Floor Statements

Madam President, this week, the Senate returns from the August State work period. That is what we call the period of time when we are not here in Washington, DC, doing our job.

But the truth is, we really haven't been in session very much here in DC for a long, long time, and September is no exception. When we are in session here typically these days, it seems like we are in session for 2\1/2\ days while the rest of America works at least 40 hours a week and many of my constituents in Texas work much longer hours than that.

Senator Schumer, who sets the schedule here in the U.S. Senate, has had us working--well, generously--about half time. I won't mince words. This Democratic Senate is on a collision course with itself, and the Republicans have been ringing the alarm bell for months.

After Leader Schumer's summer of show votes and months spent on President Biden's controversial and often unqualified nominees, the Senate will be in session just 11 more days--11 more days--in September. And we face an impossible to-do list.

But it is by design. It is no surprise to anyone. Some of what is on this list is some of the most basic tasks of governing. That is what we are supposed to be doing here. But I am not confident we will be able to even get that done in a timely manner.

The first on my list is the National Defense Authorization Act, something we have done more than 60 years in a row. The Senate Armed Services Committee did its job in a bipartisan fashion, and they completed their work weeks before we adjourned. But what did Leader Schumer decide to do? He declined to bring the bill to the floor, opting, instead, to have our last vote of the work period to be an unserious effort at sweeping tax legislation that was never even marked up in the Senate Finance Committee. He knew it wouldn't pass, but that wasn't his purpose. It was just a show vote.

In contrast, this Defense authorization bill has gone through a bipartisan process that included hearings, markups, and hundreds of amendments. Chairman Reed, a Democrat, Ranking Member Wicker, a Republican, and our colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee have done their job. They put countless hours into this crucial legislation, which will help modernize our Nation's defense and support our volunteer servicemembers and their families. But the majority leader gave them the Heisman, hampering our military's ability to plan ahead and address the myriad threats that we face from every corner of the globe.

I join those who say we have never had a more dangerous time in this world we live since World War II. And you would think the Defense authorization bill--which would focus specifically on maintaining our military superiority and deterring aggression--you would think that would be top of the list of things to do. But not in this Senate.

The Defense authorization bill deserves to be the No. 1 priority of this Chamber, as it has been for more than six decades. And it needs to come to the floor as soon as possible. Anything less is an affront to the men and women who put their lives on the line for our safety, both here at home and abroad.

Unfortunately, that is not the only train headed down the tracks. We need to pass a government funding bill before the end of the month. This is part of the predictable shutdown drama that seems to eat up so much time here in Washington, DC--unnecessarily, I might add. There is no reason to do this, except the cause is putting everything off to the end, not in the interest of transparency or the interest of a regular process that our constituents can watch and comment on. This is trying to jam spending--about $1.5 trillion of spending--through without going through the normal appropriations process.

Despite the Democratic leader's light summer schedule, the Appropriations Committee again has done its work in a bipartisan fashion. Good for them. As of today, they passed all but one of the annual funding bills.

Again, congratulations to the bipartisan partnership of Chairman Murray and Vice Chair Collins. We have a great place to start voting on these bills. We had one starting back in July if we had been given an opportunity. But the majority leader, as we all know, is the only one who can schedule floor votes in the Senate, and he showed zero interest in doing so then, and he doesn't seem to be particularly interested in taking up this bipartisan committee product any time soon.

So we will see more of what we saw earlier this year when the majority leader, the Senator from New York, this Schumer-led Senate passed the fiscal year 2024 bill halfway through the fiscal year. This is no way to run a railroad or the Nation and world's greatest deliberative body.

I hope we can turn to passing these bipartisan appropriation bills as soon as possible. Keeping the lights on, paying the bills, is the most basic function of the government.

But, yes, there is even more on our to-do list. We have a looming deadline of September 30 to pass the farm bill. I was glad to have a chance to go to the Rio Grande Valley, one of the most prolific parts of the State of Texas when it comes to growing agriculture--agriculture then that is exported to the rest of the country and around the world.

Ranking Member Boozman joined me in the Rio Grande Valley. Of course, we know him as a fierce champion for American agriculture. I was glad to travel with him to McAllen and Mission, TX. We listened to farmers and ranchers about the importance of passing a timely and strong farm bill.

But the majority leader's schedule--or lack thereof--can't stand in the way of making progress on something like this. We depend on our agricultural industry to put food on the table and clothes on our back. They deserve some predictability, some certainty--not just another can kicked down the road.

The Democratic-led Congress has been one of inaction. We wasted enormous amounts of time turning what

should be a marathon into an unnecessary sprint. Strengthening our national defense, ensuring the government pays the bills, supporting our agriculture sector--these are the ABCs of governing, and we are not doing it.

Now 11 more legislative days remain to get that work done. It is an impossible schedule, but it is completely by design and completely preventable. Leaving this work until the end of the year and taking yet another break for the month of October so Democrats can campaign is not a way to govern.

The American people look to Washington, in particular the U.S. Congress, and they see dysfunction. They know things aren't working the way they should, but that is because of a failure of leadership starting right here in the U.S. Senate. I hope, as a result, they will choose new management come November.

Madam President, this Chamber isn't the only place that Democratic dysfunction is on full display. I spoke a few months ago about the Biden-Harris administration's Department of Education bungling the rollout of this year's Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA. Every young person who is going to college needs to fill out a Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or they may not be able to go to the school they want to go to. They may not be able to afford it. This document determines the financial aid students will receive through loans, grants, scholarships, and work-study programs. It can determine not only the college that you choose or can afford but whether college education itself is even financially feasible.

