data_type stringclasses 2 values | dog_whistle stringlengths 2 26 | dog_whistle_root stringlengths 2 98 ⌀ | ingroup stringclasses 17 values | content stringlengths 2 83.3k | date stringlengths 10 10 ⌀ | speaker stringlengths 4 62 ⌀ | chamber stringclasses 2 values | reference stringlengths 24 31 ⌀ | community stringclasses 11 values | __index_level_0__ int64 0 35.6k |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
formal | special interest | null | antisemitic | U.S. Supreme Court Madam President, I rise today now for the 16th time to call out the darkmoney scheme to capture and control our Supreme Court. The last time I rose to shine a light on this scheme, I sounded a warning about a case then pending at the Supreme Court called West Virginia v. EPA. I discussed how the Court the dark money built was primed to smash through precedent and weaponize fringe legal theories to deliver for the scheme's big donors. I am sorry but not surprised to report that the Supreme Court's Federalist Society Six did exactly what the polluters asked. Not only did the Court deliver for polluters, it delivered big. Before we dive into that, let's recap what we knew going into this case. First, the case never should have made it this far in the first place. A handful of States, with fossil fuel-funded attorneys general and an armada of rightwing front groups that were propped up by dark money from the fossil fuel industry, asked the Supreme Court to strike down an EPA rule regulating greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal-fired powerplants. The problem was that the rule no longer existed. So there wasn't actually an operating EPA rule to challenge, meaning there was no constitutional case or controversy and no reason for a legitimate Court to entertain the industry's invitation. But this is the Court that dark money built, and it wasn't going to let this constitutional guardrail stand in its way of pleasing the big donors who packed the Court. Supreme Court precedent had repeatedly rejected the polluters' arguments outright. The polluters argued that Congress, not the EPA and the so-called administrative state, needed to do the regulating here. It is a matter of common sense that Congress delegates authorities to the EPA. It is also well known that polluters want to knock questions away from expert regulators and over to Congress, where their dark money political power--also a creature of the Court that dark money built--can be brought to bear to buy delay and obstruction. The power of Congress to legislate broadly and let Agency experts fill in the gaps has been upheld for decades against persistent attacks from regulated industries. Well, no more. No matters of law or fact had changed since the last time similar questions were answered by the Court. The thing that changed is who is on the Court: a majority, selected by polluters, using hundreds of millions in dark money, which brings us to the decision itself. There is good news, and there is very, very bad news. The good news is that the Court's ruling is actually very narrow as to the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases in the power sector. It is limited to deliberate generation shifting. So there is lots left to work with, and the EPA needs to pull up its socks and get to work on regulating carbon emissions and other forms of air pollution. So far, in 18 months of the Biden administration, the EPA has managed to produce one carbon emissions regulation and not a very strong one at that. The EPA needs to move now as fast as possible. There is not a second to waste. That is the good news. The bad news, however, is grim. The Federalist Society's Justices loaded up their opinions with polluter talking points and hothouse-grown polluter legal doctrines, paving the way for polluters to block or delay regulations for years to come. Start with the polluter talking points, rife throughout Justice Gorsuch's concurrence, which spends 20 pages decrying the dangers of government regulation. He calls regulators a ``ruling class of largely unaccountable `ministers.' '' This is not even remotely true. If there is an unaccountable ruling class in America right now, it is the Court that dark money built and the dark money forces behind it. Compare that to the EPA. The EPA's leadership is selected by the President, approved by the Senate, and can be fired at will should they deviate from the elected President's priorities. They are all directly accountable, and the White House's Office of Management and Budget reviews every EPA regulation to make sure it is consistent with the elected President's priorities. Congress retains complete control over the EPA's funding and has entire committees dedicated to oversight. It is Congress that provided the EPA with its instructions through laws like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Acts. Congress also created the Administrative Procedure Act to assure that Agencies like the EPA carry out their duties fairly, according to the facts, under proper procedure, and under rigorous judicial supervision, and we passed the Congressional Review Act so Congress is able to swiftly undo any rules that it doesn't like. In actuality, in the real world, there is direct accountability and oversight over the EPA by all three branches--by all three branches--over the supposedly unaccountable ruling class. By comparison, Justice Gorsuch and his colleagues wield their unaccountable power without even the bare minimum of an enforceable ethics code. This argument by Justice Gorsuch may not be founded in fact, but it has a foundation. The idea that the biggest threat to freedom is an administrative state full of unaccountable bureaucrats is a longstanding talking point of the fossil fuel industry constantly trotted out by Republican politicians and fossil fuel front groups. Here is just a taste of what I mean. Here is the Heritage Foundation--a key fossil fuel front group: [T]he administrative state's functionaries are powerful. . . . They are unelected, unknown, and, for all practical purposes often unaccountable. Sound familiar? Here is the minority leader himself responding to a speech by a Republican Senator who is decrying unelected bureaucrats. The minority leader called this the ``single biggest problem confronting our country . . . the single biggest thing holding this country back from reaching its potential.'' And in the wake of this very decision, he went back to their go-to talking point: ``unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats.'' It just is not true. The foundation of Gorsuch's screed is not fact; it is political fossil fuel talking points, and we should not be surprised that those talking points made their way into an opinion by a Supreme Court Justice. That is exactly what the Court that dark money built was built for. Aside from the talking points are legal doctrines hatched in polluter-funded hothouse doctrine factories, a web of phony think tanks, scheme-friendly scholars, and conservative conferences designed to cultivate and legitimize fringe legal theories--reverse engineered to produce the results the polluters want. One of these is the so-called major questions doctrine, which--guess what--makes its maiden appearance in West Virginia v. EPA. Let's look at how the major questions doctrine traveled from the doctrine factory into a Supreme Court decision. The Trump administration, fully in tow to the fossil fuel industry, took this rare specimen of legal theory and pumped it up into a powerful weapon against the functioning of the Federal Government. From day one, Trump's top adviser, Steve Bannon, vowed that the Trump administration would carry out the ``deconstruction of the administrative state.'' Trump's White House Counsel Don McGahn--the same Don McGahn who oversaw the confirmation of the scheme's hand-picked Justices--admitted that the ``judicial selection and the deregulation effort are really the flip side of the same coin.'' Think about that. In his own words, the Trump White House had a ``larger plan'' to wipe out government regulations by using judges. For 4 years, the Trump lawyers argued in court for this major questions doctrine that had been previously unmentioned in any Supreme Court decision. The Trump team urged courts to deploy the doctrine to strike down Agency laws, including in this case, West Virginia v. EPA. Now, while the Court had never mentioned the doctrine, it had been mentioned. Brett Kavanaugh, on the DC Circuit, did while he was auditioning himself for a seat on the Supreme Court, to catch the eye of the scheme donors and to telegraph to them how eager he was to do their bidding. Kavanaugh wrote a dissent in a case about net neutrality--a case with many of the scheme's dark money front groups--Cato, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Pacific Legal Foundation--present as amici. They were the right audience for Kavanaugh's ``major questions'' audition tape, and he aimed to please. Payday for scheme donors came in West Virginia v. EPA. At least 14 polluter front group amici showed up to push in chorus for their major questions doctrine--the usual suspects--funded by fossil fuel dark money, like Cato, the Koch flagship Americans for Prosperity, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Justice Gorsuch's concurrence is rife with citations legitimizing doctrine factory ``scholarship.'' He cites articles written by the founder and president of the Free State Foundation, a member of the dark money State Policy Network; by a member of the dark money Federalist Society's Administrative Law Group executive committee; and by the former president of the Koch-funded American Enterprise Institute. The scheme is all about boosting corporate power and rolling back government regulations. It is not just about building a dark money Court; it is about front groups by the dozen which operate in coordinated flotillas; it is about faux scholarship--reverse-engineered in a parallel universe of faux academia--to give polluters power over government; and it is about more than a half a billion dollars in dark money spent to set up and run the whole sham enterprise. The attack on regulation began with an effort to revive the so-called nondelegation doctrine discarded by the Supreme Court almost 100 years ago. Like the major questions doctrine, the nondelegation doctrine allowed courts to strike down Agency rules when Congress wasn't explicit enough in delegating power. Polluters loved it. Scheme front groups like the Cato Institute--propped up by the dark money from the fossil fuel billionaire Koch family and from companies like ExxonMobil--sponsored research that argued for reviving the nondelegation doctrine. They organized conferences and seminars, lobbied legislators, and funded law groups designed to spread the idea far and wide. But ``major questions'' had one advantage. Years ago, on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Justice Breyer had used those two words once, in passing, in a lengthy law review article. They could seize that camouflage. And guess what. ``Major questions'' is just ``nondelegation'' in disguise. If you don't believe me, let's go back to Justice Gorsuch in a concurrence from another case earlier this year: [T]he major questions doctrine is closely related to what is sometimes called the nondelegation doctrine. Indeed, for decades, courts have cited the nondelegation doctrine as a reason to apply the major questions doctrine. . . . Whichever the doctrine, the point is the same. Indeed. The point is that a Court captured by polluter interests will find any way it can to import polluter doctrine--cooked up in polluter-funded doctrine factories--into the law of the land, and that is just what they just did in West Virginia v. EPA. For the polluters, mission accomplished. The Court that dark money built had already wreaked havoc in our law. Even before they got to six, they had run up 80 5-to-4 partisan decisions benefiting big Republican donor interests--80 5-to-4 partisan decisions benefiting big Republican donor interests. Now with six Justices, they have set about destroying precedent left and right, taking away the constitutional right of women to control their own reproductive decisions, blocking efforts to reduce gun violence, and now adopting new theories to empower polluters against public health regulation. The FedSoc Six's hatred for regulation isn't shared much outside the polluter-funded parallel universe. Most Americans appreciate regulations. They appreciate regulations that help make sure food and water are safe, that their air is clean to breathe, that medicines actually work, that markets operate honestly, that investors have real information, and that car seats protect you in a car wreck. The American people are right to sense that something is deeply amiss at the U.S. Supreme Court. A captured Court presents an unprecedented challenge to the other branches of government, but we aren't helpless. First, we need to start telling the truth about what is going on. The pattern is unmistakable, and people across the country need to understand this is not right; this is not normal. We can also pass laws like my DISCLOSE Act, which I hope will be coming up for a vote shortly, to shine light on the dark money donors who captured our Court in a long scheme. We can require real ethics requirements for Supreme Court Justices, just like all other Federal judges already have. Remember the ongoing ethics investigations against Judge Kavanaugh? They were dropped, not because they were resolved, not because they ended, not because he was found not culpable; they were dropped against Judge Kavanaugh because he escaped to the Supreme Court, where ethics investigations don't exist, so they had to shut down the ongoing investigations. That is a terrible signal. We can also require Justices to report gifts and hospitality, as all other judges do and all senior government officials do in the executive and legislative branches. There are many ways to push back against the new ``ruling class'' of ``unaccountable ministers'' occupying the captured Court and to assure the American people that fairness and justice, and not the Court's deep-pocketed special interest friends, are what drives Court decisions. There is a lot to be done, and we need to begin. To be continued. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3263 | null | 4,700 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Jack Graney, Cleveland Indians player and broadcaster, as he is posthumously awarded the Ford C. Frick Award by the Baseball Hall of Fame on July 23, 2022. Jack Graney was born on June 10, 1886, in St. Thomas, Ontario, Canada, but his professional career on the baseball diamond began with the Cleveland Naps in 1908. Over his 14-year Major League career, Jack led the American League in walks during the 1917 and 1919 seasons and played in three World Series games, helping the Naps to victory in 1920. His daughter fondly remembers growing up on the road andwatching her father in action on the field. Jack spent each of his seasons in Major League Baseball with Cleveland. After 14 seasons, Jack retired with 1,178 hits, 420 runs batted in, and a career .250 batting average. Jack made baseball history over the course of his career; he was the first at bat against Babe Ruth in the big leagues, the first 20th century big league player to bat with a number on his uniform, and the first to transition from player to broadcaster. In 1932, Jack returned to baseball when he joined WHK-AM, which had just began broadcasting Cleveland games. He would go on to be the voice of the Cleveland Indians for the next 22 years. Rumor had it, when the Indians played, you could hear Jack's voice echoing through the streets of Cleveland. While radio was only local at the time, Jack was committed to providing a narrative of every single game to Cleveland fans. During away games, he broadcasted from Cleveland, using the ticker-tape that came through from the live game. Jack's detailed descriptions of plays, stadiums, and fans brought the game to life. Throughout his career, he broadcasted for various Cleveland stations and with different partners. In 1935, he commentated on the World Series and the All-Star Game for national audiences. Jack's final broadcast aired in 1953. For more than 20 years, Jack brought baseball to Cleveland fans. On April 20, 1978, Jack passed away at age 91. His legacy lives on today through his family and through all those he inspired to love America's game and to pass on that love to their own children and grandchildren. In 2012, Jack was posthumously inducted into the Cleveland Baseball Hall of Fame for his tenure as a player. And this month, the Baseball Hall of Fame will present the Ford C. Frick Award to Jack for his major contributions to baseball. Recipients are chosen based on their commitment to excellence, quality of broadcasting abilities, reverence within the game, popularity with fans, and recognition by peers. Jack embodied each of these qualities and made our city proud. Today, we celebrate his contributions to baseball, his commitment to Cleveland, and his extraordinary life. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3267-4 | null | 4,701 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Jack Graney, Cleveland Indians player and broadcaster, as he is posthumously awarded the Ford C. Frick Award by the Baseball Hall of Fame on July 23, 2022. Jack Graney was born on June 10, 1886, in St. Thomas, Ontario, Canada, but his professional career on the baseball diamond began with the Cleveland Naps in 1908. Over his 14-year Major League career, Jack led the American League in walks during the 1917 and 1919 seasons and played in three World Series games, helping the Naps to victory in 1920. His daughter fondly remembers growing up on the road andwatching her father in action on the field. Jack spent each of his seasons in Major League Baseball with Cleveland. After 14 seasons, Jack retired with 1,178 hits, 420 runs batted in, and a career .250 batting average. Jack made baseball history over the course of his career; he was the first at bat against Babe Ruth in the big leagues, the first 20th century big league player to bat with a number on his uniform, and the first to transition from player to broadcaster. In 1932, Jack returned to baseball when he joined WHK-AM, which had just began broadcasting Cleveland games. He would go on to be the voice of the Cleveland Indians for the next 22 years. Rumor had it, when the Indians played, you could hear Jack's voice echoing through the streets of Cleveland. While radio was only local at the time, Jack was committed to providing a narrative of every single game to Cleveland fans. During away games, he broadcasted from Cleveland, using the ticker-tape that came through from the live game. Jack's detailed descriptions of plays, stadiums, and fans brought the game to life. Throughout his career, he broadcasted for various Cleveland stations and with different partners. In 1935, he commentated on the World Series and the All-Star Game for national audiences. Jack's final broadcast aired in 1953. For more than 20 years, Jack brought baseball to Cleveland fans. On April 20, 1978, Jack passed away at age 91. His legacy lives on today through his family and through all those he inspired to love America's game and to pass on that love to their own children and grandchildren. In 2012, Jack was posthumously inducted into the Cleveland Baseball Hall of Fame for his tenure as a player. And this month, the Baseball Hall of Fame will present the Ford C. Frick Award to Jack for his major contributions to baseball. Recipients are chosen based on their commitment to excellence, quality of broadcasting abilities, reverence within the game, popularity with fans, and recognition by peers. Jack embodied each of these qualities and made our city proud. Today, we celebrate his contributions to baseball, his commitment to Cleveland, and his extraordinary life. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3267-4 | null | 4,702 |
formal | Cleveland | null | racist | Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Jack Graney, Cleveland Indians player and broadcaster, as he is posthumously awarded the Ford C. Frick Award by the Baseball Hall of Fame on July 23, 2022. Jack Graney was born on June 10, 1886, in St. Thomas, Ontario, Canada, but his professional career on the baseball diamond began with the Cleveland Naps in 1908. Over his 14-year Major League career, Jack led the American League in walks during the 1917 and 1919 seasons and played in three World Series games, helping the Naps to victory in 1920. His daughter fondly remembers growing up on the road andwatching her father in action on the field. Jack spent each of his seasons in Major League Baseball with Cleveland. After 14 seasons, Jack retired with 1,178 hits, 420 runs batted in, and a career .250 batting average. Jack made baseball history over the course of his career; he was the first at bat against Babe Ruth in the big leagues, the first 20th century big league player to bat with a number on his uniform, and the first to transition from player to broadcaster. In 1932, Jack returned to baseball when he joined WHK-AM, which had just began broadcasting Cleveland games. He would go on to be the voice of the Cleveland Indians for the next 22 years. Rumor had it, when the Indians played, you could hear Jack's voice echoing through the streets of Cleveland. While radio was only local at the time, Jack was committed to providing a narrative of every single game to Cleveland fans. During away games, he broadcasted from Cleveland, using the ticker-tape that came through from the live game. Jack's detailed descriptions of plays, stadiums, and fans brought the game to life. Throughout his career, he broadcasted for various Cleveland stations and with different partners. In 1935, he commentated on the World Series and the All-Star Game for national audiences. Jack's final broadcast aired in 1953. For more than 20 years, Jack brought baseball to Cleveland fans. On April 20, 1978, Jack passed away at age 91. His legacy lives on today through his family and through all those he inspired to love America's game and to pass on that love to their own children and grandchildren. In 2012, Jack was posthumously inducted into the Cleveland Baseball Hall of Fame for his tenure as a player. And this month, the Baseball Hall of Fame will present the Ford C. Frick Award to Jack for his major contributions to baseball. Recipients are chosen based on their commitment to excellence, quality of broadcasting abilities, reverence within the game, popularity with fans, and recognition by peers. Jack embodied each of these qualities and made our city proud. Today, we celebrate his contributions to baseball, his commitment to Cleveland, and his extraordinary life. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BROWN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3267-4 | null | 4,703 |
formal | judicial activism | null | conservative | Mrs. BLACKBURN (for herself, Mr. Lee, Mr. Hagerty, Mr. Risch, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Braun, Mr. Wicker, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Young, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Thune, Mr. Cramer, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, and Mr. Marshall) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary: S. Res. 705 Whereas the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States (referred to in this preamble as the ``Supreme Court'') in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a blatant act of judicial activism that invented a constitutional right to abortion out of whole cloth, with no grounding in the text of the Constitution of the United States; Whereas more than 63,000,000 babies have been aborted in the United States since the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade; Whereas the decision in Roe v. Wade caused great damage to the democratic system of the United States by preventing citizens of the United States from making decisions about the legality of abortion and instead putting these decisions in the hands of unelected Federal judges; Whereas, far from settling the issue of abortion in the United States, the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade has exacerbated social tensions, inflamed the politics of the United States, disrupted the democratic processes of the United States, and divided the people of the United States; Whereas, in the aftermath of the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, millions of volunteers, nonpartisan organizations, and lawmakers came together with a shared voice to stand up for the rights of the unborn, who are the most vulnerable among us; Whereas these supporters of the pro-life movement come from diverse backgrounds, with the shared goal of building a society that celebrates, protects, and cherishes life at all stages; Whereas the pro-life movement has worked tirelessly over the last 5 decades to reverse the legally unsound and destructive ruling in Roe v. Wade and to ensure that the human dignity of every person is protected by law, regardless of age, background, or belief; Whereas the work of the pro-life movement has been more than simply advocating for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and often occurs behind the scenes, with little recognition of the time and talent that countless individuals have invested in the effort to protect life; Whereas millions of people in the United States have contributed to the cultivation of a culture of life in the United States by marching for life on the streets of cities in the United States, engaging in sidewalk counseling outside abortion clinics, providing resources for expectant mothers, raising money and volunteering their time for crisis pregnancy centers, adopting and fostering children, advocating for life-affirming legislation in every State, and submitting amicus briefs in abortion-related cases at the State and Federal level; Whereas, on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, No. 19-1392, 2022 WL 2276808 (2022), which overturned Roe v. Wade and affirmed that there is no Federal constitutional right to an abortion; Whereas the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization represents a historic victory for the sanctity of life and for the millions of people in the United States who have worked diligently over the last 5 decades to foster a culture of life in the United States; Whereas the decision of the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization does not ban abortion but instead recognizes that under the constitutional system of the United States, the power and the duty to decide whether to permit or limit abortions lies with the States, not unelected Federal judges; Whereas, as the late Justice Scalia recognized 3 decades ago in his dissent in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), ``The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.''; and Whereas the decision of the Supreme Court in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization returns the issue of abortion back to the States, for the people of each State to debate and then vote: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) congratulates the pro-life movement and the millions of individuals who have stood up for life over the last nearly 50 years on this historic victory in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization; (2) celebrates the courage, compassion, and commitment of the millions of individuals, nonpartisan organizations, and lawmakers who have advocated for life and labored tirelessly to overturn Roe v. Wade; (3) lauds the Supreme Court of the United States for the decision to return to the original understanding of the Constitution of the United States and recognize that there is no Federal constitutional right to an abortion; (4) recognizes the uniqueness of the political system of the United States, in which our States function as laboratories of democracy, enabling citizens to debate issues like abortion in the public square and make their voices heard by voting; (5) affirms the commitment of Congress to ensuring the safety of supporters of the pro-life movement, including lawful demonstrators, volunteers, religious clergy, and crisis pregnancy center personnel, as they continue to advocate for the sanctity of every human life in all 50 States; and (6) condemns all threats and incidents of violence fueled by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization and affirms the commitment of Congress to ensuring the safety of justices of the Supreme Court, their law clerks, other State and Federal judges and their law clerks, members of Congress, and State lawmakers. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3275 | null | 4,704 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Mr. HAGERTY (for himself, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Risch, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Tillis, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Scott of Florida, Mr. Blumenthal, Ms. Lummis, Ms. Duckworth, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Coons, Mr. Moran, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Kaine, Mr. Blunt, Mr. Warnock, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Hickenlooper, Ms. Ernst, Mr. Schatz, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Markey, Mr. Romney, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Booker, Mr. Boozman, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Daines, Mr. Merkley, Mr. Rounds, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Rubio, Mr. King, Mr. Toomey, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Padilla, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Bennet, Ms. Collins, Ms. Smith, Mr. Wicker, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Hawley, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Thune, Mr. Graham, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Portman, Mr. Young, Mrs. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Reed, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Carper, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Wyden, and Mr. Burr) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 706 Whereas the emergence of a prosperous and democratic Japan over the past 75 years has been one of the foundations of global stability and peace in the world; Whereas former Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe was tragically assassinated on July 8, 2022, resulting in the loss of a leading statesman and tireless champion of democratic values around the world; Whereas former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe served as the Prime Minister of Japan from 2006 to 2007 and 2012 to 2020, while leaving an indelible mark on the politics, economy, and society of Japan, as well as prosperity and security around the world; Whereas, in August 2007, at the Parliament of the Republic of India, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe delivered a historic speech entitled ``The Confluence of the Two Seas'', which inspired the vision of the free and open Indo-Pacific; Whereas, in December 2012, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe launched the concept of the democratic security diamond--the precursor to the modern-day Quadrilateral Security Dialogue-- in which he envisaged a strategy under which the United States, Australia, India, and Japan would form a ``diamond to safeguard'' the maritime commons stretching from the Indian Ocean region to the Western Pacific; Whereas, in April 2015, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made the first address by a Japanese leader to a joint session of Congress where he called the relationship between the United States and Japan ``an alliance of hope'' and offered his ``eternal condolences to the souls of all American people that were lost during World War II''; Whereas former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe advanced the United States-Japan alliance through multiple Presidential administrations of the United States by strengthening diplomatic, military, and economic cooperation, including the Trade Agreement between the United States of America and Japan, done at Washington October 7, 2019; Whereas former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe tirelessly sought to resolve the issue of Japanese citizens abducted by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and continuously sought the safe return of such citizens to Japan; Whereas former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe relentlessly pursued the denuclearization of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea by leading a global campaign to cut off revenue to the unlawful nuclear weapons program the Democratic People's Republic of Korea; and Whereas the United States lost a great friend and ally with the assassination of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whose leadership laid a lasting foundation for the United States and Japan to partner for decades to come in promoting freedom, prosperity, and security around the world and opposing authoritarianism and tyranny: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) remembers former Prime Minister of Japan Shinzo Abe and his work to strengthen the alliance between the United States and Japan; and (2) extends condolences to the family of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the people of Japan. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3276 | null | 4,705 |
formal | terrorist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Mr. Tillis, Mrs. Shaheen, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Markey, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Kaine, and Mr. Coons) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations: S. Res. 708 Whereas Alyaksandr Lukashenka has ruled Belarus as an undemocratic dictatorship since the first presidential election in Belarus in 1994, dismantling the democratic institutions of Belarus and seeking to jail those who compete against him in presidential elections or protest his authoritarian regime; Whereas the Lukashenka regime jailed leading opposition candidates that attempted to compete in the August 9, 2020, presidential election in Belarus; Whereas Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya ran in the August 9, 2020, presidential election after the jailing of her husband, opposition candidate Siarhei Tsikhanouski, and was widely seen as the legitimate winner by the international community; Whereas the August 9, 2020 presidential election, in which Lukashenka claimed victory, was marred by widespread concern over its legitimacy, as noted by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Council, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Department of State, and reputable international human rights groups; Whereas the Senate, as expressed in Senate Resolution 658 (116th Congress) and Senate Resolution 345 (117th Congress), both of which passed with unanimous support, has stated its deep concern regarding the most recent fraudulent election that took place in Belarus on August 9, 2020; Whereas, in response to the August 9, 2020, fraudulent presidential election, the people of Belarus staged the largest and longest sustained public protests in the history of the country, calling for a democratic Belarus; Whereas, since the August 9, 2020, fraudulent presidential election, the Lukashenka regime has continued to pressure, harass, imprison, and persecute opposition leaders, civil society activists, human rights defenders, and independent media; Whereas, according to the Viasna Human Rights Centre, the Government of Belarus has continued to keep at least 1,244 people imprisoned on politically motivated charges or under false pretense of terrorist threat, including opposition candidate Siarhei Tsikhanouski, who was sentenced to 18 years in prison; Whereas Russia provided critical support to the Lukashenka regime following the repression of the protests that followed the August 9, 2020, fraudulent presidential election, backing the Lukashenka regime's efforts to prevent the emergence of a democratic Belarus, including through the provision of financial assistance, propaganda support, and offers of military assistance; Whereas, on May 23, 2021, the Government of Belarus unlawfully forced the landing of Ryanair Flight 4978 in Minsk to arrest journalist and activist Raman Pratasevich and his partner Sofia Sapega; Whereas, since July 7, 2021, the Government of Belarus has weaponized vulnerable migrants by manufacturing a border crisis with Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland in retaliation for sanctions imposed by the European Union; Whereas, on February 24, 2022, Russia launched an unprovoked war against Ukraine, using Belarus as a launching pad for its attack; Whereas the Lukashenka regime has continued to allow Belarus to be used by Russian President Vladimir Putin for his illegal and unprovoked war against Ukraine, including via a sham February 27, 2022, constitutional referendum on provisions to enable Belarus to host nuclear weapons and undo Belarus' decades-long commitment to neutrality; Whereas, since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Lukashenka has met with Vladimir Putin on at least four separate occasions, including most recently on June 25, 2022, when Putin pledged to supply Belarus with missile systems capable of carrying nuclear weapons; Whereas, despite support from the Lukashenka regime for Putin's war in Ukraine, hundreds of brave Belarusians have joined together to defend Ukraine, both on the battlefield in Ukraine and in the disruption of Russian supply lines; Whereas the United States and allies of the United States have imposed sanctions on the Lukashenka regime for the August 9, 2020, fraudulent presidential election and ensuing repression as well as support for Putin's war in Ukraine; Whereas, on December 15 2020, Julie Fisher was confirmed by the Senate as Ambassador to Belarus, but her credentials were not accepted by the Lukashenka regime, resulting in President's Biden decision in October 2021 to appoint Mrs. Fisher as Special Envoy for Belarus; and Whereas Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, in exile in Lithuania, continues to represent the widely shared desire of the Belarusian people for free and fair elections and democracy: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) continues, on the second anniversary of the fraudulent presidential election that took place in Belarus on August 9, 2020, to refuse to recognize Alyaksandr Lukashenka as the legitimately elected leader of Belarus; (2) condemns the ongoing harassment and persecution of opposition leaders, civil society activists, human rights defenders, and independent media carried out by the Lukashenka regime, and urges the immediate release, without preconditions, of all political prisoners in Belarus, including Siarhei Tsikhanouski, as well as for all representatives of democratic forces, civil society, and independent media in exile to be able to return home without fear of persecution or prosecution; (3) calls for new presidential and parliamentary elections to be held in Belarus, conducted in a manner that meets international standards and includes independent election monitoring; (4) condemns the shameful and self-serving support provided by the Lukashenka regime for Russian President Putin's savage war in Ukraine; (5) welcomes continued and coordinated sanctions imposed by the United States and European Union and other tools to support democracy in Belarus; (6) recognizes the extraordinary support offered by the Governments of Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine to support the people of Belarus, including support for the political opposition, accommodation of political refugees, and backing of independent media; (7) encourages President Biden to swiftly appoint a new Special Envoy for Belarus to support the pro-democracy movement; and (8) stands in solidarity with the many brave Belarusians, such as Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who continue to strive for a free and democratic Belarus. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3277 | null | 4,706 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am on the floor today to talk about border security--a humanitarian, a national security, a community safety issue with direct connection to the drug epidemic we see in communities all around the country, including my home State of Ohio. I am also here to talk about legislation I introduced today with Senator Jim Risch to address this crisis. So we are in the middle right now of what is the biggest border crisis in the history of our country if you measure it by the number of people who are coming to the border unlawfully and, as the Biden administration says, people who are encountering the Border Patrol. The Biden administration claims that they have the border under control and that they are--and I am quoting--doing a good job. This chart, though, tells a really different story. It shows that as of May, which is the last month that we have records for, we had the highest number of border encounters on record. The second highest, by the way, was the month before: April. So you see this goes back to 2019. There was a surge here--144,000. Here, we have the inauguration of President Biden, and then we have had big increases--again, to the point that over the last couple of months, we have had record numbers of people who have come unlawfully to the border and been stopped by, apprehended by, the Border Patrol. This includes 239,000 total encounters at the border in the month of May--165,000 of which were single, adult migrants. This does not include those who were not encountered--in other words, those who slipped past the Border Patrol. We haven't been able to find a precise number for these individuals. The Border Patrol calls this group of people got-aways. But using a conservative estimate from the Border Patrol of 300,000 people who they think got away in the last fiscal year, you would then put the total number of unlawful entries at approximately 286,000 people in 1 month. If you annualize that, that would be 3.4 million people a year. Think about those numbers: almost 3\1/2\ million people a year coming to our border and attempting to gain entry unlawfully. Today, not all of those who are apprehended are allowed to come into the United States, and that is because under so-called title 42, roughly half of those individuals who are being apprehended, who are being encountered, are turned back. If they live in Mexico, they are sent back across the border. If they live in a country--say Ecuador or Guatemala--they are sent back, flown back to their country of origin. But these are people who are being turned away because of title 42. So what is title 42? It is a public health authority. It is an attempt by our government to limit migration in order to prevent the spread of communicable diseases--in this case, COVID-19. It allows the Customs and Border Protection officers and agents to tell unlawful migrants: You can't come to the United States for these public health reasons. It only applies, by the way, now to single adults; but, as I said earlier, that is the single biggest group. It comprises about 48 to 52 percent--about half--of the people who are coming up to the border. So even with the use of title 42, which is acting to discourage people from coming to our border, we are experiencing these record levels. We are also experiencing these record levels in these hot summer months. Normally, when you get into the summertime where it gets really hot--look here at May, June, July, August--the number of people coming to the border goes down, not up. It is over 100 degrees in the desert and at the Rio Grande, at almost all of these border crossings along the U.S.-Mexican border. Yet we have more, not less. There is anecdotal information that this is because people are realizing that the administration wants to end title 42. They have proposed to do that. That is now in the court system. But the cartels are spreading the message, which is: Now is the time to come because, before, you were turned away by title 42. Now, like everybody else, you can come into the United States and stay. And we will talk in a moment about what that means. But I think that is probably true. Probably title 42 has something to do with it. But I think, also, it has to do with the fact that more and more people are realizing that if they do come to the border and don't get stopped by title 42, they will have a chance to come into the United States and live in the United States with their families, perhaps; if not, maybe bring in their families later. And everybody wants to come to America. We are a great country. We have our challenges, as we talk about on the floor here all the time. But, still, we are a country with so many opportunities for people, and folks want to come. And I don't blame them. I don't blame them. But we want them to come legally. And we currently have the most generous legal immigration system of any country in the world. About 900,000 people a year--almost a million people a year--come legally to the United States, most as legal immigrants, some as refugees. And so we encourage that, and we should. In fact, I think we should bring more people in legally, particularly to fillsome of the jobs that we need filled, the STEM disciplines we talk about a lot. We need people with the kind of training and background to help our economy grow. But we need people at every level of training. But we want them to come legally and through an orderly process that is more humane, that doesn't have all the issues--which we will talk about tonight--the humanitarian issues at the southern border. In terms of title 42, we all hope that this public health emergency isn't necessary going forward because COVID-19 ends. But in the meantime, this border crisis means, to me, that we have to keep title 42 in place until we make some changes in policy. Otherwise, it will be not just a crisis. It will be totally overwhelming. As the Border Patrol says to me, they will lose operational control of the border. Some would argue that has already happened because so many people are coming over at record numbers. Often, the Border Patrol is distracted by one group of migrants, and another group comes in. And I saw this when I was at the border in El Paso. And anybody who has been down at the border has seen this. They are already in tough shape. But imagine if 48 percent of the people here who are now being turned away by title 42 are not going to be turned away and the number of other people who will come knowing that that avenue is now open to them. This will be overwhelming. It is very difficult right now, with the laws and the way the laws are being implemented, to keep that from happening. That is why we need a change in policy. It doesn't have to happen here in Congress. I think we should change the laws and introduce legislation today to do that. But the administration itself could make these changes. By the way, in the last administration, as you can see, the number of people coming across the border unlawfully and the number of encounters was very low. But the same was true in the Obama administration. After they had a surge of unaccompanied minors, they made changes in the law, and they reduced the number of people who were coming unlawfully to the border as well. It can be done, but there has to be the will do it. I am the ranking Republican on the Senate committee that has oversight responsibility for the Department of Homeland Security. The Presiding Officer is also on that committee. This Department of Homeland Security is preparing, they tell us, for a huge increase in migrants after title 42 has ended. So although they want to end it, they also know that if they do end it, there is going to be a huge surge because they are actually preparing for that. The way they are doing it is interesting. It is not so much keeping people from coming into the United States as expediting their flow into the United States. Among other things, instead of processing people at the border, their recommendation is go ahead and put people on buses or other forms of transportation and then do the processing later, perhaps on the buses or where they are going in the United States. So it is a way to move people through the process rather than come up with a way to discourage people from coming across the border illegally. DHS has planned, and then will facilitate, travel throughout the country rather than figuring out how to keep people from coming in the first place by telling them: Come legally, but please don't come to our border illegally. By the way, I think most Americans are very supportive of legal immigration. It is an important part of who we are. With very few exceptions of Native Americans, we all came from someplace else. All of us have proud stories of our immigrant forebearers--our parents, our grandparents, our great-grandparents. And it has enriched our country. It is part of the fabric of our Nation. It is what makes us special. But that is legal immigration. And it is not what we are talking about here. Who bears the brunt of this crisis? Well, at the outset, of course, it is the Border Patrol. We have got to provide them with the personnel and resources they need to complete their mission, as difficult as it is. When you go and meet with these people, the men and women of the Border Patrol, you come away just so proud of what they try to do every day. They are a combination of, you know, border agents trying to enforce the law, social workers trying to help people with their problems, healthcare workers trying to help when people get hurt. Unfortunately, as we have seen, a lot of people are getting hurt in this process. That journey north is a dangerous journey. And with the cartels so involved and right there at the border, what happens in the desert, what happens on these trains, what happens in these trucks--we just saw this horrible incident of these migrants who were jammed into a semitruck, and more of them died, I think, than any other accident of that kind, incident of that kind, in our history. But this is inhumane, and this is part of what happens when you have these cartels involved in this process. We also have got to provide the Border Patrol with the ability to help control things at the border by finishing the border fence and putting the technology with the fence that was always intended. By the way, the technology tends not to be very partisan around here. Democrats and Republicans alike, I believe, mostly think we ought to have cameras. We ought to have sensors. We ought to know what is going on at the border. But when the order came down the first day of the Biden administration to stop the wall and to end what the Trump administration had started with Congress's approval and funding, they also said, Stop the technology. So in the El Paso sector, as an example, the wall is about 80, 90 percent completed. Unfortunately, there are gaps in the wall where you literally have to have Border Patrol there 24 hours a day or people just come through it, which makes their job really hard. What they want to do is at least have the wall there to slow people down. And the technology there enables them to then go and deal with situations as they occur. But only 20 percent of the technology had been completed. So you have more wall than you have technology. And the wall is not that useful, frankly, without the technology, in my view. I think the technology is the key. But that is what is happening. And, by the way, to the taxpayers listening tonight, which is pretty much all of us, we paid for that wall. We actually paid for the fencing to be put up. Congress appropriated the money. And then the administration stopped it. So you literally see the steel beams and the pieces of concrete for the wall lying on the ground. And as one Border Patrol agent told me when I was in one of the sectors--most recently I was in the Nogales sector where there is a huge gap--he said, this is really bad for morale. And our Border Patrol agents look at this stuff, and they say: We have already paid for this. Can't we just finish the wall and put these fences up, the gates up, to keep these openings from attracting the cartels and the drug smugglers and the people smugglers? But that is where we are. So that is one thing our legislation does, is to correct that problem and help stop this crisis. It also says that title 42--we talked about earlier--won't be lifted until the COVID-19 emergency is over. Again, I think it ought to be lifted when we have policies in place that make sense. But a lot more is needed. The bill also mandates that the program the Biden administration ended, which said that as you come to ask for asylum, you should wait at the border--it is called the migrant protocols. There was just an agreement with the President of Mexico and President Biden a couple of days ago about more funding for the border area--and that is good--to provide more humane living conditions. But this was working to tell people, if you want to come for asylum, go ahead and apply. And while you are waiting for asylum, you can remain in Mexico. And if you get asylum, you come across. If you don't, you go home. What happened is, a lot of people just went home. The asylum process, which we will get into in a minute, is kind of a complicated issue. But in other ways, it is pretty simple, and it is the main reason for this, which is that people know if they come to the border and they claim asylum, which most people do, they have an immediate, what is called, credible fear interview. Sometimes, it is over the telephone now,partly because of COVID. And that is a very low bar. And so people say what their issue is back home where they feel persecuted, and then they come in. And once they are told to come in, then they are told: OK, you can go to wherever you are going in America--let's say Cincinnati, my hometown, or Columbus or Chicago or Denver, wherever it is--and you need to check in with the ICE office--that is the immigration office in the interior of the United States--within 90 days. Some people do check in. Some people don't check in. But the point is, there is now a wait of somewhere between 6 to 8 years before your case is heard on asylum--6 to 8 years. Why? Because there are 1.5 million--someone told me today 1.6 million; let's say 1.5 million