Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. President, in the last several years, Democrats have given many dramatic speeches about our country's norms and institutions, about the rule of law and the health of democracy. But the sad irony has been this: The same political left that shouted so loudly about norms, institutions, and the rule of law has kept trying to steamroll these principles themselves.

Look at recent events at the State capitol buildings in Tennessee and Montana--angry liberal activists in shoving matches with law enforcement, shouting down proceedings. I myself am on the record as a firm critic of rioters and disrupting legislatures, across the board, no matter who is doing it. Why can't the left be as consistent?

And look at their side's growing hostility to the very independence of our judicial branch. A few weeks ago, when one Federal judge issued a ruling with policy outcomes that Democrats didn't like, they started suggesting that politicians should just openly disobey--just openly disobey--the judge's rulings.

Those suggestions are toxic and, frankly, anti-American. It was wrong when President Andrew Jackson tried to ignore the Court way back in the 1830s, it was dead wrong when Governor Faubus defied the Court on civil rights in the 1950s, and it is wrong also when today's Democratic Party brings all of that back.

The attacks on the judiciary don't stop there. In 2020, our colleague the Democratic leader stood on the very steps of the Supreme Court and threatened Justices by name--by name--with a ``whirlwind'' of retaliation if they failed to rule the way he wanted.

Then, after top Democrats encouraged mob outrage over a leaked draft opinion, President Biden's Attorney General failed to enforce clear Federal law and put a stop--a stop--to illegal protests that sought to intimidate the Justices at their private family homes.

Recently, a number of Senate Democrats have gone so far as to propose defunding security needs for the Justices and their families if Chief Justice Roberts doesn't reorganize internal matters the way Democrats would prefer. So after fanning the flames of violence against an equal branch of government, Democrats now want to defund the Justices' ability to protect themselves and their families if certain Senators don't get their way.

They are trying to turn impartial judges into partisan hostages. This is really beyond irresponsible.

And then, of course, there are the desperate and never-ending attempts to smear and defame Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, going back years and decades. Over the last few weeks, two Justices have been particularly subjected to a carousel of character assassination. I am sure it will be another Justice's turn again before too long. This is simply how the far left treats the rule of law.

Let me just repeat that I have total confidence in Justice Gorsuch, Justice Thomas, and all seven of their distinguished colleagues, no matter who appointed them--no matter who appointed them. Just yesterday, all nine Justices explained in a statement their joint approach to maintaining their high ethical standards. Unlike the activists and elected Democrats trying to

tear them down, the Justices have proven their sobriety and judicial temperament over their long and distinguished careers.

Mr. President, for over 2 years, the Biden administration has failed to attend to some of the most basic governing duties. Stable prices, secure borders, and safe streets are three of the most fundamental responsibilities that any government owes its people.

But Washington Democrats neglected the basics for their pet priorities. They spent trillions of dollars on government goodies that nobody asked for, triggered the worst inflation in 40 years, and turned a blind eye to the border crisis and a crime wave, all occurring on their watch.

They caused the damage on party-line votes, without any input from the Republican side. In response, the American people flipped the House and chose a closely divided Senate. The voters dialed up the checks and the balances. The people went to the ballot box and demanded the Democrats start negotiating and compromising.

But the President is refusing to engage. Even as his own advisers say the debt ceiling is approaching fast, the White House is totally MIA. His position has been no negotiation, no reforms.

It is such an absurd position that even fellow Democrats are not buying it. The senior Senator from West Virginia, a Democrat, has publicly called on the President to sit down with Speaker McCarthy and negotiate.

Listen to the House Democrats: ``Get to work and get it done for the sake of the country,'' says one. ``They've got to do it soon,'' says another.

Just a few years ago, the Democratic leader said debt limit talks were an ``opportunity for bipartisanship.''

And what about President Biden himself? Here is what then-Vice President Biden said about the debt ceiling back in 2011. ``Some of them are still unwilling to budge . . . taking an absolute position: my way or no way. . . . That's not governing,'' said the Vice President in 2011.

My goodness, that is harsh criticism for the 2023 version of President Biden from the 2011 version of Vice President Biden.

