John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, over recent decades, globalization--and by that, I mean depending on the cheapest producer of a particular good and disregarding the vulnerability of supply chains--has characterized our global commerce. By and large, that has been a good thing, particularly for consumers, if you are talking about toys for your children or an appliance, let's say. Everything from ag products to innovative technologies can find a place in global markets. And that can benefit consumers. But this interdependence creates serious risks, as well. Over the last couple of years, we have seen how supply chain vulnerabilities can bring an entire industry--or perhaps even an entire country--to its knees. Some of the clearest examples have surfaced during the pandemic. The U.S. leans heavily on Chinese manufacturing for masks, gloves, gowns, and ventilators, otherwise known as PPE--not the ventilators, but the masks and gloves. For a long time, that didn't seem to be a problem. Then COVID-19 showed up on our front doorstep. China held most of the supply for its own healthcare workers, leaving the rest of the world to scramble and compete for what little product was available here at home. Suddenly, we were unable to protect our healthcare workers with PPE and the equipment they needed in order to deal with people sick with the virus. As the American people now know all too well, the pandemic taught us supply chain lessons that extend far beyond personal protective equipment and medical equipment. One of the biggest vulnerabilities that came to light was the semiconductor supply chain. Now, chips or semiconductors or microcircuits are critical components in the most used products here in America, whether it is your smartphone, computer, your TV, your car, airplanes that you may fly in, cell towers--just about anything with an ``off'' and ``on'' switch. That is what semiconductors power. It also includes critical defense articles, everything from fighter jets, like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, our fifth-generation jet, to the Javelin missiles now being used to take out Russian tanks in Ukraine. As much as we depend on a strong supply of these microcircuits or chips currently, we also depend on other countries to make them. Ninety percent of the most advanced semiconductors in the world are made in Asia, with the lion's share being made in Taiwan. I recently visited Taipei and the Taiwan Semiconductor Company, where they manufacture chips designed by other companies all around the world. It is a great business model for TSMC, and it is good for the designers of the chips because TSMC, being located in Taiwan, can make them for about 30 percent less than a fab or manufacturing facility here in the United States. But the problem is, we make zero percent of the advanced semiconductors in the world right here at home, and that is a huge risk. In the summer of 2020, I introduced the bipartisan CHIPS for America Act with my friend and colleague Mark Warner, the senior Senator from Virginia, to incentivize companies to reshore the manufacturing of semiconductors here in America. It is really chilling to think about how vulnerable we are to the semiconductor supply chain. Think if there was another pandemic or a natural disaster or, Heaven forbid, the People's Republic of China decides to ``unify'' with Taiwan. That would jeopardize our access to these advanced semiconductors. It would have an immediate, negative impact on our economy. The Department of Commerce said we would go into a recession immediately, and, depending on how long it lasted, it would have catastrophic consequences. The bill that Senator Warner and I introduced became law at the start of last year as part of the national defense authorization bill, and for the last 16 months, we have been working on a way to fund this CHIPS Program. In the coming days, the House and the Senate will begin to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of recently passed bills, and I am proud to be serving as a member of that conference committee. I am eager to dive into negotiations with our colleagues, and there certainly is a lot of urgency. Like so many supply chain vulnerabilities, once we realize that vulnerability exists, we can't necessarily turn it on a dime. It is going to take a lot of investment and perhaps a year or more to develop the capacity to manufacture these chips here in America. What is more, the global demand for semiconductors is expected to increase by 56 percent over the next decade. Think about 5G. Think about artificial intelligence, quantum computing. We rely more and more on technology and thus more and more on semiconductors every day, and we will continue to do so into the future. So it is absolutely critical that we start investing in domestic chip manufacturing and do it now to ensure that we have the capacity to meet our economic and national security needs. But, as we all have learned, recent events haven't just taught us about the importance of a strong semiconductor supply chain; they have also taught us a lesson about energy security, about having reliable sources of energy. I don't remember that energy security was much a part of the conversation before the Russians invaded Ukraine and Europe realized they were solely dependent on Russian oil and gas. So the war in Ukraine opened the world's eyes to the dangers of that dependency on a single supplier, particularly one like the Russian Federation. And then Putin is using the profits from the price of oil, which has gone through the roof because of this uncertainty--he is using that money to fund his unprovoked war against Ukraine as well as threaten NATO and our other allies who don't want to prop up Russia's war machine. Here in the United States, we don't rely on Russia to keep the lights on. Russia accounts for about 2 percent of our crude oil and petroleum imports, allowing us to ban Russian imports without risk of a major disruption. But our allies in Europe are not so lucky. They don't just rely on Russian oil; they also need Russian gas. We have learned that Putin's not afraid to use oil and gas as a weapon to tear up, threaten, and intimidate his adversaries. That was underscored in January of 2009 when Russia effectively turned off the gas to Ukraine for almost 3 weeks. This had an impact on at least 10 countries in Europe whose natural gas traveled through Ukraine. Today, we are seeing that movie replayed again. Russia recently cut off the supply of natural gas to Bulgaria and Poland as retaliation for their support of the sanctions that we have imposed against Russia because of the Ukraine invasion. In many ways, the risks that we are seeing with the global energy supply today are similar to the supply chain vulnerabilities we have with semiconductors. When you rely upon a single country for critical products, the decisions made by that country's leader could cause a supply to be cut off at a moment's notice. This has obviously been a wake-up call for all of us. All countries are taking a hard look at where their energy supply comes from and trying to find ways to diversify their sources of energy and to insulate themselves from geopolitical disruptions, and the United States is no exception. In recent years, our conversation about energy policy seems to have been consumed by debates about what is the impact on the environment of fossil fuels, and I think the debate has largely ignored questions about how policies that were being proposed would impact energy security. Many of our Democratic colleagues have proposed everything from fracking bans to unfeasible zero-net deadlines, to pie-in-the-sky proposals that, frankly, are unlikely to pass. There also are fantasies being foisted on the American people clearly not in the interest of our economy or our national security. But we know the President has the power of the pen, and he has repeatedly used it to undermine our domestic oil and gas industry here in the United States. Only hours after he was sworn in, President Biden canceled the permit for the Keystone XL Pipeline and halted all new energy leasing and permitting on public lands and waters. The Biden administration recently announced that it will resume oil and gas leases on Federal lands. That was good news, but then it undercut that announcement by saying it reduced the amount of land available and significantly increased the overhead costs or royalties that must be paid to the Federal Government. By these kinds of policies, the Biden administration has effectively discouraged investments in new production here in America, and the American people are paying the price, including at the pump. Even when President Biden eventually makes the right decision, it seems to always come after a lot of delay. It took weeks, for example, and the looming likelihood of congressional action before the President banned Russian oil imports. The climate-only approach to energy policy isn't going to cut it anymore. We can't just look through a soda straw at what our energy policy is; we have to look at both the intended and unintended consequences. I believe our top priority must be to ensure that the United States and our friends and allies around the world have access to affordable energy. Now, I want to be clear, I support efforts to diversify energy sources and reduce emissions, and I think one of the best contributions to that has been the move from coal to natural gas when it comes to producing electricity--a significant reduction in emissions by that move alone. Now, back home in Texas, we embrace an ``all of the above'' energy strategy that includes oil, gas, wind, solar, and nuclear. ``All of the above'' makes sense because you want a diversification of your supply-- something we found out again or were reminded of when we had a big freeze I guess about a year and a half ago now which not only shut down our renewable sources--the wind turbines and solar panels--but also froze the gas pumps that compress natural gas and push it through the pipelines. So having a number of options allows you to be nimble and more flexible in the case of an emergency. We produce more electricity from wind turbines than any other State in the Nation--even our friends in California, which may shock some people. On top of that, Texas-based companies are making serious strides in energy innovation, which I believe ultimately is the key to energy security and a cleaner environment and reduced emissions. Texas- based companies are finding ways to make our most prevalent and affordable energy sources cleaner. I believe we could do more here in Congress to encourage that kind of innovation and diversification of our energy sources, but those efforts must come second to energy security, which should be job No. 1. The fact of the matter is, renewables are not close to being capable of providing all of our electricity needs. In my State, it is about 20 percent. I think that is roughly the average around the country. But renewables account for less than 20 percent, I believe, across the board, of our electricity generation. We know the Sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow, so you need a baseload when Mother Nature fails to deliver an adequate supply of energy. We need a reliable baseload, which means nuclear, oil and gas, and geothermal and hydro where you can get it. If the President continues to wage war on American oil and gas companies, we will not have the capability to protect ourselves or our allies. Energy security is national security. If that fact was ever in doubt, Russia's actions have provided complete clarity. Our top priority must be to pursue our independence, and we do that by diversification and more production here at home. If we are able to bolster renewables, invest in carbon capture technologies, and take other steps along the way to reduce emissions, that is great, but priority No. 1 for the United States and our allies must be energy security. The sooner the Biden administration views the oil and gas industry as friends rather than adversaries, the better off all of us will be. We are blessed to live in a resource-rich country, and there is no reason to put the energy security of the United States and our allies at risk because President Biden is trying to placate a part of his political base. The war in Ukraine is already highlighting the global energy security risk. We don't need to make that problem worse. We don't need to make it worse; we need to make it better. Now, I am not suggesting, either, that we embrace isolationist energy policies like the 1970s oil export ban, but we do need to take decisive action to reduce the world's reliance on authoritarian regimes. Just as the pandemic led us to reevaluate vulnerabilities in our supply chains for semiconductors and personal protective equipment, this war is also pushing us to reevaluate global energy security. I hope this crisis--if there is anything good that comes out of it-- will serve as a reset button for our energy security efforts and discourage those who want to increase our dependency as opposed to maintaining and developing our energy security by diversifying our energy sources and taking advantage of the natural resources that we have been blessed with in America.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, when it comes to addressing the many challenges facing America today, the Biden administration's preferred strategy is to blame someone else. President Biden has tried to blame the previous administration for the supply chain challenges, and he has also tried to blame the administration for his deadly and dangerous withdrawal from Afghanistan in a precipitous fashion, which our friends and allies simply were left to read about it or hear about it in the newspaper and hustle to get their own people out of Afghanistan, as we were as well. And now we are seeing the blame game being played out again on the border. Last week, Secretary Mayorkas, the Secretary of Homeland Security, claimed the administration inherited, in his words, ``a broken and dismantled system,'' a defense we have heard before. Now, there is no question that our immigration system is in need of reform. As a matter of fact, we have been working on that the entire time I have been in the U.S. Senate. But as I have said before, we never fail to fail when it comes to fixing our broken immigration system. But the fact of the matter is the Biden administration is playing on the same field as previous administrations. Presidential authorities haven't changed. Congress hasn't passed sweeping reforms that make it difficult to enforce our laws at the border. Yet, here we are, experiencing record levels of illegal immigration into the United States. Just to provide some historical context for how bad President Biden's first year in office stacks up against previous administrations, consider this: During the first year of the Obama administration, an average of 44,000 migrants were apprehended each month--that is each month--along the southwestern border. During the first year of the Trump administration, that number was cut in half because the Trump administration had different policies with regard to removing people who were illegally coming across the border, or if they were claiming asylum, making them wait until their claims were ruled on by an immigration judge in Mexico rather than being welcomed into the United States and never to be heard from again. So 44,000 a month for the Obama administration; 20,000 a month for the Trump administration. But during the first year of the Biden administration, numbers took off like a rocket. An average of 176,000 migrants were apprehended at the southern border each month. One more time: 44,000 for President Obama; 20,000 for President Trump; 176,000 for President Biden. That is nearly nine times as many migrants as we were seeing just 4 years ago. Again, Congress hasn't passed any major laws that have caused this dramatic increase. President Biden has the same authorities as the previous administrations. He has been in office for more than a year and has had plenty of opportunity to use the authorities Congress has given him to address this humanitarian and national security and public safety crisis. He has even had plenty of time to work with Congress to pass bipartisan bills, like my Bipartisan Border Solutions Act, which I introduced with Senator Sinema. And we now have a number of bipartisan cosponsors, and it was filed in the House with bipartisan support as well--Henry Cuellar, a Laredo Democrat, and Tony Gonzales from the largest contiguous border district in Texas and in the country--a Republican. So we introduced this bill. We laid it out for the administration, thinking that maybe, just maybe, if their poll numbers got bad enough, they would be looking for a lifeline, they would be looking for a way out. But the Biden administration has shown zero interest. The President has even threatened to end the use of title 42, which is a public health law that gave the Border Patrol some tools to repel illegal immigration by single adult males. The Border Patrol told me a long time ago, even toward the end of the Trump administration, during the middle of the pandemic, that if they lost use of title 42 as a means to control immigration--admittedly not something that it was designed for but something they were able to use it for--they would lose control of the border completely. So far we have heard no suggestions by President Biden what he intends to do. We know title 42 won't be there forever. COVID won't be a pandemic forever. But what we would like to know--and I think what the American people deserve to know--is what they are going to do in terms of enforcing the law of the land once title 42 goes away. Well, last week, Secretary Mayorkas released what he called the ``Department of Homeland Security Plan for Southwest Border Security and Preparedness.'' Well, this plan is largely a recycled and repackaged version of the same vague promises that we have heard all along--bolstering resources, increasing efficiency, and administering consequences for unlawful entry. Even the portion of this proposal that includes specifics, such as increasing the use of expedited removal, are completely unrealistic. In order to use expedited removal--and that is the means by which the Border Patrol encounters someone and says: You can't come into the United States and will be removed--you have to have enough manpower to process migrants and enough space to keep them in custody until that can happen. Without detention space, the promise of using expedited removal is a hollow one. Given the current pace of migration and the amount of beds that Customs and Border Protection has to detain people who are subject to expedited removal, given the current pace, the number of beds is a mathematical impossibility. Secretary Mayorkas said the Department of Homeland Security has increased the number of beds in Customs and Border Protection facilities and can now hold approximately 18,000 people. Again, under the Biden administration, we have seen 176,000 people a month coming across the border. Secretary Mayorkas is bragging about 18,000 detention beds. Obviously, those beds would fill up quickly and be overwhelmed. In March, an average of 7,000 migrants crossed the border every day. The administration has predicted that if title 42 is lifted, which it has attempted to do and still intends to do so, that number could reach 12,000 to 18,000 migrants every day--12,000 to 18,000 every day. And, obviously, all of those 18,000 beds for detention facilities would fill up in a single day. That is why I believe that this plan is not worth the paper it is written on unless the administration actually follows up to execute it; and, clearly, we are not seeing action, and, clearly, the arithmetic doesn't work for Secretary Mayorkas's plan. They are going to have to engage in the same sort of catch-and-release game which the human smugglers and the drug cartels have been playing on for the foreseeable past. And particularly now, they know that they can continue to overwhelm the resources at the border, and then the drug cartels run drugs into the country. And those will then be distributed by criminal gangs in every major city in America. So this plan is not worth the paper it is written on. It clearly won't solve the problem. Administration officials can blame someone else as long as they want, but it is clear the American people aren't falling for it. We saw, in the last couple of days, President Biden's own pollster said one of the reasons his poll numbers are so bad is because of the chaos and dangers associated with the border. What we are seeing--and what the American people plainly see--is a complete and intentional policy breakdown that is the sole responsibility of the Biden administration. And these failures come with serious consequences for the American people. When thousands of migrants are coming across the border every day, Border Patrol doesn't have the time to deter illegal immigration and dangerous gang members and other criminals from coming across the border. Here is why. Several months ago, I visited Del Rio's Border Patrol Sector and spoke with a group of about 30 Border Patrol agents at the muster. When they were asked to raise their hand if they would be working out in the field--that is, on the border--not a single hand went up. These men and women who would normally be out on the frontlines stopping dangerous criminals and dangerous drugs from sneaking across the border are going to be tied up in paperwork with bogus asylum claims and administering these programs like this new program that Director Mayorkas is bragging about. Because of the huge surge of migrants, we are going to continue to see the Border Patrol wrapped up in administrative duties like paperwork, watching unaccompanied children, and transporting migrants, and they will not be on the frontlines in this war that we are seeing play out, particularly the drug war playing out on our border. When the Border Patrol is taking care of an unaccompanied child, they can't be on the frontlines. If they are knee-deep in paperwork, they can't identify and stop dangerous individuals and drugs from coming across the border, and the drug cartels know it. As a matter of fact, this is part of their game plan. Flood the border with so many people that the Border Patrol can't manage it, divert them from their law enforcement function and turn them into babysitters for unaccompanied children, and then the drug cartels will move their poison across as if they have established a four-lane highway. This is a dangerous situation that is putting our entire country at risk. Criminal gangs that are located in every major city in the United States, including Chicago and cities in Texas, are the distribution networks for the drugs that are brought across by the drug cartels. They see the gaps created by fewer officers on the frontline, and they are taking advantage. So we not only see foreign gang members, we also see a network of domestic gang members who are engaged in violence, gun crimes, robberies, and other crimes that have threatened the safety of people in our cities across the country. But we also see dangerous criminals coming across the border itself. Last week, I spoke about a string of arrests that the Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley Sector accomplished. Border Patrol arrested half-a-dozen gang members in less than a week's time. Some of these individuals were members of the notorious MS-13, a brutal criminal organization whose motto translates into, roughly, ``kill, rape, control.'' These are the types of individuals who are making their way across the border when the Border Patrol is busy filling out paperwork or taking care of unaccompanied children and unable to perform their law enforcement functions. MS-13 is one of the most dangerous gangs on the planet. They have been known to kill their victims using knives, machetes, and baseball bats. In