MEMBER OF CONGRESS

John Thune

Follow by RSS

Thune, the Senate’s Republican leader, spends most of his floor time advancing his party’s agenda: defending the Working Families Tax Cuts, the Rural Health Transformation Program, farm bill priorities, and confirmation of the administration’s nominees, frequently with South Dakota examples such as Ellsworth Air Force Base, CRP grazing, and local businesses. He routinely frames Democrats as reflexively partisan, attributing Senate blockage of bills to election-year politics and portraying the party as moving toward socialism and California-style policies, and he often draws sweeping conclusions from limited evidence—for instance, inferring Democrats’ electoral motives from a bill’s House passage or a collapsed negotiation, or inferring toleration of illegal voting from opposition to photo ID—rather than establishing those motives directly. He does support many claims with specific figures—nomination confirmation rates, tax cut totals, program funding amounts by state—and, unusually for a party leader, he tends to stay on the question at hand and argue in measured, largely non-inflammatory language even when characterizing opponents sharply. Alongside partisan speeches, he handles the Senate’s routine procedural business and regularly pays tribute to interns, constituents, and South Dakota institutions.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
B+
83 / 100 over 54 statements
Signal 71 / 100
Relevance 68 / 100
Reasoning 80 / 100
Respect 100 / 100
Clarity 97 / 100
Averaged over the 54 of 92 statements graded so far.

In their own words

Statements 92

Senate ·

Orders for Thursday, October 1, 2026, Through Monday, November 9, 2026

“I am asking the Senate to set its schedule. We will take a break with no regular work until November 9. When we come back, we will return to this bill and vote to move it forward.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned, to then convene for pro forma session only, with no business being conducted, on the following dates and times: Thursday, October 1, at 10:30 a.m.; Monday, October 5, at 4 p.m.; Tuesday, October 6, at 1:30 p.m.; Friday, October 9, at 1:30 p.m.; Tuesday, October 13, at 3:30 p.m.; Thursday, October 15, at 9:30 a.m.; Monday, October 19, at 9 a.m.; Thursday, October 22, at 9 a.m.; Monday, October 26, at 2 p.m.; Thursday, October 29, at 2 p.m.; Monday, November 2, at 4:30 p.m.; and Thursday, November 5, at 10:30 a.m.; further, that when the Senate adjourns on Thursday, November 5, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Monday, November 9; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 453, H.R. 2347; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 5:30 p.m., the cloture motion filed during today’s session of the Senate ripen.

Senate ·

Resolutions Submitted Today

“I am asking the Senate to take up and consider this group of thirteen resolutions together.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions, which are at the desk: S. Res. 936, S. Res. 937, S. Res. 938, S. Res. 939, S. Res. 940, S. Res. 941, S. Res. 942, S. Res. 943, S. Res. 944, S. Res. 945, S. Res. 946, S. Res. 947, and S. Res. 948. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc.

Senate ·

Indian Health Service Emergency Claims Parity Act

“I ask the Senate to pass this bill right now without any debate.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Senate ·

Pit River Land Transfer Act of 2026

“I am asking the Senate to approve the changes to this bill and pass it right now without any more debate.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Senate ·

Quinault Indian Nation Land Transfer Act

“I ask the Senate to accept the changes to this bill and pass it right now without debate.”
Official Congressional Record

I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendments be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Senate ·

Snow Water Supply Forecasting Program Reauthorization Act of 2026

“I ask the Senate to accept the changes to this bill and pass it right now.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Senate ·

Modernizing Outdated Regulations to Expand American Fuel Act of 2026

“I ask the Senate to approve the changes to this bill and pass it right now.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported substitute amendment be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Senate ·

Skills-Based Federal Contracting Act of 2025

“I am asking the Senate to take up this bill right now.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 571, H.R. 5235. The clerk will report the bill by title. The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows: There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Senate ·

Appointment Authority

“I ask that Senate leaders be allowed to appoint people to committees and boards while the Senate is on break.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the upcoming adjournment of the Senate, the President of the Senate, the President pro tempore and the majority the minority leaders be authorized to make appointments to commissions, committees, boards, conferences, or interparliamentary conferences authorized by law, by concurrent actions of the two Houses, or by order of the Senate.

