Floor Statements

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley) and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Shelby).

Mr. President, I would like to just begin by acknowledging and thanking Pastor Bob Thune for his opening prayer this morning.

It should come as no surprise, based on the last name, we are related. He is my nephew. I have been blessed through the years with a rich, spiritual heritage, as has he. His father, my big brother, was the spiritual trailblazer in our family. He went on to pastor churches in the Midwest, on the West Coast for about 50 years. His son Bob, my nephew, is carrying on that great tradition.

Bob pastors a church, as was noted, called Coram Deo Church in Omaha, NE. Coram Deo is Latin for ``the presence of God.'' Bob, on a weekly basis, proclaims the truth of the gospel from the pulpit. But on a daily basis, he and his congregation have, at the center of their daily lives, the presence of God as they seek to have an impact on their community and their region and on this world.

Bob is, in many respects, as it says in the Book of Acts, fulfilling God's purpose for his generation. I am grateful for the spiritual heritage that we share, for the way that he continues that today. I want to encourage him in his work and just acknowledge how grateful we are that he was able to join us here in the U.S. Senate and offer that opening prayer which, on a daily basis, is offered by our Chaplain, Barry Black, who has been a great inspiration to me on so many levels and leads us in a weekly Bible study here on Capitol Hill for Senators.

I always try and do an advertisement to get more Senators to come to that Bible study. It is a rich time where we can have an opportunity to reflect on the important work that we do and the way that our faith applies to it on a daily basis.

I yield the floor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, last week's Judiciary Committee hearing gave Senators the opportunity to hear directly from President Biden's nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, to help them decide whether she is an appropriate candidate for the Nation's highest Court.

My approach to deciding whether or not to vote for a Supreme Court nominee or any judicial nominee is pretty simple. I look at the character and qualifications, and most of all, I look at the question of whether the nominee understands the limited role of the judiciary and the separation of powers.

Our Federal Government, of course, has three distinct branches: the legislative branch, which makes the laws; the executive branch--the President and executive Departments--which executes the laws; and the judiciary,

which interprets the laws. Pretty simple, right? Civics 101. Too often, however, our colleagues on the left look to the judiciary to usurp the role of the legislative branch. They look for activist judges who will not just interpret the law but who will go beyond the law to deliver the policy outcomes that liberals are interested in, whether that is an aggressive abortion agenda, restraint of the free exercise of religion, or liberals' preferred approach to immigration.

President Biden, for example, specifically noted that he would only appoint judges who could be relied on to rule in favor of Roe v. Wade and a right to abortion. Well, that is a big problem because delivering specific political outcomes is not the job of the judicial branch. In our system of government, policy decisions are vested in the legislative branch and are made there by the people's democratically elected representatives. Judges have discretion in applying the laws, but their discretion is to be guided by the plain text of the law and by the intention of the people's representatives in drafting the statute. Otherwise, we end up not with government of the people but with government by an unelected, unaccountable group of judges.

President Biden has unfortunately placed himself squarely in the camp of those who would like to see the judiciary take an active role in making policy. ``The people that I would appoint to the Court,'' President Biden said during his campaign for President, ``are people who have a view of the Constitution as a living document, not as a staid document.''

Well, let me just talk about that for a minute. What is a Constitution if not a staid document? If there is no fixed meaning to the Constitution, if it can be stretched and adjusted and expanded by judges at their discretion, then why have a Constitution? The whole point of the Constitution--of written law in general, I would argue--is that it is fixed, ``staid,'' to quote the President. The rule of law, equal justice under the law--these concepts rely on the idea that the law has a fixed meaning, that there is one law that applies equally to everyone.

If the Constitution does not have a fixed meaning, it cannot be the supreme law of the land. It cannot be a guide to which we can all appeal. A living Constitution is a meaningless one. Of course that doesn't mean that the Constitution will always stay exactly the same. There is a process, as we all know, for amending the Constitution so that needed changes can be made. But these changes have to be made through the amendment process, with the concurrence of three-fourths of the States.

That is not what the President is talking about. When the President talks about a living Constitution, he is not talking about periodically amending the Constitution via the process laid out within the Constitution itself; what he is talking about is nominating judges who will take it upon themselves to amend the Constitution through their rulings by finding new rights and authorities as needed to advance a particular political agenda. That is deeply concerning, particularly when we are talking about a lifetime appointment to the highest Court in the land.

Unfortunately, after watching last week's Judiciary Committee hearing and examining Judge Jackson's record, I am concerned that her jurisprudence reflects President Biden's belief in an activist judiciary.

As has become clear, Judge Jackson has a strong point of view when it comes to sentencing guidelines in certain cases. That is not in and of itself a problem, of course. Judges can and do have strong opinions about any number of issues that come up in the law. What is a problem is it seems that Judge Jackson has allowed her personal opinions to shape her judicial decisions.

For example, as a Federal trial judge, she repeatedly chose to reject sentencing guidelines and the recommendations of prosecutors in favor of lenient sentences for those who possess and distribute child pornography. It appears that she had a record of advocating for leniency with respect to these types of crimes during her time at the U.S. Sentencing Commission and that she then applied those opinions to her sentencing practices when she became a Federal judge.

For this reason and more, I am deeply concerned that her record suggests that she would allow her personal opinions on issues like sentencing to shape her decisions on the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court Justice's allegiance must be to the plain words of the law and the Constitution, not to any personal political opinion, and I am not convinced that Judge Jackson meets that standard.

My concern has only been heightened by Judge Jackson's inability or refusal to define her judicial philosophy. It should not be difficult for a nominee to the Supreme Court to lay out her theory of constitutional interpretation. Given how often her strong personal opinions have appeared to influence her decisions as a judge and absent a clearly expressed judicial philosophy that rejects personal opinion in favor of the plain meaning of the law and the Constitution, I am concerned that her judicial approach would follow the ``living Constitution'' model that President Biden embraces.

