John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, this week my fellow Texans and people across the country will be celebrating the life and legacy of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Like some of the best known Texans, from George Bush to Simone Biles, Sheila wasn't born in Texas. But as we like to say, she got there as soon as she could. She was born in New York, but she and her husband, Elwyn, chose to plant roots in Texas, and it didn't take long for her to become a leader in the Houston region. She was a lawyer, then a judge, then a city council member and, finally, a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives. When I came to the Senate, I quickly learned a few important qualities about Sheila. No. 1, she was passionate--very passionate. Sheila was honored to represent the 18th Congressional District, and she cared deeply about her role as a voice for those constituents, here in Congress. Two, she was persistent. Some might even say relentless. She was never afraid to pick up the phone or track you down and try to convince you to see things her way on an issue. And, third, she was willing to cross party lines to get things done. Despite our opposing political parties, Sheila and I partnered on a number of bills to notch bipartisan wins for our State. Along with the rest of the Texas delegation, she helped secure critical resources and disaster assistance after numerous storms and hurricanes, which always seem to find their way to the southeast region of Texas. We worked on bills to support survivors of sexual assault and violence, including the Debbie Smith Act, which was just signed into law this week. We passed a law that serves as a first step toward establishing the Emancipation National Historic Trail, which will stretch from Galveston to Houston. And, 3 years ago, we led legislation to establish Juneteenth as a Federal holiday, something that existed in Texas for the last 40 years because Juneteenth celebrates something very important that happened in Galveston, TX, when, 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the African-American slaves in that region learned for the first time that they were indeed free. Sheila was a true stateswoman. She was a Texan through and through, and she devoted her life to serving the people of Houston. We will miss Sheila, both in Texas and in the Halls of Congress. And Sandy and I send our prayers for comfort to Elwyn, Jason, Erica, Ellison, Roy, and the entire Lee family.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I am glad I was in the Chamber to witness this passage of these bills pertaining to the scourge of Alzheimer's by unanimous consent. This is a rare bright spot in our activities where we actually all come together and agree on good policy.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, it is clear that the November 5 election is prominent on the mind of the majority leader, who has used the floor of the U.S. Senate to make what should be a paid political announcement for the ``Harris for President'' campaign.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, this afternoon--in just, actually, a few short hours--Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will deliver an address to a joint session of Congress. As his country faces multiple attacks on multiple fronts--an existential threat, actually--Prime Minister Netanyahu has come to the United States to affirm the strong relationship between his country and ours and to highlight the stakes of this war. This joint address comes at a critical time, and I am absolutely stunned and profoundly disappointed that the Vice President of the United States has decided to boycott participating in this particular speech. As we all know, it is traditional that the Vice President, as the President of the Senate, and the Speaker sit behind the invited speaker--in this case, Prime Minister Netanyahu. I remember several years back, when Prime Minister Netanyahu was last here, that the Vice President and the Speaker both sat in those chairs, recognizing the importance of lending that dignity and sense of gravity to the proceeding. But Vice President Harris can't be bothered with any of that. She is blaming her decision on a scheduling conflict even though the date of this speech was announced in early June. The only other item on the Vice President's schedule is a speech to a sorority convention in Indianapolis. The world is on fire--we have never seen a more dangerous environment since World War II--and the Vice President can't be bothered to show up at the Nation's Capitol, in the House Chamber, and demonstrate the respect and courtesy that we thought was a given--but apparently not in this case. Not only has the Vice President chosen to skip this address, so has the Senate's President pro tempore, Senator Murray. We learned this morning, the majority whip, Senator Durbin, is boycotting this address as well. I think it is absolutely disgraceful that the most senior members of the Democratic Party have chosen to give the Heisman to one of our closest allies in the Middle East--the only democracy in the Middle East that is fighting for its very existence. Why would they do something like this? Well, it is pretty obvious. It is pandering. It is pandering to the most radical elements of the Democratic base. I am proud of the deep friendship between the United States and Israel. Our national security is tied up in the national security of Israel. We know Iran, the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism, wants to wipe Israel off the map, like Hamas, which is a proxy for Iran, like Hezbollah, like the Houthis in Yemen, which all are determined to destroy the nation of Israel. So it has never been more important for the United States to stand shoulder to shoulder with our ally and friend against these unprovoked attacks by terrorist groups against innocent civilians. There were 251 hostages taken on October 7--innocent civilians--in addition to all of the thousand-plus individuals who were murdered. Eight of the current hostages are American citizens, and the Vice President can't be bothered to show up? It is disgraceful.

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, it has been a remarkable couple of weeks in our country: the attempted assassination of President Trump; the decision made by President Biden to--notwithstanding having won all the primaries and being, essentially, the chosen leader of the Democratic party on the presidential ticket come November--his decision to step down in what can only be described as a political coup to install the Vice President as the Democratic nominee, even after months upon months of elections where the votes of people who participated in the Democratic primary have now simply been disregarded in favor of a handful of leaders in the smoky, smoke-filled rooms here in Washington, DC, deciding who should be their standard bearer. But tomorrow we have another very significant event occurring: Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is in Washington this week and will address Congress tomorrow. More than 9 months have passed since that terrible day on October 7 when Israel was attacked by Hamas terrorists. These attacks were against innocent civilians, not the Israeli defense forces, and these terrorists brutally murdered more than 1,200 Israelis without any warning and violently assaulted countless others. They took 251 hostages--many, unfortunately, have died, while 120 of them still remain in Hamas custody, including 8 Americans. Over the last several months, Israeli forces have faced attacks not just from Hamas but from another terrorist proxy--or I should say two of them--Hezbollah from Lebanon in the northern part of the region and its proxy, the Houthis, in Yemen. Sadly, many on the far left in our country have chosen to take sides not with our friend and ally Israel but with the terrorists--with Hamas, with Hezbollah and the Houthis against our friend and ally Israel. They have repeatedly called for a cease-fire, notwithstanding the fact that Israel is still under threat from Iranian proxies; and they have attempted to frame Prime Minister Netanyahu as the villain here for a war begun on October 7 when terrorists attacked innocent Israeli civilians. At a time when many Americans and, sadly, many Members of Congress do not seem to understand why America's support for Israel is so critical, I hope Prime Minister Netanyahu's remarks tomorrow will provide some clarity and some context. There is a saying that has been going around for years: If Hamas laid down its weapons today, there would be no more violence. If Israel laid down its weapons, there would be no more Israel. Hamas is not fighting for peace; it is trying to wipe Israel off the map. This is an existential threat to the State of Israel and the people of Israel. The United States cannot tiptoe down the line between good and evil. We must make a choice, and we must make a stand. And that stand should be with Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu's joint address to Congress is an opportunity to reaffirm our shared values and highlight the pivotal role that Israel plays in promoting stability and democracy in an admittedly volatile region. I look forward to hearing his remarks tomorrow, but I am concerned about one critical absence. There have been news reports that Vice President Harris, who is now on track to become the Democrats' Presidential nominee, will not be in attendance. Reports are she is scheduled to speak at a sorority convention in Indianapolis. But this isn't a last-minute or unavoidable scheduling conflict. The date of Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech was announced in early June. And in any event, I am sure the sorority convention would forgive the Vice President for attending to this important event here in Washington, DC, and perhaps reschedule for another time. But to openly boycott the leader of Israel at a time like this is irresponsible. The Vice President's decision to skip this joint address is clearly a snub, and it foreshadows a continuing trend in U.S. foreign policy that started under the current President. And, obviously, it is designed to send a message to Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel. We have already heard some Members of this body call for Prime Minister Netanyahu--basically, for there to be an election to replace him, an unprecedented intrusion into the affairs of a sovereign nation, another democracy. It is disgraceful and embarrassing to see the pandering to extremist elements in the Democratic party. Sadly, the Vice President isn't the only one shying away from showing support for one of our critical allies. Media reports say that this Chamber's President Pro Tempore, Senator Murray, is boycotting the speech as well. I am not surprised that some of the more radical Members of the Democratic conference may boycott, but it is shameful when their top leadership is so willing to abandon a key ally. In light of these dynamics, I hope the majority leader, Senator Schumer, will make it clear where he stands and that he doesn't condone skipping one of the most important sessions of Congress in recent memory just to get more air time on cable TV. Given the partisan antics at play, I am relieved to hear that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Ben Cardin, will sit behind Prime Minister Netanyahu tomorrow. I don't recall when the Vice President and the President pro tempore declined to sit and the chairman of a standing committee, like the Foreign Relations Committee, was called upon to fill in. But good for him. He understands the important message that this address sends and has stepped in to do what others have refused to do. Still, the world is watching the Vice President more closely than ever before, now that she is on a path to become the Democratic nominee for President. They, of course, are analyzing every word, every move, every signal, every decision. If the Vice President keeps up with her current plans to boycott this address, it will send a chilling message about her foreign policy priorities and the future of U.S.-Israel relations under a potential Harris administration. It also demonstrates a disregard of the commitments we have made as a nation to our allies. At a time when the tyrants and dictators of the world are drawing closer together, America cannot abandon our allies. As Israel faces ongoing threats in a hostile neighborhood, it is imperative that the United States stand steady beside Israel. Israel must have confidence that, regardless of who is elected in November, the relationship between the United States and Israel will remain strong. You know, it is not just the message we send to Israel; it is the message we send to Iran, the No. 1 state sponsor of international terrorism, and its proxies--Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis in Yemen. The Vice President, whether she appreciates it or not, is sending a message to America's enemies as well. As Joseph Stalin reportedly said, ``you probe with bayonets. If you find mush, you push on. But if you find steel, you withdraw.'' Unfortunately, the message that the Vice President is sending by not attending this address and respecting our friend and ally Israel sends a message of mush, not steel. As we face growing challenges around the globe, including the threat of Iran's nuclear ambitions and the spread of terrorism, we need leaders who will unequivocally support our allies and uphold our commitments. I can only hope that the Vice President will change her mind and make that commitment this week. I would congratulate her if she did. But as we look into the future, America needs leaders who understand the importance of our alliances and who are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends. As I said earlier, this is not just a message to our friends and allies. This is a message to Israel's enemies and adversaries, because, if they sense a lack of commitment and resolve on the part of the United States to stand with our allies, they are going to continue to do what they started on October 7. As I said, we need leaders who understand the importance of our alliances and who are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends. Any leader or would-be leader who fails to meet that bar does not deserve a seat in the Senate, much less in the Oval Office. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I am glad the Presiding Officer is in the Chair because, committed as I know she is to solving real problems, the legislation that we are going to pass here momentarily by unanimous consent has been 7 years in the making but will actually address the problem of high drug prices. In the last few years, I have heard, certainly, from my constituents in Texas about the struggle to obtain their medication at affordable costs. It is not because no treatment exists or because they don't have insurance or because it is a brandnew drug that just hit the market. Many patients can't afford prescriptions they have been taking for years because the prices continue to go up, and there is little evidence of anything to justify those price increases. I have heard heartbreaking stories about patients leaving their prescriptions unfilled simply because they can't afford them, rationing doses of blood pressure medication, and traveling across the international border to Mexico to get certain medications at lower prices. The problem is, when you go to Mexico to get your medication, it may look like the same medication you take in the United States, but chances are it may well be counterfeit, so that is a real problem in and of itself. These challenges have been compounded by high inflation under President Biden's policies. We know everything has gone up in cost--an average of 20 percent over the last 3 years for groceries, gas, rent. Just about everything is more expensive today than it was when President Biden took office. Senators from both sides of the aisle, on a bipartisan basis, have offered a number of bills to try to get at this problem of high drug prices. One of these is a bipartisan bill that I introduced with Senator Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut called the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act. This legislation addresses one of the most egregious practices contributing to high drug prices, which is patent abuse. Our country offers robust protection for intellectual property. In other words, if you are going to do the research and development and go to the expense and take the risk associated with creating something new and innovative, like a new drug to treat a deadly disease, our laws allow the right to sell that drug on an exclusive basis for a period of time. I think it is very important to incentivize that sort of innovation and research, and it produces lifesaving drugs. We know that many companies are unlikely to pour expensive resources into discovering new cures if, at the end of it, they can't even recoup their own costs, much less make a profit. That is where our patent system comes in. It is as old as our country is old. The patent system provides a limited time period for the manufacturer to be the sole seller in the marketplace before generic versions can become available, but some companies are abusing the system. They are taking extreme steps to maintain their exclusivity for a drug and keep the money rolling in. One way they do this is through a practice known as patent thickening. This involves creating intricate webs of patents to keep the competition at bay for as long as possible because as long as you can continue to sell these drugs on an exclusive basis, the money is going to keep coming in, and it will not go generic and result in competition from others. The Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act aims to stop this anticompetitive behavior and allow new drugs to come to market sooner. That is how we improve competition and ultimately lower prices for patients without standing in the way of innovation. The added benefit to this bill is the Federal savings that it would provide for taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this bill would lead to lower Federal spending by $1.8 billion over 10 years. At a time when our national debt is at an alltime high--approaching $35 trillion--anything we can do to help deal with that rising debt I think should be regarded as positive. And this is just a savings to the Federal Government for Medicare and Medicaid. There will, undoubtedly, be significant savings for consumers who have private health insurance on top of that. This bipartisan legislation checks every box. It protects innovation; it increases competition; and it saves money for taxpayers and consumers. Most importantly, it lowers prices at a time when many patients are seeing their drug prices go up and up and up--apparently, without end. I can't imagine why anybody would oppose such a piece of legislation. Election day is 4 months away, and the Senate is only scheduled to be in session for 20 days between now and then, including today. Patients in Texas and across the country are asking their elected representatives to do something to address these high drug prices, and it is time for the Senate to deliver. Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 22, S. 150.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I further ask that the Cornyn substitute amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is no secret that, in recent years, the Supreme Court has become a political target for our friends across the aisle, the Democrats. I still remember a time--maybe it was a quaint period during our Nation's history--when Robert Jackson, former Supreme Court Justice, said: The Supreme Court is not final because it is always right. It is right because it is always final. The point is, there has to be someplace, somewhere in the U.S. Government, where decisions are made on something other than a political basis. We know that in Congress--the political branches of government--we run for office; we stand for reelection. The voters can agree with us or disagree with us based upon our actions, and we will then be held accountable at the ballot box. The same is true for the President of the United States, the head of the executive branch. But the judicial branch is supposed to be different. Judges don't stand for election. They can't be removed from office for virtually anything other than impeachable behavior, which is rare indeed, and Congress can't reduce their pay during their tenure in office. All of these are designed to preserve the independence of the judiciary. Justice Scalia, during his lifetime, liked to observe that constitutions are simply words on paper, and he pointed out that the Soviet Union--the former Soviet Union--had one of the best constitutions on paper that existed at the time. But the difference between the Soviet Union and the United States is that we have an independent judiciary--unelected, unaccountable at the ballot box, but who continue, during their good behavior, as members of the court who have to make hard decisions. Their decisions are supposed to be made not on public opinion polls, not on votes cast at the ballot box, not on what is most popular but what conforms with the Constitution and laws of the United States. They have to literally call balls and strikes. But some of our Democratic colleagues have decided that, when they don't like those decisions made by this independent judiciary, the best tactic is to attack the Judges and to thereby claim that, somehow, they are just another political branch--an unelected political branch--but nothing could be farther from the truth. As evidence of their attempt to politicize the courts, I would point to the time that five of our Democratic colleagues threatened to ``restructure the Court'' if it didn't deliver their preferred outcome in a case involving the Second Amendment. There was a time when some of our colleagues said: We need to pack the Court with more judges because we don't like the ones that currently sit on the Court, and we want a different outcome in the Court's decision. And then there was the time when 15 of our Democratic colleagues recommended slashing the Court's budget unless it implemented a preferred code of ethics dictated by the legislative branch and not an independent judiciary. And, of course, we can't forget the time when the majority leader, the Senator from New York, stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened two Justices by name, saying they would ``pay the price''; they wouldn't know what hit them if they didn't reach his preferred decision in a case involving abortion. Over and over again, many of our Democratic colleagues have shown their contempt for an independent judiciary, the very foundation of our form of government and the crown jewels of what makes us different from the rest of the world. Let's forget unbiased judges who reach decisions based on the law and the Constitution. Some of our Democratic colleagues want to put their thumbs on the scales of justice in order to achieve specific results. And in pursuit of what? I would suggest it is in pursuit of power by any means whatsoever, as opposed to regarding the Constitution itself and the very structure of our Government as being sacrosanct, something to be celebrated and honored. They view it as something to be circumvented in order to pursue power, in order to pursue desired results. We all know that, last week, the Supreme Court concluded a busy and consequential term that included a number of cases on a wide range of matters, from voting rights and homelessness to Presidential immunity and the power of Federal Agencies. Based on the reaction of some on the left, you would think the sky is falling. You would think the apocalypse is nigh and that we had reached the end of democracy as we know it. Well, let's first look at the decision that the Court made to strike down something called the Chevron doctrine. This is a 40-year-old interpretation of an Agency's power that basically deferred to an Agency and created immense, unaccountable authority in bureaucrats who were not elected to office. This doctrine originated in 1984 in a case where the Supreme Court gave Federal Agencies broad leeway to interpret laws passed by Congress. Over time, Chevron deference has emboldened Agencies to expand their powers, far beyond what Congress has authorized, to enact policies that go far beyond what Congress intended, with little or no oversight and no accountability. If you think about it, Congress is the one given the authority, under our Constitution, to legislate, to make the laws. There is no authority under the Constitution for the executive branch to make laws, and certainly no authority under the Constitution given to Federal Agencies to make laws, absent authority granted to them by the legislative branch. But here is one example of how the administrative Agencies have abused their authority. In the wake of a horrific mass shooting in Uvalde, TX, 2 years ago, I worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass a bill called the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. It was signed into law a month after the shooting and made historic investments in mental health and school safety. We also included targeted reforms to protect public safety, without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens under the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The firearms-related provisions of the bill were designed to be targeted and extremely narrow. But when it came to interpreting or implementing the law, the Biden administration's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms colored way outside the lines that Congress authorized. The administration used these provisions as a pretext to implement broader reforms that were flatly rejected by Congress multiple times during the course of the negotiations. In other words, we considered and rejected the very outcome that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms sought to achieve by this rewrite of what Congress had authorized. In short, unelected bureaucrats, accountable to no one, ignored the express will of the people's representatives in Congress and took a bipartisan law that was crafted in good faith and turned it into a Trojan horse for their own radical gun control policies, all contrary to the Constitution. Senator Tillis, the Senator from North Carolina, and I had worked together with our friends and colleagues Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut and Senator Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona to be the principal authors of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. Senator Tillis and I--after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms issued their unauthorized and unconstitutional rule-- introduced a measure to block the Biden rule, and I hope that we have a chance to vote on that soon. The truth is, it has already been enjoined, or stayed, by Federal courts as being outside of the authority given to the Agency to interpret the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act--in other words, an extralegal act to try to create law where Congress had not. But the truth is Congress shouldn't have to pass a resolution of disapproval every time the administration overreaches. That alone could be a full- time job. In its recent ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed what should be obvious to all of us, because that is what the Constitution says: that it is up to Congress to pass