John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, later today, we expect the Democrat leader to force a vote on undermining the filibuster in hopes of forcing through a Federal election takeover to give his party an advantage in future elections. Make no mistake about it, that is what we are talking about--federalizing elections in this country; usurping, preempting States, where elections have been administered and regulated since the inception of this country. The method--the method--that you are talking about using to do it will literally undermine and blow up everything the Senate was supposed to be. Now, you can say that the filibuster is used to prevent or block things from happening, and that may be true. You have done it. We have done it. Used a 60-vote threshold last week to stop a bipartisan Russia sanctions bill from passing in the U.S. Senate. Both sides have done it. But the filibuster is representative and symbolic of something much larger, and that is, the very essence of what the Senate is about. I want to read for you from the Federalist Papers because there has been a lot of quoting of the Founding Fathers over here today. This is what the author of Federalist 62 notes: [A] senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy. . . . Secondly. The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. To go on, the author of Federalist 62: [A] continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence and every prospect of success. In the first place, it forfeits the respect and confidence of other nations, and all the advantages connected with national character. The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed? Ladies and gentlemen, our Founders created this institution to be separate and distinct from the House of Representatives for a reason. And what you are talking about doing today is turning the U.S. Senate into a majoritarian body no different--no different--from the House of Representatives except with longer terms and, some people would argue, bigger egos. That is what we are talking about doing. They won't need us. Yes, we have longer terms; they are staggered. But the essence of the Senate is a check and balance on the passions of the other body, and there is a reason why the Founders created it. Now, I represent a red State, South Dakota. I am not a racist, nor are the people whom I know in the State of South Dakota. Our State legislature, like most States' legislatures, pretty much every year comes up with ideas. Some of them--a few of them--not most, but a few get enacted into law. A lot of them end up on the cutting room floor, which is where most legislative ideas end up. And there are some crazy ones. I would argue we have some crazy ones coming out of here. There are some pretty crazy bills that get introduced around here, most of which, gladly, never make it into law. But in South Dakota, our legislature meets every year, like most legislatures, introduces a bunch of bills, acts on them, conducts hearings, and moves them through the legislative process. Some become enacted and signed into law; most don't. One of the bills that did get signed into law was a bill that created a photo ID to vote. It was passed in 2003. It has worked well in South Dakota. People support it, not just in South Dakota but across the country. And after passing in 2003, the 2004 election had the largest turnout in modern history, at least for the years for which we have that kind of information available, as 78.6 percent of people voted in the 2004 election after-- after--2003, when the South Dakota legislature passed a photo ID law. Now, I think there are some ideas out there that are pretty bad, and I am not one who is here to dispute the 2020 election. The 2020 election is over. It has been decided. It was the largest turnout since 1900. It was the largest turnout in 120 years, which is why you all are arguing that these States are going in and changing things to prevent high turnout. Well, in most of the States that I have seen--at least that I can tell--the legislation that I have looked at that have been passed and enacted are things that in most cases people would say: Well, yeah, that is probably within the purview of the State legislature. The State of Georgia, for example, in terms of days in which you can early vote, actually has more early voting--more early voting, more permissive early voting--than the State of New York or the State of Delaware, the President's home State. There is no-excuse absentee voting. We have that in South Dakota. We have a long period for absentee voting or early voting in South Dakota, much longer than what we are talking about here. In a red State, the State legislature decided that, thought it made sense. But no-excuse absentee voting is something that we do in South Dakota, something that is allowed for in Georgia but is not in the State of New York or the State of Delaware, because the States decide it, as it should be. About standing in line and giving people things while they are standing in line to vote, the State of South Dakota has a law against that, too. It is called electioneering. It is called electioneering. Now, there isn't anything that I understand of Georgia law that doesn't prevent an election worker from going out and giving somebody a glass of water or something to eat. There isn't anything that says that 150 feet away--which is 50 yards--50 yards away, you can't feed people lunch. All it says is, when somebody is standing in line, that political operatives shouldn't be electioneering, going out and handing things out to induce people to vote a certain way. Ladies and gentlemen, don't blow up the U.S. Senate and everything that the Founders intended the Senate to be about over an issue that, for all intents and purposes--and you can say it is not--but it is federalizing our elections. It is taking power away from States to make the laws that govern our elections. And thank God in 2020 the States did things the right way. The States certified on time, in accordance with the law, the 2020 election. And if we hadn't had that, if we had sucked all that power up here to Washington, DC, and centralized our elections, what do you think would have happened? I mean, I think there is a reason why we have a decentralized system, and I think it makes sense for a country as big as ours, particularly at a time when we are worrying about other countries hacking our elections. It is a lot harder to hack 50 States than it is one computer system here in Washington, DC. But that is what we are talking about, and you can't sugar coat it. You can disguise it and you can say it is Jim Crow 2.0 and all that, but it is federalizing elections in this country and taking power directly away from the States. I lost my first Senate election back in 2002. I was ahead on Wednesday morning. Tuesday night and Wednesday came and went. On Wednesday morning, I was sitting in my living room in Sioux Falls, SD, watching