John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I am pleased that today we will finally move to a vote on the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022. Thanks to the Democrats' focus on their reckless Build Back Better tax-and-spending spree, consideration of the NDAA, one of the most important bills we consider every year, was delayed for months. Of course, once we finally got onto the bill, Democrats rushed the process. Senators of both parties filed a total of 1,000 amendments on this bill, but not one--not a single one--of those amendments received a vote on the Senate floor. But at least we are finally here set to pass this critical legislation. I am pleased the Republicans were able to strengthen this bill in committee and in the so-called preconference negotiations. This includes removing troublesome provisions like red-flag laws that would summarily suspend the Second Amendment rights of our men and women in uniform. Thanks in large part to Republican efforts, the final bill is $25 billion above President Biden's inadequate budget request. We have made a lot of progress over the past several years on rebuilding our military, which, I might add, after years of underfunding and budgetary uncertainty, combined with heavy operational demands, had been left underequipped, undermanned, and underprepared to meet the threats of the 21st century. The situation had gotten so bad that in 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--an especially chilling warning considering the mounting destabilization from both of these countries today. The Commission noted that we would be especially vulnerable if we were ever called on to fight a war on two fronts. But, as I said, over the past several years, we made a lot of progress on restoring military readiness. Unfortunately, President Biden's inadequate budget request threatened to undo some of that progress. So I am pleased--very pleased--that, thanks in large part to Republican efforts, Democrats and Republicans have agreed on a final number that will continue our reinvestment in our military so that our men and women in uniform will have the resources they need to address the threats of the 21st century. With both China and Russia flexing their military power and the growing danger of a further Russian invasion of Ukraine, it is critically important that we ensure that our Nation is always prepared to defend itself and our vital national interests, whatever the threat. On the subject of Ukraine, I am very pleased the final bill we will vote on today includes an additional $50 million in military assistance for Ukraine. Ukraine has spent years dealing with a Russian invasion that threatens to push further into its sovereign territory, and we should be supporting the efforts of this free nation to defend itself from Russian aggression. I am particularly proud to announce that this year's NDAA contains the necessary funding to continue essential preparation for the B-21 mission at Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota. We found out in June of this year that Ellsworth had officially been named ``Main Operating Base 1'' for the future B-21 bomber, home of the Raider. This designation not only means Ellsworth will be the first base to host the B-21 Raider but will also host the formal training unit and the first operational squadron. The stealth B-21 bomber will eventually replace the Air Force's B-1s, which have been a proven workhorse within Global Strike Command but must be divested to free up capacity and resources for an even more agile and capable bomber fleet. Once operational, the B-21 Raider will be a critical part of our Nation's long-range strike capabilities and nuclear deterrent well into the future. I am incredibly proud that South Dakota and Ellsworth were chosen to serve as the first operating base for the B-21s. When I first came to the Senate, the outlook for Ellsworth wasn't so rosy. I had barely arrived here in the Senate when Ellsworth was placed on the base realignment and closure, or BRAC, list. It was an all-hands effort by the congressional delegation and Ellsworth and State and community leaders to make the case to the Bush administration and BRAC Commission to remove Ellsworth from the closure list. Many thought that South Dakota might not have the clout to make this stand, that we didn't wield enough influence. We were only given about a 12-percent chance of pulling through, but we were determined that we weren't going to lose Ellsworth. We stood our ground, and we won the day. Ellsworth was removed from the BRAC list that August, and we got right to work on building up the base so that we would never again find ourselves in the same position. In 2007, we saw the Air Force Financial Services Center open at Ellsworth, and 2011 saw the arrival of the 89th Attack Squadron and its command and control stations for MQ-9 Reapers. In 2015, a decade-long mission paid off with the quadrupling of the training airspace for the base. The Powder River Training Complex is now the largest training airspace in the continental United States and can be used for large- force exercises that draw combat aircraft from across this country. It is also well-suited for B-21 training, which is undoubtedly one of the reasons Ellsworth was chosen as the first home of the Raider. I am committed to ensuring that Ellsworth has everything it needs for its new mission so that it can continue to serve as one of our Nation's essential military assets for decades to come. To that end, I worked to ensure that this year's National Defense Authorization Act contain not only full funding for B-21 development but full funding