John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Maham Shah, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Maham is a recent graduate of Baylor University in Waco, TX, having earned degrees in psychology and political science. This spring, Maham plans to continue serving the American people by working on Capitol Hill. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Maham for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the Biden border crisis continues to rage. Last month, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 164,303 individuals attempting to illegally cross our southern border. That is more than twice the number of encounters Customs and Border Protection had the previous October and the highest October number ever recorded by Customs and Border Protection. In all, more than 1.7 million migrants were apprehended attempting to cross our southern border in fiscal year 2021--the highest number ever. We are in the midst of a very serious crisis, and the response from Democrats and the administration? Well, mostly crickets. Democrats seem to hope that ignoring the border situation will make it go away or at least ensure that no one pays attention. I am pretty sure the President and his administration spent more time earlier this year fighting against the use of the word ``crisis'' to describe the situation at the border than they did actually thinking about how they might deal with the influx. Apparently, the administration is still--still--trying to avoid the ``crisis'' label judging by a recent hearing wherein the President's nominee to head Customs and Border Protection seemed to carefully avoid referring to the situation at the border as a ``crisis.'' If the highest number of border encounters ever recorded isn't a crisis, I am not sure what is. The situation at our southern border is out of control. It is a security crisis, it is a manpower and enforcement crisis, and it is a humanitarian crisis--although, again, you would never guess it from the Democrats' behavior. Despite the fact that this crisis has been raging for the best part of a year now, Democrats and the administration have taken essentially no meaningful action to address the situation, and that is not the worst of it. The Democrats' policies are actually making the situation worse. Among other things, the President has significantly limited the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection to enforce immigration laws, and arrests in the interior of the country dropped steeply under this administration. The Washington Post recently reported: Immigration arrests in the interior of the United States fell in fiscal 2021 to the lowest level in more than a decade. The practical effect of the President's immigration policies has been to encourage new waves of illegal immigration. It is hardly surprising. If you think that your chances of staying in the United States are good, even if you are here illegally, you are likely much more inclined to undertake the journey in the first place. The administration's actions--or lack thereof--have been compounded by the actions of Democrats in Congress who have been doing their best to guarantee widespread amnesty. Democrats have repeatedly attempted to include some form of amnesty in their tax-and-spending spree. While they have been partially foiled by the rulings of the Senate Parliamentarian, the latest version of their bill still contains provisions to grant de facto amnesty to many illegal immigrants. Their spending spree also deliberately lacks restrictions on Federal funding going to individuals in the country illegally, which means that illegal immigrants could end up receiving the $3,000-per-year child allowance, housing vouchers, and more. One analysis suggests that illegal immigrants could collect $10.5 billion in child allowance payments next year. I haven't even mentioned reports that the Biden administration has apparently been contemplating settling lawsuits brought by individuals, who came here illegally, with payments of up to $450,000 per person-- $450,000. That is right. That is more than four times as much as the government gives to the families of soldiers killed in action and nine times--nine times--as much as the government gives to an individual wrongly imprisoned for 1 year. The administration has suggested that payments will not actually be that high, but even a settlement half that size would dwarf the payments that we give to the families of fallen soldiers. Immigrants have helped make this country what it is today, and I am a strong supporter of legal immigration, including temporary worker visas, like H-2B visas, which help South Dakota employers and many others address hiring challenges, but, again, immigration has to be legal. Encouraging illegal immigration, as the Democrats are doing, presents a serious security risk because it makes it easier for everyone from terrorists to drug traffickers to enter the country unidentified, to say nothing of drugs like fentanyl and other illegal items. Encouraging illegal immigration through lax immigration enforcement and amnesty also undermines respect for the rule of law. The area of immigration should not be an exception to the principle that the law has to be followed and respected. Yet that is basically what Democrats' policies are saying--that the law doesn't matter when it comes to immigration. Finally, we need to get away from any idea that there is anything compassionate about policies that encourage individuals to come here illegally. Attempting to enter the country illegally is fraught with danger, from natural perils like weather, disease, and exposure, to exploitation by smugglers and traffickers. Amnesty and lax enforcement policies encourage thousands more individuals and families to expose themselves to the dangers of an illegal border crossing. President Biden and Democrats could help stem this crisis right now by making it clear that immigration law will be enforced and that the only acceptable way to enter the United States is to come here legally. Unfortunately, it seems much more likely that the President will continue to ignore this crisis and deemphasize immigration enforcement while Democrats in Congress will continue to push for amnesty. It is a serious failure of responsibility on the President's part and one that will continue to have serious and sometimes deadly consequences. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today I recognize Destiny Wenger, an intern in my Aberdeen, SD, office, for all of the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several months. Destiny is a graduate of Hazelton-Moffit-Braddock High School in Hazelton, ND. Currently, she is attending Northern State University in Aberdeen, SD, where she is majoring in political science. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Destiny for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

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 Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we are coming up on a year of Democratic governance here in Washington, and what do Democrats have to show for it? Nothing good. On the international front, the President's most significant act was his disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, which lowered our standing with our allies and continues to jeopardize our national security. On the domestic front, Democrats have largely ignored a massive crisis along our southern border that continues to rage because they can't take on the open borders left in their own political party. Look at what is happening with the supply chain. There are 90 containers sitting at the port at Long Beach waiting to get into the country, and the President and his team can't really do anything about it because they are unwilling to take on the Teamsters. If you look at our cities, homicides are up in all of our major cities across this country. It seems that perhaps a ``defund the police'' approach to communities' safety isn't something that sends the right signal to people who want to break our laws. Then there is inflation. You might call it the Democrats' signature domestic achievement. So how did we get here? How did they get us here? Well, despite their lack of a mandate and their extremely narrow majorities in Congress, Democrats came into office last January determined to expand government and implement a far-left, Big Government, socialist agenda. In their minds, the coronavirus crisis provided the perfect opportunity to advance their plans. So despite the fact that Congress had just passed--just passed--a nearly $1 trillion bipartisan coronavirus response bill in December-- the fifth, I might add, the fifth bipartisan bill Congress had passed in just 10 months--Democrats declared that we immediately needed another piece of ostensibly coronavirus relief legislation--and not just another piece of legislation, a massive piece of legislation. Despite the fact that the December bill had met essentially all of the pressing coronavirus needs the country was facing, Democrats decided that we needed to spend another $1.9 trillion. Democrats were warned that the size of their so-called American Rescue Plan, which was substantially in excess of anything the economy required, ran the risk of spurring inflation. Obama economic adviser Larry Summers warned in the Washington Post: There is a chance that macroeconomic stimulus on a scale closer to World War II levels than normal recession levels will set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation, with consequences for the value of the dollar and financial stability. That, again, was Obama economic adviser Larry Summers. Well, Democrats passed their bill anyway. They flooded the economy with a lot of unnecessary government money, and the results have been predictable. Inflation. Significant inflation. Inflation, to borrow a phrase from Larry Summers, ``of a kind we have not seen in a generation.'' Last week, we found out that inflation rose 6.2 percent last year in a year-over-year analysis, the largest increase in more than 30 years-- 30 years. Families are facing higher prices at the grocery store. And when I say ``higher,'' I mean a lot higher. The price of meat, poultry, fish, and eggs was up 11.9 percent year over year in October--11.9 percent. Families are also facing higher prices at the gas pump, for housing, for electricity, for furniture and vehicles and pets and pet products, and the list goes on. While wages are rising, they are being outstripped by inflation, which means that many families are dealing with a de facto pay cut. Think about it--6.2 percent increase in inflation. That is essentially a 6.2-percent pay cut for American families. A big reason families are struggling with the higher cost of pretty much everything is Democrats' decision to flood the economy with unnecessary government money by passing the so-called American Rescue Plan. You don't have to take my word for it; I quoted Larry Summers earlier. Here is what former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman had to say recently when discussing our current inflation problem: The original sin