back to Iran-backed militia groups. And we need to continue to make it clear that hostile action against Americans--like last week's attacks--will not be tolerated. Iran is fomenting unrest in the Middle East, moving closer to enriching weapons-grade uranium, and sending drones to Russia to support its war on Ukraine. Meanwhile, it is looking likely that Russia will supply Iran with modern fighter jets, making Iran an even more deadly presence in the Middle East. We cannot afford to ignore Iran any more than we can ignore China, Russia, or any other serious threat to peace and stability. We need to remain engaged on the global stage--always pursuing peace but always ready to respond to those who would jeopardize it. Above all, we can't be afraid to call evil by its name. Ronald Reagan never declared war on the Soviet Union. But he helped bring down the Evil Empire, in part, by not being afraid to speak with moral clarity. There will always be threats to peace and security. And it must be our job to ensure that the United States always has the strength to meet them. There is no surer way of preserving the peace or protecting the heritage of freedom that we have been given. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) and the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell).

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I call up Senate amendment No. 4 on behalf of Senator Rubio and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize the life and leadership of Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, a global spiritual leader known universally as the Rebbe, and head of the Chabad-Lubavitch movement. The Rebbe was born in 1902 and lived through the darkest periods of history, escaping the evils of Russian communism and the horrors of Nazi Germany. In 1941, the Rebbe and his wife Rebbetzin Chaya Mushka arrived safely on the shores of the United States, where he worked tirelessly to resuscitate, rebuild, and guide world Jewry after the holocaust. The Rebbe exemplified an ideal and value we need today: to give of ourselves selflessly for the betterment of those around us. The Rebbe urged us all to become ambassadors for goodness and kindness and explained that education must not be limited to the academics necessary for making a good living, but rather focus on the ethics, morals, and values that serve as the bedrock of civilization. One result of the Rebbe's leadership is the Chabad-Lubavitch movement which, by following his teachings and example, became the world's largest Jewish educational organization. Today, there are more than 3,500 permanent Chabad-Lubavitch centers providing educational, religious, and humanitarian programming in all 50 States, including in my home State of South Dakota, and in 109 countries. The Rebbe's teachings and scholarship are published in more than 400 volumes and are translated in dozens of languages. The Rebbe recognized America's unique role as a force for good and had meaningful relationships with several of our Nation's leaders, who saw him as the moral guide of so many. For the Rebbe, America was a beacon of light of historic proportions to be utilized in influencing the moral betterment of all humanity, and he often pointed to the words ``In God We Trust'' enshrined on our currency as a defining element of the great American story. For more than four decades, every U.S. President has declared the annual observance of Education and Sharing Day in honor of the anniversary of the Rebbe's birth and in recognition of his contributions to the betterment of education for all people. In 1995, he was awarded the Congressional Gold Medal for his contributions toward education, morality, and acts of charity. Education and Sharing Day represents an excellent opportunity for us to reflect on the Rebbe's vision and leadership. May we take his teachings to heart.