This year, that critical information was delayed unnecessarily, putting young Texans' dreams on hold. The Biden-Harris Department of Education was nearly 3 months behind on releasing what they claim was their new and improved FAFSA. Some students couldn't complete the FAFSA at all due to technical glitches. Again, more dysfunction, more bungling. The result, FAFSA completion rates in Texas were down by nearly 9 percent, or almost 30,000 students, compared to last year-- worse than during the pandemic.

Now, these aren't just numbers on a page. These are young Texans who now find themselves unsure how or if they will be able to go to college or, at least, the one they want to go to.

Last month, the Texas Tribune told the story of a young Texas A&M sophomore who didn't find out that her financial aid package was actually cut by $10,000 until July, after she had already enrolled in classes and signed up for on-campus housing.

Now she says she will have to limit herself to eating just one meal a day at the dining hall, allowing herself two on the days when she gets particularly hungry.

This is the real-life cost of the Biden-Harris administration's ineptitude, and it is a huge disservice to these young people who are just starting out on their college education and pursuing a career and their dreams. Texas students and our workforce will feel the impact of this disastrous FAFSA process and the downstream effects for years to come.

Now, the Biden administration hopes that there is so much going on that nobody will notice, but I guarantee these young people who are being denied their dreams and access to the grants and financial aid they need in order to pick their college, they are noticing, as well as their families. But the administration hopes that people won't hear or read complaints from students and their families.

Well, my hope is that these students and their families continue to tell their stories and that the media keeps covering them. This is a scandal, nothing more and nothing less, and parents of college-age students should think twice before giving this administration another chance to make a mess of their children's future yet again.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, while he is still on the floor, let me thank my friend from New Jersey, and I particularly appreciated the comments about our mutual friend, now deceased, Sheila Jackson Lee. I know her family was there today for a memorial service, the celebration of her life. She was, well, what we call in Texas a piece of work. She was not an easy person to say no to.

(Mr. BOOKER assumed the Chair.)

One of the most significant things that we did together, along with the Senator from New Jersey, in recent months was to do for the Nation what Texas has done for the last 40 years; that is, celebrate Juneteenth.

As you know, this is a celebration of the announcement of the Emancipation Proclamation in Galveston, TX, 2 years after it was signed--slaves who learned for the first time they were free. We celebrate that on Juneteenth.

It was an honor to work with her on that, as well as the Senator from New Jersey, and I appreciate his comments about her.

Madam President, on another matter, this week can only be described as a tale of two Senates. Things started off strong. We began the week by passing bipartisan legislation to help keep our kids safe online.

America's children, as we all know, are spending more and more time on social media and internet platforms, and unfortunately, the dark side of that experience--there is plenty of upside, but the dark side is, there are those who exploit the vulnerability of our children online, exploit not only their safety but also their privacy. The bill that passed the Senate this week will give parents more control over their children's online activities and provide greater privacy protections for young people.

This bipartisan push was years in the making, and I want to thank Senators Blackburn and Cassidy and Senator Markey and Senator Blumenthal for helping get that legislation over the line.

As the Presiding Officer knows, there are other bills that have passed unanimously or virtually unanimously out of the Judiciary Committee, and I hope that the majority leader will bring those bills to the floor as soon as they can be scheduled.

Given the Senate's lack of productivity, the return to legislating was a welcomed change of pace this week, but unfortunately, it was short-lived. After passing this online safety bill on Tuesday, the majority leader reverted to his tried-and-true Senate schedule of late; that is, taking up nominations and scheduling partisan show votes. In other words, we started off strong and, I am afraid, ended with a whimper.

This has become the standard operating procedure of late. We spend weeks voting on some of President Biden's most controversial nominees, many of whom are clearly not qualified for the jobs they have been nominated to fill. Then we cap off the week with a controversial bill that stands zero chance of becoming law, just to give our Democratic colleagues a new talking point on the campaign trail. It is a cynical and sad practice. We saw that with regard to legislation concerning the border, contraception, abortion, in vitro fertilization, and now today with tax policy.

This afternoon, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to deny cloture on a tax bill because it hasn't gone through the committees of jurisdiction here in the Senate--the Senate Finance Committee. There was no hearing, no markup, no opportunity to offer amendments, no ability to improve that legislation here in the Senate, which will impact families and communities all across the country.

Our House colleagues did their job. They went through the committee process, got a strong bipartisan vote. It passed the House with a strong bipartisan vote. But I have been here long enough to know that the Senate does not readily rubberstamp things that the House of Representatives does. In fact, that is the reason the Senate exists--to be a place where we can have debate and amendments and hopefully pass legislation on to the President for his signature that will improve the lives of the people we represent.

This bill actually had some promising aspects, but it still is in need of some serious work--a sentiment that Senators on both sides of the aisle have expressed.

I am especially concerned about the watered-down work requirement for able-bodied adults in order to qualify for things like the child tax credit and the impact it would have both on the workforce and on Federal spending and the national debt.

If we are to remain the prosperous and strong Nation that we were bequeathed by our forebears--by our parents--we can't incentivize able- bodied adults to remain on the sidelines in the job market, and we certainly can't subsidize that when they, in fact, are capable of finding and holding a job and contributing not only to their families but also to our country.

My colleagues have raised several concerns about other portions of the bill, but the majority leader and the chairman of the Finance Committee have shown no interest in moving the bill through what we all know is the normal process.

That is evidenced especially by the fact that this bill passed the House 6 months ago, and only today has the majority leader scheduled a vote on the final day before a 5-week recess. As the Presiding Officer just said in wrap-up, we won't be meeting again until September 9, so why put a bill like that on the floor today without going through the normal process if you are serious about actually legislating? So this is no more than gamesmanship, and, frankly, it is a waste of the Senate's time and a disservice to our constituents, especially when you look at the mountain of work we have left undone.

