Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay.''

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, summer is an exciting time of year for many Americans. It is a time for adventure, for relaxation, for quality time spent with friends and family. But, like seemingly everything else, summer activities are more expensive in the Biden economy.

The cost of gas for a family trip is up 45 percent since President Biden took office. Food for a summer cookout costs 10 percent more than it did last year. And fees for summer camp are giving parents sticker shock. Even just keeping the house cool has climbed 8 percent since last summer to over $700.

And, of course, this is a small sampling of what Americans have been going through for the past 3-plus years. Last week's inflation report confirmed again what Americans know all too well, inflation is still a problem. Overall, prices are up more than 20 percent since President Biden took office. The

cost of groceries is up 21 percent. Energy costs are up 41 percent. Car repairs and maintenance are up 30 percent. And the list goes on.

All told, it costs a typical family $13,000 more per year to maintain the standard of living that family enjoyed when President Biden took office--$13,000 more, just to buy the exact same things you were buying 3 years ago.

As one mother of three told the New York Times:

We're spending way more to get the same amount of food that

we were getting before.

The inflation rate has been elevated for 38 months. Understandably, many people are at the end of their ropes. Americans have dipped into their savings. They have taken out record levels of credit card debt, and a shocking report came out recently that said that more than a quarter of Americans have skipped meals because of inflation--skipped meals because of inflation.

The cost of dealing with inflation is adding to Americans' financial pain. To fight inflation, the Federal Reserve has been forced to keep interest rates high, which affects Americans' finances in a variety of ways. Many Americans turned to credit cards--racking up record levels of debt--to cope with inflation.

And higher interest rates, in part the result of the Fed's actions, are making credit card bills harder to pay down. The same is true for car payments. And Americans looking to own their own home are facing what one housing expert calls ``the most challenging home buying market we've ever seen.''

The average monthly mortgage payment is a staggering $2,800. The result of a combination of higher mortgage rates and higher home prices. And if you do own a home, a recent report found that the cost of keeping and maintaining it has gone up 26 percent since 2020 to more than $1,500 per month.

It is worth remembering that it didn't have to be this way. Three years ago, President Biden and Democrats forced through a reckless and partisan spending spree under the guise of pandemic relief.

They had been warned that spending so much risked setting off an inflation crisis unlike anything that we had seen in decades. Yet they chose to ignore those warnings and push through $1.9 trillion in new government spending. Inflation almost immediately began surging as a result.

It is the textbook definition of inflation: Too many dollars chasing too few goods. And then instead of learning a lesson, they moved forward with even more reckless spending plans.

Fortunately, the Democrats' $3.5 trillion Build Back Better spending spree failed to get off the ground, but they have steadily run up the debt with their so-called Inflation Reduction Act, whose true cost continues to grow.

And the student loan forgiveness schemes the President has put in place come with a price tag in the hundreds of billions of dollars. And it is clear that if President Biden gets a second term, there will be a lot more lavish spending on the docket. Plus, you have the President's proposed tax hikes, and then there are the expiring tax cuts.

In 2017, Republicans delivered tax reform that lowered rates across the board and allowed families to keep more of their hard-earned dollars, but those tax cuts are set to expire next year. And President Biden seems willing to let that happen.

That would mean a $1,600 tax hike for a typical family in 2026 on top--on top--of years of economic pain from Bidenomics and inflation. Let's hope the American people don't have to find out what that will feel like.

It is going to be another expensive summer in the Biden economy, and if President Biden and the Democrats have their way, there could be many more to come.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde- Smith), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Ricketts), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) would have voted ``nay,'' the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay,'' the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay,'' and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde- Smith), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Ricketts), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

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

Madam President, today I recognize Matthew Brown, 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.

Matthew is a graduate of Brandon Valley High School in Brandon, SD. Currently, he is attending Augustana University in Sioux Falls, SD, where he is pursuing a degree in business administration and finance. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Matthew for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Madam President, today I recognize Henry Haft, 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.

Henry is a graduate of Lincoln High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, he is attending the University of Nebraska-Lincoln in Lincoln, NE, where he is pursuing a degree in business administration. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Henry for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Madam President, today I recognize Nathan Law, 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.

Nathan is a graduate of Wall High School in Wall, SD. Currently, he is attending Dakota State University in Madison, SD, where he is pursuing a degree in cyber operations. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Nathan for all of the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Madam President, today I recognize Elle Westra, 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.

Elle is a graduate of Lincoln High School in Sioux Falls, SD. Currently, she is attending the University of St. Thomas in Saint Paul, MN, where she is pursuing a degree in business management. She is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of her internship experience.

