John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Mr. THUNE

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 Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.''

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, today I recognize Isaiah Lee, an intern in my Rapid City, SD, office, for all of the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Isaiah is a graduate of Roosevelt High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, he is attending Northwestern College in Orange City, IA, where he is majoring in political science. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Isaiah for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, later today, the Senate will vote on S. 2093. S. 2093 is the new S. 1. It is the latest version of the so- called For the People Act, which is a massive, massive Federal takeover of election law. So why are we taking up a massive Federal takeover of election law? Well, that is a good question. Two years ago, Democrats told us that we needed to pass this law because our electoral system was broken. Well, then came 2020. We had a record voter turnout, the largest voter turnout since the election of 1900, the largest turnout in 120 years in American history. And Democrats won the White House. After that, it got a little awkward to complain that our electoral system was broken. So Democrats found a new argument. Now, we have to pass this legislation to stop States from taking away voting rights. According to Democrats, States' moves to update or clarify their election laws in the wake of pandemic challenges and vote-counting confusion are really plots to restrict voter access. Of course, so far, most 2021 State election law updates have proved to be both standard and mainstream, but that hasn't stopped Democrats who have, at times, resorted to outright lies in their efforts to persuade Americans that we are facing a voting rights crisis. After all, Democrats need to give some reason for why we should allow the Federal Government to take over our entire electoral system. And Democrats' real reason--because they think S. 1 will give them an advantage in future elections--is not really one that they can use to sell the bill, although Speaker Pelosi did admit on national television that she thought S. 1 would boost Democrats' electoral chances. The question is where to start when it comes to the bill's content. As I said, like the original S. 1, the new S. 1 is an unprecedented Federal takeover of elections. Historically, running elections has largely been a matter for States, which tailor election laws to the particular needs of their cities and communities. S. 1 would impose one-size-fits-all, Federal regulations on elections--in many cases, deeply problematic regulations. S. 1 would require States to allow unlimited ballot harvesting, which is the controversial practice of allowing political operatives and others to pick up and deliver ballots, with all of the possibilities for fraud that that creates. It would gut State voter ID laws--laws which, I would point out, are supported by a strong majority of the American people. A recent poll said 80 percent of Americans support voter ID laws. It would remove legal penalties for registering individuals who are here illegally--and so much more. But the new S. 1, like the old S. 1, goes way beyond undermining the security of our elections and increasing the likelihood of voter fraud. It would implement public funding of political campaigns, which would mean that government dollars, money that belongs to the American taxpayer, would go to funding yard signs and attack ads. Sitting Senators alone could qualify for more than $1.8 billion in public funding. And that doesn't count their challengers. Yes, with a record high debt, Democrats apparently think that dropping a couple billion dollars here and there on attack ads and partisan rallies is a good use of taxpayer dollars. And from there, believe it or not, the ideas only get worse. S. 1 would permanently undermine confidence in our electoral system by turning the Federal Election Commission, the primary enforcer of election law in this country, into a partisan body. That is right. The Democrats' bill would turn the primary enforcer of election law in this country into a partisan body. Now, I am interested to hear how this is supposed to enhance voter confidence in our electoral system. Every single FEC ruling would be suspect. And on top of all this, S. 1 makes a concerted attack on freedom of speech. It would impose onerous requirements and restrictions on political speech. It would open up private Americans to retaliation and intimidation simply for making a donation to support a cause they believe in. And it would allow the IRS to consider organizations' beliefs when deciding whether or not to grant them tax-exempt status. In fact, the ACLU--the American Civil Liberties Union--actually opposed the House's version of S. 1 in the last Congress because the bill would ``unconstitutionally burden speech and associational rights.'' That is right. The American Civil Liberties Union opposed the legislation because the bill would ``unconstitutionally burden speech and associational rights.'' As hard as it is to believe when you look at the bill's provisions, S. 1 was billed as an election integrity bill. In fact, this legislation would undermine election integrity, making our elections less secure and more susceptible to fraud. And it would undermine voter confidence in our elections. The partisan divide in this country has reached new heights, and voters on both sides have lost confidence in our electoral process. Any election legislation that we take up should be focused on building voter confidence in the fairness of our electoral system, not undermining it. Do my Democratic colleagues seriously believe--seriously