When we return on September 9, we will have only 3 weeks to work before

gaveling out for another 6-week recess, leading up to the November 5 election. It is pretty obvious that the majority leader has given us very little time in which to do our jobs, and he has wasted a lot of that time on unnecessary, partisan votes. As a result, some of our most important work remains undone.

First is the National Defense Authorization Act. I believe it is 63 years in a row that the Senate has passed a National Defense Authorization Act, but that is in jeopardy this year because of the little time left in which to consider it when we come back in September. That bill was completed on a bipartisan basis by the Senate Armed Services Committee more than 3 weeks ago, plenty of time for the majority leader to bring that bill to the floor and for us to work through our normal process.

Thankfully, that product was the work of extensive bipartisan participation, including open hearings, markups, and hundreds of amendments at the committee level.

I want to commend both Ranking Member Wicker, from Mississippi, and the chairman, Jack Reed, and our colleagues on the committee for the work that went into this important bill, which will go a long way to support our military families and modernize America's defense.

It is pretty obvious that the majority leader could have filed cloture on this bill 3 weeks ago, allowing plenty of time for us to take up and pass the National Defense Authorization Act before the August recess.

Given the great power competition and the fact that conflicts are unfolding not only in Europe but in the Middle East and in the Indo- Pacific, the Defense Authorization Act should be our top priority. This is the most dangerous geopolitical environment that we have seen since World War II. It is regrettable that the majority leader didn't see this as a priority, and so we won't have an opportunity to vote on it until September at the earliest, if then.

As I indicated, during the month of September, we are only scheduled to be in session for 12 days, and there are other critical needs for us to address, the most basic of which is just simply funding the government before the end of the fiscal year, the end of September.

Despite the Senate's truncated schedule, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Murray, and the ranking member, Senator Collins, have made serious progress on the appropriations bills.

As of this morning, the Appropriations Committee, on a bipartisan basis, has approved 11 of the 12 annual spending bills. They have put us in a strong position to start voting on individual appropriations bills in September, and I hope the majority leader will allow us to do that, but with only 12 days left between now and November 5, even that is in some jeopardy.

Unfortunately, the Senate's to-do list doesn't stop there. In addition to the Defense authorization bill and 12 appropriations bills, we need to pass a farm bill by September 30. This legislation is critical to America's supply of food and fiber as well as to the hard- working men and women who grow and produce it.

Ranking Member Boozman from Arkansas has been a tireless champion for America's agricultural sector, and he has been traveling across the country to hear from America's farmers, ranchers, and producers. He and our colleagues on the Agriculture Committee are committed to passing a strong farm bill as soon as possible, but the majority leader hasn't given us any time to consider that legislation before the general election on November 5--certainly, after the current bill expires at the end of September.

So my point is--and I say this with all respect--the leader has not given us a lot of time to get our work done. And when he has scheduled things, like the vote on the tax bill, he does it the day before we break for a 5-week recess, with no real likelihood that we would ever be able to move this legislation through the normal process, with debate and amendments, in the careful way that our constituents deserve.

The Defense authorization bill, the 12 funding bills, and the farm bill should all be signed into law by the end of September, but it is, unfortunately, the case that Senator Schumer has only given us 12 days additional during which to act.

Strengthening America's defense in an increasingly dangerous world, funding the Federal Government, and safeguarding our food supply--these are the basics of governing, and we are not doing it. That is no way to treat the government's most basic responsibilities, and I hope that, come November, voters will choose a new direction for the Senate.

Mr. President, I want to say a word about one of my staff members, Emily Costanzo, who has served in my office for the last 5\1/ 2\ years.

Emily is what we call a speechwriter. Speechwriters are unique, in my experience, certainly here in the Senate, because most Senators are accustomed to giving a lot of speeches--some of them not very good, some of them occasionally decent. But the fact is, when you give a speech, as I have just done, usually it involves a number of considerations: It involves policy; it involves Senate procedures; it involves a lot of different considerations. Emily has been an invaluable member of my staff for the last 5\1/2\ years to help me be as good as I am capable of being in providing me with the support I need in order to represent the 30 million people of Texas here in the U.S. Senate.

Emily, fortunately, is here in the back of the room.

Emily, let me just say you will be missed, especially your positive, cheerful countenance, and certainly the great work that you have been able to do all of these years. I wish you and Jake the very best in this next chapter of your lives.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination, Calendar No. 716, Michael Louis Sulmeyer, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, this week my fellow Texans and people across the country will be celebrating the life and legacy of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Like some of the best known Texans, from George Bush to Simone Biles, Sheila wasn't born in Texas. But as we like to say, she got there as soon as she could.

She was born in New York, but she and her husband, Elwyn, chose to plant roots in Texas, and it didn't take long for her to become a leader in the Houston region.

She was a lawyer, then a judge, then a city council member and, finally, a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

When I came to the Senate, I quickly learned a few important qualities about Sheila. No. 1, she was passionate--very passionate. Sheila was honored to represent the 18th Congressional District, and she cared deeply about her role as a voice for those constituents, here in Congress.

Two, she was persistent. Some might even say relentless. She was never afraid to pick up the phone or track you down and try to convince you to see things her way on an issue.