the television, and I watched my 3,300 vote lead become a 524 vote deficit, like that because one precinct came in from one of the Reservation counties in South Dakota, and they voted 94 percent--93 percent--against me, and I lost that election. And I had all these people, all of these smart political minds around the country and in South Dakota, say: You have to contest it. There are irregularities. You know there are irregularities. I thought about it, and we did a little bit of looking into it, but, a day later, I decided to say the election was over. I lost that first election. And you know what, that is what happens. Sometimes we win; sometimes we lose. What you all are trying to do here is create a system, it seems to me, at least, where you give your side a permanent advantage. And I don't--I mean, that is your prerogative. If you want to do this, that is fine in terms of having the issue and talking about it. But the one thing I just fundamentally disagree with is how you are proposing to do it--to literally do away with everything the Senate was designed and created to be by our Founders and has served a purpose very, very well, and you all did it the last session of Congress. You filibustered numerous coronavirus bills. You filibustered police reform. You filibustered pro-life legislation, and then go down the list. And like I said, you used the 60-vote threshold last week to keep a Russia sanctions bill--a bipartisan Russia sanctions bill, I might add--from passing the Senate. And you can go on and look at all the statements you have all made through the years, and I am not going to repeat them, because you heard them over and over again. But I think it is important to remember one thing, and that is, when you make statements like that, they do have a shelf life. And some of that shelf life is pretty short, because it was just a few years ago, in some cases 3, 4 years ago; in some cases, 1 year ago, 2 years ago. A lot of you have statements publicly, clearly out there, defending the filibuster: Doing away with it would be doomsday for democracy; turn America into a banana republic. Don't do it. I am just saying, don't do it. There has got to be somebody over there who gets this. I mean, we had the pressure to do this. You know that. Thirty-four times, our President in the last administration--34 times--tweeted publicly, demanded that Republicans get rid of the filibuster, and we resisted it. And I have had people in the media ask me. And I have heard that your side is saying, too: Well, the Democrats, you know, if we don't do it now, Republicans will do it. No, we are not going to do it--not if you don't. If you do, then sure, then all bets are off. And then the Senate becomes the House of Representatives and policy changes every 2 years or 4 years, depending on who is in power. There is no stability. There is no predictability. There is no moderation, and there is no incentive for this body to work together across the aisle. That changes permanently. I hope that doesn't happen because I don't think that is what we should be about--certainly not what we should be about. But that is where this is headed if--if--if you move forward, if you change the rules, overthrow the rules to do this. Mr. President, we are better than this. Our country is better than this. Our Founders created a system that was designed to provide that moderation, provide that continuity, to provide that stability, to provide that predictability in a way that what is being talked about today would completely destroy and undermine, not only in the near term but permanently--because you can't do this once. You can't turn this off. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Once you do this, it is a new state of play in the U.S. Senate, and that is a whole new world, not just for us but for the people we represent, for our Nation and for the world. I hope and pray that there are enough wise Democrats on your side that will join with all of us to resist the pressure that you are feeling, like we did when our President came to us and said you have to do this. We aren't going to do it because we understand what it means, and you should too. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, just a quick observation or two about what my colleagues from New Hampshire and Connecticut were just speaking to, and that is the issue of the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. I intend to talk about another subject, but as I was listening to their dialogue on that subject, there were a couple of things that I thought were important to respond to. They had indicated that there is a bill offered by Senator Menendez on their side of the aisle that they thought would get 90-plus votes here in the U.S. Senate. I would say to my colleagues on the Democratic side that Senator Cruz, as he was advocating for a vote on his amendment, offered that up. He offered up a vote on Menendez and a vote on his amendment to Menendez, and that was turned down by the Democrat leadership. So that was put forward as an offer by the Senator from Texas, Senator Cruz. Just to also make the point--this isn't something that is a new issue for him. He has been advocating on the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline for years. In fact, there were sanctions put in place under the previous administration, which I think had been quite effective. With respect to holding State Department nominees, sometimes around here, you have to get people's attention in order to get a vote on something. I mean, he didn't have to hold nominees in the last administration because they allowed for a vote. In this administration, that has not been the case. He has been trying for literally weeks and months. I happened to be here in the wee hours of the morning a few weeks ago on a Friday evening when this was being discussed, and we were waiting for some agreement between him and the Democrat leadership about giving him a vote on this amendment. Ultimately, when he got the vote on his amendment, he turned loose 40-some State Department nominees. So I think he has in this case played fairly, played by the rules in the Senate, and exercised the leverage he has as a U.S. Senator to ensure that he got a vote on an issue that is critically important, not only to him and I would say to this entire body but to our country and certainly to our allies in that region. There is one final point I will make. Everybody, as they were talking about this, was saying: Wow, you know, this is--all of a sudden, this issue has become a relevant one. Well, it has always been a relevant one. Defending and supporting people in Ukraine and making sure they have a democratic government that allows for self-rule is something that I think all of us in this country want to see happen. But I think one of the reasons it has come to a head is because last year--not last year but 2 years ago, the previous administration--the Senators from New Hampshire and Connecticut were going after Senator Cruz and other Republicans for not paying attention to this issue a long time ago. We have been paying attention to it for a long time, but one thing that has intensified that attention is the fact that the Russians now have tens of thousands of troops on Ukraine's border. That is a new issue and an issue that I think demands the attention of this body, our country, our government, our State Department, and the American military, in conjunction with our allies in that region. This is a critical time. It is very important that a strong message be sent. I am not sure why you would wait until after the Russians cross the border and occupy Ukraine before you do something that might deter that kind of bad behavior. I think the reason they have amassed the troops they have on the Ukraine border is because they perceive the change of administration, perhaps a different view, and, in fact, I think that buildup started in the spring of 2021 under this administration. So just to make the point that the vote we will have this afternoon on Senator Cruz's proposal on Nord Stream 2 has been a long time in the making--he has, I think, consistently worked this issue, advocated for this issue in a way that any Senator who is trying to get a vote around here would. I think with respect to why this issue is now particularly relevant in light of our national security interests is the fact that the Russians do have literally tens of thousands of troops sitting on Ukraine's border at a time when the world is a very dangerous place, and that region in particular faces considerable peril because of the neighborhood in which they live. So I would hope that this afternoon when this Nord Stream 2 vote comes up, that it will enjoy broad bipartisan support recognizing the value and importance of the message it sends. Also, I might add, because it was also pointed out by the two Senators who were just here, that this is something that the Ukrainian Government is asking us to do. They suggested this was something that isn't desired or wanted, and it, in fact, is. Many of us participated in a conference call on Christmas Eve with President Zelensky in which he voiced support for this. I think he and his country, his government, and his people realize how important it is that a message be sent to their neighbors and that the American Government, in concert with our allies in this region, send a very strong statement with respect to that particular issue. So I hope that we get a good, strong vote this afternoon and that it won't be a party-line vote. It is at 60, meaning it will take some Democrats to vote with Republicans. But I can't think of a time when the stakes have been higher for the people of Ukraine or, frankly, for that matter, for that region in its entirety. Inflation Mr. President, I want to shift gears now, if I might. Yesterday, we learned that in December, inflation hit its highest level in 40 years-- 40 years. Inflation reached 7 percent in December, the seventh straight month that inflation has been over 5 percent. Today, we discovered that year-over-year inflation for domestically produced goods increased even more, by a massive 9.7 percent. Americans are struggling under steep increases in grocery prices, fuel prices, utility prices, and the list goes on. Despite wage increases in 2021, American families experienced a de facto pay cut, with their purchasing power shrinking thanks to inflation, and there is apparently no end in sight. Given the real economic harm that American families are suffering as a result of this crisis, you would think the issue would be front and center here in Washington for Democrats, but you would be wrong. In fact, a lot of the time, inflation doesn't even seem to exist on Democrats' radar. Democrats can't be bothered to pay attention to a real crisis with real economic consequences for American families because they are too focused on their manufactured voting rights crisis. Earlier this week, President Biden traveled to Georgia, which has become the Democrats' poster child for the supposed assault on voting rights, to deliver a speech to gin up support for the Democrats' partisan election bill, and what a speech it was. In the course of his overwrought and bombastic remarks, the President, who once vowed to bring Americans together, managed to imply that half the country is racist. Never one to let the truth get in the way of a good story, he continued his bizarre habit of falsely claiming that he had been arrested in various situations. He laid out, perhaps, the weakest case for a voting rights crisis that you can imagine. The President, of course, used Georgia's thoroughly mainstream 2021 election law as his main example. Here is what he had to say. Here is what the voting rights crisis amounts to: First, according to the President, Georgia is making it harder to vote by mail. Now, I am guessing he might be referring to the provision of the Georgia law that asks voters to write in their driver's license numbers on their absentee ballots. Given that almost every American in this country has a driver's license or some form of photo ID, I have got to say that it doesn't seem like an unduly burdensome requirement. After all, New York City and Washington, DC, are now requiring you to present a photo ID and proof that you have been vaccinated before you can enter any restaurant or public place, and liberals seem OK with that, but, apparently, to the President, Georgia's measure is Jim Crow 2.0. The President continues by accusing Georgia of limiting drop boxes. Ballot drop boxes have become a bizarre fixation of Democrats engaged in trying to persuade Americans that the right to vote is under attack. The truth is that Georgia didn't even use drop boxes until the 2020 election and that Georgia's new election law now requires at least one drop box in each county is hardly a criminal attempt to restrict drop boxes. But let's be honest here. Even if Georgia decided to eliminate drop boxes entirely and return to its pre-2020 status quo, Georgians would still have ample opportunities to vote. Georgia's new law mandates a minimum of 17 days of early voting--17 days--and Georgia provides for no-excuse absentee voting, which means any Georgia citizen can request an absentee ballot for any reason whatsoever. That, of course, is a far more generous voting policy than those offered by the President or the Senate Democrat leader's home States. The President's home State of Delaware doesn't offer no-excuse absentee voting, and it is just starting to offer early voting this year--remember, Georgia with 17 days early voting, no-excuse absentee voting. Similarly, the Democrat leader's home State, Senator Schumer's home State of New York, offers just 9 days of early voting in contrast to Georgia's 17, and New York--the State of New York--on their ballot, recently rejected a ballot measure to allow no-excuse absentee voting. So