I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Elle for all of the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be allowed to speak prior to the scheduled rollcall votes: Myself for up to 10 minutes, Senator Cornyn for up to 15 minutes, and Senator Merkley for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. President, with election day approaching in less than 5 months, Democrats are getting understandably concerned.

After all, a historic 3-year-plus border crisis and a historic 3- year-plus inflation crisis are not exactly an ideal record on which to run. And so Democrats have been doing what they can

here in the Senate to brighten their election prospects with a series of show votes designed to put Republicans in a difficult position--or so the Democratic leader hopes.

I said ``show votes.'' And I say that because all of these votes were clearly designed to fail. The Democratic leader knew that Republicans were not going to support a border bill that had previously been rejected, a contraception bill that would jeopardize the religious freedom of healthcare providers, or an IVF bill that would allow for human cloning and genetic engineering of human embryos.

These were not serious attempts by the Democratic leader to legislate. These were future campaign talking points.

If the Democratic leader really wanted to legislate, he would be bringing up something like Senator Ernst's legislation to promote access to contraception, which has a number of Republican cosponsors-- or any one of the numerous commonsense border proposals Republicans have advanced, like Senator Blackburn's measure to allow State and local law enforcement to detain criminal illegal aliens for ICE to deport. But that is not the legislation the Democrat leader is bringing up, because, as I said, he is not interested in legislating; he is interested in boosting Democrats' electoral chances--he hopes--this fall.

I know the Democratic leader is trying his hardest to put Republicans in a difficult spot. But as I have said before, if he hopes to have us quaking in our boots over taking these votes, he should think again because Republicans are happy to have the chance to talk about the Democrat agenda, to talk about the disaster President Biden created at our southern border--a disaster he allowed to thrive unchecked for years, despite the serious danger to our national security; or to talk about how, under the guise of protecting access to contraception-- something that is not under threat, I might add--the Democratic leader brought up legislation that would not only funnel money to Democrats' allies at Planned Parenthood but would wipe out--wipe out--conscience protections for healthcare providers.

Democrats' bill specifically targets the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is bipartisan legislation passed in 1993, back when Democrats actually believed in defending our First Amendment freedoms.

And this is not Democrats' only attempt to target this legislation and to dictate how and when Americans can live according to their faith. Take, for example, Democrats' so-called Women's Health Protection Act--more accurately called the ``Abortion on Demand Act,'' which would prevent healthcare providers from claiming protection under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act if their faith prevents them from performing abortions.

Apparently the ``personal freedoms'' that the Democratic leader mentioned earlier this month don't include religious freedom--at least not when your faith conflicts with Democrats' policy positions.

Speaking of the Abortion on Demand Act, I find it very interesting that in a month the Democrat leader intended to be dedicated to ``reproductive freedoms,'' he chose not to bring up Democrats' signature abortion legislation. Is it possible that he thought that in a month in which he hoped to paint Republicans as extremists, it might not be a great idea to bring up Democrats' radical abortion legislation, lest Americans see just how extreme Democrats are on this issue? In fact, the Democrats' bill might be the most extreme abortion legislation ever considered by Congress.

The so-called Women's Health Protection Act would not only allow abortion through all 40 weeks of pregnancy, it would sweep away almost every commonsense restriction that has been upheld under Roe and would make abortion on demand at any time, for essentially any reason, the law of the land, not to mention wiping out the ban on taxpayer funding of abortion--something that has been agreed upon by both sides for nearly 50 years.

Needless to say, this is far out of step with the American people, a majority of whom believe abortion should generally be illegal during the second 3 months of pregnancy and 70 percent of whom believe abortion should generally be illegal during the final 3 months, not to mention the fact that it is also out of step with European abortion law, with 46 out of 50 European U.N. member countries restricting abortion on demand after 15 weeks. But that is certainly not stopping Democrats from pursuing one of the most radical abortion regimes in the world.

In the coming weeks, I expect we will see the Democrats' summer of show votes continue, but I suspect the American people will not be fooled by Democrats' politicking.

As for Republicans, we are happy to discuss the Democrat agenda anytime Democrats would like to bring it up.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, in just a few minutes, I will ask for a unanimous consent to pass my Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. This is a very simple bill, and it should be a noncontroversial one. It simply says that a baby born alive after an attempted abortion is entitled to the same protection and medical care that any other newborn baby is entitled to.

That is all. It doesn't limit abortion. It doesn't make abortion illegal. It simply states that a baby born alive after an attempted abortion is entitled to medical care, and yet somehow this bill is too much for my Democratic colleagues. Somehow saying that a living, breathing baby born alive after an attempted abortion is entitled to medical care is a step too far.

I would be interested to know exactly what it is that they are afraid of, and I suspect they are afraid that by pointing to the humanity of the born child, they might end up pointing to the humanity of the unborn child. After all, it makes no sense to say that a baby is not a human being a second before birth and is a human being a second after.

And so I suspect that Democrats are afraid that recognizing the humanity of a living, breathing, born child in an abortion clinic might end up leading to protection for unborn children.

And Democrats are apparently so determined to ensure that the supposed right to kill unborn children is protected that they are willing to oppose a law to protect born children.

It is a tragic measure of their extremism on this issue. And if anyone thinks that abortion isn't a slippery slope, that we can somehow devalue unborn babies' lives while maintaining respect for everyone else's, well, I am here to tell them differently, because we are at a point where roughly 50 percent of the U.S. Congress opposes protecting the lives of born human beings if they happen to be born alive after an attempted abortion.

In a matter of seconds now, one of my Democratic colleagues will object to this legislation. But I hope and pray that this will not be the last word and that, one day soon, we will get to a point where legislation like this will not be controversial and where human rights of every human being, born and unborn, will be respected.

So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 204 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

the following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville).

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

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).

Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. President, Democrats made their latest move yesterday in their yearslong campaign to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. Their failed attempt to gain unanimous consent on a so-called Supreme Court ethics bill was yet another attempt to bully the Court into ruling the way Democrats want.

With decisions in multiple controversial cases coming from the Supreme Court over the next few weeks, including today, I expect this was just the prelude to yet another dramatic Democrat temper tantrum if things don't go Democrats' way. I say ``if things don't go Democrats' way'' because it is a funny thing--when the Supreme Court decides things Democrats' way, we hear a lot less about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

Take the Court's decision in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Ltd., in which most

of the Court's Republican appointees sided with all of the Court's Democrat appointees to deliver a decision that Democrats supported.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters, the Democrat ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, had this to say:

With this decision, our nation's justices have decided to

put consumers first and reject the baseless attacks led by

extreme MAGA Republicans and greedy payday lenders to

hamstring the work of the CFPB and put consumers in harm's

way.

Or take the Court's decision in Moore v. Harper, in which half of the Court's Republican appointees sided with the Court's Democrat appointees to deliver a decision that was embraced by the Democrat leader here in the U.S. Senate.

Here is what he had to say:

Today, those who support democracy, fair elections, and the

rule of law can stand a bit taller. Today's ruling reaffirms

the longstanding precedent that respects our constitutional

system of checks and balances.

Again, that is from the Senate Democrat leader. Funny how he didn't mention anything in that statement about how the Court had been captured by, in his words, ``the fanatical MAGA right.''

I could go on, but all of this leads to one inevitable conclusion, and that is that, to Democrats, the only legitimate Court and the only legitimate Court decisions are the ones that line up with Democrats' policy preferences.

It has become clear that Democrats are willing to do whatever it takes, up to and including intimidation, delegitimization, and Court packing, to ensure that the Court rules in line with where Democrats want it.

This isn't about ethics or legitimacy or concern for our democratic institutions, as Democrats would have you believe; this is about power. Democrats are apparently perfectly willing to undermine a fundamental part of our system of government for their political ends, because, let's be very clear, it is not the Supreme Court that is undermining the legitimacy of this essential institution; it is Democrats with their unhinged campaign against a duly-constituted Court composed of nine duly-confirmed Justices nominated by a duly-elected President; a Court, it is worth pointing out, that in its last term ruled unanimously--that is right, unanimously--roughly half of the time and 90 percent of the time--let me repeat that: 90 percent of the time--had at least one Democrat-appointed Justice in the majority.

Mr. President, it would be nice if we could just dismiss Democrats' hysteria as the tantrums of a party that has discovered that sometimes in a democracy, you don't get your way, but Democrats' concerted effort to undermine the legitimacy of the Court is deeply troubling because of the widespread consequences it could have.

The last thing we should be doing at a time of deep political divisions is to be shaking Americans' faith in the legitimacy of our institutions and the impartiality of the Court. Do Democrats really want a public with less faith in the government?

Perhaps they do or perhaps they don't care, as long as their policies are ascendant and they can maintain a hold on power. But they should care.

As I said, should things not go entirely the Democrats' way in the coming weeks of Supreme Court decisions, I expect we are going to hear a lot. We will hear a lot more hysteria about the Court's supposed hijacking and illegitimacy.

But I hope the Justices and the American people will tune it out, because the Democrats' baseless and irresponsible attempts to delegitimize the Court do not deserve to be given the time of day.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.