believe-- that S. 1 would do anything to increase voter confidence in the unbiased character of our electoral system? Do they seriously believe that their bill looks like a nonpartisan attempt to protect American elections? They can't possibly. From the newly partisan FEC to an IRS empowered to reject tax-exempt status for organizations whose beliefs it doesn't like, S. 1 is very clearly a bill designed purely and simply to enhance political power-- the political power, Democrats hope, of the Democratic Party. It is the very opposite of a nonpartisan reform bill. And I have to ask my Democratic colleagues, do you really want an electoral system that is perceived as partisan and which half the country doesn't trust? Haven't we seen the consequences of that? Are you really prepared to sacrifice voter confidence in our electoral system just so you can win elections? Later this afternoon, we will vote on S. 1. And I fully expect that this legislation will be blocked, and it should be. The Senate's rules, which require the agreement of 60 Senators to move forward to consider legislation, were designed--designed--for times just like these, times when a narrow partisan majority attempts to shove through partisan legislation, times when a partisan majority attacks the freedoms that our government exists to protect. The Senate was established to act as a monitoring body and check attempts to ride roughshod over minority rights or to curtail our rights and our liberties. And today the Senate will fulfill that role and prevent this dangerous, partisan takeover of our electoral system from moving forward. To elaborate on that point for just a moment, when I asked the question earlier on about why would you bring this bill to the floor-- it is a good question, I think, knowing full well that it is going to fail, and should fail later today, but why would you bring it to the floor? Well, allegedly, the reason to bring it to the floor was to provide pressures on certain Democratic Members that this is the reason that they need to vote to do away with the legislative filibuster, which is something that has been part of the Senate going back to our Founding Fathers. In fact, the very reason the Founding Fathers created the U.S. Senate was a check and balance against majoritarian rule and running roughshod over the rights of the minority here in the U.S. Senate. And the legislative filibuster has ensured and provided that protection, so much so that it was used extensively in the last 6 years, when Republicans were in control of the Senate, by the Democrats to filibuster legislation. In fact, it was used to filibuster coronavirus relief bills. It was used to filibuster police reform bills. It was used over and over to block the former President's nominees. And yet, now, we are being told that the Senate needs to get rid of the legislative filibuster and that all those Democrats, all those on the other side of the aisle who used it extensively to block Republican legislation over the past 6 years, now believe that we need to get rid of this legislative filibuster and that this bill is example No. 1 for why that is necessary. Well, it is really ironic and interesting to hear Members on the other side make that argument, given where they were a couple of years ago. It was just a couple of years ago--maybe 3 years ago--that 33 Democratic Senators signed a letter--a letter--to the Republican leader at the time, Senator McConnell, saying that we need to preserve the filibuster, the legislative filibuster, in the Senate because it is so crucial to the essence of the Senate and the protections that it provides for the rights of the minority here in the U.S. Senate. Thirty-three Democrats, many of whom are still serving in this body, adopted that position. And, in fact, the Democratic whip, my counterpart on the Democratic side, said, a couple of years ago on a morning show: I can tell you that would be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going back to our Founding Fathers. We have to acknowledge our respect for the minority, and that is what the Senate tries to do in its composition and in its procedure. ``I can tell you,'' he said, the Democratic whip, the Senator from Illinois, ``that it would be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going back to our Founding Fathers.'' In other words, we need to preserve the filibuster to preserve our democracy. It is essential. That was the view as recently as a couple of years ago. And now, now, we have to get rid of the filibuster to preserve our democracy 2 years later. The filibuster, the legislative filibuster, which in various forms has served our Republic now for over two centuries. It has been a part of the U.S. Senate checks and balances that the Founders envisioned for this country. And yet here we are bringing a bill to the floor for no other purpose than to have a show vote to try and pressure certain Democratic Senators who, rightfully, are defending the legislative filibuster as an essential element of protecting the rights of the minority in the Senate, of requiring cooperation and collaboration and bringing people together on legislation. Solutions in the Senate, historically--and I was a staffer here back in the 1980s. That is how long my tenure, at least as a staffer and now subsequently as a Member, goes back. But the Senate is a place where solutions tend to be found in the middle because that is required. It is required that there be 60 votes to move consequential legislation. And as a result of that, Members on both sides have to come together. If you want to pass big things in the Senate, you have to figure out a way to get 60 votes. And right now that would require--in the Senate, if you had every Democrat, 50 Democrats, you would have to get 10 Republicans. As was the case when we had the majority in