laws, not unaccountable bureaucrats--an unremarkable holding, really, but one that was long overdue. If an Agency takes too many creative liberties with implementing the law, that matter should be examined and ultimately struck down by a court as outside the authorities that the Constitution gives the executive branch Agency. Again, our Framers designed three coequal and distinct separate branches of government. When Agencies attempt to legislate, even though the Constitution does not permit it, the courts have a responsibility to step in and strike down unlawful attempts to usurp the article I authority granted solely to the legislative branch, including the U.S. Senate. In our country, all power--all political power--is derived from a single source; that is the consent of the governed. Laws that affect people across the country should be crafted, debated, and passed by Congress, not handed down through administrative actions and rulemaking where Congress is not authorized. If a President's party wants to change the law, the only option is to come to Congress and work with Congress. There are no shortcuts. The executive branch doesn't have the authority to legislate on its own, whether under the guise of rulemaking or otherwise. That is why the end of this so-called Chevron deference is so important to the restoration of democracy and constitutional government. It takes power out of the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats, and it puts the responsibility back in the hands of those of us who are Members of the political branch, the legislature. We run for office. Voters can vote for us or vote against us, and that is the sort of accountability that the Constitution contemplates. Despite some of the dramatic overreaction by some of our colleagues, the end of Chevron deference does not signal the end of democracy. It simply says the Court has to look at the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress, and if the administration overreaches, it is the duty of the Court to strike it down as being unauthorized by Congress. Regardless of political affiliation, everyone should want that because that is what the Constitution requires. No administration--no Republican administration, no Democratic administration--should have the authority to violate the Constitution and usurp the will and the responsibilities given solely to Congress. In another highly anticipated opinion, the Supreme Court clarified what Presidents can and cannot be sued for. Well, based on some reaction to the case, you would think the Court had given the President the green light to commit murder, rob a bank, or traffic illegal drugs from the White House. But, obviously, that is not case. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court stated that official acts of a President should be given immunity but did not go on to say that individual acts that have been charged in pending cases were, in fact, immune. It has remanded those decisions back to the trial courts to apply the law as the Court articulated. The Court did not offer any sort of protection against unofficial acts. The Justices didn't grant the President carte blanche to commit crimes with impunity. It simply clarified that the President is entitled to immunity while performing official acts. This opinion is not, contrary to some claims, a monumental shift in policy. Presidential immunity was established in previous cases to protect the integrity of the executive branch, and it recognizes that a President--any President--a Democratic President or a Republican President--needs some latitude to make tough calls on public policy and matters facing the country without the threat of being sued incessantly and being distracted from their duties to serve the American people in this office. I think back on George W. Bush's Presidency, when the Nation was attacked by al-Qaida on 9/11. Nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on that day, and President Bush made the decision that, I have to imagine, was one of the most difficult decisions that any President can make: He made the decision to go to war against these terrorists. American troops were deployed in the Middle East to destroy al-Qaida, and many on the left viewed this act of self-defense as something else entirely. Some went so far as to label that what the President did made him a ``war criminal'' for his decision to defend the country against terrorists. Current Supreme Court Justice Brown Jackson served as a Federal public defender at the time, and she even filed a brief accusing President Bush of committing a war crime. Can you imagine if the President was dragged into court every time somebody had a disagreement about what the President decides in acting in his or her official capacity? It would, obviously, not only chill decision making, but it would severely limit the President's ability to govern effectively. The recourse is not in court; it is at the ballot box. Presidents must be able to perform their duties without the fear of incessant and harassing litigation. The Commander in Chief should not have his or her hands tied by a looming threat of prosecution for actions taken during their official duties as part of the Presidency of the United States. The Supreme Court, in fact, simply clarified that criminal law cannot be used as a weapon against a President for his or her official acts. But given the fact that many of our colleagues on the left have tried to weaponize a judicial system in recent years, the Supreme Court's decision was particularly important. We have had a new word created recently called lawfare, basically using litigation as a form of warfare rather than arguing for votes and having debates about policies that are then decided by the voters at the ballot box. We have seen some of our Democratic colleagues attempting to use every tool to tear down President Biden's campaign rival, former President Trump. And in the process, we have seen some Democrats weaponize the Department of Justice against President Trump and his allies, and we have seen that in the district attorney in the State of New York in a recent litigation against former President Trump. Prosecutors blew past exculpatory evidence when looking at the January 6 cases, for example. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg even campaigned on the promise to prosecute President Trump. This is just the latest chapter in the never-ending saga that is the Democrats' war against an independent judiciary and using the court to try to accomplish what they should be trying to accomplish not in court but at the ballot box, through legitimate debate, transparency and, ultimately, the decision of the American people. Some of our colleagues on the left don't want judges to follow the law. They want easy victories. They want layups. And when they can't win in Congress because they don't have the votes, they want the courts to fill in the gaps and accomplish the goals that they could not accomplish in Congress. Some of our colleagues want the court to reach a conclusion first, without regard to the facts or the law, and then work backward to try to come up with some sort of justification for the outcome. That is called results-oriented decision making. It is the opposite of what judges should be doing. Whether that means taking down a political rival, implementing radical pro-abortion policies, or expanding the power of unelected bureaucrats, some of our colleagues on the left want the Supreme Court to be a shortcut to easy wins--easy political wins--again, that they could not accomplish in the Halls of Congress or at the ballot box. These Justices are not puppets that can be manipulated for partisan gain. They are members of a separate and coequal branch of government, and their decisions must be respected. That doesn't mean you need to agree with them, but you do need to respect their right to make the decision and to finally settle these issues, at least until Congress or another branch of government decides to overturn them on other than constitutional grounds. Obviously, the Supreme Court is the final word in interpreting the Constitution. And unless we see the Constitution amended at some point by the American people, that is going to stand. Many of the Courts' decisions are based on statutory interpretation, based on what the legislature has done, what the Senate has done. And those are things that the Senate can come back and address through legislation. But the biggest threat to democracy isn't the Supreme Court; it is a never-ending series of political attacks on the Court by many on the left. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to join with my colleagues and say a few words celebrating the tremendous life and times of James Mountain Inhofe. He had a great name, and it seemed to fit him amazingly well. My memories of Senator Inhofe were similar to those that Senator Thune mentioned. When I came to the Senate, he was the chairman or ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I remember him telling me one time: I am a true conservative. I believe in a strong national security, lower taxes, and infrastructure. And, of course, the job of the Environment and Public Works Committee was largely to handle the regular highway bill reauthorization and funding. And he was true to his word. He believed, as a true conservative, in those three important things, and, he said: Pretty much everything else we do is way down the list in terms of priorities. But perhaps the time I remember the most is working with him when he was leading the Armed Services Committee. I know he believed that there was no more important job for us to do--those of us who have the privilege of serving in the U.S. Senate or in the Congress--than to defend and protect our country and our way of life. And he believed that with all of his heart and all of his mind. And so the exercise that we do every year, which is called the National Defense Authorization Act--which we have done, I think, now 63 years in a row--he was passionate about making sure that we did that on time and got it done because of his commitment not only to our national security but to the men and women who serve our country in uniform and the families who love and support them. And he was passionate about making sure we did our work and supported them and kept our country safe and our way of life protected. His physical stamina was legendary. We have already heard some of our colleagues talk about some of his trips around the world. Some of our colleagues, when they travel, believe in what I would call almost a ``death march'' pace. And, certainly, Senator Inhofe believed in making the most of his overseas travel, but, frankly, most of them were focused on either supporting our men and women in uniform, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also making sure that he got the most out of those trips. So if you agreed to go with him, chances are you wouldn't get much sleep, but you would get a chance to see and do a lot. He would regularly make his trips to Africa, where he would reach out to leaders through a common belief and a common faith. He was very active in the National Prayer Breakfast. I remember, on most Wednesday mornings here in the Senate, he would almost always be at the Senate Prayer Breakfast. For those of us who can attend from time to time, it is one of the times where we sort of take our masks off--where we are not Republicans or Democrats and where we share a common faith. This is something that I know was very important in his life. Certainly, he was a wonderful example and exemplar for the rest of us in how to be a whole person, not just a political animal coming here or maybe a performance artist but somebody who was a genuine human being, who had a strong foundation in his faith and strong beliefs and convictions about what he was here to do. One of the things I will never forget is his annual quail hunt in Altus, TX--excuse me--Altus, OK. I said Altus, TX. We call Oklahoma ``North Texas'' sometimes, and they call Texas ``South Oklahoma,'' but we share a common border and a lot of common interests. One of those was the annual quail hunt in Altus, and it was a great community event. They are primarily connected with the airbase and trying to make sure that community support is strong for that airbase in Altus. I would go up to his each year, and then he would come down to one that I have in Hondo, TX, outside of San Antonio. The other thing I remember--and Senator Lankford, I know, has carried on this great tradition--is that they would have their annual quail breakfast here in DC. It is not something you would ordinarily find at your breakfast table here in Washington, DC, but they would have an annual quail breakfast with the Altus delegation each year. I just think we have lost a great man, a great Senator, a great human being, a great friend. I wanted to come to the floor to express my condolences to Kay and his wonderful family--who meant everything to him--for their loss. We share in their sense of loss, but we also share in their celebration of a great life lived. He had a good run. There is not a lot you can complain about in terms of living to 89 years old and having the sort of fulfilling life and accomplishments he had in his life. So we do want to send our condolences to the family because we know they are grieving now, but we also want to hold up Jim Inhofe as an example of what we should all aspire to as Senators--a great representative of his State, a great human being, and a great, great friend.