John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I move to table the committee-reported substitute amendment.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if there is one thing that quickly became clear at the start of the 119th Congress, it was that anything we were going to accomplish for hard-working Americans we were going to have to accomplish alone. There is always some partisanship in Congress--and healthy disagreement--but it became clear very quickly that Democrats were going to be taking partisanship to a new and rarefied level in the 119th Congress. That started with Presidential nominations. It has long been standard practice in the Senate to expedite uncontroversial nominations to allow a President to get his team in place. But from the very beginning of the 119th Congress, Democrats made clear that the history of bipartisan cooperation was over. Democrats chose to slow down every single nomination, no matter how uncontroversial, for the majority of the 119th Congress. But slow- walking nominations was just the beginning. At the top of our priority list for this Congress was preventing the massive tax hike that was set to hit hard-working Americans. And for a party that claims to be the party of working men and women, you would think the Democrats would have been eager to work with us. They weren't. Not only were they not interested in working with us, but every single Democrat in both Houses of Congress voted against tax relief for the American people. They voted against preventing a massive tax hike, and they voted against all the new tax relief Republicans implemented--from no tax on overtime to a new bonus deduction for seniors. And just in case you thought Democrat opposition was a matter of high-minded principle, since Republicans passed the Working Families Tax Cuts, a number of Democrats have tried to associate themselves with some of the tax relief in the bill despite universally opposing the legislation in Congress. And the partisanship continues. Last week, the Senate attempted to take up legislation on an issue of great importance to working families; namely, energy prices. The legislation we tried to take up, the Ratepayer Protection Act, would have protected hard-working Americans from the increased energy costs associated with data centers. The bill was so obviously commonsense that it passed the House overwhelmingly, with almost every Democrat as well as Republican supporting it. But in the Senate, Senate Democrats objected to passing the bill, and so it failed. Presumably, Democrats wanted to deny Republicans the legislative success in the lead-up to the elections, even though hard-working Americans are the ones that are going to pay the price. The same thing happened yesterday. Republicans and the White House have been negotiating for the better part of a year with Democrats over permitting reform legislation--a long-overdue priority that would help lower energy bills for American families by streamlining Federal regulations for energy projects. And we closed a deal with them that we could bring to the floor that incorporated essentially all of the Democrats' demands. But when it began to look like we could consider the bill this work period, Democrats changed their tune. Because while they may acknowledge the need for permitting reform, what they really care about is denying Republicans another legislative win. This is an example of, again, just blatant partisanship. Republicans and Democrats have been working for months on a bipartisan basis with two committees of jurisdiction: the Environment and Public Works Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the two committees that have jurisdiction over all of the elements related to permitting reform. And I have had Democrats come up to me on the floor countless times and say: We really want to get this done. We are working together. The White House will work with us on this or that. So we communicated with the White House. The White House has been engaged in these conversations and discussions for the past several weeks and essentially gave the Democrats the things they were asking for. Democrats can't take yes for an answer. It is like they caught the car and they don't know what to do. They said ``we want to work on this'' because permitting reform affects not just energy projects but projects in every sector of the economy. Energy projects--of course, obviously, both conventional energy and renewable energy projects are being affected by the delays and the bureaucracy and the redtape and the excessive litigation that comes with trying to do anything in this country of major consequence. So both sides had agreed this was a worthwhile objective: Let's work together. Let's see if we can sit down and hammer out a compromise that incorporates the concerns, the issues, that both sides bring to the table. And that has been going on for months. I have been watching it, getting regular readouts, talking to Members on both sides--Democrats and Republicans--on both committees of jurisdiction and others who are interested in this issue. And we get to a point where Democrats flat can't take yes for an answer. So why is that? Well, if you agree on the substance, if you come to an agreement on the policy, which they had--I mean, everybody in these negotiations, in the discussions, have basically said: OK. This is the deal. Here is the counteroffer; counteroffer back; counteroffer back. The last counteroffer from the Democrats was agreed to by the White House, by our Senate Republicans. They couldn't take yes for an answer. So the only conclusion one can draw is that the Democrats have concluded that it is good politics for them not to allow the Republicans to ``get a victory'' or the President to ``get a victory'' in the middle of a political season. That is really the only conclusion you can draw, after literally months and months and months of bipartisan negotiations in which the very last offer put on the table was one made by Democrats and accepted by the White House and Senate Republicans. That is where we are. That is what it is. Let's call it what it is. It is blatant politics. So my Democrat colleagues may talk a good game about working families, but the truth is that hard-working Americans take a distant back seat to Democrats' political priorities. Perhaps the most spectacular example of the party of ``no'' came last fall when Democrats shut down the government for 43 days--the longest full government shutdown in history--over a clean, temporary, and nonpartisan spending bill. That is right. It was clear that Congress would need more time to get the fiscal year 2026 appropriations bills finished, so Republicans proposed a clean, short-term funding measure free from poison pills or partisan policies. Let's just fund the government so we can continue the conversation about how we are going to fund it for the full year. Democrats, well, they just said: No, not going to do it. It didn't matter to them that