John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to complete my remarks before the Senate adjourns for the lunch hour.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to report that we are making serious progress in our bipartisan effort to respond to the shooting in Uvalde, TX, and other places around the country. Over the last few weeks, I have been working, in particular, with Senator Murphy, Senator Sinema, and Senator Tillis on mental health and school safety reforms, and we have narrowed the scope of our discussions to provisions that we believe can earn broad bipartisan support in the Senate, and a number of our colleagues on both sides have joined the discussion. Over the weekend, we announced an agreement on principles for bipartisan legislation, 20 Senators--10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. This included a range of targeted reforms to keep our children and our communities safe, from mental health resources to funding to harden schools and make them more safe. No parent should have to send their child to school wondering whether they are going to be safe at school, and certainly no student should be afraid to go to school for fear of their safety. We also included a number of targeted measures to prevent violence by people committing crimes and other dangerous individuals. I am proud of the work we have done so far, but, of course, we are not at the finish line. We are still at the beginning when it comes to drafting appropriate text. Our agreement is based on principles alone. And translating this proposal into legislative language is no easy task, as Members of the Senate understand. Here is an example of the many details that need to be ironed out: One of the big pieces of this bill relates to State crisis intervention programs and initiatives. The idea here is pretty simple: Support programs that reduce violence, protect the public, and help individuals in crisis get the help they need. But there are a number of different ways this provision could be drafted, and I am committed to ensuring that we get it done right. But I want to be clear because there has been a lot of misinformation, misunderstanding on this point. None of what we are proposing would create a national red flag law--no national red flag law. Some have mischaracterized this provision as an incentive for States to pass a red flag law, but that is something I am aiming to avoid. I trust the States to make their own decisions, and 16 States have decided to pass red flag laws. But that is fewer than half of the States with red flag laws on the books. Congress should not only send Federal funding to those States but also other States that are doing things to deal with people in crisis. And as the agreement, in principle, said, what we are focused on is crisis intervention. But there are a number of different ways that this could be approached. And I am fighting for this proposal to include a grant program that gives every State, regardless of whether it has a red flag law or not, funding to administer programs that they do have that will reduce violence, increase public safety, and make sure that individuals in crisis get the help that they need. There should be no requirement for States that do not currently have a red flag law to pass one. The existence or lack of a red flag law should not impact on any States' ability to receive funds for crisis intervention. And if a State does want to use this money to implement a red flag law, they should not be able to do so unless their red flag law contains a full set of due process and Bill of Rights protections in the Constitution. So how can States without red flag laws use this money? Well, there are a range of evidence-based programs that support our shared goal, which is, in fact, to keep communities safe and to save lives. One great example is the assisted outpatient treatment programs. These are sometimes just called AOTs. These programs allow courts to order people with serious mental illness to receive outpatient treatment as a condition of living in the community. AOTs can be life changing for people who struggle to maintain consistent mental health treatment. Programs vary from State to State but typically include medication, along with a variety of other services including counseling. AOTs rely on evidence-based treatment plans to help individuals live healthier, safer lives, and they have a successful track record. Assisted outpatient treatment programs are effective in reducing arrests and incarceration, violent mental crises, and hospital stays and homelessness. I think this is another way that States without red flag laws might be able to use the funding that we would provide under the provisions of this bill. At least that is what I am hoping we ultimately will land on. I think it would be kind of strange if we passed a national law that said only 16 States were going to be eligible for this money and you would only be eligible for it if you passed a red flag law. I think that would almost be like trying to commandeer the States' legislature and government and force them to accept something they decided not to do but because maybe they tried to do something a little bit differently, like assisted outpatient treatment, mental health courts, which have been very successful in my State and veterans courts, in particular, to focus on our veterans community who has particular challenges. While I am talking about assisted outpatient treatment, 47 States actually have those laws, and I would like the money that would be available under this fund for crisis intervention to be able to be used for that. Again, I don't support any prescriptive mandates or national mandates at all, including a national red flag. Each State should be able to make their own choices and use its share of funding in the best way it sees fit to protect the constitutional rights of somebody who is in mental health crisis or to provide other resources, like assisted outpatient treatment or mental health court adjudications or veterans courts hearings, in order to help them address their challenges. The great thing about the design of our country is that we have a national government, but we have sovereign States. Louis Brandeis once called them the laboratories of democracy. And, actually, it makes plenty of sense to me that we learned from the experience of the States that have passed red flag laws and States that have passed other types of ways to address people requiring crisis intervention. This provides the ability to innovate and to try new ideas and to come up with best practices that the Federal Government simply cannot do when you are considering legislating for a country of 330 million people. So I personally do not support an overly prescriptive grant program that favors only a few States over all 50 States. And, of course, I won't support any grant program that violates the Constitution or the requirement of due process of law when it comes to a constitutional right like the Second Amendment. So I do believe there are a range of options to improve public safety, and the States should have the funding and flexibility to invest in programs that they think best delivers the result--to save lives, to help people in crisis. And that is really what we are trying to do with this legislation. So the details are still being worked out. And we are drafting legislative text, and, of course, that is sometimes hard. Sometimes, I found that people use the same word, and they mean something different by it, or they come to it with a sort of context that maybe isn't apparent from a conversation about principles. And that is why going from the principles that 20 of us have agreed on into legislative text that we can then vote on and pass is a challenge. We know that on a sensitive topic like this, a single word or the placement of a comma can make the difference between protecting and infringing on rights. So I am laser-focused on drafting text that reflects the commonsense, targeted proposal that we have agreed to in principle. Again, we are working through the details, and I hope we will have legislative text later this week. But I am not willing to rush it for the sake of speed. I spoke with Senator Schumer, the majority leader, this morning, and he said he would like to have this bill ready to vote on next week. And I am certainly with him in terms of that aspirational goal. That means we are going to have to complete our work on the text by the end of this week so Senator Schumer will have that legislation available to take up next week. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, tomorrow will mark 3 weeks since the devastating school shooting in Uvalde, TX. Over those last 3 weeks, Senator Murphy from Connecticut, Senator Sinema from Arizona, Senator Tillis from North Carolina, and others have been working to identify steps that Congress should take to prevent similar tragedies from occurring in the future. This is not an easy debate. It is emotional. It can be divisive, but it is also very important that we act. Most often, you hear people say: Do something. Well, they don't give you a lot of guidance on what that something looks like. And when you begin to dig down into the details, you find out that there is not a lot of consensus about what that something should look like. The good news is, as a result of the work we have been doing these last 3 weeks, working with our colleagues, I believe we are making good progress. Over the weekend, there was an agreement reached between 20 Senators--10 Republicans and 10 Democrats--on a framework, or principles, for bipartisan legislation to keep our kids and our communities safe. Before I go through some of the details of this agreed framework, I want to explain what it does and what it does not include. From the beginning, I promised my constituents that when I took an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, I did not take that oath with the intention of violating it. And so I said at the outset I would not support any additional restrictions on the rights of law-abiding gun owners. There are hundreds of millions of guns in America today, and the vast majority--almost all of those gun owners--are responsible. They are not a threat to public safety. And so this being a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, there is no basis to restrict the rights of law- abiding gun owners or to restrict the constitutional rights of many of our citizens. I made clear this is a redline of mine from the outset. And this bipartisan agreement on principles makes good on that commitment. The gun-related provisions in this proposal will only impact criminals and those adjudicated mentally ill. Law-abiding gun owners will not be subject to any new restrictions, period. Our agreement also strengthens the existing background check system, something we have had strong bipartisan support for and where we have had some notable successes in the past, for example, the Fix NICS bill that passed after this tragic Sutherland Springs shooting, where an individual, who should not have been able to get a firearm because of his record of felonies and domestic violence and mental health commitments, was able to do so because the Air Force had not uploaded that information into the background check system. I am proud of the fact that, on a bipartisan basis, we passed that legislation which compelled Federal Agencies to post this derogatory information, which disqualifies people under current law, into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Since 2018, when that bill was signed into law, there have been 11\1/2\ million new records uploaded into the background check system. As I said, our agreement on the background check system in this particular legislation is an attempt to try to make sure that existing law works the way Congress intended. I am very proud of the bipartisan work that led to this framework, and I am eager to share more with my Republican colleagues this week. The various portions of this proposal can be grouped into three broad categories. One is mental health support. To prevent violence, we need to improve the availability and accessibility of mental health services across the country. If you look at the profile of these young, male shooters-- whether it is in Sandy Hook or it is in Uvalde, TX--they fit a familiar profile: alienated from their peers, suffering increasingly deteriorating mental health, not getting any treatment. It is like circling down the drain. Unless they get some help, they are likely to do what, unfortunately, too many of our young people do, and that is commit suicide. In the case of Adam Lanza in Sandy Hook and Salvador Ramos in Uvalde, they not only commit suicide--because they know they are not coming out of this alive--but they take innocent lives with them. So access to mental health support is absolutely critical. So, too, is the investment in our schools. This includes everything from physically hardening school buildings to training personnel, to more effective violence prevention efforts. We know at Uvalde the door had a lock on it but it didn't work, allowing the shooter easy access to this elementary school. All of our students--all--deserve to feel safe in their schools, and no parent should send their child to school worried that they may not come home. They deserve to know their child will be safe at school and the peace of mind that goes along with that. That is why I think these resources for additional school hardening of that soft target is very important. The final portion provides targeted reforms to keep guns out of the hands of individuals who already, by law, should not have guns to begin with. Our proposal includes resources for States to implement crisis intervention orders. Now, some have talked about red flag laws, but that is actually a broader category than red flag laws that exist in 16 States. As I said, some of this assistance for crisis intervention orders will help administer existing red flag laws, but my hope is that others will qualify for these resources for other important measures to help provide support for our communities to aid in crisis intervention, things like assisted outpatient treatment centers. As I said, 16 States have red flag laws. Texas does not, and they certainly shouldn't miss out on access to those resources for crisis intervention. But one of the things you hear people concerned with most when it comes to these red flag laws where people who are found, after an adjudication, to be a danger to themselves and others and can lose access to their firearms on a temporary basis--it is absolutely critical that each and every one of those includes protection that comes from due process of law and particularly when it comes to the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Our framework also includes protections for victims of domestic violence. It shouldn't matter whether the victim is married to their abuser; if the abuser is convicted of domestic violence, they should not be able to purchase a firearm. Our proposal also cracks down on illegal sellers and manufacturers of firearms, like the man who sold a gun to the shooter who killed 7 people and injured 25 others in Midland and Odessa out in West Texas. The shooter knew he couldn't pass a traditional background test, so he traveled to Lubbock, TX, and purchased a firearm from somebody who made knockoff AR-15s out of parts that he purchased over the internet. And, of course, no background check was done, and tragedy ensued. Our provisions also include a review of juvenile records for buyers under the age of 21. In Uvalde, Salvador Ramos was able to pass a background check only because no one had any insight--official insight--into his tortured background. I have said before he was a ticking time bomb: somebody who mutilated himself; threatened