John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I yield the floor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, later today, I will introduce the Born- Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, along with my colleague Senator Lankford. It is a simple bill. It simply states that a baby born alive after an attempted abortion is entitled to the same protection and medical care that any other newborn baby is entitled to. And you would think that it would be a simple ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body, but unfortunately, that is not where we are. Four years ago and then three years ago, the U.S. Senate took up this bill, and almost every single Democrat in this body voted against it. Just 3 weeks ago, the House of Representatives took up this bill, and almost every single Democrat over there voted against it. Apparently banning infanticide is now controversial because--let's be clear--that is what we are talking about here. Some Democrats have tried to cloak their opposition to this bill in meaningless phrases about a private decision between a woman and her doctor, but what is the decision we are talking about? We are talking about whether or not a living baby, born after an attempted abortion, should be provided with medical care or be left to die or, I suppose, be killed outright by the abortionist. That is what we are talking about. That is the ``decision'' Democrats are referring to. And that is apparently the decision they think should be left up to patients and their doctors--whether or not to let a living, breathing baby die. The Senate voted on a previous version of this bill introduced by my former colleague Senator Sasse 4 years ago when the Democratic Governor of Virginia came right out and said you could keep a newly born baby comfortable while you decided what to do with it--in other words, while you decided whether to let the child die or, I guess, kill it or whether to let it live. That chilling statement made it abundantly clear that we needed to state explicitly that any baby, wherever he or she is born, including in an abortion clinic, is entitled to medical care. It is staggering that we have gotten to the point where we need to debate this in Congress, staggering that this wouldn't be an automatic ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body, but that is where we are. If anyone thinks that abortion isn't a slippery slope, that we can somehow devalue unborn babies' lives while maintaining respect for everyone else's, then I am here to tell them differently because the Democratic Party has gotten to the point where its members not only oppose legislation to protect unborn babies; they oppose legislation to protect born ones as well. In Democrats' world, there are now apparently two classes of born babies: the wanted ones born alive in delivery rooms and the unwanted ones born alive in abortion clinics. Apparently, only one of those classes of babies is entitled to the equal protection of the laws. Democrats talk a lot about abortion when they are talking about this bill, but this bill, of course, would do absolutely nothing to restrict abortion. It is not a bill protecting unborn babies; it is a bill protecting born babies. I do understand why Democrats are so worked up, though, because while this bill may not do anything to restrict abortion, there is always the chance that drawing attention to the humanity and dignity of the child who has just been born will draw attention to the humanity and dignity of the child who is about to be born--the child Democrats are determined our laws should not protect. And Democrats are apparently so determined to preserve the so-called right to kill unborn babies that they are fully comfortable opposing a law that would protect born-- born--babies. These are hard things to talk about, but they have to be said because that is the reality of where we are right now. Roughly 50 percent of the U.S. Congress opposes giving the equal protection of the law to born human beings if they happen to be born alive following an attempted abortion. Now, I think we are at a real inflection point as to where we want to be as a nation. Do we want to be a country where the circumstances of your birth determine whether or not your right to life is protected? Do we want to be a country that endorses leaving living, breathing babies to die, that discards born babies because they are, for a moment at their birth, unwanted? I don't know. I think we are better than that. We have to be better than that. If we truly want to be a nation that protects human rights, that stands for justice, that defends the vulnerable, then we cannot be a nation that says it is acceptable to leave living, breathing, born human beings to die in abortion clinics, that says there are two classes of newborn babies and that only one of them deserves to be protected. Every human being deserves to be protected, no matter the circumstances of his or her birth. I want to thank Senator Lankford for his leadership on this issue. We will be working together to advance this legislation, and I pray that sooner rather than later, we will get to the day when this bill will be an automatic ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, later today, I will introduce the Born- Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, along with my colleague Senator Lankford. It is a simple bill. It simply states that a baby born alive after an attempted abortion is entitled to the same protection and medical care that any other newborn baby is entitled to. And you would think that it would be a simple ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body, but unfortunately, that is not where we are. Four years ago and then three years ago, the U.S. Senate took up this bill, and almost every single Democrat in this body voted against it. Just 3 weeks ago, the House of Representatives took up this bill, and almost every single Democrat over there voted against it. Apparently banning infanticide is now controversial because--let's be clear--that is what we are talking about here. Some Democrats have tried to cloak their opposition to this bill in meaningless phrases about a private decision between a woman and her doctor, but what is the decision we are talking about? We are talking about whether or not a living baby, born after an attempted abortion, should be provided with medical care or be left to die or, I suppose, be killed outright by the abortionist. That is what we are talking about. That is the ``decision'' Democrats are referring to. And that is apparently the decision they think should be left up to patients and their doctors--whether or not to let a living, breathing baby die. The Senate voted on a previous version of this bill introduced by my former colleague Senator Sasse 4 years ago when the Democratic Governor of Virginia came right out and said you could keep a newly born baby comfortable while you decided what to do with it--in other words, while you decided whether to let the child die or, I guess, kill it or whether to let it live. That chilling statement made it abundantly clear that we needed to state explicitly that any baby, wherever he or she is born, including in an abortion clinic, is entitled to medical care. It is staggering that we have gotten to the point where we need to debate this in Congress, staggering that this wouldn't be an automatic ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body, but that is where we are. If anyone thinks that abortion isn't a slippery slope, that we can somehow devalue unborn babies' lives while maintaining respect for everyone else's, then I am here to tell them differently because the Democratic Party has gotten to the point where its members not only oppose legislation to protect unborn babies; they oppose legislation to protect born ones as well. In Democrats' world, there are now apparently two classes of born babies: the wanted ones born alive in delivery rooms and the unwanted ones born alive in abortion clinics. Apparently, only one of those classes of babies is entitled to the equal protection of the laws. Democrats talk a lot about abortion when they are talking about this bill, but this bill, of course, would do absolutely nothing to restrict abortion. It is not a bill protecting unborn babies; it is a bill protecting born babies. I do understand why Democrats are so worked up, though, because while this bill may not do anything to restrict abortion, there is always the chance that drawing attention to the humanity and dignity of the child who has just been born will draw attention to the humanity and dignity of the child who is about to be born--the child Democrats are determined our laws should not protect. And Democrats are apparently so determined to preserve the so-called right to kill unborn babies that they are fully comfortable opposing a law that would protect born-- born--babies. These are hard things to talk about, but they have to be said because that is the reality of where we are right now. Roughly 50 percent of the U.S. Congress opposes giving the equal protection of the law to born human beings if they happen to be born alive following an attempted abortion. Now, I think we are at a real inflection point as to where we want to be as a nation. Do we want to be a country where the circumstances of your birth determine whether or not your right to life is protected? Do we want to be a country that endorses leaving living, breathing babies to die, that discards born babies because they are, for a moment at their birth, unwanted? I don't know. I think we are better than that. We have to be better than that. If we truly want to be a nation that protects human rights, that stands for justice, that defends the vulnerable, then we cannot be a nation that says it is acceptable to leave living, breathing, born human beings to die in abortion clinics, that says there are two classes of newborn babies and that only one of them deserves to be protected. Every human being deserves to be protected, no matter the circumstances of his or her birth. I want to thank Senator Lankford for his leadership on this issue. We will be working together to advance this legislation, and I pray that sooner rather than later, we will get to the day when this bill will be an automatic ``yes'' vote from every Member of this body. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, it only took 2 years--2 years--for the President to acknowledge the crisis that has been raging along our southern border almost since the day he took office. Over those 2 years, we have seen record numbers of migrants attempting to cross our southern border. We have seen record numbers of migrants die--die-- attempting the dangerous crossing of our southern border. We have seen the Border Patrol overwhelmed, border cities overwhelmed, and dangerous drugs continue to flood across our border and reach communities around our Nation. Yet, for months and months, the President did essentially nothing. In fact, he acted as if the crisis didn't even exist. I am glad that, at long last, the President seems to be acknowledging this crisis, even if his recent visit to the border was scripted and controlled. But it is appalling to think of how much human