Finally, I was deeply concerned by Judge Jackson's refusal to reject Court packing. Court packing, of course, is a long-discredited idea that has been revived by members of the far left and increasingly embraced by the Democratic Party. The idea behind it is simple. If the Supreme Court isn't delivering the decisions you want, expand the number of Justices until you can be pretty sure you will get your preferred outcomes.

The problems with this approach are obvious, starting with the question, where does it end? It is easy to envision a Democrat-led Congress packing the Court with additional Democrat-selected Justices and then a Republican-led Congress coming in and matching those new Justices with additional Republican-appointed Justices and on and on and on. Pretty soon, the size of the Supreme Court would be approaching the size of the U.S. Senate. I can think of no approach more guaranteed to bring about a complete delegitimization of the Supreme Court.

Do Democrats seriously think that there is any--any--American who would regard the Supreme Court as a nonpartisan institution after it had been packed full of Democrat Justices or, if it were Republicans who were advancing this Court-packing plan, with Republican Justices? Court packing would instantly turn the Supreme Court into nothing more than a partisan extension of the legislative branch, which is why it is so concerning that Judge Jackson has repeatedly--repeatedly--declined to oppose it.

Both Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer spoke out against Court packing during their time on the Supreme Court, so this is a subject on which Judge Jackson can and should have felt free to speak. That she did not do so only underscored my concern that she is too open to allowing politics to shape the judiciary.

I enjoyed meeting with Judge Jackson, and I respect her achievements, but I cannot in good conscience vote for a Supreme Court Justice whose record indicates that she will allow her personal political opinions to shape her judicial decisions.

The rule of law depends upon having Justices who decide cases based on the plain meaning of the law and the Constitution, not on personal beliefs or political considerations.

I can only vote to confirm a Justice who I believe will respect the separation of powers and the limited role of a Justice and refuse to allow her personal opinions to influence her decisions on the Bench.

For these reasons, I cannot support Judge Jackson's confirmation to the Supreme Court.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).

The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted ``yea''.

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) would have voted ``yea.''

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

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

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

Madam President, the Biden border crisis continues.

In February, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 164,973 individuals attempting to cross our southern border illegally--a 63- percent increase from a year ago and the highest February number in more than 20 years. Border encounters in February over the past decade or so have generally been low, with numbers far under 100,000--but not since President Biden was inaugurated. Almost from the day the President took office, our Nation has been experiencing an unprecedented border surge.

In fiscal year 2021, the Border Patrol encountered more than 1.7 million individuals attempting to cross our southern border--the highest number ever recorded. We have had 12 straight months of border encounters in excess

of 150,000. And these numbers only reflect individuals the Border Patrol has succeeded in apprehending. There is no question that many other illegal immigrants have crossed the border in the past year without being apprehended and have disappeared into the United States.

The situation at our southern border is out of control--it is a security crisis, it is a humanitarian crisis, and it is an enforcement crisis. Our Border Patrol officers have done heroic work this past year, but they are stretched incredibly thin and are having to spend too much time caring for migrants and not enough time patrolling the border.

This sharply increases the risk that dangerous individuals--from terrorists to drug smugglers to human traffickers--will slip across our southern border and into the country unnoticed.

And apart from the serious security concerns that go along with not knowing who is entering our country, allowing this border crisis to continue also presents serious humanitarian concerns. There is nothing compassionate about encouraging individuals to undertake the dangerous journey to our southern border, to run the risk of exploitation and disease and exposure. Unfortunately, neither humanitarian nor security concerns have moved President Biden to meaningfully address this border crisis.

Every month, we see massive numbers of individuals attempting to cross our southern border, and every month, the White House just doesn't seem to care. The President travels regularly, including regular weekends away from the White House, but he can't seem to bring himself to visit the border and see the situation firsthand.

It is a disturbing abdication of responsibility from the man charged with defending our Nation's security. And let's remember, the President isn't just ignoring this border crisis; he is partly, if not largely, responsible for it. Immediately upon taking office, the President took steps that weakened our Nation's border security.

On his first day in office--very first day in office--President Biden rescinded the declaration of a national emergency at our southern border. He halted construction of the border wall. And he revoked a Trump administration order that called for the government to faithfully execute our immigration laws--all on the first day.

And the President's Department of Homeland Security also issued guidelines that same day pausing deportations except under certain conditions.

The effect of all this was to declare to the world that the United States borders were effectively open. And Border Patrol numbers ticked up accordingly, not surprisingly.

And the President's anti-border security efforts didn't end there. The President has significantly limited the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection to enforce immigration laws. Deportations dropped precipitously during fiscal year 2021, as did arrests in the interior of the country. And earlier this week, the administration rescinded a 2019 rule expanding expedited removal for individuals here illegally.

The administration is also, reportedly, expected to end its title 42 COVID-19 restrictions, which have provided for the immediate deportation of those who have crossed the border illegally. The result is almost guaranteed to be an even larger surge at our southern border, taking the situation from disaster to utter catastrophe.

One media outlet reports that ``Department of Homeland Security intelligence estimates that perhaps 25,000 migrants already are waiting in Mexican shelters just south of the border for Title 42 to end.''

And there is no sign--no sign--that the administration has any substantive plan for how to deal with the resulting surge or how to deal with the enhanced criminal activity from drug smuggling to human trafficking that would likely accompany this influx.

I get that President Biden would prefer to pretend that this crisis at our southern border does not exist, but it does exist, and as President, he has the responsibility to address it. He needs to get serious about fulfilling that duty for the sake of our Nation's security and for the sake of all those who are being encouraged by his lax immigration policies to undertake the dangerous journey to our southern border.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.