John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 296, S. Res. 526.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the resolution.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I have three requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: committee on armed services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet in closed and open session during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 14, 2026, at 8 a.m. committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 14, 2026, at 10:30 a.m. committee on the judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 14, 2026, at 9 a.m., to conduct an executive business meeting.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture motion with respect to S. 4344 be withdrawn.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. It doesn't seem to matter who President Trump nominates-- the Democrats blindly oppose them. Democrats aren't interested in a person's qualifications. All they care about is opposing President Trump, and it has been that way since he took office last January. President Trump is the only President on record who has not had a single--single--civilian nominee approved by voice vote or by unanimous consent here in the U.S. Senate--the only President in history. Democrats have dragged out the process on every single one of his nominations. The fact that two Democrats voted for our former colleague Markwayne Mullin to be Secretary of DHS, in this day and age here, appears to be an act of courage in today's Democrat Party--even though it was a vote that traditionally would have been widely bipartisan, if not unanimous, but not when Democrats are in the throes of Trump derangement syndrome. It is shameful--it really is--but Republicans aren't letting it stop us. In September, we took steps to restore Senate precedent on largely noncontroversial Presidential nominees to ensure that no other President has to face the kind of petty--and I mean petty--partisanship that President Trump is encountering. Very soon, we will vote on a fourth nominations package containing 49 Trump nominees who have had their hearings and markups and are ready for confirmation, and we will keep moving forward. I know that Democrats aren't happy that Donald Trump is the President, but that doesn't mean that nominations should be held up for purely political reasons. As the Democrat leader said just a few years ago: That doesn't mean we don't disagree. But it does mean when nominees are held up, opposed, or blocked--it's for a legitimate purpose, not for leverage in partisan games . . . Well, unfortunately, Democrats have made it pretty clear that they are only--only--interested in partisan games since President Trump took office, but we have got a country to run, and Republicans are doing our job. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, later today, the Senate will finish considering the nomination of Kevin Warsh to be the 17th Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Leading the Federal Reserve System is an enormous task. The decisions the Fed makes affect Wall Street and Main Street and kitchen tables all across the country. So it is critical that we have people who understand not only the macro--the global economy and the markets--but who appreciate the microeconomy, and that is the hard-working Americans, their jobs, and their livelihoods. Kevin Warsh is just such a person. He credits his knowledge of the real economy to growing up in Upstate New York where his dad ran a children's clothing store and manufacturing company. From Shaker High School, he went on to Stanford University and then Harvard Law School. He then started a career on Wall Street, but he shifted to public service and joined the Bush administration's economic policy team in 2002. Four years later, President Bush nominated him to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. At age 35, Kevin Warsh was unanimously-- unanimously--confirmed here in the Senate and became the youngest Governor in the history of the Federal Reserve. Being the youngest person to take a seat in the Federal Reserve's boardroom is impressive enough, but Kevin Warsh didn't just take his seat--he was a key player during the time he was on the Board. Kevin Warsh seems to have just the profile of a Federal Reserve Chairman; yet Democrats oppose his nomination. That is right. For the first time in its history, the Banking Committee reported out a nominee for Fed Chairman on a party line vote because every single Democrat opposed Mr. Warsh's nomination--and, actually, only one Democrat was even present for the vote. The other 10 Democrats on the Banking Committee didn't even bother to show up for it. And, yesterday on the floor, all but one Democrat opposed the first of Mr. Warsh's two nominations: his nomination to be on the Board of Governors. He has already had that job, and a number of Democrats actually supported his nomination the last time; but those same Democrats voted yesterday against appointing him to the Board, and I suspect they will do the same when it comes time to vote on his other nomination to be the Chairman later today. I wish I could say I am surprised, but this is just how bad Trump derangement syndrome has gotten on the other side of the aisle. Democrats won't say so, but that is what it is. I expect we are going to hear Democrats attempt to justify their opposition by suggesting that a Chairman Warsh would somehow threaten the Fed's independence. I have to say that is a pretty serious claim and one that doesn't really have any basis in reality. To begin with, Mr. Warsh's testimony before the Banking Committee should have put any concerns about his independence to rest, but if the depth of his commitment to Fed independence were at all unclear, I recommend my colleagues review a speech he gave in 2010, entitled ``An Ode to Independence,'' in which he said: Central bank independence is precious . . . Ensuring Fed independence--as the cornerstone of institutional credibility--is our charge to keep. It is central to what the Federal Reserve represents, and to how policy is conducted. Or they could ask Randall Kroszner, who served with Warsh on the Fed Board, who said: He's not an ideologue. Since I've known him, he was someone who tried to get things done. Or maybe--maybe--they could just ask the Democrat leader, who introduced Kevin Warsh at his 2006 confirmation hearing. He said then of Warsh: He knows unequivocally that the Fed must be independent, nonideological, and nonpartisan, and for this reason, I am proud to support his nomination. That was the Democrat leader's comments, who is now leading the charge in opposing Warsh's nomination.