assaults, including sexual assaults, against his fellow students; somebody who posted pictures online of the weapons that he had bought and threatened online to go shoot up a school. We need to know before somebody walks in and buys a firearm when they turn 18 what their mental health and criminal record history looks like, to the extent feasible. Then we need to incentivize more States, like the States of South Carolina and Virginia that currently upload mental health adjudications even for juveniles. To be clear, we agreed on a press statement, a set of principles. That was very important and hard-fought. But now comes the even more difficult task of trying to agree on legislative text to actually implement those principles, and that is what we are working on this week. My hope is that we can complete that job in the next few days-- hopefully by the end of the week--so that the bill will be available for all Senators--indeed, all the world--to read, and then Senator Schumer will have that available, should he choose to do so, to put it on the floor of the Senate next week. There has been a lot of talk and speculation in the press about what was included in the bill, and I am pleased to say that I believe the principles we came up with will save lives. To me, that is the ultimate goal, just like the legislation we passed in 2018 to fix the background check system after Sutherland Springs. I believe the principles we have articulated, if carried out in legislative text, which I expect them to be, will save lives. That is our goal. But we also understand that we are operating here in the Senate with a 60-vote threshold, that 59 votes won't get it and any lesser number will not allow us to vote to close off debate and then to pass a bill. So I want to just talk about ideas that were left out of this deal because we knew they would jeopardize our ability to get to 60 votes. There was a lot of desire on both sides to include additional things, but they were excluded in large part because of our necessity of getting to 60 votes in order to get a bill--for example, proposals on universal background checks, assault weapon bans for 18- to 21-year- olds, mandatory waiting periods, a 21-day waiting period for purchases of all firearms for 18- to 21-year-olds, high-capacity magazine bans, unconstitutional mandatory safe storage requirements of all firearms in homes, licensing requirements for purchasing an assault weapon, criminal penalties for negligent storage of firearms in a home, and low mens rea--that is a criminal state of mind--standard for straw purchasing and trafficking firearms. All of these had been proposed by either President Biden or many of our Democratic colleagues and were not included in the statement of principles that was agreed to by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. We knew including any of these components would jeopardize our ability to get a deal. So anytime our Democratic colleagues tried to push the envelope as far as they could, we had to remind them of that requirement and push back. Again, my view, my redline, my starting point, my premise in all of this is law-abiding gun owners are not the problem. Law-abiding gun owners who have passed a background check have a Second Amendment right to purchase a firearm, and no limitation on their rights is going to prevent shootings like Uvalde or Sandy Hook or Sutherland Springs. So focusing on the problem, which is keeping criminals and people with mental health problems from purchasing firearms under existing law, I believe, is the right formula to build consensus and get a bill on the President's desk. We are still working, as I said, through a lot of the details, but I am encouraged about where things stand right now. As I said, my goal all along is the art of the possible. That is what politics is; it is the art of the possible. It is not everything I want and nothing you want or everything you want and nothing I want. That is how not to get a deal. That is how not to accomplish anything. I am hoping that 10 Republicans supporting the bill is not a ceiling but is the floor, and we intend to continue to work with our colleagues to help them understand these principles that we have agreed to, the 20 of us, and to write legislative text that can earn broad bipartisan support, maybe supermajority support, here in the U.S. Senate. I want to personally thank our colleagues Senator Murphy, Senator Sinema, and Senator Tillis for working in good faith to get us to this point, as well as a number of other Senators who contributed to this bipartisan proposal. We still have a lot of work ahead of us. I think in many ways this is the beginning--not the middle or the end--of our work because now we need to put these principles into legislative text, and then we need to get it on the Senate floor, get it passed, get it passed in the House, and then get it to President Biden's desk. I will be sharing further updates with my colleagues in the Republican conference this week, and I hope, working together with Senator Tillis and others, to build additional support on our side of the aisle. U.S. Supreme Court Madam President, I just want to close on one final note. The bipartisan work that we have done here in the Senate on this school safety, mental health, and gun safety bill is a sharp contrast from what is happening on the other side of the Capitol. House Democrats, unfortunately, have a history of prioritizing politics over policy, but now, their games have reached a dangerous low. I am talking about the safety and security of the members of the U.S. Supreme Court and their families. It has been more than a month since the Senate passed bipartisan legislation to protect them from threats of violence. The legislation Mr. Coons, a Senator from Delaware, and I introduced--a bipartisan bill--passed the Senate unanimously. Do you think that happens every day? Not by a long shot. To get all 100 Senators to support a piece of legislation means it is really not controversial. But, unfortunately, once it went to the House, it sat there and languished for a month. Even as members of the Supreme Court and their families are being threatened, the House hasn't allowed a vote on that bipartisan bill. The reason given by our Democratic colleagues in the House is, well, they want to extend further protection to Court employees and their families. That could include around-the-clock security details for everyone from clerks to IT staff and their spouses, children, siblings, and parents. That makes a mockery of what Senator Coons and I tried to do. All we wanted to do is give the police at the Supreme Court the very same authority that the Capitol Police have to provide protective details to Members of Congress. In fact, the leadership in both Houses have permanent details assigned to them, but if a Member of Congress receives a credible threat, Capitol Police will provide a protective detail for them. That is all we want to do for the members of the Supreme Court and their families. Last week, we received a terrifying reminder of the failure to act and what the consequences of that might be. U.S. marshals arrested a man outside of Justice Kavanaugh's home who had traveled all the way from California to assassinate a sitting Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. When he was arrested, he had a Glock 17 semiautomatic pistol. He had ammunition, a knife, a crowbar, and some zip ties. He told authorities his plan was to break into Justice Kavanaugh's house, kill Justice Kavanaugh, and then commit suicide. That was his plan. Thank goodness law enforcement authorities were able to stop him. But this close call immediately set off calls for the House to pass the bipartisan legislation that I was discussing a moment ago--again, that passed unanimously in the Senate a month ago--but unfortunately, House Democrats have still refused to do that. They still claim that the law clerks and other Supreme Court staff who were virtually anonymous to the public are in dire need of protection too. I think this is pretty transparently a stalling tactic. It is a pretty lame excuse for not providing the Supreme Court Justices and their families with the very same protection that Capitol Police provide Members of Congress. The bill that the Democratic House Members say they want to pass instead was introduced on May 10, almost 5 weeks ago, but they haven't even voted on that bill yet. Again, this is a transparent attempt to stall legislation that passed 100 to 0. If House Democrats actually believed in the snake oil they are trying to sell, they would have passed their own bill a month ago, but they didn't, and they haven't. They wasted precious time and left Justices' families vulnerable to grave danger. If House Democrats want to vote on a bill that extends protection to other people, including the leaker of the Supreme Court opinion, they are welcome to try to do so, but first, they need to pass the bipartisan bill Senator Coons and I introduced. The line between legitimate public discourse and acts of violence has been crossed, and House Democrats cannot continue to turn a blind eye. We don't have time to spare when it comes to protecting the members of the Court and their families. If, Heaven forbid, something were to happen because of a lack of authority that would be conferred by the Supreme Court Police Parity Act, shame on Members of the House of Representatives. It would be on them for their failure to act on this commonsense, bipartisan bill. Madam President, the House needs to pass the Supreme Court Police Parity Act today and, if not today, tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last couple of weeks, many of us have spent a lot of time thinking about the horrific shootings in Uvalde, Philadelphia, Buffalo, and elsewhere. Unfortunately, these are familiar scenes that we have seen before, and we would like to try to find a way to reduce the likelihood of their reoccurrence in the future if there is anything we can do here in the Senate to make that possible. So I have been working particularly with Senator Murphy, who was my partner on the Fix NICS bill that we passed in 2018. Senator Murphy comes from a blue State, Connecticut; I come from a red State, Texas. Yet, in that example, we were able to take the horrible events of Sutherland Springs, where innocent parishioners were gunned down at a small Baptist church outside of San Antonio, and take out of that tragedy something good, which is a bill we call Fix NICS, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Since that was signed into law, 11\1/2\ million new records have been uploaded into the background check system, and I believe that has saved lives. You will recall, in that case, the shooter was a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, but, unfortunately, he had a troubled history: felony convictions, domestic violence, mental health adjudications. None of that was in the background check system. It should have been, and it would have disqualified him had it been known. But he did what so often happens; he lied, and then he bought--the lie and buy--and tragedy ensued. We were all sickened by these shootings, and we are hyperaware of the public interest. The most common refrain I hear is: Do something. Do something. Unfortunately, it gets a little less specific after that what exactly should be done, and that is where the hard work begins. But, as before, I am optimistic that we can find something that protects the rights of law-abiding citizens under our Constitution, under the Second Amendment, who, I believe, are not a threat to public safety, and focus on people with criminal records, people with mental health challenges, like young Salvador Ramos in Uvalde, TX; like Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook. The profile is pretty well established--young, alienated, disaffected, mentally challenged boys who lack access to treatment which will help them manage their mental illness and who descend into a pit of despair, ultimately resulting in their desire not only to harm themselves but to take other people with them. That profile is well established in the scientific literature. And the New York Times did an excellent piece a couple of weeks ago on that profile. So I think that gives us a little bit of a roadmap for the sorts of things we might do to deal with that. What makes this more challenging than, for example, the Fix NICS bill after Sutherland Springs is that was a singular point of failure. Here, we see multiple points of failure, and I think we need to address as many as we can. So as I mentioned, the mental health issue looms large. We know that during the 2 years, where many students were isolated at home, trying to keep up with their studies virtually, many of them have languished, many of them have fallen behind. And because they have been isolated from their peers at a time when their social development is the most important, many of them have fallen into despair, exacerbating underlying problems that they may have in the first place. So trying to figure out how to support our schools and our communities with resources needed to address the mental and emotional health of people who are struggling, particularly young students, that seems like an obvious area that we can work on together. Obviously, school security is important. The initial reports in Uvalde were that the door was propped open that Salvador Ramos entered. Later, we found out that, no, it wasn't propped open, but the lock didn't work. He just walked right in. There are a lot of studies and best practices when it comes to what is necessary to secure our schools. If we can secure our airports post- 9/11, we can secure our schools to make sure that people who should come in and out of those schools can do so relatively easily but that outsiders cannot and particularly those who are a threat to the safety of those students. I think all of us want to try to find ways to reduce the likelihood of something like this happening again, and school districts across the country are eager to get our help and guidance to harden their infrastructure to provide for the personnel, resource officers--that is the local police officer on the school campus. Those are things that I think would diminish the likelihood of another Uvalde. Mental health and school safety seem to me as kind of no-brainers, in a sense, where I don't think there is a lot of division between that side of the aisle and this side of the aisle. But we are also looking at ways to keep guns out of the hands of people who already, by law, are prohibited from having them. I am not talking necessarily about expanding the background check system; I want to make sure the background check system works. What makes this challenging is Salvador Ramos showed up after his 18th birthday as if he were born yesterday. For purposes of the background check system, there was no insight into his many mental health challenges or terroristic threats of fellow students, potentially drug use, and other things that if he were an adult, he could not pass a background check. But because of the fact that juvenile records are typically sealed and are not part of the NICS review, the merchant who sold him the firearms he used didn't know anything about his track record. But we know how, as I said earlier, that he fits a familiar profile. He shot his own grandmother because she wanted him to go back to school after being out of school for the last 2 years. He engaged in self- mutilation, self-cutting, tortured animals, made threats against his fellow students, threatened sexual assault against his fellow female students, and made threats that he would, in fact, do what he ultimately did online. He was a ticking timebomb. So if there is some way for us to look back into the sorts of records that would