people, that is high enough--waiting in line. That is what the backlog is. It just makes no sense to anybody, including, by the way, the Secretary of Homeland Security, whom I have talked to about this. And these long waits mean that you are there embedded in a community in America getting to know your community. You are joining your church. You are sending your kids to school. You are having children. You are part of the community. And then you are told after 6 to 8 years, by the way, your asylum application is being denied because you are an economic refugee, not an asylee. In other words, you haven't demonstrated a fear of persecution. You have come to this country, understandably, because there is great opportunity here. Again, we should be encouraging these people to come legally like so many other immigrants have over the years. Only about 15 to 20 percent of those people who apply for asylum today are getting asylum. So think about it. If you are part of the 80 to 85 percent who are not going to get asylum, there is sometimes not much of an incentive to enter into this process and go through the hearings and so on. The consequence if you don't go through the hearings is that you are then subject to removal. However, we are just not removing people today. So this past year, the latest numbers we have are that 59,000 people were deported, or removed, from America. About 66 percent of those people had a criminal background. But, remember, this is out of a couple hundred thousand people going through the process. So there is a very small chance that you will ever be removed or deported. Even though you went through the process, you were denied asylum. You stay in the United States. And, you know, the next administration could change that. This administration could change that. But right now, this asylum process, which was created to give lawful presence to people who were unable to be in their home country because of persecution, is not being used properly. It is being exploited by people who know that because of our system and our huge backlog, if they say that they are part of a group that is being persecuted they can come in. And even when they are denied asylum, they can stay. That is the way it is working. What we have found is that folks who come here are almost entirely focused more on the economic side. There was a survey conducted by the Migration Policy Institute recently, which, by the way, is a pro-migrant institution. It found that 90 percent of the Central Americans making the journey to our southern border are coming for what? For work. They are coming for work because they come from poor countries. They don't have a lot of opportunity in their country. I don't blame them. If I was a father living in Honduras and couldn't find a job or I was a subsistence farmer just barely making it and I had a few kids and I wanted them to have a better life, I would come, too. But that is not what immigration is all about. It is a system where you come legally, yes. But if you come illegally, you have got to be told you have to go back and apply like everybody else. Otherwise, America would be overwhelmed. And it is being overwhelmed and will be even more overwhelmed if title 42 is taken away. There are hundreds of millions of people--maybe billions of people--around the world who would love to come to this country. We take for granted our opportunities, our freedoms; but others don't. So we have to have a system. We have to have some sort of a border. And, really, that is the question that is before us today in this body: Are we going to have a system that makes sense or one where, again, you have a million and a half people who are waiting to have their hearing. When they have their hearing on asylum and they are denied, they still aren't removed; so they can stay. And, again, meanwhile, they have family and kids and connections to the community. It is really not fair to them. A much better system would be to say, OK, apply for asylum in your country, or if you don't feel comfortable there, apply from a third country. Then you will know, yes or no, before you come up to the border, don't make that dangerous journey north. Don't put yourself in the clutches of these coyotes, these human smugglers, these traffickers, who are heartless. What they are doing is they are going down to Central America or Latin America or really all over the world. People are coming from hundreds of countries now. And they are saying, you know, give me money. Give me 10,000 bucks, and I will get you to the border, and you can just walk across. People are signing up--sometimes with their life savings. And sometimes as, again, we talked about earlier, there are assaults along the way. There are all kinds of horrible stories of how women, particularly, are mistreated on the way up. It is a dangerous and inhumane process. At the end of the day, our system is pulling these people to the border. The administration is now implementing a new asylum rule recently to try to deal with this problem because they realize it is just not working. However, the new system that they are putting in place isn't working either, and there is a reason for that. Their theory is we should adjudicate the cases at the border. I agree with that. I would rather adjudicate them outside the border in the country of origin or a third country, but have the adjudication be right at the border; make the decision right there, yes or no. Let people know. The problem is what they are doing right now is they are putting asylum officers at the border, making a decision, adjudicating as people come across. And if it is a no, people are not being sent home. But rather, people are being told if it is a no, you can appeal it to the regular system, so get back in line with the 1.5 million people. What we are learning is that, of course, people are smart. They are talking to the asylum officer. They are getting a yes or no. If they are getting a yes, that is great; they are getting in. That is a small percentage. If they are getting a no, they say, That is fine, I am going to appeal it to the regular system. It really isn't an answer to the problem. If you want an answer to the problem, what you would have is processing centers along the border. It would be expensive because there are so many people coming over now, so many people applying for asylum. But have a process where, quickly, you can adjudicate these cases. In the meantime, you would not have people be released into the interior but have them stay there to find out what the outcome of the case is. This pull system is bad for everybody except the smugglers. They are the ones who profit. They are the ones who are going to folks in places like Honduras or Ecuador or, again, far-flung places--places in Eastern Europe, places in Asia--and telling people, Give me a bunch of money, and I will get you into the United States. We recently had this tragedy I mentioned in San Antonio. Fifty-three migrants were left for dead in the Texas heat in the back of a tractor-trailer. They were just abandoned by their smuggler. They left them locked inside of this tractor-trailer. It is not the first time this has happened. But as I said earlier, 53 is probably the worst smuggling tragedy in our history. I went to Latin America last year. I met with the Presidents of Mexico and Guatemala, Ecuador, and Colombia. It was interesting. They all said the same thing. You would be surprised to hear what they said. People think they must enjoy this process because so many of their citizens are going to America, they can then send money back to their family and it must be good for everybody. It is not. They are losing some of the best and brightest in their country, and thesepeople are going through, again, this arduous process to get to the border, and the inhumanity of that troubles these Presidents. They all told me basically the same thing, which is: Why don't you guys fix your laws and stop this pull factor? We talk about the push factor in poor countries. I mentioned Honduras earlier. That is certainly true. By the way, we spent over the last 5 years about $3.6 billion of American taxpayer money to help in the economics of the so-called Northern Triangle in the Central American countries. I am for spending money in these countries to try to help with their economy, but with the corruption, with all the issues they have, it is very difficult to imagine those countries in a short period of time having any kind of economic opportunity that equals what we have right here in this country, so there is going to continue to be that push. We should try to alleviate it. It will continue to happen. But the pull, this policy we have is just pulling people north. What they said to me, these Presidents of these countries, was: You have a legal immigration system where people know they can just get into your country. Why don't you change that? Why don't you change that? Again, it is not just people from Mexico and Central America. It is people from all over the world. By the way, for some of these people, the Border Patrol is increasingly concerned because they come from countries where a lot of people want to do us harm. So, increasingly, we are seeing people coming to our country who are, as an example, on the terror watch list. Back in 2017, 2 people; 6 people in 2018; none in 2019; 2020, there were 3; 15 in 2021. This fiscal year, 2022, there are already 50 individuals on the terror watch list. Why? They know if they come to the U.S. border, they can get across. I am sure this number is higher--that is what we know--because, again, a lot of people are so-called got aways. Let's say 20 percent. Who are these people? Well, some of them are probably pretty smart individuals who know how to get away from Border Patrol, do the distraction and sneak in. That worries me and it worries me because we are allowing people to come into our country who we would not otherwise allow. We have seen this increase of people coming into the country who are on the terror watch list, but we have also seen, again, a lot of people coming in who we just don't know anything about because they don't count them at the Border Patrol. We have seen more caravans and we see more migrants are on the way. Why? I think it is because of this general pull factor. The fact is people know, if they come here, they know they are going to be able to get in. I think it is also because of title 42 because the smugglers are using that--cartels are spreading the word: Title 42 is on its way out. Read about it in the front page of your paper because that is where it is because this administration wants to end it, so they are saying now you can go to the border and you will be let in under the policies like the asylum policy and the single adults--48 percent of whom roughly have been turned away. Forty-eight percent of the total by title 42 would no longer be turned away. I think that is why we are seeing this. It is giving the coyotes, traffickers, and smugglers opportunity to make lots of money. By the way, that is hurting all these countries, too. If you talk to the Presidents of these countries, including President Obrador of Mexico, what he will tell you is the cartels are taking over more and more of his country because they are making more and more money because of this--and, significantly, because of the drug issue we are going to talk about in a second. We know that the cartels are involved in human trafficking. We know they are involved in drug smuggling. We know they are involved in smuggling people. I was with the Border Patrol in El Paso last year. We were out at night. We saw a group of migrants coming, and the Border Patrol was going to that location to stop them and question them. Meanwhile, we heard on the radio the drug smugglers had come across. They could see it. They knew it. They could tell by the backpacks they were wearing, I guess, and clothes they were wearing--dark clothes, young men--that they were smuggling. But they couldn't do anything about it because Border Patrol were processing the migrants who had come in. So I am watching the migrants coming in--actually talking to some of them and Border Patrol--and meanwhile, on the radio, they are saying, You have to go to this other sector, this other area to stop these drug smugglers. We can't; we are distracted. The processing takes some time. The other big issue, in addition to the unlawful entry into the United States--smuggling, all the inhumanity that surrounds that--is this drug issue. I have spent a lot of time working on this issue on the prevention side--helping on treatment and recovery options and doing more on prevention. We were making some progress until, unfortunately, we were hit with this pandemic. And during that time and since, drug use has gone up again. But we were making progress, in part, because we were helping on the demand side of the equation. But also on the supply side, we were keeping some of these drugs out of the country. We did it primarily through stopping the deadliest of all, which is the fentanyl--which is a synthetic opioid--from coming in through the U.S. mail system. We passed a law called the STOP Act. It kept China from poisoning our communities by sending this stuff through the mail system, which was happening. That was the primary way it was coming in. What has happened? During the pandemic--kind of coincidental with the pandemic--we had more people isolated, more people losing their jobs, more people turning to drugs. You had Mexico begin to take the central role in terms of fentanyl. A lot of it is precursors from China, so China sends the precursors to Mexico, but Mexico is now making the fentanyl--often into pills--Xanax or Adderall or Percocet. If you buy any drugs on the street, know that those drugs could kill you. Don't be fooled. There are so many counterfeit drugs out there now. That is one of the preferred ways that the Mexican cartels are bringing these drugs in. Again, fentanyl is, of course, the deadliest of the drugs. About two thirds of the overdose deaths in America are currently because of fentanyl. We now have a record level of overdose deaths every year in America, over 100,000 last year. There is no reason to believe that it will be less than that this year based on early data we have, sadly. In my home State of Ohio, it is the No. 1 killer by far. Look at what has happened with the seizures of fentanyl. This is the fentanyl that has been seized. Here are projections for the rest of this year if they continue as they are--obviously, record levels. When you have this huge surge of fentanyl coming in, what happens is you have a lower cost in the drug--supply and demand, right? So there is a huge supply, and the demand for these drugs continues. On the streets of Columbus or Cleveland or Cincinnati or Dayton or your town, wherever it is, it is likely that this cheap but really deadly fentanyl is something that people are being exposed to. Some people are falling prey to it, again, often thinking they are taking another drug. There are a couple of students at Ohio State University who overdosed and died just before I gave a talk there at graduation earlier this spring. They were taking what they thought were study drugs, apparently: Adderall. A third student lived, but was in critical condition. This is the deadliest of drugs. In 2021, we seized double the fentanyl from the previous year, four times from the year before that. Again, so far this year, we are on track to match the most fentanyl seized ever. In May--just 1 month, in May--there was enough fentanyl seized at the border to kill 200 million Americans, more than half of our population in 1 month. People say: Well, gosh, why are you so worried about the border? Let people come across--open border--whatever. Here is the consequence. Again, it is hurting Mexico, too, and it is hurting lots of other countries. But in terms of Mexico, this gives the cartels enormous power and money. And, yes, ultimately, I think the most important thing to do is to reduce demand. I do. Again, we are making progress now. We had about a 20-percent reduction in 2018. We need to get back to that. This Congress took the lead on much of this. But we also have to deal with the supply side and stop this enormous surge of drugs that is coming over and poisoning our communities. That is part of what is happening on the border. A few months ago, I was in Nogales, south of Tucson, to ride with the Border Patrol and go to the port of entry there. They are doing a very good job with what they have, but they need better equipment. This is one thing Congress can do. They need help. They need more resources. They need better technology. They need to be able to scan cars and trucks that are coming in, particularly for these drugs that we talked about. A relatively small package of fentanyl this size can kill 1,000 people. A few specks could kill you. It is easy to hide it in a car or a truck. We now know that less than 2 percent of passenger vehicles and less than 20 percent of commercial vehicles coming into the United States are scanned for these illegal drugs like fentanyl. This is just unacceptable. Congress has appropriated more funding for this. That is good. Let's get it moving. We should be scanning all vehicles, in my view. A smuggler with multiple pounds of fentanyl concealed in a hidden compartment might be worth hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. They know they have a good chance of getting across without a search. They take the risk. It is not just a gap in our security; it is a gaping hole. And, again, it leads to this flood of cheap fentanyl and other dangerous drugs. The southern border has faced the worst unlawful crisis that we have ever had, going back to the first chart. This tells the story, in red. The men and women of the Customs and Border Protection whom I have met over the years are doing the best they can. They are doing their best at the ports of entry. They are doing their best as Border Patrol between the ports of entry, but they need help. That is what legislation does. It provides them with the help they need to be able to respond to this crisis. We welcome legal immigration. We always should. They enrich our country. And we are a nation of immigrants, and we are proud of that. But we are also a nation of laws, and we are also a nation that cares about the inhumanity of the current system and the flood of cheap, deadly drugs coming through our border. I urge the Biden administration to change course, to fix this broken system, to follow the law, including the law on detaining people, to reform the asylum process so it stops acting like a pull factor and is used for what it is intended for, to truly help those who are seeking asylum for the right reasons, to stop these policies that send a green light to the smugglers, to the cartels, to the drug traffickers, and that is causing so much human suffering along our southern border. I urge the administration to act. In the meantime, again, we are introducing legislation. I urge my colleagues to help us with that. There is no reason that we can't work in a bipartisan way to deal with what everybody has to acknowledge is a huge crisis at our southern border. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3280-2 | null | 4,707 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am on the floor today to talk about border security--a humanitarian, a national security, a community safety issue with direct connection to the drug epidemic we see in communities all around the country, including my home State of Ohio. I am also here to talk about legislation I introduced today with Senator Jim Risch to address this crisis. So we are in the middle right now of what is the biggest border crisis in the history of our country if you measure it by the number of people who are coming to the border unlawfully and, as the Biden administration says, people who are encountering the Border Patrol. The Biden administration claims that they have the border under control and that they are--and I am quoting--doing a good job. This chart, though, tells a really different story. It shows that as of May, which is the last month that we have records for, we had the highest number of border encounters on record. The second highest, by the way, was the month before: April. So you see this goes back to 2019. There was a surge here--144,000. Here, we have the inauguration of President Biden, and then we have had big increases--again, to the point that over the last couple of months, we have had record numbers of people who have come unlawfully to the border and been stopped by, apprehended by, the Border Patrol. This includes 239,000 total encounters at the border in the month of May--165,000 of which were single, adult migrants. This does not include those who were not encountered--in other words, those who slipped past the Border Patrol. We haven't been able to find a precise number for these individuals. The Border Patrol calls this group of people got-aways. But using a conservative estimate from the Border Patrol of 300,000 people who they think got away in the last fiscal year, you would then put the total number of unlawful entries at approximately 286,000 people in 1 month. If you annualize that, that would be 3.4 million people a year. Think about those numbers: almost 3\1/2\ million people a year coming to our border and attempting to gain entry unlawfully. Today, not all of those who are apprehended are allowed to come into the United States, and that is because under so-called title 42, roughly half of those individuals who are being apprehended, who are being encountered, are turned back. If they live in Mexico, they are sent back across the border. If they live in a country--say Ecuador or Guatemala--they are sent back, flown back to their country of origin. But these are people who are being turned away because of title 42. So what is title 42? It is a public health authority. It is an attempt by our government to limit migration in order to prevent the spread of communicable diseases--in this case, COVID-19. It allows the Customs and Border Protection officers and agents to tell unlawful migrants: You can't come to the United States for these public health reasons. It only applies, by the way, now to single adults; but, as I said earlier, that is the single biggest group. It comprises about 48 to 52 percent--about half--of the people who are coming up to the border. So even with the use of title 42, which is acting to discourage people from coming to our border, we are experiencing these record levels. We are also experiencing these record levels in these hot summer months. Normally, when you get into the summertime where it gets really hot--look here at May, June, July, August--the number of people coming to the border goes down, not up. It is over 100 degrees in the desert and at the Rio Grande, at almost all of these border crossings along the U.S.-Mexican border. Yet we have more, not less. There is anecdotal information that this is because people are realizing that the administration wants to end title 42. They have proposed to do that. That is now in the court system. But the cartels are spreading the message, which is: Now is the time to come because, before, you were turned away by title 42. Now, like everybody else, you can come into the United States and stay. And we will talk in a moment about what that means. But I think that is probably true. Probably title 42 has something to do with it. But I think, also, it has to do with the fact that more and more people are realizing that if they do come to the border and don't get stopped by title 42, they will have a chance to come into the United States and live in the United States with their families, perhaps; if not, maybe bring in their families later. And everybody wants to come to America. We are a great country. We have our challenges, as we talk about on the floor here all the time. But, still, we are a country with so many opportunities for people, and folks want to come. And I don't blame them. I don't blame them. But we want them to come legally. And we currently have the most generous legal immigration system of any country in the world. About 900,000 people a year--almost a million people a year--come legally to the United States, most as legal immigrants, some as refugees. And so we encourage that, and we should. In fact, I think we should bring more people in legally, particularly to fillsome of the jobs that we need filled, the STEM disciplines we talk about a lot. We need people with the kind of training and background to help our economy grow. But we need people at every level of training. But we want them to come legally and through an orderly process that is more humane, that doesn't have all the issues--which we will talk about tonight--the humanitarian issues at the southern border. In terms of title 42, we all hope that this public health emergency isn't necessary going forward because COVID-19 ends. But in the meantime, this border crisis means, to me, that we have to keep title 42 in place until we make some changes in policy. Otherwise, it will be not just a crisis. It will be totally overwhelming. As the Border Patrol says to me, they will lose operational control of the border. Some would argue that has already happened because so many people are coming over at record numbers. Often, the Border Patrol is distracted by one group of migrants, and another group comes in. And I saw this when I was at the border in El Paso. And anybody who has been down at the border has seen this. They are already in tough shape. But imagine if 48 percent of the people here who are now being turned away by title 42 are not going to be turned away and the number of other people who will come knowing that that avenue is now open to them. This will be overwhelming. It is very difficult right now, with the laws and the way the laws are being implemented, to keep that from happening. That is why we need a change in policy. It doesn't have to happen here in Congress. I think we should change the laws and introduce legislation today to do that. But the administration itself could make these changes. By the way, in the last administration, as you can see, the number of people coming across the border unlawfully and the number of encounters was very low. But the same was true in the Obama administration. After they had a surge of unaccompanied minors, they made changes in the law, and they reduced the number of people who were coming unlawfully to the border as well. It can be done, but there has to be the will do it. I am the ranking Republican on the Senate committee that has oversight responsibility for the Department of Homeland Security. The Presiding Officer is also on that committee. This Department of Homeland Security is preparing, they tell us, for a huge increase in migrants after title 42 has ended. So although they want to end it, they also know that if they do end it, there is going to be a huge surge because they are actually preparing for that. The way they are doing it is interesting. It is not so much keeping people from coming into the United States as expediting their flow into the United States. Among other things, instead of processing people at the border, their recommendation is go ahead and put people on buses or