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Kyler Gohlke, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Kyler is a graduate of Waconia High School in Waconia, MN, and a recent graduate of Concordia College in Moorhead, MN, having earned a degree in finance. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Kyler for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Hayes Hansen, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work she has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Hayes is a graduate of Custer County High School in Miles City, MT, and a recent graduate of Black Hills State University in Spearfish, SD, having earned degrees in political science and international studies. This fall, Hayes plans to attend the University of Nebraska College of Law in Lincoln, NE. Hayes is a dedicated worker who has been committed to getting the most out of her experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Hayes for all the fine work she has done and wish her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today I recognize Elijah Suwyn, an intern in my Washington, DC, office, for all the hard work he has done for me, my staff, and the State of South Dakota over the past several weeks. Elijah is a recent graduate of Biola University in La Mirada, CA, having earned a degree in political science. He is a hard worker who has been dedicated to getting the most out of his internship experience. I extend my sincere thanks and appreciation to Elijah for all the fine work he has done and wish him continued success in the years to come.

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, last week was Small Business Week, and I was glad to be able to host a business roundtable, last Monday, in Aberdeen, SD, and hear directly from small business owners in my State. I was also able to visit the Business and Health Innovation Center on the campus of Northern State University, which houses the Northern Innovation and Startup Center that provides support for aspiring entrepreneurs in northeastern South Dakota. Small Business Week is an important celebration, but the impact that small businesses have is felt literally every day of the year. Nearly half of Americans in the private sector work for a small business. Small businesses are responsible for a majority of the new jobs in this country, and a lot of Americans' first jobs were at a small business, mine included. There is nothing small about the impact that small businesses have in our country, and Republicans know that any path to economic strength runs through small businesses. That is why they were a key focus of the tax relief we delivered in the Working Families Tax Cuts last year. This landmark bill locked in the lower small business tax rates that Republicans enacted in 2017, giving them certainty to plan for the future. It also made the 199A small business deduction permanent. I have heard positive feedback on 199A across industries in my State. In South Dakota, an agriculture cooperative estimates the impact of this one policy at over $100 million since 2017, and that money has been able to be passed on to the farmers who are members of that co-op. I am sure that those farmers, like so many small businesses across the country, are relieved that 199A is here to stay. Mr. President, 199A is just one of the policies in the Working Families Tax Cuts that help free up money so small businesses can invest in their operations and in their employees. Another is the 100- percent bonus depreciation, which is also now a permanent feature of the Tax Code. Bonus depreciation allows business owners to deduct the full cost of a new piece of equipment the year they start using it, rather than spreading that deduction out piecemeal over several years. Say you are a farmer, and you need to replace your combine, or you are a manufacturer who needs to upgrade your machinery, or you are a plumber who needs a new truck. Those are all big expenses, especially for a small--maybe even, in some cases, a one-person--operation. So bonus depreciation helps small businesses take on that big expense by allowing them to deduct the entire thing in that 1 year. And the impact will be significant. In fact, a car dealership in my State was able to build an addition and hire 10 more people because of bonus depreciation. A lot of our small businesses and farms and ranches in South Dakota are family-run operations. Many of them have been in the family for generations, and the plan is to keep them--keep them--in the family for generations to come. Unfortunately, the death tax has too often threatened these plans. When one generation passes the business on to the next, the death tax can take a big bite out of it. It can be devastating, forcing families to sell all or part of their family business, farm, or ranch just to satisfy a big tax bill, not to mention the costly estate planning expenses that many families incur to keep their businesses from being ruined by a death tax bill. I am very proud