And, third, she was willing to cross party lines to get things done. Despite our opposing political parties, Sheila and I partnered on a number of bills to notch bipartisan wins for our State. Along with the rest of the Texas delegation, she helped secure critical resources and disaster assistance after numerous storms and hurricanes, which always seem to find their way to the southeast region of Texas. We worked on bills to support survivors of sexual assault and violence, including the Debbie Smith Act, which was just signed into law this week. We passed a law that serves as a first step toward establishing the Emancipation National Historic Trail, which will stretch from Galveston to Houston. And, 3 years ago, we led legislation to establish Juneteenth as a Federal holiday, something that existed in Texas for the last 40 years because Juneteenth celebrates something very important that happened in Galveston, TX, when, 2 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the African-American slaves in that region learned for the first time that they were indeed free.

Sheila was a true stateswoman. She was a Texan through and through, and she devoted her life to serving the people of Houston. We will miss Sheila, both in Texas and in the Halls of Congress.

And Sandy and I send our prayers for comfort to Elwyn, Jason, Erica, Ellison, Roy, and the entire Lee family.

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

Mr. President, we have also taken the step to pass another piece of bipartisan legislation today, something that used to be standard operating procedure in this Chamber. We would call up bipartisan legislation that would address everything from the opioid crisis to medical innovation. Members would debate the bills; we would offer amendments; and, in the end, hold an up-or-down vote.

But, sadly, this has become too rare a phenomenon. In recent years, the Senate, controlled by our friends on the Democratic side, have strayed from our core legislative duties. Instead of voting on bipartisan bills, marking them up in committee where everybody can participate, this Chamber devotes, instead, the vast majority of its time to things from relatively unimportant nominations to partisan show votes.

As a result, major tasks like funding the government, strengthening our defense, are left to the last possible moment and then rushed across the finish line. But I am glad for today that the Senate has gotten back to basics and passed a strong, bipartisan package to help keep our kids safe online.

Every day, our children seek content online about suicide, eating disorders, and drug use--and other topics that are not suitable for children. At the same

time, online bullying and harassment run rampant. And the statistics on teen suicide and mental health paint an alarming picture for the next generation.

The bill that passed today includes two important pieces of legislation to help address that crisis. The Kids Online Safety Act, introduced by Senators Blumenthal and Blackburn, provides children and parents the tools and safeguards they need to keep harmful content out of children's social media feeds. More than two-thirds of the Senate sponsored these bills, including this one. And I am proud to be one of them.

We also passed another bill that I was proud to cosponsor called the Children and Teens' Online Privacy Protection Act, introduced by Senators Markey and Cassidy. That bill prohibits internet companies from collecting personal information from their youngest users and establishes better safeguards to protect children's privacy. It protects and prevents Big Tech from tracking and targeting kids with the most addictive content possible.

Congress has been working on legislation in this area for many years, and I want to commend Senators Blackburn and Cassidy for getting us to this point.

There are a number of other bills that have passed the Judiciary Committee on a bipartisan basis, as the Presiding Officer knows. And I hope we will be able to turn to those soon. But these bills we passed today struck the right balance between the First Amendment and safety, which is no easy task--which is, perhaps, one reason why it has taken us so long to get here.

But I appreciate these Senators' leadership. And I am proud the Senate has finally taken an important step to help keep America's children safe online.

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

Madam President, but let me focus primarily on his remarks about the Supreme Court.

It is clear that the majority leader and that our Democratic colleagues don't like the Constitution. They don't like the separation of powers. They don't like the independence of the judiciary, which is really the gold standard for courts worldwide based on the rule of law. What they want is a political branch of government--not one that calls balls and strikes and one that decides cases based on the law and the facts.

He talks about how the Supreme Court's reputation has been tarnished. Well, one reason why the Supreme Court's reputation has, perhaps, been tarnished in the media is because the majority leader stood in front of the Supreme Court and called out two Justices by name and threatened them if they made a decision that he didn't like. He said they won't know what hit them.

Well, that kind of irresponsible rhetoric by the majority leader and others is perhaps responsible for people wondering: Is the Court an impartial institution?

I would point out that when the Court was maybe constituted a little differently, that our Democratic friends didn't say a peep as long as the Court was making decisions that they liked and they agreed with from a political perspective. But it is fundamentally irresponsible for the majority leader to come here--I guess he is caught up in the fervor of the November 5 election. Having established a political coup in replacing the sitting President with the Vice President without going through the democratic process of actually holding elections, he is feeling his oats and perhaps cannot restrain himself.

But it is clear that our Democratic colleagues don't like the Constitution and they want to change it. But they know they can't do that because there is not the support across the country or in Congress to do that. So he uses this as a political cudgel in the runup to the election. It is irresponsible, and, unfortunately, I think it reflects the desperation with which the majority leader views this upcoming election on November 5.

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

Mr. President, this afternoon--in just, actually, a few short hours--Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will deliver an address to a joint session of Congress.

As his country faces multiple attacks on multiple fronts--an existential threat, actually--Prime Minister Netanyahu has come to the United States to affirm the strong relationship between his country and ours and to highlight the stakes of this war.

This joint address comes at a critical time, and I am absolutely stunned and profoundly disappointed that the Vice President of the United States has decided to boycott participating in this particular speech. As we all know, it is traditional that the Vice President, as the President of the Senate, and the Speaker sit behind the invited speaker--in this case, Prime Minister Netanyahu.

I remember several years back, when Prime Minister Netanyahu was last here, that the Vice President and the Speaker both sat in those chairs, recognizing the importance of lending that dignity and sense of gravity to the proceeding. But Vice President Harris can't be bothered with any of that. She is blaming her decision on a scheduling conflict even though the date of this speech was announced in early June. The only other item on the Vice President's schedule is a speech to a sorority convention in Indianapolis. The world is on fire--we have never seen a more dangerous environment since World War II--and the Vice President can't be bothered to show up at the Nation's Capitol, in the House Chamber, and demonstrate the respect and courtesy that we thought was a given--but apparently not in this case.