one murder in California, the victim's heart was cut out. Five years ago, an MS-13 member had a dispute with a high school student. A group of gang members kidnapped the young man, cut off his hands, and then killed him. Stopping members of MS-13 and other international criminal gangs from reaching the United States should be a public safety imperative. American families are already deeply concerned about violent crime in our country, with the boneheaded idea of defunding the police and the blame game when it comes to law enforcement, making it harder for police to be hired and retained by law enforcement agencies across the country. Criminals are having a heyday. Crime has spiked in virtually every major city across the country. I believe it is a combination of both the drugs that are trafficked by those criminal gangs as well as the impression that we don't respect and honor the public safety function performed by our local police departments. But to my point here, we can't allow the southern border to act as a corridor for more violent criminals to reach our communities. While overall border encounters skyrocketed in 2021, the number of gang members apprehended by Border Patrol actually decreased. Now, you might think that maybe that is a good thing, but you would be wrong, because last year alone, Border Patrol estimates that there were as many as 300,000 what they call getaways. In other words, if the Border Patrol is tied up with paperwork or babysitting or transporting migrants and is no longer on the border, they don't know who is coming across the border, but they guesstimated it was as many as 300,000 getaways in the last fiscal year alone. So the fact that we haven't been able to count more gang members this year is hardly an encouraging picture given the status quo. The Border Patrol has told us explicitly that gang members exploit migration surges in order to evade arrest. In other words, record levels of migration provide excellent cover for gang members and other criminals. They can either try to blend in with a larger group or they can identify and exploit the security gaps created by the Border Patrol's processing or caring for other migrants. Sadly, both practices are common these days. When we look at all this data, there is one really important point that we need to remember. These are just the ones we know about. They don't include the getaways. They don't include the other dangerous criminals who have successfully snuck into our country or how many who were caught and then released because their gang affiliation was not yet known by law enforcement. We would much rather stop these criminals at the border than wait for them to reach our communities and endanger our families. In addition to the great work already being done by law enforcement generally, there are initiatives like Project Safe Neighborhoods at the Department of Justice. This is one way that law enforcement is trying to wage war against these criminal gangs who use guns to commit acts of violence. It is a partnership between Federal, State, and local law enforcement that uses data-driven, evidence-based, and trauma-informed practices to reduce violent crime. But in order for them to be successful, we have to stem the flow of people coming across the border. Programs like Project Safe Neighborhoods are exemplars of what law enforcement can do if we just give them a chance, if we just give them a level playing field to compete on rather than being overwhelmed by a tsunami of gang members, criminals, and illegal drugs. We have a responsibility to close the security gaps at the border to prevent even more dangerous individuals and drugs from reaching our communities, but again, based on the lack of interest expressed or actions taken, the Biden administration doesn't seem to care. The Border Patrol has made no secret of the fact that it lacks the personnel, resources, and policies that only Congress can provide to carry out their mission. Agents do not feel like the Biden administration has their back, and it is for good reason. Since President Biden took office, we have seen no meaningful action to address the humanitarian and security crisis at the southern border. The Biden administration has ignored the needs of Federal law enforcement officers in order to appease, apparently, part of its political base who doesn't believe that there should be any border controls, who believes our borders should be open and are oblivious to the danger that poses. So, make no mistake about it, this is both a humanitarian and a security crisis, and the Biden administration's refusal to act has only made things worse. We know the American people see crime as a big problem, and there are a lot of reasons for that, but the Biden administration needs to address the security breakdown at the border because what is happening there has made our communities even more dangerous. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, let me start by expressing my gratitude to the Senator from Wyoming, Senator Barrasso, for laying out the nature of the border crisis that we are experiencing and have experienced at the highest levels in 20 years, during the year and a half--or year and a quarter, I guess, of the Biden administration. But I want to come to the floor and talk about an aspect of the border crisis that has not been sufficiently discussed or noticed, and that is the connection between the flood of illegal drugs coming across the border--not just with the 100,000 drug overdose deaths we experienced in America last year, but also with crime and gangs and guns in every community across the United States, from Maine to Texas, from Virginia to California. A Gallup poll published earlier this month found that 80 percent of Americans are worried about crime and violence. It seems like there is a new headline every day about acts of violence in cities across our country. Two weeks ago, for example, a gunman set off smoke grenades and opened fire on a crowded New York City subway car. Chicago just experienced its most violent weekend this year, with 8 people murdered and 42 others shot. Earlier this month, a gang shootout in Sacramento killed 6 and wounded 12. The American people aren't just noticing this trend; they are demanding solutions. Rising crime rates have caused many leaders to change their tune on this idea, this crazy idea called ``defund the police.'' New York City, Oakland, and Baltimore are among the cities to reverse their previous cuts in police funding. And that is for a very simple reason. It is because defunding the police is dangerous. There is no question that law enforcement plays an important role in stopping crime, but we have to remember that this crime surge is tied to far more than just police departments. I am reminded of a quote by H. L. Mencken: For every complex problem, there's a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. So when looking at the factors that fuel this upsurge of violence and crime in our cities across the country, we can't ignore a big contributor of that, which is the crisis occurring along our southern border. Some of the numbers are familiar to all of us. For example, Customs and Border Protection encountered more than 200,000 migrants along the southern border last month alone, the highest number in more than two decades. The total number of migrant encounters over the last 12 months exceeds 2.2 million. You might be tempted to ask what in the world is going on; why are things changing? I want to make one thing clear, though. I am in no way suggesting that all of these individuals coming across the border are dangerous criminals. Many of them are economic migrants looking for a better life. Something we all understand. But there are definitely people coming across the border who are dangerous criminals, primarily associated with the drug cartels, who threaten public safety in every city in America every day. We need to acknowledge that a human flood of people, even people potentially associated with legitimate asylum claims, but that flood of humanity, just the--having to deal with that many people, opened gateways for truly dangerous criminals and the drugs that are smuggled across the border undetected. I will give you an example of how that happens. Last fall, more than 15,000 migrants, primarily Haitians who had been living in South America, arrived at the small border town of Del Rio, TX, a town of a population of 35,000 people. So all of a sudden, 15,000 migrants show up in a town of 35,000 people. It is not by accident. To state the obvious, the Del Rio Border Patrol Sector did not have the capacity to process and care for that many migrants at a given time. But that was part of the plan of the drug cartels and the criminal organizations associated with them. But in response, the administration moved Border Patrol agents from other checkpoints to the Del Rio sector to try to help. But, of course, that is exactly what the cartels hoped for. Taking people off the frontlines in other sectors to handle the surge of migrants in Del Rio opened up avenues for the drug cartels to smuggle their poison into the United States. Administration officials later told Congressional staff that this massive surge of migrants was, they acknowledge, part of a coordinated effort by the cartels. They directed the Haitian migrants to show up at a single location in a small town on the border to make sure that other paths into the United States would be cleared for their illicit contraband of drugs. Talk to any Border Patrol agent and they will tell you that this happens all the time. The cartels are very sophisticated. They know how to game the system. They watch, they wait, they coordinate, and at the right moment, they bring their poison into our country. In many cases, they are moving drugs--everything from marijuana to methamphetamine to heroin. But in recent years, Customs and Border Protection has seen an alarming increase in synthetic opioids, fentanyl coming across the border. As we all have learned, fentanyl is a uniquely dangerous drug because it is so potent, a lethal dose can fit on the tip of a sharpened pencil. In the first 3 months of this year, Customs and Border Protection seized nearly 1,200 kilograms. Now, a kilogram is 2.2 pounds, so that is 2,640 pounds of fentanyl were seized at the border, enough to wipe out the entire U.S. population. Cartels and criminal organizations aren't just trying to smuggle their product into the United States, they have to have a way to distribute those drugs across our country. And that is where the criminal gangs come into the picture. Last Tuesday, agents from the Rio Grande Valley Border Patrol Sector arrested an MS-13 member. MS-13 is one of the most violent gangs on the planet. The following day, agents arrested an 18th Street gang member, and, over the weekend, agents arrested four additional gang members. This all happened in one Border Patrol sector in less than a week's time. What we need to remember when we look at all this data is that these are just the ones we know about. We have absolutely no idea how many drugs and criminals have slipped through the cracks. Now, the Border Patrol has a name for this, they call it ``the getaways,'' but the truth is we don't really know how many people have gotten away, undetected, to smuggle drugs or dangerous criminals into the United States. By one estimate, 385,000 getaways came across the border in 2021. And there is a reason they didn't turn themselves in to the Border Patrol; they are not seeking asylum. They are not saying: I have been persecuted in my home country, and, thus, eligible for asylum potentially in the United States. These people, these getaways, are the ones that don't want to be detected by law enforcement because they are up to no good. I think this chart shows the network of gangs and criminal organizations operating within the United States. You know, most of the time we all think, well, the drugs come across the border, and we forget what happens next. But as you can see, cartels--this is a DEA, a Drug Enforcement Administration, chart--as you can see, the cartels in transnational criminal organizations have a presence in most major cities across the United States. Many of these are members of dangerous gangs who want to make money, so they sell drugs in their local community, and they fight for territory, for market share. They commit other property crimes, other crimes of violence, carjacking, larceny, armed robbery, in order to fuel their need for money. So once cartel members and their gang associates get drugs across the border, where do they go? Well, they go to Chicago. They go to Detroit. They go to Atlanta. They go to New York. They go to San Diego. They go to virtually every community in our country where they are then distributed to people to feed addictions, which result in overdoses and death. It is not just a border problem. This affects every single community in our country. Last year, the special agent of Chicago's DEA office spoke about what happens when these drugs and criminals reach your backyard. He said cartels use every means possible to get drugs from Mexico into the United States and then to local markets. In Chicago, that means predominantly to the gangs that control the drug markets in Chicago. But it is not just Chicago. It is literally every community in America. These are the same gangs that fuel the overdose epidemic, the same ones that perpetuate crime and gun violence. These are the same gangs that engage in deadly fights over control for territory and market share. And the cruel reality is, this is happening on a daily basis in every community in our country, which is contributing to the spike in violent crime and the public's reasonable concerns that they have expressed about it, including boneheaded ideas like defunding the police. A Drug Enforcement Agency report from 2017 acknowledged that drug trafficking profits ``increase the staying power of both street gangs and drug trafficking organizations.'' The more money they make, the more drugs that are manufactured and brought into the country and spread throughout our communities. No community in America is safe. A rural, an urban, a suburban community, none of them have been spared the pain and suffering of the drug overdose epidemic, drugs which predominantly come across our southern border by these criminal cartels. I mentioned it before, but it is worth noting that last year we hit a grim milestone in America. For the first time on record, more than a hundred thousand Americans lost their lives to drug overdoses in a 12- month period. Now, I remember what happened when Al Qaeda hit the United States and killed 3,000 Americans on 9/11. We declared war, and we committed ourselves to rooting out these terrorists that exported this terrorist plot to hit our homeland. When 100,000 Americans die of drug overdoses, what do we do? Well, we throw up our hands. We say there is not much we can do about it. Supply meets demand. And there is some truth to that, but it is not the whole story. As I said, in recent years, the number of drug overdose deaths caused by synthetic opioids, including fentanyl, has skyrocketed, and so have the seizures of fentanyl at the border, virtually all made from precursors from Asia, primarily China, shipped to Mexico, manufactured there in an industrial operation which can make a fentanyl tablet look a lot like some other medication that you might take. Many people--too many people--have died thinking they were taking a drug for some condition, only to find out it was laced with fentanyl, resulting in their drug overdose death. The alarming increase in the supply coming across our border foreshadows even worse overdose statistics in the months to come. Fentanyl isn't the only dangerous drug--methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin. According to the DEA--the Drug Enforcement Administration-- threat assessment, 92 percent of the heroin that comes to the United States comes from one place: Mexico. Ninety-two percent. So when you zoom out and get a broader perspective and quit looking through a soda straw at what is happening at the border, you see it is not just an immigration issue. The drugs pouring across our border make this a public health crisis as well. The criminals sneaking across our border who are distributing these drugs in our communities all across the country are a public security crisis, a public safety crisis. The unlicensed guns that the gangs use to protect their territory makes this a gun violence crisis as well. Every single American should be outraged by what is happening at the border, but if you don't care about 2.2 million people showing up on our front doorstep, if you don't care about the 100,000 Americans who died of drug overdoses, do you care about the spikes in violence and crime in your neighborhood, in your local community? All of these are inextricably intertwined. I don't care if you are a liberal Democrat or an Independent or a conservative Republican, this failure of the Federal Government to deal with our border crisis is absolutely appalling, and it hurts us all. I have heard someone say that every city is a border town these days, and this makes that point. This state of chaos is dangerous for the migrants who turn themselves over to human smugglers who care nothing about them, only the money they can generate from smuggling them into the United States. I have seen the bleached bones of migrants left behind, injured or sick, because the coyotes, the smugglers, care nothing about them but just the money they can garner from smuggling them into the country, not to mention the girls and women who are sexually assaulted on the long trip from their home country into the United States. It is unfair to the border communities I represent. We have 1,200 miles of common border, Mexico and Texas. My Governor, my State legislature, the people I represent are outraged that the Federal Government is not living up to its responsibilities. It is unfair to those communities, most of which are Hispanic majorities by large majorities, who are sympathetic to the desire of people for a better life, fleeing no jobs or violence, but they are having to pay the price now, not just with the flood of people coming across the border, for which the Federal Government is completely unprepared, they also have to deal with the opioid abuse and the criminal organizations that are flooding our communities with fentanyl, heroin, and other dangerous substances. But it is not just the border. Cities all across this country are combating violent crime at numbers that we have not seen for decades. This is directly tied to the drug business at the border because the criminal gangs are the ones who distribute those drugs in our communities. The status quo is deeply unfair to the dedicated men and women of law enforcement, including the Border Patrol, who put their lives on the line to secure our border and protect our communities. Last week, Texas lost a 22-year-old soldier who was doing a job that the Federal Government should have done, but he was there at the southern border as part of a State National Guard effort called Operation Lone Star. Texas Army National Guardsman SPC Bishop Evans was attempting to rescue two migrants who appeared to be drowning as they were crossing the river from Mexico. He disappeared into the treacherous waters of the Rio Grande and, tragically, did not survive. Making matters even worse, initial reports from law enforcement indicate that the two migrants whom Specialist Evans was trying to save are suspected of drug trafficking. There are a million and one reasons why President Biden should want to address this border crisis, and it is absolutely inconceivable to me that his administration has done nothing to make this better, and I would argue that through some of the policies promulgated by Director Mayorkas, he has actually made it worse. He has made it more attractive for more people to come and attempt this dangerous journey from their home into the United States. He has made it easier, given the business model of the cartels, to get more of those drugs across the border and into our communities, contributing to the crimewave that is shocking so many people. As we head into the summer months, which are traditionally the busiest times for border crossings, the Biden administration needs to do something. And let me just say, I am prepared--I know a lot of us are prepared on a bipartisan basis to do what we need to do to end this crisis. If the Biden administration doesn't want to lead in the effort, at least they could allow those of us here in the Congress to come up with ideas, like my bipartisan, bicameral Border Solutions Act, to try to address this crisis that we cannot tolerate any longer. I yield the floor. Vote on Compound Motion