that the Working Families Tax Cuts protects a lot more family businesses from this unfair tax. In this bill, Republicans permanently raised the exemption threshold on the death tax, and a lot of small business owners, farmers, and ranchers have breathed a sigh of relief that they won't have to worry about losing their livelihoods when they lose a loved one. Last week was Small Business Week. It was also Travel and Tourism Week. In South Dakota, tourism is one of our leading industries. Last year, 15 million people visited the Mount Rushmore State. They came to see that iconic monument, to see the South Dakota Badlands and the bison herds at Custer State Park. Some came for conferences in Sioux Falls, others for our legendary pheasant hunting. All told, last year, tourism brought $5 billion to South Dakota's economy, and I have to think that a lot of that money was spent at our State's small businesses: at our restaurants, coffee shops, and breweries; with tour operators, hunting guides, and outfitters, and many more. Like the other small businesses in our State, businesses in the tourism industry are benefiting from tax relief in the Working Families Tax Cuts: lower small business tax rates, investment incentives, and the 199A small business deduction. Some of the most positive feedback I have heard from small business owners about the Working Families Tax Cuts is how much this bill helps their employees. The ``no tax on tips'' and ``no tax on overtime'' provisions in this bill are especially--especially--game-changing for folks in hospitality and tourism. That includes waiters and bartenders, of course. It also includes people who work as tour guides, entertainers, and drivers. Many Americans look forward to the summer for a few days away with their families. For those who work in hospitality and tourism, summer means more customers and more money, and the Working Families Tax Cuts ensures that more of the money they earn stays in their pockets. Democrats may try to claim the Working Families Tax Cuts was about billionaires, but the American people know the truth. Farmers, ranchers, and small business owners know it is helping them free up money to meet their expenses and invest in their operations and in their employees, and hard-working Americans can see that the Working Families Tax Cuts lets them keep more of their hard-earned money. We call it the Working Families Tax Cuts for a reason, and I am proud to report that working families are benefiting.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as if in legislative session, I understand that there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, in order place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceeding.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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 a lot to do over the next 2 weeks: confirm Kevin Warsh to the Federal Reserve, approve a nominations package, and fund law enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security. That last item should not need to be on our agenda. We should have been able to have funded border security and immigration enforcement officers as part of the final Homeland Security funding agreement, but my Democrat colleagues refused. In fact, the Democrat leader said today that Democrats will fight legislation to fund law enforcement at DHS with ``every tool we have.'' It is difficult to believe that we are here again. We all remember the ``defund the police'' movement embraced by the left and members of the Democrat Party. We also remember how cities who moved to defund the police backtracked in pretty short order because it turns out, as even some leftists came to realize, we need police officers; we need law enforcement. We live in a fallen world, and there are always going to be people out there who seek to hurt and exploit the innocent, and we need men and women who will stand between the innocent and danger. We need men and women who courageously dedicate their lives to law enforcement. All of this should go without saying. I can scarcely think of anything more obvious, but, apparently, the need for law enforcement is not obvious to my Democrat colleagues because they are right back to a ``defund the police'' position. This time, it is defunding law enforcement at the Department of Homeland Security, specifically Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the men and women--the men and women--who patrol our borders and take dangerous criminal illegal immigrants off of our streets. Mr. President, when I say defunding law enforcement and DHS, I don't mean reducing the budget. I mean complete and total defunding. My Democrat colleagues refused to provide a single dollar for the men and women who protect our borders. They refused to provide a single dollar for the men and women who take dangerous criminal illegal aliens off of our street. And I want you to think about that for just a minute. My Democrat colleagues, apparently, believe there should be no physical presence at our borders and no law enforcement officers to deport dangerous criminals who have entered our country illegally. We had 4 years of chaos at the southern border under President Biden, but at least we had the Border Patrol, overstretched as it was. Now Democrats, apparently, believe in removing all law enforcement officers from our Nation's borders. I shouldn't need to state the obvious here: that we need border security and immigration enforcement officers to protect our Nation, just as we need police officers and FBI agents and Secret Service agents and all of the law enforcement officers who serve our communities. Democrats might like to pretend otherwise, but there are dangerous individuals who would like to make their way illegally across our border--drug traffickers, human traffickers, other criminals, terrorists. And the men