Not only has the Vice President chosen to skip this address, so has the Senate's President pro tempore, Senator Murray. We learned this morning, the majority whip, Senator Durbin, is boycotting this address as well. I think it is absolutely disgraceful that the most senior members of the Democratic Party have chosen to give the Heisman to one of our closest allies in the Middle East--the only democracy in the Middle East that is fighting for its very existence. Why would they do something like this? Well, it is pretty obvious. It is pandering. It is pandering to the most radical elements of the Democratic base.

I am proud of the deep friendship between the United States and Israel. Our national security is tied up in the national security of Israel. We know Iran, the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism, wants to wipe Israel off the map, like Hamas, which is a proxy for Iran, like Hezbollah, like the Houthis in Yemen, which all are determined to destroy the nation of Israel. So it has never been more important for the United States to stand shoulder to shoulder with our ally and friend against these unprovoked attacks by terrorist groups against innocent civilians.

There were 251 hostages taken on October 7--innocent civilians--in addition to all of the thousand-plus individuals who were murdered. Eight of the current hostages are American citizens, and the Vice President can't be bothered to show up? It is disgraceful.

Mr. President, it has been a remarkable couple of weeks in our country: the attempted assassination of President Trump; the decision made by President Biden to--notwithstanding having won all the primaries and being, essentially, the chosen leader of the Democratic party on the presidential ticket come November--his decision to step down in what can only be described as a political coup to install the Vice President as the Democratic nominee, even after months upon months of elections where the votes of people who participated in the Democratic primary have now simply been disregarded in favor of a handful of leaders in the smoky, smoke-filled rooms here in Washington, DC, deciding who should be their standard bearer.

But tomorrow we have another very significant event occurring: Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is in Washington this week and will address Congress tomorrow. More than 9 months have passed since that terrible day on October 7 when Israel was attacked by Hamas terrorists. These attacks were against innocent civilians, not the Israeli defense forces, and these terrorists brutally murdered more than 1,200 Israelis without any warning and violently assaulted countless others. They took 251 hostages--many, unfortunately, have died, while 120 of them still remain in Hamas custody, including 8 Americans.

Over the last several months, Israeli forces have faced attacks not just from Hamas but from another terrorist proxy--or I should say two of them--Hezbollah from Lebanon in the northern part of the region and its proxy, the Houthis, in Yemen.

Sadly, many on the far left in our country have chosen to take sides not with our friend and ally Israel but with the terrorists--with Hamas, with Hezbollah and the Houthis against our friend and ally Israel. They have repeatedly called for a cease-fire, notwithstanding the fact that Israel is still under threat from Iranian proxies; and they have attempted to frame Prime Minister Netanyahu as the villain here for a war begun on October 7 when terrorists attacked innocent Israeli civilians.

At a time when many Americans and, sadly, many Members of Congress do not seem to understand why America's support for Israel is so critical, I hope Prime Minister Netanyahu's remarks tomorrow will provide some clarity and some context. There is a saying that has been going around for years: If Hamas laid down its weapons today, there would be no more violence. If Israel laid down its weapons, there would be no more Israel. Hamas is not fighting for peace; it is trying to wipe Israel off the map.

This is an existential threat to the State of Israel and the people of Israel. The United States cannot tiptoe down the line between good and evil. We must make a choice, and we must make a stand. And that stand should be with Israel.

Prime Minister Netanyahu's joint address to Congress is an opportunity to reaffirm our shared values and highlight the pivotal role that Israel plays in promoting stability and democracy in an admittedly volatile region. I look forward to hearing his remarks tomorrow, but I am concerned about one critical absence. There have been news reports that Vice President Harris, who is now on track to become the Democrats' Presidential nominee, will not be in attendance. Reports are she is scheduled to speak at a sorority convention in Indianapolis. But this isn't a last-minute or unavoidable scheduling conflict. The date of Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech was announced in early June. And in any event, I am sure the sorority convention would forgive the Vice President for attending to this important event here in Washington, DC, and perhaps reschedule for another time. But to openly boycott the leader of Israel at a time like this is irresponsible. The Vice President's decision to skip this joint address is clearly a snub, and it foreshadows a continuing trend in U.S. foreign policy that started under the current President. And, obviously, it is designed to send a message to Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel.

We have already heard some Members of this body call for Prime Minister Netanyahu--basically, for there to be an election to replace him, an unprecedented intrusion into the affairs of a sovereign nation, another democracy. It is disgraceful and embarrassing to see the pandering to extremist elements in the Democratic party.

Sadly, the Vice President isn't the only one shying away from showing support for one of our critical allies. Media reports say that this Chamber's President Pro Tempore, Senator Murray, is boycotting the speech as well.

I am not surprised that some of the more radical Members of the Democratic conference may boycott, but it is shameful when their top leadership is so willing to abandon a key ally.

In light of these dynamics, I hope the majority leader, Senator Schumer, will make it clear where he stands and that he doesn't condone skipping one of the most important sessions of Congress in recent memory just to get more air time on cable TV.

Given the partisan antics at play, I am relieved to hear that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Senator Ben Cardin, will sit behind Prime Minister Netanyahu tomorrow.

I don't recall when the Vice President and the President pro tempore declined to sit and the chairman of a standing committee, like the Foreign Relations Committee, was called upon to fill in. But good for him. He understands the important message that this address sends and has stepped in to do what others have refused to do.

Still, the world is watching the Vice President more closely than ever before, now that she is on a path to become the Democratic nominee for President. They, of course, are analyzing every word, every move, every signal, every decision. If the Vice President keeps up with her current plans to boycott this address, it will send a chilling message about her foreign policy priorities and the future of U.S.-Israel relations under a potential Harris administration.

