John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Mr. THUNE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, as I begin this morning, I want to take a moment to address the events that transpired yesterday just a few short blocks from where we are standing. The summer months are busy tourist months here in our Nation's Capital, and for some, the view from Union Station is the very first sight they have of Washington, DC. Those who emerged from Union Station yesterday afternoon, however, were confronted not with the beauty of the historic station but with a scene of lawlessness. Violent protesters tore down American flags that fly in front of Union Station, lit at least one of them on fire, and raised Palestinian flags in their place. Others defiled the monuments in front of the station with messages, including ``Hamas is comin'' and ``Globalize the Intifada.'' Now imagine being a Jewish person walking to work past those slogans. We have a proud tradition of public protest in the United States, but there is a difference between exercising free speech rights and the vandalism and violence that we saw yesterday. In addition to what we saw in front of Union Station and elsewhere, an anti-Israel protestor or protestors released hundreds of maggots and mealworms into the hotel where the Prime Minister and a lot of other people were staying. This is not part of the proud tradition of American political discourse; this is thuggery--pure thuggery. I am frankly appalled by how little we have heard in response from Democrats. The President addressed the Nation last night. Could he not have added a few words on this disturbing display? What about the Vice President? Every single public official and every single American should be united in condemning this violence and vandalism as well as rhetoric that elevates terrorism and foments anti-Semitism. We are better than this, and it is time we started acting like it.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Wyoming (Ms. Lummis), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Rounds), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance). Futher, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea,'' the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``yea,'' and the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the attempted assassination of President Trump 11 days ago at a peaceful rally in Pennsylvania shook the Nation. I am very thankful that he was not seriously harmed. I am grateful also for the law enforcement personnel who rushed in to cover the President when the shooting started. But, as every American knows by now, the events of July 13 should never have happened. There was not just one but a number of apparent security breakdowns-- notably, a failure to secure the roof before the rally. While we are grateful for the fact that President Trump was not killed, the security failures resulted in the death of one innocent American and serious injury to two others. It is appropriate that the Secret Service Director resigned yesterday in the wake of this tragedy, but there is more work to be done. Multiple investigations are currently being conducted--several of them here in Congress--to identify everything that went wrong that Saturday and to explore ways to ensure that it never happens again. Among other things, we obviously need to take a hard look at what needs to be done at the Secret Service. I have no doubt that there are many dedicated agents serving there, including those who heroically dived to cover President Trump when the shooting started, but the fact is that the Secret Service has been beset by problems for a number of years now, including staffing issues and a number of previous security failures. It is time to fix these problems once and for all and ensure that the Secret Service is fully prepared to fulfill its mission. We also need a new Secret Service Director committed to making reform of the Agency a priority. Events like the ones of July 13 always horrify because they demonstrate the worst of which human beings are capable, but they also often give us a glimpse of the very best, and that was certainly true in Pennsylvania. There was Corey Comperatore, the volunteer firefighter who died protecting his family; the emergency room physician and others who attempted to render medical assistance; the everyday Americans who stepped in to help their fellow rally-goers. If there is one thing we can take from the events of July 13 other than the immediate practical need of addressing security failures, it is a renewed determination to live our lives in such a way that we, too, at the time of our testing, would be among those whose responses were to help and protect their fellow man. Soon after surviving the attempt on his life, President Trump said: In this moment, it is more important than ever that we stand United and show our True Character as Americans. That is a call that we should all heed. That doesn't mean, of course, that our disagreements suddenly disappear, but it does mean that we recognize and remember that most Americans, regardless of where they land politically, want what is best for the country's future, and I hope that out of this tragedy can come a renewed sense of what unites us. Amid the outpouring of shock and concern after the attempted assassination, there were those who actually made remarks lamenting that President Trump wasn't killed, and it is disturbing that our discourse and our regard for the value of human life have deteriorated to such an extent that there would actually be people wishing bodily harm on a political candidate simply because they don't like his politics. In the midst of our real and valid disagreements, I hope we can remember the people beneath the politics and emerge with a greater respect for our fellow Americans. My thoughts and prayers continue to be with those injured on July 13 and with the families of the injured and deceased, and I pray--I pray-- that the events in Butler, PA, will never be repeated. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Vance). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Hoeven) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

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