The Democrats' reckless policies have already dealt far too much damage to our country. This administration's inflation has hammered working families' budgets. Their anti-energy policies have raised gas prices and utility bills. Their attempt to reinvent cash welfare without work requirements hurt small businesses by worsening labor shortages and hurt families by promoting dependence.

So the working people of this country have already paid a heavy enough price for Democrats' failures. We should not even come within a mile of flirting with a Democratic debt default on top of all the rest.

It is time for President Biden to stop the partisan stubbornness, join Speaker McCarthy at the grownups' table, and get talking.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).

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

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

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

Mr. President, well, the Biden administration's reckless economic policies have hurt American workers and families right from the beginning. Right from the start of their one-party government, Democrats used party-line votes to light trillions-- trillions--of dollars on fire and supercharge inflation that is still hammering the country right up to the present.

After 2 years of reckless policies and human pain, the American people voted for checks and balances. They

elected a Republican House and a narrowly divided Senate to literally pump the brakes on this radicalism. But there is an old saying in Washington that ``personnel is policy.'' So while the American people put a stop to reckless legislation last November, President Biden continues to send reckless nominations to the Senate. They want to accomplish through Big Government regulations what the voters have stopped them from doing here in Congress.

This morning, for example, the HELP Committee is hearing from Julie Su, President Biden's nominee to run the Department of Labor. Ms. Su has a lengthy track record for all--all--the wrong reasons.

Before entering the Biden administration, she presided over a disaster as head of the State labor department out in California. Tens of billions of dollars in fraudulent payments went out the door on her watch. The State auditor found Ms. Su and her department were totally asleep--totally asleep--at the switch on antifraud efforts. Even the Los Angeles Times had to label her performance--listen to this--an ``epic failure.''

Our supply chains are already in enough peril, due in part to high- stakes labor negotiations. Think about the negotiations to keep open the ports on the west coast. Think about the ripple effects. Our national economy cannot afford a track record of ``epic failure'' leading our Department of Labor.

She also supported and helped implement a controversial new California law that essentially--listen to this--declared war on independent contractors and tried to give Big Labor special interests veto power over the entire gig economy. In essence, these far-left Democrats want every ride-share driver, hairdresser, or personal trainer to be reclassified and handled more like a corporate employee, all so that part of their paychecks could be vacuumed up and donated to leftwing political causes.

The same partisan inflexibility has defined Ms. Su's time here in Washington as Deputy Secretary of Labor on the national level. From the powerful No. 2 job, she helped President Biden try to force that California model into our entire economy, a giant gift for Big Labor bosses at the expense of workers and consumers alike. She also signaled that she wants to help lead the far left's crusade against the current joint-employer rule, yet another effort to give big-money union bosses even more power to squash innovation and skim money from workers' paychecks.

What they can't get through legislation, they fully intend to push forward through regulations. So it is no wonder that an unending parade of small business leaders, independent contractors, and other job creators have written the Senate literally begging us--begging us--to demand a fairer and more mainstream Labor Secretary. Confirming this nominee would compound the economic pain the Biden administration has already caused.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, if I may say to our colleague from Washington, I remember, as you certainly do, that 1992 was declared the ``Year of the Woman,'' and a number of women were elected to the Senate. But you were the leader of the group, and you have had an extraordinarily successful career, and I wanted you to know that people on both sides of the aisle admire your service. And congratulations.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).

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

Mr. President, we are 2 years into the latest chapter of Washington Democrats' war against our own domestic energy. America spent decades working toward affordable, reliable energy independence, and Democrats have tried to reverse it all, turned it all around: less exploration for American oil and gas, more dependence on immoral Chinese supply chains. Even as the left wants Big Government to gamble our whole grid on less reliable new technologies, they don't even want to let us mine here in America on our own soil for the rare earth minerals those technologies actually require.

The Democrats have fundamentally misunderstood both the economics and the geopolitics of American energy. So the result is going to be fewer jobs for our workers, bigger bills for our families, less security for our country, and more vulnerability to foreign actors who don't like us.