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, the Senate is now, of course, back in session following a 2-week home work period, as we refer to it. That is when we get to go back home and see our friends and constituents and travel around our States. And in my case, representing 29 million Texans, that entails a fair amount of travel, but it is always good to get reconnected with your friends and your neighbors and your constituents. I know we are eager to hit the ground running here this week, and certainly, we have a lot to do. For example, the conference committee process for the China competitiveness bill will begin soon, and I am eager to work with the fellow Members of the conference committee to reach a strong, bipartisan bill. The long list of unrelated partisan provisions in the House bill, though, have no place, in my opinion, in the final agreement, but I am ready to get the ball rolling so we can pass a bill that serves the American people, our economy, and, most importantly, our national security.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, watching the wrapup by our friend from Connecticut and the Presiding Officer, I don't know anybody who could argue that the Senate is incapable of getting a lot done in a short period of time, given the will. That was pretty remarkable. Mr. President, nearly 10 months after the Senate passed bipartisan legislation to fund the CHIPS Act, we are finally inching closer to the finish line. The House and the Senate are moving forward to a formal conference process to supply the CHIPS Program with $52 billion and make other investments in our competitiveness. Yesterday afternoon, Members of the Senate and the House heard from administration officials about how important this legislation is. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo spoke about the economic risks of a weak semiconductor supply chain. I might just pause here for a minute in case people are wondering why semiconductors are so important. Well, the fact of the matter is that semiconductors are essential to run everything from your cell phone to the most advanced stealth fighters made by the U.S. Government, the F- 35, and everything in between. And during the pandemic and the mitigation efforts that we undertook, with kids studying remotely on their laptops, that would not be possible, nor would the Wi-Fi connections be possible without access to semiconductors. So these microcircuits have become absolutely essential to our way of life. Over the last couple of years, manufacturers have had to halt production of the various products that they make, shift their offerings, or even lay off workers because of a shortage of these semiconductors, these microcircuit chips. Now, at the micro level, this disruption is having a big impact on consumers: empty car lots, backordered electronics, higher prices on home appliances. But at the 30,000-foot level, the macro level, this is terribly damaging to our national economy. The semiconductor shortage has shaved an estimated $240 billion off of our gross domestic product last year-- $240 billion lost because of an inadequate access to these semiconductors, these microcircuits. Based on the way that things are trending, the strain is only going to get greater. Global demand for these semiconductor chips is expected to increase by 56 percent over the next decade. If you think about it, our dependency on technology is going to do nothing but get greater and greater and greater; hence, the demand and the need for these semiconductors and the demand that will go up by 56 percent, it is estimated, in the next decade. It is absolutely critical that we start investing in domestic, made- in-America semiconductors now to insure that we have the capacity to meet that need in the future. And it is not just our economy. This has a very clear connection with our national security. Not only will the CHIPS Program, as it is called--introduced originally by the senior Senator from Virginia, Senator Warner, and myself--this program will help us pave the way for new jobs and big investments in cities all across our country. If you want an idea, a glimpse, of just what those benefits would look like, my State is an example of one place that will change dramatically as a result of this demand for these microcircuits. Last fall, I joined leaders from Samsung, a South Korean company that has a large presence in Austin, TX, and they announced a $17 billion investment in a new chip fab--that is what the manufacturing facilities are called, a fab, fabrication unit--in Taylor, TX, which is just outside of Austin. This facility is expected to directly create 2,000 high-tech jobs, as well as thousands of related jobs, once it is operational. And each of these fabrication manufacturing facilities will create a whole ecosystem of suppliers that will grow up around it. So the $17 billion spent by Samsung for just this one fabrication facility will be multiplied by many times in terms of the economic benefits and the jobs created. This is great news not just for my State, for Texas, but also for the national economy and for our global competitiveness. Our friends and allies are going to need a reliable chip supply, too, and I hope that we can soon send advanced semiconductors, made in America, to countries around the world. Once this CHIPS Program is funded, I expect more announcements like the one I mentioned from Samsung to follow, both in Texas and other States across the country. We have already seen Taiwan Semiconductor in the process of building a new fab, or manufacturing facility, in Arizona. You have seen new investments announced by Intel in Ohio, along with the one by Samsung in Texas, and I believe there are more to come. This legislation would open up about $3 billion for each new or expanded semiconductor fabrication facility, providing a huge incentive for companies to make this level of investment right here in America. The potential economic benefits speak for themselves, but the biggest reason to pass this legislation is to protect our national security. Chips are critical components of far more than just the cell phones and washing machines that I mentioned. Advanced fighters, quantum computers, missile defense systems--you name it--5G, all of those rely on semiconductors. A single rocket interceptor like we have seen used in Iron Dome in Israel, knocking down rockets coming from Gaza, each of those interceptors alone uses 750 of these microcircuits. An overreliance on other countries to produce these key components of our most vital defenses is a huge, huge risk. Yesterday, in addition to Secretary Raimondo, we heard from Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks, who talked about the immense national security risk that the failure to produce these most advanced semiconductors in America has opened up. Just to be clear, we produce zero of these most advanced semiconductors that we depend upon for the most complex technology, including our national security. Our military superiority really hinges on state-of-the-art technology. That is the one thing that we do better than any other country in the world. If we can't produce these products because of a lack of chips, well, the risk is obvious. And when you look at who is producing the lion's share of the world's chips, you can see the danger to which we are very clearly exposed. Now, I blame COVID for exposing these vulnerable supply chains, whether it is PPE or it is chips, but now, it is as plain as the nose on your face, and we need to do something about it. So here are the facts. The vast majority of semiconductors are made in Asia, with 63 percent of the most advanced semiconductors in the world made in one place, and that is Taiwan. Even more concerning is the 92 percent of the world's most advanced semiconductors that come, as I said, from Asia. But if that supply chain, both from Asia and Taiwan in particular, were cut off, it would lead to disastrous consequences. Unfortunately, this prospect is not some farfetched conspiracy theory or doomsday scenario. Xi Jinping has made no secret of his desire to invade and unify Taiwan with the People's Republic of China, even saying he wants to be ready to do so by the year 2027, just 5 years from now. But we can't depend on his stated timetable because he could do it any time he wanted to start that invasion and jeopardize our access to these chips. We don't want to be in a position--we can't be in a position--where the belligerence of one nation impacts our most critical supply chains. The war in Ukraine has made that clear. Put simply, we need to bolster domestic semiconductor manufacturing, and we have not a moment to waste. Chip making is a very big endeavor. A number of our colleagues and I traveled to Taiwan a few months back to Taiwan Semiconductor's facility there, where they, as I said, make the world's leading-edge semiconductors. It is a big operation, and it is highly automated and very complex and expensive. In order to build one chip, you need very expensive, highly advanced equipment; you need skilled workers; and you need a lot of time. It can take literally months to build a single chip, and that is assuming you have the facility and the equipment ready to go. So it is clear, in light of this vulnerability that we have in this essential supply chain, that we have squandered enough time already. After the Senate passed our version of this legislation, it took 8 months to get it back from the House of Representatives. Even then, their bill fell short in nearly every regard. Rather than mirror the bipartisan process here in the Senate, the Democrats in the House negotiated a bill just among their fellow Democrats. In other words, it was a partisan bill. That type of legislating does not lead to good and sustainable results here in Congress. The House-passed bill sends a whopping $8 billion to a U.N. climate slush fund which has provided more than $100 million to China. The entire purpose of this effort is to counter threats from China, not to bolster China's economy with taxpayer dollars. So it defies all logic to send billions of dollars to an unaccountable fund that could end up helping our chief competitor, the People's Republic of China. The House COMPETES Act also added provisions relating to immigration, from creating new types of visas to removing green card caps. I am fine with having a discussion and debate and votes on immigration issues, but they do not belong in this legislation, certainly not in a partisan fashion. In true fashion, our colleagues in the House who are the majority party added a range of handouts to their political base, especially organized labor. From massive slush funds to burdensome new labor requirements, the unions would have won big in this bill. And, as I said, unfortunately, the House decided to undertake this effort in a purely partisan fashion, which leaves us with very little common ground to work with. I am frustrated, and I know that I am not the only one. There are Democratic Senators who have joined me in expressing their frustration over how slow it is to get this process moving. But it is more important to get it done right away so we can get the job done as thoroughly as necessary. Well, there is broad bipartisan support for this effort. I have a hard time explaining to my friends and constituents that when the White House is in favor of something, when Democrats are in favor of something, Republicans are in favor of something, the House is in favor of it, and the Senate is in favor of it, we still can't seem to get it done. But I hope that we will take advantage of this opportunity--now that conferees have been appointed by the House and the White House--to get the conference committee to work, to do our job, and to get this bill on the President's desk as soon as we can. I fully expect the final version to look very much like the bipartisan bill that passed the Senate rather than the partisan bill that came from the House. I expressed to the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, that I hope we can work efficiently and reach a final agreement as soon as possible. It is critical that we get a strong bill to the President's desk and finally back this CHIPS Program with funding and protect ourselves from this, really, almost existential economic threat and threat to our national security. The bill has undergone a number of name changes over the years. It started out as the Endless Frontier Act. Then it became the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act. Then the House called it the America COMPETES Act. Then we gave it a new name: the Made in America Act. But now, we have a new name--and hopefully the final name--called the Bipartisan Innovation Act. I hope we can work together to craft a truly good bill that lives up to that title, the Bipartisan Innovation Act, and delivers economic and national security benefits for all of the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, later this week, perhaps in a day or two, the Senate will vote on the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve as a member of the U.S. Supreme Court. Last week, I laid out my reasons for my opposition to this nomination, and yesterday, I voted against her nomination in the Judiciary Committee. But I want to make clear that my vote against Judge Jackson is not a rebuke of her legal knowledge, her experience, or her character. Judge Jackson is obviously very smart. She has vast practical experience, which I think is very useful. She is likeable. And she is very clearly passionate about her work. The Senate's constitutional duty to provide advice and consent, though, requires us to look beyond Judge Jackson's resume and personality to understand her judicial philosophy and the lens through which she views her role as a judge. Certainly, the Senate must evaluate whether Judge Jackson will act fairly and impartially. We have also got to make a judgment whether she will leave her personal beliefs and her policy preferences at the door and whether she will respect the bounds of her role as a judge or attempt to establish new judge-made law. This last point is absolutely critical, in my view. The Founders wisely established a system of checks and balances to ensure that no person or institution wields absolute power. The legislative branch, of course, makes law; the executive branch enforces the law; and the judicial branch interprets the law. We have each got our responsibilities under the Constitution. And while that is certainly a simplification of the duties of each of the three branches, it does illustrate that there are separate lanes or roles for each branch in our constitutional Republic. And we talked about that during Judge Jackson's confirmation hearing. The judge said she understands the importance of staying in her lane. She used that phrase many times during the confirmation hearing. She said she would not try to do Congress's job making laws. But over the years--and I think this is a blind spot for Judge Jackson and, frankly, many on the bench, particularly at the highest levels. Over the years, we have come to see a pattern of judges who embrace the concept of judge-made law. In other words, it is not derived from a statute passed by the Congress, it is not derived from the text of the Constitution itself, but rather, it is made as a policy judgment without any explicit reference in the Constitution itself. Now, that, I believe, is judicial policymaking or legislating from the bench. The Supreme Court over the years has developed various legal doctrines like substantive due process. That is a little more opaque, I would think, to most people than judge-made law, but basically, it is the same thing. It is a doctrine under which judges create new rights that are not laid out in the Constitution. It shouldn't matter if a person ultimately agrees or disagrees with this new right. If you like the result, well, you are liable to overlook the process by which the judges reached a decision. But if you disagree with it, then, clearly, it is a problem to have judges-- unelected, unaccountable to the voters--making policy from the bench, no matter what it is called. It is deeply concerning, I think--and it should be--to all Americans, to have nine unelected and ultimately unaccountable judges make policies that affect 330-or-so million people and they can have no say- so about it at all. They can't vote for them; they can't vote them out of office; they can't hold them accountable. In fact, the whole purpose of judicial independence is so judges can make hard decisions, but they have to be tethered to the Constitution and the law, not made up out of whole cloth. No judge is authorized under our form of government to rewrite the Constitution to their liking or impose a policy for the entire country simply because it aligns with their personal belief or their policy preferences. As our Founders wrote in the Declaration of Independence: Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. When judges find unenumerated and invisible rights in the Constitution and issue a judgment holding that, in essence, all State and Federal laws that contradict with their new judge-made law is invalid and unconstitutional, there is no opportunity for anybody to consent to that outcome like you would if you were a Member of the Senate or a Member of the House. People could lobby us. They could call us on the phone. They could send us emails, use social media to try to influence our decision. They could recruit somebody to run against us in the next election. They could vote us out of office if they didn't like the outcome. But none of that would apply to life-tenured, unaccountable Federal judges making judge-made law at the highest levels--no consent of the governed, no legitimacy which comes from consent. Abraham Lincoln made clear that it is the concept of consent that is the foundation for our form of government. He said famously: No man is good enough to govern another man without that man's consent. Of course, he used that in the context of slavery, and he was right; but it has broader application as well. As I said, when it comes to the executive and legislative branches, it is easy to see how consent and the legitimacy that flows from that comes into play. Voters cast their ballot for Senators, for Members of the House, for the President. Once a person is in office, voters conduct what you could describe as a performance evaluation. The next time that person is on the ballot, voters determine whether that person should remain in office or be replaced by someone new. But, again, that is not true of the judicial branch, which highlights and demonstrates why the judicial branch is different, why it shouldn't be a policy maker, why judges shouldn't be pronouncing judge-made law that is not contained in the Constitution itself. It is important that our courts remain independent and be able to make those hard calls, but even people like Justice Breyer, who Judge Jackson will succeed on the Supreme Court, has written books worried about the politicization of the judiciary, and I think that is one reason why our judicial confirmation hearings can get so contentious-- witness Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, which was a low point, I believe, for the Senate Judiciary Committee and for the Senate as a whole. But people wouldn't get so exercised over these nominations if people were simply calling balls and strikes like the umpire at a baseball game. Judges should be umpires; judges should not be players. So Justices on the Supreme Court are not held accountable at the ballot box, and they aren't evaluated every few years for their job performance. They are nominated by the President and confirmed for a lifetime appointment. When Justices engage in blatant policymaking, it takes away the power of ``we the people'' to decide for ourselves and hold our government accountable. It speaks to that statement in the Declaration of Independence that says government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. But that is totally missing when it comes to judge-made law and identifying new rights that are nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. Again, I understand, when you like the outcome as a policy matter, you are not liable to complain too much. But we should recognize this over the course of our history as a source of abuse by judges at different times in our history, and we have seen the horrible outcomes of things like Plessy vs. Ferguson, where the Supreme Court, without reference to the Constitution itself, using this doctrine of substantive due process, said that ``separate but equal'' was the answer for the conflict between the rights of African-American schoolchildren and the rest of the population. They said it is OK. You can satisfy the Constitution if you give them separate but equal educations. Well, of course, that is a shameful outcome, and we would all join together in repudiating that kind of outcome. And, thankfully, years later--too many years later--Brown v. Board of Education established that the ``separate but equal'' doctrine was overruled, and that is as it should be. But the point I am trying to make here is whether it is the Court's decisions on abortion or the right to marry a same-sex partner or separate but equal, or even things like the Dred Scott decision, which held that African-American fugitive slaves were chattel property, or in the famous Lochner case, where the New Deal Justices struck down an attempt by the government to regulate the working hours of bakers in New York. All of these involved the use of this substantive due process doctrine as a way to cover up and hide the fact that it was judges making the law and not the policymakers who run for office. I am also afraid that Judge Jackson did not always adhere to her own admonition that judges should stay in their lane. In the case Make the Road New York v. McAleenan, the American Civil Liberties Union challenged a regulation involving expedited removal of individuals who illegally cross our borders and enter into the country. The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the Department of Homeland Security Secretary ``sole and unreviewable discretion'' to apply expedited removal proceedings. Judge Jackson, who presided over the case challenging that rule, ignored the law. She went beyond the unambiguous text to deliver a political win to the people who brought the lawsuit. She barred the Department of Homeland Security from using expedited removal proceedings to deter illegal immigration. She stopped the administration from enacting immigration policies it had clear authority to implement according to the black-letter law. Unsurprisingly, that decision was appealed and ultimately overturned by the DC Court of Appeals. But this is an example of not staying in your lane and not deferring to Congress the authority to make the laws of the land when the Congress has been unambiguously clear. So, ultimately, I believe that demonstrates a willingness to engage in judicial activism and achieve a result, notwithstanding the facts and the black-letter law in the case, and to disregard the law in favor of a political win for one of the parties. But this is just exactly what I started off talking about. This is the opposite of consent of the governed, when judges ignore the laws passed by Congress, even when congressional intent is clear. Unfortunately, that wasn't the only example of activism in Judge Jackson's decisions. We have heard a lot about this, and I think it was an entirely appropriate subject for questions and answers. Judge Jackson is an accomplished and seasoned lawyer and judge, and she knows how to answer hard questions. During sentencing hearings, Judge Jackson has said she disagreed with certain sentencing enhancements for policy reasons. That is the word she used--for policy reasons--and she chose to disregard its application. That is not staying in your lane. She also used a compassionate release motion to retroactively slash a dangerous drug dealer's criminal sentence because she didn't like that the government brought a mandatory minimum drug charge, even though the government had every right to do so under the applicable law. The promise of equal justice under the law requires judges to follow the law regardless of their own personal feelings about the policy. Justice Scalia famously said that if a judge hasn't at one time or another in his or her career rendered a judgment that conflicts with their own personal preferences, then they are probably not doing their job right. It is absolutely critical for our Supreme Court Justice to not only acknowledge but to respect the limited but important role that our judges play in our constitutional Republic. They shouldn't allow politics or policy preferences to impact their decisions from the Bench, and they can't use their power to invalidate the will of the American people based on invisible rights that aren't actually included in the Constitution itself. In 1953, Judge Robert Jackson observed that the Supreme Court is ``not final because [it is] infallible, but [it is] infallible only because [it is] final.'' In other words, the recourse that we the people have when judges overstep their bounds when it comes to constitutional interpretation is to amend the Constitution itself--something that has only happened 27 times in our Nation's history--and it is a steep hill to climb, to be sure. But it is important for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself for the judges to be seen as staying in their lane and interpreting the law, not making it up as they go along. I am reminded of another quote about the scope of the Judiciary's duties and powers. In 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote, ``To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.'' Once again, our Founders, our Founding Fathers, had the wisdom to establish three branches of government to share power to avoid any single person or institution from wielding absolute power, and to ensure that we maintain the proper balance of power, Justices need to stay in their lane and interpret the law, not make the law, particularly when the voters have denied consent from them for doing so. So to summarize, to ensure that we maintain the proper balance of power under our Constitution, judges must only interpret the law and they can't allow activism to bleed into their decisions and they can't ignore black-letter law and they can't use doctrines like substantive due process to hide the fact that they are making up new rights that aren't contained anywhere in the written Constitution itself. As I said before, I fear that, if confirmed, Judge Jackson will attempt to use her vast legal skills to deliver specific results and get outside of her lane by making judge-made laws that are not supported by the text of the Constitution itself. As I said in the Judiciary Committee, and I will say again, when the time comes to vote on Judge Jackson's nomination here on the Senate floor, I will once again vote no for the reasons I just stated.