John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, as I begin this morning, I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, earlier this morning. The attacks that were made by the Democratic leader, Senator Schumer, on the Supreme Court yesterday were not only irresponsible; they were reckless and they were shameful. I think we need to just call that what it is. For them to suggest--for him to suggest--that this isn't what he meant and that this is somehow manufactured outrage on the part of us or Republicans in general doesn't fit with the way that these comments came across either, because I want to read for you from the CNN Supreme Court reporter: ``Schumer, speaking at a rally of abortion rights supporters, appeared to threaten Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, President Trump's two Supreme Court nominees who were confirmed after bruising nomination fights.'' That is the interpretation not of FOX News but of CNN. I think we need to be very clear: When comments like that are made that threaten an independent judiciary in this country, they need to be called out and they need to be walked back. I appreciate the fact that the Democratic leader acknowledged today that he should have said it differently, but it doesn't in any way diminish what was said or the context in which it was said or the attacks that were made on the Supreme Court. It needs to be recognized as that, and I think all of us need to be, as U.S. Senators, aware--aware--no matter what the audience, particularly when you are the Democratic leader, of how these things come across and what they mean to the people who have been threatened by them. Coronavirus Madam President, I am pleased that Republicans and Democrats in both Chambers have quickly come together to provide emergency funding to combat the coronavirus, and I look forward to voting this afternoon to send this important funding measure to the President's desk. 5G Madam President, on another subject, our Nation is poised for the widespread deployment of the next generation of internet technology: 5G. With its incredible speed and connectivity, 5G will usher in a new era of innovation. Advances in medical care, the large-scale deployment of precision agriculture, safer transportation technologies--5G will bring all of these things and more. But, like any new technology, 5G networks will present new risks and vulnerabilities. Because 5G will mean a vastly greater number of connected devices, the risks with 5G will be greater. That is why an essential part of deploying 5G networks has to be looking at how we can mitigate security risks. Yesterday, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, of which I am a member, held a hearing on supply chain risks for 5G. We need to ensure that the component parts of our devices and, critically, the component parts of telecommunications networks, like cell towers and the small cells that will be required for 5G, are secure. That means ensuring that 5G equipment comes from trusted vendors. Currently, one of the biggest suppliers of 5G equipment worldwide is a Chinese company--Huawei--which is supported by the Chinese Government. American security officials have raised concerns that much of Huawei's equipment is built with ``backdoors,'' giving the Chinese Government access to global communications networks. The United States has taken a number of steps to prevent equipment from Huawei and another suspect Chinese company, ZTE, from being used in U.S. communications networks, but these companies still pose a risk to the United States. For starters, some U.S. broadband providers, often in rural areas, still have equipment from Huawei and ZTE in their communications networks, and a number of our allies and trade partners, entities with whom we regularly share information--including sensitive national security information--have used or are using technology from Huawei and ZTE. Yesterday's Commerce Committee hearing focused on both of these issues. We discussed so-called ``rip and replace,'' an initiative already underway to replace suspect telecommunications components with hardware from trusted companies. Last week, the Senate unanimously passed the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act, which is now with the President to be signed into law. This legislation will help telecommunications providers with the cost of replacing network components that pose a security risk. I cosponsored this legislation, which was developed by Commerce Committee Chairman Roger Wicker. Madam President, cost is a major obstacle for small broadband providers when it comes to replacing telecommunications hardware, but, as one expert witness at the hearing noted, a lack of qualified telecommunications workers also poses a barrier to replacement. I recently introduced legislation, the Telecommunications Skilled Workforce Act, to help increase the number of workers on the frontlines of replacing this equipment and deploying new, secure 5G networks. I hope this legislation will quickly make its way through the Senate. Replacing problematic hardware in our domestic telecommunications networks will help ensure the security of our communications for years to come. As I said earlier, that is not the only challenge that we are facing. We regularly exchange information, including sensitive national security information, with our allies and trading partners, and this information can only be secure if networks on both ends are secure. That is why the United States has called for other countries to reject telecommunications technology from Huawei and ZTE. While some countries have committed to using trusted companies to build out their telecommunications networks, other countries are still planning to make use of Huawei's technology. That is why I am introducing legislation today to make telecommunications security a key objective when negotiating future trade deals. This legislation is critical as the United States begins formal trade talks with the United Kingdom and with other allies. We should be using trade agreements to push for enhanced network security globally, which would benefit not only our country but every country with which we do business. As one witness noted at