misery could have been avoided if the President had lived up to his national security obligations and addressed the border disaster many months ago. I suppose it is not a surprise that the President wasn't eager to acknowledge just how bad things were because that might have drawn extra scrutiny to the President's border policies, policies that played a substantial role in creating this crisis in the first place. From the moment he took office and even before, President Biden made it clear that border security was at the bottom of his priority list. On his very first day in office, President Biden rescinded the declaration of a national emergency at our southern border. He halted construction of the border wall. He revoked a Trump administration order that called for the government to faithfully execute our immigration laws. And his Department of Homeland Security issued guidelines pausing deportations except under certain conditions. And that was all on his first day in office. Well, needless to say, the effect of all this was to declare to the world that the U.S. borders were effectively open, and we have seen the result: 2 years of soaring illegal immigration. Since President Biden took office, there have been more than 4.5 million attempted illegal border crossings. Now, to put that number in perspective, that is roughly equal to the entire population of South Dakota, plus the entire population of Delaware, Wyoming, Nebraska, and then some. Last month, 251,487 migrants were apprehended attempting to cross our southern border, the highest monthly number ever recorded. And, of course, these numbers just refer to individuals Customs and Border Protection managed to apprehend. There have been a staggering 1.2 million known ``got-aways'' since President Biden took office, individuals that the Border Patrol saw but were unable to apprehend. President Biden has talked about wanting a safe, orderly, and humane immigration system. Well, up until now, he has failed on all fronts. Encouraging illegal immigration as the President's policies have done is the very opposite of compassionate and humane. There is nothing compassionate about policies that encourage people to attempt the dangerous trip across our southern border, to run the risk of exploitation and disease and exposure and death; nor is it compassionate to condemn border cities to dealing with a never-ending flood of illegal immigration and other cross-border illegal activity. On top of all that, the kind of unchecked illegal immigration we have been seeing is an open invitation--an open invitation--to drug traffickers, human smugglers, and other dangerous individuals. Our Nation is currently in the midst of a serious fentanyl crisis. In fact, right now, fentanyl overdose is the leading cause of death of U.S. adults between the ages of 18 and 45. And where is all this fentanyl coming from? Well, most of it is being trafficked across our southern border. And I would be very surprised if the chaos at our southern border isn't facilitating that trafficking. And--let's be clear--drug trafficking across our southern border doesn't just affect border States; it affects communities around our country. I have talked to sheriffs in South Dakota, almost as far from our southern border as you can get, who are dealing with fentanyl that has been trafficked across the border from Mexico. Last year, Minnehaha County Sheriff Mike Milstead estimated that 90 percent--90 percent--of fentanyl and methamphetamine in our State, the State of South Dakota, comes through Mexico. Again, I would be very surprised if the chaos at our southern border hasn't facilitated that trafficking. Our country has been shaped by immigrants from around the world, and I am a strong supporter of legal immigration. I have repeatedly introduced legislation to open up opportunities for individuals to come from abroad and to work here in the United States when employers can't secure enough domestic labor. But immigration has to be legal. It has to be legal for security reasons, for humanitarian reasons, and because we have a responsibility to uphold the rule of law. I am thankful that the President finally seems to be, at least halfheartedly, acknowledging our border crisis and he has recognized his error in rescinding a number of policies that successfully took pressure off the border. Now let's see how he follows through. There are definitely things Congress can do to strengthen our border security, deter abuse of our asylum system, and provide resources to those serving on the frontlines against trafficking and smuggling. We can also find ways to address some of the economic factors that influence illegal immigration by leveraging legal pathways to allow immigrants to fill jobs that American employers are struggling to fill. But the fact of the matter is, while there are things Congress can do to help, the President of the United States doesn't need an act of Congress to move forward on securing the border. The President just needs to enforce the law. For the sake of our national security, our overwhelmed border communities, and the individuals tempted to make the dangerous journey across the border, let's hope he does so. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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. 