John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Samuel Strommen, 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. Sam is a graduate of Stevens High School in Rapid City, SD. Currently he is attending the University of Arizona, 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 would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Sam 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, today I recognize Danielle Marie Anderson, 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 weeks. Danielle is a graduate of Plankinton High School in Plankinton, SD. Currently she is attending South Dakota State University, where she is majoring in business economics. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Danielle 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, today I recognize Andrew Jonathan Timm, an intern in my Washington, DC, 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. Andrew is a graduate of Watertown High School in Watertown, SD. Currently he is attending the University of Minnesota, where he is majoring in political science and economics. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Andrew 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, today I recognize Alexander Nelson, 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. Alex is a graduate of Fergus Falls Senior High School in Fergus Falls, MN. Currently he is attending the University of Arizona, where he is majoring in business economics. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Alex 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, today I recognize Zach Mulder, an intern in my Sioux Falls, 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 months. Zach is a graduate of Western Christian High School in Hull, IA. Currently he is attending Dordt College, where he is majoring in political studies. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Zach 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, today I recognize Lauren Hauck, an intern in my Sioux Falls, 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. Lauren is a graduate of Lincoln High School in Sioux Falls. Currently she is attending the University of South Dakota. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Lauren 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, today I recognize Carlisa Bayne, an intern in my Rapid City, 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. Carly is a graduate of Spearfish High School in Spearfish, SD. Currently she is attending the University of Nebraska, where she is majoring in agricultural economics. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience. I would like to extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Carly 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 to speak as in morning business.

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

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I think the American people are beginning to react in a negative way to what they perceive to be happening in Washington, DC, today with regard to the debate about health care, the debate about new energy taxes in the form of a cap-and-trade program. Of course, we know there are a lot of questions about whether there was any value in the trillion dollar stimulus bill that passed earlier this year, which was supposed to keep unemployment below 8 percent, and now in many States it is well into the double digits and continues to go north from there. They have seen a lot of government spending with the stimulus, a takeover of many industries, whether it is auto manufacturing, financial services, or insurance companies in this country. They have seen the cap-and-trade bill, which passed the House of Representatives, which they know--there are debates about how much, but they know it will increase what they pay for energy in this country. And now we are having this discussion about the government taking over one-sixth of the American economy in the form of health care. I think what we are starting to see is that the American people, as they engage in these issues, are becoming increasingly concerned about the level of government expansion and intervention in the marketplace, and the amount of new taxation and new borrowing and spending that is going on in Washington, DC, at a time when the American people are being, by virtue of the fact that they have to live within a balanced budget, required to make hard choices in their daily lives. They see a disconnect between what they are experiencing in their family lives and what is happening in Washington, DC, where there continues to be this pattern of new taxes, spending and borrowing. Logic would dictate, I think, when you are in a recession, you should not raise taxes. The worst thing to do in a recession is raise taxes and actually crush any economic recovery that might occur because, as we all know, what helps create jobs is small business. If small businesses are faced with higher taxes, they have less to invest in new equipment and in hiring new employees. The other thing I think logic dictates is that when you are running trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see, you should not be piling more debt upon future generations. It seems as if everything we are talking about these days is an expansion of government in Washington, at greater additional costs to the American people, either in the form of higher taxes or increased borrowing from future generations, neither of which is something I think most Americans would acknowledge we ought to be doing when you have an economy in a recession and trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. The current health care debate is a good example of something about which people have reservations and concerns, because they see the attempt by the Federal Government to take over one-sixth of the American economy, to essentially