disqualify an adult if they had occurred post-18--because they would have been public records available to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System--if there is a way to look back and identify people like Salvador Ramos, who, by virtue of his mental health and other problems, we would know he should not be able to purchase a firearm legally. A couple of States--I think it is South Carolina and Virginia-- voluntarily upload mental health adjudications for 17-year-olds. We can't compel other States to do that, but we can sure provide--we can facilitate other States doing so and incentivize their populating the NICS background check system with this necessary information for juveniles, who ultimately will end up--they will turn of age and be able to buy a firearm, and we need to know ahead of time, for purposes of the background check system, what those records look like. So there are a number of things that we could do. One suggestion is, for example, to take a look at the background check process itself for 18- to 21-year-olds in particular since that is the population we are focusing on based on this profile. Under current law, if you go in and buy a firearm and you have a clean record, you can pass your background check pretty quickly. In 90 percent of cases, that is actually what happens. The average processing time is 2 minutes. In most cases, the system returns a binary result: You either pass or you don't pass, you fail. When you fail, that means you can't purchase a firearm. Now, the Congress, the Senate--in particular, Senator Coons from Delaware and I sponsored a bill that would notify local police when somebody goes in to take a background check and fails because they don't qualify. Many times, the local law enforcement knows more about these people and would be interested to know that they tried to illegally purchase a firearm and were denied. But in about 10 percent of the gun purchases, the background check is not resolved immediately. The system returns a yellow light, which means additional review is required. For example, if you have a common name like John Smith, the search may pull records for somebody else, for the wrong person with the same name who is prohibited from purchasing a gun. It could also be caused by incomplete criminal history--for example, if somebody is convicted of assault but on further examination, you find out it was domestic violence, which is a prohibited category. You would also learn whether it was a felony or a misdemeanor. In those cases, the FBI, under current law, already has 3 days in which to complete the background check. The problem is, under current law, there are no finish--the seller still sells the gun, and we have an incomplete record. Dylann Roof, I believe, was the name of the shooter at the Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, SC. As it turned out, he had a misdemeanor drug offense that was not uploaded into the background check system. Now, it is a disqualifying condition if you are addicted to or a frequent user of illegal drugs, but because the background check system did not allow enough time to include that information--maybe, just maybe, he would have been denied the purchase of the firearms that he ultimately used to kill those innocent people that day. So what we are looking at is the possibility of--in those cases where there is what I will call a yellow flag or an indication that further review is necessary--an extended period of time, for this class of purchasers between 18 and 21, for the background check system to complete their review. Well, I have said it before, and I will say it again: I don't believe law-abiding, mentally well gun owners are going to commit mass shootings or are a threat to public safety. I know within the Senate, we have a number of people who are sportsmen; who enjoy target shooting, let's say; who believe that they need to exercise their Second Amendment rights in order to protect their family and their homes. They are not a threat. So blanket limitations or prohibitions on those law-abiding citizens who are not a threat to public safety and never will be, to me, strikes as overreach. We are not talking about a discretionary right; we are talking about a constitutional right. But I do believe that the Second Amendment and sound public policy are not mutually exclusive here, and that is the needle we are trying to thread here. So adding juvenile records to the NICS system is a commonsense way to ensure we have a complete picture of the buyer's history. Then, of course, there is the scandal of our mental health delivery system in the United States today. Back in the sixties, when people who had mental health challenges were institutionalized, we finally figured out that that didn't work very well; it was inhumane. The theory was that there would be created some safety net in communities across the country where people could turn; where the police, if they answered a 9-1-1 call and they realized that this isn't a criminal, that this is somebody going through a mental health crisis--where the police could take people where they could actually get help, get treated, get counseling, and get better. That doesn't exist today in many communities--in the major cities perhaps, even in suburban areas, but Uvalde, TX, population 15,000, not so much. So we are looking at ways to expand the community-based mental health system. Senator Stabenow and Senator Blunt have a great proposal that would extend the current eight-State pilot program nationwide. Now, is that solely related to what happened at Uvalde or what happened in Buffalo or what happened in Philadelphia? No, but it would address the larger underlying challenge of more and more Americans falling through the cracks. While we know most people in a mental health crisis are not going to commit acts of violence, we also know that 60 percent of the gun- related deaths are suicides. And as it occurred to me like a light went off in my head, Salvador Ramos, Adam Lanza, and others of this profile of young men, in addition to the multiple homicides they commit, they commit suicide. They know they are not going to make it out alive. So addressing this mental health crisis that affects our country and particularly where we fail these young men who feel like they have nowhere else to turn, who become increasingly isolated, become increasingly desensitized to the idea of taking someone's life because they are sitting in their room playing video games, killing people virtually all the time, and then, in their bizarre fantasies, decide to extend those fantasies to taking not only their own life but the lives of other innocent people. So this is challenging, Mr. President, and there is no doubt about it, but we can do this. We can do this. Sometimes politics is called the art of the possible, and I think this is possible. Is it going to be perfect? Are we going to not have to revisit some other scenario where people have fallen through the cracks or where vulnerabilities are exposed? No, we can't be sure that this is one and done. But I do believe there is a sense of urgency, not only here in the Congress but in the White House and across the country. We have all heard from our constituents, who are in anguish over what has happened in Uvalde and elsewhere. The cry is to do something. Like I said, that is not very specific. And I understand, but it is up to us to try to find what is the right set of policies that would respect the rights of law-abiding citizens under the Constitution but at the same time address what we know is a huge mental health crisis in this country and make sure that the systems that are in place work, like the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. We need to populate that system with the relevant information that would disqualify somebody, if they were an adult, if it occurred while they were a juvenile. There are ways we can do that. We can incentivize that. We can take a look back in some cases. We can allow the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, in those limited cases where they need to do further review, to see that the information is complete. We can figure this out, and I think, on a bipartisan basis, there is a will to do so. Around here, if there is a will, there is a way, and I believe we do have the will and we will find a way. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill improves certain sexual assault and domestic violence prevention policies.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill improves certain sexual assault and domestic violence prevention policies.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, when the Senate considers complex and profound issues of public policy, I am particularly reminded of the wisdom of our late friend, Mr. Mike Enzi, the Senator from Wyoming. Not long after I came to the Senate, I noticed how productive that Senator Enzi, one of the most conservative Members of the Senate, was working on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee with Teddy Kennedy, the ``liberal lion of the Senate.'' You had one of the most conservative Members of the Senate working with one of the most liberal Members of the Senate. But, amazingly, to me, they seemed to get a lot done. So I asked Senator Enzi, I said: How is it that you, a staunch conservative, could work so productively with somebody with such different views? Senator Enzi told me: It is easy. I call it the 80-20 rule. Well, the fact of life is we are not going to agree with everybody 100 percent of the time. And I sometimes say I don't agree with my wife 100 percent of the time, but she is always right. But, seriously, if we are going to get things done here in the U.S. Senate for the benefit of the American people, we have to understand nobody is going to get everything they want. And I think for purposes of simplicity, an illustration of Senator Enzi's comments about the 80- 20 rule are very helpful. I have tried to employ that strategy many times since those days, and I hope we can apply that wisdom and strategy again dealing with this recent string of shootings, including Uvalde, TX. Now this debate evokes strong emotions and strong opinions from people across the political spectrum, and it is an understatement to say that there are serious differences of opinion. I start with the premise that I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, and I have no intention of violating that oath. That is where I start. Part of the Constitution is the amendments, including the first 10 which are the Bill of Rights that includes the Second Amendment, which provides a constitutional right to keep and bear arms for law-abiding Americans. I have no intention of violating my oath, and I have no intention of undermining the rights of law-abiding gun owners in America because it is a constitutional right. It is no secret that when it comes to the culture in America, there are very different views ranging from, let's say, Connecticut, where Senator Murphy comes from, to places like Texas, where guns are commonplace but people know how to use them and they use them responsibly and they are not a threat to public safety. There are those who would like to restrict the rights of law-abiding gun owners because that is their view--they strongly hold that view, but I have been clear that is a nonstarter for me. But to Senator Enzi's wise advice, rather than focus on the 20 percent we can't agree on, I have been trying to explore common ground with our colleagues on a bipartisan basis. These were devastating tragedies. We all agree with that. We all agree that no child should ever fear for his or her safety while sitting in a classroom. I think we even all agree that there is a mental health epidemic in America today, and that is a piece of the puzzle. To me the shootings are a symptom of a larger problem, which is the failure of our mental health system in America, and it manifests itself in many different ways. Now, people suffering from mental health challenges, by and large, they are not violent, but a subset of them threaten their own lives with suicide. Some of them, even a subset of others, not only commit suicide by attacking a known armed police contingent, but they also engage in homicides, too, which is what happened with Salvador Ramos in Uvalde, TX. I think there is a consensus in America that criminals and people experiencing severe mental health crises should not have access to guns. It is not just my opinion; it is actually the law. That is what the National Instant Criminal Background Check System is supposed to vet for--to make sure that people who have criminal records, people who have been institutionalized for mental health problems, people who are dishonorably discharged, people who are under a protective order, people who have committed felonies, people who have committed domestic violence, those are all people who now, if you went to buy a firearm and underwent a national instant criminal background check, you would not be able to legally purchase or possess a firearm because that is the law of the land and has been a long time. With that in mind, Senator Murphy from Connecticut, Senator Tillis from North Carolina, Senator Sinema from Arizona, and I have been looking at these various factors and tried to come up with a targeted bill that might have prevented some of these tragedies. To me, that is the best way to look at this, is to say: If this had been in place, is it less likely that this tragedy would have occurred? Stated another way, If we do this, is there a chance or a probability that we could save lives in the future? To me, that should be our focus. Instead of wasting time talking about what we don't agree on, I think it is productive for us to focus on this subset of issues where I believe there is room for a consensus because, of course, that is the only way to make progress and to get a result. When the Constitution was written, it created three branches of government; but in particular, the legislative and the executive branch, with two branches of the Congress. They are very different in their nature. They made it difficult to pass legislation. It is hard. We do it, but it is hard. And it is hard because it takes consensus, and consensus sometimes takes time, particularly on issues that evoke such strong views and opinions and reflect, frankly, the diversity of this country. I am glad to say, on this topic, we are making steady progress. It is early in the process, but I am optimistic where things stand right now. What am I optimistic about? I am optimistic that we could pass a bill in the Senate, it can pass the House, and it will get a signature by President Biden. It will become law of the land. What is the test of that legislation? It is, to me, not whether it meets your ideological standard of what the bill should look like, but it is simply this: Will it save lives? If it will, it is worth all of our best efforts. As I said, there is broad agreement about the mental health challenges, not only in our schools, but in our society at large and how that manifests itself. Sixty percent of the gun deaths in America are suicides. Don't we want to try to prevent those suicides? I think so. That is why the mental health issue is so important, among other reasons. And then, obviously, the school safety issues. We need to try to figure out ways to make our schools harder to get into for people like Salvador Ramos. Unfortunately, the mental health challenges of young, disaffected, and alienated boys is a profile that is all too familiar. It is reflected in the shooter in Uvalde. It is reflected in the shooter in Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza. They came from much different places in terms of their socioeconomics, but in terms of their alienation and their developing mental illness and their willingness