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, last month's arrest of eight men from Tajikistan with suspected ties to ISIS further underscores what we have known for a long time, and that is that President Biden's 3-year-plus border crisis is a threat to our national security. All eight of these individuals had made their way into our country across our southern border, and they are hardly the only dangerous individuals to have made their way into our country on President Biden's watch. An illegal immigrant who had successfully evaded the Border Patrol to enter the United States has been arrested for the murder of a mother in Maryland. An illegal immigrant released into the country on parole has been charged with the murder of a nursing student in Georgia. Two illegal immigrants are charged with the killing of a 12-year-old girl in Texas. Unfortunately, I could go on. In another alarming case, 50 out of 400 illegal immigrants who entered the United States through an ISIS-linked smuggling network are still unaccounted for. It is, of course, impossible to predict or stop every crime, but the chaos at our southern border that President Biden has allowed to rage for 3-plus years has unquestionably created an environment that facilitates the entry of dangerous individuals into our country. Since President Biden took office, approximately 10 million individuals, that we know of, have made their way illegally into our country--10 million. That is larger than the population of the vast majority of American States. We have had 3 successive years of record-breaking illegal immigration on President Biden's watch--3. And we can only hope that we will manage to avoid yet a fourth. The situation is so bad that President Biden finally realized that if he didn't do something, his disastrous record on the border might tank his reelection prospects. And while it would be nice if the executive action he took last month had been motivated by the clear national security dangers the situation presents and not by fear of losing an election, at least he finally conceded that he had to do something-- inadequate and full of exemptions as it might be. But while this might--and I emphasize ``might''--be a case of better late than never, I am afraid it is also a case of too little, too late. Because a tremendous amount of damage has been done that President Biden can't fix, even if he should succeed in restricting future flows. As I said, roughly 10 million illegal immigrants have entered our country on President Biden's watch. And while I am sure that many of these individuals were simply in search of a better life, we can be pretty confident that there are others, like the recently arrested individuals with suspected ties to ISIS, who have more malign intentions. Of particular concern are the roughly 1.8 million known ``got- aways.'' Those are individuals who the Border Patrol saw but was unable to apprehend, who have made their way into the country over the course of this administration. U.S. Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens, speaking earlier this year about the number of ``got-aways'' at the border said: [T]hose are the numbers that really keep us up at night, because if you know that all you need to do is turn yourself into the Border Patrol and go through the process, what possible reason would you have for wanting to evade capture? Could it be that those are the folks that probably have criminal intent? Chief Owens was referring to the fact that under the Biden administration's lax asylum system, individuals who show up at the border claiming asylum have frequently been released into the country with court dates as much as a decade into the future. And his point, of course, is that when turning yourself into the Border Patrol when a claim for asylum is likely to result in years of, essentially, legal permanent residence, it is especially concerning that we have had hundreds of thousands of individuals choosing not to turn themselves in and escaping into the interior of our country. So, again, even if President Biden's executive action from last month does do something to help reduce the flow of illegal immigration--which very much remains to be seen--we will still be left with the effects of the chaos he has allowed to rage at our southern border for 3-plus years. And we will still be left with the effects of his other disastrous border and immigration policies from offering mass amnesty to hundreds of thousands of individuals whose asylum cases have been closed without a decision to fast-tracking mass parole through the CBP One app to placing unaccompanied children with possibly dangerous guardians in the United States--something, by the way, that Senator Grassley is currently working to prevent in the future. And I expect we will still be dealing with the consequences of President Biden's dangerous policies for a long time to come. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Daines), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Tuberville). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay'' and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I want to join with Senator Reed and so many of my colleagues today as we express our great sorrow in learning about the death of Senator Jim Inhofe. Jim was an icon here in the Senate. He was a personal inspiration to me. When I first got here, he was the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee in the Senate and worked with me. My first legislative accomplishments came as a result of him and his staff working with me to help me establish myself as a new Senator and to do the work that the people of South Dakota sent me here to do. And he made that possible because of just the way that he led the committee and his understanding of what it takes to get things accomplished here in the U.S. Senate. And I am grateful for his legislative prowess, for his leadership as a chairman of not only that committee but later the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I am grateful for his tireless work ethic. I have learned a lot. My first trip actually, as a Senator, abroad was to Iraq, and I went with Senator Inhofe. And I can tell you from traveling with him--and I know that anybody who has traveled with Senator Inhofe knew--that he had boundless energy and an ability to work people half his age under the table. He was truly a remarkably durable and passionate advocate for this country, a man of deep convictions, and--as was pointed out by Mr. Reed--somebody who had a connection with the rank-and-file military because of his military background. And in every place that we went, we would meet with soldiers who respected him for that--the connection that he had and also for the leadership that he provided for our country when it came to important national security matters. I also had the opportunity in Oklahoma to visit and to travel the State a little bit with him. I flew in an airplane with Senator Inhofe, and he was a renowned pilot. I think everybody knew that was one of his great passions in life. But there wasn't anybody who was around him ever who had the opportunity to interact or work with Senator Inhofe who wasn't impressed by that powerful work ethic that he brought for the people of Oklahoma and for the people of this country. And I know that, in traveling abroad with him, I saw that firsthand. I know of his many trips to the continent of Africa, oftentimes to war- torn countries where he built relationships, advocated for American ideals, and was a tremendous example and witness on those trips. And I am grateful for his leadership in so many ways and for the impact that he had not only to the people of Oklahoma and to the people of this country but people all over the world whom he touched by his work, by his efforts, and by his character. And I also want to say, finally--and probably most importantly--above all, I am grateful for his Christian witness. Jim was a man of deep and profound faith, and it showed up literally, as I mentioned, in every aspect of his life. For many years, he hosted Chaplain