was an oversized American Rescue Plan. It contributed to both higher output but also higher prices. Now, you might think that the inflation that has resulted from the American Rescue Plan would be giving Democrats pause right now. You might think that they would be putting a hold, you know, tapping the brakes a little bit on any more big spending until inflation calms down somewhat from its 30-plus-year high. But you would be wrong. Democrats are actually planning to double down on the strategy that helped cause so much inflation in the first place and pass another giant spending bill. That is right. Democrats are trying to finalize a new $1.75 trillion tax-and- spending spree, the so-called Build Back Better plan--on top of their $1.9 trillion spending spree from earlier this year. I say $1.75 trillion, but Democrats only arrived at that number through a combination of shell games and budget gimmicks. An honest accounting of the cost of this proposal over 10 years would reveal a much higher pricetag--some analyses and assessments suggest as high as $4 trillion or more. And if Democrats succeed in passing this latest partisan spending spree, Americans should brace themselves because this new flood of government money will undoubtedly make an already serious inflation situation much worse. It is no exaggeration to say that Democrats' main focus this year has been growing the size of the Federal Government and expanding its reach into Americans' lives. No sooner had they passed their massive $1.9 trillion spending bill in March, then the Democrats moved on to their next massive spending proposals which have been coalesced into the so- called Build Back Better bill the House is planning to take up later this week. Other government business has been forced to take a backseat. Democrats have ignored, as I said earlier, the massive--massive--crisis at our southern border. They have ignored our inflation crisis. And they have pushed consideration of essential legislation in favor of working on their tax-and-spending plan. This week, the Senate will finally--and I say finally--consider the fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act, a month and a half after the 2022 fiscal year has started. Shipbuilding projects, military infrastructure projects, development of new combat systems, a pay increase for our troops, they have all had to wait--all had to wait-- while Democrats negotiated over their Big Government socialist spending spree. And about that socialist spending spree, despite the fact that Democrats have pushed aside most other matters in favor of focusing on their spending plan, they still haven't managed to come up with a bill that can pass the House and the Senate. And the tax proposals they plan to use to--and I say partially-- partially pay for the bill seem to change on a daily basis. And I say partially because, again, a great independent analysis from places like Penn Wharton suggest that the revenue that they would raise to pay for all the spending in the bill would fall somewhere between $2 and $2.5 trillion short of the cost of the bill. That is $2 to $2.5 trillion that would be added to the already $30 trillion national debt. Let's just say, for example, that these ideas they have to partially pay for this bill seem to change on a daily basis. A corporate tax hike? No, let's change it to a corporate minimum tax. A new death tax? No, let's change it to a new tax on wealth--something we have never talked about before in this country, taxing unrealized gains. That is taxing income before people have actually seen the income--the realized income. Funding for their bill seems to be a matter of throwing spaghetti at the wall on a daily basis to try and see what sticks. There isn't a day that went by in the last couple of weeks, when we were in session the week before last, where there wasn't another horrible idea that came from that side of how to raise revenue to finance this massive, reckless, and radical spending bill. And of course all of Democrats' current funding proposals put together will not be able to pay for their legislation, especially when you remove, as I said earlier, the budget gimmicks that are disguising the true cost of their plans. As their narrow majorities made clear, the 2020 election did not give Democrats a mandate for Big Government socialism. And if that wasn't clear to Democrats in 2020, it should certainly be clear to them now after the election for the Virginia Governor this month, which saw Republicans win statewide for the first time since 2009. Voters in Virginia sent a clear message to Democrats that they weren't looking for far-left government or a far-left social agenda that would seek to circumvent parents' role in their children's lives and education. But just as inflation concerns have not stopped Democrats, it has become clear that their rebuke in Virginia won't stop them either. In fact, some Democrats seem to think that their response should be to run faster and further to the left. So the big agenda item for Democrats for the rest of the year continues to be passing their partisan Build Back Better tax-and- spending spree, which means Americans will be able to look forward to further inflation and a weaker economy, not to mention increased government control of their decision making. It is a poor legacy for Democrats' first year in office, but it seems to be the legacy Democrats are determined to secure. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) would have voted ``Nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, just in the last day or so, the ever- evolving reckless tax-and-spending spree bill proposed by the Democrats--it continues to change because they can't seem to figure out how to put together something that might pass in the House and the Senate, and finding it increasingly difficult, I think, to try and contain the cost of all the things they want to do, which is why they continue to build in gimmicks and phony math to try to accommodate all the crazy spending in this bill, and then also the massive run-up in the taxes. This bill is the largest spending increase we have seen in history, largest tax increase in history, and we are finding out now it is also going to add significantly to the Federal debt because there is a recent study by Penn Wharton which suggests that the overall cost of the bill, when fully implemented, would be $3.9 trillion and that the revenues that are proposed to be raised to pay for it only generate about $1.5 trillion. So that leaves you with a $2.4 trillion delta that, obviously, would be added to the deficit and put on the debt. So not only does this spend enormous amounts of money, unprecedented amounts of money, it raises an unprecedented amount of revenue. But even at that level, the revenue is totally inadequate and insufficient to cover that spending; therefore, it will add massively to the Federal debt--that is according to an economic analysis done by Penn Wharton here just in the last couple days. But this is the most recent addition to that bill in the House of Representatives. They would raise the SALT cap-- the state and local tax deduction cap--from $10,000 to $72,500. And it would also extend that higher cap through 2031, beyond its scheduled expiration after 2025. So they are still trying to come up with a way--if you can believe this. The massive amount of spending, massive amount of taxing, is now added to that a tax cut--a huge tax cut for rich people. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, if you look at how this distributes proportionately across income ranges, those making less than $100,000 would receive 2.5 percent of that tax cut--a tax cut that would cost $300 billion just through 2025. So if it is fully implemented for the full 10-year window, you are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars more in tax cuts to rich people. So just think about that. From the side that always says that our side is looking out for rich people, trying to cut taxes for the rich, they are proposing and have included now in the House version of the reckless tax-and-spending spree bill a provision that would provide tax cuts to rich people. In fact, 80 percent of that tax cut--80 percent-- would go to people who are making more than $200,000 a year; 2.5 percent would go to people making less than $100,000 a year. So much for looking out for the little guy in this bill. This is a huge part of the bill. In fact, this is the most expensive provision in the bill, and that is up against all the other spending that the Democrats want to do on new government programs and expanding government--the biggest expansion in government in decades. But included now in the bill not only is that massive expansion spending on lots of crazy new ideas and trillions of dollars in new taxes that will be imposed upon the economy, but now there is a provision in there that will cut taxes with 80 percent of that benefit going to people making more than $200,000 a year, and cutting taxes on a scale that makes this the largest, most expensive provision in the entire reckless tax-and-spending spree bill. That is what we are talking about with this particular provision. So I just want to point that out because this is an evolving bill. We are seeing new language every day, new ideas every day. And, again, some really horrible ideas have come out in the last few weeks, some of which have gone away simply because there aren't even any Democrats who will vote for them; but this one, obviously, that is going to benefit rich people across this country on a level unlike anything else in the bill, as is suggested by the overall cost of the provision and the way it distributes among income categories. Let me repeat: 80 percent of the benefit of this tax cut in the tax- and-spending spree is going to go to people making more than $200,000 a year, and 2.5 percent of this tax cut will go to people making less than $100,000 a year. Childcare Benefit Mr. President, I think a lot of times when people think about the government paying for healthcare, childcare, college, or the like, they tend just to assume that they are going to be able to continue on with or get their preferred healthcare or childcare and the only difference would be the fact that the government is now picking up the tab. If you listen to the Democrats talk about it, that is certainly what you would think. But the reality is a lot different, because with government money comes government control. Government money rarely comes without strings attached, and no more is that more obvious than with the childcare provisions of the so-called Build Back Better tax- and-spending spree Democrats are contemplating. To hear Democrats talk about it, you might think that the childcare provisions amounted to nothing more than government cutting you a check to help with your daycare costs. The reality is a lot different. Mr. President, a 2020 Bipartisan Policy Center survey found that 53 percent of working families who used center-based childcare used a faith-based childcare center--53 percent. Parents select faith-based childcare for a variety of reasons. Some choose