John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: The Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea''.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``NAY.''

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``NAY''.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``NAY.''

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay''.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Tennessee Mr. (Hagerty), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Braun) and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this week, we celebrate National Agriculture Week. It is a time to celebrate America's farmers and ranchers, the hard-working men and women who fill America's supermarkets and Americans' dinner plates. Much of daily life here in the United States depends on the food, fuel, and fiber that America's farms and ranches produce. And this week in particular, we thank those who do the hard work of feeding America--and the world. There are a lot of factors that go into a farm's or ranch's success. Today, I want to talk about just one of those factors that affects a lot of farms and ranches, and that is trade. Trade is critical to the continued success of American agriculture. One in four acres on U.S. farms is planted to be exported to a foreign market, and exports are responsible for a fifth of U.S. farm revenue. For the 2023 marketing year, American farmers planted nearly 70 million acres of major crops to supply international markets. But we have a problem. Thanks in large part to the Biden administration's almost complete inaction on trade, U.S. agriculture exports are declining. In fact, last year, the United States posted a $16.6 billion agricultural trade deficit--16.6 billion. And that trade deficit, believe it or not, is projected to be nearly twice as large this year, in an area of our economy where typically we have run, historically, trade surpluses. This would be bad enough on its own, but it is particularly distressing at a time of economic uncertainty for a lot of farmers and ranchers. Like so many other Americans, farmers and ranchers have suffered under President Biden's inflation crisis. Net farm income is expected to see its largest 2-year drop in 40 years. We should be doing whatever we can to reverse this trend and help farmers and ranchers succeed, and a good place to start would be opening new markets for American agricultural products. The sorry state of agriculture trade is emblematic of the Biden administration's generally unambitious trade agenda. The President made it clear early on that trade would not be high on his agenda, and unfortunately, he has lived up to that. Increased market access--long a priority of the United States--has almost completely dropped off the radar under President Biden. The U.S. Trade Representative has openly said that the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, which contains one of the few trade initiatives that the administration has actually undertaken, was, in fact, designed not-- not--to include tariff reduction. In other words, the Biden administration deliberately chose not to pursue a key market-opening measure, and now, the Biden administration has put even this halfhearted trade initiative on hold, declining to move forward with the trade portion of the Indo-Pacific agreement. A year ago, I came to the floor to discuss my bipartisan bill to kick-start negotiations on a comprehensive free-trade agreement with the United Kingdom. Now, you would think that a free-trade agreement with one of our oldest allies and largest trading partners would be a no-brainer, but the administration has punted on that one, too. On digital trade--an area where the United States has historically been a leader and in which we should continue to lead--the Biden administration is pulling back. Last fall, the U.S. Trade Representative abandoned longstanding U.S. policy on digital trade at the World Trade Organization--a move that risks letting China take our place in writing rules for a major sector of the global economy. The United States is currently negotiating zero--zero--free-trade agreements. But while the Biden administration keeps America on the sidelines, other countries are building up their trading portfolios. The European Union is negotiating new free-trade agreements. So is the United Kingdom. China is aggressively working to expand its trading network. The Biden administration's failure on trade is putting our country at a competitive disadvantage. The administration is not only forfeiting opportunities for American leadership, it is harming American businesses, farms, and ranches that look to trade as a way to grow. Earlier this week, I joined Senator Blackburn and other Senators in a letter to the President urging the administration to uphold America's longstanding leadership on digital trade. Last week, I led a group of Republican Senators urging the administration to work on expanding export opportunities for American agriculture. If we want American farmers, ranchers, and business owners to succeed in the global economy, trade has to be a priority, and I will continue to do everything I can to urge the Biden administration to get off the sidelines on trade and start opening up new opportunities for American producers. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Schmitt).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, we have heard some concerning statements on Israel in recent days from leading Democrats. Last Thursday, the Democratic leader came to the floor to deliver a speech in which he took the extraordinary step of calling for a regime change in Israel. That is right. The Democratic leader of the U.S. Senate, who has, in the past, fiercely decried the prospect of foreign interference in U.S. elections, decided to insert himself into the internal electoral politics of a sovereign nation and a close U.S. ally. It was an incredibly troubling moment. As I said, it wasn't the only troubling statement lately from a Democrat leader. The President has also recently inserted himself into Israeli decision making by criticizing Israel's war plan and saying it would be a ``red line'' for Israel to go after Hamas strongholds in Rafah on the southern border of Gaza--in effect telling Israel that Hamas should be allowed to continue to hold this region. Both the President and the Democrat leader are entitled to their personal strategic opinions and their personal opinions on Israel's leadership. What they are not entitled to is to attempt to dictate the election process or the strategic planning of a sovereign nation. There would be justifiable outrage if one of our allies attempted to dictate to our country when we should hold elections and whom we should choose to lead us. It is equally offensive for U.S. leaders to attempt to dictate war planning or election outcomes to one of our allies. I also have to wonder where the similar statements are on, for example, Iran. Iran has been fomenting terror across the Middle East for decades--Hezbollah, the Houthis, Shia militias in Iraq and Syria, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and, of course, Hamas. Hamas gets approximately 90 percent of its military budget from Iran. There is reason to wonder whether Hamas would even have had the capability to carry out its October 7 attack without its history of support from Iran. There is certainly reason