the Senate, we had to get seven Democrats to do anything. And so, in order to even move essential legislation like the coronavirus bill, we had to reach out to the other side. And it forced that compromise, that collaboration, that willingness to come together and work in a bipartisan way on solutions that are durable, that are durable for this country. It is really interesting in this Washington Post op-ed by Senator Sinema, where she points out--makes that very point that if you can do something at 51 votes today, and one side blows up the rules in the Senate, that when the majority changes--and it always does in the Senate, and she points out that sometimes when you get in the majority, you think you will be there forever. Well, I have been here long enough to have been in the majority and the minority and in the majority and the minority again. It goes back and forth. So what are you going to do then the next time the Senate majority flips and all those things that the other side thinks are awful, awful ideas that the Republicans have, and they would love to be able to block them or at least force Republicans to come to the table and negotiate a solution that would require some bipartisan participation to get to 60 votes--what are you going to do then, where we have 51 votes when one side gets the majority and 50 votes and we go back and forth and we have this policy, this kind of policy roller coaster that provides no certainty, no predictability, and certainly gets away from the checks and balances that the Founders intended? The filibuster--the legislative filibuster, the rules of the Senate, the procedures of the Senate, are designed to protect and preserve democracy not to undermine it. What undermines it are cynical attempts to try and use a piece of legislation that the leadership on the other side knows is going nowhere and bring it to the floor for a show vote to put pressure--to put pressure--on Senate Democrats, who, as I said, rightfully, are defending that very procedure, which has worked so well to their advantage for the past 6 years. And now we are told the reason they have to change it is because Republicans are being so--we are not cooperating. We are not--you know, we are sticks in the mud. We are stopping and blocking things. We haven't even been in the minority now for 6 months. We spent the last 6 years in the majority, as the other side extensively--and I emphasize ``extensively'' because any study of the data would suggest that--to block Republican initiatives, to force Republicans to come together to find 60 votes. That was their position and posture for the past 6 years, including 33 Democratic Senators who, as recently as 3 years ago, sent a letter to the Republican leader, saying that we have got to protect the legislative filibuster--statements like the one made by the Senator from Illinois that doing away with the filibuster would end the Senate as it was originally devised and created, going back to our Founding Fathers. One of the essential elements of this Republic constitutionally was the need for checks and balances. And the bicameral creation of the Founding Fathers, the House, which is based upon the majority, 2-year terms, designed to reflect the will of the of people, the balance and check that was created against that was the U.S. Senate, with 6-year terms, where you have procedures and rules that make it more difficult and challenging, that force this place to be more deliberative, to be more compromising, to consult and work together. And so what we are doing today, you are going to get up, and my colleagues on the other side are going to talk about how critical it is that we do this because all these States are enacting these terrible, terrible election reforms. And as I said earlier, most of which, at least from what I have seen, are very mainstream and consistent with what the Founders designed in our Constitution, and that is for States to have principal primacy when it comes to controlling and regulating elections in this country. But as I said, it was argued 2 years ago, 3 years ago, in 2019, when this bill was introduced, that it needed to be introduced because we have got to do something to increase participation in our elections; that we really need to encourage people to be more active in our elections; that we have got to get people to vote, which they did, in record numbers--the biggest turnout since 1900, biggest voter participation in the 2020 election literally in 120 years in American history. So now they introduced a bill this year, and the stated reason is, we have to do this to stop all these States that are adopting these legislative solutions that are going to make it more difficult for people to vote. Well, all I can say is, the rationale for what we are doing today changes depending on the year, depending on the election, but the goal is the same, and that is to create a permanent political advantage for one party--that is all this is about--and to persuade and pressure certain Democratic Senators to do away with one of the fundamental elements of the U.S. Senate in the form of a legislative filibuster. I hope this vote will make at least some Democrats think twice about the wisdom of permanently politicizing our electoral system and that it will encourage them to make sure that any future election reform proposals are genuinely bipartisan in nature. Unfortunately, I think it is more likely that Democrats are going to use this vote to argue for destroying the Senate's longstanding protections for minority rights. But today--today, at least, the Senate will fulfill its constitutional mandate and act as a check on this attempt to undermine our basic freedoms. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``nay'', and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) would have voted ``nay.''

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 North Dakota (Mr. Cramer) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, at the end of May, Facebook announced that it would no longer censor claims that the coronavirus was man-made. The mainstream media, which had savaged the story during the previous administration, suddenly started backpedaling, and the Biden White House, which had reportedly canceled the previous administration's investigation into whether the novel coronavirus originated in a Wuhan lab, announced a 90-day inquiry into the virus's origins. The occasion for all this backpedaling was apparently a report in the Wall Street Journal that three researchers who worked at Wuhan Institute of Virology ``sought hospital care'' in late 2019 for symptoms consistent with the coronavirus. In the wake of that report, it became impossible for the President or the mainstream media or Facebook to deny what had always been a plausible theory: that the virus came from the virology lab in Wuhan. Journalists moved to explain their previous rejection of this theory, and some of them openly admitted what had been obvious: that they rejected the theory not because of flaws in the theory itself but because of those who had advanced this hypothesis. We don't know what these revived investigations will ultimately show, but the Wuhan reversal illustrates multiple issues. One, of course, is the need to remember that our social media experience is heavily curated. The posts and ads we see are selected for us by complex algorithms that analyze the data social media companies have collected on each of us and curate our experience accordingly. On top of that, as the past year or two has illustrated, social media companies actively censor certain material, meaning that there are posts we will never see. As chairman and now ranking member of the Senate Commerce Committee's Communications and Tech Subcommittee, I have pushed for transparency requirements for social media companies, and I have introduced two bipartisan bills that would increase internet transparency while preserving the light-touch approach to regulation that has allowed the internet to flourish. My Filter Bubble Transparency Act would allow social media users to opt out of the filter bubble--in other words, to opt out of the filtered experience tailored for them by opaque algorithms--and instead see an unfiltered social media feed or search results. The Platform Accountability and Transparency Act, which I introduced with Senator Schatz, would increase transparency and accountability around content moderation. Sites would be required to provide an easily digestible disclosure of their content moderation practices for users, and, importantly, they would be required to explain their decisions to remove material to consumers. Under the PACT Act, if a site chose to remove your post, it would have to tell you why it decided to remove your post. The PACT Act would also require sites to have an appeals process. So if Facebook, for example, removed one of your posts, it would not only have to tell you why, but it would have to provide a way for you to appeal that decision. Let me be clear. Private entities are free to have their own opinions and viewpoints and should not be compelled by the government to publish alternative views, but that is not what we are talking about with these large social media platforms. Most strongly deny that they are publishers and instead hold themselves forth as neutral platforms for the free exchange of ideas from all corners. That is the promise they make to consumers. The Wuhan reversal is more than a reminder that our social media experience is actually a heavily curated one. It also raises serious questions about censorship and the maintenance of the marketplace of ideas that is a hallmark of a free society. There is no free society without the free exchange of ideas. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom to speak in the public square--all of these are essential elements of a free society. The more a government or other entities crack down on freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas, the more we move away from a free society and toward tyranny. I say ``or other entities'' because the responsibility for protecting the free exchange of ideas extends beyond the government. Government, of course, has an absolute obligation to defend our fundamental freedoms, but other institutions in society also have a role. You can't have a free society without free institutions. I am thinking here particularly of the press, universities, and in this day and age, social media companies. If the press or social media companies only sanction one narrative-- the narrative preferred by the government or by social elites or by any other group--the marketplace of ideas shrinks substantially. If multiple groups that should be fostering the free exchange of ideas combine to limit or advance a particular narrative, they start to control public opinion instead of allowing individuals to form their own opinions based on a free flow of information. Unfortunately, as the Wuhan story illustrates, today we are seeing a real movement to restrict the free flow of ideas. Whether we are talking about speech codes or social media censorship, more and more, we are seeing a preferred narrative being advanced and opinions outside of that preferred narrative being censored or marginalized. We see it in government with bills like S. 1, which would, among other things, allow the IRS to consider an organization's views before deciding whether or not to grant it tax-exempt status, or the Equality Act, which would crack down on freedom of speech and freedom of religion in unprecedented ways. We see it outside government when media outlets engage in selective reporting to highlight an accepted narrative instead of reporting the news and the facts, whatever they are, or when social media censors legitimate theories or stories or when universities crack down on free speech. In the wake of the Wuhan lab story, we saw widespread censorship across government, social media, and the press for political reasons. President Biden seemingly shut down the former President's investigation into the virus's origin because it was the former President's investigation. Democrats in Congress pressured social media companies to censor information that contradicted the narrative that they were embracing. The mainstream media savaged the lab origin story. Social media sites censored it. And all of this happened because of the political affiliation of the people advancing this reasonable hypothesis. You can only have a marketplace of ideas if ideas actually get out there, which is why censorship, as I have said, is antithetical to a free society. It is also important to note--and this is a critical, critical point--that having a free marketplace of ideas means allowing some ideas that might be wrong, that might seem offensive, that might seem silly. We are not talking about content that, for example, promotes violence but ideas that are provocative, debatable, or out of the mainstream. The alternative is allowing the government or some other entity to decide what information we see and what we believe. It is important to remember that sometimes ideas that seem silly or wrong initially turn out to be right. More than one widely accepted scientific theory started out as a fringe position. A prevailing opinion may turn out to be wrong, and political or social power doesn't necessarily equal truth. I hope that their abrupt reversal on COVID's possible origins makes media organizations and social media platforms think twice the next time they consider censoring a story. I hope it reminds them of the dangers of restricting the free flow of ideas and of their obligation to separate their politics from their jobs In a speech he delivered in 1967, Ronald Reagan, marveling at our government by the people, said this: Perhaps you and I have lived too long with this miracle to properly be appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing, and it's never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. I fear that long acquaintance with the blessings of liberty--with the blessings of a free press and freedom of speech and freedom of religion--has sometimes made us careless about the preservation of these freedoms. We are used to them, and we assume that they will always be with us. But, as Ronald Reagan pointed out, freedom has to be actively safeguarded, or it will be lost. I have seen too many instances lately where our cherished First Amendment freedoms are subordinated to a political and social agenda, and I hope, I hope that the Wuhan story reminds us of the responsibility that each one of us has to safeguard these freedoms, lest they slip away from us.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

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 Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, unfortunately, predictions about the negative economic effects of the so-called American Rescue Plan seem to be coming true. In March, Democrats pushed through this massive partisan spending bill. They claimed it was urgently needed COVID funding. In reality, the bill was filled with unnecessary spending, from a staggering $350 billion slush fund for States, a majority of which didn't need any more government money to weather the rest of the pandemic, to almost $129 billion for schools, even though schools had spent just a tiny fraction of the tens of billions of dollars Congress had already given them. At the time, Republicans warned about the bill's level of spending. More than just one liberal economist warned about the size of Democrats' spending plan, with former Obama adviser Larry Summers noting that the bill could ``set off inflationary pressures of a kind we have not seen in a generation.'' Well, it turns out he was right to be worried. Last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its report on May's consumer prices, and the news was not good. Inflation reached its highest level in nearly 13 years, with consumer prices up 5 percent from a year ago. Core inflation, a measure of inflation that excludes food and energy prices, soared to its highest level in nearly three decades. And what does that mean? Well, higher prices for Americans. The price of everything from bikes to bacon has shot up. Auto insurance costs 17 percent more than it did a year ago. Used cars cost 30 percent more. Shoes and whole milk cost 7 percent more. Inflation is starting to look like it could become nontransitory, or what most Americans call a serious problem. And Democrats' government spending spree is contributing, but, of course, that is not causing Democrats to hit pause on the economic overstimulation. Democrats are looking at more trillion-plus-dollar spending bills. The President just released a budget proposing to hike government spending by trillions of dollars over the next 10 years. Under the President's plan, the Federal budget would be $6 trillion for fiscal year 2022, rising to $8.2 trillion for fiscal year 2031. Now, to put those numbers in perspective, the entire Federal budget for 2019 came to $4.4 trillion. The President is proposing to nearly double that by 2031. It is disturbing that the overspending in the American Rescue Plan hasn't made Democrats think twice about future government sprees, but it is not all that surprising because in the Democratic Party these days, dogma tends to triumph over reality--or practicality. Democrats are ever more fanatically committed to expanding government and taxing Americans, and they are not slowed down by little details like damaging the economy. Take the increased unemployment benefits situation. Congress provided a Federal increase in unemployment benefits early in the pandemic when businesses were closed and workers had few alternatives to keep their families afloat, but as early as last fall, there were signs that our economy was rebounding. And with the arrival of the COVID vaccines, it became clear that America would be able to get fully back to work sooner rather than later. But Democrats insisted on continuing the increased unemployment benefits until September of 2021, and the effect has been predictable. Despite record-high job openings, many people are declining to return to work because they can make more money staying home and drawing unemployment benefits. Businesses hit hard by the pandemic are desperate to return to full operating capacity, but they are being slowed down by the fact that they can't find workers. In response to the worker shortage, a number of Governors around the country decided to stop accepting the Federal increase in unemployment benefits. They wanted to help businesses in their States and get their residents back to work. And how did Democrats respond to that? Well, more than one Democrat responded by suggesting that the Federal Government step in to make sure these payments continue. That is right. Despite evidence that the increased unemployment benefits were discouraging workers from going back to work, some Democrats wanted to prevent Governors from halting these payments. Nowhere is Democrats' devotion to dogma over reality more notable than in their proposed capital gains tax hike. Now, I don't need to tell anyone that ``tax the rich'' has become the rallying cry of the Democratic Party. And one of the ways that the President plans to tax well-off Americans is by doubling the top capital gains rate to almost 40 percent. The problem is that a 40-percent capital gains rate substantially exceeds the revenue-maximizing rate. In nonaccountant speak, what that means is that Democrats could collect more government revenue if they raised the capital gains tax less. Let me repeat that. Democrats could collect more government revenue if they raised the capital gains tax less. Now, you would think that the President would want to maximize the revenue the government could collect, especially with his plans for 10 years of massive government spending, which I alluded to earlier. But in today's Democratic Party, taxing the rich is more important than maximizing government revenue, just like tax hikes on corporations are more important than making sure our economy grows and that American companies can compete on the global stage--or raising taxes is more important than passing legislation to boost American infrastructure. That is right. The President would have reached an agreement with Republicans on a substantial infrastructure bill, but he tanked negotiations because he was insistent that any bill repeal parts of the 2017 tax reform legislation, the same legislation that had driven up wages and boosted our economy before the pandemic hit. Democrats are so committed to taxation that they included a provision in the bloated COVID legislation that they passed specifically prohibiting State governments from using COVID relief money to cut taxes. Apparently, Democrats are fine with government payments to Americans, but allowing them to keep more of their own money is off the table. Democrats have long been interested in higher taxes to pay for more government spending, but to today's Democrats, taxation is rapidly becoming a good in itself. Democrats are no longer just interested in raising taxes to raise revenue. If they were, they wouldn't be planning to jack up the capital gains tax rate to over 40 percent. They are interested in raising taxes because they believe that success should be punished. In the increasingly socialist Democratic Party, it doesn't matter how hard you work to get where you are, how many people you have created jobs for, or how much good you are doing with your money; if you have been successful, you should be heavily taxed for your efforts, even if those heavy taxes actually cost the government money or hamstring the American economy. The growing commitment in the Democratic Party to an increasingly rigid, socialist dogma is deeply disturbing, and it is certainly not limited to a fanatical commitment to taxation or spending. It embraces everything from a social agenda that is increasingly hostile to freedom of religion and freedom of speech to a fundamental belief that government knows best when it comes to how Americans run their lives. But, for today, I am just going to limit myself to taxes and spending. Let's hope that Democrats rethink their planned government spending sprees before inflation really gets out of control and hard- working Americans end up paying the price. 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 Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Sasse) would have voted ``nay''.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

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, last night, the Air Force announced some historic news for South Dakota, and today I am proud to share that Ellsworth Air Force Base in Western South Dakota has been officially named Main Operating Base 1 for the future B-21 Bomber, home of the Raider. This designation not only means that Ellsworth will be the first base to host the B-21 Raider, but it will also host the formal training unit and the first operational squadron. Those who have heard me talk about the importance of this decision likely know the outlook for the base wasn't so rosy 16 years ago. I had just arrived here in the Senate in 2005 when Ellsworth was placed on the base realignment and closure, or BRAC, list that May. 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 to the BRAC Commission to remove Ellsworth from the closure list. Many thought 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 odds of pulling through, but we were determined that we weren't going to lose Ellsworth. We started by challenging the cost-savings assumptions of the BRAC Commission, which began to unravel under scrutiny, and we proved it would actually cost money to close Ellsworth. We also pressed the Commissioners not to put all of our eggs in one basket when it comes to our Nation's security interests, highlighting the organizational risk of consolidating all of our B-1s at one location. The outlook was grim, but we stood our ground and we won the day and we were removed from the BRAC list that August. But we didn't stop there. 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; 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 the country, and it is well suited for B-21 training. This is just one of the efforts that we undertook to put Ellsworth in the best position possible to secure this new mission, and it is wonderful to see it pay off with yesterday's announcement. I know that while South Dakota is celebrating today, others are disappointed in this decision. For those who were seeking to have the Main Operating Base 1 in their State but will now follow Ellsworth in the sequencing and wait a little longer for the B-21 mission to arrive, know this: My support for the B-21 enterprise will not lessen because we are at this milestone. As I said, we argued 15 years ago that the United States should not put all its eggs in one basket when it comes to strategic assets. I stand by that reasoning to this day. Under the current bomber roadmap, every bomber base will keep a bomber mission well into the future. The Stealth B-21 will eventually replace our B-1s and Stealth B-2s at bases around the country. Meanwhile, our fleet of B-52s will be given new modern engines through a service life extension program. All of our bomber bases which have played and continue to play an essential role in our national security will continue to do so. Long-range strike will remain a team effort. The core of our military strength is our men and women in uniform. They volunteer to lay down their lives, if necessary, in the service of our Nation, and it is incumbent on us here in Congress to do our part to ensure that they have the tools they need to succeed in their missions. The B-21 is an essential part of that equation. I remind my colleagues that the United States is one of only three countries in the world that operate a strategic bomber. The other two countries are Russia and China, and they are both working to develop their own next- generation bombers. We cannot afford to cede any ground. The B-21 is scheduled to take its first flight in 2022 and should enter service around 2027. It will replace our aging B-1s, which have proven a workhorse over the last several decades, as well as two squadrons of B-2s. But our small bomber fleet is growing smaller. Seventeen of the most structurally fatigued B-1s are being retired this year, which has actually permitted maintainers to concentrate resources on the remaining aircraft. Flight hours are up, and the B-1 has been a key component of the new Bomber Task Force missions. But that doesn't mean a smaller bomber force is sustainable in the long run without reinvestment and modernization. Our national security requires that the B-21 Program move full-speed ahead. Fortunately, public reports indicate the B-21 Program is on-budget and on-time. ``B- 21 speeds to IOC,'' or initial operating capacity, reads a headline recently from June 3. In an interview, the Air Force Global Strike Commander, Gen. Timothy Ray, detailed the agile and adaptive B-21 process. He noted that adding certain capabilities to the bombers could take one-tenth of the time it has for previous airframes. The ability to incrementally add new capabilities and upgrades, instead of being forced to make wholesale block upgrades, should keep B-21 development moving quickly. And Congress--Congress can do its part by providing stable funding for the B-21. Now, with the record of decision for Main Operating Base 1 signed, we also need to restart in earnest on the investments necessary to prepare Ellsworth for the B-21. We can now get to work building the high-end maintenance facilities for the B-21's stealth coating, training, and operations buildings for the new missions and a secure weapons facility for the nuclear mission. Ellsworth has come a long way since it was placed on the chopping block 16 years ago. I am grateful to the Air Force for this decision and the hard work by so many to get us here today. From BRAC to B-21, I am humbled to have been a small part of this effort, and I remain steadfast in my support for the mission and the men and women of the 28th Bomb Wing. I can't wait to get to work on this new chapter of Ellsworth's story. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. THUNE

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