Black's Bible study in his office, providing a place for Senators from both parties to gather for prayer and study. I don't think--and I think Chaplain Black would probably validate this--that Jim ever missed a session of that Bible study. And while the Bible study has continued without him--and is still, I would argue, one of the most significant hours that we spend here each week-- I know that all of us miss being welcomed into Jim's office, which Jim made easy for us to find by hanging the ichthys symbol outside of the door. My thoughts and prayers today are with Jim's wife Kay and with his family. Jim will be sorely missed. But in the midst of the sorrow, I am also comforted by these words from the Apostle Paul, and these are words Jim deeply believed: Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. . . . For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. . . . And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Romney), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Rubio), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, the Supreme Court recently concluded its term, and, as predicted, Democrats met the decisions they didn't like with howls of outrage. ``We will fight to rein in the outrageous abuses of this brazen Court,'' one Democrat offered temperately. ``We must expand the Court now,'' another cried, before it ``destroy[s] our democracy and our planet.'' Yet another announced that she would be filing impeachment articles against a Supreme Court Justice or Justices, presumably for the high crime of ruling in a way that she didn't like. For years now--since at least the last administration--Democrats have been engaged in a concerted campaign to paint the Supreme Court as illegitimate and extreme. We have heard about ``stolen seats'' and ``MAGA justices'' and other melodramatic statements meant to persuade the American people that the Supreme Court has somehow been hijacked. But what it all boils down to is this: Democrats think that the only legitimate Supreme Court is a Supreme Court that rules in line with Democrats' policy preferences. That is it. That is what all of this boils down to. Democrats can dress things up any way they like with a host of invented reasons for why this Court is illegitimate, but the truth of the matter is, Democrats' real problem with this Court is that a number of the Justices have had the temerity to periodically deliver rulings with which Democrats disagree. If this Court were universally delivering the outcome the Democrats want, they would have no problem with the Court or its Republican nominees. I could spend time debunking Democrats' wild claims. I could point out just how often this Court delivers unanimous decisions. Yes, contrary to what you might think from Democrats' lurid statements, the Democrat nominees and the Republican nominees are frequently in unanimous agreement. Or I could talk about just how often some of the Court's more conservative Justices and some of the Court's more liberal justices agree. But I am not going do that today because I would like to spend a minute talking about the profound irresponsibility Democrats are displaying. We hear a lot from Democrats about their concern for our institutions, and yet they are attempting to delegitimize a bedrock American institution, all for the crime of periodically daring to deliver decisions with which Democrats disagree. At a time of deep political division, I can think of few things more irresponsible than attempting to shake Americans' faith in the impartiality of the Court and the legitimacy of our institutions. I realize that Democrats don't like it when a decision doesn't go their way, and I completely understand that. I have disagreed with a few Supreme Court decisions in my time. But it is one thing--a legitimate thing--to disagree with a decision; it is another thing entirely to let your disagreement lead you into attempting to delegitimize a duly constituted Court composed of nine duly confirmed Justices. I hate to tell Democrats, but in a democratic republic such as ours, you don't always get your way, and the proper response when you don't get your way is not to attempt to tear down institutions or pack the Court so that you always get the outcome you want. Before I close, there is one other thing I would like to address, and that is the disturbing anti-religious sentiment that has cropped up in recent Democrat attacks on the Court. It is not a new thing for Democrats, of course. We all remember the Democrat ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee telling then-circuit court nominee Amy Coney Barrett that ``the dogma lives loudly within you,'' with the implication that anyone who takes his or her religious faith seriously can't be trusted to hold public office. Another judicial nominee faced scrutiny for his membership in the Knights of Columbus--a Catholic organization that participates in such disturbing activities as serving veterans, raising money for the needy, and providing young people with scholarships. Of course, during the last Presidential election cycle, a Biden staffer stated that she would prefer that orthodox Catholics, Muslims, and Jews not sit on the Supreme Court. Now it would appear that that anti-religious sentiment is back, with more than one Senate Democrat suggesting that certain members of the Supreme Court can't be trusted because they happen to take their religious faith seriously. These Democrats take the fact that these members of the Court have periodically ruled in ways that Democrats don't like as evidence that they are attempting to impose their faith instead of the law, with the implication that religious people are incapable of distinguishing between the two. The Constitution is very clear on whether being a person of faith can disqualify you from public office. From article VI: [N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. Let me just repeat that. [N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. It is becoming clear that that isn't a section of our Constitution that Democrats agree with or at least understand, and that in and of itself is deeply disturbing. I shouldn't have to tell Democrats that religious people are as capable as any other of distinguishing between their beliefs and the law or that our Founders did not intend for religious people to be second-class citizens or that a Supreme Court Justice disagreeing with a Democrat does not mean that the Supreme Court Justice is attempting to impose his or her faith. It likely means that he or she is trying to impose the law and the Constitution. I am a little tired of members of the Democratic Party promoting the un-American idea that taking your faith seriously makes you less qualified to participate in the public square. If Democrats really cared about protecting our democracy and American institutions, they would stop trying to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. But with Democrats' inability to deal with not getting their way--and with an upcoming election this November--I am not going to be holding my breath. I yield the floor.

Mr. THUNE

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