to wonder what the Middle East would look like today if Iran hadn't spent decades funding and arming terrorist organizations. Yet, in his entire State of the Union Address, the President mentioned Iran only once. The same goes for last week's speech from the Democrat leader. Where are the redlines for Iran, the calls for regime change? For that matter, where are the redlines for Hamas? Because, let's remember, that is how we ended up here. Israel didn't attack Hamas; Hamas attacked Israel. President Biden himself has noted that October 7's brutal attack against Israeli civilians was the deadliest day for the Jewish people literally since the Holocaust. More than 1,100 individuals were killed. More than 240 hostages were taken, and 130 of those hostages still-- still--remain in Gaza, including 5 American citizens. This was not a war of Israel's making; the current war is the responsibility of Hamas. Hamas has pulled its own citizens into the war zone because that is what they do. It has woven its terrorist infrastructure all through Gaza so that its fighters can easily slip into and outright hide behind the civilian population. The Israeli military has continued to discover Hamas tunnels networked beneath schools, hospitals, and the United Nations' headquarters in Gaza, UNRWA. The lives of its own citizens seem to mean as little to Hamas as do the lives of Israelis. The world has seen the evil of Hamas and its indifference to life, and that is precisely why Israel must succeed in removing the threat of Hamas from its borders. When Democrats do things like set redlines around an offensive operation into Rafah, they are supporting the conditions that will perpetuate this terror. No other nation would accept this threat just miles over its border, and we must not ask our longstanding ally Israel to make such a dangerous exception. I hope and pray that Israel will succeed in permanently disabling Hamas and paving the way to a more peaceful future for Israelis and-- and--for Palestinians. In an age in which the Democratic Party is increasingly surrendering to its most extreme-left wing, perhaps the President and the Democrat leader's comments should not have been unexpected, but, expected or not, they were inappropriate and troubling. There is an old adage that when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. Yet Democrats are out with a letter this morning that sets forth a new laundry list of conditions for Israel to meet. Our focus should be on supporting our ally Israel and working for a future where both Israelis and Palestinians can live free from terror like Hamas's, and that requires clear-eyed focus on the task at hand of helping our allies defeat these terrorists, bring the hostages home, and restore peace. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), and the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, President Biden released his budget on Monday, and, predictably, it was filled with the same old, tired, tax- and-spending proposals--so much spending and so many taxes. All told, the President's budget raises taxes by a staggering $5 trillion. You heard that right--$5 trillion. His corporate tax hike and capital gains tax proposals would both raise rates higher than those in communist China. Many small businesses would see a hefty tax hike under the President's proposal, and most Americans would see an income tax hike, as his budget would allow current income tax rates to expire after 2025--so much for the President's commitment to not raising taxes for anyone making under $400,000. Something President Biden and Democrats never seem to understand is that raising taxes has consequences. The corporate tax hike that President Biden would like you to believe will be borne by CEOs and CFOs--in fact, that tax hike would hit working Americans hard. Studies have shown that workers bear a huge percentage of the burden of corporate income taxes. Impacts aren't just limited to workers employed by corporations. Corporate tax hikes can hit all Americans in the form of higher prices for goods and services. Or take President Biden's proposed tax hike on gas and oil, which would be on top--on top--of the energy tax hikes he has already imposed. Taxing energy can drive up the cost of Americans' energy bills and make it more expensive every time Americans have to fill up their cars--not exactly a desirable outcome when Americans have already seen huge increases in energy prices under President Biden. As I said, all of those tax hikes are accompanied by a lot of new spending proposals as President Biden continues his mission to increase the size--and the intrusiveness--of the Federal Government. His budget includes massive new spending programs and big increases for government departments and Agencies like the IRS. Yet even as the President uses budget gimmicks and accounting tricks to blow through the nondefense spending cap for 2025, he makes no attempt to use any of his budgeting sleight of hand to address the serious readiness problems facing our military. The President spent ample time in his State of the Union Address talking about the dangerous world in which we live, and he is right. Yet his budget makes little attempt to ensure that our military is equipped to meet that dangerous world. We have military services well below their recruitment targets. We are behind on shipbuilding and ship maintenance. There is a persistent pilot shortage. In a number of cases, we have too few mission-capable aircraft. And we are not doing an adequate job of maintaining the kind of supply we need of munitions. Yet President Biden is happy to blow through the nondefense spending cap but can't find an extra dollar in his budget for our military. It says a lot about the President's priorities. It is also worth noting that the President's budget makes absolutely no attempt to ensure that Social Security is protected for current and future retirees. With Social Security on track to run out of money to pay full benefits in 2033, you would think that the President would be focused on safeguarding this program rather than creating new government programs that have to be funded. But, clearly, you would be wrong. This year, the interest on our national debt is projected to cost more than any government expenditure except Social Security. Let me just repeat that. This year, the interest on our national debt is projected to cost more than any government expenditure except Social Security. That is just the interest on our debt. When the interest alone on your national debt is the second highest line item in your budget, you know you are on an unsustainable fiscal path. And it is the height of fiscal irresponsibility for the President to be proposing massive new government programs when we are going into debt just to afford the ones we already have. I could go on. I could talk about the President's request for $8 billion to hire an additional 50,000 Americans for his Climate Corps, like so-called ``climate resilience workers,'' or I could talk about the President's attempt to force American taxpayers to pay for abortions or the eye-wateringly large funding increase the President wants for the IRS. But I will stop here. And I hope--I hope--my colleagues will agree that, for the sake of the American people, the President's budget should be dead on arrival here in the Congress. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.