Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, like many of our colleagues, I spend a lot of summer days on the road in my home State of South Dakota. The longer summer recesses give me the opportunity to travel the State far and wide, and with so much going on in South Dakota during the season, it is a great time for me to see familiar faces and to meet new folks as well.

I spend a lot of these summer days listening because what I hear from South Dakotans informs a lot of the work that I do here in the U.S. Senate.

In Howard, SD, I heard from healthcare professionals about some of the important programs that help them provide healthcare in rural areas.

Homebuilders in the Sioux Falls area told me about the headwinds they face from the Biden-Harris administration's overregulation, which has made building new homes more difficult and expensive.

At a Dakotafest in Mitchell, agricultural producers expressed their frustration that Congress has still not passed an updated farm bill--a frustration that I share. I have been pushing hard for Congress to take up a bill and will continue to do everything I can to advance this legislation. Another extension is no substitute for the certainty an updated farm bill would give farmers and ranchers as they make plans for the future, and getting it done should be a priority for Congress.

Traveling around South Dakota also gives me the chance to meet the people who keep our communities going.

I dropped in to hear from local officials in Leola and Eureka.

I got to learn about some of the things happening at Black Hills State University, and I toured South Dakota State's nursing simulation center in Brookings.

I visited the Liberty Center in Box Elder and saw the great work the Black Hills community does to make the area a welcoming place for servicemembers stationed at Ellsworth Air Force Base and for their families.

Whether it is Kuchen in Eureka, a quick bite at Ricky's Restaurant in Roscoe, or, of course, the Tubby Burger at the Brown County Fair, I know I can always find some good food to keep me fueled wherever I am traveling in South Dakota.

What would the summer be without a few celebrations? I was out in Rapid City for the annual Military Appreciation Barbecue, I joined the Fort Pierre 4th of July Parade, and I was back in my hometown of Murdo celebrating the 70th anniversary of the legendary Pioneer Auto Show and honoring the life of longtime museum owner Dave Geisler, who passed away earlier this year.

I had the opportunity to travel with my family in the Black Hills. We made stops in Spearfish Canyon, Hill City, Keystone, Lake Pactola, and Spearfish, among other places.

This summer was also notable for the successes of South Dakota's athletes. It was great to see two South Dakotans competing in the Olympics and Paralympics this year. Sioux Falls native Taryn Kloth competed in beach volleyball, and Miles Krajewski, a Yankton native and freshman at the University of South Dakota, made history as the first American to medal in badminton at the Paralympics, bringing home a silver medal in mixed doubles.

The Sioux Falls Little League All Star Team made it to the Little League World Series this summer, and by all accounts, they played well in Williamsport. They should be proud of their success, and I am glad to hear they were able to befriend fellow players from across the country and the world along the way.

It was great to be in Brookings this past weekend for the South Dakota State Jackrabbits' home opener, as they look to defend their back-to-back national titles this season.

Summer is a wonderful time in South Dakota, and it is a privilege to be able to spend part of it exploring our great State. The sunshine on the open prairie, the smell of the ponderosa pine, and the good people I meet along the way remind me how lucky I am to be a South Dakotan and what an honor it is to represent this special place in the U.S. Senate.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

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

Mr. President, before I begin, I want to take a moment to acknowledge what today is: 23 years ago, terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and 23 years since a heroic group of Americans prevented even greater tragedy by bringing down a fourth hijacked plane before it could crash into another target.

As on every September 11 since that black day, we remember the heroes who rose up--at the World Trade Center, at the Pentagon, and in that bare field near Shanksville, PA--and we mourn all those who were lost.

My prayers, as always, are with the families of all those who still grieve their fallen loved ones and with all those whose calling is to respond to danger and stand between us and terror.

2024 Elections

Mr. President, there has been a dizzying amount of change in the Democrat Party over the past couple of months. First, and obviously, there was the replacement of President Biden with Kamala Harris on the ticket. Democrat voters who had gone to the polls in the primaries and cast a vote for President Biden were informed that, in fact, the delegates they had chosen would be supporting Vice President Harris instead.

That was a big change but not the only one. There is also the new Democrat nominee's attempt to reinvent herself. It began 5 short years ago since Kamala Harris was running for President in the Democrat primary as a leftist. She endorsed, among other things, a ban on fracking, taxpayer-funded gender reassignment surgeries for detained immigrants, decriminalizing drug possession, decriminalizing illegal border crossings, mandatory buybacks of certain guns--and I could go on.

Of course, none of that was a big surprise. After all, then-Senator Harris--a supporter of a government takeover of healthcare and the budget-busting Green New Deal--regularly made lists of most liberal Senators. But what is surprising is the apparent 180-degree flip she has made in the past--well, let's say, 7 weeks or so in this campaign.

She opposed a border wall; now she apparently supports one. She supported a ban on fracking; well, now she opposes one. She supported Medicare for All--the Federal takeover of healthcare--and now says she won't push for it if she is President. She supported mandatory gun buybacks; now she won't push for them. She supported an electric vehicle mandate; and now, apparently, she doesn't.

I could go on, on that list. It is amazing what a brief 7 weeks or so can do or perhaps I should say it is amazing what getting nominated for President can do. But it seems that despite her apparent move to the center, progressive voters should not be alarmed.

A far-left compatriot of the Vice President, the senior Senator from Vermont, whose Medicare for All government healthcare takeover she cosponsored, was asked on ``Meet the Press'' last weekend whether he thought Vice President Harris was abandoning her progressive ideals. ``No,'' he answered, ``I don't think she's abandoning her ideals. I think she's

trying to be pragmatic in doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election.''

``I think she is trying to be pragmatic and doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election.''

Well, nothing like saying the quiet part out loud. I suspect he is right, and I suspect that one of the Senate's most liberal Senators could quickly become one of the Nation's most liberal Presidents.

I think it is fair to say we have gotten a taste over the last 4 years as to what government under Kamala Harris looks like, and so far it mostly looks like a historic inflation crisis, a raging border crisis, and uncertainty on the global stage.

When I say the past 4 years have looked like a historic inflation crisis and a raging border crisis, I do mean the past 4 years. Inflation started spiking within 2 months of President Biden and Vice President Harris taking office, thanks in large part to Democrats' American Rescue Plan's spending spree, a spending spree, I might add, for which Kamala Harris cast the deciding vote. And almost 4 years later, inflation is still above the Federal Reserve's target inflation rate. Americans are now paying a staggering $13,000 more a year just to maintain the same standard of living they enjoyed when President Biden and Vice President Harris took office--$13,000.

Vice President Harris recently said in her speech at the Democratic National Convention that her administration would work on lowering the cost of everyday needs like groceries. Well, why hasn't she tried that already? She is not an outsider coming into office. She has been in office for the past 4 years. If there was something she thought she could do to bring down prices, why hasn't she done it already?

And Democrats' nearly 4-year inflation crisis has been matched by the Biden-Harris border crisis. Border numbers started spiking almost immediately after President Biden and Vice President Harris took office after they sent the message on day one that border security was at the bottom of their priority list. The ensuing crisis has raged for almost the entirety of the Biden-Harris administration until fears of losing reelection prompted President Biden to at least take some too-little- too-late action this summer.

I could go on and talk about the Biden-Harris administration's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan or the deep uncertainty on the world stage that has characterized their tenure. I could also talk about the ways that they are putting us on track for an energy crisis, but I will stop here. Suffice it to say, after the past 4 years, no one has to wonder what Democrat governance would look like, and I hope our country and American families will be spared another 4 years of it.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance.)

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Sentator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

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

Mr. President, it is no secret that Democrats increasingly subscribe to the philosophy that if you don't like the way the game is going, you change the rules. We have seen it in striking fashion with the Supreme Court. Democrats respond to pretty much every Supreme Court decision that they don't like these days with claims not just that the Court's decision was wrong but that the Court itself is illegitimate.

As the President made clear with the release of his de facto Court- packing plan this summer, if Democrats are elected, we can confidently expect them to lose no time in remaking the Court to their liking to ensure they get the policy outcomes they want.

Of course the Supreme Court is not the only institution the Democrats have a problem with. Democrats are also frustrated they haven't gotten a blank check for their far-left priorities in the Senate. So if Democrats win in November, they intend to change the rules of the Senate--specifically the filibuster rule--to ensure that they can steamroll through their plans to remake the government and the country.

The Democrat leader made that very explicit last month at the Democrat National Convention when he said that his party would change the rules to pass Democrats' so-called voting rights legislation--more accurately described as a Federal takeover of elections designed to give Democrats a permanent electoral advantage.

He also indicated that his conference would move to change the rules to pass abortion legislation--perhaps Democrats' bill to codify abortion up until the moment of birth.

Really, the only question remaining seems to be whether Democrats will abolish the filibuster completely or just render it meaningless by carving out exemptions for all Democrats' most cherished priorities.

I have spoken on the floor more than once about the importance of the filibuster. The Founders intended the Senate to be a counterbalance to the House. It was designed as a more stable, more thoughtful, and more deliberative legislative body to check ill-considered or intemperate legislation or tyranny by the majority.

As time has gone on, the legislative filibuster is the Senate rule that has had perhaps the greatest impact in preserving the Founders' vision of the Senate. The filibuster acts as a check on imprudent or highly partisan legislation, it forces discussion and compromise, and critically, it ensures that Americans whose party is not in power also have a voice in Congress.

As one Senator said a few years ago when abolishing the filibuster was under consideration, ``Folks who want to see this change want to eliminate one of the procedural mechanisms designed for the express purpose of guaranteeing individual rights . . . and would undermine the protections of a minority point of view in the heat of majority excess.'' That Senator was Joe Biden.

As another Senator once said when a change to the filibuster rule was under discussion, ``The bottom line is very simple: the ideologues in the Senate want to turn what the Founding Fathers called the cooling saucer of democracy into the rubber stamp of dictatorship. . . . They want, because they can't get their way . . . to change the rules in midstream, to wash away 200 years of history. They want to make this country into a banana republic where if you don't get your way, you change the rules! . . . It'll be a doomsday for democracy if we do.

``It'll be a doomsday for democracy if we do.''

The Senator who said that, of course, was the current Democrat leader of the Senate--the same leader who has announced that his party will ``change the rules in midstream'' to force through Democrats' priorities.

I suppose the Democrat leader could have had a change of heart. This once-fierce defender of the filibuster could have become convinced that the filibuster no longer serves a useful purpose. But if that is what this is, if this is truly a principled change, then I would like to hear the Democrat leader endorse the abolition of the filibuster if Republicans win the election. I would like to also hear him argue that a Republican Congress and a Republican President should be able to force through every legislative priority Republicans want, whether that is real border security legislation or a ban on killing unborn children past the point in a pregnancy where they can feel pain.

I suspect, however, that the Democrat leader has not had this change of heart. In fact, I suspect that if President Trump wins the election and Republicans take the House and the Senate, the Democrat leader will be happy to use the filibuster to check Republican legislation, just as he did during President Trump's first term.

Funnily enough, I don't recall hearing much from Democrats about the need to abolish the filibuster back then. In fact, 32 Democrats, including then-Senator Kamala Harris, signed a letter in April of 2017 calling on Senate leadership to preserve--preserve--the legislative filibuster.

In short, it is pretty clear that the Democrat leader's change of heart isn't principle; it is political expediency. Democrats believe that the rules should apply when they serve the aims of the Democrat Party and that the rules should be abolished whenever they interfere with Democrats' far-left agenda.

If Democrats abolish the filibuster in whole or in part, it would, to quote the current Democrat whip, ``be the end of the Senate as it was originally devised and created going back to our Founding Fathers.''

The minority party in the Senate and in the country would no longer have any meaningful voice in legislation. The loss of the filibuster would also create legislative whiplash, with one party passing all its most controversial proposals when it has unified power in Washington and then the other party undoing all of that legislation and passing its own proposals when it gains unified power. To say that that kind of legislative instability would be bad for our country is an understatement. Sharp changes in Federal policy every few years would mean endless confusion for Americans and could spell serious trouble for the economy.

Abolishing the filibuster would not only be bad for our country, I suspect Democrats would regret it on their own behalf--and sooner rather than later.

I realize that Democrats have hopes that if they pass their so-called voting rights legislation, it will help them stay in power, but surely--surely--Democrats don't believe they can maintain a permanent hold on government.

There have been some pretty robust Senate majorities in American history, but sooner or later, power has always shifted. When it inevitably does, Democrats are likely to bitterly regret the loss of the legislative filibuster. Democrats have already had cause to regret the loss of the filibuster for judicial nominations. More than one Democrat Senator has openly admitted regretting the Democrats' move to abolish the filibuster for judges and for other nominees. They ought to take a lesson from that.

If Democrats have the incredibly naive idea that they can somehow preserve the filibuster by simply creating a carve-out for their top legislative priorities, they should think again.

The unravelling of the filibuster for judicial nominations should be a lesson to both parties on how well weakening the filibuster or creating a filibuster carve-out would work. Democrats carved out a filibuster exception for executive and judicial nominees, and Republicans, when they got power, took it to its logical conclusion.

A legislative filibuster carve-out would be the end of the legislative filibuster--period.

It has become disturbingly clear that the Democrat Party is committed to getting its way in whatever way it can, no matter how many institutions it damages or how many rules it breaks in the process. But I would hope that at least some of my Democrat colleagues might think about the fact that their operating principle of ``the rules don't apply to us'' is generally more associated with despots than democratic republics and that they would put the long-term health of our country and our institutions above short-term partisan gain.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.