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, over this last weekend, the world saw a much clearer picture about the atrocities being committed by Russian forces in Ukraine. As Russian troops withdrew from certain areas in the north, around Kyiv, Ukrainian forces are moving into these cities for the first time in weeks. In Bucha, a city just north of Kyiv, devastating images showed the carnage from the Russian occupation. Photos showed burned-out apartment buildings, bodies lining the streets, and mass graves. It appears that some of the victims died execution style, with their hands tied behind their backs. The world can be under no illusion about Putin's barbarity. Russian forces have targeted residential neighborhoods, humanitarian evacuation routes, and even a bread line. The discovery of hundreds of dead civilians in Bucha underscores the urgent need to hold Putin accountable for his crimes and to help the Ukrainians defend their country. Of course, people around the world have united in condemnation of Putin's heinous actions, but those statements must be accompanied by further action. Putin really doesn't care whether we like him or not. He has his own plans and his own aims. We need to take additional actions that impose even greater costs on Russia. Following Russia's unprovoked invasion, the United States and our allies imposed powerful sanctions on Russian businesses and oligarchs and cut off Russian banks from the global financial system. The goal, of course, is to make it impossible for Putin to fund his war machine. And in the beginning, the results were encouraging. In the immediate aftermath of the invasion, the ruble plummeted to a record low, but, unfortunately, in the last few weeks, it has slowly rebounded. One of the biggest drivers of that stabilization is Russia's sale of oil and gas. Fortunately, the United States is no longer one of its customers, and I hope we never will be again. Our European allies depend on Russian energy to keep the lights on, but even they are reevaluating their energy dependency and looking for alternative energy producers. Poland has committed to ending its import of Russian energy by the end of this year, and I hope more countries will follow suit. But we can't sit around and just wait for that to happen. We need to do more to raise the cost of this war, this unprovoked invasion on Ukraine. Every day Putin persists, more innocents die. It appears Russia has found a loophole in some of our current sanctions. The Russian Federation is buying gold to offset the devaluation of the ruble and then selling gold on the international markets in exchange for high- value currency. In short, Russia is laundering money through the international gold markets, and we need to stop it. That is why a bipartisan group of Senators, including myself, have introduced the Stop Russian GOLD Act that would bring an end to this circumvention of our sanctions. This legislation would apply sanctions to parties who help Russia finance their war by buying and selling this blood gold. That means anyone who buys or transports gold from Russia's central bank holdings would themselves be the target of sanctions--a big deterrent for anyone considering doing business with Russia. We need to take every measure possible to cut the financing of Putin's war machine, and this is one important way to do so. This is not just a matter of countering Russia or supporting Ukraine, we must remain clear-eyed in our efforts to do both. We have to do both. Of course, the ultimate goal is to help Ukraine vanquish Russian forces entirely. The United States and our allies have already provided a large quantity of military assets to Ukraine. And there is no question: These resources have been critical in the Ukrainians success so far. But there is no substitution for the will to fight and the leadership being provided by President Zelenskyy. That, I believe, has been the difference--and certainly not what Vladimir Putin anticipated. But as we continue to hear from President Zelenskyy and our partners in Europe, we know we need to do more, and we need to do it faster. I know it is easy to think, well, we will just let the supply chains and the logistic systems work as they always have, but we are not being bombarded by Russian artillery or being attacked by cruise missiles, as are the Ukrainians. Last month, I traveled to Poland and Germany with Senator Ernst and a bipartisan group of Senate colleagues to hear directly from those who are most in harm's way. The primary message we heard was: We need more. We need more humanitarian aid; we need more weapons; and we need it faster--more Stingers, more Javelins, more air defenses, more lethal aid, including the need for aircraft. I remain somewhat confused and disappointed that the Biden administration still publicly refuses to transfer MiG-29 aircraft to Ukraine so that they can use them. I know it is easy for us to sit back and say, Well, they really don't know how to use them, or they don't need them, but the fact is Ukrainian pilots are trained to fly these Russian aircraft--and who are we to deny President Zelenskyy and the valiant Ukrainians whatever they think they need in order to do the job? President Biden explicitly said Putin ``can't remain in power.'' But then his administration seems to blame something like a simple transfer of aircraft as too provocative. This doesn't make any sense. We can't play into Putin's hand by withholding needed or desired military assets to Ukraine. We in Congress need to play our part as well to make sure that anything and everything we can do to help the brave Ukrainians, we are doing. And we can't move at the speed of the normal bureaucracy. Every day, Ukrainians are being killed--both the military and civilians alike--by Putin's war machine. They need help now, not after the Senate's next work period, not after the Biden administration succumbs to a public pressure campaign. They need help now. Unfortunately, Congress doesn't have the authority to insist upon the transfer of the Polish MiGs, but we can remove some of the redtape that prevents the timely transfer of other defense articles Ukraine needs. Mr. Cardin, the senior Senator from Maryland, and I have introduced bipartisan legislation called Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act to ensure that Ukrainian forces have the resources they need to win this fight. Our bill is rooted in the same principles as the original Lend-Lease Act in World War II that was largely responsible for supplying Britain and our other allies the planes, the ammunition, and the weapons they needed in order to defeat Nazi Germany. President Roosevelt, at the time, vowed to transform the United States into the arsenal of democracy, and the Lend-Lease Act was one way we did that. I think it is important, particularly at this perilous time, for us to send another strong bipartisan message that we are not just in this for the short haul, we are in this for the long haul, for however long it lasts, for however long the Ukrainians are willing to fight to defend their country against this invasion, and this is one way we can do it. This legislation authorizes the President to enter into lend-lease agreements directly with Ukraine and provide Ukrainian forces with the lethal weapons needed to defend their sovereignty. Part of the difficulty of transferring these weapons is the supply chains and production lines for the weapons that are being used at a high rate. What the Lend-Lease Act would do would be to send the message that, again, we are in this for the long haul, and the manufacturers of these weapons can be assured that if they are willing to be part of that arsenal of democracy, they won't be left hanging or left high and dry. In short, this will also allow us to answer Ukraine's call to provide more of what they need and get it to them as quickly as possible. So far, more than 20 Senators from both sides of the aisle have cosponsored this legislation, and I hope we can pass it and pass it soon. This is an emergency. We don't have time to dither, and Congress has the opportunity right now to do more to provide support to Ukraine. So I say, let's pass this legislation and ensure Ukrainians have what they need when they need it. It is absolutely critical for the Senate to pass this legislation, and it doesn't matter which route they take to the President's desk. They could move as stand-alone bills or as part of a larger package of bills or as amendments to a bipartisan piece of legislation that passed the House last month. The actual vehicle isn't important. What matters is that we get these bills to the President's desk as soon as possible. Every day that goes by without action on our part is a day wasted and another day that innocent Ukrainians are being killed. To have the best shot at winning this conflict, Ukraine needs two things: a strong defense and a weak opponent. This week, the Senate has an opportunity to pass two bipartisan bills that address both of those efforts, and I hope we will do so this week. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, next week, the Senate will vote on the confirmation of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve as a member of the Supreme Court of the United States. Since Judge Jackson's nomination was announced, I made it clear that I would go into this process with an open mind, just as I have tried to do with each Supreme Court nominee who has come before the Judiciary Committee during my time in the Senate. This is now my eighth Supreme Court Justice to participate in the confirmation of. Now, I have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly when it comes to judicial confirmation hearings, and I know that some people expressed concerns about the tough questions that Judge Jackson fielded. I thought she did a credible job answering those questions. She is obviously incredibly smart, but I found her personally very charming as well. Judge Jackson has received two degrees from Harvard, completed a Supreme Court clerkship, and served on the Federal bench for nearly a decade. I hear no one questioning Judge Jackson's legal credentials, but a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court requires a lot more than just the right resume. Our constitutional Republic requires judges who rule based on the law, not based on their personal policy preferences or beliefs and certainly not based on a result and working your way back to a justification for that particular result. Judges are required to go wherever the law may lead them. Justice Scalia, during his lifetime, said: If you haven't made a decision as a judge that you personally disagree with because the law compels it, you are really probably not doing your job as a judge. And I think there is a lot of truth to that. As I say, the job is not to start with the desired result and work backwards and cherry-pick the legal reasoning to justify the decision. The question we tried to answer--those of us who serve on the Judiciary Committee--last week is, Where would Judge Jackson fit in this mold if confirmed to the Supreme Court? Would she be an impartial umpire who follows the letter of the law or would she attempt to legislate from the bench? The reason that is important is because, under our Constitution, Members of the Senate are supposed to legislate. But that is also the reason why we run for election, and we are held accountable each election for the votes we take and the policy positions we embrace. That is how public policy in America is supposed to be made, not by judges who serve for a lifetime and whom the voters cannot unelect, like they can Members of the Senate. That is why their job is very different. Before Judge Jackson was named as the nominee for this seat, President Biden outlined what he was looking for in a candidate. Among the many qualities and beliefs that he specified, the President said, tellingly, he wanted someone with a judicial philosophy that ``suggests that there are unenumerated rights in the Constitution, and all the amendments mean something, including the Ninth Amendment.'' Those are code words, and let me explain. This wasn't a one-off comment by President Biden. He even said on the campaign trail that he would not nominate somebody for the Supreme Court who did not have a view that unenumerated rights exist in the Constitution. Now, translated into English, that is tantamount to saying that judges shouldn't be bound by a written Constitution. You might wonder, if they are not bound by the text and the words of the Constitution, where does their authority come from? The President stated and restated a litmus test for his desired Supreme Court candidate, and he has clearly determined that Judge Jackson fits the bill. So I spent my time during the Judiciary Committee hearing asking her about unenumerated or what you might call invisible rights during her confirmation hearing--invisible because they are not in the text. I told Judge Jackson it is deeply concerning to me and to the people I represent that five unelected and unaccountable Justices could upend the will of the people by invalidating laws or inventing a new right out of whole cloth. We talked a lot about substantive due process. I suggested that she and I nerd out together, since that is not a topic that people typically talk about around the kitchen table, but maybe they do in a sense I will talk about in a moment. Substantive due process is this theory that somehow, when you combine the 5th Amendment due process clause with the 14th Amendment due process clause, that out of that formula, unwritten and invisible rights can suddenly appear. This is really just judge-made law. We have seen many examples of this. For example, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court established the shameful doctrine of separate but equal when it came to the treatment of African Americans in our country. Thankfully, that was later overruled by Brown v. Board of Education. But it is an example of the sort of horrific outcomes that can occur when judges--five judges, unelected, lifetime tenured-- decide to become policymakers in their own right. Perhaps most famous in legal circles--certainly in law school--you learn about Lochner v. New York. That was another example of substantive due process where the Supreme Court invalidated some labor regulations with regard to how long bakers could work. In that, the Supreme Court discovered a freedom to contract right--again, nowhere written in the Constitution but another example of a result-oriented outcome based on unwritten constitutional rights. Now, one of the most famous examples is Roe v. Wade in which the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to an abortion. I asked Judge Jackson if the word ``abortion'' or the word ``marriage'' was found anywhere in the Constitution, and she agreed with me that, no, they are not mentioned in the Constitution. Now, here is my point. It is not the outcome necessarily, because substantive due process can be used for good or for ill. In other words, the good is when I agree with the outcome, and the ill is when I disagree. But the main problem is that unelected judges are making policy, binding the entire country under the guise of substantive due process, which is nothing but judicial lawmaking. So this doctrine of substantive due process can be used for things you agree with and things you disagree with. The point is that this has, I think, helped us hone in on the limitless abilities of five Justices to discover new rights that aren't even mentioned in the Constitution and then to eliminate any sort of debate or democratic process where people actually get to vote on public policies because essentially the Supreme Court has taken the issue out of the public square. They said: We have already decided it, and we don't really care what you think. Even Justice Hugo Black, a noted liberal in the classical sense, said the due process clause itself in the 5th and 14th Amendments was designed to make certain that men would be governed by law, not the arbitrary fiat of the man or men in power. And you would have to update to say ``man or woman,'' obviously. We all know judges on the Supreme Court and on the Federal bench are unelected and therefore unaccountable to the people. Federal judges discovering rights that do not exist in the written Constitution essentially provides a rudderless and, I would argue, eventually lawless authority to the Supreme Court. The very nature of our three branches of government is to divide responsibilities among those branches. As I mentioned, the political branches are the executive branch, the President; legislative branch, obviously that is Congress, the House and the Senate. Our job is far different, and it is important to have judges understand their limited but vital role under the Constitution. Their job is to interpret the laws as written, not to make them up as you go along or to use a smokescreen, like substantive due process, to identify new rights that do not appear anywhere in the Constitution. If the American people want to amend the Constitution, which they have done 27 times during our Nation's history, there is a way to do that. Sure, it is a tough battle. You have to win a supermajority of both Houses, and you have to get it ratified by the States. But you can do it, and it has been done 27 times. But there are people who want to take a shortcut, and they want judges to abuse their authority by identifying these unwritten rights. Well, what is at stake when that happens? When judges invent new rights, decide issues that are not in their lane, as Judge Jackson liked to say--she would say ``making policy is not in my lane''--or when a judge acts as a policymaker, like Congress is supposed to do, like the executive branch is supposed to do, when judges act that way, they necessarily undermine the American people's right to choose. The Declaration of Independence notes that the authority of government is derived from the consent of the governed. But how do judges, when they identify unmentioned rights out of whole cloth, how do we, as the American people, get to consent or withhold that consent? Thus, it is easy to see how judge-made law and these smokescreens, like substantive due process, are really methods by which some members of the judiciary undermine the basic and fundamental premise and legitimacy of our laws because the consent of the governed to those judges is irrelevant. Now, one unfortunate consequence of judge-made law that is not in the Constitution as written, is that anybody who disagrees with you--and this act of judicial activism--can easily be accused of discrimination or even labeled a bigot, even if their belief is derived from religious conviction, which is expressly protected by the Constitution. This is what happens when invisible rights conflict with rights that are actually written into the Constitution, like the First Amendment, like the right to religious liberty. President Biden assured the American people that he would nominate somebody who believed in unenumerated rights, so I asked Judge Jackson a logical question: What unenumerated rights are there? The American people deserve to know. Certainly, in casting our vote for or against a nomination, the Senate deserves to know. But she refused to provide an answer. This isn't the only place where Judge Jackson was less than candid. My colleagues and I repeatedly asked Judge Jackson about her judicial philosophy, a standard question during these confirmation hearings. Now, Judge Jackson has a marvelous legal education. She has vast practical experience because she was a public defender, a Federal district judge, a circuit court judge, and now will serve on the Supreme Court. So when you ask a judge with that sort of pedigree, ``Tell us about the way you decide cases: What is your judicial philosophy?'' Well, it is not a trap or a trick question. It is something that every Supreme Court nominee has been asked to describe. Most recently, Judge Barrett identified her judicial philosophy, describing herself as a ``textualist'' and an ``originalist.'' Now, those are awkward terms, but I think what that means is she believes in interpreting the law as written and as understood at the time it was written. That is what she refers to as a ``written Constitution.'' Judge Jackson previously suggested she didn't have a judicial philosophy at all--something I find impossible to believe with somebody with this sort of experience and background and incredibly impressive education. During her confirmation hearing, she failed to provide much clarity beyond offering vague statements about her methodology. But her methodology is not a philosophy. We need a clear understanding of how Judge Jackson views judge-made law and the invisible--you might say ``unenumerated,'' in the words of President Biden--rights that she finds in the Constitution. In order for me to fulfill my responsibility as a Member of the Senate to provide advice and consent, I need to know and understand how Judge Jackson interprets the law and the Constitution, not asking her to make specific commitments on results or outcomes. I would never do that because judges are supposed to interpret, apply the law to a case- by-case method. But after repeated questioning, the judge refused to answer that question. The prism or philosophy through which a Supreme Court nominee views the law and interprets the Constitution is a critical indicator for determining if the judge will ``stay in her lane''--again, those were the terms that Judge Jackson used--or whether she will become a policymaker that President Biden and outside groups like Demand Justice want her to be. Demand Justice is an advocacy group that advocates defunding the police and progressive solutions to society's problems. They don't want her calling balls and strikes; they want her putting her thumb on their side of the scale and judging in a results-oriented fashion. As I reviewed Judge Jackson's record, I saw some examples of activism bleeding through her decisions. One of Judge Jackson's opinions from her time on the DC district court demonstrates the serious concerns that I have about her ability to follow the letter of the law as expressed by Congress as opposed to her personal preferences. In the case Make the Road New York v. McAleenan, a progressive organization challenged the Trump administration's regulation of expedited removal proceedings for people who illegally enter our country without the appropriate paperwork. The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the Department of Homeland Security ``sole and unreviewable discretion'' to apply expedited removal proceedings. Expedited removal is actually a deterrent for illegal immigration because if migrants realize that without authorization they enter the country and they are going to be removed on an expedited basis, a whole lot of them won't spend the money and take the time on that dangerous journey from their home to our shores or to our border if they know they are not going to be successful. So this was not a minor matter. But the Immigration and Nationality Act doesn't leave any gray area for interpretation. Sole and unreviewable discretion is as clear as it comes. Judge Jackson, who presided over this case, decidedly did not stay in her lane. She went beyond the unambiguous text to deliver a political win to a progressive group and, in the process, entered an injunction barring the use of this tool that is needed by our Border Patrol and immigration authorities in order to deter people from violating our immigration laws. Unsurprisingly, her decision was appealed and ultimately overturned by the DC circuit court. I think this is a clear-cut example of Judge Jackson ignoring the law as written in order to achieve a result that she preferred. The critical point to underscore is that as Members of Congress, we are elected and accountable. We can get elected, and we can get unelected when our constituents don't like what we are doing. But our authority comes from the electoral process, which is another way of saying the consent of the governed, as I mentioned, in the Declaration of Independence. With each bill that is signed into law, we are interacting with the will of our constituents. And if they don't like what we are doing, you can bet we hear from them and certainly will in the next election, if not before. But by ignoring these laws passed by Congress and signed by the President, Judge Jackson is doing more than just disregarding Congress; she is rejecting the right of the American people to govern themselves, to consent to the laws or withhold their consent. If given a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, I have to wonder: How many other laws would Judge Jackson ignore? How many other precedents would she seek to overturn simply because she doesn't agree with them? How far would she go to achieve a specific result by discovering unenumerated and, hence, invisible rights, whether it relates to immigration, abortion, religion, the Second Amendment, or anything else you might imagine that the Supreme Court might consider? The separation of powers between the three coequal branches of government is a central feature of our constitutional democracy. Not only do we have three branches, we also have multiple levels of Federal, State, and local governments--a Federal system. That is because the Founders of this great country and the people who ratified the Constitution believed that the best way to protect their liberty was by enacting checks and balances on the authority of government because they didn't trust any person to stay in their lane. They wanted checks and balances to make sure there was a method of enforcing elected officials, including judges, to stay in their lane. Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton recently wrote a book whose title sums up the overarching debate with a single, succinct question. Ultimately, this is a question of who decides. Do we the people decide? Do our elected representatives whom we delegate the authority to make decisions on our behalf, do they decide or do unelected, lifetime- tenured, unaccountable Federal judges--are they free to be roaming policymakers, enacting judge-made law, which actually contradicts or conflicts with the will of the American people, as evidenced by the laws passed by their elected representatives? When there is a conflict between the different levels or branches of government, who decides is how we determine who holds the power to make decisions that impact every citizen in this country. And as I said, all power, political and government authority, is derived from the people. Voters select Senators, Congressmen, even the President of the United States, but they have no direct say in the process of selecting Supreme Court Justices. That is why our responsibility, part of the Constitution known as advice and consent--that is why our constitutional obligation is so important. We have the responsibility to determine whether a nominee understands the important but limited role of Federal judges and can be expected to act with restraint, fairness, impartiality, and ultimately in the best interest of the American people. Ultimately, I fear Judge Jackson has a blind spot when it comes to judge-made law, and she would use her seat on the Supreme Court to create new rights out of whole cloth and engage in result-oriented decision making. For that reason, I will oppose Judge Jackson's confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, it has been more than a month since Russia launched an unprovoked and unwarranted attack against the people of Ukraine. In the interim, the world has marveled at the strength, the resiliency, and the courage of Ukrainian forces, as well as their leadership in President Zelenskyy. Ukraine has a real shot at defeating this Russian aggression, but that can only happen if it has the weapons and resources it desperately needs. I recently traveled to Poland and Germany with a bipartisan group of Senate colleagues to learn more about what Ukraine needs and the challenges our NATO allies are up against. Over the course of 3 days, we met with American military leaders and diplomats, as well as members of the 82nd Airborne. We spoke with our NATO partners, who are supporting both the military and humanitarian needs of Ukraine, and we had the opportunity to talk to some of the Ukrainian refugees themselves. The primary message we heard, consistent message that we heard was, we need more and we need it faster--more Stingers, more Javelins, more air defenses, more lethal aid--and they reiterated their need for aircraft like the Poland MiGs. Statements of support are important, but they do nothing to help Ukrainian forces defeat this Russian aggression. It was an incredibly powerful and enlightening experience to hear directly from the incredible men and women on the ground, and I want to thank our friend, Senator Ernst from Iowa, for leading this bipartisan congressional delegation. I think it also sent a very strong message to our friends and allies in the region that 10 Senators--one-tenth of the United States Senate--were willing to make this trip on a bipartisan basis. I think we all came back with a deeper understanding of Ukraine's needs and a renewed sense of urgency to do everything in our power to make it happen. Over the last 4 weeks, Russia has bombed Ukrainian hospitals, schools, apartment buildings, humanitarian refugee corridors even, and even civilians waiting in a bread line. It is pretty clear that we need to use every tool available to bolster Ukraine's defense and weaken the aggression of the Russian forces. It is not a matter of one or the other; we need to do both. To support Ukraine, we need to answer the call for more defensive weapons. Whether intentionally or not, the administration has given Ukraine the bare minimum--just enough to keep it from being completely overrun by the Russians but not enough to help it win the war. In other words, the Biden administration is propping up Ukraine to keep taking further hits rather than giving it the full forces it needs to win the fight. We need to help Ukraine vanquish Russian forces from its territory entirely, not just to extend the length of this war. Actually, by not giving Ukraine everything it needs in order to repulse Russian aggression, we are playing into Putin's hands, because Putin has clearly changed his tactics. From the initial reports of trying to encircle Kyiv and perhaps assassinate President Zelenskyy and install a puppet government, clearly, Putin has bitten off more than he can chew when it comes to invading Ukraine and executing on that original mission. But now, he is engaged in a war of attrition, flattening Ukrainian cities, killing innocent civilians from outside of Ukrainian airspace because he is worried about the anti-aircraft capabilities of the Ukrainians using things like MANPADS and Stinger missiles. Well, time is on Putin's side, and we need to level the playing field and actually give the Ukrainians what they need in order to stop this war as soon as possible, before further loss of life and further damage to their country is done. Now, the most effective way to do this--since Ukraine is not a member of NATO, we are not going to send troops there, as President Biden has said, appropriately so; but we need to ensure that the Ukrainians have everything they need in order to do the job themselves. As President Zelenskyy has said: Ukraine can't shoot down Russian missiles with shotguns and machine guns. Unfortunately, there are a lot of roadblocks standing in the way, and unfortunately, one of those is the reluctance of the Biden administration to quickly and expeditiously get the Ukrainians what they need. For example, Poland offered to transfer its entire fleet of MiG-29 fighters to the United States for delivery to Ukraine. Ukrainian forces already know how to fly these Russian aircraft, and President Zelenskyy assured us that they are desperately needed. But the Biden administration rejected the offer after, first, Secretary Blinken seemed to give it the green light. The administration changed its mind out of fear that they might provoke Putin--once again, playing right into his hand. All Putin has to do is rattle his saber to deter the United States and its allies from helping Ukraine to the maximum of our capability. Another big obstacle that the Ukrainians are finding is the redtape associated with anything that the Federal Government seems to do. Ukraine has provided a detailed list of the resources it needs: fighters, anti-aircraft missile systems, more Stingers, more Javelins. It is not a list of items they will need next month or the next; it is what they need right now in order to survive. The process of getting defense articles into Ukrainian soldiers' hands includes some big bureaucratic hurdles that not only make it harder to act quickly but make it more difficult to send Ukraine the resources they desperately need. Fortunately, there is strong precedent from World War II that we could follow to help expedite the process. During World War II, when Britain was hanging on by a thread and the United States was a noncombatant in that worldwide war at the time, President Roosevelt vowed to transform the United States into the ``arsenal of democracy,'' as he called it; and he worked with Congress to pass the Lend-Lease Act. This legislation allowed the United States to use its industrial might to supply Britain and our other allies with the resources they needed at a critical time in World War II and without lengthy delays. Borrowing inspiration from President Roosevelt, I introduced bipartisan legislation with colleagues called the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act, which will expedite getting Ukrainian forces the resources they need to win the fight without any unnecessary delays. I also think that, in addition to the actions by the administration, I think it sends a strong bipartisan message of support from this body and gives encouragement to our friends in Ukraine, who are fighting for their very existence. This legislation authorizes the President to enter lend-lease agreements directly with Ukraine and provide Ukrainian forces with lethal weapons needed to defend their sovereignty. But I think, rather than the piecemeal approach being used by the administration, this would open this arsenal of democracy known as the American industrial base to provide Ukraine what it needs and give them the assurance that, whether they need it today or tomorrow or they need it replenished next week, it will be there for them as long as they need it. I am proud to have worked with a number of colleagues on this bipartisan bill, including Senators Cardin, Wicker, Shaheen, and many others. So far, more than 20 Senators have cosponsored this legislation, and I hope we can pass it without any further delay. This is obviously an urgent crisis. Putin thought this was going to be like the Taliban taking Afghanistan after the United States and NATO's withdrawal. He thought he could take Ukraine without firing a bullet--well, so much for Putin's plans, his arrogance, and his underestimation of the willingness of the Ukrainian people to fight for their own country. But we need to pass this legislation and ensure Ukrainian forces that they will have what they need when they need it. As I said, we have a moral obligation--maybe not a treaty obligation under NATO, but I believe we have a moral obligation to support people fighting for their very freedom and their very lives in a democratically run country like Ukraine. The United States and our allies have imposed crippling sanctions on Russian businesses, banks, and oligarchs, which have sent the country's economy into a tailspin. But in typical Russian fashion, they planned for some of these sanctions, and they have found loopholes in the current sanction regime. It has taken a page out of Venezuela's book by using the purchase and sale of gold to bring in cash with which to run their economy. The Russian Federation is buying gold to offset the devaluation of the ruble, its currency, and then selling that gold in international markets in exchange for high-value currency. In short, Russia is laundering money through the gold market, and we need to put a stop to it. I, along with other colleagues, introduced the Stop Russian GOLD Act that would bring an end to this practice. We talked to Secretary Yellen, and she agreed that this would be supplemental to what the administration has already done unilaterally. This legislation would apply sanctions to parties who help Russia finance their war by buying or selling this blood gold. That means anyone who buys or transports gold from Russia's central bank would be the target of sanctions. This would be a huge deterrent to anyone considering doing business with Russia and helping them evade sanctions. In short, we need to take every possible step to cut the financing for Putin's war machine, and this is one additional way to do so. Along with the lend-lease bill I mentioned a moment ago, I hope we can pass this legislation without further delay. There is more we can do to support Ukraine and hit Russia where it hurts and to raise the costs associated with its unprovoked and unwarranted invasion of Ukraine, but it is past time to continue to ramp up the pressure to the maximum ability that we can. At this juncture, principled leadership and decisive action are absolutely critical. As Leader McConnell put it, President Biden has generally done the right thing, but never soon enough. For example, last year, the President ignored the immense pressure to sanction the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. He finally, after resisting, imposed those sanctions last month. As Russian troops mounted on Ukraine's borders late last year, the administration withheld millions of dollars in aid for weeks before finally releasing it. President Biden disregarded bipartisan calls to impose paralyzing sanctions on Russia before the invasion in order to try to deter it. Instead, he waited until after the invasion happened to try to impose costs on Russia. President Biden ignored calls to stop Russian oil imports until it became clear that Congress would pass legislation to do just that. Once the handwriting was on the wall, the President announced an import ban to try to get ahead of congressional action. President Biden has been so preoccupied with how Putin might react that Putin has been deterring the administration from acting with the sort of expediency and dispatch that are absolutely necessary and called for. Waiting until the court of public opinion is not the kind of leadership that this emergency requires. Mr. President, Ukraine is being bludgeoned by Russia every day. We need to act with all deliberate speed to get them the additional resources they need, which means we need to do it now so they can fight and ultimately prevail. The United States may be an ocean away from this conflict, but democracy itself is on the front lines. We know President Putin is motivated by a vision of restoration of the Russian Empire, after having called the fall of the Soviet Union one of the greatest geopolitical tragedies in history. So we don't know when Putin will stop or if he will stop, which gives us the only option of doing everything we can to assist our Ukrainian friends from stopping him themselves. We stand in solidarity with our partners in Europe, and we are committed to supporting Ukraine as it defends its sovereignty. So, in the coming days--hopefully in the coming hours--I hope the Senate will take action on these bipartisan bills and impose greater costs on Russia in the interest of peace and Ukrainian sovereignty. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we have begun the long-awaited process of moving forward on legislation that will bolster our domestic semiconductor manufacturing and confront the growing threats posed by China. This legislation has had many different names over the last year or so. We started with the Endless Frontier Act in the Senate. Then, miraculously, it became the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act, affectionately known as USICA. And then it became the Make it in America Act. But now it has a new name, the Bipartisan Innovation Act. Well, regardless of what you call it, it is absolutely critical that we get a strong version of this legislation to the President's desk as soon as we can. The Senate passed the original legislation last summer with significant bipartisan support. We urged our colleagues in the House to treat this legislation with the sense of urgency that it deserved, but they wasted months with no action. To be charitable, I guess they were preoccupied with other matters. But it wasn't until last month, just ahead of the President's State of the Union, that they finally leapt into action. The President, of course, wanted to talk about this legislation in his speech. So House Democrats had to cobble together a bill in short order. Unfortunately, it was a highly partisan one. Their bill passed almost entirely along party lines, and now, the two Chambers--the House and the Senate--have a critical task ahead of us to reconcile those two versions. We need to begin the formal conference committee process, dive into negotiations, and get that strong bill to the President's desk. The cornerstone of this effort, as far as I am concerned, is bolstering our domestic semiconductor manufacturing. Even more concerning is that 92 percent of the world's most advanced semiconductors come from one place, and that is Asia. Sixty-three percent come from Taiwan alone. If that supply chain were cut off, it would lead to very serious consequences. And, unfortunately, that potential is not just a doomsday scenario that is farfetched by any means. A few months ago, I led a congressional delegation to Asia to learn more about the need to confront China in a variety of ways in that region. One of the leaders we met with was the head of the Indo-Pacific Command, the regional command that covers that part of the globe, and he described the current power dynamic rather succinctly. He said it is not a question of if China invades Taiwan but when. Well, we have one rough idea of when that could potentially happen. President Xi Jinping himself said he wants to be ready to unify the People's Republic of China with Taiwan by 2027, just 5 years from now. But, truth be told, we don't have any idea when President Xi will call that play. We won't have any more notice for that than we did for Putin's invading Ukraine. It is tough to overestimate the impact this would have on the United States and our allies. And, even absent some military action by the People's Republic of China seeking to swallow up and absorb Taiwan with its manufacturing capacity for the semiconductors, if we had another pandemic, if we had another natural disaster, any one of those three things could disrupt that critical supply chain, much to our detriment and that of the rest the world. We learned one thing in COVID-19, and that is that these supply chains are very vulnerable. I still remember the first call I had with my Governor when COVID broke out, and I said: Well, what do you need? What can we do to help? He said: I need two things. I need testing, and I need PPE, personal protective equipment. Those are gowns and masks used by healthcare professionals and others to protect themselves when treating people with COVID-19, and the fact of the matter is, almost all of it is made in China. This notion of globalization of the economy has led us to believe that the only thing to think about when it comes to manufacturing a product is where can it be made the cheapest, but, obviously, there is more at stake than just who can make it the cheapest. We learned that in COVID-19--thus the need to bolster our critical supply chains across a whole range of products, including semiconductors. Semiconductors are something that most of us don't know a lot about. I have had to learn a lot myself about it, and I still don't consider myself an expert. But I asked my staff: Please tell me; how important is this? And they said: Well, Senator, everything with an off-and-on switch involves semiconductors. And if you think about how technological our lives are and how much we depend on everything from the sensors in our car to the backup camera when we back our car out of a parking place, to the laptop computers that our kids were using during COVID-19 to study virtually-- and then there is farming equipment, communications equipment, and medical equipment--all of these rely on semiconductors. And 90 percent of them come from one region of the world, and that is Asia. The shortages we have experienced recently would seem insignificant compared to the complete chaos that would ensue if this supply chain were disrupted. This gets downright dangerous when you think about how a global chip shortage would impact our national security and, more broadly, global security. Russia's attack and invasion of Ukraine is a wake-up call for the United States and our allies to examine our defense posture across the planet. One of the bright spots of this, if you can call it that, is that countries in Europe, including countries like Germany that were reluctant to contribute 2 percent of their gross domestic product to the joint collective defense effort of NATO, have turned around and stepped up. That is a welcomed development. But the fact of the matter is, our military and our national security depend on access to these semiconductors because, increasingly, our military depends on technology to perform their mission. One advantage that the United States has typically had against our adversaries around the world is our advanced technology and our capacity to innovate and to solve problems using that technology. But here is the bottom line: That technology cannot function without semiconductors. It is that simple, whether you are talking about advanced fighters like the fifth-generation fighter, the F-35, or you are talking about missile defense systems like Iron Dome, which was used by Israel to defeat the rockets that were raining in on it in recent months. A single interceptor used by the Iron Dome missile defense system--rocket defense system--contains more than 750 semiconductors, just a single one. So semiconductors are our key to confront threats by any adversary, not just China, and are essential to our economy here in the United States. Earlier this week, two national security and foreign policy experts at the University of Texas wrote an op-ed piece in The Hill magazine-- or newspaper--and they made the national security case for CHIPS funding. They noted this is not the first time that semiconductor supply chains were regarded as a matter of national security. Back in the 1980s, President Reagan pushed to maintain our competitive edge in these chips, thereby helping us lead in the advanced weapons and aircraft that they enabled. As they said, Reagan didn't just outspend the Soviets; we also out- innovated the Soviets, winning that arms race. And that is what we need to do again today. We can't just rely on our ability to spend more than Russia or China or any other adversary. We need to out-innovate them as well. Considering the fact that China is the No. 1 master thief of intellectual property, it is all that much more important. Now, there are some critics of the CHIPS Program that has been introduced by the Senator from Virginia Mr. Warner and myself. Both of us serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. It is one reason why, because of the briefings we get, this became a matter of grave concern to both of us. But the good news is that concern is shared by a broad bipartisan majority in the Senate. There are some, though, who said that this initiative is just a bailout for domestic energy. But that is not the case at all. This is not a handout. It is, frankly, one of the tools we have to reshore--to bring back onshore--this essential manufacturing capacity, as well as incentivize domestic industry to build out our capacity here at home. Here are the numbers. Over the last three decades, the United States has gone from producing 37 percent of the global chip supply to just 12 percent today--12 percent here in America. The rest of it is in Asia and in other places around the world. Now, that is a big flashing red light when it comes to our national security. Without some Federal incentives, companies cannot afford to invest the enormous amount of time and capital needed to stand up new chip fabs or expand existing ones, and that is because it costs about 30 percent more to build these fabs here in America than it does overseas. But, again, going to the low-cost producer is not the only consideration when it comes to these vulnerable supply chains that are so important to our economy and our national security. That is why it is absolutely critical for us to bring this semiconductor manufacturing back home, and full funding for the CHIPS Program is the best way for us to see results. We began to establish this program more than a year ago in the National Defense Authorization Act, and the only thing missing now is-- well, you guessed it. It is money. We need the appropriations in order to fund this CHIPS Program that we began to embrace over a year ago in the National Defense Authorization Act. That is why it is absolutely critical that we begin the conference committee process for the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act or whatever it is called today. I will have to refresh my memory--the Bipartisan Innovation Act--since it has had so many different names. But we need to get this done, and we need to get this done now, and we need to get it done right. Now, I expect the final bipartisan conference committee report to look a whole lot like the Senate version. That is because, as I mentioned a moment ago, the House decided to take the low road and pass purely a partisan bill. The Senate bill was the product of intense bipartisan negotiations and represented a good-faith compromise by all sides. I think that is the best place for us to begin once the formal conference committee process is underway. I hope we can work quickly to reach a final agreement and one that will serve the interests of the American people, our economy, and, most importantly, our national security. I urge all of our colleagues to wade into this process so we can begin that conference committee and reach a bipartisan resolution promptly. This is not a time for us to dawdle or to play politics. It is a time for us to get the strongest possible bill we can to the President's desk, and that begins with passing this appropriations portion of this bill to bring that manufacturing capacity back to America. Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, as anybody who has been watching C-SPAN knows, the confirmation process for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is well underway. Over the last few weeks, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I am honored to serve, have conducted a meticulous review of Judge Jackson's record and qualifications. During this week's hearing, though, we have an opportunity to dig deeper and to hear directly from the nominee about her ability to serve as a fair and impartial Supreme Court Justice--somebody without an agenda, somebody who doesn't dabble in politics, and somebody who doesn't use this position to enact policies that they prefer. Many of our colleagues are familiar with Judge Jackson's experience because she was recently confirmed to the District of Columbia's Circuit Court just 9 months ago. She received her undergraduate degree and law degree from Harvard, certainly sterling credentials, and she worked for Justice Steve Breyer, who is the judge that she is succeeding on the Court. She has had varied experience, which I think is to her credit. She has been a public defender. She later served on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. And she has spent the last 9 years as a trial court judge on the Federal bench. Judge Jackson is obviously smart, and she is quite accomplished. But we know that a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court requires more than just an impressive resume. Our democracy requires that judges rule based on the law. To use the words that Judge Jackson used this morning in the Judiciary Committee hearing, she said, Judges need to stay in their lane, which I actually appreciate, because under the separation of powers, obviously, a lifetime-tenured Federal judge who does not stand for election should not be making policy. That should be left to those of us in the electoral process to make those decisions, and then, of course, the Courts determine the constitutionality and legality of those policy choices. It is not appropriate for them to impose their own preferences instead. Unlike previous nominees who had no experience on the bench, we don't have to make assumptions about Judge Jackson's decisions; we have the ability to examine hundreds of prior opinions that she has issued and to ask for clarity from the nominee herself. In addition to her time on the Federal bench, we have a responsibility to dive into Judge Jackson's record as both a prosecutor and as a member of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Despite what some of our colleagues have suggested, none of these lines of questioning are out of bounds. It is really amazing to me that even though the President has a constitutional right to nominate whomsoever he chooses, we have a constitutional duty to provide what is called ``advice and consent.'' And so that means asking tough, but respectful, questions about her record and background. The Senate is not here to rubberstamp the White House's nominee. We have a responsibility to scrutinize her record, understand her thinking, her judicial philosophy, and, ultimately, to determine whether she has the right qualities to serve as a member of the Court. That is exactly what advice and consent involves, and Judge Jackson's record--including her work at every point of her career--should be examined, and none of it should be out of bounds. Beyond a thorough review of Judge Jackson's record, we also need to gain a clear picture of how she approaches her job of judging--what some people call judicial philosophy, what I call who decides. There are some questions that are decided by judges that should be decided by judges and not elected Representatives, like Members of Congress. Conversely, there are some areas, as I suggested, where we should be making the decisions and be held accountable for those decisions, and the judge ought to be making a more narrow and focused review of those decisions for constitutionality and legality. But that does not give her permission to impose her policy preferences over those of a majority of Congress when a bill is passed and signed into law by the President. Judge Jackson previously suggested that she didn't really have a judicial philosophy--something I find very difficult to believe. Today, she did not provide a lot of clarity beyond offering vague statements about the methodology by which she decides cases. I find it very hard to believe a judge with this kind of experience says she doesn't have a judicial philosophy, and I hope we can gain more clarity as the hearings continue. Again, she did talk about staying in her lane, not making political or policy decisions, which is a good start. But there is a lot more we need to hear about and a lot more commitments we need to get from the judge before she is confirmed to the Federal bench. Judicial philosophy has always been of the central points of inquiry by the Judiciary Committee. And never more so than at this particular moment is it important. The Framers of the Constitution, we know, had the wisdom to establish one branch that made policy decisions. And that would be the executive branch and the legislative branch--actually two branches of government--and another that would operate free of politics and elections and be given lifetime tenure. Ultimately, all legitimacy of government comes from consent of the governed and so we don't have a group of nine overlords or wise men and women on the Potomac who are going to tell us how to live our lives. That is a decision that we the people make through our elected Representatives and through our Constitution and other laws. In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton said that the courts would have ``no influence on either the sword or the purse.'' In other words, they wouldn't be responsible for national security or public safety or for spending tax dollars. And he went on to say, ``It may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment.'' That is another way of saying that judges decide cases and controversies. They don't make broad policy pronouncements. That is our job here in Congress for which we are held accountable every time we stand for election. We do not need--nor do I want--a judge who will decide at the front end the result they want to reach and then cherry-pick the law and the facts in order to justify that decision. So it is important to understand the process by which Judge Jackson makes her legal decisions, and we got a little bit of a glimpse this morning, but over the next couple of days, we will have further opportunity to ask more questions about that. One of the things I am concerned about is some of the outside groups that are advocating for Judge Jackson's confirmation. We are seeing activists that demand judges reach a particular result, regardless of the facts, or what the law prescribes. Some of these outside rabble-rousers believe judges should deliver results that their party can't seem to accomplish through the deliberation, compromise, and rough-and-tumble of the legislative process. And when the Court does not deliver these results, many of these outside groups will attack the integrity and legitimacy of the Court as an institution. In recent years, these radical views have made it into the mainstream. In the summer of 2019, five of our Democratic colleagues-- including the current chairman of the Judiciary Committee--filed a ``Friend of the Court'' brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on gun rights. These Senators, in their brief, made a not-so-subtle threat that unless the Court ruled a particular way, the entire institution would be restructured. Several months later, the leader of the Senate--the majority leader-- fired his own warning shot. He actually went to the Supreme Court steps and threatened two sitting Supreme Court Justices by name if they did not rule in a particular fashion. But the Senate isn't the only place we are seeing these sorts of irresponsible attacks. Liberal dark money groups, like Demand Justice, have paid millions of dollars to promote Court packing and sow public distrust in the legitimacy of the Court. And even the White House appears to be open to a Supreme Court overhaul. On the campaign trail, for example, President Biden refused to disavow reforming the Supreme Court. His administration even established a commission to study the issue. The courts were not designed and are not designed to be a roundabout way to deliver certain results or invent new rights out of whole cloth. That is illegitimate, in my view, and I am not the only one who thinks that. That is why it is imperative that we gain a clear understanding of Judge Jackson's approach to judging and what she regards as in her lane and what she understands to be out of her lane in terms of policymaking or political decision making. We need to know that if confirmed, she will rule without fear or favor; that she will follow the law as written, not as what she wants it to be, but what it actually is; and that she will defend the Supreme Court as an institution, as Justice Breyer has and Justice Ginsburg had when asked about Court packing. The Senate's duty is to provide advice and consent, and it is absolutely critical to the integrity of the High Court and the health of our democracy. Judges, after all, don't have term limits. They don't serve for 2 years and stand for reelection or 6 years as we do here in the Senate. They are not accountable in elections. They wield tremendous power as defenders of the Constitution and the last word in resolving contested lawsuits in the courts. So we have a responsibility to the American people to get this right, to thoroughly evaluate Judge Jackson's qualifications, and do our best to ensure that, if confirmed, she will be an impartial and fair judge, not just for the people who nominated her, not just for the outside groups that are cheering on her confirmation, but for all Americans. Before Judge Jackson was named to fill this vacancy and before there was even a vacancy to fill, President Biden promised to nominate an African-American woman to fill this bench. While the historic nature of Judge Jackson's nomination has been heavily reported, there has been far less attention paid to the fact that she is not the first African American who was considered for the Supreme Court--African-American woman. When Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement in 2005, one of the top names floated as a potential successor was Judge Janice Rogers Brown. And, as we now know, Democrats filibustered Judge Brown, and she was ultimately never even given the opportunity to be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. But that wasn't because of opposition by Republicans; it was because our Democratic colleagues, led by then- Senator Joe Biden, derailed her nomination. Janice Rogers Brown had the opportunity to make history by being the first African-American woman nominated for and confirmed as a member of the Supreme Court, but it is very clear that then-Senator Joe Biden led the effort to derail that nomination and denied her that historic opportunity. I understand and appreciate the historic nature of Judge Jackson's nomination, but I hope our colleagues and members of the media do not lose sight of the mistreatment of the many nominees and should-have- been nominees who came before Judge Jackson. What the American people have seen over the last 2 days is a far cry from the way we have seen people like Justice Gorsuch or Justice Kavanaugh treated by our friends across the aisle. Judge Jackson has been treated with courtesy, with civility, dignity, and respect, and I expect that trend to continue through the remainder of this process. As Republicans have said all along, this process will be thorough and exhaustive, but it will be respectful. We have a busy week ahead of us, and I am eager to learn more about Judge Jackson, her judicial philosophy, and the qualifications she would bring if confirmed to the Supreme Court. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks before the next vote.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, since Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, we have all been inspired by the courage and leadership of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. As Russian troops invaded and brutally attacked his country, President Zelenskyy did not do as others have done in the past. He didn't run; he didn't hide; and he didn't give in. President Zelenskyy did what every leader hopes to have the courage to do in times of crisis: He stood his ground, spoke out, and rallied the rest of the world to get behind him. Yesterday, as we all know, Members of Congress had a chance to hear directly from President Zelenskyy. First, he expressed his gratitude to the United States for the support we have provided so far to his country, but he also issued an urgent plea for more defense articles. He showed us a videotape of devastating photos and videos coming out of Ukraine, demonstrating what the Ukrainian people are being subjected to every day by Putin's cruel and unprovoked war against innocent civilians. Ukrainian troops need more arms. They need anti-tank capabilities, and they need additional aircraft. As President Zelenskyy put it, the destiny of Ukraine is being decided now, as we speak. I believe we have a moral obligation--not necessarily a treaty obligation since Ukraine isn't part of NATO, but we have a moral obligation as the leader of the free world--and I am talking about the United States as a whole--to support Ukraine and help them defend their sovereignty and their people. For example, Poland, a member of NATO, offered to transfer an entire fleet of MiG-29 fighters to the United States for delivery to Ukraine. Ukrainian forces already know how to fly those Russian aircraft, and President Zelenskyy assured us that they are desperately needed, but the Biden administration rejected the offer out of fear that it might provoke Mr. Putin or, in terms of war, might escalate the conflict. Winston Churchill, another great wartime leader, aptly said: An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. This cannot be the policy of the United States. We cannot appease Vladimir Putin, and we can't afford to be timid in the face of the greatest threat to world peace since World War II. Here on the Senate floor, several weeks ago, I shared a maxim of another Russian leader, Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Soviet Union, of course, at the time. This is something I would suspect that Mr. Putin agrees with. Lenin said: You probe with bayonets. If you find mush, you push. If you find steel, you withdraw. In short, if people like Vladimir Lenin and Vladimir Putin are met with weakness, they are going to keep coming; if they are met with strength, they may withdraw. President Putin clearly subscribes to this world view. He doesn't respect weakness. In fact, weakness is a provocation; it encourages him. A weak opponent is Putin's greatest desire. President Biden, unfortunately, in not acting more forcefully and taking the initiative as only leaders can do, is playing into his hand. The Biden administration has time and time again eventually come around to doing the right thing when it comes to arming the Ukrainians. Unfortunately, it has only been after there has been a public outcry or more pressure from Congress or President Zelenskyy. Last year, President Biden waived sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline. This, of course, is a natural gas pipeline that goes from Russia to Germany. One of the things, even now, the Germans have recognized is their vulnerability to the monopoly that Russia has when it comes to providing oil and gas to Europe. As Russia built up troops on Ukraine's border, President Biden suggested that some attacks on Ukrainian sovereignty would be ``minor intrusions'' and perhaps disregarded by the United States, he implied. President Biden ignored the advice of virtually all of his advisers and missed the window to impose paralyzing sanctions on Russia before the invasion, and now the administration continues to refuse to facilitate the transfer of these Polish fighter jets. In standard fashion, the administration seems to be a little confused by this crisis--afraid to say yes and too afraid to say no. I am reminded of President Obama's statement of ``leading from behind,'' which appears to be an approach embraced now by President Biden. Strong words are important, but they don't defend against rockets or cruise missiles. Sanctions are important, but they won't take out a Russian tank. Humanitarian aid is important, but only if it is delivered on a timely basis and when it is needed. And waiting and seeing what will develop next and then responding after the fact rather than anticipating the need is not particularly effective. As I said, I believe we have a moral obligation to stand with Ukraine and help its people defend their way of life. We should not be in a position of telling President Zelenskyy: Yes, you have asked us for these defensive arms. You have asked us for these airplanes. We are going to give you just what we think you need. I don't think that should be our position. We ought to ask President Zelenskyy what he needs and provide it forthwith. We want to help Ukraine defeat Russian forces and repel them from their territory entirely, not just extend the length of this terrible war. The most effective way to do that is to supply Ukraine with the assets they need as quickly as possible. To start with, the Biden administration should reevaluate its decision to reject Poland's aircraft offer. These airplanes are needed for Ukraine to maintain air superiority over Russian forces, and they need them now and not at some distant date in the future. And we need to continue to find ways to put American weaponry into the hands of Ukrainian soldiers. Back in World War II, the United States was known as the arsenal of democracy. Again, in a bill that I have introduced called the Ukraine Democracy Defense Lend-Lease Act, we can do that again. I am proud to have worked with a group of bipartisan Senators, including Senators Cardin, Wicker, and Shaheen, to produce this legislation. This legislation authorizes the President to enter into lend-lease agreements like we did in World War II, which probably saved Britain from domination by Nazi Germany. We can do this again by providing Ukrainian forces with the weapons they need to defend their country. This legislation was included in various packages designed to support Ukraine, but, unfortunately, those packages never made their way to the Senate floor. There is broad bipartisan support for this lend-lease provision, and it will give the United States the ability to send the exact type of military support Ukraine needs without a lot of redtape or unnecessary delays. Our support for Ukraine is not a provocation for Putin. It is a necessary show of strength, and it is a deterrence. As we search for additional ways to support Ukraine, it was great to hear from President Zelenskyy. As I said earlier, his bravery and leadership have galvanized the world and have inspired all of us to take action. And I hope his plea for additional aid will persuade President Biden to act with even greater dispatch. This weekend, I will be traveling with a number of our colleagues to Poland to visit our friends and allies on the ground and to see for ourselves the sort of humanitarian crisis that Putin's invasion of Ukraine has created. Poland, to its credit, has welcomed thousands of refugees--hundreds of thousands--and continues to deal with the Russian aggression along its borders. I look forward to this opportunity to visit both Poland and Germany and learning more from our partners in Europe and eager to bring back their input to the Senate for further urgent action. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have long been a supporter of the EB-5 program, which has been a significant economic driver in Texas. This merit-based immigration program has created thousands of American jobs and brought billions of dollars in investment to urban and rural areas across Texas and the U.S. While it was unfortunate that the authorization for the EB-5 Regional Center program was allowed to lapse on June 30, 2021, I am pleased to have worked with my colleagues, Senators Chuck Grassley and Patrick Leahy, on the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act, which was included as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022. The EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act reauthorizes the regional center program through September 30, 2027, and implements meaningful reforms and integrity measures that will ensure the viability and security of the program for the coming years. This legislation provides the first multiyear authorization for the regional center program since 2015, so that regional centers, which have been in limbo for nearly 9 months, will have much-needed stability going forward. There is also a 60-day implementation period to allow USCIS to begin processing EB-5 petitions and applications that have been on hold since the lapse. Following that initial period, existing regional centers will be able to immediately get back to work driving investment into the U.S. and facilitating the creation of jobs across the country.