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 (Ms. Lummis) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, 2023 will be a big year on the agriculture front as we work to draft the next farm bill. Farm bills are always a major priority for me given the essential place agriculture holds in South Dakota, and I have been gearing up now for the 2023 farm bill since last year when I began holding a series of roundtables with agriculture producers to hear firsthand what farmers' and ranchers' priorities are right now and what they need from the 2023 farm bill. I introduced multiple bills last Congress that I hope to get included in this year's legislation, including bills to strengthen and improve the Conservation Reserve Program, and address the needs of South Dakota livestock producers--and of producers around the country. Livestock production has long been an integral part of South Dakota's agriculture heritage, including cattle ranching in our West River communities; and one of my priorities for this year's farm bill is to address some of the challenges facing South Dakota's livestock producers in getting their products to Americans' tables. The last few years have revealed vulnerabilities in our food supply chain that have had an outsized impact on livestock producers. Early in the pandemic, some meat processing plants were temporarily closed, and these closures led to bottlenecks in processing and delays to process livestock. The results were supply shortages and empty cases at the grocery stores--shortages that weren't caused by a shortage of livestock but by a lack of processing capacity to get meat ready for sale. Between processing bottlenecks and meatpacker concentration, it has become clear that livestock producers need more processing options. One way we can reduce producers' dependence on the big packers is to expand smaller meatpackers' processing capacity. That is why I am currently working to reintroduce my Strengthening Local Processing Act. My bill would help small processors invest in the infrastructure necessary to expand their capacity as well as direct Federal dollars to education and training programs that will bolster the industry's workforce and build the next generation of meat processors and butchers. My bill would also allow more State-inspected meat products to be sold across State lines, which would open up new markets for small meat processors and the farmers and ranchers who supply them. If there is one thing that can be said for sure about South Dakotans, it is that we take our beef seriously. With almost 14,000 beef operations and 3.8 million head of cattle in our State, it is safe to say cattle production is alive and well in South Dakota and helping to fill dinner plates all across America. And something I consistently hear from folks around the State is that we need to reform our beef labeling system. South Dakotans, like many Americans, simply want to know where their food--and their beef, in particular--is coming from. And that can be pretty hard to do under our current system. Under our current system, beef that is neither born nor raised in the United States but is simply finished here can be labeled ``Product of the U.S.A.,'' even if the only American thing about the beef is the plastic it is wrapped in--if that. This is unfair to American cattle producers, and it is misleading to consumers. Congress has repeatedly tried to address this issue in the past. The 2002 and 2008 farm bills included mandatory country-of-origin labeling for beef, but the World Trade Organization ruled against the United States, and Congress ultimately repealed this requirement, which I opposed. But that doesn't mean we should give up on transparency and labeling. That is why this week I reintroduced my bipartisan American Beef Labeling Act to require the U.S. Trade Representative to develop a World Trade Organization-compliant means of reinstating mandatory country-of-origin labeling for beef. When you see a label on your beef, you should be able to trust that it means what it says. And I plan to get my American Beef Labeling Act included in the 2023 farm bill so that consumers can be confident that any beef labeled ``Product of the U.S.A.'' really came from American cattle producers. Whether it is a farm bill year or not, South Dakota farmers and ranchers are always at the top of my mind here in the Senate. As a longtime Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, I am fortunate to have a platform that allows me to address the needs of South Dakota ag producers. And I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on the Ag Committee and in the Senate as a whole to deliver a farm bill that addresses the challenges facing South Dakota farmers and ranchers and farmers and ranchers around the country. Agriculture is a tough industry. It is backbreaking work in all weather, living with the constant risk that a storm or a drought or an early freeze can wipe out herds or crops--sometimes in an instant. Then add market fluctuations, processing, transportation challenges, and our current inflation crisis--it is not an easy life. But despite its many challenges, it is a proud tradition. And through it all, our Nation's farmers and ranchers persevere. I am proud to represent South Dakota's farmers and ranchers here in the U.S. Senate. I will do everything I can to ensure that this year's farm bill meets their needs and does everything it can to make their life a little easier so that they can continue to feed our Nation and the world. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the new Congress is a chance for a fresh start, and we need a fresh start. We cannot afford a repeat of the past 2 years. Despite the fact that Democrats controlled Congress by the slimmest of margins in the last Congress, Democrats acted as if they had a mandate for radical, far-left change. Democrats shoved through multiple partisan spending sprees, including the so-called American Rescue Plan Act which kicked off our current inflation crisis. And what they got through was mild compared to what they wanted to push through--from a Federal takeover of elections to some of the most extreme abortion legislation in the world. Fortunately, some of the Democrats' most radical proposals didn't ultimately make it through Congress, but not for a lack of trying on Democrats' part. Despite the fact that they had nothing more than a technical majority, Democrats did their best to eliminate a voice for the minority party in the Senate by attacking the Senate filibuster rule. Some contemplated packing the Supreme Court to secure judicial support for Democrat policy priorities. And Democrats' rhetoric was often as extreme and divisive as their policies, with the standout example being an address the President gave a year ago this month in which he suggested that half the country was racist. Mr. President, we have had another election, and the American people rejected one-party rule by electing a Republican House of Representatives. They have created a situation in which both parties will have to work together to get anything done. I hope this will mark a new less partisan moment here in Congress. I hope we can move on from the past 2 years and start afresh to work together to address the challenges facing our country, because there is a lot that we can do together. Despite the partisanship of the Democrat agenda over the last 2 years, there were still moments that reminded us that there are many areas where we can agree or are close enough to work together. I introduced a number of bipartisan bills in the last Congress, and I am looking forward to working with colleagues of both parties on a number of issues in the new Congress. One major piece of legislation we take up every few years is the farm bill, which has a strong bipartisan history. During my time in the Senate, I have introduced farm bill legislation with both Democratic and Republican colleagues, and I think that working together, we can produce a bill this year that will meet the needs of our Nation's farmers and ranchers and strengthen U.S. agriculture production. Another obvious area for bipartisan cooperation is the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization that is coming due this year, and none too soon, as recent air travel fiascos have made clear. Our last FAA reauthorization bill was a strongly bipartisan piece of legislation, and this year's bill should be the same. Another area where I think there is a lot of room for bipartisan cooperation is promoting transparency and accountability in Big Tech. President Biden recently published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal calling for, among other things, section 230 reform. I already have bipartisan legislation with Senator Schatz to reform section 230 and increase transparency and due process for users around content moderation actions taken by Big Tech platforms, and I will work to advance that legislation in this Congress. I also think there is a lot we can do on a bipartisan basis to advance trade agreements to expand markets for American products and services around the world. The Biden administration has been slow to take action on trade, and I think there is a real interest from Members of Congress of both parties to accelerate our trade efforts and create new market access opportunities for American workers and producers. I would also like to think we can agree on the need to conduct serious oversight of government spending to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently and effectively. Democrats forced through trillions of dollars in new spending during the last Congress, and conducting oversight of how that money is being spent is nothing less than our responsibility as Members of Congress. I am thinking in particular of the massive funding infusion--$80 billion the Democrats handed to the IRS. Especially given the IRS' shaky record when it comes to handling taxpayer data, I would hope we can agree that rigorous oversight of the IRS is required. I also hope that my Democrat colleagues will be open to working to extend tax relief for American businesses and American families. Americans and small businesses are going to face serious tax hikes if the tax relief from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act isn't extended or made permanent. I would like to think that Members of both parties could work together to extend this tax relief and the benefits it provides for Americans. Another thing that I am hoping will happen in this Congress is a return to regular order when it comes to appropriations bills and other legislation. Omnibus appropriations bills are not an ideal way to fund the government, to put it mildly. They are an invitation for waste and all the other problems that come with hastily thrown together legislation, and we need to do everything we can to make sure individual appropriations bills go through the committee process and are individually debated on the floor. I am very encouraged that the incoming Democrat chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee has joined Senator Collins, who will be the top-ranking Republican on the committee, to announce her desire to pass appropriations bills through regular order. I really hope that that will be a bipartisan priority this year. For similar reasons, we need to put a greater emphasis on making sure nonappropriations bills--especially the biggest bills that we consider--go through regular order in committee, where they could be publicly debated and amended and receive input from all committee members. I hope that we can move forward a more collaborative and transparent process, which is the kind of process that best serves the American people. Getting anything done in divided government requires a genuine attitude of compromise, with both sides conceding things, rather than the ``my way or the highway'' approach that we have seen from Democrats over the past 2 years. But if we can get there, then I think we can achieve a lot together in this new Congress. I am eager to work with my colleagues from both parties to address the challenges facing our country. And for the good of the American people, I hope we will build a record of bipartisan accomplishment over the next 2 years. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, on Friday, as they have done for decades, Americans from around the country--many of them young people--took to the streets of Washington, DC, to march for life. This year, of course, was a little different because for the first time since the march began nearly 50 years ago, pro-lifers marched in a post-Roe America. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and recognized that the Constitution does not contain a right to abortion, that our founding document does not confer a right to deprive one group of citizens of their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness simply because they are small and defenseless. The Supreme Court's decision marked the righting of a constitutional wrong, and it opened up the chance to right a great moral wrong: the legalized killing of unborn Americans. The Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade does not, of course, make abortion illegal, but it does allow State governments and the Federal Government to finally begin to establish meaningful protections for unborn children. The Dobbs decision marked a major victory for the pro-life movement and for the babies whose lives are in jeopardy from abortion, but the Dobbs decision does not mark an end to the pro-life movement or the March for Life but a new beginning. The legal fight turns from the courts to Congress and State legislatures--in other words, to the democratic process, where this issue belongs and has always belonged--and the work to change hearts and minds to support moms and babies continues. The Dobbs decision may have opened the door to meaningful legal protections for unborn Americans, but abortion extremists, who unfortunately count the majority of the Democratic Party among their ranks, are doing everything they can to stand in the way of these protections. To give just one example of how far the abortion- on-demand caucus has taken things, 2 weeks ago, the House of Representatives took up legislation to ensure that babies who survive abortions and are born alive are guaranteed medical care. Almost every single Democrat in the House of Representatives voted against the legislation. That is 210 men and women who apparently think that living babies who have already been born--already been born--can legitimately be left to die or, I suppose, be killed outright by the abortionist. That is a horrifying position. There is much work to be done to get to a day when a country that is supposed to be dedicated to the protection of life and liberty actually guarantees the right to life of all Americans, including the most vulnerable and most innocent Americans--our unborn children. So the March for Life today is more important than ever. The march, of course, is just one small facet of the pro-life movement, which works every day in every State around the country to help provide help and hope to moms in need, but it is nevertheless a vitally important facet because the March for Life provides a public witness to the humanity of the unborn child and to the great injustice that is happening behind closed doors. Abortion happens away from public view, so it can be all too easy to forget that every year in this country, hundreds of thousands of babies are being killed by abortion. The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research organization, reported that there were more than 900,000 abortions in 2020--900,000. To put that number in perspective, 900,000 is roughly equivalent to the entire population of the State of South Dakota--the entire population of South Dakota. That is a lot of lives lost, a lot of love lost. Our society is a poorer place without those babies, and the March for Life reminds us of that. It reminds us that every day, thousands of babies lose their lives to abortion. It reminds us of our responsibility to confront this injustice and to work for a day when every child enjoys the right to life and the full protection of the laws. I am profoundly grateful for all those who spent last Friday marching for life, and for all the men and women and young people in the pro- life movement who work every day around this country to help mothers and their babies and secure legal protections for unborn Americans. I know there are many days when it feels like an uphill battle, but you are all on the right side of history. And I am confident that in the end, life will prevail. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says: See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in Heaven always see the face of my Father. And, again: Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. There is no greater work than standing up for these defenseless little ones. I pray that God will bless the efforts of all those marching for life and one day soon, every child, born and unborn, will enjoy the full protection of our laws. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch) would have voted ``nay.''