nationalize it--whatever you want to call it. In any event, it will mean greater government intervention and greater government involvement and an expansion of government in Washington, DC. I think they are starting to react in a negative way against that, and more and more members in Congress, in the House and Senate, are hearing that. I think that is why it is becoming increasingly difficult now to move in the quick way in which the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate wanted to in order to enact some form of health care reform before the August break. The way I view this issue is that we ought to look at starting over. Clearly, what has been proposed and rolled out so far is not working. It is not working in terms of winning the minds of the American people, in terms, in Washington, DC, of putting together what ought to be a bipartisan solution to probably one of the biggest challenges and crises facing the American people and our economy. So far, we have seen a bill being debated at the committee level in the House of Representatives, and perhaps scheduled for the floor--if not this week, when we get back--and we have seen action by the HELP Committee in the Senate on a bill that, by CBO's estimate, is about a trillion dollars in new costs. Somehow, it will have to be paid for. It seems as if we ought to push the reset button and figure out, OK, how can we do this in a way that achieves savings to the American people and the health care costs in this country, as opposed to actually adding new costs by increasing government spending in Washington, DC, expanding the size of government, and putting the government in the way of--I guess intervening in that fundamental relationship between physicians and patients. There are a number of things that are, in my view, wrong with the current plan, the plan that passed the HELP Committee in the Senate, as well as the one currently being considered in the House of Representatives. The first fundamental test it flunks is that it doesn't do anything to reduce costs. To me, reform ought to be finding efficiencies, streamlining, looking at ways of doing things in a less costly way to achieve savings. We know that is not the case with the bill that passed the HELP Committee in the Senate, and we know the House of Representatives, in their bill, according to the most recent Congressional Budget Office estimates, also does nothing to find savings or achieve any sort of savings as a result of all these changes being proposed. So it flunks the first fundamental test of reform; that is, it does nothing to reduce costs. Secondly, it does cut payments, reimbursements, under Medicare to providers, whether it is hospitals, whether it is the cost of pharmaceuticals. All of these things in this country that add to the overall cost of health care are obviously going to take a nick in this. We don't want to see the health care currently provided under Medicare to American senior citizens somehow be hurt by the fact that they are trying to find money to pay for this whole new expansion of government health care in this country. So you have the issue of cuts to reimbursements currently under Medicare, which very likely would impact the delivery of care, the quality of care for America's seniors. The third thing, and another big problem, is that it adds new Medicaid costs to our States. States currently are participants. Medicaid is a shared program between the Federal and State governments, and there is talk about a significant expansion, the size of the Medicaid Program, which obviously costs the Federal taxpayers a lot more money. But it also passes on an incredible new and costly mandate to State governments. Many States are figuring that out and are starting to react to it. My State of South Dakota is a good case in point. Our State legislature, Governor, and people who looked at this have concluded it would cost South Dakota an additional $45 million a year in Medicaid costs, which may not sound like a lot of money in Washington, DC, but in a State such as South Dakota, where there is a requirement to balance the budget every year, that represents a lot of money. Obviously, it will have to be paid for somehow. When you get to the larger States, the numbers increase in multiples. You are talking about new taxes on States, in addition to the new taxes being talked about in Washington, DC, to pay for all this. You have new Federal and State taxes, again, at a time when already many State governments and budgets are strapped and they are trying to figure out how to balance their budgets currently. Another reason why the current plan is such a big problem, and why we need to start over and hit the reset button, is because you are going to have a lot of people who are going to lose employer-provided insurance. Most of the studies conclude--and the House bill is a good example--that about 83 million people would lose their private health insurance under the bill that is under consideration in the House of Representatives. There are other studies that have been done. This was a Congressional Budget Office estimate. Other studies suggest that the number of people who could lose insurance on some of these plans under consideration in Congress could be in the 120 million range. If you consider that we have 177 million people today who get their insurance through their employer, that is a significant number of people who are going to lose their privately provided health insurance and be pushed into a government plan. That brings me to the next point of why the current health care plan being debated is the wrong direction in which to head and creates problems; that is, you are going to have more people going into the government-run plan--literally millions of people, the ones who are going to lose their insurance in the private marketplace. They are going to be pushed into a government-run