to not only take their own life but other people's lives, unfortunately, it paints an eerily similar picture. The shooter in Uvalde was isolated and bullied at school. He had a record of cutting his face--self-mutilation--and abusing and torturing animals, and he was known for fighting and threatening his fellow students with everything from assault to rape. He was a ticking time bomb, and many people--not all the people but many people in this small community of 15,000 people knew it. Certainly, his mother knew it. Unfortunately, his mother was a drug user, and he was living with his grandmother. But this is a young man who shot his own grandmother because she wanted him to go back to school because, of course, he had been out of the classroom because of COVID-19 restrictions. Frankly, that isolation just made his mental illness that much worse. As I said, the shooter at Sandy Hook, Adam Lanza, experienced what was later described as ``severe and deteriorating'' mental health problems that went untreated, not because his parents didn't try--they did--but when he was prescribed medication to help him manage his mental illness, he refused to take it, and his mom finally gave up, exhausted, as you can imagine. It was a period of 3 years that he didn't see any mental health provider at all, sitting in his room, playing video games, killing people online virtually, becoming increasingly desensitized, and spiraling down that psychiatric, psychological, and emotional drain. We need to equip all of our young people in America with the resources and the assistance they need in order to manage their emotional and mental health struggles. I think that is part of what we need to do. School security, as I said, was also a glaring issue at Uvalde. The shooter was able to enter Robb Elementary School through a door that wasn't even locked. That is a problem. School districts need to be prepared for the worst-case scenario. They need to prepare for the worst and hope for the best. That means evaluating physical security, reviewing current protocols, developing best practices, and potentially adding or expanding the number of school resource officers. Those are law enforcement officers on campus. I think there is a lot of common ground on things we can agree on here--safer schools, better mental health resources, and coming up with additional assistance that will harden our schools and provide greater deterrence and protections for our students. The Senators whom I have been talking to--including the group of four but even the larger group today at noon--we have been talking about other things we might do to keep individuals who are already prohibited by law because they have a criminal background or they have mental health adjudications and problems. How do we keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those who are undergoing mental health crises? That is an area of common ground. This is not about creating new restrictions on law-abiding citizens; it is about ensuring the system we already have in place works as intended. One idea we have discussed is, because this young man in Uvalde turned 18 and because there was no look back at his juvenile record, he passed a background check. It is as if he was born on his 18th birthday and nothing that happened before was important. That is obviously a problem. So we are looking at taking steps to encourage States to upload juvenile records into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This is standard practice in some but not most States, and it is easy to see why it is important. If we are uploading information about adults' mental health adjudications but we don't have access to juveniles' mental health adjudications, to me, that is a problem. If a 17-year-old, for example, is convicted of aggravated assault, the record should show up in his background check if he tries to purchase a gun when he turns 18. I think this is a commonsense way to make sure the National Instant Criminal Background Check databases are complete and they are accurate. That is not about expanding the system; that is about making sure the system we have actually works. I want to make sure that we are committed to providing due process protections for citizens in all circumstances. Again, this is part of our Constitution, due process of law--the right to appear, the right to contest a decision by the government and to produce evidence and to cross-examine witnesses. That is an essential aspect of due process. When you talk about depriving somebody of a constitutional right, it is even more important. The goal here is to make a law; it is not to make a political statement. As I said, I am encouraged by the progress we are making, but I don't think artificial deadlines are useful. The majority leader, Senator Schumer, has threatened to schedule votes if an agreement isn't reached by a certain time. I don't think that is particularly helpful. Again, my goal and I think most Senators' goal here is to come up with a bill that can pass; otherwise, we might as well move on to other topics. But I sense a feeling of urgency and a desire to actually get things done. Around here, if you know people have the will, there is a way, and I believe there is a collective bipartisan will. So far, everybody, I believe, has been working in good faith. We all understand the differences that we have regionally and culturally when it comes to things like the Second Amendment. We understand the different politics in different States. That is the genius of the Senate that brings us all together. It doesn't make it easy, but it makes it possible for us to try to find some common ground. The most common cry you hear today when it comes to incidents like Uvalde is to do something. I think we agree with that, but what that something is is not easy, but it is important, and we need to try. Again, I am optimistic because of the progress we have made so far that we will do something here that is important that will save lives. To me, that is the goal. And I think all 100 Senators would agree, if we can achieve that goal, then our efforts will have been worthwhile. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, like so many people in Texas and across the country, I can't stop thinking about the 19 children and the two teachers who lost their lives in Uvalde, TX. Over the last several days, 21 families have started burying their loved ones. This tight- knit community of 15,000 people 60 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border is grieving the loss of classmates, playmates, friends, neighbors, colleagues, and fellow church members. As grief turns to anger and anger turns to action, everyone is asking the question--the logical question--how do we stop these sort of things from happening again? Well, I think that is the right question. That is the question that has been on my mind and dominating conversations with my colleagues the last couple of weeks. This is a big diverse country. There are a lot of differences regionally, culturally, and the like. Each of us have ideas about what would work best, but that is the genius of our Federal system, one that Louis Brandeis called the ``laboratories of democracy'' because ``one size fits all'' is not necessarily always the right solution. But those of us who work here in the Senate know this is not just about our goals or ideals; it is about what was once called the ``art of the possible.'' Perfect bills exist only in our imagination and we have to be realistic about what can pass both Chambers of Congress and get the President's signature. And we know it is not easy by design. The Founding Fathers had this idea that if they made it hard to pass legislation, if they forced us to build consensus, that we wouldn't pass a lot of laws that would limit individual freedom and liberty; that it would only be where there was a true national consensus that we could get those laws passed. Over the last week and a half, I have been talking, particularly with Senator Murphy, Senator Tillis, Senator Sinema, but, literally, with everybody I could reach on the phone or get through text message to see if there is some package of mental health and safety legislation that addresses some of the factors that might have prevented the recent shootings in Uvalde and elsewhere. I want to be clear, though. We are not talking about restricting the rights of current law-abiding gun owners or citizens. This is a constitutional right, as much as that may go against the grain of some of our colleagues who would like to see us do things that would restrict the right of American citizens under the Second Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution itself. And the vast majority of the Republican conference feels, certainly, the same way. What I am interested in is keeping guns out of the hands of those who, by current law, are not supposed to have them--people with mental health problems, people who have criminal records. Again, this is about the ``art of the possible.'' In order to deliver results, we have to build consensus, and the best way to do that is through targeted reforms. We have actually had success doing this before. On November 5, 2017, a tight-knit community in Texas called Sutherland Springs was the target of a shooting. A gunman opened fire at a small Baptist church, killing 26 people. We quickly learned that the shooter had a long and disturbing record of violence--school suspensions, comments about wanting to kill his superiors in the military, animal abuse, violence against those closest to him, felony, domestic violence convictions--he fractured the skull of his stepson in a fit of anger, and he even spent time in military prison. Yet, under the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the Air Force had not uploaded that information. Under existing Federal law, the shooter was prohibited from ever purchasing or possessing a firearm. So how did he get his hands on a semiautomatic weapon that he used to take 26 innocent lives? Well, it was because of a broken system. He was able to purchase four firearms because the information about his criminal history had never been uploaded into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System known as the NICS system. In that case, it was clear that the answer was, How do we stop this again? It was obvious: Get the background check system improved to record existing disqualifications to purchase or possess firearms. Senator Murphy and I introduced the Fix NICS Act to ensure all departments and agencies accurately and correctly uploaded these conviction records on a timely basis. That bill, at the time it became law, had more than 70 bipartisan cosponsors, and it was signed into law in March 2018. And here is what happened next. In the first 3 years since that bill became law, 11\1/2\ million additional records have been uploaded into the three national databases--11.5 million additional records. The number of records in one of those databases increased by more than 30 percent. I believe the reason we were able to succeed with the Fix NICS legislation is because it addressed a glaring problem without jeopardizing the rights of law-abiding citizens under the Second Amendment. I mentioned that the bill had more than 70 cosponsors. I am reminded here that it had 77 bipartisan cosponsors. And that was how we passed the first major reform to the background checks system in 25 years. My hope is we can take the same approach here to build consensus by targeting the problem with a targeted solution. This one is actually harder because in Uvalde there were so many points of failure--not just one--multiple points of failure. But one obvious glaring issue is the lack of mental health intervention. According to the reports we have seen, the shooter was isolated, he was bullied, he harmed himself, he self-mutilated. He had a history of fighting and threatening students and abusing animals. These are textbook signs, compounded with a profile we have seen too often of someone who could pose, not only as a threat to himself, but to others, as well. But these signs were ignored, and we saw the tragic consequences. I don't think it is breaking news to say that there is a mental health crisis among America's children, and we can't ignore the devastating impact that the pandemic had on a lot of our young people. In a recent survey conducted by the New York Times, 94 percent of school counselors said their students were showing more signs of anxiety and depression than before the pandemic. And 88 percent said students were having more trouble regulating their emotions and almost three-quarters said they were having difficulty solving conflicts with their friends. One counselor said: ``Kids are more impulsive, [they are] less controlled, and struggle with emotional regulation.'' I believe we need to take this opportunity to support our children who struggle with emotional or mental health problems, and that is something I believe will bring us together and all 100 Senators can agree on. Another big issue is school safety. This shooter should never have been able to gain access to Robb Elementary School that day. Again, the circumstances of how he gained that access are still under investigation. Initial reports indicated the door had been propped open. Now the police say the door had been closed but did not automatically lock like it was supposed to. If our schools need more resources to harden their infrastructure and evaluate their physical security measures and make necessary improvements, that is something we can agree on and something we need to do. No one should be able to walk through the door of a school and access a classroom so easily. You can't get into an airport very easily. We know how to do this. Improving school safety also means reviewing current protocol, developing best practices, and adding or maybe expanding the number of school resource officers. These are commonsense ways to save lives, and we need to provide schools with the resources to protect our students and our teachers. I am a proud supporter of the Second Amendment, period. We also recognize, though, that there are people who are prohibited by current law from purchasing guns, like the shooter in Sutherland Springs, because of criminal records or mental illness. We are discussing possible additional reforms to keep guns out of the hands of people who are not legally allowed to purchase or possess them in the first place. If we reach an agreement, law-abiding gun owners will not be impacted at all. Our conversations are ongoing, and, indeed, all 100 Senators will be part of that conversation, but these are the broad parameters of the things that I am interested in addressing. We are not talking about banning a category of weapons across the board, a ban on certain high-capacity magazines, or changing the background check system by adding additional disqualifying items. If we are actually serious about finding common ground and building consensus, those sorts of things will stand no chance of passing the Senate. Instead, we are talking about commonsense, targeted reforms that are responsive to the tragedies in Uvalde and elsewhere and that will, I believe, help save lives--strengthening mental health, bolstering school security, keeping guns out of the hands of people who are already legally prohibited from having them. I think a lot of our colleagues could get behind those provisions like they did with the Fix NICS bill. Following Sutherland Springs, we came up with a targeted bill to address specific circumstances. I hope we can do so again. I will not settle on inadequate or downright harmful legislation for the sake of doing something. That is not productive for anyone. That is one of the things I hear the most. People say ``Do something.'' Well, we can agree that something needs to be done, but what that something is, is much harder to achieve, and so targeted reforms, I think, are the way to get to where we need to go. I understand the desire for quick action, but I hope the Democratic leader will allow bipartisan discussions to continue and then conclude before he pulls the plug and schedules show votes on something he knows can't pass. He has threatened to do it, but I don't believe we ought to try to meet artificial deadlines. We know how to do this, and I think giving the Senate adequate time over the next week or so to try to reach that consensus is eminently reasonable. I don't believe the Senate will be voting this week because good consensus legislation takes time. So I hope Senator Schumer will let his Members work. There is no use in rushing a vote on a doomed, partisan bill like the House is expected to vote on this week. My goal is to achieve a result, and the only way we can do that, the only way we can get a bill that will pass both Chambers and earn the President's signature, is by taking the time and reaching that consensus. Right now, there is not a bill out there that stands a chance of succeeding in the coming days, but my hope is that will change by allowing the Senate to do the work we know how to do and come up with a bipartisan bill that commands the support of 60-plus Members of the Senate and something we can send to the President for his signature. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill addresses the foreign production of precursor chemicals that are used for the illicit production of narcotics and psychotropic drugs and other controlled substances.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill addresses the foreign production of precursor chemicals that are used for the illicit production of narcotics and psychotropic drugs and other controlled substances.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes, followed by Senator Johnson for 10 minutes, prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today was supposed to be the last day of school in Uvalde, TX. Each of us can remember how excited we were as children, as students, but especially we can remember being a parent the last day of school our child attended. Your child would perhaps run into your arms and recount a fun-filled day with their classmates. They would sling their backpack on the backseat of the car and talk about how excited they were about the summer, to spend days playing with their friends and their siblings, swimming at the local pool with friends, and maybe even going on a vacation with their grandparents. Today, those children, those parents, and those teachers in Uvalde, TX, have been robbed of the excitement and normalcy that this day would normally bring. Instead of celebrating the last day of school, 21 families are making funeral arrangements. Earlier this week, a monster viciously murdered innocent children and their teachers at Robb Elementary School. So far we know that 21 people have been killed by the shooter, including 19 students and 2 teachers. This tragedy has absolutely shattered the tight-knit community of Uvalde, TX. Uvalde is a town of about 15,000 people, about 65 miles from the United States-Mexican border. There is one high school football team, one H-E-B Grocery store, and one post office. The families of Uvalde have known each other and loved each other's children for as long as they can remember. The grief caused by this attack is shared by the entire community, and I join all Texans in lifting up the victims, their families, and those who are struggling to make sense of this tragedy. Yesterday, I was in Uvalde with my fellow Texans in mourning. I joined hundreds of people in donating blood and received an update from law enforcement and both State and community leaders. As though we needed a reminder of the tight-knit community, a deputy sheriff himself lost his own daughter in this attack, and two members of the mayor's staff lost children as well. One of the conversations I had that really struck home was with an older gentleman who responded to the call for blood donations at the Herby Ham Activity Center. As we waited our turn to donate blood, he shared with me that he had lost two grandchildren in the shooting. It is not possible for us to comprehend the pain he must be feeling, but there he was, donating blood. Two young lives were stolen from his family, and, still, this man stood in line so he could support his community in some tangible way. During the briefing from law enforcement, two of the Uvalde police officers who responded to the shooting shared their harrowing experiences with us, and in the face of such unthinkable evil, their courage was unwavering. One of these Uvalde police officers responded to the scene, and I had a chance to thank him personally. I want to thank all of the law enforcement officials, the emergency medical technicians, and healthcare workers who responded to this tragedy and who continue to support the survivors and their loved ones. At times like this, I am reminded of a quote I heard some time ago from a county commissioner in the face of a similar tragedy. He said: Being a Texan doesn't describe where you are from as much as it describes who your family is. Today, our entire family is mourning. Our hearts are broken by those who lost loved ones and the survivors who will never forget this terrifying and senseless attack. While the terror of this attack will weigh on all of us, we saw the spirit of my State on full display as resources poured out to help the loved ones of the community who were hurting so badly. From mental health counseling to food donations, there was an outflow of support from the South Texas community. At times like this, words seem so inadequate. There is no good way to completely express the heartbreak and anger that swell in your chest at a moment like this. All we can say, perhaps, is that our condolences are with the families who are grieving such a cruel and unexpected loss. I can't fathom the pain of seeing an empty bed where your child slept the night before. Knowing we can't turn back the clock to prevent this tragedy from occurring, the obvious question then is, How do we prevent something like this from happening again? At this point, law enforcement is still investigating and piecing together the full story. In the coming days, I expect we will have better information about the shooter and his background and the circumstances that led to this senseless, brutal act. Once it does, I am eager to see whether there were any gaps that might have done something to make this attack less likely, that might have actually even prevented this attack from taking place. In the past, I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to prevent senseless tragedies from occurring, through things like Fix NICS and the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act. Fix NICS, you will recall, occurred after the Sutherland Springs shooting, where the shooter's criminal convictions were not uploaded by the Air Force into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, so he was able to go to a local sporting goods store and buy weapons--by lying and buying. I am convinced that in working with Senator Murphy and all of our colleagues, we were able to get 70 or more cosponsors on that bill because it actually addressed a real gap in the system, and it would actually give us some hope that we would actually save lives in the future. I am not interested in making a political statement. I am not interested in the same old tired talking points. I am actually interested in what we can do to make the terrible events that occurred in Uvalde less likely in the future. We don't know everything we need to know, but once we do, I expect there will be an informed debate about the reforms we can make, and I look forward to participating in those discussions. For now, the focus should remain on supporting the people of this little community, who suffered an immeasurable loss this week. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes prior to the scheduled vote.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, well, as has since been reported in the news despite our efforts to keep word of our travel somewhat under wraps before it was accomplished, this last weekend, Senators Collins, Barrasso, and I had the honor of traveling to Ukraine with Senator McConnell on a trip where we visited not only President Zelenskyy in the Presidential palace but also visited two of what we hope will be the next members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, namely, Sweden and Finland. As we all know, it has been nearly 3 months now since Russia invaded Ukraine. There is no telling what President Putin expected. Perhaps he expected to be able to occupy Ukraine without firing a shot. But the fact is that the Ukrainians' spirit and will to defend their country remain unbroken and undaunted, and Putin's plans have failed and failed miserably. We saw this firsthand when we had a chance to visit Kyiv this weekend. Before the invasion, Kyiv was a cultural, religious, and economic hub for the great country of Ukraine. Despite being damaged by Russia's failed attempt to seize the city and occupy Ukraine, Kyiv still embodies the Ukrainian will to survive against all odds. When we were there, we met, of course, with President Zelenskyy and his advisers. They have done what I think we all hope we would do in the face of an unprovoked invasion, and that is to remain steadfast in dedication to your people and your country. President Zelenskyy's leadership has inspired free nations and free people around the world. His unwavering commitment to Ukraine and its sovereignty has helped rally the rest of the freedom-loving world to come to the aid of Ukraine in a number of different ways. President Zelenskyy, of course, is a product of Ukrainian culture that values strength, resilience, a love of homeland, and we know that the people of Ukraine are the same and certainly no different. The Ukrainian people are determined not just to defend their country but to win in this fight against Russia, and that is what they have been doing. What they have asked of us is to give them the tools they need to fight their own fight. Since the earliest days of this invasion, the United States has provided billions of dollars in military and humanitarian assistance, and we continue looking to President Zelenskyy so we can understand what more is needed. This is not only a security crisis, this is a humanitarian crisis as well since Ukraine is known generally as the bread basket of Europe. He and his advisers warned us about the possibility of global food shortages caused by a Russian blockade of Ukrainian ports. This will lead to widespread famine not just in Europe but throughout Africa and spread the pain far afield from Europe. When it comes to military aid, President Zelenskyy emphasized a message he has consistently shared with us: We need more, and we need it faster--more Stingers, more Javelins, more air defenses, more lethal aid. Last week, President Biden signed a bill that I introduced along with Senators Wicker, Cardin, and Shaheen, which was called the Ukraine Democracy Lend-Lease Act. This legislation is rooted in the same lend-lease legislation that President Roosevelt signed into law in 1941 which allowed the United States to supply Great Britain and other allies with military equipment. At that time, President Roosevelt vowed to transform the United States into what he called the ``arsenal of democracy,'' and the Lend-Lease Act helped accomplish that. This legislation, the Ukrainian Democracy Lend-Lease Act, which has now been signed into law by President Biden, cuts redtape so we can quickly give Ukraine what it needs to win the war against Russia. During our visit, President Zelenskyy shared with us the importance of this historic lend-lease program. We also discussed our commitment to helping Ukraine until they are victorious and encourage our allies and partners around the world to work with us--to continue to work with us to make sure that Ukraine has what it needs to defend itself. Of course, we are now, as I said, just shy of 3 months into this war, and we know that we will be called upon to do more, but we all have a part to play in ensuring that Putin ultimately abandons as futile this mission to recreate the Soviet Union. This week, as we know, the Senate will consider a supplemental funding bill to provide Ukraine with even more security and humanitarian assistance. I know there are some who disagree with more funding for Ukraine. To them I would say, this funding, this support, this military and humanitarian support is not strictly an act of altruism on our part. We are doing this also because allowing Ukraine to defend itself is in our best interest. We can't kid ourselves by thinking that Putin would simply end with his brutal conquest of Ukraine or if he did, that he wouldn't start it up again in the near future. If Putin took Ukraine or a sizable portion of its geography, this would be just the next domino to fall in Putin's mad drive to try to cobble together whatever he can of the old Russian Empire, which would have extreme consequences for America and the rest of the world. Even though Ukraine is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the outcome of this war will without a doubt have an impact on the United States and our NATO allies. An invasion of a NATO country would trigger article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance, which would require us to come to the aid and defense of a fellow member of that alliance. Already Putin has made threats against Moldova, Romania, and now Sweden and Finland. His actions are an attack on the entire West and threaten peace and security around the world. It is literally a threat on the idea of freedom itself. Today, the frontline is Ukraine. Where that frontline will shift tomorrow is largely up to us and the Ukrainians. Peace on the European continent is a peace fought for and won by the sacrifices of many who came before us. Obviously, we have experienced an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity around the world following the Second World War. Having experienced two world wars on the same continent over a period of 40 or 50 years, anybody in their right mind would look for ways to try to resist and reduce the likelihood of another war in Europe during our lifetime. It was because of the sacrifices of our parents and grandparents that we have had this, what Bob Gates, the former Secretary of Defense, has called a holiday from history. Most of us have grown up knowing nothing but the peace and prosperity bought with the contributions and sacrifices of our parents and grandparents. But we now have our own responsibility, not only to our communities, to our families, and to our Nation to act in the face of this aggression, we have to contribute our part to the preservation of freedom and democracy around the world by helping Ukraine defend its freedom and its democracy. Of course our support for Ukraine has costs, but every position will entail a cost. Of course, in this situation, the cost of the United States doing nothing, of simply turning over this democracy and our security and our economy to Putin, well, that is greater than any cost that could come by a supplemental appropriation that the U.S. Congress might make to assist Ukraine. We know that world wars have been started by lesser action, and we must do everything we can to prevent this contagion from spreading beyond its current boundaries. So what is at stake here is greater than the future of any one nation. The security of Europe is in question. The reach of Russia's aspirations to reestablish its former empire are as well. And we know that there are global repercussions however we choose to