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, over the last 3\1/2\ years, President Biden's policies have unleashed a series of crises, one after another, and have thus made the lives of average Americans harder, not easier. There is a security crisis at the border that my colleague from North Dakota talked about a moment ago--rising crime rates across our communities, some of which come from gang members who transit our southern border and then go on to commit crimes of violence against innocent Americans all across the country; the drugs that took the lives of 108,000 Americans last year alone; and then America's weakening role on the global stage. I believe there is a reason why the threats that confront our country and world peace are at the greatest level they have been since World War II. It is because the tyrants, the autocrats, the dictators--the people like Vladimir Putin, President Xi in China, Kim Jong Un in North Korea, and the Supreme Leader in Iran--perceive weakness, and weakness for them is a provocation; it is an invitation for them to take action and threaten stability and peace. President Biden's policies have made Americans' lives harder, not easier. Nowhere is that more evident than in the high prices that are clobbering family budgets. I know the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is doing just fine. He is not feeling the impact of higher prices at the gas pump, at the grocery store, in rent, and all across our economy. It doesn't affect him, and it doesn't affect many of us, but for people on a fixed income and people who are of lower income-- seniors, retired individuals--it is degrading and undermining their standard of living and their quality of life. Since President Biden took office 3\1/2\ years ago, consumer prices have risen on average 20 percent. That means a dollar that you spent on consumer products--whatever they may be--3\1/2\ years ago now only buys 80 cents' worth of value. That is a hard leap for many families to absorb, and for those living on fixed incomes or tight budgets, it is virtually impossible. Families are paying 21 percent more for groceries, 41 percent more for energy, and 54 percent more for gasoline. When you add in price hikes on clothing, car insurance, and even a visit to the dentist, you are looking at a mountain of expenses that cost more today than they did when President Biden took office. America has experienced a 40-year high in inflation as a result of the reckless spending policies of the Biden administration's by throwing $2.7 trillion of reckless partisan spending on the fire of inflation, making it much, much, much worse. Of course, then the Federal Reserve has to try to raise interest rates, which they have done, in order to dampen that fire, in order to put out the fire. But that doesn't erase the fact that American consumers--our constituents-- have experienced a 20-percent increase in their cost of living across the board. An average household in the State of Texas is spending more than $1,000 a month more today than they did 3\1/2\ years ago. That is more than $12,500 a year. Texans don't need that sort of data, though, to know that their lives have been impacted negatively, because they have felt the impact themselves for 3\1/2\ long years. They have seen the effect of Biden's policies reflected in their bank accounts and on their credit card statements. Credit card debt is at one of the highest levels it has been in all time. People who can't meet their monthly bills, if they have access to a credit card, may likely charge it and say, ``Well, I am trying to get by today by borrowing on my credit card,'' but of course they end up having to pay that back as well at some point. Meanwhile, they are charged a lot of interest costs, which, again, increase their cost of living. Many Americans have scrapped family vacations and have settled for more affordable, local activities. Sometimes it is a matter of convenience. Sometimes it is a matter of life or death, such as deciding whether to fill a prescription or pay your air-conditioning bill. I can tell you, right now, in the wake of Hurricane Beryl, many Texans are without electricity and are experiencing 100-degree heat and 99-percent humidity. Many Americans who can't afford to pay their utility bills are having to cut back on things like air-conditioning. Many people, during the heat of the summer, particularly vulnerable Americans and the elderly, are suffering as a result. What is President Biden's response when you raise these criticisms? It is to say: Well, it is somebody else's fault. He tries to blame his predecessor for the sticker shock that Americans are experiencing on a daily basis. A couple of months ago, President Biden claimed that inflation was at 9 percent when he took office. Now, that is not the only time that President Biden has misstated the facts. It might be a compelling point if it were actually true. When President Biden took office, inflation was only at 1.4 percent, and under his leadership, inflation has soared to a 40-year high of more than 9 percent. Fortunately, thanks to the policies of the Federal Reserve, which are painful enough because they raise interest rates, which costs consumers more on the debt they owe on their vehicles or when they buy a house, inflation has slowed, but high prices remain. President Biden's policies have sent prices through the roof, and that is where they have stayed. No matter what the level of inflation is currently, those high prices are cumulative, and with election day less than 5 months away, voters are asking themselves a very important question: Has my life gotten better or worse since President Biden took office? Thanks to President Biden's policies, families are struggling to cover the costs of gasoline, groceries, rent, insurance, and just about everything else, and high interest rates, which are a result of the Federal Reserve's tightening of access to credit, continue to make dreams like owning a home or opening a small business out of reach for many Americans. As I said, Texans are now paying more than $1,000 per month more thanks to President Biden's policies. If President Biden manages to win another term in the White House, I worry about how much higher my constituents' monthly bills will continue to climb. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today, world leaders are descending on our Nation's Capital for an important NATO summit, the 2024 NATO summit-- the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is fitting that this gathering is taking place in our Nation's Capital because this is where the story of NATO began. In April of 1949, leaders of the United States and our closest allies gathered here in the Nation's Capital to sign the North Atlantic Treaty. With the stroke of a pen, those 12 countries became the founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The core mission of NATO can be summed up in only two words: collective defense. An attack against one ally is considered an attack against all allies. Of course, Europe had been through two devastating world wars, and the hope was, by creating the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, that aggression could be deterred and, thus, the peace maintained. Seventy-five years ago, this commitment aimed to deter the Soviet Union from expanding its influence into Western Europe. Nearly 23 years ago, the collective defense clause was invoked for the first and only time in history in the wake of the attacks on the United States on 9/ 11. America's NATO allies were there when we needed them--an act of friendship and support that we should never forget. Today, the collective defense clause continues to serve as a firewall that safeguards NATO member states and underpins global security. And in the 75 years since NATO was founded, its membership has grown from 12 to 32 countries, and its influence continues to grow with the recent additions of Sweden and Finland. Beyond ensuring the security of its members, NATO plays a key role in maintaining peace and stability around the world. Suffice it to say, NATO leaders have a big job ahead of them this week. Conflicts are unfolding around the globe, and democracy is under attack by the world's leading aggressors. Nearly 2\1/2\ years have passed since Russia invaded Ukraine, and the fighting has not let up. Yesterday, Russia fired missiles at a children's hospital in Kyiv and other sites across Ukraine--killing at least 38 people and injuring more than 100. In addition to the fighting in Europe, a war is also raging in the Middle East, as we know. More than 9 months have passed since the horrific terrorist attacks by Hamas against civilians in Israel, but Israel is not only defending its sovereignty against Hamas. It is also battling direct fire from Hezbollah and Iran. Just to be clear, Iran is the head of the snake here. Hezbollah and Hamas are proxies for Iran, committed to the ultimate destruction of Israel. In addition to the conflicts in Europe and the Middle East, tensions are growing in the Indo-Pacific as well. The Chinese Communist Party continues to bully and threaten China's neighbors in the region. Just last week, China anchored one of its Coast Guard ships off the coast of the Philippines in a clear act of intimidation. This came after another incident last month when Chinese Coast Guard crewmen attacked Filipino sailors trying to resupply the Sierra Madre. One sailor lost his thumb, and a Philippine Navy boat was left in tatters. Clearly, China is testing America's commitment and the commitments of democracies around the world to protect a treaty ally in the Pacific. While the Senate was in recess last week, I had the privilege of traveling to Romania, Armenia, and Malta with a bipartisan delegation of Members led by our friend, Senator Roger Wicker--the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee and one of the principal delegates to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Our conversations with our allies around the world affirmed a key point that cannot be overlooked: None of these conflicts that are playing out today are occurring in a vacuum--not the wars in Ukraine or in the Middle East or the tensions in the Indo- Pacific. Everything is connected. We might wish that it weren't true, but it is inarguably true, and this instability we are facing today has serious downstream consequences. As each of these conflicts has played out, we have witnessed a daunting realignment of powers around the world that is reminiscent of what we saw in the 1930s with the rise of Germany. Today, Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran have grown closer and closer together through an intricate web of weapons, technology, and energy transfers. In short, the tyrants of the world today are drawing closer and closer together, forming a modern-day axis of evil. When these big powers are at odds, the international order frays, and the regional players take advantage of the situation as it suits their interests. That point was driven home during our visit to Armenia--the former Russian satellite--when we discussed the ongoing instability in the Caucasus. Now, I know you have to pull out a map to figure out where some of these countries are, but they are critical in terms of our analysis of the threats not only in the region but in the potential to spread those threats and major conflicts to other parts of the world. In 2020, Russia brokered a deal to end the military conflict between Armenia and its neighbor Azerbaijan over longstanding territorial disputes. Russia promised to deploy peacekeepers to the region to enforce that agreement, but it is safe to say that Russia has not upheld its end of the deal. Each year since that deal was reached, Azerbaijan, supported by Turkiye, has encroached further and further into Armenian territory, and Russia has done nothing to stop it, notwithstanding its agreement to do so. Understandably, Armenian leaders are outraged by the situation. They signed a treaty, after all, to prevent this exact scenario, and Russia has abandoned its promise. Our conversations with the Armenian leaders were powerful reminders of why it is so important to honor our security commitments around the world. We have made a commitment to our NATO allies, to Ukraine, to Israel, and to other partners around the world to support their security. But the truth is, their security is part of our security because we know, from history, that conflicts can arise in unpredictable places and can spread like a wildfire, thus directly challenging the United States' national security. So that is why we cannot and we must not back out of these promises and risk other countries seeing us as an unreliable ally, because the truth is that weakness or unreliability is a provocation to the bullies and tyrants and autocrats around the world. When they see weakness, they continue to probe until they come up against resistance. Whether we are talking about an ally or an adversary, countries around the world must not doubt America's commitment to our own national security, as well as the security of our allies, partners, and friends. I say all of this to emphasize how much is at stake today. Presently, this is the most dangerous period of our history and of world history since World War II. We are talking about far more than the fates of individual states or governments. The stability of the international order is hanging in the balance. With the NATO summit here in Washington this week, the eyes of the world are once again on the leadership. Like it or not, if the United States fails to lead, there is no other country that can fill the void. This is part of the responsibility that comes with being the preeminent economic and military power in the world--again, not for the purpose of conquest but for the purpose of deterring and discouraging conflicts from breaking out because, again, we know how these can spin out of control as a result of miscalculation or a mistake or otherwise. Leaders from around the world--our friends and allies--are watching to see how the United States responds to the threats unfolding around the globe. They are watching us to see if we will live up to our commitments--things like the Budapest Memorandum in 1994, wherein we agreed to protect the sovereignty of Ukraine in exchange for their giving up their nuclear weapons. At the time, Ukraine had the third largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, and they gave up those nuclear weapons in exchange for that guarantee to protect their sovereignty. That is part of what is at stake today in Ukraine. Our friends and allies are watching our support for Ukraine, our assistance for Israel, and the message that we are sending to China. They are testing our attention span to see if we are so distracted by other major conflicts or other things happening around the world that it creates an opening for smaller ones, and they are watching to see if our commitments to our allies are truly ironclad and can be depended upon. So, this week, President Biden has one job to do, and that is to deliver a clear and powerful message to our allies. He must reaffirm America's commitment to collective defense. He must demonstrate decisive leadership and solidarity with our NATO allies. He needs to deliver a strong warning to our would-be adversaries that attacks against the United States and our allies will not be tolerated. Russia, China, Iran, North Korea--they are all watching, and there is no room for weakness or vacillation when it comes to sending this important message of deterrence. Deterrence, of course, is what maintains the peace. We never want war. We never want military conflict. We want to be so strong and so intimidating with our friends and allies that our adversaries won't take that step of initiating a military conflict. I hope President Biden can summon up the energy and the forcefulness and the ability to express this important message to our friends and allies around the world because our adversaries are watching, but so are our friends. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, early this morning, Hurricane Beryl made landfall in Texas as a category 1 hurricane. Texas, and particularly Southeast Texas and the Houston area, and all up and down the gulf coast, are no stranger to hurricanes. This one struck the Texas coast near Matagorda, with torrential rain and intense storm surge, which is very dangerous, as you know, and sustained winds of 80 miles per hour. Throughout the day, Beryl has taken its sweet time traveling the expanse of our State, bearing down on our communities in the southeast and eastern parts of the State with strong winds, a lot of rain, a lot of flooding, and even tornadoes. More than 2.7 million Texans have lost power, and that number is expected to rise as the storm continues to move its way across the State. Sadly, at least two people have died so far, mainly due to trees falling on their homes. I have reached out to the county judges and mayors in some of the hardest hit areas and assured them that we are monitoring the situation, but, more importantly, we are standing by, ready to do anything we can to be of assistance. And, of course, we will be working with Governor Abbott and the State officials when it comes to seeking assistance at the Federal level for disaster relief. By tomorrow morning, the worst effects of Hurricane Beryl should be behind us, and we will have a better sense of the full extent of the damage caused by the storm. Until then, I urge all of my fellow Texans to follow the guidance of local authorities and do everything possible to stay safe. There is an expression--``turn around; don't drown''--which cautions people not to drive into standing water in the roadway. That certainly can't be said enough. Things, stuff, is replaceable. People are not. As always, I am incredibly thankful to the first responders who are putting their own lives on the line to support their communities and the many folks who are working with the utilities trying to get power back on line as well. In many areas, search-and-rescue operations began before the Sun even rose this morning. So thank you to those who are on the frontlines saving lives as Hurricane Beryl bears down on our State and to the linemen, again, repairing the downed lines as quickly as possible.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have served on the Senate Judiciary Committee my entire time in the Senate. As the Presiding Officer knows, one of the responsibilities of the Judiciary Committee is to vet and to vote on a President's nominees for judicial office. These are unique jobs because they last literally a lifetime, so it is very, very important that we vet these nominees. In my case, in the case of Texas, Senator Cruz and I have appointed a group of the best lawyers in the State of Texas on something we call the Federal Judicial Evaluation Committee to help us screen the people who want to serve on the Federal bench, and so we are then in a position to enter a conversation with the White House, whether it is a Republican or a Democrat, about whether or not we will vote for and support that nominee for the Federal judiciary. There is something called the blue slip which is unique to the Senate Judiciary Committee where, if a home State Senator does not return a blue slip on somebody that the President has nominated, the committee will not process that nominee. So the Judiciary Committee has a very important role and one I think consistent with the responsibilities of vetting and considering these lifetime-tenure judges. For 13 years, I was a judge myself on the State court bench in Texas, so I have some strong views about the qualities that make for a good judge. A good judge is not a policymaker wearing a black robe, because judges don't stand for election--or at least Federal judges do not. So I have been watching very closely President Biden's judicial nominees to make sure they meet at least the minimum standard to serve on the Federal bench, but I have to say that President Biden's unqualified judicial nominees are a problem. Not all of them but some of them stand out, and one in particular continues to face big problems in this Chamber. Earlier this week, the Senate was expected to vote on Judge Mustafa Kasubhai, who was nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. He was set to receive a vote on Tuesday, but Senator Schumer pulled that down. He is the one who sets the schedule in the Senate. He pulled that down at the last minute because he obviously did not have the votes to confirm this nominee. They were expected to push that vote to today because perhaps there would be enough Senators that would be absent the day after the Juneteenth holiday that it would actually change the outcome and make it more likely that he would be confirmed. But then it became obvious that this nominee was so controversial that even a poor attendance day would not lead to his confirmation. All I have to say to that is, thank goodness. Our colleagues have delayed Judge Kasubhai's confirmation vote again, and I sincerely hope this will mark the end of the road for this particular nominee. Given everything we know about the judge, it is clear that he is not fit for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. Maybe there is some other job in government he would be qualified to do but not serve as a Federal judge. When nominees appear before the Judiciary Committee, of course, they are asked about their judicial philosophy. They are asked about their ideology, their world views, and how they would operate if confirmed. This is basic stuff. With Judge Kasubhai, we don't have to wonder how he would function as a judge because he has a long record on the bench as a U.S. magistrate, and he also previously served as a circuit court judge in Oregon. He has been on the bench since 2007, so he has an extensive record that we can look to as a way of predicting how he will behave, how he will perform the duties if confirmed on the Federal bench. That is exactly what we evaluated in the Judiciary Committee, and we quickly spotted a number of red flags. One of the most critical qualities for a judge is impartiality. Good judges are like good referees. They don't pick sides, they don't play favorites, and they don't make decisions that are essentially a result- oriented process. In other words, they start as a blank slate, consider the law and evidence, and then make a decision, not the other way around. Judges should make decisions based solely on the law and the evidence presented in a courtroom--that is pretty basic stuff--nothing more, nothing less. In recent years, though, we have seen a disturbing trend of judicial activism. That is entirely appropriate if you are an elected representative because the voters get to vote on you, but if you are a lifetime-tenure judge, to basically usurp the role of the political branches and to make policy yourself is an abuse of that power. That happens when judges inject their personal beliefs and biases in their decision- making process, and unfortunately this nominee has a record of doing that. Throughout his career, he has repeatedly shown that he has an agenda, and I question his ability to give litigants a fair shake. That is the most basic responsibility of a judge. If you are someone, let's say, charged with a crime or maybe a civil litigant or maybe just any other one of a number of different types of cases, you want to be able to walk into the courtroom knowing that the judge has not already decided the case against you. So when the judge, for example, requires all the people in his courtroom to announce their preferred pronouns as part of the process, I think you begin to question, can this judge actually be fair and treat everybody the same? Look, we live in a diverse country, and some people find that sort of question appropriate and others do not, which is fine. Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs. But I believe it is completely inappropriate to have a Federal judge who will effectively require this sort of proclamation by ordinary litigants or chill anyone who may have a religious or other objection from claiming a pronoun. Imagine this same protocol but with a different question. What if a judge told the parties they had to declare their religious affiliation before the judge would hear the case? Imagine lawyers, litigants, and witnesses being told to announce before an entire courtroom if they identify as a Christian, a Muslim, a Jewish person, an atheist, or some other religion. We wouldn't tolerate that sort of outcome or question in a courtroom. Would that be viewed as an act of inclusion or would it be condemned as religious discrimination? Our court system is and should remain blind to who you are, where you come from, how rich you are, or whom you represent. Everyone is entitled to a fair shake, no matter what. That is the minimum required under our Constitution. In order for that to happen, judges have to set aside their personal beliefs and apply the law as written. Judge Kasubhai has proven that he cannot and will not do that. I am afraid the judge's woke courtroom policies won't end there. Clearly, his own liberal bias has infiltrated his ability to make rational decisions on the evidence. Consider this: In an interview a few years ago, Judge Kasubhai said: We have to set aside conventional ideas of proof when we are dealing with the interpersonal work of equity, diversity, and inclusion. Now, the standard of proof and what qualifies as evidence are things you learn about in law school that are applied to every single case. But now for the judge to say that we need to set aside those conventional ideas of proof when we are dealing with equity, diversity, and inclusion sends a very troubling signal. What I take that to mean is that he will disregard the facts, the law, and the applicable legal standard to get the results he wants. Making matters worse, he later referred to diversity, equity, and inclusion as ``the heart and soul of the court system.'' I would argue that the ``heart and soul'' of our court system is the pursuit of justice and equal treatment under the law, not pursuit of diversity for its own sake. I can't imagine anything more terrifying to a litigant than to walk into a courtroom where the judge has already put his finger on the scales of justice--a judge with an agenda. Of course, judges are duty-bound by their oath to operate without fear or favor. They must base their decisions on the law, the evidence, and the facts before them, period. Based on Judge Kasubhai's history on the bench, I have no confidence that he will do that. He has a record of judicial activism. He has made it abundantly clear he is willing to set aside the facts and the law when considering some cases. He has proven that he values his own ideology more than he does his commitment to the rule of law or the evidence that is presented in court, and he has proven that he can't prevent his personal views from bleeding into his decisions as a judge. Judge Kasubhai is not qualified for a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. I know this, and I believe my Democratic colleagues know this too, which is why this vote had to be rescheduled a couple of times because Senator Schumer, who sets the agenda, wonders whether or not even enough Democrats will vote for the nomination to get him confirmed. The fact that Democratic leadership can't rally the votes among their own Members says everything you need to know about this nominee. The American people, no matter where they live, deserve to have fair and unbiased judges on the bench, and they certainly deserve better than this nominee. I believe the majority of Senators oppose this nomination, and I hope this marks the end of the road for this unqualified nominee. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, one of the most defining days for our country throughout our Nation's history was when President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, freeing all slaves. It marked the end of one of the most shameful chapters in our country's history. But slaves in Texas wouldn't learn this life- altering news for nearly 2\1/2\ years. It wasn't until June 19, 1865--the day we now know as Juneteenth-- that Major General Gordon Granger and the Union troops arrived at Galveston, TX, and shared the news that all formerly enslaved people were now free. These newly freed men and women set out from Galveston and spread the news, and they began their lives anew. Many traveled toward nearby Houston, and the news eventually reached the more than 250,000 slaves throughout the State of Texas. In 1979, Texas was the first of what would become many States to proclaim the day Juneteenth as an official State holiday--1979. Every year on June 19, you will find parades, concerts, church picnics, family barbecues, and countless other Juneteenth events throughout the State. I have joined a number of those Juneteenth celebrations over the years, but the one in 2021 in Galveston, the birth place of Juneteenth, will always stand out as one of my favorites. Just 2 days before that celebration, a bill I authored with Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee was signed into law, officially establishing Juneteenth as a national holiday--not just a State holiday, a national holiday. This marked the culmination of many years of hard work by Juneteenth advocates in Texas, and it was an honor to celebrate with many of those advocates in Galveston exactly 156 years after Major General Gordon Granger and his troops arrived there. I would be remiss if I didn't recognize the most tenacious advocate for the Juneteenth holiday, my friend Ms. Opal Lee, who is widely known as the grandmother of Juneteenth. Ms. Opal was driven from her Fort Worth home by a racist mob at the tender age of 12 years. Rather than turn that tragedy into hate, she made it her life's work to recognize the 2\1/2\ years it took the news of the Emancipation Proclamation to reach Texas by walking 2\1/2\ miles in different areas of the country to build awareness. Even though Juneteenth is now a national holiday, Ms. Opal, at the tender age of 97, still walks 2\1/2\ miles in the Texas heat--she will do that tomorrow--to underscore the importance of continuing to strive for a more perfect Union. Juneteenth National Independence Day would not have been possible without her perseverance and humility, and I hope she understands and appreciates the importance of her work. By making Juneteenth a national holiday, we have ensured that the history and significance of this day will not be relegated to footnotes in history books. Instead, it will preserve the history of Juneteenth for generations to come and serve as a reminder of the hard-fought struggle for freedom and reconciliation. This holiday gives us the opportunity to confront the flaws of our past, to honor the progress that we have made, and to resolve to continue to work together for a brighter future. I appreciate the hard work and dedication of those who made Juneteenth National Independence Day possible, and I wish everyone a happy Juneteenth. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to commend my friends and colleagues from Mississippi and South Dakota and Oklahoma for their leadership in protecting the lives of the unborn and to thank them for bringing us together in this fight for life. Two years have passed since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a controversial decision that found no basis in the text or history of the Constitution, a right that was simply made up by the nine members of the Supreme Court. What they have done is to return the power where it belongs, to the people of the various States to protect unborn children. And I dare say the rule in Massachusetts will be different than Texas, and you may find some different lines being drawn. But make no mistake about it, we are here to stand with the unborn who have rights of their own. America cannot be at its best if we devalue the lives of the most vulnerable among us. They deserve protection under the law too. And that is what we are fighting to deliver. Make no mistake, those on the other side of the aisle want abortion on demand, without limit, up to and including the point of a live birth. That is a position overwhelmingly disapproved of by the vast majority of the American people. The Declaration of Independence guarantees the right to life. That includes the unborn, just as it does every other American. So I am proud to stand here in defense of that right, and I am proud to stand with my colleagues today as we fight to safeguard that right, to the best of our ability.

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, for 3\1/2\ years, President Biden's border policies have resulted in a crisis that has endangered the safety and security of the American people. When law enforcement is forced to spend their days pushing paper, processing, transporting, caring for migrants, it creates an opening for dangerous people and drugs to slip across the border and into our communities. And, of course, this isn't a coincidence or accidental; it is actually part of the business model of the cartels to whom President Biden has outsourced our immigration policy. They control it--not the Border Patrol, not the Biden administration--criminal cartels that get richer every day smuggling people and drugs across the border. It is a booming business, thanks to President Biden's policies. But last week, we got a striking reminder of the dangers that lurk in the shadows of this border crisis, one that, maybe, isn't being sufficiently paid attention to. One of these men used the CBP--that is Customs and Border Protection--app, which the Biden administration has been touting as a way for migrants to schedule their hearing before Border Patrol at the port of entry. So one of the men last week used this app that was sold as a safe and orderly way to manage the crisis. But, clearly, this is not the case. So this episode--which I will tell you more about in a second--this individual using this CBP app, it took nearly a year for the Biden administration to finally arrest the man in Baltimore, just 40 miles from the U.S. Capital. Once again, this was not an isolated incident. But we know this is a recurring theme due to intentional policies. This isn't an accident. It is not just negligent. This is on purpose. Here is a recent headline: Eight suspected terrorists with possible ties to ISIS arrested in New York, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. It is worrisome enough if individuals who are on the Terrorist Watchlist are detained at the border, but these eight men were arrested in major American cities far away from the border. All eight were from Tajikistan and entered the United States through the southern border, courtesy of the Biden administration's open border policies. According to reports, at least two of these men crossed the border in the spring of 2023, more than a year ago. Again, this was the one who used the CBP app, which was touted as a way to manage the flow of migrants across the border by the Biden administration as if this was an unqualifiedly good thing. What we know in addition to these 8, just 2 months ago, ICE officers--that is Immigration and Customs Enforcement--in Baltimore, just down the road here from the Nation's Capital, arrested another man--this time from Uzbekistan--with ties to ISIS. And just to remind everybody, ISIS is a successor organization to al- Qaida. This is a radical terrorist organization that is determined to kill as many innocent Americans and Europeans and non-Muslim believers as possible. But this individual in Baltimore with ties to ISIS was released by the Biden administration in February of 2022. Now, a little more than a year later, Uzbekistan put out a global notice that this man was, indeed, wanted in his home country for terrorist ties. Well, just as a reminder: It doesn't take an army to carry out a devastating attack here in America. Twenty-three years ago, on September 11, 19 terrorists killed 3,000 Americans. And then there is another incident in February where a member of the Somalia-based terror group al-Shabaab--that is another Islamic terrorist organization, this time headquartered in Africa--but a member of the Somalia-based terrorist organization al-Shabaab was arrested, this time in Minnesota. He had initially been released into the country by the Biden administration and allowed to roam freely for about a year. This has become all too common under President Biden's leadership. Thank goodness, since 9/11, our country has become more sophisticated at identifying and stopping potential terrorist attacks. But the Biden border crisis--again, not accidental, not just negligent but intentional--has created a pathway for terrorists to slip into the United States undetected. I appreciate, as always, the brave men and women of ICE and Customs and Border Protection and other law enforcement partners who have put these suspected terrorists behind bars. But the reality of the situation is, they never should have been roaming freely in our country in the first place. This has been part of a conscious policy of President Biden. We have laws that are designed to prevent this exact situation from happening. But if you don't enforce the law, which the Biden administration refuses to do, this is what happens. Terrorists should not be able to cross the southern border. People who are not legally in the United States should not be allowed to cross the southern border. They shouldn't be released by law enforcement, and they absolutely shouldn't be able to move freely across the United States for more than a year. So this is another case of multiple points of failure. And the Biden administration is responsible for all of them. As the American people know, President Biden has now issued 95 executive orders, 94 of which were specifically designed to dismantle the border security protections that President Trump had put in place. President Biden purposefully eliminated the most effective measures to maintain a safe and orderly southern border. On day one, he stopped building the physical infrastructure, known as the wall; halted deportations; and ended the ``Remain in Mexico'' policy--this was just on day one. In his first 100 days in office, as I said, President Biden has issued 94 executive orders, laying the groundwork for the security crisis that we find ourselves in today. This is the direct result of President Biden's intentional policies. He has dismantled policies that are designed to eliminate illegal border crossings, and he has actually crafted policies that serve as a magnet for additional illegal immigration. I was just reading on social media that the President is supposedly going to issue another Executive order, this time providing additional work permits and a pathway to a green card and potential citizenship to people who entered the country illegally. This is what the Border Patrol calls a pull factor. It is like a magnet attracting people into the United States who know that if they wait long enough, President Biden will find some way to allow them to stay in the United States, even though they circumvent legal means of coming into the country under our immigration laws. Now, I don't think anybody is fooled by President Biden's sudden interest in what is happening at the southern border. This is a last- ditch attempt to turn down the heat on the border crisis in the lead up to the election. And the American people aren't buying it because they are smart. No matter how much spin our Democratic colleagues try to put on the situation, the American people know who is responsible. As this crisis was ramping up during the early days of the Biden administration, the President and his allies went to great lengths to avoid even talking about the border, even as he was dismantling the prior protections. They essentially placed a ban on the use of the term ``crisis'' and came up with creative phrases to describe what is happening: a challenge, a situation, a mess--anything to deceive the American people into thinking it really wasn't that bad of a problem. President Biden waited for 2 years to even visit the border. And it wasn't until January this year he finally admitted that the border isn't secure--something we have all known for 3\1/2\ years. He finally admitted it last January. He went on to add--this was a curiosity. He went on to say that he believed the border hadn't been secure during the last 10 years. Very strange. So it took President Biden 3 years to even acknowledge the security crisis that has been raging since he took office. I say all this to remind President Biden, Senate Democrats, and our friends in the media how we got here, because memories appear to be short around this town. For 3\1/2\ years, President Biden and Senate Democrats were silent about the crisis at the border because they liked the result--9, maybe 10 million people coming across, the drugs that killed 108,000 Americans last year alone, 500,000 unaccompanied children who have been placed with sponsors and lost track of by the Biden administration--these were all the direct result of President Biden's border policies. So rather than just sitting by and watching this happen, they actually made it worse. They fomented this crisis with open border policies they started implementing on day one. And after that, they didn't want to acknowledge the existence of a crisis, let alone work with this side of the aisle to try to craft solutions to address it. But because of their malfeasance, the border crisis has grown and grown and grown. And it continues to put the American people at risk. I believe that a terrorist attack on American soil again is not a matter of ``if'' but a matter of ``when'' as a result of the fact that terrorist organizations have facilitated the entry of their allies and supporters across the border into the United States. President Biden's policies are responsible for these terrorists crossing the border and slipping into our communities. They are responsible for the fentanyl that has taken the lives of 74,000 Americans last year alone, the leading cause of death of young people between the ages of 18 and 45. And they are responsible for the humanitarian crisis that is burdening communities thousands of miles from the southern border. Thanks to President Biden and his policies, every community is now a border community. But the threats that come across the border don't just stay at the border or even border States, like mine. They fan out across the country. Regardless of how many executive actions that the President takes today or how forceful his rhetoric is when he talks about the border, the American people see this 11th-hour conversion for what it is: an election year stunt. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to join my friend and colleague from South Dakota in decrying the relentless smear campaign that is being directed at the Supreme Court of the United States. Of course, many of these attacks have come from expected sources-- liberal activist groups and people, for example, who leaked the Justices addresses so protests could occur on their lawns, lodging threats against these judges and their families--all because they disagreed with the decisions that the Court has made in one case or another. And, of course, there is one instance where a person who was determined to assassinate Justice Kavanaugh was thankfully stopped by law enforcement. That demonstrates the dangerousness of some of these political attacks against the Court. Sadly, these aggressors aren't limited to a small group of outsiders though. Attacks are being waged by elected Members of Congress. Some men and women in this building have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution but have repeatedly targeted the Court over supposed ethics concerns. Last year, 15 of our Democratic colleagues recommended slashing the Supreme Court's budget, which actually would be unconstitutional, but they threatened to slash the Supreme Court's budget if it failed to meet their demand to implement a code of ethics which they had proscribed. A few years ago, five of our Democratic colleagues threatened the Court could be restructured if it failed to rule a certain way in a case involving the Second Amendment. And, of course, we can't forget the time when the majority leader, the Senator from New York, stood on the front steps of the Supreme Court and threatened two Justices by name if they didn't reach a preferred ruling in an abortion case. Well, these are unprecedented attacks against the Court. They are inappropriate at best, and they are unconstitutional at worst. They show a complete lack of respect for the three separate but equal branches of government that comprise our constitutional Republic. And they know that, but they are using these attacks to undermine public confidence in the Court. They demonstrate a willingness to do whatever it takes to secure a partisan win, even if that means shredding the U.S. Constitution and undermining the separation of powers. The partisan political attacks on the Supreme Court have varied, but the underlying objective has always been the same. It is about control. It is about power. Democrats want to control the institution, control the Justices, and, thus, direct the outcomes. In other words, they want to make the judicial branch not an independent branch of government--a nonpolitical branch. They want to make it another political branch of government because they don't like some of the outcomes that the courts have decided. Forget fair and impartial courts. That is not their objective. They want judges to fall in line and obey orders. In short, they want to politicize the independent judiciary. And if there is a threat to our democracy today, it is the politicalization of some of our most basic institutions--like the FBI, the Department of Justice--and now the left is targeting the Supreme Court of the United States. So far, they haven't been successful, but that doesn't mean they are going to stop trying any time soon. Last month, the New York Times published a piece by Congressman Jamie Raskin where he advised, as a supposed constitutional scholar, self- proclaimed. He wrote an article about forcing two Supreme Court Justices to recuse themselves from a case involving President Trump. The piece is literally entitled: ``How to Force Justices Alito and Thomas To Recuse Themselves in the Jan. 6 Cases.'' Here is a prominent Member of Congress--a Democratic Member of Congress, a self-proclaimed constitutional scholar--talking about how to force an independent branch of government to commit to a certain outcome and force the recusal of two sitting Justices. He argued that the Department of Justice has the authority to compel that. He is wrong, but that is his argument. The decision on whether or not to recuse is reserved not for Members of Congress, not for the Department of Justice, or for anyone else. The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges provides clear guidelines on recusal, and it is ultimately up to the individual Justices. Unfortunately, there is a full-fledged pressure campaign to blur the lines that separate the Supreme Court from other branches of government. For years, liberal activists and dark money groups have been on a warpath to destroy public confidence in the high Court's independence. One of these groups is called Demand Justice, an organization whose highest goal is to pack the Supreme Court and install a permanent liberal majority. A couple of years ago, one of the cofounders of Demand Justice said: It's time for [the Democrats] to see the Court as a political opponent, just as much as any GOP elected official, and run against it. That is the type of people and the type of agenda we are dealing with here. Demand Justice and other liberal groups recently sent a letter to Senator Durbin, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, urging him to use his power to investigate these so-called ethics concerns. They want the Senate to craft a law to dictate to the Supreme Court what their code of ethics should look like. Forget about the fact that they already have a code of ethics. Democratic Senators want to dictate what that code of ethics should look like. And, last night, Chairman Durbin tried to force a vote on this bill, but it was blocked. His unanimous consent request was blocked by the ranking member, Senator Graham. As my Republican colleagues and I have said for months, any decisions about the Supreme Court's practices or procedures should come from the Court itself, not from Congress. The Senate has a limited but important role where it concerns the Supreme Court, and that is through the confirmation process. And we are all familiar with that. All nine Justices underwent a rigorous background check. They endured hours and hours of questioning from members of the Judiciary Committee, met with Senators one on one, and ultimately were confirmed by majority vote of the U.S. Senate. That is where the Senate's role starts and ends. We don't have the authority to drag the Supreme Court Justices before Congress in pursuit of some political agenda. There are clear limits to Congress's power under the Constitution--and for good reason. The independent judiciary has been justly described as the crown jewel of our democracy. We have our fights. We have elections. But ultimately the Supreme Court gets to decide what the law is. That has been the case since 1804 in the case of Marbury v. Madison. Our Founders deliberately designed a Federal Government with three separate but equal branches. A system of checks and balances sought to prevent any one branch from forcing its will on another. If Chairman Durbin and our Senate colleagues on the Judiciary Committee respect the separation of powers, they will resist this latest attempt to hijack the Court. The Supreme Court is a separate and coequal branch, and its operations squarely fall outside of the authority of the legislative branch. I often think back to a statement issued by Chief Justice Roberts in 2018, when he said: We do not have Obama judges . . . [we do not have] Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges [who are] doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.'' It was true then, and it is true now. The men and women on the Supreme Court should not be pawns or players for either political party. The suggestion that judges are likely to apply perceived political views to cases is dangerous and disingenuous. We have been embroiled in the last few years with the hijacking of our justice system, including the FBI and the Department of Justice, for partisan political purposes, and it is very, very dangerous, because we know what goes around comes around. Once a precedent is set around here, when the shoe is on the other foot, when the majority is in the minority, when the minority is in the majority, that same precedent will be applied in the future. Public trust is absolutely vital to the health of our democracy, and the surest way to destroy that trust is by turning the Court into a political football. That is what our Democratic colleagues are risking. It doesn't matter what case is before a court or what ruling is ultimately handed down, elected officials need to lead by example and support judicial independence. Members of this body must show faith in the judiciary and in our constitutional system of separation of powers, and that includes letting the judges do their job. Look, the Court is going to hand down decisions that I don't like and that the Presiding Officer doesn't like, but that is not the point. The point is there is a fair and impartial process of applying the law and the Constitution to deciding what the outcome is. I can't count the number of times I have been disappointed by a Court ruling, but I have certainly never advocated for restructuring the Supreme Court to ensure a preferred outcome of mine the next time. And I have never suggested cutting funds if judges failed to deliver my preferred ruling. That would be wrong. And certainly, certainly, I have never threatened Justices with violence if they reached a decision I disliked. And I never have and I never will use the power of Congress to try to subpoena a sitting member of the Court or force Justices to recuse themselves contrary to their decision, using the rules that exist--the code of conduct that exists for Federal judges. So an independent judiciary is absolutely essential to our democracy, and I hope Chairman Durbin and our Democratic colleagues will show a little self-restraint and resist the far left's latest push to destroy public confidence in the Supreme Court or in the Court's independence. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, Texas is proudly home to roughly 1.4 million veterans, more than any other State in the country. I am honored that these American heroes have chosen to call Texas home, and I have no doubt that their decision was based, at least in part, on our State's deep-rooted tradition of military service and the network of support it has created. Across Texas, businesses, nonprofits, and veterans organizations provide these men and women with a range of resources, from job training to mental health services. Their support is a testament to the profound respect and gratitude Texans hold for those who have given so much in service to our country. One of the staunchest advocates for veterans in Texas and across the country is the United Services Automobile Association, or USAA. USAA was founded in 1922 by 25 Army officers who were unable to secure auto insurance. The group met in San Antonio and decided to insure each other in an effort to solve a problem facing many servicemembers and their families at the time. Over a century later, USAA now serves millions of members and continues to pursue its mission to empower the military community. One year ago, USAA launched a significant initiative to combat veteran suicide, the second leading cause of death among post-9/11 veterans. More than 120,000 veterans have died by suicide since 2001, a suicide rate 57 percent higher than the national average. In keeping with their commitment to America's military, USAA established Face the Fight, a collaborative effort of corporations, foundations, nonprofit groups, and veteran-focused organizations charged with raising awareness of veteran and military suicide prevention. The USAA-led coalition includes two founding members, the Humana Foundation and Reach Resilience, and is guided by its academic partner and scientific adviser, the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. The coalition is managed by the Elizabeth Dole Foundation and has grown to include more than 160 members working to break the stigma surrounding suicide in the military community by fostering real, open conversations around support and hope. America's veterans are a powerful reminder of the sacrifices that have been made by generations of heroes to protect the freedoms we enjoy, and it is our collective duty to ensure they receive the support they need when they return to civilian life. The honor-bound agreement between our men and women in uniform and our Nation does not end at retirement. No veteran should ever be forgotten. I commend USAA's efforts to prevent veteran suicide and support America's heroes.