plan. Obviously, there are a lot of people who would like to see that. I don't happen to be one of them. We ought to preserve what is best about the market and competition we have and allow people to have more choices. We don't want to, by default, shove more and more people into a government-run plan, when there are opportunities out there available to them today where they can get their health care coverage and insurance in the private marketplace. That is a much better model and has worked very well for a long time. That isn't to say there are not things we can do better. I don't know of any Senator on either side of the aisle who doesn't acknowledge that there are things we need to do to reform health care in this country, to get costs under control, provide access to more people. But certainly taking away private coverage and pushing people into a government-run plan is not a reform of the health care system that makes sense to me or, I argue, most Americans, especially when it will cost trillions of dollars to do it. As I said, I think most people look at reform as something that would actually reduce or somehow eliminate costs or create greater efficiencies and savings in the health care system in this country. You have a lot of people who will lose private insurance, and millions of Americans would be pushed into a government-run program. As I said before, another big problem with this idea is that for employers, during a recession, it imposes new taxes and fines, both of which would be very costly, and both of which would deprive them of the opportunity, as the economy hopefully starts to recover, to hire new people, create new jobs, which is what small businesses do best. They are the economic engine of this country. We are talking about imposing new taxes and fines on them, at great cost, and so that takes away a lot of the resources, as they generate revenue that they can be able to devote or allocate toward capital investment or hiring more people. They are going to be paying fines and taxes to the Federal Government to underwrite this new expansion of government in Washington, DC. Logic would dictate, and history would suggest, that the worst thing you can do in the middle of an economic recession is to raise taxes on the job creators in the economy. Raising taxes on small businesses is a bad idea. In fact, the House bill that is under consideration, with the surcharges and increased taxes, would actually increase marginal income tax rates from the top rate today of about 35 percent to about 37 percent. Think about that. The size of the increase in marginal income tax rates that would occur in State and Federal marginal tax rates, under the plan under consideration in the House of Representatives, and how that would impact the economy, would be the largest tax increase we have seen since the end of World War II. Frankly, if you think about most Americans and most small businesses, when you start paying half, or 50 cents out of every dollar, in taxes, you are getting to a point where it is going to be very difficult for these businesses which might say: Why should I continue to try to create jobs and provide health care coverage for my employees, when the government takes more and more of the profits I make in this business? I think that is the risk we run with the job creators, the small businesses, which are the economic engine and create as many as two- thirds to three-quarters of all of the jobs in our economy, in a recession. When you put new taxes and fines on them, you are layering them and burdening them with more costs that will make it very difficult for them to lead us out of the recession and start to expand the economy and create jobs. Intuitively it makes no sense for us to head in this direction. Finally, I think the last problem--and, as I said, there are many with the current health care proposals--is we will have to start dealing with the lines and the rationing that so often occurs when we see a system such as they have in Europe or the Canadian system. Some here actually believe that is the best way to do this. They believe in a single-payer system. They believe we ought to nationalize our health care system in this country. Inevitably, what we will end up with is people ending up in lines. We will have government making decisions about what procedures will be covered, what the reimbursement will be for this procedure, that procedure. It is a disaster and a train wreck in the making, and it is a direction I don't think we ought to go. These are all issues that I think point to the need for us to hit that reset button and to sit down and actually figure out what can we agree upon that will be a bipartisan solution to the challenge of increasing costs and a lack of access for millions of Americans. That being said, we have a large number of proposals out there which, I submit, we ought to be able to debate. As the HELP Committee and the Finance Committee go through their deliberations, there are many things that have bipartisan support in the Congress for which we could get big majorities and which would address the fundamental issues of access to health care and cost of health care but none of which are being considered because right now the only plan out there is the one that has been written by the Democratic leadership, which consists of this government plan or this government takeover of the health care system. We believe the principles in this debate ought to continue to maintain: People ought to be able to keep their health care; it ought to be health care they can afford; it ought to provide choices; and it ought to be patient centered. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, how much time is left on our side?

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I yield up to 15 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. THUNE. How much time remains on the other side?