and women of the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement are the men and women who stand between us and these dangerous individuals, who turn them back at our borders and take them out of our communities, if they do manage to make their way into our country. These are the men and women my Democrat colleagues want to defund-- not reform. Nope, my Democrat colleagues repeatedly rejected reforms. They want to defund and defund completely--zero--zero agents at our border, zero agents to deport criminals here in the United States illegally. That is what my Democrat colleagues opted for. It is Police Week this week, a week to honor our Nation's law enforcement officers and remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice while protecting our communities. Perhaps--perhaps--it will remind my Democrat colleagues of just how much we rely on law enforcement and just how much we need all--all--of our Nation's law enforcement officers.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 296, S. Res. 526.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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 are a Nation of immigrants, but we are also a Nation of laws. That is a commonsense statement and one on which Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree. But, lately, Democrats have proved that they don't really think we are a Nation of laws. In fact, they don't really seem to care whether some of our laws, particularly laws dealing with border security and illegal immigration, get enforced at all. And they are even trying to defund the very Agencies that enforce those laws. That is right: no funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement; no funding for Border Patrol. This is what passes for a reasonable proposal in the Democrat Party today. Democrats apparently think it is reasonable to have nobody patrolling the southern border. They think it is reasonable to let criminal illegal immigrants continue living freely in our country. If that is the Democrats' position, I guess it just proves how far to the left their party has moved. While our Democrat colleagues try to appeal to the ``defund the police'' crowd, Republicans are doing our job. Last week, Senate Republicans moved forward to begin a process that will allow us to fund Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement without-- without--Democrats. And in order to prevent Democrats from trying to defund law enforcement again in September, we are going to fund these Agencies for the next 3 years. We are going to give these law enforcement officers certainty that they won't be used as political pawns by Democrats and that they will be able to do the job they were hired to do. And that is an important job. Protecting our borders and deporting criminal illegal aliens are essential components of our country's security. It is unfortunate that Democrats don't agree. Last week, the Democrat leader said that Border Patrol and ICE are two Agencies that ``nobody respects in this country.'' ``Nobody respects Border Patrol and ICE.'' That is what he said. Apparently, the fact that there are men and women putting their lives on the line to ensure dangerous individuals don't enter our country does not merit respect from Senate Democrats. I guess it is no surprise. After all, Democrats have a history of failing to respect our immigration laws. The Biden administration clearly did not believe in enforcing immigration laws, and the result was 4 years of recordbreaking illegal immigration under President Biden's watch. Millions--millions--were coming here illegally every single year, and a whole lot of those people were waved through and allowed to take up residence in this country. And long before the Biden border crisis, Democrat-led cities and States were implementing sanctuary city policies that prevented their law enforcement agencies from working with Federal law enforcement to get criminal illegal immigrants off our streets. These misguided policies have had tragic consequences. Laken Riley is just one example. Mr. President, 2 years ago, Laken was murdered while out on a run on the campus of the University of Georgia. Her killer was an illegal immigrant who should never have had the opportunity to get near her. He entered the country illegally during the Biden administration. He was released into the interior and was subsequently arrested in New York City and later issued a citation for shoplifting in Georgia a few short months before Laken's murder. After being arrested in New York City, he was released before Immigration and Customs Enforcement could issue a detainer, a request that police hold an individual so that he could be taken into immigration custody. And so this individual, here in the United States illegally--and subsequently involved in two crimes--was free on the University of Georgia campus when Laken Riley went running in February of 2024. A man, who had illegally entered our country and then committed not one but two crimes in our country, should not have been free on our streets, but he was because of open border and sanctuary policies implemented by Democrats. The Democrats haven't learned their lesson. Today, Democrats are advocating for defunding border security and immigration enforcement. They are advocating for a return to the policies that led to tragedies like the murder of Laken Riley, policies that led to a crisis at the southern border and made America and Americans less safe. Thanks to Democrats, we have seen what happens when our immigration laws aren't enforced. No one--no one--wants to go back to that--no one, I guess, but Democrats. We are not about to let that happen. Republicans will continue to work to ensure that our borders are secure and that dangerous criminals are not on our streets.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 728.