other forms of transportation and then do the processing later, perhaps on the buses or where they are going in the United States. So it is a way to move people through the process rather than come up with a way to discourage people from coming across the border illegally. DHS has planned, and then will facilitate, travel throughout the country rather than figuring out how to keep people from coming in the first place by telling them: Come legally, but please don't come to our border illegally. By the way, I think most Americans are very supportive of legal immigration. It is an important part of who we are. With very few exceptions of Native Americans, we all came from someplace else. All of us have proud stories of our immigrant forebearers--our parents, our grandparents, our great-grandparents. And it has enriched our country. It is part of the fabric of our Nation. It is what makes us special. But that is legal immigration. And it is not what we are talking about here. Who bears the brunt of this crisis? Well, at the outset, of course, it is the Border Patrol. We have got to provide them with the personnel and resources they need to complete their mission, as difficult as it is. When you go and meet with these people, the men and women of the Border Patrol, you come away just so proud of what they try to do every day. They are a combination of, you know, border agents trying to enforce the law, social workers trying to help people with their problems, healthcare workers trying to help when people get hurt. Unfortunately, as we have seen, a lot of people are getting hurt in this process. That journey north is a dangerous journey. And with the cartels so involved and right there at the border, what happens in the desert, what happens on these trains, what happens in these trucks--we just saw this horrible incident of these migrants who were jammed into a semitruck, and more of them died, I think, than any other accident of that kind, incident of that kind, in our history. But this is inhumane, and this is part of what happens when you have these cartels involved in this process. We also have got to provide the Border Patrol with the ability to help control things at the border by finishing the border fence and putting the technology with the fence that was always intended. By the way, the technology tends not to be very partisan around here. Democrats and Republicans alike, I believe, mostly think we ought to have cameras. We ought to have sensors. We ought to know what is going on at the border. But when the order came down the first day of the Biden administration to stop the wall and to end what the Trump administration had started with Congress's approval and funding, they also said, Stop the technology. So in the El Paso sector, as an example, the wall is about 80, 90 percent completed. Unfortunately, there are gaps in the wall where you literally have to have Border Patrol there 24 hours a day or people just come through it, which makes their job really hard. What they want to do is at least have the wall there to slow people down. And the technology there enables them to then go and deal with situations as they occur. But only 20 percent of the technology had been completed. So you have more wall than you have technology. And the wall is not that useful, frankly, without the technology, in my view. I think the technology is the key. But that is what is happening. And, by the way, to the taxpayers listening tonight, which is pretty much all of us, we paid for that wall. We actually paid for the fencing to be put up. Congress appropriated the money. And then the administration stopped it. So you literally see the steel beams and the pieces of concrete for the wall lying on the ground. And as one Border Patrol agent told me when I was in one of the sectors--most recently I was in the Nogales sector where there is a huge gap--he said, this is really bad for morale. And our Border Patrol agents look at this stuff, and they say: We have already paid for this. Can't we just finish the wall and put these fences up, the gates up, to keep these openings from attracting the cartels and the drug smugglers and the people smugglers? But that is where we are. So that is one thing our legislation does, is to correct that problem and help stop this crisis. It also says that title 42--we talked about earlier--won't be lifted until the COVID-19 emergency is over. Again, I think it ought to be lifted when we have policies in place that make sense. But a lot more is needed. The bill also mandates that the program the Biden administration ended, which said that as you come to ask for asylum, you should wait at the border--it is called the migrant protocols. There was just an agreement with the President of Mexico and President Biden a couple of days ago about more funding for the border area--and that is good--to provide more humane living conditions. But this was working to tell people, if you want to come for asylum, go ahead and apply. And while you are waiting for asylum, you can remain in Mexico. And if you get asylum, you come across. If you don't, you go home. What happened is, a lot of people just went home. The asylum process, which we will get into in a minute, is kind of a complicated issue. But in other ways, it is pretty simple, and it is the main reason for this, which is that people know if they come to the border and they claim asylum, which most people do, they have an immediate, what is called, credible fear interview. Sometimes, it is over the telephone now,partly because of COVID. And that is a very low bar. And so people say what their issue is back home where they feel persecuted, and then they come in. And once they are told to come in, then they are told: OK, you can go to wherever you are going in America--let's say Cincinnati, my hometown, or Columbus or Chicago or Denver, wherever it is--and you need to check in with the ICE office--that is the immigration office in the interior of the United States--within 90 days. Some people do check in. Some people don't check in. But the point is, there is now a wait of somewhere between 6 to 8 years before your case is heard on asylum--6 to 8 years. Why? Because there are 1.5 million--someone told me today 1.6 million; let's say 1.5 million people, that is high enough--waiting in line. That is what the backlog is. It just makes no sense to anybody, including, by the way, the Secretary of Homeland Security, whom I have talked to about this. And these long waits mean that you are there embedded in a community in America getting to know your community. You are joining your church. You are sending your kids to school. You are having children. You are part of the community. And then you are told after 6 to 8 years, by the way, your asylum application is being denied because you are an economic refugee, not an asylee. In other words, you haven't demonstrated a fear of persecution. You have come to this country, understandably, because there is great opportunity here. Again, we should be encouraging these people to come legally like so many other immigrants have over the years. Only about 15 to 20 percent of those people who apply for asylum today are getting asylum. So think about it. If you are part of the 80 to 85 percent who are not going to get asylum, there is sometimes not much of an incentive to enter into this process and go through the hearings and so on. The consequence if you don't go through the hearings is that you are then subject to removal. However, we are just not removing people today. So this past year, the latest numbers we have are that 59,000 people were deported, or removed, from America. About 66 percent of those people had a criminal background. But, remember, this is out of a couple hundred thousand people going through the process. So there is a very small chance that you will ever be removed or deported. Even though you went through the process, you were denied asylum. You stay in the United States. And, you know, the next administration could change that. This administration could change that. But right now, this asylum process, which was created to give lawful presence to people who were unable to be in their home country because of persecution, is not being used properly. It is being exploited by people who know that because of our system and our huge backlog, if they say that they are part of a group that is being persecuted they can come in. And even when they are denied asylum, they can stay. That is the way it is working. What we have found is that folks who come here are almost entirely focused more on the economic side. There was a survey conducted by the Migration Policy Institute recently, which, by the way, is a pro-migrant institution. It found that 90 percent of the Central Americans making the journey to our southern border are coming for what? For work. They are coming for work because they come from poor countries. They don't have a lot of opportunity in their country. I don't blame them. If I was a father living in Honduras and couldn't find a job or I was a subsistence farmer just barely making it and I had a few kids and I wanted them to have a better life, I would come, too. But that is not what immigration is all about. It is a system where you come legally, yes. But if you come illegally, you have got to be told you have to go back and apply like everybody else. Otherwise, America would be overwhelmed. And it is being overwhelmed and will be even more overwhelmed if title 42 is taken away. There are hundreds of millions of people--maybe billions of people--around the world who would love to come to this country. We take for granted our opportunities, our freedoms; but others don't. So we have to have a system. We have to have some sort of a border. And, really, that is the question that is before us today in this body: Are we going to have a system that makes sense or one where, again, you have a million and a half people who are waiting to have their hearing. When they have their hearing on asylum and they are denied, they still aren't removed; so they can stay. And, again, meanwhile, they have family and kids and connections to the community. It is really not fair to them. A much better system would be to say, OK, apply for asylum in your country, or if you don't feel comfortable there, apply from a third country. Then you will know, yes or no, before you come up to the border, don't make that dangerous journey north. Don't put yourself in the clutches of these coyotes, these human smugglers, these traffickers, who are heartless. What they are doing is they are going down to Central America or Latin America or really all over the world. People are coming from hundreds of countries now. And they are saying, you know, give me money. Give me 10,000 bucks, and I will get you to the border, and you can just walk across. People are signing up--sometimes with their life savings. And sometimes as, again, we talked about earlier, there are assaults along the way. There are all kinds of horrible stories of how women, particularly, are mistreated on the way up. It is a dangerous and inhumane process. At the end of the day, our system is pulling these people to the border. The administration is now implementing a new asylum rule recently to try to deal with this problem because they realize it is just not working. However, the new system that they are putting in place isn't working either, and there is a reason for that. Their theory is we should adjudicate the cases at the border. I agree with that. I would rather adjudicate them outside the border in the country of origin or a third country, but have the adjudication be right at the border; make the decision right there, yes or no. Let people know. The problem is what they are doing right now is they are putting asylum officers at the border, making a decision, adjudicating as people come across. And if it is a no, people are not being sent home. But rather, people are being told if it is a no, you can appeal it to the regular system, so get back in line with the 1.5 million people. What we are learning is that, of course, people are smart. They are talking to the asylum officer. They are getting a yes or no. If they are getting a yes, that is great; they are getting in. That is a small percentage. If they are getting a no, they say, That is fine, I am going to appeal it to the regular system. It really isn't an answer to the problem. If you want an answer to the problem, what you would have is processing centers along the border. It would be expensive because there are so many people coming over now, so many people applying for asylum. But have a process where, quickly, you can adjudicate these cases. In the meantime, you would not have people be released into the interior but have them stay there to find out what the outcome of the case is. This pull system is bad for everybody except the smugglers. They are the ones who profit. They are the ones who are going to folks in places like Honduras or Ecuador or, again, far-flung places--places in Eastern Europe, places in Asia--and telling people, Give me a bunch of money, and I will get you into the United States. We recently had this tragedy I mentioned in San Antonio. Fifty-three migrants were left for dead in the Texas heat in the back of a tractor-trailer. They were just abandoned by their smuggler. They left them locked inside of this tractor-trailer. It is not the first time this has happened. But as I said earlier, 53 is probably the worst smuggling tragedy in our history. I went to Latin America last year. I met with the Presidents of Mexico and Guatemala, Ecuador, and Colombia. It was interesting. They all said the same thing. You would be surprised to hear what they said. People think they must enjoy this process because so many of their citizens are going to America, they can then send money back to their family and it must be good for everybody. It is not. They are losing some of the best and brightest in their country, and thesepeople are going through, again, this arduous process to get to the border, and the inhumanity of that troubles these Presidents. They all told me basically the same thing, which is: Why don't you guys fix your laws and stop this pull factor? We talk about the push factor in poor countries. I mentioned Honduras earlier. That is certainly true. By the way, we spent over the last 5 years about $3.6 billion of American taxpayer money to help in the economics of the so-called Northern Triangle in the Central American countries. I am for spending money in these countries to try to help with their economy, but with the corruption, with all the issues they have, it is very difficult to imagine those countries in a short period of time having any kind of economic opportunity that equals what we have right here in this country, so there is going to continue to be that push. We should try to alleviate it. It will continue to happen. But the pull, this policy we have is just pulling people north. What they said to me, these Presidents of these countries, was: You have a legal immigration system where people know they can just get into your country. Why don't you change that? Why don't you change that? Again, it is not just people from Mexico and Central America. It is people from all over the world. By the way, for some of these people, the Border Patrol is increasingly concerned because they come from countries where a lot of people want to do us harm. So, increasingly, we are seeing people coming to our country who are, as an example, on the terror watch list. Back in 2017, 2 people; 6 people in 2018; none in 2019; 2020, there were 3; 15 in 2021. This fiscal year, 2022, there are already 50 individuals on the terror watch list. Why? They know if they come to the U.S. border, they can get across. I am sure this number is higher--that is what we know--because, again, a lot of people are so-called got aways. Let's say 20 percent. Who are these people? Well, some of them are probably pretty smart individuals who know how to get away from Border Patrol, do the distraction and sneak in. That worries me and it worries me because we are allowing people to come into our country who we would not otherwise allow. We have seen this increase of people coming into the country who are on the terror watch list, but we have also seen, again, a lot of people coming in who we just don't know anything about because they don't count them at the Border Patrol. We have seen more caravans and we see more migrants are on the way. Why? I think it is because of this general pull factor. The fact is people know, if they come here, they know they are going to be able to get in. I think it is also because of title 42 because the smugglers are using that--cartels are spreading the word: Title 42 is on its way out. Read about it in the front page of your paper because that is where it is because this administration wants to end it, so they are saying now you can go to the border and you will be let in under the policies like the asylum policy and the single adults--48 percent of whom roughly have been turned away. Forty-eight percent of the total by title 42 would no longer be turned away. I think that is why we are seeing this. It is giving the coyotes, traffickers, and smugglers opportunity to make lots of money. By the way, that is hurting all these countries, too. If you talk to the Presidents of these countries, including President Obrador of Mexico, what he will tell you is the cartels are taking over more and more of his country because they are making more and more money because of this--and, significantly, because of the drug issue we are going to talk about in a second. We know that the cartels are involved in human trafficking. We know they are involved in drug smuggling. We know they are involved in smuggling people. I was with the Border Patrol in El Paso last year. We were out at night. We saw a group of migrants coming, and the Border Patrol was going to that location to stop them and question them. Meanwhile, we heard on the radio the drug smugglers had come across. They could see it. They knew it. They could tell by the backpacks they were wearing, I guess, and clothes they were wearing--dark clothes, young men--that they were smuggling. But they couldn't do anything about it because Border Patrol were processing the migrants who had come in. So I am watching the migrants coming in--actually talking to some of them and Border Patrol--and meanwhile, on the radio, they are saying, You have to go to this other sector, this other area to stop these drug smugglers. We can't; we are distracted. The processing takes some time. The other big issue, in addition to the unlawful entry into the United States--smuggling, all the inhumanity that surrounds that--is this drug issue. I have spent a lot of time working on this issue on the prevention side--helping on treatment and recovery options and doing more on prevention. We were making some progress until, unfortunately, we were hit with this pandemic. And during that time and since, drug use has gone up again. But we were making progress, in part, because we were helping on the demand side of the equation. But also on the supply side, we were keeping some of these drugs out of the country. We did it primarily through stopping the deadliest of all, which is the fentanyl--which is a synthetic opioid--from coming in through the U.S. mail system. We passed a law called the STOP Act. It kept China from poisoning our communities by sending this stuff through the mail system, which was happening. That was the primary way it was coming in. What has happened? During the pandemic--kind of coincidental with the pandemic--we had more people isolated, more people losing their jobs, more people turning to drugs. You had Mexico begin to take the central role in terms of fentanyl. A lot of it is precursors from China, so China sends the precursors to Mexico, but Mexico is now making the fentanyl--often into pills--Xanax or Adderall or Percocet. If you buy any drugs on the street, know that those drugs could kill you. Don't be fooled. There are so many counterfeit drugs out there now. That is one of the preferred ways that the Mexican cartels are bringing these drugs in. Again, fentanyl is, of course, the deadliest of the drugs. About two thirds of the overdose deaths in America are currently because of fentanyl. We now have a record level of overdose deaths every year in America, over 100,000 last year. There is no reason to believe that it will be less than that this year based on early data we have, sadly. In my home State of Ohio, it is the No. 1 killer by far. Look at what has happened with the seizures of fentanyl. This is the fentanyl that has been seized. Here are projections for the rest of this year if they continue as they are--obviously, record levels. When you have this huge surge of fentanyl coming in, what happens is you have a lower cost in the drug--supply and demand, right? So there is a huge supply, and the demand for these drugs continues. On the streets of Columbus or Cleveland or Cincinnati or Dayton or your town, wherever it is, it is likely that this cheap but really deadly fentanyl is something that people are being exposed to. Some people are falling prey to it, again, often thinking they are taking another drug. There are a couple of students at Ohio State University who overdosed and died just before I gave a talk there at graduation earlier this spring. They were taking what they thought were study drugs, apparently: Adderall. A third student lived, but was in critical condition. This is the deadliest of drugs. In 2021, we seized double the fentanyl from the previous year, four times from the year before that. Again, so far this year, we are on track to match the most fentanyl seized ever. In May--just 1 month, in May--there was enough fentanyl seized at the border to kill 200 million Americans, more than half of our population in 1 month. People say: Well, gosh, why are you so worried about the border? Let people come across--open border--whatever. Here is the consequence. Again, it is hurting Mexico, too, and it is hurting lots of other countries. But in terms of Mexico, this gives the cartels enormous power and money. And, yes, ultimately, I think the most important thing to do is to reduce demand. I do. Again, we are making progress now. We had about a 20-percent reduction in 2018. We need to get back to that. This Congress took the lead on much of this. But we also have to deal with the supply side and stop this enormous surge of drugs that is coming over and poisoning our communities. That is part of what is happening on the border. A few months ago, I was in Nogales, south of Tucson, to ride with the Border Patrol and go to the port of entry there. They are doing a very good job with what they have, but they need better equipment. This is one thing Congress can do. They need help. They need more resources. They need better technology. They need to be able to scan cars and trucks that are coming in, particularly for these drugs that we talked about. A relatively small package of fentanyl this size can kill 1,000 people. A few specks could kill you. It is easy to hide it in a car or a truck. We now know that less than 2 percent of passenger vehicles and less than 20 percent of commercial vehicles coming into the United States are scanned for these illegal drugs like fentanyl. This is just unacceptable. Congress has appropriated more funding for this. That is good. Let's get it moving. We should be scanning all vehicles, in my view. A smuggler with multiple pounds of fentanyl concealed in a hidden compartment might be worth hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. They know they have a good chance of getting across without a search. They take the risk. It is not just a gap in our security; it is a gaping hole. And, again, it leads to this flood of cheap fentanyl and other dangerous drugs. The southern border has faced the worst unlawful crisis that we have ever had, going back to the first chart. This tells the story, in red. The men and women of the Customs and Border Protection whom I have met over the years are doing the best they can. They are doing their best at the ports of entry. They are doing their best as Border Patrol between the ports of entry, but they need help. That is what legislation does. It provides them with the help they need to be able to respond to this crisis. We welcome legal immigration. We always should. They enrich our country. And we are a nation of immigrants, and we are proud of that. But we are also a nation of laws, and we are also a nation that cares about the inhumanity of the current system and the flood of cheap, deadly drugs coming through our border. I urge the Biden administration to change course, to fix this broken system, to follow the law, including the law on detaining people, to reform the asylum process so it stops acting like a pull factor and is used for what it is intended for, to truly help those who are seeking asylum for the right reasons, to stop these policies that send a green light to the smugglers, to the cartels, to the drug traffickers, and that is causing so much human suffering along our southern border. I urge the administration to act. In the meantime, again, we are introducing legislation. I urge my colleagues to help us with that. There is no reason that we can't work in a bipartisan way to deal with what everybody has to acknowledge is a huge crisis at our southern border. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3280-2 | null | 4,708 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am on the floor today to talk about border security--a humanitarian, a national security, a community safety issue with direct connection to the drug epidemic we see in communities all around the country, including my home State of Ohio. I am also here to talk about legislation I introduced today with Senator Jim Risch to address this crisis. So we are in the middle right now of what is the biggest border crisis in the history of our country if you measure it by the number of people who are coming to the border unlawfully and, as the Biden administration says, people who are encountering the Border Patrol. The Biden administration claims that they have the border under control and that they are--and I am quoting--doing a good job. This chart, though, tells a really different story. It shows that as of May, which is the last month that we have records for, we had the highest number of border encounters on record. The second highest, by the way, was the month before: April. So you see this goes back to 2019. There was a surge here--144,000. Here, we have the inauguration of President Biden, and then we have had big increases--again, to the point that over the last couple of months, we have had record numbers of people who have come unlawfully to the border and been stopped by, apprehended by, the Border Patrol. This includes 239,000 total encounters at the border in the month of May--165,000 of which were single, adult migrants. This does not include those who were not encountered--in other words, those who slipped past the Border Patrol. We haven't been able to find a precise number for these individuals. The Border Patrol calls this group of people got-aways. But using a conservative estimate from the Border Patrol of 300,000 people who they think got away in the last fiscal year, you would then put the total number of unlawful entries at approximately 286,000 people in 1 month. If you annualize that, that would be 3.4 million people a year. Think about those numbers: almost 3\1/2\ million people a year coming to our border and attempting to gain entry unlawfully. Today, not all of those who are apprehended are allowed to come into the United States, and that is because under so-called title 42, roughly half of those individuals who are being apprehended, who are being encountered, are turned back. If they live in Mexico, they are sent back across the border. If they live in a country--say Ecuador or Guatemala--they are sent back, flown back to their country of origin. But these are people who are being turned away because of title 42. So what is title 42? It is a public health authority. It is an attempt by our government to limit migration in order to prevent the spread of communicable diseases--in this case, COVID-19. It allows the Customs and Border Protection officers and agents to tell unlawful migrants: You can't come to the United States for these public health reasons. It only applies, by the way, now to single adults; but, as I said earlier, that is the single biggest group. It comprises about 48 to 52 percent--about half--of the people who are coming up to the border. So even with the use of title 42, which is acting to discourage people from coming to our border, we are experiencing these record levels. We are also experiencing these record levels in these hot summer months. Normally, when you get into the summertime where it gets really hot--look here at May, June, July, August--the number of people coming to the border goes down, not up. It is over 100 degrees in the desert and at the Rio Grande, at almost all of these border crossings along the U.S.-Mexican border. Yet we have more, not less. There is anecdotal information that this is because people are realizing that the administration wants to end title 42. They have proposed to do that. That is now in the court system. But the cartels are spreading the message, which is: Now is the time to come because, before, you were turned away by title 42. Now, like everybody else, you can come into the United States and stay. And we will talk in a moment about what that means. But I think that is probably true. Probably title 42 has something to do with it. But I think, also, it has to do with the fact that more and more people are realizing that if they do come to the border and don't get stopped by title 42, they will have a chance to come into the United States and live in the United States with their families, perhaps; if not, maybe bring in their families later. And everybody wants to come to America. We are a great country. We have our challenges, as we talk about on the floor here all the time. But, still, we are a country with so many opportunities for people, and folks want to come. And I don't blame them. I don't blame them. But we want them to come legally. And we currently have the most generous legal immigration system of any country in the world. About 900,000 people a year--almost a million people a year--come legally to the United States, most as legal immigrants, some as refugees. And so we encourage that, and we should. In fact, I think we should bring more people in legally, particularly to fillsome of the jobs that we need filled, the STEM disciplines we talk about a lot. We need people with the kind of training and background to help our economy grow. But we need people at every level of training. But we want them to come legally and through an orderly process that is more humane, that doesn't have all the issues--which we will talk about tonight--the humanitarian issues at the southern border. In terms of title 42, we all hope that this public health emergency isn't necessary going forward because COVID-19 ends. But in the meantime, this border crisis means, to me, that we have to keep title 42 in place until we make some changes in policy. Otherwise, it will be not just a crisis. It will be totally overwhelming. As the Border Patrol says to me, they will lose operational control of the border. Some would argue that has already happened because so many people are coming over at record numbers. Often, the Border Patrol is distracted by one group of migrants, and another group comes in. And I saw this when I was at the border in El Paso. And anybody who has been down at the border has seen this. They are already in tough shape. But imagine if 48 percent of the people here who are now being turned away by title 42 are not going to be turned away and the number of other people who will come knowing that that avenue is now open to them. This will be overwhelming. It is very difficult right now, with the laws and the way the laws are being implemented, to keep that from happening. That is why we need a change in policy. It doesn't have to happen here in Congress. I think we should change the laws and introduce legislation today to do that. But the administration itself could make these changes. By the way, in the last administration, as you can see, the number of people coming across the border unlawfully and the number of encounters was very low. But the same was true in the Obama administration. After they had a surge of unaccompanied minors, they made changes in the law, and they reduced the number of people who were coming unlawfully to the border as well. It can be done, but there has to be the will do it. I am the ranking Republican on the Senate committee that has oversight responsibility for the Department of Homeland Security. The Presiding Officer is also on that committee. This Department of Homeland Security is preparing, they tell us, for a huge increase in migrants after title 42 has ended. So although they want to end it, they also know that if they do end it, there is going to be a huge surge because they are actually preparing for that. The way they are doing it is interesting. It is not so much keeping people from coming into the United States as expediting their flow into the United States. Among other things, instead of processing people at the border, their recommendation is go ahead and put people on buses or other forms of transportation and then do the processing later, perhaps on the buses or where they are going in the United States. So it is a way to move people through the process rather than come up with a way to discourage people from coming across the border illegally. DHS has planned, and then will facilitate, travel throughout the country rather than figuring out how to keep people from coming in the first place by telling them: Come legally, but please don't come to our border illegally. By the way, I think most Americans are very supportive of legal immigration. It is an important part of who we are. With very few exceptions of Native Americans, we all came from someplace else. All of us have proud stories of our immigrant forebearers--our parents, our grandparents, our great-grandparents. And it has enriched our country. It is part of the fabric of our Nation. It is what makes us special. But that is legal immigration. And it is not what we are talking about here. Who bears the brunt of this crisis? Well, at the outset, of course, it is the Border Patrol. We have got to provide them with the personnel and resources they need to complete their mission, as difficult as it is. When you go and meet with these people, the men and women of the Border Patrol, you come away just so proud of what they try to do every day. They are a combination of, you know, border agents trying to enforce the law, social workers trying to help people with their problems, healthcare workers trying to help when people get hurt. Unfortunately, as we have seen, a lot of people are getting hurt in this process. That journey north is a dangerous journey. And with the cartels so involved and right there at the border, what happens in the desert, what happens on these trains, what happens in these trucks--we just saw this horrible incident of these migrants who were jammed into a semitruck, and more of them died, I think, than any other accident of that kind, incident of that kind, in our history. But this is inhumane, and this is part of what happens when you have these cartels involved in this process. We also have got to provide the Border Patrol with the ability to help control things at the border by finishing the border fence and putting the technology with the fence that was always intended. By the way, the technology tends not to be very partisan around here. Democrats and Republicans alike, I believe, mostly think we ought to have cameras. We ought to have sensors. We ought to know what is going on at the border. But when the order came down the first day of the Biden administration to stop the wall and to end what the Trump administration had started with Congress's approval and funding, they also said, Stop the technology. So in the El Paso sector, as an example, the wall is about 80, 90 percent completed. Unfortunately, there are gaps in the wall where you literally have to have Border Patrol there 24 hours a day or people just come through it, which makes their job really hard. What they want to do is at least have the wall there to slow people down. And the technology there enables them to then go and deal with situations as they occur. But only 20 percent of the technology had been completed. So you have more wall than you have technology. And the wall is not that useful, frankly, without the technology, in my view. I think the technology is the key. But that is what is happening. And, by the way, to the taxpayers listening tonight, which is pretty much all of us, we paid for that wall. We actually paid for the fencing to be put up. Congress appropriated the money. And then the administration stopped it. So you literally see the steel beams and the pieces of concrete for the wall lying on the ground. And as one Border Patrol agent told me when I was in one of the sectors--most recently I was in the Nogales sector where there is a huge gap--he said, this is really bad for morale. And our Border Patrol agents look at this stuff, and they say: We have already paid for this. Can't we just finish the wall and put these fences up, the gates up, to keep these openings from attracting the cartels and the drug smugglers and the people smugglers? But that is where we are. So that is one thing our legislation does, is to correct that problem and help stop this crisis. It also says that title 42--we talked about earlier--won't be lifted until the COVID-19 emergency is over. Again, I think it ought to be lifted when we have policies in place that make sense. But a lot more is needed. The bill also mandates that the program the Biden administration ended, which said that as you come to ask for asylum, you should wait at the border--it is called the migrant protocols. There was just an agreement with the President of Mexico and President Biden a couple of days ago about more funding for the border area--and that is good--to provide more humane living conditions. But this was working to tell people, if you want to come for asylum, go ahead and apply. And while you are waiting for asylum, you can remain in Mexico. And if you get asylum, you come across. If you don't, you go home. What happened is, a lot of people just went home. The asylum process, which we will get into in a minute, is kind of a complicated issue. But in other ways, it is pretty simple, and it is the main reason for this, which is that people know if they come to the border and they claim asylum, which most people do, they have an immediate, what is called, credible fear interview. Sometimes, it is over the telephone now,partly because of COVID. And that is a very low bar. And so people say what their issue is back home where they feel persecuted, and then they come in. And once they are told to come in, then they are told: OK, you can go to wherever you are going in America--let's say Cincinnati, my hometown, or Columbus or Chicago or Denver, wherever it is--and you need to check in with the ICE office--that is the immigration office in the interior of the United States--within 90 days. Some people do check in. Some people don't check in. But the point is, there is now a wait of somewhere between 6 to 8 years before your case is heard on asylum--6 to 8 years. Why? Because there are 1.5 million--someone told me today 1.6 million; let's say 1.5 million people, that is high enough--waiting in line. That is what the backlog is. It just makes no sense to anybody, including, by the way, the Secretary of Homeland Security, whom I have talked to about this. And these long waits mean that you are there embedded in a community in America getting to know your community. You are joining your church. You are sending your kids to school. You are having children. You are part of the community. And then you are told after 6 to 8 years, by the way, your asylum application is being denied because you are an economic refugee, not an asylee. In other words, you haven't demonstrated a fear of persecution. You have come to this country, understandably, because there is great opportunity here. Again, we should be encouraging these people to come legally like so many other immigrants have over the years. Only about 15 to 20 percent of those people who apply for asylum today are getting asylum. So think about it. If you are part of the 80 to 85 percent who are not going to get asylum, there is sometimes not much of an incentive to enter into this process and go through the hearings and so on. The consequence if you don't go through the hearings is that you are then subject to removal. However, we are just not removing people today. So this past year, the latest numbers we have are that 59,000 people were deported, or removed, from America. About 66 percent of those people had a criminal background. But, remember, this is out of a couple hundred thousand people going through the process. So there is a very small chance that you will ever be removed or deported. Even though you went through the process, you were denied asylum. You stay in the United States. And, you know, the next administration could change that. This administration could change that. But right now, this asylum process, which was created to give lawful presence to people who were unable to be in their home country because of persecution, is not being used properly. It is being exploited by people who know that because of our system and our huge backlog, if they say that they are part of a group that is being persecuted they can come in. And even when they are denied asylum, they can stay. That is the way it is working. What we have found is that folks who come here are almost entirely focused more on the economic side. There was a survey conducted by the Migration Policy Institute recently, which, by the way, is a pro-migrant institution. It found that 90 percent of the Central Americans making the journey to our southern border are coming for what? For work. They are coming for work because they come from poor countries. They don't have a lot of opportunity in their country. I don't blame them. If I was a father living in Honduras and couldn't find a job or I was a subsistence farmer just barely making it and I had a few kids and I wanted them to have a better life, I would come, too. But that is not what immigration is all about. It is a system where you come legally, yes. But if you come illegally, you have got to be told you have to go back and apply like everybody else. Otherwise, America would be overwhelmed. And it is being overwhelmed and will be even more overwhelmed if title 42 is taken away. There are hundreds of millions of people--maybe billions of people--around the world who would love to come to this country. We take for granted our opportunities, our freedoms; but others don't. So we have to have a system. We have to have some sort of a border. And, really, that is the question that is before us today in this body: Are we going to have a system that makes sense or one where, again, you have a million and a half people who are waiting to have their hearing. When they have their hearing on asylum and they are denied, they still aren't removed; so they can stay. And, again, meanwhile, they have family and kids and connections to the community. It is really not fair to them. A much better system would be to say, OK, apply for asylum in your country, or if you don't feel comfortable there, apply from a third country. Then you will know, yes or no, before you come up to the border, don't make that dangerous journey north. Don't put yourself in the clutches of these coyotes, these human smugglers, these traffickers, who are heartless. What they are doing is they are going down to Central America or Latin America or really all over the world. People are coming from hundreds of countries now. And they are saying, you know, give me money. Give me 10,000 bucks, and I will get you to the border, and you can just walk across. People are signing up--sometimes with their life savings. And sometimes as, again, we talked about earlier, there are assaults along the way. There are all kinds of horrible stories of how women, particularly, are mistreated on the way up. It is a dangerous and inhumane process. At the end of the day, our system is pulling these people to the border. The administration is now implementing a new asylum rule recently to try to deal with this problem because they realize it is just not working. However, the new system that they are putting in place isn't working either, and there is a reason for that. Their theory is we should adjudicate the cases at the border. I agree with that. I would rather adjudicate them outside the border in the country of origin or a third country, but have the adjudication be right at the border; make the decision right there, yes or no. Let people know. The problem is what they are doing right now is they are putting asylum officers at the border, making a decision, adjudicating as people come across. And if it is a no, people are not being sent home. But rather, people are being told if it is a no, you can appeal it to the regular system, so get back in line with the 1.5 million people. What we are learning is that, of course, people are smart. They are talking to the asylum officer. They are getting a yes or no. If they are getting a yes, that is great; they are getting in. That is a small percentage. If they are getting a no, they say, That is fine, I am going to appeal it to the regular system. It really isn't an answer to the problem. If you want an answer to the problem, what you would have is processing centers along the border. It would be expensive because there are so many people coming over now, so many people applying for asylum. But have a process where, quickly, you can adjudicate these cases. In the meantime, you would not have people be released into the interior but have them stay there to find out what the outcome of the case is. This pull system is bad for everybody except the smugglers. They are the ones who profit. They are the ones who are going to folks in places like Honduras or Ecuador or, again, far-flung places--places in Eastern Europe, places in Asia--and telling people, Give me a bunch of money, and I will get you into the United States. We recently had this tragedy I mentioned in San Antonio. Fifty-three migrants were left for dead in the Texas heat in the back of a tractor-trailer. They were just abandoned by their smuggler. They left them locked inside of this tractor-trailer. It is not the first time this has happened. But as I said earlier, 53 is probably the worst smuggling tragedy in our history. I went to Latin America last year. I met with the Presidents of Mexico and Guatemala, Ecuador, and Colombia. It was interesting. They all said the same thing. You would be surprised to hear what they said. People think they must enjoy this process because so many of their citizens are going to America, they can then send money back to their family and it must be good for everybody. It is not. They are losing some of the best and brightest in their country, and thesepeople are going through, again, this arduous process to get to the border, and the inhumanity of that troubles these Presidents. They all told me basically the same thing, which is: Why don't you guys fix your laws and stop this pull factor? We talk about the push factor in poor countries. I mentioned Honduras earlier. That is certainly true. By the way, we spent over the last 5 years about $3.6 billion of American taxpayer money to help in the economics of the so-called Northern Triangle in the Central American countries. I am for spending money in these countries to try to help with their economy, but with the corruption, with all the issues they have, it is very difficult to imagine those countries in a short period of time having any kind of economic opportunity that equals what we have right here in this country, so there is going to continue to be that push. We should try to alleviate it. It will continue to happen. But the pull, this policy we have is just pulling people north. What they said to me, these Presidents of these countries, was: You have a legal immigration system where people know they can just get into your country. Why don't you change that? Why don't you change that? Again, it is not just people from Mexico and Central America. It is people from all over the world. By the way, for some of these people, the Border Patrol is increasingly concerned because they come from countries where a lot of people want to do us harm. So, increasingly, we are seeing people coming to our country who are, as an example, on the terror watch list. Back in 2017, 2 people; 6 people in 2018; none in 2019; 2020, there were 3; 15 in 2021. This fiscal year, 2022, there are already 50 individuals on the terror watch list. Why? They know if they come to the U.S. border, they can get across. I am sure this number is higher--that is what we know--because, again, a lot of people are so-called got aways. Let's say 20 percent. Who are these people? Well, some of them are probably pretty smart individuals who know how to get away from Border Patrol, do the distraction and sneak in. That worries me and it worries me because we are allowing people to come into our country who we would not otherwise allow. We have seen this increase of people coming into the country who are on the terror watch list, but we have also seen, again, a lot of people coming in who we just don't know anything about because they don't count them at the Border Patrol. We have seen more caravans and we see more migrants are on the way. Why? I think it is because of this general pull factor. The fact is people know, if they come here, they know they are going to be able to get in. I think it is also because of title 42 because the smugglers are using that--cartels are spreading the word: Title 42 is on its way out. Read about it in the front page of your paper because that is where it is because this administration wants to end it, so they are saying now you can go to the border and you will be let in under the policies like the asylum policy and the single adults--48 percent of whom roughly have been turned away. Forty-eight percent of the total by title 42 would no longer be turned away. I think that is why we are seeing this. It is giving the coyotes, traffickers, and smugglers opportunity to make lots of money. By the way, that is hurting all these countries, too. If you talk to the Presidents of these countries, including President Obrador of Mexico, what he will tell you is the cartels are taking over more and more of his country because they are making more and more money because of this--and, significantly, because of the drug issue we are going to talk about in a second. We know that the cartels are involved in human trafficking. We know they are involved in drug smuggling. We know they are involved in smuggling people. I was with the Border Patrol in El Paso last year. We were out at night. We saw a group of migrants coming, and the Border Patrol was going to that location to stop them and question them. Meanwhile, we heard on the radio the drug smugglers had come across. They could see it. They knew it. They could tell by the backpacks they were wearing, I guess, and clothes they were wearing--dark clothes, young men--that they were smuggling. But they couldn't do anything about it because Border Patrol were processing the migrants who had come in. So I am watching the migrants coming in--actually talking to some of them and Border Patrol--and meanwhile, on the radio, they are saying, You have to go to this other sector, this other area to stop these drug smugglers. We can't; we are distracted. The processing takes some time. The other big issue, in addition to the unlawful entry into the United States--smuggling, all the inhumanity that surrounds that--is this drug issue. I have spent a lot of time working on this issue on the prevention side--helping on treatment and recovery options and doing more on prevention. We were making some progress until, unfortunately, we were hit with this pandemic. And during that time and since, drug use has gone up again. But we were making progress, in part, because we were helping on the demand side of the equation. But also on the supply side, we were keeping some of these drugs out of the country. We did it primarily through stopping the deadliest of all, which is the fentanyl--which is a synthetic opioid--from coming in through the U.S. mail system. We passed a law called the STOP Act. It kept China from poisoning our communities by sending this stuff through the mail system, which was happening. That was the primary way it was coming in. What has happened? During the pandemic--kind of coincidental with the pandemic--we had more people isolated, more people losing their jobs, more people turning to drugs. You had Mexico begin to take the central role in terms of fentanyl. A lot of it is precursors from China, so China sends the precursors to Mexico, but Mexico is now making the fentanyl--often into pills--Xanax or Adderall or Percocet. If you buy any drugs on the street, know that those drugs could kill you. Don't be fooled. There are so many counterfeit drugs out there now. That is one of the preferred ways that the Mexican cartels are bringing these drugs in. Again, fentanyl is, of course, the deadliest of the drugs. About two thirds of the overdose deaths in America are currently because of fentanyl. We now have a record level of overdose deaths every year in America, over 100,000 last year. There is no reason to believe that it will be less than that this year based on early data we have, sadly. In my home State of Ohio, it is the No. 1 killer by far. Look at what has happened with the seizures of fentanyl. This is the fentanyl that has been seized. Here are projections for the rest of this year if they continue as they are--obviously, record levels. When you have this huge surge of fentanyl coming in, what happens is you have a lower cost in the drug--supply and demand, right? So there is a huge supply, and the demand for these drugs continues. On the streets of Columbus or Cleveland or Cincinnati or Dayton or your