Just last week, the Biden EPA announced it will try to slap a radical and unprecedented new mandate on our country regarding electric vehicles. The same people who can't handle inflation and can't secure our border want to stick their noses into Americans' garages and our driveways. The administration's radical plan would cut down the marketplace of affordable and reliable vehicles that most Americans actually want to drive. It would massively increase demand on already highly taxed electrical grids with no workable plan to grow capacity, and it would force rich liberals' lifestyle choices onto the whole country.

Good luck--good luck farmers, ranchers, rural Americans. California wants to dictate what you drive. See, California is the proving ground for these bad ideas. They have already set their own punitive targets for electric vehicle sales, and--surprise--the math actually doesn't work. At the same time Governor Newsom is mandating his citizens buy electric vehicles, he is telling people not to plug them in--don't plug them in--for fear of blackouts.

California expects to see 15 times more electric vehicles on the roads and on their electrical grid by 2035--the same California that already had to spend last summer begging citizens to turn down their air-conditioning because their grid can barely survive as it is right now.

Democrats want less American energy, less production, and, of course, less reliability. Republicans want more, more, and more--more production, more independence, more affordability, and more security.

The House Republican majority's landmark H.R. 1 goes right at this very issue. It would be a huge shot in the arm for American energy. But here in the Senate, the Democratic leader controls the floor, and he has declared the bill ``dead on arrival''--dead on arrival here in the Senate.

It is the clearest possible contrast. Republicans are fighting for cheaper and more reliable power, stronger supply chains, and a stronger America on the world stage; and Democrats, they are actually fighting us.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Alabama (Mrs. Britt) and the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).

Mr. President, I want to address an extremely unusual request that our Democratic colleagues have made with respect to the Judiciary Committee.

Our dear friend Senator Feinstein is a titanic figure and a stateswoman. Elaine and I have been honored to count the Senator and her late husband Dick as close, personal friends for many, many years. We miss our colleague. We wish her the very best for a speedy recovery and a smooth return.

In the meantime, our colleague's temporary absence has really not ground the Judiciary Committee to a halt. So far this Congress, the committee has reported out 40 judicial nominees--listen to this--more than half of them--more than half of them--on a bipartisan basis.

Let me say that again. More than two dozen judicial nominees have been reported out this Congress on bipartisan votes.

There are more than a dozen article III judges already waiting on the Executive Calendar, and a whole bunch of the nominees currently in committee are likely to receive bipartisan support as well. So the administration does not face any obstacle to moving nominees who are remotely qualified for the job. People who are mainstream and qualified have a path forward.

Yet some of the same far-left voices who have attacked Senator Feinstein in the past are now suggesting that the Senate move her off the Judiciary Committee indefinitely--indefinitely. The stated reason, the supposed emergency, is that Senate Democrats are unable to push through the small fraction of their nominees who are so extreme--so extreme--and so unqualified that they cannot win a single Republican vote in Committee.

Let me say that again. The far left wants the full Senate to move a Senator off a committee so they can ram through a small sliver of their nominees who are especially extreme or especially unqualified.

There are four main nominees whom our Democratic colleagues are currently unable to move. One of them threatened an underage abuse victim while representing her prep school. One of them didn't know what article II of the Constitution says. One of them didn't know what a Brady motion is. The fourth one argued that the sex offender registry-- listen to this--does not help keep children safe. Those are the four they are having a hard time moving. They are not on track to get bipartisan support.

It is purely the Democrats' political choice to hold relatively more reasonable nominees hostage so the unqualified ones can move in a pack. So even though they could move a number of less controversial nominees right now--right now--they want to sideline Senator Feinstein so they can ram through the worst four as well.

I understand our Judiciary Committee colleagues report they cannot find a single past example where their committee let a Member be temporarily replaced in this fashion that some Democrats are advocating.

So let's be clear. Senate Republicans will not take part in sidelining a temporarily absent colleague off a committee just so Democrats can force through their very worst nominees.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize a beloved family business, native to Kentucky, that celebrates its 150th anniversary this year. Reid's Orchard started in a similar fashion to most entrepreneurial success stories in this country: an immigrant who journeyed to America in search of a better life for himself and his family. Allan Reid left his little village in Scotland in 1873, setting up shop in New York City with his two brothers in the tobacco industry. Allan started out bookkeeping, but the young and ambitious Scot quickly realized that it wasn't bookkeeping or tobacco that interested him, it was

peaches, which he found wildly outpaced the quality of fruit available back in Europe.