yesterday's hearing, this legislation is ``long overdue.'' I could not agree more. Over the past few years, we have talked a lot about the importance of having the United States win the global race to 5G. There are important reasons for that. For starters, having the United States at the forefront of 5G technology will mean big benefits for our economy and for American workers, but there are also important security reasons to have the United States at the head of the 5G revolution. If we lead the world in implementing 5G, we will have the chance to set standards for 5G deployment--including, most importantly, network security standards. It is no exaggeration to say that having the chance to set worldwide standards for 5G is critical--it is critical--to our national security. Our telecommunications networks already play a huge role in our national security, and that role will only grow as we fully adopt 5G technology. We need to ensure that U.S. networks are as secure as it is possible for them to be. I appreciated the witnesses who took the time to address the Commerce Committee yesterday. There is no better way to learn what needs to be done for 5G security than to hear from the people on the ground who spend every waking day managing network security issues. I look forward to continuing to work with all of my colleagues in the Senate to advance telecommunications security and ensure that the United States is fully prepared for the 5G future. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

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

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

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. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, 2 years ago at this time, we were hearing that the internet, as we know it, was going to disappear. On February 27, 2018, Senate Democrats sent a tweet warning that Americans would be getting the internet one word at a time. Why? Because the Federal Communications Commission had repealed heavyhanded, Obama-era internet regulation. If we didn't immediately undo the FCC's rules change, Democrats warned, the effects on internet access would be catastrophic. Well, 2 years later, the internet, as we know it, isn't just still with us, it is flourishing. Broadband access has expanded; Americans are enjoying faster internet speeds; and we are implementing 5G internet technology across the Nation, including in more rural places like South Dakota. It turns out the internet doesn't fall apart without the heavy hand of government. In fact, it thrives. That should be an important lesson for us going forward. Historically speaking, the Federal Government has taken a light-touch approach to internet regulation. The government largely stayed out of the internet's way, and innovation and creativity flourished, delivering nearly everything from Netflix to weather apps, to Uber. But in 2014, the Obama administration decided it wanted the Federal Government to start regulating the internet more heavily, and in 2015, the Obama Federal Communications Commission passed the Open Internet Order, which dramatically expanded the Federal Government's power over the internet in the name of net neutrality. Now, you might not know it from Democrats' rhetoric, but net neutrality is a concept that enjoys broad support in both parties. I support net neutrality and rules that prevent blocking, throttling, or the paid prioritization of internet traffic. I don't think a major service provider should be able to block a small new startup, and I don't think Netflix should be able to pay to have its search results appear before anyone else's. What the Obama FCC did in 2015 went far beyond net neutrality. In the name of keeping the internet open to everyone, the Obama FCC asserted broad new government powers over the internet using rules that were designed for telephone monopolies back during the Great Depression. This opened a whole host of new internet regulations, including price regulations. Unsurprisingly, the FCC's move resulted in a decline in broadband investment as companies saw the possibility of burdensome new regulations headed their way. That was bad news for Americans, especially Americans in rural States like my home State of South Dakota. Getting broadband to rural communities is already more challenging than installing broadband in cities or suburbs. The possibility of heavier regulations acted as a further disincentive to expanding access. Fast forward to 2017, and the Federal Communications Commission, under Chairman Pai, voted to repeal the heavyhanded internet regulations passed by the Obama FCC. Democrats, as I already mentioned, responded hysterically, predicting that the internet, as we knew it, would disappear. Providers, they warned, would slow down internet speeds to a crawl and block access to desired content--except, of course, none of that has happened. Here is what actually has happened. Broadband investment has rebounded. In 2018, private broadband investment rose by $3 billion. Broadband access is expanding. The FCC reports that in 2018, ``broadband providers, both small and large, deployed fiber networks to 5.9 million new homes, the largest number ever recorded.'' Internet speeds have increased. The Nation is poised for widespread adoption of the next generation of internet, which is 5G. All of this despite light-touch government regulation or, perhaps more accurately, because of light-touch government regulation. At a time when Democrats are pushing for government takeovers of everything from our healthcare to our energy choices, it is important to remember that a lot of times heavyhanded government involvement causes problems instead of solving them. Of course, there is a place for government regulations, but more government involvement does not automatically mean a better outcome. In fact, a lot of the time it means the opposite. Giving the Federal Government more power over the internet not only didn't help anything, it actually discouraged the investment needed to ensure that all Americans have access to reliable, high-speed internet service. Lifting the heavy hand of government regulation, on the other hand, encouraged broadband investment, which is resulting