It also demonstrates a disregard of the commitments we have made as a nation to our allies. At a time when the tyrants and dictators of the world are drawing closer together, America cannot abandon our allies.

As Israel faces ongoing threats in a hostile neighborhood, it is imperative that the United States stand steady beside Israel. Israel must have confidence that, regardless of who is elected in November, the relationship between the United States and Israel will remain strong.

You know, it is not just the message we send to Israel; it is the message we send to Iran, the No. 1 state sponsor of international terrorism, and its proxies--Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis in Yemen. The Vice President, whether she appreciates it or not, is sending a message to America's enemies as well. As Joseph Stalin reportedly said, ``you probe with bayonets. If you find mush, you push on. But if you find steel, you withdraw.'' Unfortunately, the message that the Vice President is sending by not attending this address and respecting our friend and ally Israel sends a message of mush, not steel.

As we face growing challenges around the globe, including the threat of Iran's nuclear ambitions and the spread of terrorism, we need leaders who will unequivocally support our allies and uphold our commitments. I can only hope that the Vice President will change her mind and make that commitment this week. I would congratulate her if she did.

But as we look into the future, America needs leaders who understand the

importance of our alliances and who are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends.

As I said earlier, this is not just a message to our friends and allies. This is a message to Israel's enemies and adversaries, because, if they sense a lack of commitment and resolve on the part of the United States to stand with our allies, they are going to continue to do what they started on October 7.

As I said, we need leaders who understand the importance of our alliances and who are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with our friends. Any leader or would-be leader who fails to meet that bar does not deserve a seat in the Senate, much less in the Oval Office.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I am glad the Presiding Officer is in the Chair because, committed as I know she is to solving real problems, the legislation that we are going to pass here momentarily by unanimous consent has been 7 years in the making but will actually address the problem of high drug prices.

In the last few years, I have heard, certainly, from my constituents in Texas about the struggle to obtain their medication at affordable costs. It is not because no treatment exists or because they don't have insurance or because it is a brandnew drug that just hit the market. Many patients can't afford prescriptions they have been taking for years because the prices continue to go up, and there is little evidence of anything to justify those price increases.

I have heard heartbreaking stories about patients leaving their prescriptions unfilled simply because they can't afford them, rationing doses of blood pressure medication, and traveling across the international border to Mexico to get certain medications at lower prices. The problem is, when you go to Mexico to get your medication, it may look like the same medication you take in the United States, but chances are it may well be counterfeit, so that is a real problem in and of itself.

These challenges have been compounded by high inflation under President Biden's policies. We know everything has gone up in cost--an average of 20 percent over the last 3 years for groceries, gas, rent. Just about everything is more expensive today than it was when President Biden took office.

Senators from both sides of the aisle, on a bipartisan basis, have offered a number of bills to try to get at this problem of high drug prices. One of these is a bipartisan bill that I introduced with Senator Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut called the Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act. This legislation addresses one of the most egregious practices contributing to high drug prices, which is patent abuse.

Our country offers robust protection for intellectual property. In other words, if you are going to do the research and development and go to the expense and take the risk associated with creating something new and innovative, like a new drug to treat a deadly disease, our laws allow the right to sell that drug on an exclusive basis for a period of time. I think it is very important to incentivize that sort of innovation and research, and it produces lifesaving drugs. We know that many companies are unlikely to pour expensive resources into discovering new cures if, at the end of it, they can't even recoup their own costs, much less make a profit.

That is where our patent system comes in. It is as old as our country is old. The patent system provides a limited time period for the manufacturer to be the sole seller in the marketplace before generic versions can become available, but some companies are abusing the system. They are taking extreme steps to maintain their exclusivity for a drug and keep the money rolling in. One way they do this is through a practice known as patent thickening. This involves creating intricate webs of patents to keep the competition at bay for as long as possible because as long as you can continue to sell these drugs on an exclusive basis, the money is going to keep coming in, and it will not go generic and result in competition from others.

The Affordable Prescriptions for Patients Act aims to stop this anticompetitive behavior and allow new drugs to come to market sooner. That is how we improve competition and ultimately lower prices for patients without standing in the way of innovation.

The added benefit to this bill is the Federal savings that it would provide for taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that this bill would lead to lower Federal spending by $1.8 billion over 10 years.

At a time when our national debt is at an alltime high--approaching $35 trillion--anything we can do to help deal with that rising debt I think should be regarded as positive. And this is just a savings to the Federal Government for Medicare and Medicaid. There will, undoubtedly, be significant savings for consumers who have private health insurance on top of that.

This bipartisan legislation checks every box. It protects innovation; it increases competition; and it saves money for taxpayers and consumers. Most importantly, it lowers prices at a time when many patients are seeing their drug prices go up and up and up--apparently, without end.

I can't imagine why anybody would oppose such a piece of legislation. Election day is 4 months away, and the Senate is only scheduled to be in session for 20 days between now and then, including today. Patients in Texas and across the country are asking their elected representatives to do something to address these high drug prices, and it is time for the Senate to deliver.

Madam President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 22, S. 150.

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

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is no secret that, in recent years, the Supreme Court has become a political target for our friends across the aisle, the Democrats. I still remember a time--maybe it was a quaint period during our Nation's history--when Robert Jackson, former Supreme Court Justice, said: The Supreme Court is not final because it is always right. It is right because it is always final.

The point is, there has to be someplace, somewhere in the U.S. Government, where decisions are made on something other than a political basis. We know that in Congress--the political branches of government--we run for office; we stand for reelection. The voters can agree with us or disagree with us based upon our actions, and we will then be held accountable at the ballot box. The same is true for the President of the United States, the head of the executive branch.