Allan soon left New York City to set up a peach and apple orchard in Daviess County, KY--where the business is still run today. His orchard quickly became a well-run enterprise and a leader in agricultural production and technology. In admirable fashion, Allan gave back to his community in more ways than just his delicious fruit. This peach pioneer would go on to serve two terms as a Kentucky State Representative and play an instrumental role in the construction and expansion of roads throughout this region of the Commonwealth. Allan's sons, Robert Reid, Jr., and John, would later join the family business with this same sense of community until Allan's great-grandson, Billy, would enter the business and form Reid's Orchard, as it is known today.

Since taking the helm, Billy has brought the orchard to new heights, expanding his family's business into a successful year-round operation, a popular community-gathering point, and a local staple of Owensboro. Today, Reid's Orchard caters to Kentuckians across the Commonwealth, offering a wide array of delicious produce and seasonal favorites that include apples, cider, strawberries, flowers, pies, pumpkins, and my personal favorite, peaches. My staff will tell you, amusingly, that peach-picking season is a highly anticipated event for me. Every August, I look forward to sampling Billy's peaches.

To the delight of many, the orchard's success has allowed the family to expand beyond its farm business. Each year, the orchard puts on an annual summer festival, hosting some of country music's biggest names-- an impressive feat for a family-run business in Western Kentucky and a further testament to Reid's widespread popularity. For 37 years straight, the orchard would also host its popular Apple Festival. In fact, this festival is so popular locally that the Owensboro community plans to carry on the tradition each fall.

When it is not hosting popular community events, Reid's Orchard regularly welcomes families who have traveled far and wide to pick produce in the orchard, learn about farm life, and let their kids roam free across its 250 acres.

Billy's impressive stewardship of the family business and commitment to his local community have earned him the admiration of Owensboro locals, as well as Kentuckians across the Commonwealth. I am proud to call Billy a long-time friend, a friendship that extends beyond his delicious peach deliveries and spans over 20 years.

From Allan Reid's early love for peaches to Billy's thoughtful expansion of his great-grandfather's legacy, the story of Reid's Orchard has been defined by hard work and ingenuity. It is an American story, a story that renews our gratitude for this Nation, its opportunity, and its promise.

On behalf of the Senate, I would like to recognize the Reid family for their countless contributions to the Bluegrass, and congratulate Reid's Orchard for 150 years in operation of the American Dream.

Mr. President, it is good to be back.

I want to thank all of my colleagues for their warm wishes shared over the past few weeks. Suffice it to say, this wasn't the first time that being hardheaded has served me very well.

We are truly lucky and blessed to get to serve in this remarkable institution, represent our home States, and serve our country. Needless to say, I am very happy to be back.

There is important business for Congress to tackle. We should be working to undo this administration's mistakes. We need to secure the border, reduce crime, fight inflation, and invest in America's strength and our security.

On an even more basic level, President Biden and his administration are literally ``on the clock'' to negotiate a debt ceiling solution with Speaker McCarthy and the Republican majority over in the House. The President's economic advisers say the deadline for a solution is not far off, but his political advisers apparently think the White House's position should be--listen to this--no talks and no reforms.

This extreme position is not even holding up in their own party. Even Washington Democrats are breaking

ranks from the administration's position of no talks and no reforms.

One of our Senate Democratic colleagues wrote an entire Washington Post op-ed calling on the President to sit down with Congress and reform spending. Reports indicate that a whole group of House Democrats are already talking about negotiations and about compromise.

Just a few years ago, the Democratic leader, Leader Schumer, said this about the debt ceiling:

[It] gives another ample opportunity for bipartisanship,

not for one party jamming its choices down the throats of the

other.

So President Biden does not get to stick his fingers in his ears and refuse to listen, talk, or negotiate, and the American people know that. The White House needs to stop wasting time and start negotiating with the Speaker of the House.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan), and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch) would

have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) would have voted ``yea.''