[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 115 (Thursday, July 11, 2024)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5147-S5150]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           POISON CONTROL CENTERS REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2024

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 428, S. 
4351.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 4351) to amend the Public Health Service Act to 
     reauthorize certain poison control programs.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, 
which had been reported from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 
and Pensions.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered 
read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (S. 4351) was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, 
was read the third time, and passed as follows:

                                S. 4351

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Poison Control Centers 
     Reauthorization Act of 2024''.

     SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF POISON CONTROL PROGRAMS.

       (a) National Toll-Free Number and Other Communication 
     Capabilities.--Section 1271(c) of the Public Health Service 
     Act

[[Page S5148]]

     (42 U.S.C. 300d-71(c)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 
     2020 through 2024'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2025 through 
     2029''.
       (b) Promoting Poison Control Center Utilization.--Section 
     1272(c) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300d-
     72(c)) is amended by striking ``fiscal years 2020 through 
     2024'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2025 through 2029''.
       (c) Poison Control Center Grant Program.--Section 1273(g) 
     of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300d-73(g)) is 
     amended by striking ``fiscal years 2020 through 2024'' and 
     inserting ``fiscal years 2025 through 2029''.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Texas.


                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Mr. CORNYN. 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

[[Page S5149]]

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

[[Page S5150]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fetterman). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________