no-excuse absentee voting is not allowed in New York, but it is allowed in Georgia, with 9 days early voting in New York and 17 in Georgia. Yet, somehow, the President hasn't yet visited Delaware or New York to accuse them of making it difficult for citizens to vote. I will believe in Democrats' supposed commitment to protecting the vote when I see the Senate majority leader come to the floor and excoriate New Yorkers for attacking voting rights. Continuing on with President Biden's speech, we come to, perhaps, the most ridiculous example the President and Democrats have used in their attempt to convince Americans that voting rights are under assault, and here I am going to quote directly from the President's speech: [T]he new Georgia law actually makes it illegal--think of this--I mean, it's 2020, and now '22, going into that election--it makes it illegal to bring your neighbors, your fellow voters food or water while they wait in line to vote. . . . I mean, think about it. That's not America. That's what it looks like when they suppress the right to vote. That is what it looks like when they suppress the right to vote? Really? I mean, I have to give President Biden credit for delivering that line with a straight face because that is pretty much the most absurd claim Democrats have made in the course of this debate. The President, of course, is referring to the provision of Georgia's election law that prohibits individuals or organizations from giving food or drinks to voters within 150 feet of a polling place. Now, just for purposes, again, of comparing and contrasting, the Democrat leader's home State of New York--Senator Schumer's home State of New York--has a similar provision preventing voters in line from being given anything, including food and water, whose retail value is in excess of $1. This is the State of New York--the State of New York. But people are blowing a gasket over this provision in Georgia law--the very provision the State of New York has in law today. I would argue, in most States, you can't go within a certain number of feet of a voting place if you are a political operative or a political organization. I mean, that is true in our State, and I am sure it is true in a lot of States around the country. The aim of those laws, of course, is to prevent partisan political organizations or candidates from exerting improper pressure on voters in line. Now, nothing in Georgia's law prevents partisan political organizations from setting up food trucks or lunch stations outside of the 150-foot radius and feeding voters to their hearts content--150 feet. That is 50 yards. Of course, Georgia's law explicitly allows nonpartisan poll workers to make water available to voters. An election worker, somebody who is involved with the actual vote itself, can deliver water to voters if they are waiting in line. It just prevents political operatives and political organizations from doing that--a law that, again, is consistent with laws throughout the country, including--including--the State of New York. Yet I suppose it is typical of nanny-state Democrats to think Americans are incapable of packing themselves a snack. I am pretty sure--pretty sure--I have never seen a weaker case for a crisis. Take a look at Democrats' supposed evidence, and their case crumbles to dust, which, of course, raises the question of what is behind Democrats' manufactured crisis. Unfortunately, I think we know the answer. The Democrats have manufactured the supposed voting rights crisis in the hopes of forcing through election legislation that they hope will give them an advantage in future elections. More than one Democrat has openly admitted that Democrats want to pass a Federal election takeover because they think it will help their party win elections. I don't blame Democrats for running scared. Between their inflation crisis, their border crisis, the President's humiliating, disastrous retreat from Afghanistan, the November election results in Virginia, and the fact that just one-third of the American people approve of the job the President is doing, the Democrats have reason to be scared about their 2022 electoral prospects. Filibuster Mr. President, instead of addressing the inflation crisis they helped to create or, perhaps, moving their agenda from the far left and closer to the center, the Democrat leaders have decided that the solution to improving their electoral chances is to pass a partisan Federal takeover of election law and to break the Senate rules to do it. Apparently, they don't care what damage they do to the Senate and the country in the process. If Democrat leaders have their way, the longstanding protections for the minority in the Senate and the millions upon millions of Americans the Senate minority represents will be swept away in the name of, perhaps, improving Democrats' electoral prospects. Although, I have to say, in the Washington Post Fact Checker about the Georgia law, which, by the way, gave the President four Pinocchios--four Pinocchios, which is pretty much the biggest whopper you can get--for his statements last year about this Georgia election law, they went on to say that the analysts who have looked at this--a lot of the analysis has been done by so-called election experts--think that it will expand--expand--the opportunity for people in Georgia to vote. All of this is disheartening, to say the least, because I think we all know that, in the end, if you are going to blow up the Senate rules, that that has consequences that go on for a very, very long time. There are Democrats in this Chamber today who still express, I think, regret for what happened in 2013, with respect to the executive calendar--which deals with executive branch nominees and judicial branch nominees, judges--because it led, in 2017, to the Republicans retaliating, following suit, with Supreme Court Justices. I don't think you can--assume for a minute that, at some point, this flips. If Democrats blow up the rules to do this and create, I have to say, a manufactured crisis in order to do it, then you are not going to be able to blame Republicans, because once the rules are gone, the rules are gone. Then we become the House of Representatives, a total majoritarian body with longer terms. That is not what the Founders intended. This place is here for a reason. It is here to represent the rights of the minority, the people who didn't win the vote, the people who might be in the minority party, who ought to have some say and some voice in the laws that are made here and the policies that are made here that are going to affect them and their families. I am hopeful that there are still some Democrats with doubts about this course of action, enough, perhaps, to block their leadership's partisan push. In his inaugural address, the President of the United States vowed to be a President for all Americans. On Tuesday, he made it clear that he is becoming nothing more than a President for the far-left wing of the Democratic Party. In less than a year, he has gone from promising unity to sowing division. It is a sad epitaph to a Presidency that has barely begun. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, the Democrats' campaign to break the Senate continues. I want to read a quote: The ideologues in the Senate want to turn what the Founding Fathers called the cooling saucer of democracy into the rubber stamp of dictatorship. Not my words--those are the words of the current Senate Democrat leader back in 2005 when filibuster changes were under discussion. The current Democrat leader was once, in fact, a defender of the filibuster and the role it plays in ensuring that the minority party in the Senate and the Americans it represents have a voice. In fact, the minority leader at various times has described trying to get rid of the filibuster as ``doomsday for democracy.'' He described those who were behind the effort to try to get rid of the filibuster as being in support of turning America into ``a banana republic.'' Those were statements made by the current Democrat leader when he was defending the filibuster in years past. In fact, a lot of my colleagues across the aisle have defended the filibuster and used the filibuster repeatedly when they were in the minority. In the last Congress alone, Democrats filibustered COVID relief legislation until they got a bill that they could support. They filibustered police reform legislation. They filibustered Israel legislation. They filibustered pro-life legislation--and on and on. While Republicans certainly didn't enjoy it when Democrats used the filibuster when we were in the majority, we recognized that it meant that our Senate was working the way that the Founders intended--as a place of compromise and deliberation, where the minority, as well as the majority, was represented. That is why we resisted repeated calls from the former President, our party's President, when we had the majority to abolish the filibuster. Abolishing the filibuster certainly would have made it easier for us to advance important legislation--legislation that was of value to Members on our side, things that we wanted to see get done--but we knew that sacrificing the long-term good of the Senate and the country for short-term gain was not an acceptable course of action. Let's be very clear that the gain would have been short term. If we had abolished the legislative filibuster, we could have passed a lot of important legislation, only to see it overturned as soon as Democrats took control of the legislative and executive branches. Once we returned to unified Republican government, we could, of course, have put our original legislation back in place. That is the kind ping- ponging that would be terrible for our country. Sharp changes in Federal policy every few years would mean endless confusion for Americans. Plus, free of the moderating influence of the filibuster, legislation would almost unquestionably become more extreme, which would harden and intensify partisan division not just here in Congress but in the country as a whole. Ordinary citizens would look ever more distrustful at government, which would quickly come to be seen as government for Americans of one party only--the party of power. Democrats should know all of the things that I am saying. After all, they were in the minority just 1 year ago. It is hard for me to understand how they could forget that. Do they think that because they have the majority now, that they will always have it? History would beg to differ. I realize the Democrats have hopes that if they pass their election legislation, it will help them stay in power, but surely--surely-- Democrats don't believe that 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, and the Presidency has shifted too. Even if Democrats succeed in all of their election machinations, the day will come--and probably sooner rather than later--when their party will return to the minority, and I suspect that at that point, they would 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 Democrats' move to abolish the filibuster for judges and other nominees. 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 took it to its logical conclusion. A legislative filibuster carve-out would be the end of the legislative filibuster, period. If Democrats' carve out an exception for election legislation, a future Senate would be likely to carve out an exception for something else and so on and so forth, until the filibuster was carved out of existence completely. In fact, I strongly suspect that a filibuster carve-out solely for election legislation wouldn't even survive the coming year. I can imagine my Democrat colleagues quickly deciding that some other priority of theirs was also worthy of a special exemption. It is possible that the legislative filibuster would be gone before the end of this Congress. Again, I urge my Democrat colleagues to remember their decision to remove the filibuster for judicial nominations and how quickly that came back to haunt them. They may like the idea of forcing through their legislation now, but sooner or later--and probably sooner--I can guarantee that they will regret it. The filibuster and its protection for the rights of the minority are safe so long as neither party starts to chip away at it. Once one party starts weakening the filibuster, especially on a totally partisan basis, that will be the end of the filibuster and the end of real representation for the minority in Congress. It is deeply disappointing that the Democrat leader and the President have abandoned their previous support for protecting representation for the minority. It is even more astonishing, really, that they have done so when they enjoy the narrowest majorities in Congress. It should be a reminder of how quickly Democrats could once again return to the minority and be in need of the legislative filibuster. But I know that there are Democrats out there with serious doubts about their leadership's course of action. Some would express this doubt openly, but I suspect there are others who haven't spoken up who also have serious reservations. After all, a majority of the current Senate Democrat caucus signed a letter just 4 short years ago expressing their belief in the importance of the filibuster. I cannot believe that all of them would change their position merely because the political winds have shifted. So I urge all of my Democrat colleagues to resist this blatant power grab by the Democrat leadership and preserve our longstanding commitment to representation for the minority in the U.S. Senate, the purpose for which this institution was created, and the Americans it represents. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, later today, President Biden will be speaking in Georgia as part of Democrats' effort to convince the American people that voting rights are under attack so they can justify their attempt to abolish the Senate filibuster to pass their partisan election legislation. A noted Democrat operative once famously said that you should never let a good crisis go to waste. He meant, of course, that a crisis could give you the opportunity to push things through that you might not be able to get done in the ordinary course of things. It is a lesson the Democrats have learned well. Last March, for example, Democrats used the cover of the COVID crisis to pass a so-called COVID relief bill that had very little to do with COVID relief and had a lot to do with expanding the role of government and providing payoffs to Democrat constituencies. But, unfortunately for Democrats, when it comes to election legislation, there is no crisis for Democrats to exploit, so Democrats have spent the past year busily trying to manufacture one. I say the past year, but Democrats have actually been claiming there is a voting crisis for much longer. The source of the election bill that we will likely vote on this week is H.R. 1--election legislation that was first introduced by Democrats back in 2019. Back then, Democrats told us that our election system was broken and that we needed this bill to fix it. After all, a Republican had won the last Presidential election and beat a favored Democrat candidate. Surely, surely, that meant our system was in trouble. But then the 2020 elections came along, and Democrats won the Presidency and a majority--albeit a narrow majority--in both Houses of Congress. Voter turnout was massive, and a Pew Research Center poll found that 94 percent of people found it easy to vote--94 percent. So all of a sudden, it was pretty difficult for Democrats to claim that our system was broken. But they still wanted to pass their election legislation, so they came up with a new crisis. In 2021, a number of States passed updates to their voting laws-- partly because of the challenges and special circumstances that arose as a result of the pandemic. Democrats decided that these commonsense, mainstream updates represented an unprecedented attack on voting rights. Georgia, which was one of the first to enact voting legislation, has become the poster child for the Democrats' campaign to convince Americans that their voting rights are in danger. So what terrible voter suppression measures are States imposing? Well, one provision of the Georgia law that has come in for a lot of Democrat outrage is its measure forbidding partisan political organizations from providing individuals with food or water within 150 feet of a polling place. Yes, apparently preventing partisan political organizations from providing lunch to voters threatens the very stability of our entire democracy. Now, nothing in Georgia's law prevents outside groups from providing food and water to individuals outside the 150-foot radius, and Georgia's law explicitly allows nonpartisan election workers, as opposed to political groups, to make water available to voters. Of course, I am pretty sure any voter can bring his or her own food and water. But none of that has prevented Democrats from suggesting that rules about food and water distribution at polling places represent a grave threat to voting rights. Ironically, the State of New York has a similar provision in its election law prohibiting any refreshment or provision to a voter at a polling place except if the retail value of what is given is less than $1 and the person or entity providing it is not identified. Yet I don't see the Democrats traveling to New York to decry the threat to democracy posed by the New York Legislature. After Georgia passed its voting law, President Biden got up and attacked the law for supposedly ending voting early to prevent working people from voting. He made that accusation repeatedly. The problem? There was exactly zero truth to his claim. In fact, as the Washington Post's Fact Checker column pointed out, ``experts say the net effect of the new early-voting rules was to expand the opportunities to vote for more Georgians, not limit them.'' That is from the Washington Post's Fact Checker. Let me just repeat that: [E]xperts say that the net effect of the new early-voting rules was to expand the opportunities to vote for most Georgians, not limit them. The Fact Checker gave the President four Pinocchios--a rating the column reserves for ``whoppers''--for his false claim that the law was designed to keep working Americans from voting. I would also like to point out that not only is Georgia's election reform law thoroughly mainstream, Georgia's laws are actually more permissive in some respects than voting laws in some Democrat States. Georgia offers no-excuse absentee voting. The Democrat leader's home State--Senator Schumer's home State--does not. In fact, voters in the Democrat leader's home State actually just rejected a ballot measure that would have allowed no-excuse absentee voting. I guess the Democrat leader thinks that those voters are trying to destroy our democracy. Georgia also has way more days of early voting than the Democrat leader's home State. So does Arizona, another State that has come under fire from Democrats for updating its election laws. Yet red States, according to Democrats, are the States attempting to suppress votes. It is also important to note that the Georgia law was written to address concerns from Republican and Democrat voters, including concerns raised by Stacey Abrams-affiliated groups over the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election. There is no question--no question--we should make voting easy and accessible, but there are a lot of different ways to do that. States can have different requirements and still all offer ample opportunities to vote. Also, I think my Democrat friends need a little perspective check. There are countries where individuals would consider it a privilege to be able to stand in line to vote in a free election--even if someone didn't provide them with food and water. Of course, no one wants voters to have to stand in long lines, and, in fact, Georgia's election law will make it less likely that they have to. But Democrats' dramatic claims that a long line or a lack of a drop box or, say, 9 as opposed to 10 days of early voting somehow threatens the right to vote in this country are nothing short of absurd. I have faith that Americans are capable of voting even without the Democratic Party providing them with a boxed lunch. There is no election crisis in this country. This last election-- biggest turnout in American history in 120 years. You have to go back to the year 1900 to find a time when the election turnout in an American election was equal to or exceeded what we had in 2020. What there is, is a partisan Democrat election bill the Democrats have wanted to pass since long before the Georgia Legislature reformed their election laws because they think it will give them an advantage in future elections. You don't have to take my word for it; more than one Democrat has openly