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, let me point out what I pointed out earlier. This amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia. But I also want to come back to a basic point; that is, how did we get here today? Why are we here? Well, we are here, supposedly, to be talking about the Defense authorization bill. But last week the Democratic leadership decided to put a hate crimes amendment on the floor as the first amendment to the Defense authorization bill--unrelated, nongermane to the underlying Defense authorization bill. The hate crimes bill, it could be argued, preempts a lot of State laws because a lot of States have their own laws with regard to hate crimes. But we decided here--the Democratic leadership did--that it was more important to talk about hate crimes legislation than it was to talk about defense-related amendments. Well, my view was, they are going to offer a hate crimes amendment on the floor of the Senate. What better way to prevent hate crimes than to allow the potential victims of hate crimes to defend themselves against those very hate crimes? So I was going to offer this amendment, this concealed carry amendment, as a second-degree amendment to the hate crimes amendment that was put on the floor last week by the Democrats. The leader filled the tree, preventing us from doing that. So we worked it out to have this debate and to talk about this amendment today. But it ties in very closely to the hate crimes amendment, the legislation we have had on the floor of the Senate for the last week when we should have been talking about Defense authorization issues. But that being said, I will come back to my basic fundamental point. This is a commonsense amendment that strikes a balance between the constitutional right the people in this country enjoy under the second amendment to keep and bear arms--and which has been supported by the Supreme Court, I might add--and the rights of States under federalism to restrict that according to their own wishes and laws. And every State does that differently. This amendment does not preempt those. The States of Wisconsin and Illinois prevent concealed carry permit holders, and so there is not anybody in this country who is going to be able to travel through Illinois or Wisconsin and carry a gun because they just do not allow it. So it respects the rights of the individual States. But it does allow law-abiding citizens in this country to exercise their constitutional right under the second amendment, and that right should not end at State lines. State borders should not be a barrier to an individual's right to defend themselves. I believe the studies are very clear. As I have said earlier--they are all speculating about all the crimes that are going to be committed--people, concealed carry permit holders, if you look at the data, are 15 times less likely than the rest of the public to commit murder. Criminals commit crimes, not law-abiding citizens, not people who go down to their courthouse to get a concealed carry permit so they can defend themselves against the very criminals who routinely break the laws and possess firearms illegally so they can commit crimes. This is a reasonable, commonsense balance which I believe strikes the right balance between the constitutional second amendment right citizens in this country enjoy and the States' ability to restrict that right. And any concealed carry permit holder who has a concealed carry permit in their State of residence who travels to another State has to abide by and is subject to the laws that are enacted by that individual State. So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will vote for what is a commonsense amendment that allows people across this country who are law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from the very criminals who break those laws and try to commit these crimes. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I do not want to get into the weeds here, but the Senator mentioned Michael Iheme. He did not have a carry permit. One of the other gentleman whom he mentioned, Willie Donaldson, evidently the court recognized that the person had acted in self- defense and he did not do any jail time for it. The broader point is, criminals commit crimes, that is what they do. Criminals kill people. This is not directed at criminals, this is directed at law-abiding citizens who want to protect themselves. The statistics I mentioned earlier make it very clear. If you want to look at the studies, there is a lot more defensive gun use by victims than there are crimes committed with firearms. It is further estimated that there are as many as 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms in the United States each year. Again, many of those go unreported. But I think you have to come back to the point that of the 5 million people in this country who are concealed carry permit holders, if you assumed that every instance of reported crime by gun control groups, of improper firearm use by individuals with concealed carry permits, if every one of those is true, something that can be debated, but let's assume it is true, over an entire year for every 142,857 permit holders, there would be one improper use of a firearm. To put that another way, concealed carry permit holders would be 15 times less likely than the rest of the general public to commit murder. The point I am making is criminals commit crimes. That is what they do. They are criminals. Criminals kill people. What we are trying to do here is to allow law-abiding people to protect themselves from criminals when they travel across State lines, striking the right balance between Federal, the Constitution, which protects an individual's second amendment right, and State laws. We are not preempting State laws. Illinois and Wisconsin preclude or prevent anybody from owning a concealed carry permit or having a concealed carry permit in their States. So this amendment does not even apply to them. Nobody can carry a concealed weapon in either of those States. It recognizes the rights of States and all of the State laws that apply. Most States have place and time restrictions. In my State of South Dakota you cannot carry in a place that serves alcohol, you cannot carry in schools, you cannot carry in courthouses. So to suggest that somebody is going to transport a whole bunch of guns, which would be a violation of Federal laws because there are laws against trafficking, into an area of a State, public school, or someplace like that, are wild exaggerations and scare tactics that are not based on any evidence. The data we have that suggest the contrary. I yield such time to the Senator from Wyoming as he may consume.