But the judicial branch is supposed to be different. Judges don't stand for election. They can't be removed from office for virtually anything other than impeachable behavior, which is rare indeed, and Congress can't reduce their pay during their tenure in office. All of these are designed to preserve the independence of the judiciary.

Justice Scalia, during his lifetime, liked to observe that constitutions are simply words on paper, and he pointed out that the Soviet Union--the former Soviet Union--had one of the best constitutions on paper that existed at the time. But the difference between the Soviet Union and the United States is that we have an independent judiciary--unelected, unaccountable at the ballot box, but who continue, during their good behavior, as members of the court who have to make hard decisions. Their decisions are supposed to be made not on public opinion polls, not on votes cast at the ballot box, not on what is most popular but what conforms with the Constitution and laws of the United States. They have to literally call balls and strikes.

But some of our Democratic colleagues have decided that, when they don't like those decisions made by this independent judiciary, the best tactic is to attack the Judges and to thereby claim that, somehow, they are just another political branch--an unelected political branch--but nothing could be farther from the truth.

As evidence of their attempt to politicize the courts, I would point to the time that five of our Democratic colleagues threatened to ``restructure the Court'' if it didn't deliver their preferred outcome in a case involving the Second Amendment.

There was a time when some of our colleagues said: We need to pack the Court with more judges because we don't like the ones that currently sit on the Court, and we want a different outcome in the Court's decision.

And then there was the time when 15 of our Democratic colleagues recommended slashing the Court's budget unless it implemented a preferred code of ethics dictated by the legislative branch and not an independent judiciary.

And, of course, we can't forget the time when the majority leader, the Senator from New York, stood on the steps of the Supreme Court and threatened two Justices by name, saying they would ``pay the price''; they wouldn't know what hit them if they didn't reach his preferred decision in a case involving abortion.

Over and over again, many of our Democratic colleagues have shown their contempt for an independent judiciary, the very foundation of our form of government and the crown jewels of what makes us different from the rest of the world.

Let's forget unbiased judges who reach decisions based on the law and the Constitution. Some of our Democratic colleagues want to put their thumbs on the scales of justice in order to achieve specific results. And in pursuit of what? I would suggest it is in pursuit of power by any means whatsoever, as opposed to regarding the Constitution itself and the very structure of our Government as being sacrosanct, something to be celebrated and honored. They view it as something to be circumvented in order to pursue power, in order to pursue desired results.

We all know that, last week, the Supreme Court concluded a busy and consequential term that included a number of cases on a wide range of matters, from voting rights and homelessness to Presidential immunity and the power of Federal Agencies. Based on the reaction of some on the left, you would think the sky is falling. You would think the apocalypse is nigh and that we had reached the end of democracy as we know it.

Well, let's first look at the decision that the Court made to strike down something called the Chevron doctrine. This is a 40-year-old interpretation of an Agency's power that basically deferred to an Agency and created immense, unaccountable authority in bureaucrats who were not elected to office. This doctrine originated in 1984 in a case where the Supreme Court gave Federal Agencies broad leeway to interpret laws passed by Congress.

Over time, Chevron deference has emboldened Agencies to expand their powers, far beyond what Congress has authorized, to enact policies that go far beyond what Congress intended, with little or no oversight and no accountability.

If you think about it, Congress is the one given the authority, under our Constitution, to legislate, to make the laws. There is no authority under the Constitution for the executive branch to make laws, and certainly no authority under the Constitution given to Federal Agencies to make laws, absent authority granted to them by the legislative branch.

But here is one example of how the administrative Agencies have abused their authority. In the wake of a horrific mass shooting in Uvalde, TX, 2 years ago, I worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass a bill called the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. It was signed into law a month after the shooting and made historic investments in mental health and school safety. We also included targeted reforms to protect public safety, without infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens under the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

The firearms-related provisions of the bill were designed to be targeted and extremely narrow. But when it came to interpreting or implementing the law, the Biden administration's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms colored way outside the lines that Congress authorized.

The administration used these provisions as a pretext to implement broader reforms that were flatly rejected by Congress multiple times during the course of the negotiations. In other words, we considered and rejected the very outcome that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms sought to achieve by this rewrite of what Congress had authorized. In short, unelected bureaucrats, accountable to no one, ignored the express will of the people's representatives in Congress and took a bipartisan law that was crafted in good faith and turned it into a Trojan horse for their own radical gun control policies, all contrary to the Constitution.

Senator Tillis, the Senator from North Carolina, and I had worked together with our friends and colleagues Senator Chris Murphy from Connecticut and Senator Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona to be the principal authors of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

Senator Tillis and I--after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms issued their unauthorized and unconstitutional rule-- introduced a measure to block the Biden rule, and I hope that we have a chance to vote on that soon. The truth is, it has already been enjoined, or stayed, by Federal courts as being outside of the authority given to the Agency to interpret the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act--in other words, an extralegal act to try to create law where Congress had not.

But the truth is Congress shouldn't have to pass a resolution of disapproval

every time the administration overreaches. That alone could be a full- time job.

In its recent ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed what should be obvious to all of us, because that is what the Constitution says: that it is up to Congress to pass laws, not unaccountable bureaucrats--an unremarkable holding, really, but one that was long overdue.

If an Agency takes too many creative liberties with implementing the law, that matter should be examined and ultimately struck down by a court as outside the authorities that the Constitution gives the executive branch Agency.

Again, our Framers designed three coequal and distinct separate branches of government. When Agencies attempt to legislate, even though the Constitution does not permit it, the courts have a responsibility to step in and strike down unlawful attempts to usurp the article I authority granted solely to the legislative branch, including the U.S. Senate.