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I just want to briefly summarize the arguments that my able colleagues on this side of the aisle have made. An independent judiciary is the crown jewels of our democracy. What do I mean by that? We have the political branches of government. We have got the White House, popularly elected President through the electoral college. We have got individual Senators elected by various States. And then we have got the House of Representatives. Those are all political bodies. The judiciary, created by the Constitution--the Supreme Court specifically--was designed to be a check on the abuses of power by the political branches of government and to hold up the Constitution as a supreme law of the land. That was Marbury versus Madison by Chief Justice Marshall in 1804, I believe. So the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is not the political branches. And I think in recent years, we have seen every institution in Washington, DC, corrupted in one way or the other by the politicalization of previously revered institutions. And I am talking specifically about the FBI and the use of an opposition research by a Presidential candidate against a successful Presidential candidate, President Trump, and then the FBI director saying his mission in life was to see a special counsel appointed, which it was for 2 years-- Robert Mueller, who found no basis upon which to bring any charges. Unfortunately, the American people feel like there is a two-tiered system of justice in this country. And that justice system, which has been the crown jewel of our system, has been corrupted by politics. And now our colleagues want to use that same corruption by politics of the independent judiciary and the Supreme Court of the United States. That may not be their intention. Maybe it is. They want the Supreme Court to become subservient to the Congress, which is anathema to the constitutional order created by the Framers. This effort lays bare an effort by our Democratic colleagues to control an entire branch of government. There have been bills filed by the Senator from Massachusetts and others to pack the Supreme Court. Fortunately, they haven't gone anywhere. But as our colleague knows and admitted yesterday, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, this is nothing but a political exercise, and it needs to end now. For these reasons, I would oppose this legislation and withhold my objection so the distinguished ranking member from the Judiciary Committee can speak.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it is Tuesday afternoon. The Senate has its first vote of the week coming up in a few minutes, and I am experiencing a sense of deja vu--as Yogi Berra said, ``Deja vu all over again.'' This week, the majority leader has teed up three votes on President Biden's nominees followed by another partisan show vote, this time on in vitro fertilization. It is another made-up controversy. In vitro fertilization provides hope for couples across the United States who are struggling to grow their families and has helped millions of babies enter the world. I support IVF, which has been a solution for millions of families struggling with infertility. But there is no nationwide threat to the availability of in vitro fertilization, and I am deeply disappointed--but not surprised--that Democrats are trying to politicize something that enjoys such widespread support. There is no controversy over access to in vitro fertilization. After all, this is the third partisan show vote we have had recently. Last week, the Senate voted on a handful of nominees and held another show vote on a nonexistent threat to contraception access. There is no threat to access to contraception. But the majority leader who schedules votes on the floor, who runs the agenda, decided he wanted to create a controversy out of thin air where there was none. The previous week included votes on several nominees, and this time another show vote on a partisan border bill that the majority leader knew would fail but decided to have a show vote anyway. Considering the many challenges our country is facing, this is hardly what the Senate should be doing. Families are grappling with high prices as a result of 40-year high inflation rates exacerbated by unchecked spending--throwing trillions of dollars on the inflation fire only to see it get worse and worse. The Federal Reserve has done what it can do, which is raise interest rates to try to slow down the growth of inflation. But the fact is, as Congress continues to shovel money out the door, it just makes things worse. And people on a fixed income and people who have a modest earning are being hurt the most. The Wall Street Journal recently ran a story saying that a cart full of groceries that cost 100 bucks before the Biden administration came into office, or when it did come into office, now costs $136. That is a 36-percent increase in inflation. Wages haven't kept up that much. So what are people supposed to do when the government continues to make their quality of life and standard of living worse this time because of reckless spending? The American people are concerned by crime and public safety in their communities, and they are terrified by the spread of fentanyl, which is now the leading cause of death for young people between the ages of 18 and 45. We know where the fentanyl comes from: The precursor chemicals come from China; the cartels then import them into Mexico where they are then transformed into a look-alike pill that is actually a counterfeit pill. But unbeknownst to the person who takes that pill, it is contaminated with fentanyl, and they lose their life. I have been with numerous families who have lost their high school students to fentanyl poisoning. Their kids were full of potential, came from loving families, only to lose their life as a result of this deadly drug that comes across the border from Mexico. So along with the millions of people that are flooding across the border, the drug cartels take advantage of the diversion of resources by the Border Patrol to move the drugs into the United States only to be spread throughout the country. And, yes, Americans are concerned about the border crisis, the growing national debt, and American's weakening influence on the world stage. Given these and countless other challenges facing our country, it is indeed sad to see the Senate spending its work period--its limited resource--doing virtually nothing other than show votes for partisan political gain. The issue isn't limited to how the Senate is spending its time but actually how little time we are actually in session. During the entire month of June, Senator Schumer, who sets the agenda, has the Senate working 9 days--9 days out of June. Of course, many of those shouldn't really even count as a full day, like today, where the first vote is at 5:30 in the afternoon. Today, the Senate convened at 3 p.m. We will finish our work by dinner. We will be in session a full day tomorrow, and I imagine we will wrap up the workweek by after lunch on Thursday. That is what passes for a full workweek in the U.S. Senate under Senator Schumer's leadership. We are supposed to be doing important work. That is why all of us who ran for office and have the privilege of holding office, representing our States here in the U.S. Senate, that is why we are here, but the schedule is barely enough time to be considered a part-time job. No American working out in communities across the country works half time for full-time pay, only the U.S. Senate under Senator Schumer's leadership. The lack of action on the Senate floor is just part of the problem. It is really just scratching the surface. Committees, which is where most of the work gets done when the Senate is in session, clearly don't have much time to meet these days. And there are two committees that are working on absolutely critical and time-sensitive legislation right now, but when we are in session 2\1/2\ days a week, it is hard for them to get their work done. First is the Senate Armed Services Committee, which is crafting the National Defense Authorization Act, something we have passed more than 60 years in a row here in the Senate. In times of peace, a strong Defense Authorization Act is critical, but in the current period of global turmoil, its importance cannot be overstated. The National Defense Authorization Act was the key to modernizing our military, supporting our troops, and preserving America's military readiness in a very dangerous world. Given the threats we face from every corner of the planet, it is absolutely imperative that the Senate pass a strong Defense authorization bill this summer, but the majority leader's schedule created an impossible time crunch. This week, members of the Armed Services Committee are effectively sprinting a marathon to complete their work on the National Defense Authorization Act. This is arduous, detailed, and time consuming, and it involves multiple hearings, markups, and hundreds of amendments. Now, I appreciate Senator Reed and Senator Wicker, the chairman and ranking member of that committee, and all of our colleagues on the committee who are giving the National Defense Authorization bill the time and attention it deserves. But the process here, under the majority leader, is making their job much harder, rather than easier. Another committee that is working overtime this month to try to get its work done is the Senate Appropriations Committee, which is trying to mark up 12 annual funding bills. These are bills that fund our national defense, pay our servicemembers, and ensure that we can keep the lights on here in Washington and ensure that all the government operations--big and small--continue day to day. When the Senate is only working 2\1/2\ days a week, it doesn't give the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Murray, or the ranking member, Senator Collins, much room to maneuver. How are the members of the committee and subcommittees supposed to debate, amend, and advance 12 funding bills when the Senate is only working 9 days during a given month? With this type of schedule, there is simply not enough hours in the day for our colleagues to complete their work. And given the Senate's schedule for the next several weeks, I am concerned about the prospects of any of these bills passing before the end of summer, much less before the end of the fiscal year, the end of September. Simply put, the majority leader is setting the Senate up for failure. Including this week, we are scheduled to be in session for 5 weeks--5 weeks--before adjourning for the August recess. In total, we are only scheduled to be in session 8 weeks before the November election, which is almost 5 months away. When those weeks are wasted--squandered, really--on low-level nominees and partisan show votes, it comes with a serious opportunity cost. There are countless bipartisan bills that deserve a vote by the Senate, but the majority leader is simply disinterested. One example is drug pricing, something that affects almost every American. Senators on both sides of the aisle have offered bills to address rising prices at the pharmacy, something I think everybody can relate to. This has been a problem for years, of course, but it has become even more important given the effects of inflation. Families are paying more for groceries, as I mentioned earlier. They are paying more for rent, for insurance. Their mortgage rates are higher because of interest costs. Every penny counts, and my constituents in Texas want Congress to prevent bad actors from gaming the system at the expense of patients. By and large, this is a bipartisan priority. I am not talking about a partisan show vote. I am talking about a bipartisan approach to bringing down prescription drug costs. Just one example is the bill that Senator Blumenthal--the Senator from Connecticut, a Democrat--and I introduced, called the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act, to crack down on anti-competitive practices that game the patent system and keep prices high. This legislation was approved by the Judiciary Committee in February of last year, along with four other bipartisan bills to bring down prescription drug prices. The majority leader could bring those bills to the floor tomorrow--or today, actually. That would be doing something worth doing--not show votes, scaring people into thinking that in vitro fertilization or contraception are somehow going to be limited or whether that is actually a real, serious debate. It is not. Each of these drug pricing bills was crafted on a bipartisan basis. Each went through the committee process, which is important. And each was approved by the majority of the Judiciary Committee. But here we are, 16 months later, without any progress being made on the Senate floor, on something the American people really, really care about. Five bipartisan bills passed the Judiciary Committee nearly a year and a half ago, and the majority leader has higher priorities in partisan show votes involving in vitro fertilization and contraception. It is really sad and shameful. The American people deserve better. This is supposed to be the world's greatest deliberative body, but, lately, we haven't had the opportunity to deliberate on anything really of substance. Forget partisan show votes. Forget election year antics. This Chamber needs to get back to doing its job and doing its job for a full workweek, not halftime. This is the job each of us was sent here to do. But the person that occupies this desk, the majority leader of the Senate, is the only one who sets the Senate schedule and Senate agenda. No matter how much 99 of the rest of us demand it, if he says no, we are going to waste our time on show votes and work 2\1/2\ days a week. That is the way it is, and it is a shame and an opportunity lost. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.