the bill was nonpartisan. It didn't matter to them that it would only be in effect, actually, for a few weeks. And it certainly didn't matter to them that they were putting literally thousands of Americans out of work. They blocked it. A clean, nonpartisan spending bill, and they shut down the government for 6 weeks. Of course, the fall 2025 government shutdown wasn't the only time this Congress that Democrats just said no to government funding. In the spring, Senate Democrats initiated the longest partial government shutdown in history due to their unwillingness to fund immigration law enforcement or border security. That is right. The Democrats kept the Department of Homeland Security--the Department of Homeland Security-- shut down for an unprecedented 76 days. And while they eventually agreed to reopen most of the Department, they still refused to fund immigration enforcement or Border Patrol. Clearly, democratic socialism and its philosophy of zero immigration enforcement and open borders has gained a lot more than a foothold in the Democrat Party. Whether the subject is protecting opportunities for women and girls in sports or tax relief for hard-working Americans, Democrats have spent the past 21 months throwing up every roadblock that they can. And I am proud that, despite the incredible amount of Democrat opposition, we still managed to accomplish a lot for the American people--from regulatory relief and border security to the Working Families Tax Cuts. There is more work to be done, and I hope that we will get the chance to continue our work not only in this Congress but also in the next. Given the Democrats' obsession with opposing President Trump and their demonstrated opposition to bipartisan cooperation, I think it is safe to say that hard-working Americans would undoubtedly take a back seat in a Democrat-led Congress. And the American people, they deserve better than the party of ``no.'' 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. Mr. President, there is no doubt that the Democrat Party has moved sharply left in recent years, but this election cycle has seen the Democrat Party take a big step further toward full-blown socialism. New York City's new Democrat mayor, a self-proclaimed Democrat socialist, might be the most notable example, but he is far from alone. Around the country, socialists have been winning Democrat primaries, and it is no exaggeration to say that socialism is rapidly gaining a prominent new role in the Democrat Party. So let's talk a little bit about socialism and the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America. When you look at the platform, right away, you see some predictable things; namely, government control of almost everything. Healthcare, business, housing, education, energy-- all of these sectors would come under government control in a democratic socialist state. And when I say ``government control,'' I don't just mean they would be hit with a lot of regulations; I mean government control. Government would become the ultimate decisionmaker for American families in most aspects of their life. Take healthcare, for example. We often talk about the doctor-patient relationship in medicine. Well, under democratic socialism, that would be a lot more like the government-patient relationship. It is the government that would decide what healthcare Americans are eligible for, what medications they can take, and when and where they are able to access care. Americans place a high value on choice and freedom, but freedom and choice do not last very long when government takes over, and under democratic socialism, government would be truly taking over. I could dedicate a whole speech to what happens when government takes control of the economy and the means of production and of healthcare and education and energy. But there is more to the Democratic Socialist platform that I want to talk about. I guess I have to hand it to Democratic Socialists. Despite their plan for government takeover of most aspects of American life, they do have a couple of cuts on the table. But the nature of those cuts is a big problem. Democratic Socialists would like to defund the Pentagon; they would like to abolish immigration enforcement; and they would like to eliminate the police. That is right. The official platform--the official platform of the Democratic Socialists states that their goal is to ``demilitarize police departments, disempower police unions, and redirect funding to public services as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system.'' Think about that: ``as steps towards fully abolishing the police and prison system''--the official platform of the Democratic Socialists of America. I don't think I need to explain to anyone just how unhinged that is. If anyone thinks we can keep our communities safe while fully abolishing the police and prison system, I have some oceanfront property in South Dakota to sell them. The problem is that Democratic Socialists do believe this. Swept up in their utopian fantasies, they believe that by implementing the right system--socialism--they can somehow do away with human evil and remove the need for police or prisons--or armies, for that matter. But, of course, no system is going to be able to fully eliminate evil. No matter how many social programs you put in place or how much education the government provides, there are always going to be men and women who choose to harm others for their own ends. And the idea that we would eliminate the men and women who protect society from these people-- well, again, I don't think I need to explain to anyone just how quickly the peace and safety that we take for granted would evaporate, on both the local and national scale. And the Democratic Socialist platform doesn't end there. Everything I have discussed so far would remake our country on a massive scale to the point of its being unrecognizable as the free, secure, and prosperous Nation that we have known over the past 250 years. But Democratic Socialists would take it even further. Their platform calls for officially changing our system of government, for eliminating the Senate and replacing ``the President and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary chosen by and subordinate to Congress.'' Those aren't tweaks around the margin; that is a full abolishment of the American system. That is the elimination of the checks and balances that define our government and help prevent any one branch from exceeding its lawful authority, and it is the elimination of real protection for minority rights. ``[W]e know complete victory will require building a new society from the ground up'' the authors of the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America write. And that is exactly what they propose to do: eliminate the American system and build another in its place. And this is the political organization that is currently finding a home in the Democrat Party. Democrats are giving a home to an organization that is not merely dedicated to the radical expansion of government but to the actual elimination of our system of government. Why? Well, at its worst, socialism moves into full-blown communism-- the economic system that characterized the Soviet Union and oversaw not merely the exploitation of workers and ordinary people but the complete loss of freedom for millions and the death of millions more. And just in case you think that has nothing to do with the Democratic Socialists of America, think again. The Wall Street Journal reports that several members of the Democratic Socialists' National Political Committee are ``dedicated Marxists and communists.'' One of the organization's national cochairs, in fact, is a member of the Democratic Socialists' Red Star Caucus whose goal is not merely socialism but communism. Communism--the hallmark of some of the world's most repressive regimes. So I ask again, why are Democratic Socialists finding a home in the Democrat Party? 