Senate ·

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR (Executive Session)

“I ask everyone to agree to approve this nomination right now without debate.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 931; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate’s action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Senate ·

Business Before the Senate

“I want the Senate to pass two bills this week. The first bill stops members of Congress and their families from buying stocks, and it requires voters to show a photo ID. The second bill makes data centers pay for their own electricity so everyday people do not face higher energy bills. Democrats in the House voted for these ideas, and Democrats in the Senate should vote for them too.”
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, the theme of the Senate this week is common sense. Today, we will be voting on two eminently commonsense pieces of legislation: the Stop Insider Trading Act and the Ratepayer Protection Act. The Stop Insider Trading Act actually pairs two commonsense measures: a stock purchase ban for Members of Congress and a voter ID measure. Neither requires much explanation. To ensure that Members of Congress and their families are not benefiting financially from insider knowledge of the market, the stock purchase ban would prohibit Members of Congress, their spouses, or their dependent children from purchasing stocks issued by public companies while the Member is in office. It would also ensure transparency when it comes to stock sales by requiring Members of Congress and their immediate family to provide advance, public notice of any stock sale. And these rules are enforced with real penalties. It is a pretty simple measure but an important way to ensure that Members of Congress are held to the standards that Americans should be able to expect of their representatives. The other half of the Stop Insider Trading Act is also pretty simple. It would do nothing more than require that Americans present a photo ID when they go to vote. That is it. Very simple and something that has the overwhelming--overwhelming--support of the American people. And when I say ``the American people,’’ I mean the American people-- Republicans, Democrats, Independents, everyone. While this vote should be a no-brainer, I do have some concerns, because while the American people overwhelmingly support a photo ID requirement, for some bizarre reason, congressional Democrats have decided that photo ID for voting is a step too far. I say ``bizarre’’ because I haven’t seen Democrats crusading against showing ID in any of the other situations where Americans are required to present their photo identification. My Democrat colleagues don’t seem to have a problem with showing photo ID to board an airplane, to rent a car, to start a new job. They don’t seem to have a problem with showing photo ID at the doctor’s office or when buying alcohol or when opening a bank account. They don’t seem to have a problem--if the Presiding Officer can believe this, they don’t seem to have a problem with having a requirement to show a photo ID at their own political events. Think about that. It is only when it comes to voting that congressional Democrats suddenly, inexplicably see photo ID as a terrible problem, even though not only the majority of Americans but the majority of Democrats support photo identification. It is pretty hard to explain the Democrats’ position, but I suspect one of two things is going on here. Either Democrats are just reflexively opposing this proposal because it came from Republicans or Democrats believe that there are, in fact, people out there voting illegally and that it is benefiting Democrats and they would like to keep that going. I will say that 13 House Democrats found voter ID and the stock purchase ban to be so common sense that they broke with their party and supported the Stop Insider Trading Act when it moved through the House. I would love to see Senate Democrats follow their example. I guess we will see soon enough. In addition to the Stop Insider Trading Act, the Senate will be voting on the Ratepayer Protection Act this week as well. I know I have used the words ``common sense’’ a lot lately, but as I said, it is the theme of this week’s legislation. And the Ratepayer Protection Act is as common sense as it gets. It would simply promote the adoption of a standard that would require data centers to shoulder the electricity costs associated with their operation and construction. That is it--a simple piece of legislation designed to protect hard-working Americans from the increased energy costs associated with data centers. The Ratepayer Protection Act passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives, with almost every Democrat--almost every Democrat--as well as Republicans supporting it. So you would think it would have had a pretty easy passage through this Chamber as well, but when we brought this legislation up here in the Senate a couple of weeks ago, Democrats objected. For what reason, I don’t know--presumably a political one. Given the overwhelming support for this measure in the House, it is difficult to conclude that Democrats blocked this bill for any reason other than the desire to deny Republicans another win in an election year, which is a pretty poor reason for opposing a measure to protect Americans from higher energy costs. But they have another chance this week, and I guess we will see. Will Democrats support commonsense measures like a stock purchase ban, photo ID to vote, and protection from higher energy costs? Or will they continue to play politics? I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Senate ·

Adjournment Until 10:15 A.M. Tomorrow

“I ask that the Senate end work for the day and meet again tomorrow at 10:15 a.m.”
Official Congressional Record

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. There being no objection, the Senate, at 8:16 p.m., adjourned until Wednesday, September 30, 2026, at 10:15 a.m.

Senate ·

Orders for Wednesday, September 30, 2026

“I ask that the Senate finish work for today and meet again at 10:15 a.m. on Wednesday, September 30. I also ask that we agree to the schedule and voting rules for that day.”
Official Congressional Record

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:15 a.m. on Wednesday, September 30; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate be in a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motions filed during Monday’s session of the Senate ripen at 11:30 a.m.; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Wednesday’s session of the Senate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate’s action.

Senate ·

Resolutions Submitted Today

“I am asking the Senate to take up these seven resolutions together.”
Official Congressional Record

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions, which are at the desk: S. Res. 922, S. Res. 923, S. Res. 924, S. Res. 925, S. Res. 926, S. Res. 927, and S. Res. 928. There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolutions en bloc.

