Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and that the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 653.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 703, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate

proceed to the consideration of S. Con. Res. 42, which was submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, July 13; that following the prayer and 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 Barr nomination, postcloture; further, that if any nominations are confirmed during Wednesday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, the first rollcall votes of the day will begin at 11:30 a.m.

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

Madam President, it is little wonder that the Senator from Kentucky is praising the Supreme Court. More than any other Member of the U.S. Senate, he has been instrumental in choosing the members of this Court and has gone to lengths unseen in the history of the U.S. Senate to reach that goal.

Remember Merrick Garland, the nominee of President Barack Obama, whom this Senate leader, the Senator from Kentucky, refused to meet with or even consider for his nomination for almost a year? That is right--he kept a vacancy on the Supreme Court for more than 8 months so that he could perhaps see his prayers answered and a Republican President be elected.

Well, it happened. Donald Trump won. Merrick Garland had no chance to even be considered. Barack Obama was denied the authority given to him as President during his last year of his term, and the Senator from Kentucky waited patiently until he could bring to the Court Justice Gorsuch, a conservative to his liking.

That wasn't the end of his effort to make the Supreme Court what he wanted it to be. At the end of the Trump term, there was another vacancy on the Court with the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and at that point, the Senator from Kentucky decided to break the rules in the opposite direction. It wasn't a slowdown this time in filling the vacancy; it was an acceleration, a speedup. In that instance, they broke most of the precedents in the Senate in terms of considering Supreme Court nominees for Amy Coney Barrett. So President Trump was able, thanks to the complicity of the Senator from Kentucky, to appoint three members of the Supreme Court.

The rulings in the last several weeks are just what the Senator from Kentucky and others have prayed for: a reversal of the rights of American families across the board. Basically, the right to access to reproductive freedom for women in this country was attacked in a way that few thought would ever happen, and now we are living with the consequences.

The Senator from Kentucky just said Democrats are trying to change the subject. I am not changing the subject. There will be a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow on this decision by the Supreme Court on overturning Roe v. Wade.

I want to say it is interesting that when the Senator from Kentucky is

looking for moral and academic support, he turns to an unheard-of professor from Yale to quote. He uses that professor as a source to say: Don't worry. Just because we took away the freedom of women when it comes to their reproductive health, we are not going to go so far as to address any decisions on contraception, family planning, and the like.

Well, I might recommend to the Senator from Kentucky that he read the decision in Dobbs overturning Roe v. Wade and the concurring opinion from Justice Clarence Thomas, which said specifically that very thing. Now, he said, that we have done Roe v. Wade, it is time to look at cases that address the issue of privacy, the issue of same-sex marriage, and the issues of contraception, explicitly using those words.

So to suggest that some Yale professor should be trusted more than this Justice on the Court who has given us fair warning is hard to understand.

Madam President, there is also this talk about the Democrats in favor of a tax hike. Let me put this in perspective. The Democrats are trying to achieve something that the vast majority of the American people want desperately: Find a way to control the spiraling cost of prescription drugs.

I can't think of a single issue more popular with the American people--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--and so the Senators have been working on it. Senator Shaheen, Senator Schumer, Senator Manchin, and others have been discussing ways to reduce the cost of insulin to no more than $35 a month. Wouldn't that be a break for the millions of diabetic Americans who many times have to cut the amount of insulin that they use because they can't afford it, to have affordable, lifesaving medicine? Isn't that something we all should applaud? And doesn't it reduce costs overall for us to bring down the spiraling cost of prescription drugs?

The Senator from Kentucky talks a lot about the cost American families are facing. We know that is a fact. One of the first things they will identify is the cost of prescription drugs. We want to do something about it. The Senator from Kentucky has said no, he won't support this effort to corral in these costs of prescription drugs as long as there is an increase in taxes.

It turns out the increase in taxes were the Trump tax cuts for the wealthiest people in America. Yes, I think they ought to pay more in taxes, and if their paying more in taxes means that families pay less for prescription drugs, sign me up for it, and sign most Americans up for it. The notion of tax hikes on the wealthiest people in this country does not strike me as inflationary; it strikes me as common sense if it is then turning into lower prescription drug prices for American families.

Madam President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Madam President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 676.

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

Madam President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Madam President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 908.

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

Madam President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Madam President, I move to proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 968.