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. Mr. President, last week, I came to the floor to discuss some of the things this Republican majority has delivered over the last 2 years: permanently lowering taxes for families, a secure border. We have worked to bring down the cost of prescription drugs and make home ownership more affordable, and we have delivered regulatory relief and tax policies to help our Nation's small businesses as well as family farms and ranches. Republicans have spent the last 2 years delivering on our agenda, and it should be pretty clear what we stand for: more money in your pocket, safer streets, and new and more opportunities to get ahead. Our Democratic colleagues, however, have spent much of the last 2 years opposing this agenda. They have cast a lot of ``no'' votes and criticized Republicans' agenda at seemingly every turn. So one has to wonder: What do Democrats stand for? What is their vision for this country? Well, I think their last stint in power is pretty instructive: Democrats' vision for the country looks a lot like the Big Government vision Democrats have implemented in California. You don't have to take my word for it. A Los Angeles Times headline a few days before President Biden took office read ``Make America California again? That's Biden's plan.'' ``California,'' the article went on to say, ``is emerging as the de facto policy think tank of the Biden-Harris administration and of a Congress soon to be under Democratic control.'' That is right. In the words of the L.A. Times, Democrats leaned on California for inspiration in setting a progressive policy agenda for the Biden administration. Democrats' push to raise taxes mirrored California's high tax rates-- the highest individual rates in the country. The Biden administration's disastrous approach to illegal immigration embraced the sanctuary policies and soft-on-crime laws for which California is the poster child. On regulation, Democrats were determined to follow the lead of the most regulated State in the Union--especially on energy. Never mind the fact that over the years, Californians have faced rolling blackouts, been asked to limit their electricity usage, and paid some of the highest energy prices in the country--Democrats still tried to take the California plan national. On more than one occasion, the Biden administration basically gave the pen to California regulators to write the rules that would affect all Americans. That is what happened with electric vehicles. The Biden administration not only implemented its own California-style electric vehicle mandate, it also allowed California to impose a de facto EV mandate on the rest of the country. Fortunately, Republicans rescinded that mandate just last year, and our work continues to block other mandates of the same sort. We have a number of resolutions in the pipeline to address painful California regulations that have created de facto mandates for the entire country. Senators Ricketts and Husted have resolutions related to California's strict emissions standards targeting gas-powered vehicles. Senator Schmitt has another on California's unrealistic emissions standards for cars. Senators Sullivan and Moreno have introduced resolutions related to commercial shipping vessels. Senator Lummis' resolution would block a California rule restricting small motors for things like lawnmowers and leaf blowers. Yes, as this list suggests, California will regulate just about anything that moves, ignoring the fact that these types of rules restrict consumer choice and lead to higher prices for working families. As I mentioned, California's rush to electrification strained its power grid to the point that it faced rolling blackouts and high energy prices, and regulators had to ask residents not to charge their electric vehicles at certain hours. It confounds me as to why we would try to do the same thing nationwide. And that is exactly what Democrats tried to do during the Biden administration. Over the summer, U.S. News & World Report released its ranking of States on a number of criteria. Here is how California ranked: 46th in energy, 41st in pre-K through 12 education, 48th in employment, and 50th in affordability--last place. And I struggle to think of a Democrat who has critiqued the way California is run. Instead, as I have said, Democrats continue to seek to impose a California-style regulatory regime on the whole country. And when it comes to illegal immigration, the national Democratic Party is now to the left, if you can imagine that--to the left of California. Earlier this year, national Democrats tried to completely defund Border Patrol and immigration enforcement, a move that would have effectively made America a sanctuary country. And I fully expect that a Democrat government here in Washington would be spending taxpayer dollars on benefits like healthcare for illegal immigrants, as California has done. President Reagan, the Governor of California in another era, once said: If a State is badly managed, the people will either do one of two things: They will either use their power at the polls to redress that, or they'll go someplace else. Well, Americans are leaving California in droves. In each of the past 6 years, the Golden State has had the largest net loss of population on the U-Haul index. Businesses and employers are leaving, taking jobs and opportunities to other States. That should be instructive. That should be instructive to us here. But Democrats don't--or perhaps won't--take the hint. California ranks last--dead last--in affordability, but it is the first place Democrats look to for ideas on how to govern. We could do better. Republicans are doing better. And that is why so many Californians are moving to red States and leaving Democrats' failed policies behind. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk on the underlying bill.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I send a cloture motion to the desk for the Cruz-Cantwell substitute amendment No. 6776.