Senate ·

Expanding Access to Capital for Rural Job Creators Act

“I am asking the Senate to take up this bill right now.”
Official Congressional Record

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1190 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Senate ·

Tribal Access to Electronic Evidence Act

“I am asking the Senate to accept the amendment and pass this bill.”
Official Congressional Record

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Cortez Masto substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Senate ·

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative Act of 2025

“I ask everyone to agree to this change and pass this bill.”
Official Congressional Record

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Peters substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Senate ·

Legislative Session

“Our rural health program is spending $50 billion across all 50 states to help local hospitals, clinics, and mental health centers. It lets states decide how to use the money to fix their own problems. Democrats keep trying to repeal this funding, but rural communities need it, and we should keep it.”
  • Speech in the House

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Congressional Record

Mr. President, we are coming to the end of the first year of the Rural Health Transformation Program. This multiyear initiative created in Republicans’ Working Families Tax Cut legislation will invest $50 billion in all 50 States to put rural healthcare providers on a more sustainable footing for the future. Beyond helping to ensure that Americans in rural areas can access healthcare, it will also ensure that providers are able to leverage technology and innovation to address the challenges unique to rural States. One year in, this program is off to a promising start, and that is certainly the case in my home State of South Dakota. Just last week, CMS announced a $13 million investment in behavioral and mental health care in South Dakota. This funding will help expand crisis services and build out our State’s workforce in behavioral healthcare, and it comes after another announcement in August of funding to modernize technology and strengthen cyber security at rural healthcare providers in South Dakota, an initiative that will not only modernize care in my State but also support future innovation to address the unique needs of rural South Dakota. When Republicans created the Rural Health Transformation Program, last summer, we didn’t take a top-down, Washington-Senate approach. Instead, we designed it to give States the resources and freedom to find solutions to their particular challenges, and I am proud to see South Dakota taking the same approach when it comes to distributing the funding that it will receive. In the words of South Dakota Secretary of Health Melissa Magstadt, ``the initiatives that we’ve developed came strictly from the assessments we had, the expert input we garnered, and what citizens themselves said they needed in the community.’’ That is exactly how the Rural Health Transformation Program is supposed to work, and it is not just working in South Dakota. As I mentioned, all 50 States are taking advantage of this transformative program. Ohio is putting $3 million toward expanding offerings at pharmacies in rural communities. A nearly $5 million award will help a hospital in central Maine update its electric medical records system to integrate it with the wider health system it is part of. Providers in Kansas will benefit from nearly $17 billion this year to support new technologies and improve transportation options for specialty healthcare. And Missouri will use $35 million to support 20 rural hospital projects and another $4 million to train its rural EMS workforce. A hospital in South Carolina will use funding to add an additional operating room and upgrade its technology. And a nonprofit in Alaska received $16 million to improve primary care offerings and bring in more providers and staff. This is just some of the funding States are receiving for the first year of this program. As this list suggests, the Rural Health Transformation Program will make an impact in every corner of this country. All 50 States are receiving funding from this program, red States and blue States alike, which makes Senate Democrats’ opposition to this program particularly baffling. Our Democrat colleagues have made their opposition to the Rural Health Transformation Program very clear, with the Democrat leader going so far as to say this last year: Let me repeat that. That is from the Democrat leader. Well, perhaps the Democrat leader should check in with his State’s Governor, who said of a recent $76 million investment from this program: That is from New York’s Governor. Let me repeat that: Well, that doesn’t sound like fraud to me. But whether this would help the people in rural parts of their States didn’t seem to matter to Washington Democrats. In fact, Senate Democrats voted more than half a dozen times, last year, to repeal--repeal--the Rural Health Transformation Program. That is right. Around this time last year, during Democrats’ record-long government shutdown, Senate Democrats were working to end this program. I am curious if the Democrat leader would like to claw back the $212 million that rural healthcare providers in New York are going to receive from this program this year. Should already-strapped rural hospitals not spend this money because Democrats are going to take it back the next time they have the power to do so? Let’s hope it never comes to that. The Rural Health Transformation Program is helping Americans in rural areas across this country. It is helping South Dakota, Ohio, Idaho, Kansas, Rhode Island, Alaska, and everywhere in between. And I am proud that Republicans are delivering for rural Americans. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Senate ·

Legislative Session

“Republicans passed tax cuts that are helping small businesses and family farms grow. Millions of businesses are saving money, hiring workers, and paying their employees more. We also cut taxes on tips and overtime, and we protected family farms from being sold off to pay taxes after someone dies.”
Official Congressional Record