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the Senator from California has made some comments, and actually both Senators from California talked about the issue of assault weapons. Of course, assault weapons--as my colleague from Oklahoma pointed out, it is very difficult to conceal an assault weapon. It is not something you are going to be running around--it is not a concealed weapon. Obviously, when you get into the State of California, those weapons are illegal. I think it is fair to point out again that any State can impose restrictions on the people who come into their State with a concealed carry permit from another State. So State laws still trump when it comes to the place where guns can be carried. To this issue of multiple guns being brought into a State, States can also say the permit only applies to one gun. Obviously, that is an issue on which a State can rule. Secondly, the issue of multiple guns I would think would fall under the rubric of trafficking, which is a Federal offense. It is illegal. For people who have committed crimes, that is illegal under Federal laws. They cannot get guns in the first place--or at least they are not supposed to get guns. It is a Federal crime if they do. People who have a history of mental illness--all these issues are addressed in Federal law, which provides a floor against all these types of things that are being suggested. Much of what has been suggested here really is scare tactics, it is fear mongering. There is no basis on which to make many of the arguments. It is totally speculative that somehow this amendment is going to lead to all kinds of people, thugs and gangsters, getting guns and then transporting them someplace else in the country. I will tell you, I do not think there are too many criminals--by the way, criminals commit the crimes. The Senator from New Jersey talked about the thousands who are killed by guns every year. Most of them are killed by criminals. There may have been an exception or two where somebody had a concealed carry permit, but relative to the general population, it is minuscule. If you think about the number of crimes that are committed every year by criminals, what we ought to be doing is focusing on criminals, the people who commit crimes. Criminals are not going to go down to the courthouse in Sioux Falls, SD, and say: I want to get a concealed carry permit, or anywhere in this country, for that matter, because almost every State, with three exceptions, by law does a background check. So in order to own a gun or possess a gun, you have to go through a background check. So to get a concealed carry permit, you also have to go through a background check. I do not think most criminals are going to be going down and saying: I want to get a background check so I can get a gun so I can haul it and commit a crime in some other State. That is ludicrous. Think about the logic of that. For anybody who has a criminal record, obviously, the background check is going to reveal that. They are not going to be able to either acquire a gun or get a concealed carry permit, which means they are going to do what they usually do; that is, get those firearms illegally and commit crimes and felonies because that is what criminals do. I want to mention some of those who have endorsed this amendment. The NRA has endorsed this amendment. Gun Owners of America--I have a letter from them endorsing this amendment. Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has endorsed this amendment. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, which, as I pointed out, represents a lot of the truckdrivers across the country, endorses this. This is a real issue for them because they are traveling across State lines in interstate travel on a regular basis. This is something they have advocated for a long time. The Passenger-Cargo Security Group, which, of course, represents a lot of those who fly cargo in this country, has endorsed it. GOProud has endorsed this amendment. And the Pink Pistols group has endorsed this amendment. So there are a number of groups, organizations out there that have endorsed this amendment that believe, as I do, it represents a commonsense approach that balances the constitutional right people in this country have to keep and bear arms--the second amendment right. It is in the Bill of Rights. All the other amendments in the Bill of Rights apply across State lines, and it seems to me, at least, this one should too, subject to restrictions that are imposed by the individual States. This does not preempt any of those. States have different restrictions that apply and restrict the place and the manner in which firearms may be transported into their States. So what we are simply trying to do is clarify this patchwork of different regulations and laws and requirements that different States have all over the country, so people, law-abiding citizens--not the criminals who are being referred to who commit the crimes in this country--so law-abiding individuals who want to defend themselves against those very criminals have the opportunity to do so by being able to possess a firearm if they have a concealed carry permit. As I said, every State is a little different as to how you go about getting one of those permits, but every State has its own requirements, and all of the States, with a couple exceptions, have background checks as a part of that.

Mr. THUNE. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. THUNE. I object, Mr. President. The Senator from South Carolina has been yielded time.