respond. Of course, other adversaries of the United States are watching to see what we do. China, Iran, and North Korea are looking for any sign of weakness that would permit them to take advantage of that weakness to do something similar to what Putin is doing. We cannot show these authoritarian governments or their leaders any weakness that might encourage them to replicate Putin's unprovoked aggression. While abroad, as I said, we visited with the leadership of Finland and Sweden at a pivotal and historic time for them. Both countries have historically been nonaligned with any warring power, but they realize the imminent threat of this invasion of Ukraine, what that means to them and their safety and their security. Both countries are now in the process of applying for membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and I am pleased to see that they will move forward with that decision and are as I speak. Adding them to this alliance which has produced the longest unbroken period of peace and security of any treaty that the United States has been a part of, their participation will give the United States crucial partners in Scandinavia and in the High North and in the Arctic region, and it will nearly double the land border Russia shares with NATO countries. You know, it is ironic that Putin said that one reason he invaded Ukraine is he did not want Ukraine to become part of NATO. He didn't want NATO on his border. Well, thanks to his missteps and miscalculation, now he will find Finland, with an 830-mile border, a member of NATO and on the Russian border--exactly what he said he hoped to avoid. Now, I applaud the parliaments of both Sweden and Finland for breaking with their longstanding provisions of neutrality in order to serve the best interests of their people and to contribute to the collective security of Europe. Sweden and Finland will be much safer thanks to this bold decision by their governments, and they will certainly add value to NATO and enhance the deterrence of this collective defense agreement known as the North Atlantic Treaty alliance. During our meetings, I told our colleagues, our parliamentarians from Sweden and Finland, that I backed their accessions unequivocally. Both of these countries have seen and acted on a major lesson from Putin's invasion of Ukraine: Putin does not honor internationally agreed-upon borders no matter what the cost. Sweden and Finland both have robust, well-resourced militaries, and I look forward as one Senator to welcoming them into NATO, and I hope all of our colleagues will agree with that when the time comes. I am grateful to Leader McConnell for putting together this past weekend's trip. I found it enormously educational, and I think it sent a great message, not only to President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian people that we will continue to support them, whether it is with lethal aid or humanitarian assistance, but, likewise, I think it sent a message to our impending additions to NATO--Sweden and Finland--that we will support their addition to NATO when the time comes here in the U.S. Senate. Lastly, I want to share a message from Ukraine. President Zelenskyy asked us, as Representatives of our various States and the American people, to convey to the American people his personal thanks and gratitude for supporting them during this existential fight with Russia. We, in turn, thanked President Zelenskyy for showing the world what one country and what one inspired leader can do to rally the cause of freedom and democracy and nonaggression around the world. President Zelenskyy and the Ukrainians have changed the course of history for the better, and we unequivocally are with the Ukrainian people in their fight to remain a sovereign democracy. I yield the floor. Vote on Motion to Proceed

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this week, America commemorates National Police Week--a time to pay tribute to the men and women of law enforcement and remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect and defend our communities. One of the most emblematic reminders of that sacrifice is the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial, which, of course, is here in Washington, DC. It is a beautiful tribute to the Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials who have died in the line of duty and features marble walls engraved with more than 23,000 names. Each of those names represents a hero to their community, to their State, and to our Nation. Sadly, the names of 90 Texans were added to that memorial this year. These officers gave their lives in service to their communities and to our country, and we thank them, and we thank their families for that service. As we mourn the loss of so many of these heroes, this week is also a time to honor and thank those who continue to serve and protect our neighborhoods, our schools, and our places of work. I am grateful for the dedicated police officers who work in Texas communities, from Brownsville to Amarillo, from Beaumont to El Paso, and everywhere in between. That includes not only the municipal police officers but also the sheriffs, the constables, the Border Patrol agents, and law enforcement officials of all types who keep Texans safe. Like all of my colleagues here in Congress, I am also grateful to the men and women of the Capitol Police, who safeguard this building and the Members, the staff, the journalists, and many visitors who come here every day. A career in law enforcement is never easy, but the past few years have really shown a light on the challenges America's law enforcement officers face. First came the pandemic. While millions of Americans hunkered down at home to slow the spread of the virus, law enforcement couldn't do that. They had to be out and about in the community. They had to lace up their boots and go to work every day. The risk of the virus meant that even friendly interactions with the public could carry grave risks. More than half of 619 heroes added to the wall of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial this year died of COVID-related causes. More than half of the 619 who died, died of COVID-related causes. It is a deep reminder of the losses our country has experienced over the last 2 years. The stresses of the pandemic also led to a surge in drug overdose deaths and an increase in family violence, putting an even tighter strain on officers serving and protecting our communities. At the same time, we have seen a shocking increase in violent crime and homicide rates across the country. In addition to these challenges, conversations about racial justice and police brutality have put all of the law enforcement community under a bright spotlight. Sadly, this debate has, in part, perhaps inadvertently, contributed to a hostile environment for many of these officers--people painting with a broad brush, claiming that all law enforcement officers were somehow racist or that the system was rotten to the core with systemic racism. Well, that kind of rhetoric and those kinds of ideas undermine the morale and are a disservice, in my opinion, to the men and women who do not share any of those prejudices, thankfully. Well, law enforcement has been the victim of violent attacks during this last year. According to the FBI, intentional killings of law enforcement officers have reached a 20-year high. Now, don't get me wrong, there is no doubt we need to continue to work together to improve transparency and accountability within police forces, and we need to strengthen the relationship between the police and the communities in which they serve. I think those are things that all of us can agree on. But as a country, we need to remember that the actions of a few do not define the rest. The vast majority of our law enforcement officers are honorable, dedicated public servants who go above and beyond the call of duty to keep our families and our communities safe and are committed to improving accountability and trust in law enforcement. We need to do more to support those brave men and women who are doing the right thing, who are serving honorably at great sacrifice to themselves and their family, and work with them to help rebuild public trust. Here in the Senate, I have introduced a range of bills to ensure that our officers have the training, the resources, and the support they need to do their jobs. Given the undeserved hostility many officers are facing, Congress should pass the Back the Blue Act, which makes clear our support for the public servants who have dedicated their lives to protecting our communities. This legislation adds mandatory penalties and makes it a Federal crime to kill or attempt to kill a law enforcement officer but also a Federal judge or a federally funded public safety officer, and it makes it a Federal crime to assault a law enforcement officer. As I said, these men and women put themselves in harm's way every day to keep our communities safe, and we need to do more to make it clear that violence committed against a law enforcement officer will not be tolerated, period. The Back the Blue Act sends a strong message to the more than 800,000 law enforcement officers in America that they are supported, that they are appreciated, and that violence against them will not stand. I am proud that last year, another bill to affirm our support for law enforcement was signed into law--the Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila Federal Officers and Employees Protection Act, which carries the names of two ICE agents who were viciously ambushed by a drug cartel while on duty in Mexico. Special Agent Avila suffered serious, life-threatening injuries, and, unfortunately, Special Agent Zapata tragically lost his life. Their attackers were convicted of murder and attempted murder in a U.S. court, but an appellate court reversed those convictions because of a jurisdictional loophole in the law. I introduced legislation to close that loophole and ensure that justice does not hinge on where that attack occurred. This law now ensures that those who harm or attempt to harm a Federal law enforcement officer serving abroad, outside the boundaries of the continental United States, can be prosecuted in the U.S. court system. Again, we have to send a clear message of zero tolerance to those who would attack our law enforcement officers. We need to send the message that we have their backs and that any attack on them will not be tolerated. The last 2 years have also taught us that we need to do more to supply our law enforcement officials with the resources and the training and the support they need to do their jobs effectively. Senator Whitehouse and I introduced the bipartisan Law Enforcement De-escalation Training Act, which created a dedicated funding stream for de-escalation training. I think we all would agree that force should only be used when absolutely necessary when law enforcement officials answer an emergency call and that those officers should have the training and ready knowledge of how to use alternatives to de- escalate that confrontation, both for their protection as well as the protection of the individual who is acting out. This will help train officers in these de-escalation tactics as well as the most effective and safest ways to interact with people experiencing a mental health or suicidal crisis. Another bill Senator Whitehouse and I have introduced is the Residential Substance Use Disorder Treatment Act which expands access to treatment in jails and prisons across the country. This program already provides incarcerated individuals with access to treatment for substance use disorders. It is coupled with programs to prepare these men and women for reentry into civic society and to provide community- based treatment once they are released. The changes included in this legislation will give incarcerated men and women the best possible shot at living a healthier and more productive life once they are released. This bill passed the Senate unanimously last year, and I hope that the House will move it soon. There are a range of other bipartisan bills to better support law enforcement so they can do their jobs and we can demonstrate our support and commitment to them. I introduced the Public Safety Officers Support Act with Senator Duckworth to provide better mental health resources for our law enforcement officers. This bill would also ensure that families of law enforcement officers who die by suicide that is work-related will receive the benefits they are entitled to. Senator Klobuchar and I have introduced the Justice and Mental Health Collaboration Reauthorization Act to continue grants for mental health courts, crisis intervention teams, and other programs that promote public safety, as well as improve mental health outcomes and reduce recidivism. Finally, I am working on a reauthorization of the Project Safe Neighborhoods Act. This has been a proven national partnership between Federal, State, and local law enforcement to use data-driven, evidence- based and trauma-informed practices to reduce violent crime. It is inspired by a successful program initiated when I was Texas attorney general. We called it Texas Exile, but it actually originated in a U.S. attorney's office in Richmond, VA, known as Project Exile. It is basically going after people who cannot legally use or carry a firearm because of a prior felony conviction, and targeting those particular individuals has had a very important positive impact on gun violence in our communities. It is due for reauthorization at the end of September and I am committed to making it better, stronger, and more effective. So today and every day, I am grateful for the brave men and women who answered the call to serve and to protect our communities. There is nothing we can do to adequately thank them and their families for that sacrifice, but we can take positive action to demonstrate our support for our brothers and sisters in blue. I hope we can advance these bills to provide them with the support, the funding, and the resources they need to do their jobs. And on behalf of the great State of Texas, I want to say thank you to all of the law enforcement officers, men and women alike, as well as their families, who continue to put their lives on the line to keep us safe every day. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over the last several days, the radical left has taken the debate about abortion to dangerous ends. Last week, a liberal group launched an intimidation campaign against six members of the Supreme Court. They posted a map online with their home addresses and encouraged protesters to take their complaints straight to the Justices' doorsteps. No surprise as swarms of protesters heeded their call. They showed up at some of the Justices' homes this weekend. Even though this plan was in the works for several days, the White House remained silent and refused to condemn this clearcut example of doxing. It wasn't until yesterday morning, once the weekend's protest had concluded, that the White House Press Secretary said the Justices should be able to do their jobs without fearing for their personal safety or the safety of their families. And that wasn't the only alarming update from the weekend. A pro-life group in Wisconsin was vandalized and set on fire on Sunday morning. The person or persons responsible smashed windows and attempted to use a Molotov cocktail. They left graffiti on the exterior wall of the building that read, ``If abortions aren't safe, then you aren't either.'' Threats of violence are never acceptable. It doesn't matter who is making the threat or who is on the receiving end. There is a world of difference between legitimate public discourse protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and threats or acts of violence which are not. Every single person in this Chamber, especially our Democratic colleagues, should affirm that any demonstrations about this heated issue cannot threaten the safety of anyone, Supreme Court Justices, pro-life advocates, or otherwise. This past weekend's events have highlighted the need to better protect the Justices and their families. They deserve the protection that, at this moment, the Supreme Court Police are not able to provide. Last week, Senator Coons, the Senator from Delaware, and I introduced a bill to increase protection for all nine Justices and their families. This basically would be the same sort of authorities given to the Capitol Police in protecting Members of Congress. The events of this weekend have underscored just how important this is. This legislation was at the request of the Chief Justice, who wants to ensure that members of the Court and their families have the security and protection they need, especially at this tense time when Justices are facing enhanced threats. We currently have two Justices with school-age children, and in the coming months, that number will increase to three once Judge Jackson takes her place on the Supreme Court Bench. I am glad this bill passed the Senate last night, and I hope our colleagues in the House will take it up and pass it in the coming days. This week, the issue at the center of this turmoil will be a topic of debate here in the U.S. Senate. The Democratic leader has promised that the Senate will vote on a radical abortion bill that goes far, far beyond codifying Roe v. Wade. This radical pro-abortion bill that Senator Schumer has set for a vote on tomorrow allows for abortions at any point during a woman's pregnancy, up until the time of delivery. It does this by prohibiting States from protecting an unborn child's right to life as long as one healthcare provider signs off that a pregnancy would pose a risk to the woman's physical or mental health. It isn't hard to see that this is a blank check for abortion providers like Kermit Gosnell. You may remember that Dr. Gosnell was a physician in Philadelphia, PA, who ran something called the Women's Medical Society Clinic but which was dubbed a ``house of horrors'' during his subsequent trial. He was also a prolific prescriber of OxyContin, but in 2011 Dr. Gosnell and his wife Pearl and eight employees were charged with a total of 32 felonies and 227 misdemeanors in connection with the deaths, illegal medical services, and regulatory violations at his abortion clinic. Pearl and the eight employees pleaded guilty to various charges in 2011, while Dr. Gosnell pleaded not guilty and sought a jury trial. After that trial, Dr. Gosnell was convicted of first-degree murder in the deaths of three infants and involuntary manslaughter in the death of Karnamaya Mongar, an adult patient at the clinic following an abortion procedure. Gosnell was also convicted of 21 felony counts of illegal late-term abortions and 211 counts of violating Pennsylvania's 24-hour informed consent law. After his conviction, Gosnell waived his right to appeal, and in an exchange for an agreement from prosecutors not to seek the death penalty, he was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Not only does the radical abortion bill that Senator Schumer has teed up a vote on tomorrow usurp the constitutional role reserved to the States, it would allow a child born after 21 weeks of gestation to be aborted. Next month, a baby who was born at 21 weeks and 2 days will celebrate his second birthday. But this extreme legislation would invalidate all State laws that limit abortions after 20 weeks of gestation. This wouldn't just impact pro-life red States; this change is so radical that it would invalidate existing laws in blue States as well. In Massachusetts and Nevada, for example, abortions are restricted after 24 weeks. In California, Washington, and Illinois, abortions are restricted after viability. If this legislation were to become law, those laws would be preempted under the supremacy clause of the Federal Constitution. Now, this sort of radical lurch and knee-jerk reaction to a draft opinion illegally leaked by somebody at the Supreme Court--this reaction is way out of step with the views of most Americans when it comes to the sensitive and emotional issue of abortion. A poll last summer found that 65 percent of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in the second trimester. Opposition to third trimester abortion is even stronger--an overwhelming 80 percent of Americans are opposed to late third trimester term abortions. But under this legislation, States would have no power to stop the radical procedure known as partial birth abortion as long as one provider signed off that the mother's mental health might be affected. What that is, is not defined and is left to the imagination. But just when you think it is bad, it gets worse. This bill would also invalidate laws that prevent abortion from being used as a method of sex selection. In other words, this legislation allows a parent who is hoping for a son to abort a baby girl. This is a type of practice that sadly became common in China during the era of the one-child policy. It is not something that should happen in America. Not only that, this bill undermines State efforts to protect unborn babies with disabilities, like Down syndrome. Unborn children being killed based solely on gender or disabilities is a devastating problem in other countries. We cannot allow such grotesque practices to become mainstream here in America. America is better than that. This bill that the majority leader has teed up a vote on tomorrow would also invalidate conscience laws, which protect healthcare providers who have deeply held objections to abortion. Conscience laws are extremely common--46 States allow individual healthcare providers to refuse to provide abortion services. This law that we will be voting on tomorrow would wipe away all of those existing State laws. Any healthcare provider who had a deeply held religious or moral objection to abortion would be required by Federal law to provide them anyway. Any healthcare provider who refused to do so could find themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit. This radical pro-abortion legislation removes a range of commonsense protections that exist in States across the country. It does away with State laws that limit the performance of abortions to licensed physicians, meaning nonphysicians could perform and prescribe abortions; and it provides no protection for babies who survive a botched abortion. It invalidates informed consent laws, which require healthcare providers to share information about the baby with the mother, such as whether the child is capable of feeling pain. And it gives the Attorney General of the United States sweeping authority to block State laws protecting the right to life. This legislation would overturn existing laws and allow abortions on a scale our country has never seen before. It is a sad commentary on the conscience of America when all but a handful of our Democratic colleagues are fighting to implement these radical policies. As it stands today, the United States is only one of a handful of countries that allows elective abortions after 20 weeks. Other countries on that list of seven include the People's Republic of China, ruled by the Chinese Communist Party, and North Korea. This should be a massive red flag for our colleagues across the aisle that our compassion for the unborn ranks right up there with the People's Republic of China and North Korea; but, unfortunately, they don't see the inherent humanity of these lost innocent lives. The extent to which the Democratic Party continues to embrace such radical policies never ceases to amaze me. As shocking as this legislation is, it is not entirely new. It already failed to pass the Senate once this year. It couldn't even earn the support of all 50 Democratic Senators. It failed on a 46-48 line vote. Democrats haven't made any changes that will move the needle in their direction in this bill that we will vote on tomorrow. I simply do not agree that the American people want abortion laws in our country that put us on par with the Chinese Communist Party and North Korea--two of the world's most aggressive human rights abusers. America cannot be its best if we do not value the lives of our most vulnerable. I believe babies--fellow human beings with heartbeats, fingerprints, just like the rest of us--deserve to have protection under the law--under State laws that would, if in the event Roe were overturned, be the ultimate arbiter of what the laws would be in those individual States. The Declaration of Independence itself guarantees the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and I believe that right to life extends to the unborn, just as it does to every other American. I have always believed in defending the right of the unborn to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and I will continue to fight this bill, no matter how many times the majority leader brings it to the floor. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I know we are used to having a lot going on here in Washington, DC, but this week seems like we have been hit by a whirlwind of activity--a war in Europe, COVID-19 still lingering in parts of the world, and then the Supreme Court found itself the victim of an unauthorized leak of a draft opinion, which has created a lot of furor and anxiety and misinformation. One of the things that it has demonstrated is the need to protect the independence of the Court. Justice Antonin Scalia used to say that you can read the constitution and bill of rights of a lot of countries around the world, and they look great on paper. He mentioned that of the old Soviet Union, for example. But he said they are just words on paper without an independent judiciary to enforce them, and he was right. Whoever leaked this draft document obviously intended to create a lot of public pressure--indeed, coercion--on the sitting Justices to either change their minds or to somehow garner a political issue that they would be able to use to divert the American people's attention from things like inflation, crime, the border, and the challenges to our national security and world peace. We have to get to the bottom of this, and I am confident that Chief Justice Roberts will pursue that until the person who leaked it is identified and held accountable. But this spotlight on the Court, along with the reaction--the public reaction that we have seen has raised another important issue, and that is the physical safety and security of the Justices themselves and their families. In our increasingly polarized climate, the Justices have been villainized and subjected to violent threats. People have even published their home addresses so they can show up and protest on their home, on their property, on their lawns. This decision, which is actually a nondecision because the Supreme Court hasn't handed down its decision--but the leaker has accomplished his or her goal, I suppose, by creating this hostile environment for the Justices and their families. But, unfortunately, there are even people in this Chamber who have contributed to that environment. In 2019, the Democratic leader went to the Supreme Court steps and threatened two Supreme Court Justices by name. He said: You have released the whirlwind-- By the way, this was the day that the abortion case was argued in the Supreme Court. The senior Senator from New York, the majority leader, said: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. And he named Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh by name. Now, to have the senior Democrat and Senate majority leader from this Chamber lobbing threats at sitting Justices on the Supreme Court if they did not rule in a way he wished is dangerous. We have wondered before about the impact of some of the irresponsible rhetoric that occasionally occurs around here on vulnerable minds and people who might be tempted to act based on that incitement, based on that rhetoric. But to have this come from the majority leader himself is just irresponsible. This is the branch of government, which is supposed to be the adults in the room, to operate in a way that is respectful, even with our differences, and the Supreme Court is the branch that is meant to operate free from public or political pressure. As Chief Justice Roberts said at the time: ``Justices know that criticism comes with the territory.'' It is a free country. People can express themselves within limits. ``But threatening statements,'' he said, ``of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,'' he said. Well, Chief Justice Roberts is right, and subsequent events have shown that threats against the Justices aren't going away and are becoming even more intense. We need to take steps to improve the protection of the Justices and their family against potential violence, and it can't wait until something bad happens. Some political activists have already announced their intentions to go to the private homes of the Justices. This is an appalling violation of their personal privacy. It puts them and their families at risk. We currently have two Justices with school-aged children. Once Judge Jackson joins the Court when Justice Breyer steps down, there will be three. The Chief Justice has asked Congress to take appropriate action to increase protection for the physical safety of the Justices and their families, and we need to act and act with urgency. Senator Coons, our friend from Delaware, a Democrat, and I are introducing a bill, a bipartisan bill, obviously, called the Supreme Court Police Parity Act to strengthen security protection for the Justices and their families. This will ensure the Justices receive the same protection and resources that article I and article II officers and their families enjoy. For our present purposes, that means they will be given the same authority that the Capitol Police already have here on Capitol Hill. I appreciate our friend Senator Coons working with me on this important legislation, and I hope the entire Senate will vote on it soon. As far as the larger debate about the draft document that was released, it is important to remember we don't actually know what the Supreme Court is going to decide until it actually does decide. The Justices are still working through the deliberative process, and our respect for the independence of the Court requires that we let it proceed without interference. While tensions and emotions may be high, it is important to note that overruling earlier Supreme Court decisions is nothing new. I looked back and realized it was 1789 when the Supreme Court reversed its first prior decision. Since that time, there have been 232 instances where an earlier Supreme Court decision was overturned. And, I must say, thank goodness the Court is willing, under some limited circumstances, to revisit its earlier decisions. The Court's decisions overruling earlier precedents in some cases has fundamentally altered major aspects of our society. Without question one of the most notable was Brown v. Board of Education. Now, Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark ruling overruling a case called Plessy v. Ferguson, which established a shameful ``separate but equal'' doctrine between Blacks and Whites in public transportation and public schools. Brown said that is fundamentally discriminatory and will not stand because it doesn't meet the constitutional standards. But it is tough today to imagine what our country would look like had the Supreme Court not reached its decision in Brown nearly 70 years ago. Classrooms, restrooms, water fountains, and even healthcare facilities would be designated by race. I am confident that I can speak for everyone in this Chamber when I say thank goodness the Court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and reached the ruling that it did in Brown v. Board of Education. There are more modern examples where the Court overruled precedent, like Lawrence v. Texas was overruled in 2003 by the precedent established by Bowers v. Hardwick, which had made it a crime to be engaged in same-sex conduct. So without a doubt, the Court's decision to overturn its precedents has altered our society, and I suggest it has changed our society for the better in many of those instances. Now, I realize that given our political and ideological preferences, we might like or dislike the decision that the Court ultimately makes, but former Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson said years ago that the Supreme Court is not final because it is right; it is right, he said, because it is final. But there is no such thing as an inviolable decision or permanent decision by the Supreme Court, and again I say thank goodness. If prior decisions were set in stone, we would still be subject to egregious, shameful policies of the past like ``separate but equal.'' But the Supreme Court should always try to correct previously decided erroneous decisions, and they have criteria under the doctrine known as stare decisis for the circumstances under which they will revisit that precedent. The Court understands that they can't willy-nilly overrule earlier decisions, and there is a very elaborate and exacting process and evaluation of analysis by which they do so. But I believe it is our responsibility here in the Senate not to be part of the mob. Cooler heads must prevail. And that means us. It starts with us. We have to stand for the independence of the Court even when they render decisions we don't like. That is the only way to preserve the crown jewels of our form of government, which is the independent judiciary. The High Court cannot be subjected to pressure campaigns by anyone--elected officials, political activists, or anyone else. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, just a couple of days ago, we witnessed an unprecedented attack on the independence and integrity of the U.S. Supreme Court, a third coequal branch of government, when some reporters got their hands on a nearly 3-month-old draft of an opinion, setting off a political firestorm, creating a lot of confusion, more than a little hysteria. And all of which is, frankly, beside the point because the Court actually hasn't decided anything. But this was a stunning breach of confidentiality for an institution that relies on a private, confidential deliberative process. The Supreme Court was designed to operate, as is our judiciary, free of political and other outside influence and interference. That is why Justices are not elected; they are nominated and confirmed to serve life terms. That is why they don't have term limits. That is why you can't reduce their salary while they are in office, to make sure that politics and outside opinions have nothing to do with the way they do their job because, of course, their job is a limited but important job of saying what the law is, not making it up, not being a policy maker, but saying what the law is. It is absolutely critical to our form of government and to our separated powers and our three branches of government that the Supreme Court be protected from pressure campaigns from anyone--politicians, political activists. Anyone. But that is exactly what is happening right now, and many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are fanning the flames. And they know that this is not a final opinion, but they see a political opportunity to fan the flames of hysteria and mislead the American people about exactly what this all means and what the consequences are. For example, in the wake of this news, the Democratic leader of the Senate and the Speaker of the House released a statement--an unconscionable statement, in my view. They called it an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history and one that defiled the Supreme Court's reputation. That is what they say about a nondecision, a nonjudgment, about a leaked, 3-month-old draft. We have no idea how the Court will ultimately decide the case, but this was a political opportunity that the Speaker and the majority leader could not resist. Frankly, I think it is because they would like to change the subject. The American people's concerns, if you ask them--as public opinion pollsters have--what they are concerned about, they said they are concerned about inflation, they are concerned about crime, they are concerned about the border, they are concerned about the war, the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But this is a grand opportunity to change the subject and to mislead the American people. For some reason, the Senate majority leader, Senator Schumer, and Speaker Pelosi did not criticize the person who actually leaked the opinion, the person who committed a frontal assault on the independence of our judiciary, the Supreme Court. One of the most powerful institutions in our country experiences an unprecedented breach of confidentiality, and what do our Democratic colleagues, the Speaker and the majority leader, do? They attack the Justices. They attack the Court. They don't attack the leaker, the person who committed this egregious breach of confidentiality. Nowhere in their joint statement did they even mention the leak or leaker, or reaffirm the importance of an independent judiciary. No, they took the opportunity to slam the Justices, who have not yet decided the case. Unfortunately, this is nothing new. In 2019, the Democratic leader went to the Supreme Court steps and threatened two Supreme Court Justices by name if they did not rule in a certain way. He said: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. That is our colleague, the senior Senator from New York, the majority leader of the Senate. He threatened two sitting Justices with retribution should they rule in a way he disagreed with. The top Senate Democrat lobbing threats at Supreme Court Justices is a dangerous, dangerous model for the American people. This is the branch of government that is supposed to be kept free from those pressures and those sorts of threats, that kind of intimidation, or at least attempts at intimidation. But, here again, the Senator from New York and the Speaker of the House, they know that, but they did it anyway. It doesn't matter what case is before the Supreme Court or what ruling is ultimately handed down, leaders of Congress, some of the highest elected officials in the U.S. Government, should be a better example and defend the important principle of judicial independence. Justice Scalia, in one of his speeches that I read a few years back, talked about what is unique about our system of government, and he said it is the independence of the judiciary, which are the crown jewels. He said, you read the Constitution of the old Soviet Union or any one of a number of other countries, they may have a fine written document that pledges allegiance to certain high-minded values, many of which are contained in our Constitution, but they are just words on a paper. He said what is different in the United States of America is the independence of the judiciary, who will call balls and strikes and who will ultimately decide some of the most contentious and disputed issues in our country based on the Constitution and laws of the United States, not because they took a public opinion poll to see what was more popular or they were threatened with retribution by some politician. Unfortunately, our Democratic colleagues and, in particular, their leaders have taken a dangerous approach, and they are not just taking aim at individual Justices; they want to undermine the entire institution of the independent judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court. A few years ago, five of our colleagues on the Democratic side, including the current chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, filed an amicus brief--a friend of the court brief--in a case involving gun rights. These Senators made a not-so-subtle threat that unless the Court ruled in a particular way, the entire institution would be, in their words, ``restructured.'' That is nothing more, nothing less than a simple effort to coerce the Justices into deciding a case in a particular way; to threaten them that unless you go our way, the Court will be restructured. Well, we know that those weren't just idle words, given some of the threats to pack the Court by adding additional Justices to the Court. We heard that threat of Court packing many times. That was one of the agenda items should our Democratic colleagues eliminate the filibuster, the requirement of 60 votes before you close off debate in the Senate. They said they were going to pack the Court. Many of the presidential hopefuls embraced that idea in 2020, and the latest news has it that a number of Democrats are bringing this idea back to center stage. Disagree with what you think the Court might ultimately decide, and we are going to restructure it. We are going to pack it until we get the result that we want. Kiss an independent judiciary goodbye--the crown jewels of our system of government. Earlier this week, the junior Senator from Massachusetts called the Supreme Court's current majority ``stolen, illegitimate, and far- right.'' These are Justices who were confirmed by the U.S. Senate. It is dangerous and dishonest to suggest that any of their positions are anything less than consistent with the law and the Constitution. Our colleague went on to say that the Supreme Court should be ``expanded.'' That is another way of saying they should pack the Court with like-minded policymakers. Well, whether you talk about expanding the Court or packing the Court, the result is the same. It is just another effort to try to politicize this independent branch of government--this independent judiciary--which, as I said and will say again, are the crown jewels of our system of government, an independent judiciary. Well, even Joe Biden knows that is a boneheaded idea. The reason I know that and we know that is because that is what he said in 1983. He called Court packing a ``boneheaded idea.'' Justice Ginsburg was asked about it. She said ``nine seems to be a good number.'' That was her gentle way of saying that if you start adding Justices to the Court or restructuring or packing the Court, basically, you are in pursuit of a political outcome and you undermine the independence of the judiciary and they are transformed into something far different than what our Founding Fathers believed it would be, which is an institution that would decide legal disputes, whether they be constitutional or otherwise, and would be depended on by the American people to present fair opportunities for all sides to be heard and then an outcome that was not tainted by bias or politics or policymaking. As Justice Breyer has said, the very authority that the Court has depends on ``a trust that the court is guided by legal principle, not politics'' and that these types of changes--packing, restructuring, whatever you want to call it--he said would erode that trust, undermine the public's confidence and trust in the Supreme Court. But as we have seen the last few days since this draft opinion was leaked in an egregious breach of confidentiality, our friends across the aisle don't want impartial judges. They don't want an independent judiciary. They want judges who will deliver a particular outcome in a case. They want the Court to be an extension of their politics here in the Senate. Well, politics has its place, but its place is right here and in the White House, where the voters get to vote for us or vote against us every 2 years or 6 years, as the case may be--or 4 years, in the case of the President. I understand that our colleagues want a specific ruling on abortion rights. Tomorrow, it could be Second Amendment rights. The next day, it might involve the means by which we run our elections. This entire episode highlights just how far the radicals in the other party are willing to go to try to get their way. They don't care about the long- term best interests of the country. They don't care about an independent judiciary. They are looking for an opportunity to score political points and distract the American people from what they are really concerned about, which is their ability to put food on the table and support their families. The reason why our Founders designed a Federal Government with three separate but equal branches is because they thought the checks and balances that the three branches would impose would be protective of their liberty. And when one branch goes too far, another branch can be a check and a balance on that and, ultimately, the Supreme Court could be the final arbiter on the constitutionality or the legality of what the other branches are trying to do. But our colleagues across the aisle--by their irresponsible rhetoric undermining public confidence in the Court, jeopardizing the independence of the judiciary--are blurring the lines between the political process and the judicial branch's responsibility. And why? For partisan political gain. An independent judiciary is essential to our democracy. The parties whose cases are being decided by the Court should never have to worry about outside influencers or whether politics plays into the decision- making process. How would you feel if you had a case before the U.S. Supreme Court and you knew that your opposing party tried to pressure or coerce or persuade the judge to arrive at a certain outcome regardless of the law or facts? Well, that would be the opposite of an impartial tribunal and independent judiciary; but that is exactly what our Democratic colleagues are trying to do with the U.S. Supreme Court in this instance. Americans have a constitutional right to due process of law and that precludes any attempt to influence or obstruct an independent judiciary for making a decision in an individual case. I would like to see more of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle fight to protect the integrity and independence of the judiciary. But if they won't, then we will. One thing is for certain. As Chief Justice Roberts said, the Court needs to get to the bottom of how this draft opinion got into the hands of the press in an unprecedented and egregious breach of confidence. The Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts has directed the Marshal of the Court to investigate the source of this leak and once that happens, the person responsible will be held accountable. It is a very tight-knit group of people who have access to these draft opinions. I have every confidence the Marshal of the Court will find the person who leaked this opinion to the press, and they will be held accountable in what will undoubtedly be a life-changing consequence, particularly if it is a law clerk or someone who is working for the Court. It will be a career-ending mistake. But this is, first and foremost, a matter of protecting the integrity and independence of the judiciary from any force, external or internal, that seeks to chip away at the Court's independence. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill directs the President to submit to Congress a report on U.S. Government efforts to collect, analyze, and preserve evidence and information related to war crimes and other atrocities committed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine since February 24, 2022.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill directs the President to submit to Congress a report on U.S. Government efforts to collect, analyze, and preserve evidence and information related to war crimes and other atrocities committed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine since February 24, 2022.