admitted the Democrats want to pass a Federal election takeover because they think it will give their party an advantage in the next election. If Democrats were really concerned about the security of our democracy and the integrity of our elections, if they really cared about affirming Americans' faith in our electoral system, they would not be seeking to break the Senate rules to pass a totally--totally-- partisan election bill on a totally partisan basis. A partisan Federal election takeover is not going to do anything to strengthen Americans' faith in our system. On the contrary, it will sow mistrust and division and heighten partisanship. Instead of changing the rules to gain an advantage in the next election, I would suggest that my Democrat colleagues instead try coming up with an agenda that would appeal to a broad majority of Americans--perhaps starting with a plan to address the inflation crisis the Democrats have helped create. That would be a far better use of their time than undermining faith in our electoral system with a partisan rules change and a partisan Federal takeover of elections. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy) and the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde- Smith), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), and the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``Nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I had hoped we had put the idea of changing the Senate filibuster rule to bed when two Members of the Democratic Party in the Senate pledged to oppose any attempt to abolish the filibuster, but, unfortunately, the Democrat leader has revived this idea and has said that he plans to hold a vote on changing the filibuster rule on or before January 17. Democrats have offered a lot of bad ideas over the past year--a lot of bad ideas. But it is possible that abolishing the filibuster is by far the worst. Abolishing the filibuster would mean fundamentally changing the character of the Senate and removing one of the most significant protections for minority rights in our system of government. Our Founders recognized that it wasn't just Kings who could be tyrants. They knew majorities could be tyrants, too, and that a majority, if unchecked, could trample the rights of the minority. And so the Founders combined majority rule with both representation and constitutional protections for the minority. They established safeguards, checks and balances throughout our government, to keep the government in check and ensure that the rights of the minority were protected. And one of those safeguards was the U.S. Senate. In the House of Representatives, majority rule is emphasized, and the Founders could have left it at that. They could have stuck with a single legislative body. But they didn't. Why? Because they were worried about the possibility of tyrannical majorities in the House endangering the rights of the minority. The author of Federalist 62 notes: A senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy. . . . Secondly. The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies, to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders, into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. That is from the author of Federalist 62. So the Founders created the Senate as a check on the House of Representatives. They made the Senate smaller and Senators' terms of office longer, with the intention of creating a more stable, more thoughtful, and more deliberative legislative body to check ill-considered or intemperate legislation in attempts to curtail minority rights. As time has gone on, the legislative filibuster has become perhaps the key way the Senate protects minority rights. The filibuster ensures that the minority party and the Americans it represents has a voice in the Senate. It forces compromise. It forces bipartisanship. It encourages a greater level of stability and predictability. Even in the rare case when a majority party has a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, the filibuster still forces the majority party to take into account the views of its more moderate or middle-of-the- road Members, thus ensuring that more Americans are represented in legislation. Removing the filibuster would erase this protection and allow the majority, including an incredibly narrow or merely technical majority, as Democrats have right now, to trample minority rights. In the words of one former Senator, ``We should make no mistake. . . . It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party. . . . Folks who want to see this change want to eliminate one of the procedural mechanisms designed for the express purpose for guaranteeing individual rights, and they also have a consequence, and would undermine the protections of a minority point of view in the heat of majority excess.'' That is former Senator, now President, Joe Biden, one of the many Democrats who has opposed abolishing the filibuster, because, of course, Democrats were singing a different tune on the filibuster just a couple of years ago. When President Trump urged Republican Senators to abolish the legislative filibuster--and, I would add, dozens of times--Democrats were strongly opposed. In 2017, 32 Democrat Senators, including now- Vice President Harris and a majority of the current Democrat caucus, signed a letter urging that the legislative filibuster be preserved, and Republicans agreed and refused to abolish the legislative filibuster despite the former President's repeated urging. It is not because we didn't have a lot of legislation that we wanted to pass; we did. And we knew that abolishing the filibuster would make it a whole lot easier to advance our agenda, but we also knew that the Senate wasn't designed to let a slim majority of Senators push through whatever agenda it wanted and that abolishing the legislative filibuster would quickly come back to haunt us when we were in the minority again. And so we resisted our own President's urging and preserved--preserved--the legislative filibuster. Now, however, many Democrats, who not only supported but actively-- actively and repeatedly--used the filibuster during the previous administration to block major coronavirus relief legislation and police reform legislation, have apparently decided that rules protecting the minority should only apply when Democrats are in the minority. Apparently, Democrat minorities deserve representation, but Republican minorities do not. It is a particularly outrageous position when you consider the fact that, right now, Democrats have nothing more than a technical majority in the Senate. The Senate is currently divided 50-50. The only reason Democrats have a deciding vote in the Senate is because the Vice President is a Democrat. That is hardly the kind of majority that should make Democrats feel free to steamroll minority rights. And let me put aside the question of minority rights and Democrats' hypocrisy on this issue for