Madam President, so far this year, 4.3 million Americans have filed to start their own business. That is a 13-percent increase over the same time last year. As these entrepreneurs get underway, their businesses will be able to take advantage of the pro-growth tax reform the Republicans enacted last year in the Working Families Tax Cuts. Because we delivered permanent tax reform, an entire generation of American small business owners, entrepreneurs, and innovators will have a better environment in which to pursue their American dream. Small businesses are already benefiting from this landmark law. This year, 12 million small business owners saw a lower tax bill, a $7,000 average tax cut. That is the result of lower tax rates across the board, the permanent 199A small business deduction, immediate expensing for new equipment and for factory construction, and the permanent research and development tax credit. These tax policies are helping small businesses across an array of industries as well as family farms and ranches across America. That is certainly true in my home State of South Dakota. An agricultural co-op in my State says the 199A small business deduction, which Republicans first implemented with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act back in 2017, has allowed them to pass $140 million in tax savings back to South Dakota farmers over the last decade. A car dealership in Sioux Falls was able to put an addition on and hire 10 new employees thanks to the bonus depreciation provision. Just to the west, a rancher in Montana said, thanks to the Working Families Tax Cuts expensing provisions his ranch ``will be able to upgrade equipment, increasing [its] efficiency without being hit by a huge tax burden.’’ U.S. Metal Powders--a manufacturer in Palmerton, PA--has broken ground on a new production line that will allow the business to double the size of its workforce. A convenience store operator in Denver has said the Working Families Tax Cuts will help him double the size of one of his stores and reopen two others, allowing him to grow job opportunities at his company by 50 percent. They are not the only ones. Businesses across the country have been able to make investments in new equipment, raise their employees’ pay, and create jobs because of the tax policy in Republicans’ landmark bill. One thing that business owners invariably bring up when they talk about the Working Families Tax Cuts is what it does for their employees. They talk about how they have been able to increase pay--not to mention the fact that more of that pay stays in their employees’ pockets. The Working Families Tax Cuts was responsible for no tax on tips and overtime, which allows hard-working people to keep more of their hard- earned money. And then there are the benefits employers have been able to offer because of this legislation. A business owner in Chicago has made long- term investments in paid maternity leave and a 401(k) matching program. Another company in Missouri is giving its employees a profit-sharing bonus. A number of employers are pledging to invest in the Trump Accounts that their employees have been able to set up for their children. And provisions in this legislation support employer efforts to offer childcare and help repay their employees’ student loans. I said that the Working Families Tax Cuts provides tax relief that will help small businesses and family farms and ranches for years to come. And on that point, perhaps no policy is as significant as the death tax relief we provided in this bill. For a lot of family businesses, especially ag families, the death tax has cast a dark shadow over their dream. It is a cause for anxiety, especially among farmers and ranchers, businesses that might look well- off on paper but are actually cash poor. Their wealth is tied up in land, tractors, combines, and livestock. But because that doesn’t matter when it comes to the death tax, many families have had to sell off all or part of their operation just to pay the tax bill when a family member dies. Eliminating this fundamentally unfair tax has long been a priority of mine, and I am proud that the Working Families Tax Cuts permanently raised the exemption threshold on the death tax, which means that a lot more families will be protected from losing their livelihood when they lose a loved one. This was an important priority for Republicans last year, and it is encouraging to see farmers and ranchers breathing a sigh of relief with the burden of this tax off of their shoulders. One farmer in Iowa said: A rancher in Montana said: Thanks to this bill, family farms and ranches and family businesses have a fair shot at staying in the family for generations to come. These are just some of the results of the Working Families Tax Cuts, and I can’t overstate how significant this bill is. The owners of a small business in Arizona wrote in their local paper last year that if Congress had not passed the Working Families Tax Cuts, they ``would have had to raise prices and cut costs, and over time, the pressure would have only increased.’’ They are not alone. This Republican majority has worked hard to put more money in American families’ pockets, in many cases by getting government out of the way. We have delivered permanent--permanent--tax relief. We rescinded a number of Biden-era regulations that would have reduced choice and raised prices for Americans. We passed a housing bill that eliminated a lot of redtape that has driven up the cost of home ownership and implemented new measures to drive down prices at the pharmacy counter. Republicans are working to put more money in hard-working Americans’ pockets and help America’s small businesses grow. We are setting the conditions for a brighter future and keeping the American dream alive and strong for future generations. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Senate ·

Legislative Session

“Democrats have spent this entire Congress blocking our work. They delayed the president's nominees, voted against tax cuts, and walked away from a deal to make energy projects easier to build. They also caused two long government shutdowns. They care more about stopping Republicans than helping the American people.”
Official Congressional Record

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.