it because they share the faith of the provider, but many choose it for other reasons, as the Bipartisan Policy Center study made clear. Some opt for the faith-based center because they like the quality of the facilities and the quality of the instruction; others because they feel that the faith-based facility will provide a safe setting, and though they just don't share the belief system of the providers, they do like the values that the belief system represents. Well, for many of those families, their days of choosing faith-based childcare may be numbered because Democrats' new childcare provisions are deliberately set up to put faith-based childcare providers at a disadvantage. For starters, the language of the legislation would likely exclude many faith-based childcare providers from participating in the program. That means that even if you as a parent prefer to choose your local faith-based childcare center, you may not be able to do so. On top of that, the bill provides funding to assist with renovation or remodeling at daycare facilities, but it specifically prevents these funds from going to childcare centers that share space with facilities for worship or religious instruction. That means that the childcare program at your local Catholic church or local Lutheran church or your local mosque will most likely not be allowed to take advantage of the government assistance for renovations, although the secular provider down the street will. These policies are likely to have profound consequences. Obviously, many parents are likely to find themselves prevented from choosing their preferred faith-based childcare provider. But beyond that, this legislation can start crowding faith-based childcare providers out of the childcare market entirely. Childcare providers unable to participate in the government childcare program may find themselves struggling to stay in business or being forced to raise their fees to the point that only the most well-off families can afford faith-based care. The result: a shrinking number of faith-based providers, which, I am afraid, is probably some Democrats' goal. It is hard to imagine why else they would restrict parents' ability to choose a faith-based provider for their children or exclude religious childcare providers from receiving government renovation assistance. The Democrats' legislation is representative of a growing tendency in the Democratic Party to treat religious people as second-class citizens--something that is completely out of step with the robust idea of religious freedom we traditionally have in this country. The First Amendment is not intended to keep religion out of the public square, as many Democrats seem to think, nor was it intended to favor secular belief systems over religious ones, no. Its purpose was to prevent the government from establishing a national religion or infringing on the rights of religious individuals to live out their faith. Today, however, it has become apparent that many Democrats think at least some forms of government discrimination against religious people are perfectly acceptable, and there is no question that their childcare program would place faith-based childcare providers at a disadvantage. Steering parents away from faith-based childcare is not the only choice Democrats are going to be making for parents under this new childcare benefit. Democrats' childcare program will not only make it more difficult for parents to choose faith-based care, it will make it more difficult for parents to choose any private childcare provider. Under the Democrats' legislation, only public--in other words, government-run--childcare providers will be guaranteed sufficient reimbursement to cover their operating costs. This is a deliberate choice that will make it much more difficult for private providers to stay in business, serving the Democrats' goal of pushing children into government-run childcare programs. That is not the end of the childcare decisions Democrats will be making. The Democrats' legislation also gives the Federal Government full control over approving childcare curricula and performance standards. Providers will be measured not by how well parents are satisfied with the childcare they are providing, but by whatever Washington bureaucrats determine to be appropriate measures of performance. I am not sure why Washington bureaucrats are better suited than parents to identify quality childcare providers, but as the Democrat candidate for the Governor of Virginia recently made clear, Democrats do not seem to think that parents are best suited to make decisions for their children. Mr. President, I can go on. I can talk about the confusing government bureaucracy parents will have to navigate under the Democrats' new childcare program, or I can talk about the fact that this new childcare benefit could drive up childcare costs for middle-class families over the next 3 years by a staggering $13,000 a year, according to one estimate. Yeah, $13,000 a year. But, today, what I really want to emphasize is something Democrats conveniently omit from discussions of their new government programs, and that is, as I said, that with government money comes government control. Democrats are setting the stage for a government takeover of childcare, where you can choose your provider only as long as Democrats agree with your choice. Abortion Mr. President, before I close, I want to mention one other aspect of the Democratic bill, and that is the bill's commitment to taxpayer funding of abortion. While the Democratic Party has long supported an abortion