for the first of many equipment and support facilities that will be needed for the B- 21 mission at Ellsworth, including a low observable coating and restoration facility, a wash rack and maintenance hangar, expanding the flight simulator facility, and more. It is imperative that these and follow-on military construction projects at Ellsworth stay on pace to ensure the B-21, once fielded, can begin operations alongside the current B-1 mission at Ellsworth to enable a smooth transition from one mission to the next. The National Defense Authorization Act also ensures adequate support for our B-1s in South Dakota and in Texas and deployed on Bomber Task Force missions so that they have the resources they need until they are replaced by the B-21s. I will continue to do everything I can here in Congress to support our B-1s at Ellsworth and advance the B-21 mission. Providing for our Nation's defense is one of our most serious responsibilities as Members of Congress. We have an obligation to ensure that our Nation is prepared to meet any threat, whether the danger comes from terrorism, rogue states, or major powers. We have an obligation to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the resources they need to confront the threats that we ask them to face. I am frustrated that it took us so long to move to consideration of this year's National Defense Authorization Act, but I am happy we did at least manage to secure a solid piece of legislation, and I look forward to voting for this bill later today. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the latest inflation numbers came out Friday, and the news was not good. Inflation is currently at the highest level in nearly 40 years--40 years. The last time inflation was this bad, ``E.T.'' and ``Rocky III'' were in theaters, and the Green Bay Packers were being coached by Bart Starr. High inflation is taking a major toll on American families. Gas prices are at a 7-year high. The price of used cars and trucks is up 31 percent--31 percent. Propane, kerosene, and firewood are up 34 percent. Food prices have increased significantly. Ground beef is up 14 percent. Apples are up 7.4 percent. Pork is up 17 percent; eggs, 8 percent. Baby food is up 6.7 percent. Bacon and related products are up 21 percent. And the list continues. Rent prices are up. Utility prices are up. Furniture prices are up, and on and on. Inflation is so bad that, despite wage growth this year, Americans have seen a de facto pay cut, with real average hourly earnings down 1.9 percent this year. Inflation is what happens when you have too many dollars chasing too few goods and services. And a big reason for our current inflation situation is the Democrats' decision to pour a lot of unnecessary government money into the economy earlier this year, despite--despite, I might add--being warned that their partisan $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan spending spree could stoke inflation. And you don't have to take my word for it. Here is what former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman had to say recently when discussing our inflation problem: The original sin was an oversized American Rescue Plan. It contributed to both higher output but also higher prices. That quote from Mr. Furman appeared in a New York Times article that also noted: But some economists, including veterans of previous Democratic administrations, say much of Mr. Biden's inflation struggle is self-inflicted. Lawrence H. Summers is one of those who say the stimulus bill [that] the president signed in March gave too much of a boost to consumer spending. . . . Mr. Summers, who served in the Obama and Clinton administrations, says inflation now risks spiraling out of control and other Democratic economists agree there are risks. Again, that is from the New York Times. Inflation is spiraling out of control, and Democrats are preparing to throw more fuel on the fire. That is right. Democrats are preparing to double down on the strategy that helped get us in this mess in the first place and pass yet another massive government spending bill. I am not sure whether Democrats simply don't care about the inflation situation facing American families or whether they are operating under the delusion that they can somehow pass another major government spending bill without serious consequences for the economy. Regardless, there is no question that pouring another $1.75 trillion in government money into the economy would likely make our inflation crisis even worse than it is today. I say $1.75 trillion because that is what Democrats have been selling as the pricetag for their so-called Build Back Better plan. But as we learned on Friday of last week from the Congressional Budget Office's latest analysis, the Democrats' spending spree would far exceed $1.75 trillion. When you take away the shell games and budget gimmicks, the Democrats' spending spree would cost almost $5 trillion--5 trillion. And, of course, the tax hikes in the Democrats' plan, as large as they are, wouldn't even come close to funding that amount. The Democrats' Build Back Better proposal, if implemented over 10 years, as they plan, would add an eye-popping $3 trillion to our national debt. It turns out that Build Back Better is more like ``Build Back Bankrupt.'' Democrats have attempted to disguise the true cost of their ``Build Back Bankrupt'' plan by strategically sunsetting various provisions before the end of the bill's 10-year budget window. Of course, Democrats have never had any intention of actually sunsetting these provisions. But by claiming that they are going to sunset these measures, they have been able to sort of disguise the fact that their spending spree would actually cost nearly $5 trillion. That is the Congressional Budget Office, not me. The Congressional Budget Office, last Friday said, if extended--the 10-year window--this bill would cost $5 trillion. Democrats are implicitly admitting that they plan to extend these programs, but they are saying that people shouldn't worry, that the cost of these extensions will be offset. Well, I would like to know just how exactly they plan to do that. With massive new tax hikes, on top of the tax hikes they have already included in their bill--just how many tax hikes do Democrats think our economy can handle? And if Democrats had a plan for future offsets, why didn't they include those offsets in their bill, in the first place, along with an honest accounting of the length of their programs? Is it because they thought that the American people would balk if they knew the true cost of the bill, that they might not be crazy about the idea of a bill that would cost them $5 trillion? I am hard-pressed to think of anything more irresponsible than for Democrats to pass their Build Back Better--or their ``Build Back Bankrupt''--measure right now. Inflation is soaring, as I have just pointed out, and there is no clear end in sight. Even the Federal Reserve is now acknowledging that this isn't transitory. They removed that word from their description. We are emerging from a pandemic that required a lot of government expenditure and a corresponding increase in our debt, and we have no idea what government money might be needed down the road. Passing a $5 trillion spending spree that would add $3 trillion to our national debt is the very last thing that we should be doing. I hope that at least some of my Democrat colleagues will think better of their spending plans before the American people are forced to discover just what ``Building Back Bankrupt'' is really like. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to complete my remarks prior to the vote.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis.)

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Lummis), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, one thing you can say for the Democrats so-called Build Back Better plan is that it provides a never-ending supply of bad proposals to talk about. And the bad Build Back Better measure I want to discuss today is Democrats' plan to double the size of the IRS--yes, double the size of the IRS. The IRS is not exactly the most popular government Agency, and with good reason. The Agency has gained for itself a reputation for poor taxpayer service and, most seriously, for mishandling the confidential information--taxpayer information it has access to. In fact, the IRS was subject to a massive leak or hack of private taxpayer information mere months ago--information that somehow ended up in the hands of advocates at ProPublica. And neither Treasury nor the IRS has provided meaningful followup about the data breach, much less any accountability. For months, Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee have pressed the administration for details about the breach of private taxpayer information. I would have hoped by now that my friends on the other side of the aisle would have shown similar concern for the privacy of the American taxpayer. And who could forget the IRS scandal during the Obama administration, when the IRS targeted a number of organizations based on their political beliefs? Those are two notorious examples of IRS misconduct, but there are plenty of others. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has repeatedly found instances of IRS agents violating taxpayer rights. And then there is the Agency's record of irresponsibility or incompetence, or both-- losing track of laptops that may have contained sensitive taxpayer information, rehiring employees who'd been fired for bad behavior, work delays due to a lack of simple printer maintenance, hanging up on taxpayers who call the IRS for information. Customer service departments, in general, can be frustrating, but at least at many companies you can reach an actual person in a fairly reasonable amount of time. If you call the IRS, you have a 1-in-50 chance of reaching a human being--1 in 50. I could go on, but suffice it to say that there are good reasons why Americans tend not to be big fans of the IRS and why they think this Agency already has too much power. But Democrats would like to double the size of the Agency. The Democrats' bill would add 87,000 new IRS employees--87,000. That's enough employees to fill an entire football stadium with some left over; 87,000 is more than the population of Rapid City, SD, the second largest city in my home State. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that increasing the size of the Agency in this way would result in significantly higher audit rates of American taxpayers. Many of those audits would hit middle-income taxpayers and small businesses; in other words, individuals without easy access to an army of accountants to help them navigate the process and ensure that their rights are protected. Democrats' primary reason for the IRS expansion is to raise revenue, to help pay for their partisan tax-and-spending spree. They claim that hiring all these new IRS agents and employees will allow them to close or reduce the tax gap--the difference between taxes owed and taxes paid. But there are a couple of problems with that. In the first place, it is extremely doubtful that they will be able to raise the money they claim they will be able to raise. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office doesn't even score hoped-for revenue from enforcement since it considers the acquisition of that revenue to be so uncertain. And even if Democrats are able to raise a meaningful sum from increased enforcement, what exactly is it going to cost Americans for Democrats to recapture this money? Increased scrutiny and costly audits of law-abiding taxpayers. IRS intimidation and harassment. And just in case anyone thinks I am exaggerating about that intimidation, I would note that a provision in the House version of the Democrats' reckless tax-and-spending spree would repeal a measure requiring written approval of a supervisor before an IRS agent can access--or I should say, can assess any penalties. The provision was intended to prevent overreaching IRS agents from threatening Americans with unjustified penalties. And it is hard to imagine why Democrats are trying to repeal this measure if they are not trying to pave the way for much more aggressive IRS pressure and enforcement. And I haven't even mentioned the provision that was in Democrats' proposal for a long time and which some Democrats, including the President's Treasury Secretary and other administration officials, would still--still--like to see included, and that's a provision that would empower the IRS to snoop on the details of Americans' bank accounts. Under one version of this provision, the IRS would be able to sift through the bank records of any American with just $600 in annual transactions. In other words, the IRS would be able to look through the bank records of just about every American and find out just how much you spent on Starbucks or your last doctor's bill or that new winter coat. It is staggering that the Democrats could even contemplate giving that much power to an Agency that has a track record of mishandling sensitive taxpayer information. But that is the kind of power the President's Treasury Secretary, for one, would like this Agency to have. With their so-called Build Back Better plan, Democrats are proposing a massive expansion of government, and we are apparently just supposed to take it on faith that the government will be able to handle all these new responsibilities. Well, I have to say, I--and I would say many other Americans--have my doubts. And the IRS provides a perfect example of why. The IRS can't even properly handle the staff and responsibilities it already has, and yet Democrats think it is a good idea to double the size of this Agency and give it new enforcement powers and, if some have their way, expanded access to Americans' personal information. Doubling the size of the IRS is a terrible idea, and it is one more reason why Build Back Better is a bad deal for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), the Senator from Florida (Mr. R. Scott), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, while I am on the topic of energy, I would like to briefly comment on yesterday's announcements from the EPA and USDA concerning biofuels. To put it simply, the administration can't have it both ways on the renewable fuel standard, something agriculture stakeholders in South Dakota know all too well. Yesterday, the EPA announced a proposal to take the unprecedented step of clawing back previously set biofuel blending targets; 2020 volumes would be reduced by 2\1/2\ billion gallons, and 2021 would see a reduction. Now, the EPA is trying to sell this by simultaneously proposing an increase in the 2022 blending volumes, which on its own would be favorable, but it is far from enough to make up for the lost gallons. And keep in mind that the EPA's proposal pulls back blending obligations from a final rule, giving stakeholders little confidence that this promised 2022 increase won't meet the same fate. Again, not every component of yesterday's announcement is bad on its own. Signaling an end to the out-of-control small refinery exemption program is long overdue, and it is consistent with the renewable fuel standard and a Tenth Circuit Court ruling. It is also good to see the Department of Agriculture moving forward with assistance funds for biofuel producers, but this was funding signed into law last December. It is almost as if it was withheld from our producers for months so that USDA could help the EPA sell our ag stakeholders a bill of goods. I urge the administration to make good on its commitments to our farmers and to finally leverage American biofuels for the energy and environmental solutions they can provide. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, Americans are currently dealing with the worst inflation in more than 30 years--high grocery prices, high rent prices, high gas prices, high car prices, increases in the price of household goods, and the list goes on. Inflation is so bad that it has outstripped wage growth, resulting in a de facto pay cut for many Americans. One of the price hikes hitting Americans hard is the increase in the price of gas. Gas prices have risen 40 percent since President Biden took office--40 percent. That takes a tremendous toll on family budgets. And, of course, high gas prices and other energy costs contribute to price increases on a whole host of other goods. Manufacturers facing higher transportation costs thanks to high gas prices, for example, are likely to pass on at least some of those increased costs to consumers in the form of price hikes. In my home State of South Dakota, families are facing an increase in home heating costs as high as 50 to 100 percent, depending on how severe of a winter we face. Nationwide, concerns over high heating costs this winter have been tempered by mild weather so far, but predictions of huge energy bills could return with a period of sustained harsh weather. And that would be another financial blow for families whose budgets are already severely stretched by our current inflation crisis. It is easy for, say, a wealthy Democrat politician to dismiss the consequences of inflation, but for families living paycheck to paycheck, an increase in the grocery bill or heating costs or the cost of a tank of gas could mean tough decisions, like choosing between adequately heating the house or filling the car to get to a job. So what has President Biden been doing to help alleviate rising energy prices and inflation? Well, the answer is not much. First, he pleaded with the OPEC cartel to increase oil production and increase global supply, which is the single most influential factor when it comes to gas prices. OPEC was unmoved. Then the President recently announced the release of 50 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Oil Reserve, a move that Congress had, in part, already mandated. Unfortunately, this is nothing more than a short-term relief measure, if that, as it will do little to give our energy sector the certainty it is seeking to bring production and American energy jobs back online. While Democrats helped create the inflation crisis that we are experiencing by flooding the economy with unnecessary government money earlier this year, the President is not solely to blame for high energy prices, which have also been driven up by COVID-related issues. However, the President is certainly to blame for the hostile attitude his administration has displayed toward conventional energy production. And he is certainly to blame for the reckless tax-and-spending spree he is pushing, which would further drive up energy prices for American families. The President made clear that his attitude toward conventional energy production on day 1 of his administration, when he canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline, an environmentally responsible pipeline project that was already underway and that would have delivered more than 10,000 construction jobs and helped decrease energy costs by increasing regional energy supply, all while being offset with a $1.7 billion investment in renewable energy. The President also almost immediately banned new oil and gas leases on Federal lands, sending a clear signal to oil and gas producers that his administration would be reluctant to work with them to increase American energy production. Then, of course, there was the release of the first outlines of the President's reckless tax-and-spending plan, which displayed a clear hostility to conventional energy. Given this record, it is no surprise that many energy producers have been less than enthusiastic about coming fully back online as we emerge from the pandemic. The market signals to increase production are being muted by this administration's burdensome policies and clear intent of sidelining American energy development. Then there is the current version of the reckless tax-and-spending spree, which Democrats are pushing to pass in the very near future. This legislation will not only likely worsen our current inflation situation, it will also make our energy less reliable and more expensive. If Democrats succeed in passing their legislation, American families will have to brace themselves for even higher energy bills. One major driver of those higher energy bills will be the bill's new fee--or tax--on methane, which is targeted at crippling the natural gas sector that spurred America's recent energy renaissance and has actually been the largest driver of coal displacement. The American Gas Association says the proposed fee could add as much as 34 percent to natural gas bills. And that is on top of any increases Americans may already be facing. As I mentioned earlier, home heating bills are already projected to rise as much as 50 to 100 percent in my State this winter--and that is without the reckless tax-and-spending spree piling on. And if progressive Democrats have their way, Democrats' tax-and- spending spree could also penalize our oil and gas sector by ending longstanding tax provisions like the percentage depletion deduction, which underpins an overwhelming number of independent producers representing roughly 90 percent of wells drilled in the United States. Simply put, this administration wants to make it more expensive and more difficult to develop our abundant energy resources in favor of their preferred energy technologies and electric vehicles, with predictable consequences for Americans' pocketbooks. And just a word about those electric vehicles. The President's Transportation Secretary recently suggested that families feeling the pinch of high gas prices could solve their problem by buying an electric vehicle, which would allow them to ``never have to worry about gas prices again.'' Well, I have news for the President's Transportation Secretary. A lot of Americans can't afford to replace their car with an electric vehicle, not to mention that electric cars and trucks are still not a practical option for many Americans for other reasons. Secretary Buttigieg's statement shows just how far out of touch Democrats have become with ordinary Americans. I know Democrats are deeply invested in their Green New Deal fantasies of an instant, mostly electric energy regime. But the reality is that American consumers will need to use liquid fuels and electricity and heat for natural gas well into the future. And punishing or discouraging responsible energy development in oil and natural gas will do nothing--nothing--but drive up energy prices for consumers and force our Nation to rely more on oil and gas imports from unstable areas of the world. We should be encouraging American energy development of every kind-- from oil and natural gas to wind, solar, and biofuels--not artificially picking winners and losers and discouraging essential energy production. And with American consumers struggling with long-term inflation, the last thing we need to be doing right now is passing legislation that will drive up energy prices. Unfortunately, if Democrats have their way and succeed in passing their tax-and-spending legislation, Americans will soon be able to add even higher energy bills to the list of challenges that they are currently facing. So much for building back better for the American people.