in better internet access for more Americans. If we want the internet to continue to thrive and serve as an engine of economic innovation and advancement, we should ensure that the Federal Government stays away from heavyhanded regulations. I have spent years calling for a bipartisan net neutrality bill that would address concerns about blocking while codifying a light-touch approach to internet regulation. I am still waiting for a Democratic partner on that legislation. While the current FCC has established a healthy approach to regulation, a different administration could return and, in the same way they did during the days of the Obama FCC, slow down internet advances like 5G and the expansion of broadband that is happening in rural communities across the country. I will continue to work for bipartisan net neutrality legislation that ensures that the government will not weigh down the internet with unnecessary and heavyhanded regulations. I hope my Democratic colleagues will join me. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I thank the Democratic whip for yielding time. I will be short here. We are in a pretty good place in this country right now when it comes to energy. Our energy supply is abundant, and energy prices are generally affordable. We can't afford to become complacent. We are in a good place right now because of American innovation, because President Trump, working with our Republican majority in the Congress, took steps to expand our domestic energy supply and to lessen our dependence upon foreign oil. If we want to keep American energy affordable and abundant, we need to make sure we stay on the cutting edge of energy innovation and continue to invest in our domestic energy supply, from oil and natural gas to renewable energy sources like hydropower and wind. We also need to make sure we stay on top of threats to our energy grid and our energy security. Our colleagues at the Energy and Natural Resources Committee have spent a lot of time over the past months working on these issues, and yesterday we voted to move forward on bipartisan energy legislation put forward by Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Lisa Murkowski and Ranking Member Joe Manchin. The bill they put together, the American Energy Innovation Act, contains measures from more than 60 Senators focused on energy innovation--particularly, clean energy innovation--workplace development, and the security of our energy grid. The American Energy Innovation Act invests in a wide range of clean energy technologies, from wind and solar to hydropower and geothermal. It also focuses on improving energy storage. Many modern clean energy technologies are intermittent or lack the reliability of traditional electric sources. The amount of energy produced from wind, for example, is dependent on the amount of wind on any given day. So it must be backed up by a traditional plant, often powered by natural gas. Creating new ways to store clean energy will allow us to increase our reliance on renewable energy sources. The American Energy Innovation Act also focuses on improving research into carbon capture, and it directs the establishment of a research and development program to identify ways to use captured carbon. The bill also invests in advanced nuclear energy research so that we can regain our edge in the use of this clean energy technology. I plan to introduce amendments to the legislation to review where we can boost hydropower in the Upper Missouri River Basin and to develop ways to recycle the windmill blades used in wind energy generation. Nearly half of the electricity generated in South Dakota is from hydroelectric, and we should explore building off of these investments through repowering existing dams and adding power generation to those without. In addition to clean energy and innovation, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee's legislation focuses on boosting the security of our electric grid. Our electric grid is the subject of a steady stream of cyber attacks, some of which could have devastating consequences. It is not hard to imagine the deadly results of prolonged traffic signal outages or long-term power outages at hospitals or fire stations. That is why the American Energy Innovation Act invests in cyber security and grid modernization. The act also focuses on improving our domestic supply of some of the key elements and minerals that we rely on for manufacturing everything from computer chips to batteries, to defense applications. Right now we have to import too much--too much--of these critical minerals from countries like China. For the sake of our national security, it is important that we find ways to identify supplies of these minerals here at home. Finally, the American Energy Innovation Act invests in workforce development. All the innovative technologies in the world will not help us if we don't have the skilled workers to operate and maintain these technologies. We need to ensure that, while we are investing in innovation, we are also investing in the energy workforce of the future. This legislation would help ensure that we maintain our energy independence for the long term. It will boost the security of our electric grid, strengthen our national security, and invest in American workers. It will help pave the way for a clean energy future. This is a good bill, and I hope that my colleagues will support it and not derail this legislation with partisan amendments. I know many of my colleagues across the aisle have a keen interest in adding certain energy tax provisions to this bill. I will remind them, however, that last summer the Senate Finance Committee created a number of task forces to examine expiring and expired tax policies. I co-led the Energy Task Force along with the senior Senator from Michigan, and many of the energy tax items that we reviewed were included in the year-end bill in December. Others were not yet ready for prime time. I am eager to continue to work with my colleagues on advancing American energy innovation, as this bill will do, but we have to be realistic about the fact that a number of the energy tax proposals in question are not yet ready for implementation and need to be considered in the context of other reforms and corrections to the Tax Code. As I said, I hope debate over tax provisions or other amendments will not delay passage of this important bipartisan legislation, and I look forward to working with colleagues of both parties to advance this bill and to help secure America's energy future. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, most of us think that today's internet is pretty fast. We receive traffic updates basically in realtime, get emails within a second or two, and stream our favorite shows whenever and wherever we want. But as advanced as today's internet is, the next generation of internet 5G will make 4G look like dial-up. For instance, 5G mobile broadband technology will deliver speeds up to 100 times faster than what today's technology can deliver. It will be vastly more responsive than 4G technology, and it will be able to connect 100 times--100 times--the number of devices that can be connected with 4G. While that will make it even easier to do the things we do today, like check our email or stream our favorite shows, the biggest benefits of 5G will lie in the other technologies it will enable--precision agriculture, medical and surgical innovation, safer vehicles, and much more. The technology for 5G is already here, but there is more work to be done to get to nationwide 5G deployment. A key part of getting to that point is developing the workforce that will be required to install and maintain the 5G network. Current internet technology relies on cell phone towers, but 5G technology will require not just traditional cell phone towers but small antennas called small cells that can often be attached to existing infrastructure like utility poles or buildings. Wireless providers will have to install nearly 800,000 small cells around the Nation to support a nationwide 5G network. Of course, after installation, every one of those small cells will have to be monitored and maintained. That will require a substantial increase in the telecommunications workforce. It is estimated that deploying the necessary infrastructure for 5G will create approximately 50,000 new construction jobs each year over the build-out period, and that is just for construction. Right now there simply aren't enough workers with the necessary training to meet the needs of nationwide 5G. Industry and community colleges have stepped forward to provide training opportunities, but more work needs to be done if the United States wants to step forward into the 5G future. As past chairman of the Commerce Committee and the current chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet, 5G has long been a priority of mine. I have spent a lot of time focused on advancing 5G deployment, especially to rural States like my home State of South Dakota. I was very proud to be in Sioux Falls a few months ago when the city unveiled one of the first 5G networks in the country. In 2018, the President signed into law legislation that I developed to increase access to critical spectrum, and I have also introduced legislation to facilitate small cell deployment, especially in rural areas. Today, I am introducing legislation to address the other part of the 5G equation--creating a large enough workforce to deploy and maintain all those small cells. As I said, industry and community colleges have both stepped forward to provide programs to train workers. Places like VIKOR Teleconstruction and Southeast Tech in Sioux Falls, SD, are already helping to train the 5G workforce of the future. But more work needs to be done. My Telecommunications Skilled Workforce Act would help increase the number of workers enrolled in 5G training programs and identify ways to grow the telecommunications workforce to meet the demands of 5G. My bill would require the Department of Labor to bring together our Federal partners, as well as individuals on the ground, deploying next- generation telecommunications services. The resulting working group would be required to identify any current laws or regulations that are making it difficult for educational institutions and businesses to establish programs to help meet the workforce needs of the telecom industry. It would also be required to identify existing Federal programs to help address workforce shortages, as well as ways the Federal Government could encourage or incentivize growth in the telecommunications workforce, including the deployment of fixed broadband in our rural areas. My bill would also direct the Department of Labor and the Federal Communications Commission to issue guidance for States to help them leverage existing Federal resources for growing their telecommunications workforces and to help them improve recruitment for industry-led telecommunications development programs like the Wireless Infrastructure Association's Telecommunications Industry Registered Apprenticeship Program. I appreciate my colleagues, Senators Tester, Moran, and Peters, for partnering with me on this bill. Getting to 5G in the near future is important for our whole country-- both economically and for the advances it will bring in fields like medicine and auto safety--which is why it has been a major priority of mine over the past few years. I am particularly motivated by the benefits that 5G could bring to my home State of South Dakota. The ability to deploy precision agriculture on a wide scale would have huge benefits for South Dakota farmers. Better access to telemedicine could bring better healthcare to thousands of residents in my home State and other rural areas. To get to these benefits, we have to ensure the telecommunications companies are able to find the workers they need. I hope we can quickly advance this legislation so the United States can continue her march into the 5G future. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hyde-Smith.) The clerk will call the roll.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to join with the leader and my colleagues in thanking and recognizing Laura Dove, who is leaving us and the Senate at the end of the week. I don't think there is anybody else more identified with the U.S. Senate by Senators and their staffs than Laura. When the leader was arriving here as a freshman Senator, I was arriving as a young 24-year-old staffer and happened to, I think, overlap, as well, when Laura was a page here. So she has been here; this has been her life; and many of us have had the opportunity through the years to observe her in action and to realize not only how talented and gifted she is but what a person of incredible integrity and character as well. She spent more than two decades serving in the Senate and three weeks serving as my seatmate during the impeachment trial, which I am hoping wasn't the last straw in convincing her to retire. For the last 7 years, she has been the Secretary of the Minority and Majority, a role that involves managing the Republican cloakroom, helping develop the floor schedule, keeping Members informed about votes, and providing Members with legislative and parliamentary counsel. Laura has done all that and more over the past 7 years and has done it with distinction. All of us on this side of the aisle rely on her counsel, and there is no way we would have been able to accomplish all that we have accomplished in the past few years without her wisdom and expertise. She has the rare ability to tell Senators no--always with a smile--and actually have them listen. I have sought Laura's advice many times, especially since becoming whip last year, and I will greatly miss her counsel, although I am hopeful she will be leaving a forwarding address for future questions. As the leader pointed out, you might say Laura was raised on the Senate. Her father Robert ``Bob'' Dove twice served as Senate Parliamentarian and had a Senate career that spanned nearly 40 years, so Laura grew up steeped in Senate procedure and tradition. But her own career began as a Senate page, and I think perhaps her proudest accomplishment in the Senate has been mentoring literally the scores of pages who have passed through the Republican cloakroom on her watch. I know she has made their experience a richer and more meaningful one. So, Laura, we thank you for your tireless work, the long days and the nights you put in. Your wisdom, patience, and unfailing good humor will be sorely missed by Senators and staff of both parties. We wish you all the very best in your future endeavors, and I hope that your next job will involve fewer late nights and more time for leisure, including loading up the RV and making another trip to the Black Hills of South Dakota. 5G

Mr. THUNE

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

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 Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Perdue). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, today we will vote on two pro-life bills: the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. These bills should be completely uncontroversial. Every one of us in this Chamber ought to be able to agree that infants who are born alive during an abortion procedure should receive the same care that a baby born alive in a hospital would receive. Every one of us ought to agree that, at the very least, we should not be aborting babies after the point that they can feel pain, but unfortunately the abortion extremism in the Democratic Party is such that it is unlikely that these two bills will even get a chance to be debated. We shouldn't even need the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. It should be obvious that any baby born alive, wherever he or she is born, ought to receive care, but with more than one leading Democrat over the past year refusing to rule out infanticide, it has become clear that we need to underscore that being born alive in an abortion clinic instead of a hospital doesn't eliminate a baby's right to medical care. Like the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, the Pain- Capable Unborn Child Protection Act should be a no-brainer. This legislation would ban abortions beginning in the sixth month of pregnancy, a point at which science has clearly demonstrated that the unborn child is able to feel pain--and not only able to feel pain. By this point in a pregnancy, approximately 20 weeks, babies are almost able to survive outside of their mothers. Babies have survived after being born at 25 weeks, at 24 weeks, at 23 weeks, and, like Ellie Schneider, who attended the State of the Union Address with her mom, at 21 weeks. It is unthinkable that we are killing babies who are so far advanced that it is possible for them to survive outside of their mothers, but we are. In 2016, somewhere around 11,000 babies were aborted at or after the 21-week mark in pregnancy--11,000 in one year. Democrats like to point to European countries to support their push for government-run healthcare and other socialist policies, but they never mention--they never mention--that almost every European country has more limits on abortion than we have here in the United States. In fact, the United States is one of just seven countries in the entire world that allow elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Among the other countries are China and North Korea--not exactly the kind of company we want to be in when it comes to keeping and protecting human rights because--make no mistake--that is what we are talking about with abortion: human rights. Abortion denies unique, individual human beings, with their own fingerprints and their own DNA, the most basic of human rights: the right to life. It is happening on a massive scale. Every year, in the United States alone, hundreds of thousands of irreplaceable human beings are killed by abortion. That is not some number that the pro- life movement has cooked up. That is straight. That is straight from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, formerly affiliated with Planned Parenthood, which reports, ``Approximately 862,320 abortions were performed in 2017''--862,320. Most of us can't even fathom a number that big. To put it in perspective, 862,000 is roughly equivalent to the population of the entire State of South Dakota, my home State. That is right. Think about that. In 2017 alone, the number of babies killed by abortion was roughly equivalent to the population of the entire State of South Dakota. We can do better. Americans are better than this. Our country was founded to safeguard human rights, not to take them away. While we haven't always lived up to that promise, we have never stopped trying. It is time for us, as a country, to stand up and to start protecting the rights of unborn human beings. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act and the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act will not stop all, or even most, abortions, but they are an important step, a chance for us, as Americans, to draw a line in the sand and to start standing up for the rights of babies who are able or nearly able to survive outside of their mothers. It is time for us to join the vast majority of the global community in prohibiting elective abortions past 20 weeks. It is time for us to make it clear that, no matter what some extreme Democrats may say, Americans believe that all children, whether born alive in a hospital or in an abortion clinic, deserve protection and basic medical care. I hope my colleagues across the aisle will take a stand for human rights and for human decency and allow debate to move forward on these two important pro-life bills. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. McSally), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, on January 24, tens of thousands of pro- life Americans filled the streets of Washington, DC, for the annual March for Life. Unfortunately, I couldn't come down to the floor to talk about the march because the Senate was tied up with the impeachment trial, although I did get the opportunity to meet with some marchers from Rapid City, SD. Now that the floor is open again, I wanted to come down to recognize this year's marchers, including those from my home State of South Dakota, and talk about why they march. Every year in this country, hundreds of thousands of babies are killed by abortion--hundreds of thousands. That is not some number the pro-life movement has cooked up. That is straight from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, formerly affiliated with Planned Parenthood, which reports that ``approximately 862,320 abortions were performed in 2017.'' That is 862,320. Most of us can't even fathom what a number that big looks like, but that is a lot of babies, because, of course, that is what we are talking about--babies, human beings. Proponents of abortion try to deny the humanity of the unborn child, but science and ultrasound and common sense all make it very clear that when we talk about unborn children, we are talking about human beings, with their own fingerprints and their own DNA. Human beings deserve to be protected, even when they are small and weak and vulnerable-- especially when they are small and weak and vulnerable. Stick around politics long enough and you are sure to hear someone talking about the importance of being on the right side of history. It is a common trope, but it is no less true for that. The truth is, we should think about being on the right side of history. When people look back at us, we want to be remembered for standing up for what is right, not for going along with injustice. Abortion repeats a tired pattern. One group of people or society decides that another group of people is less valuable. They advance plausible-sounding reasons why it is legitimate to deprive these people of their human rights, and for various reasons people in that society go along with it. It is a story that has been repeated too many times, and the judgment of history never looks kindly on these societies. The United States was founded to safeguard human rights. We haven't always lived up to that promise, but we have never stopped trying. It is time for America to start standing up for the rights of unborn humans. Last week, in his State of the Union Address, the President called for a ban on late-term abortions. In 2016, somewhere around 11,000 babies were aborted at or after the 21-week mark in pregnancy--11,000 in 1 year. That is a lot of babies. As neonatal science advances, we have been able to save babies born at earlier and earlier stages of pregnancy. Babies have survived after being born at 25 weeks, at 24 weeks, at 23 weeks, and, like Ellie Schneider, who attended the State of the Union Address with her mom, at 21 weeks. Yet, in this country it is legal to kill babies at 40 weeks, right up until the very last moment of pregnancy. That makes no sense. How can a child born at 23 weeks be regarded as a human being, deserving of care, and yet an unborn child who is that very same age be regarded as less than human? The moment of birth does not magically confer humanity, and yet our law acts like it does. I would like to think that a bill to ban late-term abortions like the President proposed would be a no-brainer in Congress. At the very, very least, we should all be able to agree that we shouldn't be aborting babies who can live outside their mothers. But, unfortunately, abortion extremism has grown to such an extent that leading Democrats, including a Democrat Presidential candidate, not only rule out banning late-term abortions, but they actually refused to rule out infanticide. Last year, after the Democrat Governor of Virginia implicitly endorsed infanticide, the Senate took up legislation that simply stated that a baby born alive in an abortion clinic is entitled to the same protection and medical care that a baby born in a hospital is entitled to, and 44 Democrats, almost the entire Democrat caucus here in the Senate, voted against that legislation. It was a grim day for human decency and for human rights. Although we have a long way to go to protect unborn babies in this country, I remain hopeful, and I am never more hopeful than when I see tens of thousands of Americans--so many of them young people--descend on our Nation's Capital every year to march for life. We may not win this battle today or tomorrow, but we are turning the tide. The arc of the moral universe is long, but I believe that it does bend toward justice and in the end right will prevail. I look forward to the day when every child born and unborn is protected in this country. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the remaining votes in this series be 10 minutes in length.

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson) would have voted ``yea.''