agenda, there has at least been bipartisan agreement when it comes to appropriations bills that we are not going to use taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. For decades--decades, going back to the 1980s--the Hyde amendment and other riders have helped prevent taxpayer dollars from paying for abortions. No longer, if Democrats have their way. In the Democrats' tax-and-spending spree, taxpayer funding of abortions is the order of the day. Restrictions on the use of taxpayer dollars for abortion funding are omitted, and in at least one case, Democrats actively require funding of abortion and would override State laws on insurance coverage of abortion. Let's be very clear. This bill is a slap in the face to every American who believes in the sanctity of human life and doesn't want his or her tax dollars going to pay for killing unborn human beings. You would think that if we can't agree that the human rights of unborn children should be protected, we could at least agree that taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for killing unborn children. Well, apparently, even that is too much to ask for Democrats, even though nearly 60 percent of Americans oppose having their tax dollars go to abortion. That's right, almost 60 percent of Americans do not want their tax dollars going to pay for abortions. But that doesn't seem to matter to the Democratic Party, which is squarely in the pocket of the radical abortion lobby. The Democrats' legislation contains a radical commitment to government funding of abortions against the wishes of the majority of the American people. It is just one more reason why the Build Back Better plan is a bad deal for the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded and that I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes and that Senator Carper be allowed to speak for up to 2 minutes at the conclusion of my remarks prior to the vote.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize my friend, Carolyn Hofer, as she enters retirement after more than 50 years impacting the great State of South Dakota and many of its citizens. Carolyn has worked as an insurance agent, association program administrator, and most recently as the executive vice president of the Independent Insurance Agents of South Dakota, IIASD. In that capacity, she has represented hundreds of Main Street small businesses, their employees, and the communities that they serve. She has done a remarkable job of piloting the association as a strong and thoughtful leader. Carolyn grew up on a family dairy farm near Worthing, graduated from Lennox High School, and went on to graduate from Nettleton Commercial College. She entered the insurance industry shortly thereafter and never looked back. Carolyn started with Underwriter's Adjusting Company before moving to Pierre and working for Dave Johnson Insurance. Following her time there, the IIASD opportunity presented itself, and Carolyn subsequently rose through the ranks to become the association's top employee. Despite the many hours that Carolyn has spent serving her agent membership and their customers, she will be the first to tell you that she has received so much more than she has given over the years. That is truly the heart of a servant leader. I would also like to recognize Carolyn's husband, Doug, who also served our great State for many years as director of the South Dakota State Parks. Together, Carolyn and Doug have positively impacted so many South Dakotans. The State of South Dakota is truly proud of Carolyn Hofer and wishes her all the best.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, let me begin this morning by saying how sorry we are to hear the news about the loss of the former First Lady Jean Rounds of the State of South Dakota. Mike and Jean have been friends of ours for many, many years. I was involved in Senator Rounds' first campaign for office when he ran for State Senate back in 1990. I have known Jean since I worked in the administration of late Governor George Mickelson along with her at the Department of Transportation, and I just can't tell you what a loss it is for the State of South Dakota. She was an individual who carried herself with incredible grace, always kind, had a humility about her that I think people just found infectious. She was very down-to-earth. She never lost that. As a First Lady, she conducted herself in a way that represented a great model for the State of South Dakota, both in her character and her conduct. The style, the way in which she has served as First Lady, is something that I think made every South Dakotan proud. So, today, along with all South Dakotans, Kimberley and I mourn her loss. We lift up the Rounds family in our prayers, and I hope and pray that through this time they will feel God's grace and comfort in new and profound ways. But just a tremendous loss, and I know for my colleague Mike Rounds, who has been a great partner of mine--we have been involved in politics together now, in South Dakota, for over 30 years--that he, too, is going to need our support and our prayers in the days ahead. This is a tough job under ordinary circumstances, but with the burden that he has been and will be carrying now into the future, it is going to be really important that we do everything we can to support him and stand with him, and today especially with him and his family.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Lousiana (Mr. Cassidy) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) would haved voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds).