Floor Statements

Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk about the legislative filibuster here in the Senate over the last few days. As we started the new Congress evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, the Republican leader had proposed that the Democrat leader include a commitment to preserving the legislative filibuster and the power-sharing agreement the leaders have been working out. This should have been easy.

Less than 4 years ago, with a Republican President in the White House and Republicans in control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, a bipartisan group of 61 Senators affirmed their support for retaining the legislative filibuster, stating: ``We are united in our determination to preserve the ability of Members to engage in extended debate when bills are on the Senate floor.''

There are 26--26--current Democratic Senators--a majority of the current Democratic caucus--who signed that defense of the legislative filibuster when they were in the Senate minority. It is disappointing that the Democrat leader failed to express his support for this essential Senate rule.

Nevertheless, thanks to the recent commitment from two Senate Democrats to oppose any attempt to eliminate the filibuster--a commitment which secures this key protection for minority rights-- Leader McConnell is now moving forward without a statement from the Democrat leader.

But it is worth taking a moment to reiterate why the legislative filibuster is so important. The legislative filibuster, of course, is essentially the requirement that 60 Senators agree before the Senate can end debate and vote on a bill. In other words, you need 60 percent of the Senate to agree before you can pass a bill. This usually means that you need the support of at least some Members of the other party before you can move legislation.

The party in power doesn't always enjoy that rule. All of us would like the opportunity to pass exactly the legislation that we want. But most of us recognize that it is a good requirement.

The legislative filibuster ensures that the minority is represented in the legislation. This would be important even if elections tended to break 60 to 40 or 70 to 30 in favor of one party or another. All Americans, whether or not they are in the majority, deserve to be represented. But it is particularly important when you consider that our country is pretty evenly split down the middle.

While the advantage sometimes goes to Democrats and sometimes to Republicans, the truth is that our country is pretty evenly split, which means any attempt to disenfranchise the minority party means disenfranchising half of the country.

Of course, the party in power generally gets to accomplish more than the minority party--and that is appropriate. The country may be fairly evenly divided, but sometimes it wants to move more toward one side or the other.

What is not appropriate is to eliminate meaningful minority representation, which would be the consequence of eliminating the legislative filibuster. Our Founders recognized the importance of putting safeguards in place to ensure that majorities wouldn't curtail or eliminate minority rights.

That is why the Founders created the Senate. They made the Senate smaller and Senators' terms in office longer, with the intention of creating a more stable, more thoughtful, and more deliberative legislative body to check ill-considered or intemperate legislation or attempts to curtail minority rights.

And 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. Thanks to the filibuster, it is often harder to get legislation through the Senate than the House. It requires more thought, more debate, and greater consensus--in other words, exactly--exactly--what the Founders were looking for.

I am grateful to my Democrat colleagues who have spoken up about their commitment to preserving the legislative filibuster. Republicans were committed to protecting the vital safeguard of minority rights when we were in the majority--despite, I might add, the then- President's calls repeatedly to eliminate it--and I appreciate that a number of my Democrat colleagues share that commitment.

I am particularly grateful to the Senator from West Virginia and the Senator from Arizona for their uncompromising defense of minority rights and the institution of the Senate here in recent days.

Again, however, I am disappointed the Democrat leader chose not to express his support for this essential Senate rule. I would point out that when Democrats were in the minority in the Senate, they made frequent use of the legislative filibuster.

I hope that the commitment to the legislative filibuster expressed by President Biden and a number of Senate Democrats means the end of any talk of eliminating the filibuster. No matter how appealing it might be in the moment, destroying this longstanding protection for minority rights

would be a grave error that both parties would live to regret.

I hope that all Senate Democrats will recommit themselves to preserving this fundamental feature of the Senate and to find compromise. We have work to do.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) would have voted ``yea.''

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

Mr. President, I want to start by congratulating President Biden and Vice President Harris, who took office yesterday. We have a team of former Senators in the White House.

Yesterday was a hopeful day. The Capitol Building, so recently besieged by violence and lawlessness, resumed its rightful place as the seat of our democracy and backdrop for the peaceful transfer of power from one President to the next that is a hallmark of our system of government. The faith of many Americans has been shaken in recent weeks. But yesterday reminded us that our democracy still stands and our Nation endures--bruised, maybe, but unbroken.

I also want to express my profound gratitude to the Capitol Police officers and other law enforcement who, though outnumbered and overrun, defended this Capitol on January 6, and to the soldiers and the law enforcement who have guarded this building in the days since. We live in peace and freedom because of the service and sacrifice of our military and our police officers.

After the election of November, President Biden gave a victory speech in which he pledged to be ``a President who seeks not to divide, but to unify. Who doesn't see Red and Blue states, but a United States. And who will work with all my heart to win the confidence of the whole people.''

He reiterated that commitment in yesterday's speech, stating: ``On this January day, my whole soul is in this: Bringing America together, uniting our people, uniting our nation.''

That is what we need right now--a President who will unite us. If President Biden can truly be a President who governs for all Americans, who respects all Americans, and who works to win the confidence of the whole people, he will have done our Nation a great service.

And I do think President Biden is capable of doing this, but I do want to sound a cautionary note. It is common to talk about unity at Presidential inaugurations. But all too often that commitment to unity is forgotten--by the President or by the members of his party. I hope this commitment will be backed up with action and that Democrat leaders in Congress will embrace the President's words. That means respecting those Americans who didn't vote for President Biden as well as those who did.

It means working together to confront our Nation's challenges, instead of adopting an ``our way or the highway'' approach. It means preserving minority rights in the Senate when it comes to legislation, the heart--the heart--of what makes the Senate special and something Republicans, I might add, defended during our time in the majority.

For the President, it means nominating individuals who represent a majority of Americans, not the far left fringes of his party. I have seen some hopeful actions from President Biden. Several of his nominees for important posts, while perhaps not those whom I would have chosen, are public servants whom I believe will serve our country well in positions like Director of National Intelligence, whom we voted on yesterday. And the President has demonstrated both his leadership and his concern for all Americans by prioritizing the pandemic and focusing on getting Americans vaccinated.

But there have been troubling things as well. While the President has nominated some mainstream candidates, other nominations raise serious concerns on issues like overregulation of the economy and life and conscience protections.

While I applaud the President's focus on the pandemic, I am concerned that a number of the measures in his pandemic relief proposal are heavily partisan--and, certainly, not things that should be rushed through Congress without serious consideration of the long-term impact they would have on our economy and American families.

If there was any mandate given in this election, it was a mandate for moderation. A historic number of Americans voted for President Biden, but a historic number voted for President Trump as well. Democrats lost seats in the House of Representatives, and the Senate is evenly divided.

I hope--I really hope--that Democrat leaders and the President will remember that and not allow the far left, which has sought to hijack the Democratic Party in recent years, to determine their agenda. We have a chance--a chance--for a new day here in this country, and I believe that President Biden is committed to leading us there.

I pray that that commitment will endure and that we can spend the next months and years working together, legislating together, and ensuring the voices of all Americans are respected and heard.

I yield the floor.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

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

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to complete my remarks before the vote.

Madam President, a number of my colleagues were here just a few moments ago talking about trade and the impact of trade on agriculture. I have been down here a lot on the floor to talk about the ag economy in recent weeks. If you look at our economy as a whole, it is thriving, but our Nation's farmers and ranchers are still having a tough time, thanks to years of commodity and livestock prices that are below production cost because of protracted trade disputes and now, on top of that, natural disasters.

One of the most important things we can do to help our agricultural economy is to negotiate favorable trade agreements for U.S. producers. Our Nation's farmers and ranchers depend on trade. In my home State of South Dakota, we export a substantial portion of the agricultural products we produce.

Right now, though, farmers and ranchers are facing a lot of uncertainty when it comes to trade. There are a number of outstanding trade agreements, and farmers and ranchers are unsure what the rules of the road are going to look like in the future. That is why I have urged the administration to

wrap up negotiations on the various trade deals under consideration as swiftly as possible.

I strongly support the administration's goal of strengthening market access for our Nation's farmers and ranchers, and we have made real progress in negotiations. Now it is time to push for a conclusion to these deals and give our Nation's agricultural producers certainty about what international markets are going to look like.

There is one deal, however, that we don't need to wait for; that is, the United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement. Negotiations on this trade agreement are finished. Mexico has already passed the agreement, and Canada is just waiting for the United States to act. All we need is for Speaker Pelosi to indicate her willingness to take up this deal, and the President will formally submit the agreement to Congress for approval.

The United States-Mexico-Canada Free Trade Agreement is a big win for our Nation's farmers and ranchers. Canada and Mexico are the No. 1 and No. 2 export markets for American food and agricultural products. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement will preserve and expand farmers' access to these critical markets and give farmers certainty about what these markets will look like long term.

I am particularly pleased with the improvements the agreement makes for U.S. dairy producers. Dairy is an important and rapidly growing industry in South Dakota. Drive the I-29 corridor north of Brookings, and you can see firsthand what massive dairy expansion we have experienced in South Dakota over the past few years.

The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement will preserve U.S. dairy farmers' role as a key dairy supplier to Mexico, and it will substantially expand market access in Canada, where U.S. dairy sales have been restricted.

The U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that the agreement will boost U.S. dairy exports by more than $277 million. The agreement will also expand market access for U.S. poultry and egg producers. It will make it easier for U.S. producers to export wheat to Canada.

I have spent my time today talking about the agricultural industry, but, of course, this agreement goes much further. The United States- Mexico-Canada Agreement will benefit virtually every sector of our economy, from manufacturing to digital services to the automotive industry. It will create 176,000 new jobs, grow our economy, and raise wages for workers.

It is time to pass this agreement and to realize its economic benefits. Senate Republicans are ready; we are ready to approve this agreement once the White House submits it to Congress. We are just waiting for Democratic leaders in the House to indicate their willingness to take up the deal. It is time for them to do so.

Democrats' concerns have been more than addressed throughout the negotiation process. The final trade agreement is perhaps the most worker-friendly trade agreement the United States has ever considered. It is a big improvement on the North American Free Trade Agreement--the agreement under which we are currently operating--on the issues over which Democrats have expressed concern.

If they are serious about making progress on these issues and are not just trying to sink the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement with specious objections, Democrats should give the President the go-ahead and take up and pass this agreement in the near future.

nomination of Peter joseph Phipps

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, July 17, the Senate vote on the resolutions of ratification for Treaties Calendar Nos. 2, 3, and 4 as under the previous order and that if the resolutions are agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action. I further ask unanimous consent that following disposition of Treaties Calendar No. 4, the Senate resume consideration of the Corker nomination. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 2 p.m. on July 17, the Senate vote on the cloture motions on the Corker, Blanchard, and Tapia nominations and that if cloture is invoked, the confirmation votes occur at a time determined by the majority leader in consultation with the Democratic leader on Thursday, July 18.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business and that Senators be permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 103, S. Res. 74.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Portman amendment to the resolution at the desk be considered and agreed to.

I know of no further debate on the resolution, as amended.

Madam President, I further ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be withdrawn; that the Portman amendment to the preamble at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 76, S. 375.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 139, S. Res. 198.

I further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment to the resolution be agreed to; that the resolution, as amended, be agreed to; that the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to; that the preamble, as amended, be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.