town, wherever it is, it is likely that this cheap but really deadly fentanyl is something that people are being exposed to. Some people are falling prey to it, again, often thinking they are taking another drug. There are a couple of students at Ohio State University who overdosed and died just before I gave a talk there at graduation earlier this spring. They were taking what they thought were study drugs, apparently: Adderall. A third student lived, but was in critical condition. This is the deadliest of drugs. In 2021, we seized double the fentanyl from the previous year, four times from the year before that. Again, so far this year, we are on track to match the most fentanyl seized ever. In May--just 1 month, in May--there was enough fentanyl seized at the border to kill 200 million Americans, more than half of our population in 1 month. People say: Well, gosh, why are you so worried about the border? Let people come across--open border--whatever. Here is the consequence. Again, it is hurting Mexico, too, and it is hurting lots of other countries. But in terms of Mexico, this gives the cartels enormous power and money. And, yes, ultimately, I think the most important thing to do is to reduce demand. I do. Again, we are making progress now. We had about a 20-percent reduction in 2018. We need to get back to that. This Congress took the lead on much of this. But we also have to deal with the supply side and stop this enormous surge of drugs that is coming over and poisoning our communities. That is part of what is happening on the border. A few months ago, I was in Nogales, south of Tucson, to ride with the Border Patrol and go to the port of entry there. They are doing a very good job with what they have, but they need better equipment. This is one thing Congress can do. They need help. They need more resources. They need better technology. They need to be able to scan cars and trucks that are coming in, particularly for these drugs that we talked about. A relatively small package of fentanyl this size can kill 1,000 people. A few specks could kill you. It is easy to hide it in a car or a truck. We now know that less than 2 percent of passenger vehicles and less than 20 percent of commercial vehicles coming into the United States are scanned for these illegal drugs like fentanyl. This is just unacceptable. Congress has appropriated more funding for this. That is good. Let's get it moving. We should be scanning all vehicles, in my view. A smuggler with multiple pounds of fentanyl concealed in a hidden compartment might be worth hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. They know they have a good chance of getting across without a search. They take the risk. It is not just a gap in our security; it is a gaping hole. And, again, it leads to this flood of cheap fentanyl and other dangerous drugs. The southern border has faced the worst unlawful crisis that we have ever had, going back to the first chart. This tells the story, in red. The men and women of the Customs and Border Protection whom I have met over the years are doing the best they can. They are doing their best at the ports of entry. They are doing their best as Border Patrol between the ports of entry, but they need help. That is what legislation does. It provides them with the help they need to be able to respond to this crisis. We welcome legal immigration. We always should. They enrich our country. And we are a nation of immigrants, and we are proud of that. But we are also a nation of laws, and we are also a nation that cares about the inhumanity of the current system and the flood of cheap, deadly drugs coming through our border. I urge the Biden administration to change course, to fix this broken system, to follow the law, including the law on detaining people, to reform the asylum process so it stops acting like a pull factor and is used for what it is intended for, to truly help those who are seeking asylum for the right reasons, to stop these policies that send a green light to the smugglers, to the cartels, to the drug traffickers, and that is causing so much human suffering along our southern border. I urge the administration to act. In the meantime, again, we are introducing legislation. I urge my colleagues to help us with that. There is no reason that we can't work in a bipartisan way to deal with what everybody has to acknowledge is a huge crisis at our southern border. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3280-2 | null | 4,709 |
formal | Cleveland | null | racist | Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I am on the floor today to talk about border security--a humanitarian, a national security, a community safety issue with direct connection to the drug epidemic we see in communities all around the country, including my home State of Ohio. I am also here to talk about legislation I introduced today with Senator Jim Risch to address this crisis. So we are in the middle right now of what is the biggest border crisis in the history of our country if you measure it by the number of people who are coming to the border unlawfully and, as the Biden administration says, people who are encountering the Border Patrol. The Biden administration claims that they have the border under control and that they are--and I am quoting--doing a good job. This chart, though, tells a really different story. It shows that as of May, which is the last month that we have records for, we had the highest number of border encounters on record. The second highest, by the way, was the month before: April. So you see this goes back to 2019. There was a surge here--144,000. Here, we have the inauguration of President Biden, and then we have had big increases--again, to the point that over the last couple of months, we have had record numbers of people who have come unlawfully to the border and been stopped by, apprehended by, the Border Patrol. This includes 239,000 total encounters at the border in the month of May--165,000 of which were single, adult migrants. This does not include those who were not encountered--in other words, those who slipped past the Border Patrol. We haven't been able to find a precise number for these individuals. The Border Patrol calls this group of people got-aways. But using a conservative estimate from the Border Patrol of 300,000 people who they think got away in the last fiscal year, you would then put the total number of unlawful entries at approximately 286,000 people in 1 month. If you annualize that, that would be 3.4 million people a year. Think about those numbers: almost 3\1/2\ million people a year coming to our border and attempting to gain entry unlawfully. Today, not all of those who are apprehended are allowed to come into the United States, and that is because under so-called title 42, roughly half of those individuals who are being apprehended, who are being encountered, are turned back. If they live in Mexico, they are sent back across the border. If they live in a country--say Ecuador or Guatemala--they are sent back, flown back to their country of origin. But these are people who are being turned away because of title 42. So what is title 42? It is a public health authority. It is an attempt by our government to limit migration in order to prevent the spread of communicable diseases--in this case, COVID-19. It allows the Customs and Border Protection officers and agents to tell unlawful migrants: You can't come to the United States for these public health reasons. It only applies, by the way, now to single adults; but, as I said earlier, that is the single biggest group. It comprises about 48 to 52 percent--about half--of the people who are coming up to the border. So even with the use of title 42, which is acting to discourage people from coming to our border, we are experiencing these record levels. We are also experiencing these record levels in these hot summer months. Normally, when you get into the summertime where it gets really hot--look here at May, June, July, August--the number of people coming to the border goes down, not up. It is over 100 degrees in the desert and at the Rio Grande, at almost all of these border crossings along the U.S.-Mexican border. Yet we have more, not less. There is anecdotal information that this is because people are realizing that the administration wants to end title 42. They have proposed to do that. That is now in the court system. But the cartels are spreading the message, which is: Now is the time to come because, before, you were turned away by title 42. Now, like everybody else, you can come into the United States and stay. And we will talk in a moment about what that means. But I think that is probably true. Probably title 42 has something to do with it. But I think, also, it has to do with the fact that more and more people are realizing that if they do come to the border and don't get stopped by title 42, they will have a chance to come into the United States and live in the United States with their families, perhaps; if not, maybe bring in their families later. And everybody wants to come to America. We are a great country. We have our challenges, as we talk about on the floor here all the time. But, still, we are a country with so many opportunities for people, and folks want to come. And I don't blame them. I don't blame them. But we want them to come legally. And we currently have the most generous legal immigration system of any country in the world. About 900,000 people a year--almost a million people a year--come legally to the United States, most as legal immigrants, some as refugees. And so we encourage that, and we should. In fact, I think we should bring more people in legally, particularly to fillsome of the jobs that we need filled, the STEM disciplines we talk about a lot. We need people with the kind of training and background to help our economy grow. But we need people at every level of training. But we want them to come legally and through an orderly process that is more humane, that doesn't have all the issues--which we will talk about tonight--the humanitarian issues at the southern border. In terms of title 42, we all hope that this public health emergency isn't necessary going forward because COVID-19 ends. But in the meantime, this border crisis means, to me, that we have to keep title 42 in place until we make some changes in policy. Otherwise, it will be not just a crisis. It will be totally overwhelming. As the Border Patrol says to me, they will lose operational control of the border. Some would argue that has already happened because so many people are coming over at record numbers. Often, the Border Patrol is distracted by one group of migrants, and another group comes in. And I saw this when I was at the border in El Paso. And anybody who has been down at the border has seen this. They are already in tough shape. But imagine if 48 percent of the people here who are now being turned away by title 42 are not going to be turned away and the number of other people who will come knowing that that avenue is now open to them. This will be overwhelming. It is very difficult right now, with the laws and the way the laws are being implemented, to keep that from happening. That is why we need a change in policy. It doesn't have to happen here in Congress. I think we should change the laws and introduce legislation today to do that. But the administration itself could make these changes. By the way, in the last administration, as you can see, the number of people coming across the border unlawfully and the number of encounters was very low. But the same was true in the Obama administration. After they had a surge of unaccompanied minors, they made changes in the law, and they reduced the number of people who were coming unlawfully to the border as well. It can be done, but there has to be the will do it. I am the ranking Republican on the Senate committee that has oversight responsibility for the Department of Homeland Security. The Presiding Officer is also on that committee. This Department of Homeland Security is preparing, they tell us, for a huge increase in migrants after title 42 has ended. So although they want to end it, they also know that if they do end it, there is going to be a huge surge because they are actually preparing for that. The way they are doing it is interesting. It is not so much keeping people from coming into the United States as expediting their flow into the United States. Among other things, instead of processing people at the border, their recommendation is go ahead and put people on buses or other forms of transportation and then do the processing later, perhaps on the buses or where they are going in the United States. So it is a way to move people through the process rather than come up with a way to discourage people from coming across the border illegally. DHS has planned, and then will facilitate, travel throughout the country rather than figuring out how to keep people from coming in the first place by telling them: Come legally, but please don't come to our border illegally. By the way, I think most Americans are very supportive of legal immigration. It is an important part of who we are. With very few exceptions of Native Americans, we all came from someplace else. All of us have proud stories of our immigrant forebearers--our parents, our grandparents, our great-grandparents. And it has enriched our country. It is part of the fabric of our Nation. It is what makes us special. But that is legal immigration. And it is not what we are talking about here. Who bears the brunt of this crisis? Well, at the outset, of course, it is the Border Patrol. We have got to provide them with the personnel and resources they need to complete their mission, as difficult as it is. When you go and meet with these people, the men and women of the Border Patrol, you come away just so proud of what they try to do every day. They are a combination of, you know, border agents trying to enforce the law, social workers trying to help people with their problems, healthcare workers trying to help when people get hurt. Unfortunately, as we have seen, a lot of people are getting hurt in this process. That journey north is a dangerous journey. And with the cartels so involved and right there at the border, what happens in the desert, what happens on these trains, what happens in these trucks--we just saw this horrible incident of these migrants who were jammed into a semitruck, and more of them died, I think, than any other accident of that kind, incident of that kind, in our history. But this is inhumane, and this is part of what happens when you have these cartels involved in this process. We also have got to provide the Border Patrol with the ability to help control things at the border by finishing the border fence and putting the technology with the fence that was always intended. By the way, the technology tends not to be very partisan around here. Democrats and Republicans alike, I believe, mostly think we ought to have cameras. We ought to have sensors. We ought to know what is going on at the border. But when the order came down the first day of the Biden administration to stop the wall and to end what the Trump administration had started with Congress's approval and funding, they also said, Stop the technology. So in the El Paso sector, as an example, the wall is about 80, 90 percent completed. Unfortunately, there are gaps in the wall where you literally have to have Border Patrol there 24 hours a day or people just come through it, which makes their job really hard. What they want to do is at least have the wall there to slow people down. And the technology there enables them to then go and deal with situations as they occur. But only 20 percent of the technology had been completed. So you have more wall than you have technology. And the wall is not that useful, frankly, without the technology, in my view. I think the technology is the key. But that is what is happening. And, by the way, to the taxpayers listening tonight, which is pretty much all of us, we paid for that wall. We actually paid for the fencing to be put up. Congress appropriated the money. And then the administration stopped it. So you literally see the steel beams and the pieces of concrete for the wall lying on the ground. And as one Border Patrol agent told me when I was in one of the sectors--most recently I was in the Nogales sector where there is a huge gap--he said, this is really bad for morale. And our Border Patrol agents look at this stuff, and they say: We have already paid for this. Can't we just finish the wall and put these fences up, the gates up, to keep these openings from attracting the cartels and the drug smugglers and the people smugglers? But that is where we are. So that is one thing our legislation does, is to correct that problem and help stop this crisis. It also says that title 42--we talked about earlier--won't be lifted until the COVID-19 emergency is over. Again, I think it ought to be lifted when we have policies in place that make sense. But a lot more is needed. The bill also mandates that the program the Biden administration ended, which said that as you come to ask for asylum, you should wait at the border--it is called the migrant protocols. There was just an agreement with the President of Mexico and President Biden a couple of days ago about more funding for the border area--and that is good--to provide more humane living conditions. But this was working to tell people, if you want to come for asylum, go ahead and apply. And while you are waiting for asylum, you can remain in Mexico. And if you get asylum, you come across. If you don't, you go home. What happened is, a lot of people just went home. The asylum process, which we will get into in a minute, is kind of a complicated issue. But in other ways, it is pretty simple, and it is the main reason for this, which is that people know if they come to the border and they claim asylum, which most people do, they have an immediate, what is called, credible fear interview. Sometimes, it is over the telephone now,partly because of COVID. And that is a very low bar. And so people say what their issue is back home where they feel persecuted, and then they come in. And once they are told to come in, then they are told: OK, you can go to wherever you are going in America--let's say Cincinnati, my hometown, or Columbus or Chicago or Denver, wherever it is--and you need to check in with the ICE office--that is the immigration office in the interior of the United States--within 90 days. Some people do check in. Some people don't check in. But the point is, there is now a wait of somewhere between 6 to 8 years before your case is heard on asylum--6 to 8 years. Why? Because there are 1.5 million--someone told me today 1.6 million; let's say 1.5 million people, that is high enough--waiting in line. That is what the backlog is. It just makes no sense to anybody, including, by the way, the Secretary of Homeland Security, whom I have talked to about this. And these long waits mean that you are there embedded in a community in America getting to know your community. You are joining your church. You are sending your kids to school. You are having children. You are part of the community. And then you are told after 6 to 8 years, by the way, your asylum application is being denied because you are an economic refugee, not an asylee. In other words, you haven't demonstrated a fear of persecution. You have come to this country, understandably, because there is great opportunity here. Again, we should be encouraging these people to come legally like so many other immigrants have over the years. Only about 15 to 20 percent of those people who apply for asylum today are getting asylum. So think about it. If you are part of the 80 to 85 percent who are not going to get asylum, there is sometimes not much of an incentive to enter into this process and go through the hearings and so on. The consequence if you don't go through the hearings is that you are then subject to removal. However, we are just not removing people today. So this past year, the latest numbers we have are that 59,000 people were deported, or removed, from America. About 66 percent of those people had a criminal background. But, remember, this is out of a couple hundred thousand people going through the process. So there is a very small chance that you will ever be removed or deported. Even though you went through the process, you were denied asylum. You stay in the United States. And, you know, the next administration could change that. This administration could change that. But right now, this asylum process, which was created to give lawful presence to people who were unable to be in their home country because of persecution, is not being used properly. It is being exploited by people who know that because of our system and our huge backlog, if they say that they are part of a group that is being persecuted they can come in. And even when they are denied asylum, they can stay. That is the way it is working. What we have found is that folks who come here are almost entirely focused more on the economic side. There was a survey conducted by the Migration Policy Institute recently, which, by the way, is a pro-migrant institution. It found that 90 percent of the Central Americans making the journey to our southern border are coming for what? For work. They are coming for work because they come from poor countries. They don't have a lot of opportunity in their country. I don't blame them. If I was a father living in Honduras and couldn't find a job or I was a subsistence farmer just barely making it and I had a few kids and I wanted them to have a better life, I would come, too. But that is not what immigration is all about. It is a system where you come legally, yes. But if you come illegally, you have got to be told you have to go back and apply like everybody else. Otherwise, America would be overwhelmed. And it is being overwhelmed and will be even more overwhelmed if title 42 is taken away. There are hundreds of millions of people--maybe billions of people--around the world who would love to come to this country. We take for granted our opportunities, our freedoms; but others don't. So we have to have a system. We have to have some sort of a border. And, really, that is the question that is before us today in this body: Are we going to have a system that makes sense or one where, again, you have a million and a half people who are waiting to have their hearing. When they have their hearing on asylum and they are denied, they still aren't removed; so they can stay. And, again, meanwhile, they have family and kids and connections to the community. It is really not fair to them. A much better system would be to say, OK, apply for asylum in your country, or if you don't feel comfortable there, apply from a third country. Then you will know, yes or no, before you come up to the border, don't make that dangerous journey north. Don't put yourself in the clutches of these coyotes, these human smugglers, these traffickers, who are heartless. What they are doing is they are going down to Central America or Latin America or really all over the world. People are coming from hundreds of countries now. And they are saying, you know, give me money. Give me 10,000 bucks, and I will get you to the border, and you can just walk across. People are signing up--sometimes with their life savings. And sometimes as, again, we talked about earlier, there are assaults along the way. There are all kinds of horrible stories of how women, particularly, are mistreated on the way up. It is a dangerous and inhumane process. At the end of the day, our system is pulling these people to the border. The administration is now implementing a new asylum rule recently to try to deal with this problem because they realize it is just not working. However, the new system that they are putting in place isn't working either, and there is a reason for that. Their theory is we should adjudicate the cases at the border. I agree with that. I would rather adjudicate them outside the border in the country of origin or a third country, but have the adjudication be right at the border; make the decision right there, yes or no. Let people know. The problem is what they are doing right now is they are putting asylum officers at the border, making a decision, adjudicating as people come across. And if it is a no, people are not being sent home. But rather, people are being told if it is a no, you can appeal it to the regular system, so get back in line with the 1.5 million people. What we are learning is that, of course, people are smart. They are talking to the asylum officer. They are getting a yes or no. If they are getting a yes, that is great; they are getting in. That is a small percentage. If they are getting a no, they say, That is fine, I am going to appeal it to the regular system. It really isn't an answer to the problem. If you want an answer to the problem, what you would have is processing centers along the border. It would be expensive because there are so many people coming over now, so many people applying for asylum. But have a process where, quickly, you can adjudicate these cases. In the meantime, you would not have people be released into the interior but have them stay there to find out what the outcome of the case is. This pull system is bad for everybody except the smugglers. They are the ones who profit. They are the ones who are going to folks in places like Honduras or Ecuador or, again, far-flung places--places in Eastern Europe, places in Asia--and telling people, Give me a bunch of money, and I will get you into the United States. We recently had this tragedy I mentioned in San Antonio. Fifty-three migrants were left for dead in the Texas heat in the back of a tractor-trailer. They were just abandoned by their smuggler. They left them locked inside of this tractor-trailer. It is not the first time this has happened. But as I said earlier, 53 is probably the worst smuggling tragedy in our history. I went to Latin America last year. I met with the Presidents of Mexico and Guatemala, Ecuador, and Colombia. It was interesting. They all said the same thing. You would be surprised to hear what they said. People think they must enjoy this process because so many of their citizens are going to America, they can then send money back to their family and it must be good for everybody. It is not. They are losing some of the best and brightest in their country, and thesepeople are going through, again, this arduous process to get to the border, and the inhumanity of that troubles these Presidents. They all told me basically the same thing, which is: Why don't you guys fix your laws and stop this pull factor? We talk about the push factor in poor countries. I mentioned Honduras earlier. That is certainly true. By the way, we spent over the last 5 years about $3.6 billion of American taxpayer money to help in the economics of the so-called Northern Triangle in the Central American countries. I am for spending money in these countries to try to help with their economy, but with the corruption, with all the issues they have, it is very difficult to imagine those countries in a short period of time having any kind of economic opportunity that equals what we have right here