Mr. THUNE. I ask consent the reading be waived.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask consent the reading be waived.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I have an amendment to the instructions.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to recommit with instructions.

Mr. THUNE. I ask the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I move to recommit the bill to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation with instructions.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I have a second-degree amendment at the desk.

Mr. THUNE. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. THUNE. I ask the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. THUNE. I have an amendment to the text of the underlying bill.

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. And I ask unanimous consent to waive the mandatory quorum call with respect to the Mitchell nomination.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, late summer in South Dakota is one of my favorite times of the year. And as usual, I spent a lot of it crisscrossing the State, talking to South Dakotans and seeing some of the great things that are happening from Sisseton to Spearfish to Sioux Falls. Late summer, of course, is fair season, and I made the rounds of multiple fairs: Brown County, Turner County, Butte-Lawrence Counties, the State fair, Dakotafest. I love the chance to meet so many South Dakota families and to hear what is on their minds. And, of course, if I can eat a little fair food while I am at it, it is even better. I particularly value the opportunity I have at these fairs to hear from the men and women of South Dakota's leading industry, which is agriculture. The Aberdeen Area Chamber of Commerce hosted a terrific agribusiness meeting at the Brown County Fair, and the Dakotafest congressional forum always provides me with a lot of valuable feedback from South Dakota farmers and ranchers. Outside the fair circuit, I also had the chance to talk to South Dakota ag producers at a number of other stops, including the CHS Southwest Grain elevator in Lemmon and the Midwest Agricultural Export Summit. Farmers and ranchers are facing a lot of headwinds right now, and I am committed to do everything I can in Washington to help producers. I am proud that the Republicans' Working Families Tax Cut legislation strengthened a number of programs producers depend on, such as crop insurance and commodity and livestock programs. And while I am disappointed that my Democratic colleagues have chosen to put politics ahead of producers and unanimously opposed the farm bill, which was voted on yesterday at the Senate Ag Committee, I haven't given up. Another big perk of the past few weeks has been the opportunity to visit South Dakota small businesses. I got to tour Gameday Social's new headquarters in Sioux Falls, sit down with ranchers and other community leaders at the Lazy Spurr in Bison, tour Woodland Cabinetry in Sisseton, and more. I love hearing from small business owners about how the Working Families Tax Cut is helping their businesses, and I value the opportunity to hear what else we can do in Washington to help small businesses grow and thrive and create jobs. It is always an honor to get to talk to the men and women who put their lives on the line to protect their fellow Americans. Over the past few weeks, I had the chance to visit with South Dakota sheriffs at a roundtable in Flandreau, chat with members of the Lemmon Volunteer Fire Department, and show the Under Secretary of the Army around Ellsworth Air Force Base. Anticipation is building for the arrival of the B-21 bomber, which is the future of the long-range strike, and we had some great discussions about the preparations that are underway. We also had the opportunity to meet with leaders of the South Dakota industrial base and academia about their contributions to the joint force, like the work that VRC Metal Systems in Box Elder is doing on cold-spray maintenance technology. There were so many other great moments from my travels: getting to tour Spearfish High School's Career and Technical Education Center; visiting Dakota State's Applied Research Corporation to discuss how South Dakota can be a leader in cyber security and national intelligence; interacting with students at Black Hills State University; participating in the groundbreaking of the James Abdnor Center for Advanced Manufacturing at Southeast Technical College, which is a deeply meaningful moment for me as a former Jim Abdnor staffer. Late summer in South Dakota can't be beat, and I am very proud to be from our great State. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 828.