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, before I begin, I want to take just a few minutes to honor two members of the ``greatest generation'' whom we lost recently, Marcella LeBeau and Bob Dole. Marcella LeBeau died on Sunday, November 21. She was from my home State of South Dakota and a member of the Two Kettle Band of the Cheyenne River Sioux who served in the Army Nurse Corps during World War II, including time on the frontlines treating the wounded at the Battle of the Bulge. She was decorated by both France and Belgium for her service. After the war, she returned to South Dakota, spending 31 years working for the Indian Health Service, including as Director of Nursing, while raising eight children. She was a powerful advocate for Native Americans throughout her entire life and was a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Council for 4 years and a founding member of the North American Women's Association. Even in retirement, Marcella continued to advocate for Native Americans and also found time to open a quilting shop with her granddaughter featuring, among other things, the Lakota star quilt, used for honoring and naming ceremonies, memorials, and various life achievements. Earlier in November, she traveled to Oklahoma to attend the ceremony for her induction into the National Native American Hall of Fame.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford). [Rollcall Vote No. 484 Leg.]

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Dobbs case, which deals with a Mississippi law that would prohibit most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. This case offers the best opportunity in many years to see Roe v. Wade overturned or modified--something that is long overdue. Roe v. Wade was a bad decision that should long ago have been reversed. Legal scholars from across the ideological spectrum have criticized the decision, noting, in the words of one expert: As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether. As another legal scholar put it, Roe is ``a very bad decision . . . because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.'' Now, I should note that both of the individuals I just quoted are actually supportive--supportive--of abortion. But like many others, both recognize that Roe is simply bad law. In the Roe decision, the Supreme Court reached far beyond the Constitution in the Court's interpretive role to impose a new abortion regime on the entire country, and it is past time for this unconstitutional decision to be overturned and for the Court to return jurisdiction over abortion to the States. It is important to note that overturning Roe would do just that: return jurisdiction over abortion to the States and to elected officials who can be held accountable for the decisions and ultimately to the American people. Many assume, incorrectly, that overturning Roe would somehow automatically ban abortion nationwide. It would not. It would simply return jurisdiction to the people's elected representatives. Abortion law would become the domain of States and Congress, instead of the domain of unelected, activist members of the judiciary. Members of the radical pro-abortion lobby, which controls the abortion policies of the Democrat Party, are, of course, up in arms over the Dobbs case. They are terrified--terrified--that the Supreme Court will overturn Roe, and I suspect that the root of that fear is the knowledge that they need an activist Court for the radical abortion agenda. Why? Because the American people do not agree with the radical abortion lobby on abortion. For all its efforts to paint abortion on demand at any time up until the moment of birth as the only possible position, the pro-abortion lobby has completely failed to convince the American people. Polls consistently show that a strong majority of the American people support at least some restrictions on abortion. Gallup has been polling on abortion for decades, and in all that time, the percentage of Americans who believe abortion should be legal under any circumstance has always remained under 35 percent. In fact, for most of the past several decades, that number has remained squarely under 30 percent. An Associated Press poll from this June found that 65 percent of Americans believe that abortion should generally be illegal in the second trimester--or from about 13 weeks of pregnancy--while a whopping 80 percent of Americans believe that abortion should generally be illegal in the third trimester. And it is no surprise. Despite the abortion lobby's attempts to dehumanize unborn children and portray them as nothing more than clumps of cells or unwanted growths, most Americans are well aware that an unborn child is a baby, a human being, an innocent human being. And because Americans generally gravitate toward justice and the defense of human rights and vulnerable human beings, they remain-- despite the best efforts of the abortion lobby--fundamentally uncomfortable with unrestricted abortion. And so I think the root of the abortion lobby's outrage is the knowledge that if Roe is overturned, their radical abortion agenda is unlikely to prevail nationwide because the American people simply do not agree with them on abortion. The pro-abortion lobby and its allies in the Democrat Party would like Americans to believe that Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban is extreme, radical legislation. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the United States of America--the United States of America-- is a radical outlier on abortion. We are one of only seven countries in the world that allows elective abortion past 20 weeks--one of just seven countries in the entire world. Among those other countries are China and North Korea, not exactly the kind of company you want to be keeping when it comes to defending human rights. Forty-seven out of fifty European countries--47 out of 50--either require women to have a specific reason for seeking an abortion or limit elective abortion to 15 weeks or earlier. Thirty-two European countries, including France, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway, and many others, limit elective abortion to at or before 12 weeks' gestation. Now, let's consider that for just a minute. A substantial majority of European countries limit abortion to at or before 12 weeks. In other words, Mississippi's 15-week abortion law is not on the radical fringe when it comes to abortion; it is squarely in the mainstream for Western democracies, and it is, in fact, more permissive than the abortion laws of a majority of European countries. And yet the abortion lobby would have us believe that Mississippi is pushing some kind of extreme abortion legislation. Let's talk about unborn babies at 15 weeks. Fifteen-week-old unborn children have fully developed hearts that have already beaten more than 15 million times. They yawn. They make facial expressions. They suck their thumbs. They respond to taste and touch. Scientific evidence suggests that they can feel pain. Pro-abortion activists may not like to hear it, but scientific evidence shows that the neural connections necessary to transmit pain are fully in place by around 20 weeks and that babies may actually begin to experience pain as early as 12 weeks. So when we are talking about a 15-week-old unborn baby, we are talking about a baby who may very well already be able to experience pain and will certainly be able to experience it a few weeks later, if she can't now. Yet in this country, it is perfectly legal to kill unborn children who are able to feel pain and kill them with an abortion procedure so brutal and barbaric it is difficult to even describe. Yet it needs to be mentioned because we need to acknowledge the reality that we are killing unborn babies in this country capable of feeling pain, using a widely employed abortion procedure that involves dismembering the unborn child. As I said, it is incredibly hard--in fact, it is heartbreaking, really--to even talk about it. The abortion lobby would like to draw a veil over what happens inside abortion clinics, but the truth is that abortions are brutal and inhumane--certainly to the baby but, in many respects, to the mother as well. Since the Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision, there have been an estimated 62 million-plus abortions in the United States. That number is so big, it is pretty much unfathomable. To put it in some kind of perspective, 62 million is nearly three times the population of the entire State of Florida. That is how many unique, unrepeatable human beings we have lost to abortion since Roe. We are better than this, and we have to do better than this. Our country was founded to safeguard human rights. We haven't always lived up to that promise, but we have never stopped trying. And it is time for us to continue that work by standing up for the most vulnerable human beings among us: the unborn children, whose human rights are not protected and whose lives can be taken away at any time. Thanks to medical advancements, it is possible for babies born at 22 weeks to survive outside their mothers. It is also perfectly legal to kill unborn children at 22 weeks. Now, something is radically wrong with that picture. How can an unborn child of 22 weeks be regarded as a human being worthy of protection in one case and in the other case be regarded as nothing but a clump of cells to be disposed of in an abortion clinic? The cognitive dissonance is mind-boggling. The more we learn about unborn children, the more we see their humanity. It is impossible to look at an unborn baby kicking her feet and sucking her thumb on an ultrasound and see her as anything but the human being that she is. Science, medical advancements, and plain old common sense all point inexorably to the humanity of the unborn child. And human beings deserve to be protected. A good place to start would be with laws like Mississippi's, laws that would bring us into the mainstream of abortion laws worldwide. As I have said, the United States is one of just seven countries in the entire world, including China and North Korea, that allow elective abortion past 20 weeks of pregnancy. I would like to think that we can do a better job of protecting unborn children's human rights than China and North Korea. So I hope that the Supreme Court will uphold Mississippi's law and open the door to greater protection for unborn children. But win or lose--win or lose--I and many, many, many others will continue to stand up for the human rights of unborn Americans; and I am confident that, in the end, right and justice and life will prevail. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.