Mr. CORNYN

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

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be able to complete my remarks.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, as all of America knows, prices at the gas pump are skyrocketing. Over the weekend, the average gas price in Texas exceeded $4 a gallon, and we typically have some of the cheapest gasoline in the country. We didn't even cross that line during the great recession of 2008. But we know that gas prices are not the only commodity that is growing and that family budgets are strained by. Consumers are also paying more for everything from groceries to clothes, to appliances. Folks in Texas and across the country want to know, what is President Biden's plan to address high gasoline prices? Last week, the President was, appropriately enough, asked this very question. His response? He said: Can't do much right now. Russia is responsible. That is a quote--``Russia is responsible.'' Well, people across the country know that the price of gasoline, the spike that we are experiencing now, preceded the invasion of Ukraine. Folks across the country can't afford to fill up their gas tanks to get to work, and the President points the finger at Vladimir Putin. Well, there is no question that the war in Ukraine exacerbated what was already an existing problem with the price of gasoline, but certainly it was not the cause of it. But the President conveniently omits the fact that gasoline prices were a problem long before Ukraine was attacked. For example, the week the President took office, Americans were paying an average of $2.38 a gallon. Month after month, those prices steadily climbed. By mid-May, the average price exceeded $3.10 a gallon, and by Thanksgiving, it was $3.30 a gallon. Just as a reminder, this was months before Russia invaded, which did not happen until February 24 of this year. Even in the last full week before the invasion, gas prices were painfully high at $3.50 a gallon. So, yes, prices have risen since the invasion, and there is no question that the Russian aggression is a factor behind price jumps in the past few weeks, but this was a preexisting problem for which apparently the President had no solution. It is disingenuous for the administration to blame recordbreaking prices entirely on Russia. During Biden's first year in office, from January of last year to January of this year, gas prices increased 40 percent--40 percent. Those increases had nothing to do with President Putin and had everything to do with President Biden. One of the President's first actions after taking office was to cancel the Keystone XL Pipeline. This pipeline would have given Canadian crude a quick and affordable path to refiners and processors in the United States and then to global markets through the Gulf of Mexico. This increased supply would add to the domestic markets and top off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and even make its way to our friends and allies overseas. Given the state of the world's energy security today, it is easy to see how the Keystone XL Pipeline would have helped if the President had given it an opportunity. This project would have also brought serious economic gains in the form of good-paying jobs right here in America, increased tax revenue, and benefits for communities along the pipeline's route. But with the stroke of a pen, the President killed the Keystone XL Pipeline and the many benefits that would have been provided in terms of our energy security and the price of gasoline at the pump. Unfortunately, that was the beginning but not the end of the administration's flawed energy policies. Just a few days later, the Biden administration placed a temporary moratorium on all new leasing permits on Federal lands, effectively sending more business to Russia and OPEC producers whom he actually called upon to produce more oil. That is right. Before the Russian invasion, President Biden called on OPEC--of which Russia is a member and of which Saudi Arabia is a dominant producer--to produce more oil overseas rather than to unleash American energy right here at home. Well, the administration later attempted to set the ``social cost'' of carbon, as they call it, at $51 a metric ton--a high and arbitrary figure designed to hamper fossil fuel production right here at home-- and then it suspended oil and gas production in both Alaska and New Mexico. The administration even took aim at refiners. The United States relies on an expansive network of refiners to supply gasoline, diesel fuel, and other petroleum products. The renewable fuel standard requires refiners to blend a certain amount of renewable fuel, which is simply untenable for many small refiners. And small refiners disproportionately actually produce gasoline, which means that the pressure on these small refiners actually has a disproportionate impact on higher gasoline prices. The Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to grant temporary exemptions to small refiners if compliance would cause them to suffer serious economic hardship. Those exemptions used to be pretty standard practice. President Obama and President Trump each granted dozens of exemptions while in office. But so far, President Biden has refused to grant a single exemption to small refineries. Small refineries are hurting, and unless President Biden finally grants some of these exemptions, some of them may be forced to close their doors, exacerbating again high energy prices. If fewer refiners are operating, gasoline prices will go up, not down. President Biden and his administration aren't the only ones who have taken aim at oil and gas production here in America in the last year. Many of our colleagues who have argued that oil and gas production is somehow unnecessary or obsolete and could be replaced today with solely renewable energy have been misleading the American people in believing that we could make that transition today or anytime in the near future. While renewable energy is an important part of our energy sources--in Texas, we produce more electricity from wind than any other State in the Nation--we believe in an ``all of the above'' energy policy. I actually have heard members of the administration say one of the solutions for eliminating the importation of Russian oil would be to move entirely to renewables. Well, the Energy Information Administration, which is the official spokesman on these matters for the U.S. Government, says that by the year 2050, 74 percent of our energy sources in America will still be fossil fuel. That is four times the amount of energy that can be produced by renewables. That doesn't mean we are going to stay stuck on where we are now. We will continue to look for new and innovative ways to add to our energy diversity and improve our climate and environment at the same time. But to suggest disingenuously to the American people that one way we can deal with cutting off Russian imports is simply to do away with oil and gas in America is a ludicrous statement. Other regulatory measures promoted by the administration have also discouraged American energy production, like the reckless tax-and- spending spree to pile even more costs and regulations on American oil and gas; for example, a methane tax on energy companies, banning offshore drilling, increasing onshore royalty fees, and putting domestic oil and gas producers in a choke hold. Now that gas prices have gone through the roof, some of our colleagues have come up with another unhelpful solution. They want to temporarily suspend the gas tax through November, which happens to be the elections. That is no coincidence. This idea has been soundly rejected a number of times over the years by both Republicans and Democrats. In 2008, gas prices were soaring and the then-Presidential candidate, Barack Obama, attacked his opponents for endorsing a gas tax holiday, as many of our colleagues here in the Senate have endorsed currently. At the time, Candidate Barack Obama, Senator Barack Obama, said: This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's an idea designed to get [you] through an election. In short, this isn't a fix for high gas prices; it is a talking point for political campaigns and candidates. This is a gimmick to create the illusion of action, while really doing nothing but draining the highway trust fund that we rely upon to build our roads and bridges. Still, a few of our colleagues in the Senate have offered a bill that would suspend the gas tax through the end of the year. I am sure it comes as no surprise that a majority of the bill's sponsors are on the ballot this year. For more than a year now, Republicans have warned about the potential consequences of the attack on domestic energy production. We have highlighted the ways the policies could drive up prices, harm our energy security, and threaten that of our allies. Even as gas prices rose month after month, the Biden administration did nothing. They didn't attempt a midcourse correction. They didn't open this topic up for debate. They just stayed the course. Back in November, the Secretary of Energy was asked about increasing U.S. oil production. She literally laughed and said: That is hilarious. Well, it certainly isn't funny now. Gas prices are now averaging $4.32 a gallon, and our allies are frantically trying to reduce their reliance on Russian oil and gas, which in many cases is their sole source. President Biden has tried to pin these problems squarely on Russia and Vladimir Putin, but the American people are smart. They know the truth. They know that high prices predated Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and they know about the war being waged on domestic energy production by some of our colleagues across the aisle. And they are smart enough to know that you can't believe President Biden when he says you can't do much about it because Russia is responsible. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, government funding, as we all know, is set to expire tomorrow night at midnight, and the Senate has the responsibility not just to keep the lights on but also to make critical investments in our country. I could only wish that we had come to this point through a more rational and more deliberative sort of way; but, unfortunately, this seems to be more the norm than the exception where four people get into a room and they write a piece of legislation, then they bring it to the floor, and your only option is to vote yes or no on it. We don't have a practice of making sure that on each one of these bills, people get to actually offer amendments and shape that legislation. I guess that is a quaint and old-fashioned notion, but that is how I thought the legislative process was supposed to work. Maybe that is a topic for another day, but it is unfortunate that this is where we are. Last night at 10 o'clock, the House voted on an almost 3,000-page bill, and then we are expected to vote on it the next day or the next 2 days. This is not a way to run a railroad. We all know that democracy is under attack in the world, and that means we need to do everything we can to provide for our defense and to support our friends and allies around the world. We know that there has been a tug-of-war between our Democratic colleagues and this side of the aisle when it comes to prioritizing national security spending, and that actually is one reason why we find ourselves here at this late date, voting on this multithousand-page bill, because our colleagues on the other side of the aisle wanted to prioritize domestic spending, not national security spending. Thank goodness that has been now negotiated where there is virtual parity. Thanks to the leadership of Ranking Member Shelby and our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, the bipartisan bill includes $42 billion more in defense spending. I can't think of any time in our recent history where we need those additional resources more for our security and the security of our friends and allies. This $42 billion increase in defense spending will provide our military commanders with what they need to respond to the threats that we are facing today and to prepare for those threats we see on the horizon. It is ironic I find myself speaking to the Senator from Maine, whom I serve with on the Intelligence Committee, because he knows a lot of this subject matter as well--certainly well, maybe better than I do. But we all know that Russia's unprovoked attack on Ukraine was what we thought was a relic of the past. My dad was a B-17 pilot in the Army Air Corps in World War II. He was shot down on his 26th bombing mission over Nazi Germany and captured as a prisoner of war, where he served for the last 4 months of that war. We thought--Europe thought, the world thought--that perhaps we had gotten beyond that sort existential threat to our way of life and that the autocrats of the world--people like Vladimir Putin, President Xi, the Ayatollah in Iran, Kim Jong Un in North Korea--that these individuals would be deterred from provoking a war like Vladimir Putin has provoked in Ukraine. One thing Winston Churchill liked to say: If there is one thing for sure, it is that humankind is unteachable. We keep making the same mistakes over and over again. We keep thinking, well, we can cash the peace dividend because that is in the past, only to find ourselves, as Secretary Bob Gates said--he said, of all the military conflicts we found ourselves involved in, in the last several generations, we haven't planned for a single one of them. But we had to be ready, and we had to be able to defend our way of life and our values and our allies. So Russia's unprovoked attack on Ukraine is a reminder of the threats that remain to our freedom and the freedom of other democracies around the world. So there could not be a more appropriate time to plus-up our national defense spending, while at the same time providing additional resources, humanitarian and otherwise, to our friends in Ukraine who are fighting for their very existence. We know that Ukraine is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, so we have no legal obligation to come to Ukraine's defense, but I do believe we have a moral obligation to provide that assistance, both military and humanitarian. Russia has waged an unmistakable war on that democracy, violated the sovereignty of the Ukrainian people. It has even targeted civilians and brought immeasurable destruction to Ukraine. The only question is, After Putin has miscalculated the will of the Ukrainian people to defend themselves and the commitment of America and our NATO allies and other freedom-loving countries around the world to support Ukraine--now that they are bogged down, Russia is bogged down in Ukraine, the question is, Well, is Putin going to give up? Is he going to try to come up with a face-saving device, or is he going to double down? I am afraid Putin is going to double down, which means we are going to see more attacks on innocent civilians. We are going to see more Ukrainian cities leveled to the ground, indiscriminate killing of men, women, and children. This is all that Putin knows. The question is, How does this end? That is a chilling question, but the answer is even more chilling. As I said, I believe we have a moral duty to support Ukraine, and this legislation provides $13 billion in humanitarian, economic, and military assistance. We need to get this money out the door as soon as possible, while the United States and NATO needs to continue to supply the Javelins and other anti-aircraft, anti-tank weapons to help the Ukrainians defend themselves against this existential threat. The good news is, this is a bipartisan effort. A lot of things we do around here we divide up along party lines--the shirts and the skins, I like to call them--but the fact is, we all support Ukraine, and we are all looking for ways we can help them during their time of need. Another thing that this Omnibus appropriations bill does is it reauthorizes the Violence Against Women Act. This critical program has been defunct and moribund since 2019. For some reason, this was not a priority of this Chamber or of this Congress for the last 3 years, but thanks to the leadership of Senators Ernst and Murkowski--Senator Feinstein was an essential part of the negotiations--we were able to reach a bipartisan agreement to strengthen and modernize this law. I am a proud cosponsor of the legislation, and I thank our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for prioritizing its inclusion in this legislation. This funding will make critical investments for our country, including critical investments in our own people. One of the good things about this Omnibus appropriations bill is it does exclude poison pills that included things like taxpayer funding of abortions. Those are not included in this bill. While it is far from perfect, there is no question that a bill drafted solely by Republicans would look a little different. But the world does not operate on the basis of ideals. The perfect cannot be the enemy of the good. So despite its flaws, despite the crazy process by which we find ourselves here voting on this $1.5 trillion appropriations bill, notwithstanding all the reasons I could cite why maybe I should vote against it, I think there is enough good in this bill to support it.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on another matter, 2 weeks ago, President Biden nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson--and I know I mispronounced her first name; Judge Jackson, let me just call her--to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court. During his State of the Union Message, President Biden said that choosing somebody to serve on the Supreme Court is one of the most serious constitutional responsibilities a President of the United States has. Likewise, I believe our responsibilities under the Constitution of evaluating the nominee, going through the advice-and- consent process, is one of the most serious responsibilities we as Senators have, and I don't take that responsibility lightly. Members of this Chamber are pretty familiar with Judge Jackson's qualifications, as she was confirmed to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals just 9 months ago--sometimes called the second most powerful Federal court in the land, right below the Supreme Court of the United States. There is no question that Judge Jackson is an incredibly smart person and has all of the sort of pedigree that you would expect: graduated from the best universities, the best law schools, has had a broad range of practice. She received both her undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard. She clerked for a Supreme Court Justice, Justice Breyer. She served on the Federal bench for nearly 9 years. I could say, as somebody who served on the State court bench for 13 years, I appreciate the President picking somebody who has actually had real-world experience on the trial bench. Too often, I think our Supreme Court nominees are academics and people who have very little real-world experience. But you can't argue that Judge Jackson does not have that kind of real-world experience, serving as a public defender, serving on the trial court, and serving on the court of appeals for the last 9 months. We all know that a nomination for the Supreme Court requires a rigorous assessment of far more than just a resume, though. Our Framers set forth the role of the Supreme Court in article III of our Constitution. Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist 78 that the judiciary, he said, would have ``no influence over either the sword or the purse. . . . [i]t may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment.'' Now, if I can interpret what Alexander Hamilton was really saying in modern language, it is that judges shouldn't be politicians. They are not policymakers. That is why we appoint them--they are appointed--for lifetime tenure, to be protected from the pressures of politics or personality, and that is why they have such a critical and important role in our government. But it is not the same role as we serve as elected representatives. We are enmeshed in politics. We are directly responsible to the people-- not for the legal correctness of our arguments or our legislation or constitutional interpretation, although I think we do have some responsibility since we take an oath to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, but it is different, and I think most people recognize judges are different than politicians. Judges should not be politicians appointed to serve for lifetime tenure and be unaccountable to the public and yet make policy. That is why judges decide individual cases. We don't decide individual cases here; we make policy for broad swathes of the American people. But judges decide cases based on a controversy, a set of facts, and the application of the law to those facts, which is, again, the antithesis of politics. That is what judging is all about. So the Supreme Court is not just another branch of government that you can go to if you don't get your desired outcome in the political branches. If you don't win the election, if you don't elect your like- minded representative, you are not supposed to just go to the Supreme Court and say: OK, now you give me what I want because I couldn't get it through the political branches. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a failsafe to be utilized to deliver results that can't be secured through the legislative process. Our democracy, equal justice under the law--that is what it says right above the door of the Supreme Court of the United States: ``Equal Justice Under Law''--can only be accomplished when the same law applies to all of us. Cases are therefore decided based on their unique facts-- not on politics, not on personal preferences, not even on strongly held personal beliefs. This is absolutely critical to our system of checks and balances and the health of our democracy. So I look forward to meeting Judge Jackson in person. I saw her across the hearing room when she was before the Judiciary Committee just about a year ago. But I want to ask her a little more about her judicial philosophy and how she views her role on the Supreme Court. Now, some have suggested, since she has been confirmed to the circuit court, that this ought to be a rubberstamp. Well, I don't view it that way. Circuit court nominees and district court nominees have to apply Supreme Court precedent, but when you are a member of the Supreme Court, there is no higher court that dictates the decision or the precedence you need to apply. Now, ideally, you are applying the statutes and laws passed by Congress and the Constitution itself, but there is admittedly more flexibility for the nominee, which means her philosophy is even more important to know now. I tried to flesh out Judge Jackson's judicial philosophy during her confirmation hearing for the DC Circuit Court. A number of us submitted questions for the record asking her to clarify her judicial philosophy and the way she interprets the Constitution. We have heard a lot of testimony over the years about originalists and textualists and different ways people approach their duties as a judge. I don't think Judge Jackson was particularly forthcoming with her answers when we asked about her philosophy, and I ultimately voted against her confirmation for the circuit court. Now, that vote is not going to determine how I view her nomination to the Supreme Court, but I think the question applies with even greater strength because she will not be bound by Supreme Court precedent. I know she will have plenty of time and plenty of opportunity to clarify her views during the confirmation process, and I hope to see an unvarnished look, beginning with our conversation tomorrow, on Thursday. I am also eager to learn more about Judge Jackson's views of the Supreme Court as an institution, which has increasingly come under attack by partisans, again, who don't particularly like the decisions of the Court. But that is not supposed to be the test. The test is whether they apply the Constitution and laws of the United States to the facts found by the finder of fact. There have actually been a number of calls here on the Senate and in our political system in general to change the makeup of the Supreme Court, to actually add additional Justices to the Court--something that used to be called court packing back in the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But Justice Breyer, to his credit, whose seat Judge Jackson has been nominated to fill, has been a steadfast defender of the Supreme Court as an institution, and I hope soon-to-be-Justice Jackson takes her cues from her mentor. Justice Breyer echoed the comments of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg and warned about a potentially dangerous politicalization of the Supreme Court and the consequential loss of public confidence in its judgments. Well, I would like to know whether Judge Jackson agrees with Justice Breyer and whether she shares Justice Ginsburg's assessment that nine seems to be a good number when it comes to the Supreme Court. In the coming days and weeks, the Senate will thoroughly review Judge Jackson's qualifications, just as this body has done for every other nominee to the Federal bench. This is a familiar process to most of us. Judge Jackson is the fourth Supreme Court nominee we will have considered in the last 5 years. But I hope there is something we do differently this time than has been done in the recent past, particularly in the case of Justice Kavanaugh. Frankly, the confirmation process for Justice Kavanaugh was an embarrassment and, I believe, a black mark on this Senate. Conversely, I think we have an opportunity to show the American people how to do it the right way and treat Judge Jackson with civility and dignity, even when we disagree. We know that outside groups launched a full-on character attack against Judge Kavanaugh. Even Justice Barrett, more recently, was attacked based on her religious beliefs. I can assure you that will not happen this time around. We will meticulously review Judge Jackson's record. We will ask detailed questions to understand her judicial philosophy. We will read and review her opinions and carefully evaluate her ability to serve. Through it all, there is no question that she will be treated with dignity and respect. I think the confirmation process must be thorough and it must be civil. The American people and, frankly, the nominee deserves nothing less. I am prepared to fulfill my advice and consent duties as a Member of this body and as a member of the Judiciary Committee. As we know, there is no particular timeline for this process. In some cases, it moves quickly, and in others it has taken significantly more time. Chairman Durbin has announced that the Judiciary Committee will begin its confirmation hearing in the week of March 21, which doesn't allow much more time for our colleagues to meet with Judge Jackson before evaluating her record, and I know she has prioritized meeting with Members of the Judiciary Committee. I hope she will have adequate time to meet with other Members who are not on the Judiciary Committee, as well. I know our colleagues are anxious to expedite this process, but we all know Justice Breyer will stay on the Court until the end of this term, which will be the first week or so in July. Justices do not have term limits. They are not held accountable on elections, but they wield tremendous power under our Constitution. So we have a duty, not necessarily to get it done fast but to get it done right and thoroughly evaluate Judge Jackson's qualifications and ensure that, if confirmed, she will serve as a fair and impartial member of the Supreme Court. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, over the last few decades, globalization has completely reshaped the international economic order. Economies around the world have become interconnected, relying on one another from agricultural products to energy, to manufacturing capabilities. It seemed to be the rule of thumb that whoever could produce a product at the lowest price got the business and the jobs that went along with it. But we are increasingly seeing vulnerabilities that this interdependence creates with some of the clearest examples surfacing during the COVID-19 pandemic. The United States, for example, leans heavily on China for masks, gloves, and gowns, personal protective equipment, and for ventilators-- all of which were absolutely necessary during the beginning of the pandemic and continuing on until today. But for a long time, that wasn't a problem, until COVID-19 showed up. I still remember the phone call I had with the Governor of Texas, my friend Greg Abbott. At the beginning of the pandemic, I said, ``Governor, what do you need?'' He said, ``We need testing and we need PPE,'' personal protective equipment, almost all of which is made overseas in China. China, as it turns out, held on to most of the supply for its own hospitals and healthcare workers, leaving the rest of the world to compete for the limited supply that remained. Suddenly, we were unable to provide our healthcare providers with the personal protective equipment they needed to protect themselves while they served others--namely, the rest of us, their patients. As supply chain struggles grew and expanded, it wasn't just medical equipment that proved to be a problem. Everything from cleaning products to automobiles were impacted. We began to realize that one of the biggest vulnerabilities is semiconductors, which are critical components for our most used products: things like smart phones, computers, televisions, cars, airplanes, cell towers, and just about everything else with an off-and- on switch. Again, the source of our chip supply didn't used to be a problem. About three decades ago, the United States manufactured 37 percent of the world's semiconductors. But as our reliance on these chips has gone up, our production has gone down; and today, instead of 37 percent of the world's semiconductors, the United States produces only 12 percent of the global share. Again, these microcircuits have become invaluable in this technological age because, literally, everything with an off-and-on switch requires semiconductors--and I mean everything. The lion's share of semiconductor manufacturing--more than 60 percent of the world's supply--is in Taiwan, which, as we know, is being threatened with invasion by the People's Republic of China. But it is not just the threat of armed invasion that risks that supply chain; it is also the possibility of another pandemic or a natural disaster. This flashing red light has prompted the Senate to take action by passing the CHIPS for America Act, which I introduced along with the senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, which was designed to incentivize U.S. semiconductor manufacturing. And in the coming weeks, I hope we can finally get a bill to the President's desk that funds these critical programs and puts us on a path to more domestic semiconductor manufacturing because of those risks to the supply chain. In short, a crisis hit, it exposed our vulnerabilities, and we acted. That is exactly what we need to do now regarding energy security. Let me explain. In many ways, the risks we are seeing with the global energy supply today are similar to those risks we experienced with critical components like semiconductors. Much of the world relies on a single country for a critical product, and decisions made by a dictator could lead to that supply being cut off at a moment's notice. When our allies are looking to adversaries for our most basic needs like heating, electricity, fuel, it creates huge vulnerabilities and sky-high prices at the same time. This was underscored in January of 2009, when Russia effectively turned the gas off to Ukraine for almost 3 weeks. This affected at least 10 countries in Europe whose natural gas traveled through Ukraine. Russia is still the dominant gas supplier for Europe, including Ukraine. Last year, Russia supplied 40 percent of Europe's natural gas. In 2020, Russia was the third largest producer of petroleum and other liquid fuels and the second largest producer of natural gas. This gives Vladimir Putin a tremendous amount of not only power but ready cash. And as we are seeing on our TV screens, that money is being used for the most nefarious of purposes: to kill innocent Ukrainian civilians. After coming under intense pressure by both Democrats and Republicans, I am glad that the administration has finally announced a ban on Russian oil imports into the United States. We know exactly where the money they get from selling this commodity is going, and we cannot continue to supply Putin with blood money. I am disappointed it did take a while for the President to see the merits of this action and only after it was clear that Congress, on a bipartisan basis, was prepared to act. Our colleagues in both Chambers have produced numerous proposals to ban Russian imports, while pushing the administration to take action. Over the weekend, Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee announced a bipartisan bill to do just that, but the press release, once posted on the website, was quickly taken down, strangely enough. Reporting indicates that the White House intervened to get that press release taken down off the House Ways and Means website because it didn't want to look like it was being boxed into taking action on Russian oil imports. But to his credit, once the President saw the writing on the wall, he decided to take action, but he made it seem like it was his idea, even though we all know his hand was forced by bipartisan support in the Congress. There has never been a more critical moment to reevaluate our reliance on rogue regimes for our energy supply. If we want to protect ourselves and our allies from the whims of a power-hungry dictator, we need to get serious about energy security. In recent years, conversations about energy policy have been consumed by debates about the environmental impact of fossil fuels, which are important, but often, they are not well informed. Some of our colleagues have proposed everything from fracking bans in the Green New Deal to net-zero carbon deadlines. Well, those efforts may bring down America's share of global emissions, but it would come at a grave cost to global energy security. And the truth is, whether it is the Russians or the Chinese or India, developing nations with growing economies, they may pay lip service to some of the goals of a carbon-free future; but this is at the same time that China is building more coal-fired powerplants than any other nation on Earth. So they really say one thing and do another, for fairly obvious reasons. They understand that constraining your own energy supply will have a negative impact on their economy and job growth and stability in each of those countries. But I want to be clear: I support efforts to diversify our energy sources and reduce emissions. That is why in Texas we embraced what is called ``all of the above'' as an energy strategy that includes oil and gas, nuclear, wind, solar, you name it. We embrace all of it. But we have learned a long time ago that solar and wind energy are dependent on the weather, for example, or the time of day, because the Sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. That is why you need a reliable base load of electricity and energy, primarily fuel from natural gas, some from nuclear and the like. On top of that diversification of your energy supply which has proven to be so important and so successful in reducing emissions yet maintaining energy security, Texas companies are also making serious strides in energy innovation. We are finding new ways to sequester carbon emissions, for example, and other ways to make our most available and affordable energy sources cleaner. I believe we need to do more to encourage innovation and diversification of our energy sources, but those efforts must not come at the cost of security. Our top priority must be to ensure that the United States and our allies have reliable access to energy needed to keep the lights on and their economy running. And we need to stop Putin and other dictators from getting rich off of our dependence and holding democracies like Ukraine hostage. Suffice it to say that the Biden administration has not addressed a plan to do that. From day one, the administration has taken actions that undermine America's energy security and send even more business to Russia and Saudi Arabia. Only hours after being sworn in, President Biden cancelled the permit to the Keystone XL Pipeline and halted all new energy leasing and permitting on public lands and waters. His administration has effectively discouraged investments in new production here at home, and the U.S. is producing significantly less oil. It is now down by 1.2 million barrels per day from pre-Biden administration days. Without question, the most logical response to the current global energy crisis is to boost production of U.S. energy sources. We can reap the economic benefits of strong production here at home and supply our friends and allies with reliable energy around the world and, in the process, enhancing their energy security, making them less dependent on people like Vladimir Putin. But producers aren't able to turn on a dime. They are not able to increase their capacity overnight; but it is important for us to begin to take the steps now to strengthen our domestic energy production in light of the developments in Ukraine and in Europe. The sooner the Biden administration views oil and gas producers as necessary rather than expendable, the better off we will all be. That is not what the White House has suggested, by the way. In fact, they seem to be suggesting a completely different route. The Biden administration doesn't want to supply Europe with more American energy; he wants to help them shift their reliance from one oil-rich dictator to another. Good-bye, Russia; hello, Iran; hello, Venezuela. The administration is looking to other rogue regimes to supply the energy that should be produced here in America. The White House is trying to revive the ill-considered Iran nuclear deal, and the White House press secretary acknowledged that a new deal would mean more oil from Iran for global markets. It is reportedly considering a trip to Saudi Arabia to ask the Kingdom to pump more oil--not here in America, but go to Saudi Arabia, hat in hand, and say: Will you please produce more oil to help us bring down the price of gasoline? We even hear that the Biden administration is trying to ease sanctions on Venezuela and funnel Putin's profits to Maduro. The fact the Biden administration is beating down the doors of the Ayatollah, the Crown Prince, and Maduro rather than easing burdens on American producers is a bad joke. It is absurd. It makes no sense whatsoever. Now, ideologues may oppose American fossil fuels, but the administration's reflexive opposition to U.S. producers is creating serious risks for our security, not to mention the high prices that consumers pay at the pump. We are blessed to live in a resource-rich country, and there is no reason to put the energy security of the United States and our allies at risk because President Biden worries about angering the progressive radical left of his own political party. If the Biden administration continues to wage war on American fossil fuels, it will create huge vulnerabilities for the United States and our allies. Now, I am not suggesting we revive the 1970s oil export ban and implement isolationist energy policies, but we do need to take decisive action to reduce the world's reliance on authoritarian regimes. Just as the pandemic led us to reevaluate vulnerable supply chains, this war in Ukraine has opened our eyes and, hopefully, given us the opportunity to reevaluate global energy security. I hope this crisis will serve as a reset button for those energy security efforts, and I hope we can find some common ground between Democrats and Republicans to reconsider the ideological and reflexive opposition to American fossil fuels because the consequences in terms of world peace and energy security are too serious not to revisit those preconceived notions before the Ukrainian invasion. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, Russia's brutal and unprovoked attack on Ukraine intensified over this last weekend, bringing even more death and destruction to the Ukrainian people and more uncertainty to the rest of the world. It appears that Russia is now targeting noncombatant evacuation routes--the latest blatant war crime and a clear escalation following targeted attacks on civilians. Russian forces fired on civilians as they fled for their lives, killing a mother, her two children, and a family friend. Over the last couple of weeks, hundreds of Ukrainians have been killed, and countless others have been wounded. More than 1\1/2\ million people have fled the country, making it the fastest growing refugee crisis in Europe since World War II. Through the immense suffering Russia has inflicted, the bravery and resolve of the Ukrainian people has shown bright. The world has been awestruck at the courage of teachers, architects, grandmothers, Ukrainians from all walks of life who have taken up arms in defense of their democracy. We have all been moved by the leadership of President Zelenskyy, who is fighting alongside of his fellow Ukrainians while pleading with the rest of the world to take action. We have admired the strength of those who were forced to say goodbye to loved ones, abandon their homes, and search for safety beyond Ukraine's borders. People around the world have rallied around Ukraine, offering support in ways big and small. Families across Europe are welcoming refugees into their homes. People around the world have organized fundraisers and donation drives to get food, blankets, first-aid kits, and other critical supplies into the hands of the Ukrainians. People all over the free world have cheered on and generously supported Ukraine at this critical moment, but now it is time for Congress to act. Since Ukraine is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, we have no legal obligation to support its fight against Russia, but we do have a moral obligation to help them defend themselves. Russia has waged an unmistakable war on a sovereign democracy. It has targeted civilian areas and brought immeasurable destruction to Ukraine, and it continues to threaten further death and destruction outside and beyond Ukraine, even rattling its nuclear saber at the heart of Europe. Yes, we have a moral duty to support the Ukrainian people as they defend their sovereignty in their beloved country. So far, the United States has provided military, humanitarian, and economic assistance for Ukraine. These resources have been critical in the fight so far. The United States and our allies have also imposed harsh sanctions on Russia's economy, sending its currency into a downward spiral. This has, no doubt, made life harder for the Russian people, with whom we have no quarrel, but we should continue to use every tool at our disposal to impose costs on Vladimir Putin for his aggression in the hope that his own people will eventually rise up and say ``enough.'' Many businesses have suspended operations in Russia, inflicting even more economic pain on the Kremlin. I am encouraged by the global response so far, but we need to do more. This is a seminal moment in American history and in human history, reminiscent of events most Americans today only know about from their history books and wars fought by our parents and grandparents. After this extended holiday from history, the United States must now take every possible step to stop this war by all available means. This week, I expect the Senate to vote on an emergency funding bill to send even more resources to the fight in Ukraine. The White House has requested $10 billion in military and humanitarian assistance, and there is strong bipartisan understanding that we need to move that quickly, as we just heard from the majority leader. The traditionally slow pace of legislation won't cut it. This is a reminder of the importance of not only preserving but growing our military strength. Authoritarian leaders like Putin, Kim Jong Un, President Xi, and Iran's Supreme Leader are watching this test of the free world's resolve. Our Democratic colleagues have consistently fought to shift funds from our national defense to domestic programs. When the case of inflation is accounted for, President Biden's first budget proposed an actual decrease in defense spending. We need to turn that around, especially in light of recent developments. The war in Ukraine has proven that a well-funded and well-prepared military isn't a luxury; it is a necessity. Germany's dramatic reversal on defense spending illustrates how clear this point has now become. Our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee are still working through the details of an omnibus appropriations bill, and I hope they are able to reach an agreement before the funding deadline this Friday. While short-term bills are better than government shutdowns, they only hamper our ability to plan for the future. Our military leadership needs a predictable budget in order to prepare for the many threats we are experiencing now and those that are on the horizon. That was true before Russia invaded Ukraine, and it is absolutely critical now. In a recent Washington Post op-ed, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Robert Gates wrote about the need for ``a new American strategy'' to safeguard security interests. That includes predictable funding, strong alliances, new technologies, and reforms within the Pentagon. Bureaucracy and redtape come with a lot of overhead, and those dollars would better be spent on advanced technologies and equipment. As former Secretary Gates said, ``Our executive and legislative branches must understand the new world we live in, set aside business as usual and embrace dramatic change to ensure that we and our democratic allies prevail in that contest.'' Investments and reforms in our national defense will be critical to America's security for years to come, but there are immediate steps we should take to increase the cost of this unprovoked war by Russia. The United States and our allies have imposed crippling sanctions on Russian banks and oligarchs, but the country's lucrative oil and gas industry remains virtually untouched. Russia continues to export energy to the rest of the world. In fact, many parts of Europe are completely dependent on Russian energy exports, and Putin is happy to use the revenue that he generates from those sales to sustain the attack on Ukrainian civilians. The embarrassing truth is that the United States is one of Russia's customers. We cannot continue to supply Russia with the blood money they get from their exports to the United States. That is why there is strong bipartisan support for a ban on Russian oil imports. I am proud to be a cosponsor of legislation that was introduced by our friend from Kansas, Senator Marshall, to ban the purchase of Russian oil in the United States. We have the great fortune of living in a resource-rich country, and there is no reason why we should rely on anyone else--let alone a power-hungry dictator--for our basic energy needs. Putin's aggression has lit a fire under the United States and our allies, and we need to take concrete steps to end our reliance on foreign oil and continue our pursuit of energy independence, at the same time making sure that our friends and allies around the world have access to more than just one choice when it comes to their energy needs. Again, we need to take that noose out of the hand of Vladimir Putin when it comes to dissuading these countries that are dependent on Russia. We need to give them more choices and the freedom to make those choices. Strangely, there are media reports today the administration is considering easing sanctions on Venezuelan oil to compensate for what nations import from Russia. But I have to ask, why on Earth would we trade one oil-rich dictator for another? Instead, here is a novel concept perhaps the administration would consider: Why don't we boost our own production from here in the United States and sell it across the globe? It is truly shocking that this administration is so against and so opposed to American oil and gas that they would rather make it easier to buy oil from the Maduro regime than from here at home in America. It is simply unfathomable and inexcusable. Energy security is something we have taken for granted here in the United States--so has Germany and so has Europe. But now they are learning that there are bitter lessons to be learned from that dependency on imports from a country like the Russian Federation. We simply cannot ignore the fact that energy security is national security, and we can't ignore the grave risks that accompany our reliance on foreign oil for our most basic needs or those of our allies. Over the last couple of weeks, people around the world have rallied in support of the people of Ukraine. In ways big and small, the global community has sent an unmistakable message that Russia's attack on the sovereignty of Ukraine will not be tolerated. It is time for Congress to step up to the plate and provide even more support to our friends in that country. As I said, we may not have a legal obligation, but we do have a moral obligation to supply Ukrainian forces and civilians with the resources they need in order to resist Russian aggression. That is the task before us this week, and I hope we can take strong bipartisan action that sends an unmistakable message to the world. I hope we will also consider other more harsh actions against Russia. For example, I support our colleagues on the Finance Committee to strip Russia of its permanent normal trading relations status. This will place Russia in the same pariah category as North Korea and Cuba. The Wall Street Journal made the point this last week that nothing can be the same after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There are few seminal points in our life where we remember that everything changed thereafter, whether it is September 11, 2001, the assassination of a President, and now, after this post-Cold War holiday from history, the invasion of another democracy in Europe. This is a watershed moment, and the United States must take every possible step to stop this war before the cost grows even higher and spreads to other countries outside of Ukraine. I yield the floor. I would suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. President, I ask unanimous consent to print my bill for introduction in the Congressional Record. The bill prohibits U.S. persons from engaging in transactions with foreign persons who purchase or transact in gold from the Russian Federation.