Mr. THUNE. I yielded time to the Senator from South Carolina. I will be happy to yield for a question later on the time of the Senator from New York.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, a couple quick observations, if I may. First, I need to correct for the record the State of South Dakota has reciprocity agreements with 27 States. It does not have national reciprocity, which I think gets at the very point I am making; that is, anybody who has a concealed carry permit in one State is so confused by this patchwork of laws we have that they cannot determine which State is legal and which State is not legal. That is a very serious problem for people such as truckdrivers, such as individuals who want to protect themselves when they travel across the country. In terms of the arguments made to individuals who have access to firearms, the 1968 Gun Control Act prohibits individuals from even possessing a firearm if the individual is under indictment or convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year, is an unlawful user or addict of a controlled substance, has been adjudicated to be mentally ill or committed involuntarily to a mental institution, is subject to a court order restraining him or her from domestic violence or has been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor. My amendment does nothing to change Federal law. But if individuals are not allowed to possess a firearm, they certainly are not going to be able to conceal and carry one. I might add, with regard to the issue taking multiple guns in a sack and transporting them, there are Federal laws that prevent trafficking in firearms already. We do nothing to address that issue. What we simply do is allow those law-abiding citizens who have concealed carry permits in their home States and choose to defend themselves when they travel around the country to do that. Florida is a case in point. Florida is a big State that has had concealed carry permits for over 20 years and has agreements with multiple States. There is no evidence whatsoever in the State of Florida that there has been any suggestion of increasing crime. Rather, I suggest the opposite would be true. I say to my colleague from New York that if someone who has a concealed carry permit travels to the State of New York, and I will say anybody who has a concealed carry permit from the State of South Dakota goes to New York and is in Central Park, Central Park would be a much safer place. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Louisiana such time as he may consume.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Ola Mildred ``Millie'' Rexroat and the six other women from South Dakota who served honorably during World War II as members of the Women Airforce Service Pilots, WASPs. More than 1,000 women answered the call and served as pilots during World War II. Because WASPs records were classified and archived for over 30 years, WASPs have been left out of much of the documented history of World War II. On July 1, 2009, legislation was signed into law that honors the service of these women with the Congressional Gold Medal, which is given in honor of outstanding service to the United States and is one of the nation's highest civilian awards. This Congressional Gold Medal finally gives these women the honor they deserve. Between 1942 and 1944, the 1,102 women of WASP were trained in Texas, and then went on to fly noncombat domestic military missions so all their male counterparts could be deployed to combat. WASPs were required to complete the same primary, basic, and advanced training courses as male Army Air Corps pilots, and many went on to specialized flight training. By the conclusion of the war, WASPs logged 60 million miles of flying in every kind of military aircraft. Following the war, the WASPs were disbanded and the women pilots paid their own way home without pomp or circumstance. Even during the war, the families of the 38 women who died in the line of duty were responsible for the costs to transport their bodies and arrange burials. It was not until 1977 that the WASPs were granted veterans' status. Ms. Rexroat is the last surviving member of the WASPs living in South Dakota, and she is believed to be the only female Native American to serve as a member of the WASPs in World War II. Ms. Rexroat spent part of her childhood living with her grandmother at Vetal, SD. She graduated from St. Mary's Indian High School for Girls in Springfield, SD. After college, she graduated from WASPs training in the ``1944-7'' class on September 8, 1944, at Sweetwater, TX. She then spent 4 months towing targets for students behind a T6 plane at Eagle Pass Army Airfield, TX. Ms. Rexroat is 91 years old and still lives independently in Edgemont, SD. Her vivid memories of her service are inspiring, and I am proud to have cosponsored the bill to provide these women the Congressional Gold Medal and recognize their service here on the floor of the Senate today. While five of the other women are no longer with us, I would like to posthumously recognize the other women who joined from South Dakota: Helen (Anderson) Severson of Summit, SD, who was killed in service during a flight training accident in 1943; Marjorie (Redding) Christiansen of Mystic, SD; Loes (Monk) MacKenzie of Salem, SD; Laurine Nielsen of Deadwood, SD; and Maxine (Nolt) Wright DeHaven of Sioux Falls, SD. I would also like to recognize Violet (Thurn) Cowden formerly of Bowdle, SD.