Floor Statements

Madam President, now on judge shopping, today was supposed to be a significant day for gun safety in America. Today was supposed to be the day new rules closing loopholes on background checks went into effect-- rules that Democrats and Republicans worked on together when we passed the bipartisan gun safety bill 2 years ago.

But surprise, surprise, MAGA radicals have put background check reforms on ice by going to their favorite judge in the entire country, in the Northern District of Texas, and getting him to rubberstamp a nationwide injunction.

Today's ridiculous injunction is, yet again, another consequence of judge shopping, that deeply unfair practice where radicals virtually guarantee favorable outcomes in court by going to a sympathetic judge of their choice. I say ``judge'' in this case because there is only one judge sitting in that district. They know when they go to court, they are getting him to hear the case.

Judge shopping jaundices our legal system like few other abuses do. There is no conceivable definition of ``justice'' where hard-right litigants can pull a fast one on the will of the American people by getting extremist judges they align with to rubberstamp their agenda.

Congress should fix this abuse soon with appropriate legislation. The Constitution clearly allows Congress to exercise oversight of the courts when appropriate. Even the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court-- hardly a liberal--has acknowledged that judge shopping is a problem that ought to be addressed.

A few weeks ago, I led a group of 40 Senators in introducing a bill that would curtail judge shopping and restore fairness to the judicial system. I hope both sides can work together on this bill to ensure that nobody gets an unfair advantage in a court of law, simply based on a judge's personal ideological preferences.

We will continue weighing legislative options to ensure that the Federal judiciary remains committed to equal justice under law. Judge shopping moves us away from that noble ideal in a very big way.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 571.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 552.

Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum calls for the cloture motions filed today, May 20, be waived.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

I understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for a second reading.

In order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I would object to further proceeding.

Mr. President, I understand that there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 21; that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Lanham nomination; further, that the cloture motions filed during Thursday's session ripen at 11:30 a.m.; and that following the cloture vote on the Lanham nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; further, that if cloture has been invoked on the Lanham nomination, all time be considered expired at 2:15 p.m.; further, that if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, tomorrow will be 100 days since Senate Republicans blocked the strongest border security bill we have seen in a generation.

For the last 2 weeks, I have come to the floor with my Democratic colleagues calling on both sides to set partisanship aside and work together to fix the problems on our southern border.

America is proudly a nation of immigrants. We always have been, and we always will be. Most Americans know our country is made stronger because of immigration, but they also know the current condition of border security is simply not acceptable.

It is a problem going back many years, going back many administrations. After decades of neglect, our border security needs an update. Our immigration rules need reform to provide more opportunity and fairness and humane treatment to those who seek opportunity in America. And the only way we fix the border long term is through bipartisan legislation.

Let me say it again: The only way we fix the border long term is through bipartisan legislation like the one we had in the Senate 3 months ago.

The bipartisan Border Act was precisely the kind of proposal Republicans and Democrats have been trying to produce for years. It contained the strongest border security provisions in a generation. It would have overhauled our asylum laws, hired thousands of new border agents, invested in cutting-edge technology to stop the flow of fentanyl, and given the President new authorities to close the border.

Now, of course, our bipartisan border bill wasn't perfect--not every Democrat supported this bill--but unlike other border bills, it was designed to pass both Chambers in divided government.

If our border security bill was good enough to win the support of the actual Border Patrol agents, shouldn't it have been enough to win the support of Senate Republicans?

And speaking candidly, when our bill was first released, many of our Republican colleagues were surprised at how strong it was, even if only in private. I dare say, a significant percentage of the Republican caucus would have supported it.

If both Chambers would have voted on our bill without outside interference, I am confident it would have passed and reached the President's desk. But as we all know, Donald Trump swooped in and told his MAGA supporters to kill the bill.

In fact, he was proud to kill it. ``Please, blame it on me,'' he said. Those were Trump's words after our bill went down, and I certainly don't think it is smart of him to brag about killing an issue most people want to see fixed. Donald Trump treats this like a game, but most Americans just want to see the border fixed regardless of who does it.

Democrats have not walked away from trying to get something done on the border. We want to work with our Republican colleagues on border security, just as we showed we were serious when we worked with them earlier this year.

But our Republican colleagues must show they are ready to match their border rhetoric with real action. If Republicans are going to call the border an emergency, they can't suddenly kick the can down the road and say we can deal with this later. They can't put up a partisan bill that they know has no chance of passing.

Americans don't want just talk, talk, talk, on the border. Americans want actions. Americans want bipartisanship. Americans want to pass the border security bill like the one we released 3 months ago.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that all time on the Aframe nomination be considered expired and the confirmation vote be at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, May 20.

Madam President, I move to proceed to legislative session.