just a moment. I want to talk about two things: One, my Democrat colleagues should be very sure that abolishing or amending the filibuster will come back to haunt them. That is simply the way of things. They only have to look back at Democrats' decision to abolish the filibuster for judicial nominations. I think I can speak for most of my Democrat colleagues when I say that it came back to haunt them and probably sooner than they expected. More than one Democrat, faced with President Trump's judicial nominees and his Supreme Court appointments, openly regretted their party having abolished the judicial filibuster. I would urge my Democrat colleagues to remember that. And I would urge them to remember that if they regret having abolished the judicial filibuster, they are likely to regret abolishing the legislative filibuster even more. I would also urge them to remember that they barely have a majority now, and that even the strongest majorities eventually end up back in the minority. Sooner or later, abolishing or amending the legislative filibuster will come back to haunt them. I get that my Democrat colleagues want to accomplish big things. Well, I would just like to remind them that it is possible to accomplish big things in a bipartisan fashion. I know, because we did it at the Commerce Committee when I was the committee chair, but it does require a real willingness to compromise and an acceptance of the fact that the Senate is not designed to let a narrow majority unilaterally impose its will. Finally, I urge my Democrat colleagues to think about what abolishing the filibuster would mean for ordinary Americans. Of course, it would mean decreased representation for any Americans whose party was a minority, but it would also mean highly unstable government policy and a resulting lack of confidence in government as well as a sharp increase in partisanship, which, I venture to say, is not what we need around here right now. In his discussion of the importance of the Senate as a stabilizing body, the author of Federalist 62 notes that ``a continual change even of good measures is inconsistent with every rule of prudence, and every prospect of success. . . . In the first place, it forfeits the respect and confidence of other nations, and all the advantages connected with national character. . . . The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?'' Abolish the filibuster, and we will end up in exactly the situation the author of Federalist 62 feared--with an inconsistent and ever- changing set of laws. An all-Democrat government will quickly push through whatever measures it judges to be the best, and an all-Republican government, when it takes power, will do the same. And again, neither party should be so arrogant as to think that the opposing party will never again gain control of government. The government was in unified Republican hands just 3 years ago; today, it is narrowly in Democrat hands, and it will continue to shift. Abolish the filibuster, and policy will shift sharply with it: social policy on abortion, religious freedom, and other issues; regulatory policy; tax policy; foreign policy, and the list goes on. In short, to quote Federalist 62, the laws would ``undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow.'' And such incessant changes of national policy would unquestionably heighten partisanship in this country. As the laws became more extreme, the tension between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, would only heighten--here in Congress, yes, but, most importantly, throughout the country among ordinary Americans. Our government would no longer be perceived as government of the people and for the people. It would now be perceived as government of and for Democrat Americans or Republican Americans, depending on the party in power. Democrats may think that some of the bills that they are advancing will serve the American people. Well, something else that will serve the American people is moderation and predictability in our government, and that is something that we will lose if we turn the Senate into the House of Representatives and abolish protection for minority rights. When Republicans were repeatedly faced with the prospect of abolishing the legislative filibuster during the previous administration, we said no, not because there wasn't important legislation we wanted to pass but because we knew that the best thing for our country and for our future representation in the Senate was to preserve this essential protection for the minority. I urge my Democratic colleagues to think of their future and our country and make the same decision. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to complete my remarks before the vote gets underway.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Alaskas (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio). THE PRESIDIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, before I begin, I want to express my deep sorrow at the death of former Senator Johnny Isakson. I served with Johnny for a long time, not just here in the Senate, where we came in together as freshman Members in 2005, but also in the House of Representatives, and I was honored to call him my friend. Johnny was a tremendously effective legislator and, in particular, a champion for veterans and a model of decency and graciousness. When I came down to the floor to discuss his retirement 2 years ago, I read a quote from a politics professor in Georgia that I thought really captured Johnny. I think so still. Here is what that professor had to say: As a political science professor and an administrator, I'm often asked by students if good people can serve in government and keep their integrity. Johnny Isakson is always the first example I come to. It's very often a shocking revelation to most people--that good people can, and often do, serve in government for long periods, fight hard for what they believe in, and remain true to themselves and their principles. And they don't have to sell their souls to do it. It's a great lesson, really. Mr. President, that was Johnny--a good man, one of the best I have ever known. He came to Washington to serve his State and his country and served them faithfully throughout his life. My thoughts and prayers are with Johnny's wife Dianne and with his children and grandchildren.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana Mr. Daines), the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator of Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The followig Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Sentor from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cornyn), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Iowa (Ms. Ernst), the Senator from Nebraska (Mrs. Fischer), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. McConnell), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Portman), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).