In our country, all power--all political power--is derived from a single source; that is the consent of the governed. Laws that affect people across the country should be crafted, debated, and passed by Congress, not handed down through administrative actions and rulemaking where Congress is not authorized.

If a President's party wants to change the law, the only option is to come to Congress and work with Congress. There are no shortcuts. The executive branch doesn't have the authority to legislate on its own, whether under the guise of rulemaking or otherwise.

That is why the end of this so-called Chevron deference is so important to the restoration of democracy and constitutional government. It takes power out of the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats, and it puts the responsibility back in the hands of those of us who are Members of the political branch, the legislature.

We run for office. Voters can vote for us or vote against us, and that is the sort of accountability that the Constitution contemplates.

Despite some of the dramatic overreaction by some of our colleagues, the end of Chevron deference does not signal the end of democracy. It simply says the Court has to look at the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress, and if the administration overreaches, it is the duty of the Court to strike it down as being unauthorized by Congress. Regardless of political affiliation, everyone should want that because that is what the Constitution requires.

No administration--no Republican administration, no Democratic administration--should have the authority to violate the Constitution and usurp the will and the responsibilities given solely to Congress.

In another highly anticipated opinion, the Supreme Court clarified what Presidents can and cannot be sued for. Well, based on some reaction to the case, you would think the Court had given the President the green light to commit murder, rob a bank, or traffic illegal drugs from the White House. But, obviously, that is not case. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court stated that official acts of a President should be given immunity but did not go on to say that individual acts that have been charged in pending cases were, in fact, immune. It has remanded those decisions back to the trial courts to apply the law as the Court articulated.

The Court did not offer any sort of protection against unofficial acts. The Justices didn't grant the President carte blanche to commit crimes with impunity. It simply clarified that the President is entitled to immunity while performing official acts.

This opinion is not, contrary to some claims, a monumental shift in policy. Presidential immunity was established in previous cases to protect the integrity of the executive branch, and it recognizes that a President--any President--a Democratic President or a Republican President--needs some latitude to make tough calls on public policy and matters facing the country without the threat of being sued incessantly and being distracted from their duties to serve the American people in this office.

I think back on George W. Bush's Presidency, when the Nation was attacked by al-Qaida on 9/11. Nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on that day, and President Bush made the decision that, I have to imagine, was one of the most difficult decisions that any President can make: He made the decision to go to war against these terrorists.

American troops were deployed in the Middle East to destroy al-Qaida, and many on the left viewed this act of self-defense as something else entirely. Some went so far as to label that what the President did made him a ``war criminal'' for his decision to defend the country against terrorists.

Current Supreme Court Justice Brown Jackson served as a Federal public defender at the time, and she even filed a brief accusing President Bush of committing a war crime.

Can you imagine if the President was dragged into court every time somebody had a disagreement about what the President decides in acting in his or her official capacity? It would, obviously, not only chill decision making, but it would severely limit the President's ability to govern effectively. The recourse is not in court; it is at the ballot box.

Presidents must be able to perform their duties without the fear of incessant and harassing litigation. The Commander in Chief should not have his or her hands tied by a looming threat of prosecution for actions taken during their official duties as part of the Presidency of the United States.

The Supreme Court, in fact, simply clarified that criminal law cannot be used as a weapon against a President for his or her official acts. But given the fact that many of our colleagues on the left have tried to weaponize a judicial system in recent years, the Supreme Court's decision was particularly important.

We have had a new word created recently called lawfare, basically using litigation as a form of warfare rather than arguing for votes and having debates about policies that are then decided by the voters at the ballot box.

We have seen some of our Democratic colleagues attempting to use every tool to tear down President Biden's campaign rival, former President Trump.

And in the process, we have seen some Democrats weaponize the Department of Justice against President Trump and his allies, and we have seen that in the district attorney in the State of New York in a recent litigation against former President Trump.

Prosecutors blew past exculpatory evidence when looking at the January 6 cases, for example. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg even campaigned on the promise to prosecute President Trump. This is just the latest chapter in the never-ending saga that is the Democrats' war against an independent judiciary and using the court to try to accomplish what they should be trying to accomplish not in court but at the ballot box, through legitimate debate, transparency and, ultimately, the decision of the American people.

Some of our colleagues on the left don't want judges to follow the law. They want easy victories. They want layups. And when they can't win in Congress because they don't have the votes, they want the courts to fill in the gaps and accomplish the goals that they could not accomplish in Congress.

Some of our colleagues want the court to reach a conclusion first, without regard to the facts or the law, and then work backward to try to come up with some sort of justification for the outcome. That is called results-oriented decision making. It is the opposite of what judges should be doing.

Whether that means taking down a political rival, implementing radical pro-abortion policies, or expanding the power of unelected bureaucrats, some of our colleagues on the left want the Supreme Court to be a shortcut to easy wins--easy political wins--again, that they could not accomplish in the Halls of Congress or at the ballot box.

These Justices are not puppets that can be manipulated for partisan gain. They are members of a separate and coequal branch of government, and their decisions must be respected.

That doesn't mean you need to agree with them, but you do need to respect their right to make the decision and to finally settle these issues, at least until Congress or another branch of government decides to overturn them on other than constitutional grounds. Obviously, the Supreme Court is the

final word in interpreting the Constitution. And unless we see the Constitution amended at some point by the American people, that is going to stand.

Many of the Courts' decisions are based on statutory interpretation, based on what the legislature has done, what the Senate has done. And those are things that the Senate can come back and address through legislation.

But the biggest threat to democracy isn't the Supreme Court; it is a never-ending series of political attacks on the Court by many on the left.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.