in this country, so there is going to continue to be that push. We should try to alleviate it. It will continue to happen. But the pull, this policy we have is just pulling people north. What they said to me, these Presidents of these countries, was: You have a legal immigration system where people know they can just get into your country. Why don't you change that? Why don't you change that? Again, it is not just people from Mexico and Central America. It is people from all over the world. By the way, for some of these people, the Border Patrol is increasingly concerned because they come from countries where a lot of people want to do us harm. So, increasingly, we are seeing people coming to our country who are, as an example, on the terror watch list. Back in 2017, 2 people; 6 people in 2018; none in 2019; 2020, there were 3; 15 in 2021. This fiscal year, 2022, there are already 50 individuals on the terror watch list. Why? They know if they come to the U.S. border, they can get across. I am sure this number is higher--that is what we know--because, again, a lot of people are so-called got aways. Let's say 20 percent. Who are these people? Well, some of them are probably pretty smart individuals who know how to get away from Border Patrol, do the distraction and sneak in. That worries me and it worries me because we are allowing people to come into our country who we would not otherwise allow. We have seen this increase of people coming into the country who are on the terror watch list, but we have also seen, again, a lot of people coming in who we just don't know anything about because they don't count them at the Border Patrol. We have seen more caravans and we see more migrants are on the way. Why? I think it is because of this general pull factor. The fact is people know, if they come here, they know they are going to be able to get in. I think it is also because of title 42 because the smugglers are using that--cartels are spreading the word: Title 42 is on its way out. Read about it in the front page of your paper because that is where it is because this administration wants to end it, so they are saying now you can go to the border and you will be let in under the policies like the asylum policy and the single adults--48 percent of whom roughly have been turned away. Forty-eight percent of the total by title 42 would no longer be turned away. I think that is why we are seeing this. It is giving the coyotes, traffickers, and smugglers opportunity to make lots of money. By the way, that is hurting all these countries, too. If you talk to the Presidents of these countries, including President Obrador of Mexico, what he will tell you is the cartels are taking over more and more of his country because they are making more and more money because of this--and, significantly, because of the drug issue we are going to talk about in a second. We know that the cartels are involved in human trafficking. We know they are involved in drug smuggling. We know they are involved in smuggling people. I was with the Border Patrol in El Paso last year. We were out at night. We saw a group of migrants coming, and the Border Patrol was going to that location to stop them and question them. Meanwhile, we heard on the radio the drug smugglers had come across. They could see it. They knew it. They could tell by the backpacks they were wearing, I guess, and clothes they were wearing--dark clothes, young men--that they were smuggling. But they couldn't do anything about it because Border Patrol were processing the migrants who had come in. So I am watching the migrants coming in--actually talking to some of them and Border Patrol--and meanwhile, on the radio, they are saying, You have to go to this other sector, this other area to stop these drug smugglers. We can't; we are distracted. The processing takes some time. The other big issue, in addition to the unlawful entry into the United States--smuggling, all the inhumanity that surrounds that--is this drug issue. I have spent a lot of time working on this issue on the prevention side--helping on treatment and recovery options and doing more on prevention. We were making some progress until, unfortunately, we were hit with this pandemic. And during that time and since, drug use has gone up again. But we were making progress, in part, because we were helping on the demand side of the equation. But also on the supply side, we were keeping some of these drugs out of the country. We did it primarily through stopping the deadliest of all, which is the fentanyl--which is a synthetic opioid--from coming in through the U.S. mail system. We passed a law called the STOP Act. It kept China from poisoning our communities by sending this stuff through the mail system, which was happening. That was the primary way it was coming in. What has happened? During the pandemic--kind of coincidental with the pandemic--we had more people isolated, more people losing their jobs, more people turning to drugs. You had Mexico begin to take the central role in terms of fentanyl. A lot of it is precursors from China, so China sends the precursors to Mexico, but Mexico is now making the fentanyl--often into pills--Xanax or Adderall or Percocet. If you buy any drugs on the street, know that those drugs could kill you. Don't be fooled. There are so many counterfeit drugs out there now. That is one of the preferred ways that the Mexican cartels are bringing these drugs in. Again, fentanyl is, of course, the deadliest of the drugs. About two thirds of the overdose deaths in America are currently because of fentanyl. We now have a record level of overdose deaths every year in America, over 100,000 last year. There is no reason to believe that it will be less than that this year based on early data we have, sadly. In my home State of Ohio, it is the No. 1 killer by far. Look at what has happened with the seizures of fentanyl. This is the fentanyl that has been seized. Here are projections for the rest of this year if they continue as they are--obviously, record levels. When you have this huge surge of fentanyl coming in, what happens is you have a lower cost in the drug--supply and demand, right? So there is a huge supply, and the demand for these drugs continues. On the streets of Columbus or Cleveland or Cincinnati or Dayton or your town, wherever it is, it is likely that this cheap but really deadly fentanyl is something that people are being exposed to. Some people are falling prey to it, again, often thinking they are taking another drug. There are a couple of students at Ohio State University who overdosed and died just before I gave a talk there at graduation earlier this spring. They were taking what they thought were study drugs, apparently: Adderall. A third student lived, but was in critical condition. This is the deadliest of drugs. In 2021, we seized double the fentanyl from the previous year, four times from the year before that. Again, so far this year, we are on track to match the most fentanyl seized ever. In May--just 1 month, in May--there was enough fentanyl seized at the border to kill 200 million Americans, more than half of our population in 1 month. People say: Well, gosh, why are you so worried about the border? Let people come across--open border--whatever. Here is the consequence. Again, it is hurting Mexico, too, and it is hurting lots of other countries. But in terms of Mexico, this gives the cartels enormous power and money. And, yes, ultimately, I think the most important thing to do is to reduce demand. I do. Again, we are making progress now. We had about a 20-percent reduction in 2018. We need to get back to that. This Congress took the lead on much of this. But we also have to deal with the supply side and stop this enormous surge of drugs that is coming over and poisoning our communities. That is part of what is happening on the border. A few months ago, I was in Nogales, south of Tucson, to ride with the Border Patrol and go to the port of entry there. They are doing a very good job with what they have, but they need better equipment. This is one thing Congress can do. They need help. They need more resources. They need better technology. They need to be able to scan cars and trucks that are coming in, particularly for these drugs that we talked about. A relatively small package of fentanyl this size can kill 1,000 people. A few specks could kill you. It is easy to hide it in a car or a truck. We now know that less than 2 percent of passenger vehicles and less than 20 percent of commercial vehicles coming into the United States are scanned for these illegal drugs like fentanyl. This is just unacceptable. Congress has appropriated more funding for this. That is good. Let's get it moving. We should be scanning all vehicles, in my view. A smuggler with multiple pounds of fentanyl concealed in a hidden compartment might be worth hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. They know they have a good chance of getting across without a search. They take the risk. It is not just a gap in our security; it is a gaping hole. And, again, it leads to this flood of cheap fentanyl and other dangerous drugs. The southern border has faced the worst unlawful crisis that we have ever had, going back to the first chart. This tells the story, in red. The men and women of the Customs and Border Protection whom I have met over the years are doing the best they can. They are doing their best at the ports of entry. They are doing their best as Border Patrol between the ports of entry, but they need help. That is what legislation does. It provides them with the help they need to be able to respond to this crisis. We welcome legal immigration. We always should. They enrich our country. And we are a nation of immigrants, and we are proud of that. But we are also a nation of laws, and we are also a nation that cares about the inhumanity of the current system and the flood of cheap, deadly drugs coming through our border. I urge the Biden administration to change course, to fix this broken system, to follow the law, including the law on detaining people, to reform the asylum process so it stops acting like a pull factor and is used for what it is intended for, to truly help those who are seeking asylum for the right reasons, to stop these policies that send a green light to the smugglers, to the cartels, to the drug traffickers, and that is causing so much human suffering along our southern border. I urge the administration to act. In the meantime, again, we are introducing legislation. I urge my colleagues to help us with that. There is no reason that we can't work in a bipartisan way to deal with what everybody has to acknowledge is a huge crisis at our southern border. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PORTMAN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-13-pt1-PgS3280-2 | null | 4,710 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which the yeas and nays are ordered. The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-07-15-pt1-PgH6629-3 | null | 4,711 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to recommit on the bill (H.R. 8296) to protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide abortion services, offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Fischbach), on which the yeas and nays were ordered. The Clerk will redesignate the motion. The Clerk redesignated the motion. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-07-15-pt1-PgH6660-2 | null | 4,712 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. Votes will be taken in the following order: Motion to recommit, H.R. 8296; Passage of H.R. 8296, if ordered; Motion to recommit H.R. 8297; Passage of H.R. 8297, if ordered; and, Motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 8351. The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the remaining electronic votes will be conducted as 5-minute votes. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-07-15-pt1-PgH6660 | null | 4,713 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to recommit on the bill (H.R. 8297) to prohibit the interference, under color of State law, with the provision of interstate abortion services, and for other purposes, offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson), on which the yeas and nays were ordered. The Clerk will redesignate the motion. The Clerk redesignated the motion. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2022-07-15-pt1-PgH6661 | null | 4,714 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 8351) to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to suspend temporarily rates of duty on imports of certain infant formula products, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER | House | CREC-2022-07-15-pt1-PgH6663 | null | 4,715 |
formal | welfare | null | racist | The Chaplain, the Reverend Margaret Grun Kibben, offered the following prayer: Holy God, call us into Your presence this day, that we, with full abandon, would run into Your loving embrace and receive the plenteous gifts You desire to lavish upon us. What an image. Your love is so welcoming. Your concern for our welfare so strong, and Your generosity overwhelming. We are humbled by Your grace. Held in Your everlasting arms, may we find the courage to ask for Your wisdom and guidance, that we would receive; to seek to discern what is good and right, that we may find; and to knock on doors barricaded by doubt and despair, that even these would be opened to us. O God, You are the source of our every hope, the answer for all we seek, and the treasure we hope to be opened to us. In this knowledge, may our joy be complete. In Your loving name we pray. Amen. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-07-18-pt1-PgH6685-3 | null | 4,716 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which the yeas and nays are ordered. The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-07-18-pt1-PgH6686-7 | null | 4,717 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7002) to authorize the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, Missouri, to be illuminated by blue and yellow lights in support of Ukraine, as amended. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. HUFFMAN | House | CREC-2022-07-18-pt1-PgH6695 | null | 4,718 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 4404. A bill to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Kissimmee River in the State of Florida as a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-414). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 6337. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to develop long-distance bike trails on Federal land, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-415, Pt. 1). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 7002. A bill to authorize the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, Missouri, to be illuminated by blue and yellow lights in support of Ukraine, with an amendment (Rept. 117-416). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 7025. A bill to prohibit the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service from funding entities that commit, fund, or support gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117- 417). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 7693. A bill to amend title 54, United States Code, to reauthorize the National Park Foundation (Rept. 117-418). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Mr. GRIJALVA: Committee on Natural Resources. H.R. 5118. A bill to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to prioritize the completion of the Continental Divide National Scenic Trail, and for other purposes; with amendments (Rept. 117-419). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Discharge of Committee Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XIII, the Committee on Agriculture discharged from further consideration. H.R. 6337 referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-07-18-pt1-PgH6705 | null | 4,719 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Abortion Madam President, in the weeks since the Alito-Thomas Supreme Court majority erased the constitutional right to abortion, the rightwing disinformation machine has kicked into high gear. Again and again, we hear the same empty words of reassurance from the Republican side. They claim that overturning Roe simply handed the question of abortion back to the people's representatives, back to the States--just that simple. This is false, and they know it. The reality is overturning Roe has unleashed a healthcare crisis in this country. It has ripped a right to make essential healthcare decisions away from the people and their doctors and handed it to the politicians in individual States. As soon as Roe was overturned by the Alito Supreme Court, nearly a dozen States outlawed abortion. In Ohio, abortion access is so restricted that we have heard this horrible, bone-chilling story of a 10-year-old rape victim who was denied care in the State of Ohio. Ten years old, Madam President. At the age of 10, parents and grandparents are still worried about 10-year-old grandkids crossing the street. This 10-year-old victim had been raped. She was pregnant. The State's law in Ohio only permits abortions before fetal cardiac activity is detected, which is usually at 6 weeks of gestation. At the time this 10-year-old child sought care, she was 6 weeks and 3 days pregnant. She missed the deadline. So the child was forced to flee her home State of Ohio and travel to Indiana, where she was given medical care. And from the moment this story made headlines, what was the response from Republican politicians and the conservative media? They said it was fake news; that it is a hoax. They accused the doctor who treated the girl of just plain lying. They said that Democrats were making up these doomsday scenarios to scare the American people. The Wall Street Journal--the Wall Street Journal, Madam President--even ran an editorial calling the story ``Too Good to Confirm.'' But unthinkable and sickening as it may be, the story is true. So why did Republicans go to such great lengths to discredit it? Because they refused to admit the truth. When faced with a case that shows the extreme consequences of outlawing abortion, as the Supreme Court just did weeks ago, they dismissed the facts as a lie. Well, here is the truth. Republican anti-choice policies will force children--children who are still not old enough to cross the street on their own--to give birth. Ten years old. And Republicans are not content with simply banning all abortion. They want to prosecute the healthcare professionals who have to make the life-and-death decisions in the practice of medicine--healthcare professionals like the one who treated this little girl from Ohio. Just last week, Indiana's Republican attorney general declared he was going to investigate this doctor from Indiana who provided this abortion. Well, what were his grounds for investigating? He claimed that the doctor didn't properly report the abortion to State authorities. But even that isn't true. Records show the doctor followed the law exactly as it is written. How did we reach this point? It has not even been a month since the Dobbs decision, and Republican officials are already finding ways to intimidate doctors who are providing essential care to Americans and America's children. The radical rightwing majority on the Supreme Court has given these lawmakers a green light to enact the most unreasonable, outrageous abortion bans imaginable. And as cruel as these bans may be, they cannot change the reality that reproductive healthcare is healthcare. In some cases, an abortion can mean the difference between life and death. The moment politicians start meddling in life-or-death health decisions, the moment we turn over these life-or-death decisions to a legislator rather than to a doctor and a patient, we are headed down a dark, dangerous, and deadly road. Here is what is happening. Right now, there is a doctor in America, today, who is being forced to make an impossible decision: Do I risk jail time, do I risk criminal charges by providing the care that I believe my patient needs, or do I sit back and risk my patient's life and health from pregnancy complications? What a choice. Do you want to make that as an elected official? I am not competent to make that choice. I am a lawyer--liberal arts. I didn't spend a day in medical school. When it comes to the people I care about--my family and others--I want medical professionals to make that decision, not run-of-the-mill politicians. Last week, the Texas attorney general filed a lawsuit against President Biden's administration. What was the reason? Because the administration issued guidance making it clear that healthcare providers are legally protected when offering legally mandated life- or health-saving services in emergency situations. Think about that. Texas would rather allow women to risk their health--even death--than allow them to seek emergency lifesaving care. And, yesterday, the New York Times--and I commend this article to everyone--reported that miscarriage patients in Texas are being turned away by doctors. These women are being denied care because ``doctors . . . worried the patients might have actually taken abortion pills that hadn't expelled the pregnancy, two situations that appear medically identical.'' One San Antonio based ob-gyn put it best when she said: [T]he art of medicine is lost and actually has been replaced by fear. This is the world we have entered after the fall of Roe. And it is a wake-up call for every Member of this Senate. Don't turn your eyes away from it. This is the reality of the Supreme Court decision. Our constitutional rights should not, and cannot, differ State by State. For 50 years, this was a fundamentally constitutional guaranteed freedom. And it needs to be protected again by Federal law. I don't think this Court is going to stop with overturning Roe. I commended to all my colleagues, there was a speech made last Thursday by Senator Kaine of Virginia. Before he was in politics, he was a civil rights lawyer. And he is a good one. And he explained the 14th Amendment and what it means if we were to take the Alito Court analysis and basis and reject the notion that the 14th Amendment defines our citizenship in so many different ways. Justice Clarence Thomas has indicated the far right majority is coming next for the right to family birth control and contraception. Oh, that can't be true, Senator. They aren't going to go after birth control pills--watch them; they have already announced they are underway--and marriage equality and making our decisions about the future of our families. This Senate must act to protect marriage equality and all the fundamental human rights that are under threat by this radical Supreme Court. The question, though, when November comes around, will the American people care, or will they take a nap? Will they decide it is somebody else's problem? Well, I hope they don't because these problems are really facing all of us as Americans, whether we like it or not. We would rather not talk about this issue, but the Supreme Court gives us no choice. Now, let's be sensible. These are medical decisions that should be made by medical professionals. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-18-pt1-PgS3322 | null | 4,720 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Food and Drug Administration Madam President, 2 weeks ago, the Center for Disease Control issued an alert: There was a listeria outbreak that sent nearly 2 dozen people in 10 States to the hospital. For those who may not know, listeria is the bacteria that causes listeriosis. It is serious. It is a life-threatening illness. In most cases, the infection causes fever, sometimes confusion, loss of balance; but in some cases, it can be deadly. Tragically, an expectant mother from Massachusetts who contracted it lost her baby. And another person in my home State of Illinois lost her life. Her name was Mary Billman. She was from Pesotum, IL. It is a small downstate community, about 15 miles south of Champaign. In January, she went to Florida to visit her daughter. One day, she decided to grab an ice cream cone. Harmless, right? As it turned out, no. That ice cream was contaminated. Ice cream is the most likely source of this listeria outbreak. Mary Billman was 79 years old. The listeria that she faced took her life. This outbreak is one example of a long list of outbreaks in America, which are becoming way too common. The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for regulating 80 percent of our Nation's food supply. Nearly all of the foods we buy at the supermarket are supposed to be guaranteed as safe by the Food and Drug Administration. So when we pick up a box of cereal for the kids, a bag of lettuce, a jar of peanut butter, a pint of ice cream, we assume it has been inspected. We assume it is safe. Here is the problem: Too often, that is not the case. The FDA is failing to uphold its most basic food safety responsibility: inspecting facilities. Over the past decade, the number of inspections it performs has fallen by nearly 60 percent--60-percent decline in inspections in the last decade. And to add insult to injury, that decline happened after Congress passed the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act--a 2011 bill, which I offered, that instructed the FDA to increase the number of inspections. They did the opposite. If that weren't bad enough, in 2017, the HHS inspector general concluded that, even when the FDA did inspect facilities, the Agency did not always take action when it uncovered significant inspection violations. We know that story. This summer, a bacteria known as Cronobacter contaminated infant formula, leading to nationwide shortages. The FDA was alerted to this problem 4 months before it took any action--4 months. So even when the FDA performs an inspection and identifies a threat to public health, it doesn't take timely action, not even when the problem can sicken and kill adults, children, infants. That is hard to imagine. The FDA is adrift. And our most vulnerable people in America--children, mothers, and older Americans--are at risk. Last week, I introduced a bill that would transfer all of FDA's food responsibilities to a new Agency outside the FDA that we hope will actually do its job. We are calling it simply the Food Safety Administration. Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro, my friend and a Representative from the State of Connecticut, has introduced the companion bill in the House. Our bill represents a clean slate for food safety in America. It would create a new Food Safety Administration that would be run by food safety experts who were focused on protecting the Nation's food supply. If I went into detail of the responsibilities of different Federal Agencies to inspect foods, you wouldn't believe it. If you have a cheese pizza, Food and Drug Administration; put pepperoni on the pizza, now it is the Department of Agriculture. It changes based on definitions that might have made sense sometime in the past, make no sense anymore. On behalf of the 15 million Americans who contract a foodborne illness each year and tens of thousands who are hospitalized, it is time to stop talking about it and do something. The FDA failed my constituent Mary Billman, along with 3,000 Americans like her who lose their lives every year to foodborne illness. Many of these deaths are preventable, but they will keep happening if we don't fix our Nation's defunct food safety system. We say America is the wealthiest Nation in human history. We are blessed, we know, with one of the most abundant agriculture industries. And we are home to some of the best and brightest scientists in the world. So there is absolutely no excuse for allowing the FDA's food safety failures to persist. With our legislation, we can replace this broken system with one that will finally protect our families. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-18-pt1-PgS3323 | null | 4,721 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Border Security Madam President, on another matter, last week, Senator Cruz, my junior Senator and friend, and I took five Members of our Republican conference to McAllen, TX, which is in the Rio Grande Valley, which is the epicenter of a massive humanitarian and immigration crisis that has been going on for at least the last year and a half. McAllen is in the Border Patrol's Rio Grande Valley Sector, it is called, and one of the busiest portions of the U.S.-Mexico border when it comes to illegal migration. For example, between October and May, Rio Grande Valley Sector agents logged more than 333,000 border crossings--more than any of the other 20 Border Patrol sectors. During the visit, our colleagues were able to see and learn what, frankly, as Texas Senators, Senator Cruz and I learned long ago about the traumatic, heart-wrenching consequences of this unabated crisis: groups of migrants with toddlers, who were lying asleep on the dirt road, practically ill from the heat and exhaustion. By the way, the temperature is routinely in excess of 100 degrees at this time of year. One mother and her 7-year-old child, the mom in tears and heartbroken, having left another 10-year-old child behind in Guatemala, were encountered. Unaccompanied children of 7 years of age, with nothing more than the clothes on their back, a birth certificate, and family contact information on a piece of paper--these were the sorts of things that my Senate colleagues had a chance to experience, which, unfortunately, I have seen all too many times before. These aren't heart-wrenching scenes from a war-torn country halfway around the world. This is happening on our front doorstep. This is happening in Texas every day. My colleagues and I also spoke with some of the folks whose homes and properties sit along the U.S.-Texas border with Mexico. They shared with us stories about what it is like to live along one of the hot spots for illegal border crossings. One resident told us last year the Brooks County Sheriff's Department recovered the bodies of 119 dead migrants. So far this year, the county has recovered 64. Just by way of explanation, the coyotes or the smugglers will bring the migrants across the border, put them in a stash house, and then, when theybelieve the coast is clear, put them in a truck and transport them north. They will have to go through a border checkpoint--or an interior checkpoint in Falfurrias, for example, which is where Brooks County is located, but what happens is, the smugglers will tell the migrants: Get out of the vehicle and walk around the checkpoint, and we will pick you up on the north side. The problem is, this is very tough terrain and over 100-degree-plus temperature. Frankly, when some of the migrants become ill or injured, they are simply left behind to die, and that is why so many bodies have been recovered, for example, in Brooks County on a regular basis. It is tough to imagine the toll this sort of discovery takes on a farmer or rancher, and then multiply that shock by more than 100. Then we heard about the losses to property suffered because of this crisis--stolen vehicles, broken fences, damaged crops, vandalism, people who are afraid to let their own family members live and work on their own property because they are worried about the drugs, and they are worried about the potential violence. They talked about the safety concerns for their families and employees because drug traffickers and human smugglers go right through their backyards. These men and women are understandably angry. They said to us: This is the United States of America, and I can't let my daughter or wife or children live and play or work on our own property? They are frustrated beyond belief because their families and employees, their homes and livelihoods are in jeopardy due to the Biden administration's failed border policies. In case there are any doubts, I want to emphasize that what is happening on the border right now does not benefit anyone. Border Patrol agents are stretched thin. They are frustrated. They are overwhelmed by everything they are expected to shoulder. They have been told they cannot do the job that they took an oath to perform under policies by the Department of Homeland Security, which can only be described as nonenforcement policies. Landowners are saddled with safety concerns and financial losses. Nongovernmental organizations, which are doing their best to help people in need, are carrying the weight of this humanitarian crisis with no end in sight. Brave Texas Department of Public Safety officers and National Guardsmen are making serious sacrifices as a result of the administration's failure to secure the border. These guardsmen and the Department of Homeland Security should not have to do a job that is the responsibility of the Federal Government, but when the Federal Government won't do its job, the State of Texas has no choice. One guardsman actually drowned while trying to save two migrants struggling to swim across the Rio Grande River. And the migrants themselves are routinely abused, exploited, even raped and sometimes left for dead in the middle of unforgiving terrain. The only people really winning in this crisis are the criminal organizations and the human smugglers that are getting richer by the day. These cartels are transnational criminal organizations. They will traffic in anything that makes them a buck. They are what one person has called commodity agnostic. They don't care what that commodity is; their goal is simply to maximize their profit by whatever means necessary. And there is no question that the Biden administration's policies have helped enrich the cartels and resulted in too many migrants having lost their lives. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have had the privilege of working with countless men and women who live and work along the southern border. Their experiences and input have shed light on the scope and scale of this crisis, and I am glad to be able to welcome some of our Senate colleagues to join us for an informative trip to the Rio Grande Valley. And I appreciate our colleagues taking the time to come visit the US-Mexico border for an update on the border crisis. Of course, most of them don't come from border States, but in the memorable words of one of our colleagues now, every State is a border State because the consequences of this huge migration and humanitarian crisis--not to mention the drugs that are smuggled across the border--affect every community and every State in our Nation. I also want to thank my constituents, my fellow Texans, who took the time out of their busy schedules to educate our colleagues: the officers, the agents, the landowners, the National Guardsmen, the Texas Department of Public Safety officials, the local sheriffs, and others. What is so shocking to me is, despite the complete security breakdown and, really, the lack of any dispute about what exactly is happening on the border, we just can't seem to get the Biden administration's attention. Landowners can tell them what it was like to discover the dead bodies of migrants who were abandoned by human smugglers, and those who do the Lord's work at nongovernmental organizations can tell the tale of migrants who were violently assaulted and raped on the way to our country, some of whom arrived pregnant. If President Biden would take a moment to sit down with these folks who live and work along the border, he may begin to learn more and view this situation for what it really is: a humanitarian and security crisis precipitated by his administration's unwillingness to secure our border. President Biden has an open invitation to visit the Texas border, and I hope he will take us up on that. If he would, we might finally be able to get something done on a bipartisan basis to abate this crisis and to secure our open borders. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-18-pt1-PgS3325 | null | 4,722 |
formal | secure the border | null | anti-Latino | Border Security Madam President, on another matter, last week, Senator Cruz, my junior Senator and friend, and I took five Members of our Republican conference to McAllen, TX, which is in the Rio Grande Valley, which is the epicenter of a massive humanitarian and immigration crisis that has been going on for at least the last year and a half. McAllen is in the Border Patrol's Rio Grande Valley Sector, it is called, and one of the busiest portions of the U.S.-Mexico border when it comes to illegal migration. For example, between October and May, Rio Grande Valley Sector agents logged more than 333,000 border crossings--more than any of the other 20 Border Patrol sectors. During the visit, our colleagues were able to see and learn what, frankly, as Texas Senators, Senator Cruz and I learned long ago about the traumatic, heart-wrenching consequences of this unabated crisis: groups of migrants with toddlers, who were lying asleep on the dirt road, practically ill from the heat and exhaustion. By the way, the temperature is routinely in excess of 100 degrees at this time of year. One mother and her 7-year-old child, the mom in tears and heartbroken, having left another 10-year-old child behind in Guatemala, were encountered. Unaccompanied children of 7 years of age, with nothing more than the clothes on their back, a birth certificate, and family contact information on a piece of paper--these were the sorts of things that my Senate colleagues had a chance to experience, which, unfortunately, I have seen all too many times before. These aren't heart-wrenching scenes from a war-torn country halfway around the world. This is happening on our front doorstep. This is happening in Texas every day. My colleagues and I also spoke with some of the folks whose homes and properties sit along the U.S.-Texas border with Mexico. They shared with us stories about what it is like to live along one of the hot spots for illegal border crossings. One resident told us last year the Brooks County Sheriff's Department recovered the bodies of 119 dead migrants. So far this year, the county has recovered 64. Just by way of explanation, the coyotes or the smugglers will bring the migrants across the border, put them in a stash house, and then, when theybelieve the coast is clear, put them in a truck and transport them north. They will have to go through a border checkpoint--or an interior checkpoint in Falfurrias, for example, which is where Brooks County is located, but what happens is, the smugglers will tell the migrants: Get out of the vehicle and walk around the checkpoint, and we will pick you up on the north side. The problem is, this is very tough terrain and over 100-degree-plus temperature. Frankly, when some of the migrants become ill or injured, they are simply left behind to die, and that is why so many bodies have been recovered, for example, in Brooks County on a regular basis. It is tough to imagine the toll this sort of discovery takes on a farmer or rancher, and then multiply that shock by more than 100. Then we heard about the losses to property suffered because of this crisis--stolen vehicles, broken fences, damaged crops, vandalism, people who are afraid to let their own family members live and work on their own property because they are worried about the drugs, and they are worried about the potential violence. They talked about the safety concerns for their families and employees because drug traffickers and human smugglers go right through their backyards. These men and women are understandably angry. They said to us: This is the United States of America, and I can't let my daughter or wife or children live and play or work on our own property? They are frustrated beyond belief because their families and employees, their homes and livelihoods are in jeopardy due to the Biden administration's failed border policies. In case there are any doubts, I want to emphasize that what is happening on the border right now does not benefit anyone. Border Patrol agents are stretched thin. They are frustrated. They are overwhelmed by everything they are expected to shoulder. They have been told they cannot do the job that they took an oath to perform under policies by the Department of Homeland Security, which can only be described as nonenforcement policies. Landowners are saddled with safety concerns and financial losses. Nongovernmental organizations, which are doing their best to help people in need, are carrying the weight of this humanitarian crisis with no end in sight. Brave Texas Department of Public Safety officers and National Guardsmen are making serious sacrifices as a result of the administration's failure to secure the border. These guardsmen and the Department of Homeland Security should not have to do a job that is the responsibility of the Federal Government, but when the Federal Government won't do its job, the State of Texas has no choice. One guardsman actually drowned while trying to save two migrants struggling to swim across the Rio Grande River. And the migrants themselves are routinely abused, exploited, even raped and sometimes left for dead in the middle of unforgiving terrain. The only people really winning in this crisis are the criminal organizations and the human smugglers that are getting richer by the day. These cartels are transnational criminal organizations. They will traffic in anything that makes them a buck. They are what one person has called commodity agnostic. They don't care what that commodity is; their goal is simply to maximize their profit by whatever means necessary. And there is no question that the Biden administration's policies have helped enrich the cartels and resulted in too many migrants having lost their lives. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have had the privilege of working with countless men and women who live and work along the southern border. Their experiences and input have shed light on the scope and scale of this crisis, and I am glad to be able to welcome some of our Senate colleagues to join us for an informative trip to the Rio Grande Valley. And I appreciate our colleagues taking the time to come visit the US-Mexico border for an update on the border crisis. Of course, most of them don't come from border States, but in the memorable words of one of our colleagues now, every State is a border State because the consequences of this huge migration and humanitarian crisis--not to mention the drugs that are smuggled across the border--affect every community and every State in our Nation. I also want to thank my constituents, my fellow Texans, who took the time out of their busy schedules to educate our colleagues: the officers, the agents, the landowners, the National Guardsmen, the Texas Department of Public Safety officials, the local sheriffs, and others. What is so shocking to me is, despite the complete security breakdown and, really, the lack of any dispute about what exactly is happening on the border, we just can't seem to get the Biden administration's attention. Landowners can tell them what it was like to discover the dead bodies of migrants who were abandoned by human smugglers, and those who do the Lord's work at nongovernmental organizations can tell the tale of migrants who were violently assaulted and raped on the way to our country, some of whom arrived pregnant. If President Biden would take a moment to sit down with these folks who live and work along the border, he may begin to learn more and view this situation for what it really is: a humanitarian and security crisis precipitated by his administration's unwillingness to secure our border. President Biden has an open invitation to visit the Texas border, and I hope he will take us up on that. If he would, we might finally be able to get something done on a bipartisan basis to abate this crisis and to secure our open borders. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-18-pt1-PgS3325 | null | 4,723 |
formal | secure our border | null | anti-Latino | Border Security Madam President, on another matter, last week, Senator Cruz, my junior Senator and friend, and I took five Members of our Republican conference to McAllen, TX, which is in the Rio Grande Valley, which is the epicenter of a massive humanitarian and immigration crisis that has been going on for at least the last year and a half. McAllen is in the Border Patrol's Rio Grande Valley Sector, it is called, and one of the busiest portions of the U.S.-Mexico border when it comes to illegal migration. For example, between October and May, Rio Grande Valley Sector agents logged more than 333,000 border crossings--more than any of the other 20 Border Patrol sectors. During the visit, our colleagues were able to see and learn what, frankly, as Texas Senators, Senator Cruz and I learned long ago about the traumatic, heart-wrenching consequences of this unabated crisis: groups of migrants with toddlers, who were lying asleep on the dirt road, practically ill from the heat and exhaustion. By the way, the temperature is routinely in excess of 100 degrees at this time of year. One mother and her 7-year-old child, the mom in tears and heartbroken, having left another 10-year-old child behind in Guatemala, were encountered. Unaccompanied children of 7 years of age, with nothing more than the clothes on their back, a birth certificate, and family contact information on a piece of paper--these were the sorts of things that my Senate colleagues had a chance to experience, which, unfortunately, I have seen all too many times before. These aren't heart-wrenching scenes from a war-torn country halfway around the world. This is happening on our front doorstep. This is happening in Texas every day. My colleagues and I also spoke with some of the folks whose homes and properties sit along the U.S.-Texas border with Mexico. They shared with us stories about what it is like to live along one of the hot spots for illegal border crossings. One resident told us last year the Brooks County Sheriff's Department recovered the bodies of 119 dead migrants. So far this year, the county has recovered 64. Just by way of explanation, the coyotes or the smugglers will bring the migrants across the border, put them in a stash house, and then, when theybelieve the coast is clear, put them in a truck and transport them north. They will have to go through a border checkpoint--or an interior checkpoint in Falfurrias, for example, which is where Brooks County is located, but what happens is, the smugglers will tell the migrants: Get out of the vehicle and walk around the checkpoint, and we will pick you up on the north side. The problem is, this is very tough terrain and over 100-degree-plus temperature. Frankly, when some of the migrants become ill or injured, they are simply left behind to die, and that is why so many bodies have been recovered, for example, in Brooks County on a regular basis. It is tough to imagine the toll this sort of discovery takes on a farmer or rancher, and then multiply that shock by more than 100. Then we heard about the losses to property suffered because of this crisis--stolen vehicles, broken fences, damaged crops, vandalism, people who are afraid to let their own family members live and work on their own property because they are worried about the drugs, and they are worried about the potential violence. They talked about the safety concerns for their families and employees because drug traffickers and human smugglers go right through their backyards. These men and women are understandably angry. They said to us: This is the United States of America, and I can't let my daughter or wife or children live and play or work on our own property? They are frustrated beyond belief because their families and employees, their homes and livelihoods are in jeopardy due to the Biden administration's failed border policies. In case there are any doubts, I want to emphasize that what is happening on the border right now does not benefit anyone. Border Patrol agents are stretched thin. They are frustrated. They are overwhelmed by everything they are expected to shoulder. They have been told they cannot do the job that they took an oath to perform under policies by the Department of Homeland Security, which can only be described as nonenforcement policies. Landowners are saddled with safety concerns and financial losses. Nongovernmental organizations, which are doing their best to help people in need, are carrying the weight of this humanitarian crisis with no end in sight. Brave Texas Department of Public Safety officers and National Guardsmen are making serious sacrifices as a result of the administration's failure to secure the border. These guardsmen and the Department of Homeland Security should not have to do a job that is the responsibility of the Federal Government, but when the Federal Government won't do its job, the State of Texas has no choice. One guardsman actually drowned while trying to save two migrants struggling to swim across the Rio Grande River. And the migrants themselves are routinely abused, exploited, even raped and sometimes left for dead in the middle of unforgiving terrain. The only people really winning in this crisis are the criminal organizations and the human smugglers that are getting richer by the day. These cartels are transnational criminal organizations. They will traffic in anything that makes them a buck. They are what one person has called commodity agnostic. They don't care what that commodity is; their goal is simply to maximize their profit by whatever means necessary. And there is no question that the Biden administration's policies have helped enrich the cartels and resulted in too many migrants having lost their lives. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have had the privilege of working with countless men and women who live and work along the southern border. Their experiences and input have shed light on the scope and scale of this crisis, and I am glad to be able to welcome some of our Senate colleagues to join us for an informative trip to the Rio Grande Valley. And I appreciate our colleagues taking the time to come visit the US-Mexico border for an update on the border crisis. Of course, most of them don't come from border States, but in the memorable words of one of our colleagues now, every State is a border State because the consequences of this huge migration and humanitarian crisis--not to mention the drugs that are smuggled across the border--affect every community and every State in our Nation. I also want to thank my constituents, my fellow Texans, who took the time out of their busy schedules to educate our colleagues: the officers, the agents, the landowners, the National Guardsmen, the Texas Department of Public Safety officials, the local sheriffs, and others. What is so shocking to me is, despite the complete security breakdown and, really, the lack of any dispute about what exactly is happening on the border, we just can't seem to get the Biden administration's attention. Landowners can tell them what it was like to discover the dead bodies of migrants who were abandoned by human smugglers, and those who do the Lord's work at nongovernmental organizations can tell the tale of migrants who were violently assaulted and raped on the way to our country, some of whom arrived pregnant. If President Biden would take a moment to sit down with these folks who live and work along the border, he may begin to learn more and view this situation for what it really is: a humanitarian and security crisis precipitated by his administration's unwillingness to secure our border. President Biden has an open invitation to visit the Texas border, and I hope he will take us up on that. If he would, we might finally be able to get something done on a bipartisan basis to abate this crisis and to secure our open borders. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-18-pt1-PgS3325 | null | 4,724 |
formal | buck | null | racist | Border Security Madam President, on another matter, last week, Senator Cruz, my junior Senator and friend, and I took five Members of our Republican conference to McAllen, TX, which is in the Rio Grande Valley, which is the epicenter of a massive humanitarian and immigration crisis that has been going on for at least the last year and a half. McAllen is in the Border Patrol's Rio Grande Valley Sector, it is called, and one of the busiest portions of the U.S.-Mexico border when it comes to illegal migration. For example, between October and May, Rio Grande Valley Sector agents logged more than 333,000 border crossings--more than any of the other 20 Border Patrol sectors. During the visit, our colleagues were able to see and learn what, frankly, as Texas Senators, Senator Cruz and I learned long ago about the traumatic, heart-wrenching consequences of this unabated crisis: groups of migrants with toddlers, who were lying asleep on the dirt road, practically ill from the heat and exhaustion. By the way, the temperature is routinely in excess of 100 degrees at this time of year. One mother and her 7-year-old child, the mom in tears and heartbroken, having left another 10-year-old child behind in Guatemala, were encountered. Unaccompanied children of 7 years of age, with nothing more than the clothes on their back, a birth certificate, and family contact information on a piece of paper--these were the sorts of things that my Senate colleagues had a chance to experience, which, unfortunately, I have seen all too many times before. These aren't heart-wrenching scenes from a war-torn country halfway around the world. This is happening on our front doorstep. This is happening in Texas every day. My colleagues and I also spoke with some of the folks whose homes and properties sit along the U.S.-Texas border with Mexico. They shared with us stories about what it is like to live along one of the hot spots for illegal border crossings. One resident told us last year the Brooks County Sheriff's Department recovered the bodies of 119 dead migrants. So far this year, the county has recovered 64. Just by way of explanation, the coyotes or the smugglers will bring the migrants across the border, put them in a stash house, and then, when theybelieve the coast is clear, put them in a truck and transport them north. They will have to go through a border checkpoint--or an interior checkpoint in Falfurrias, for example, which is where Brooks County is located, but what happens is, the smugglers will tell the migrants: Get out of the vehicle and walk around the checkpoint, and we will pick you up on the north side. The problem is, this is very tough terrain and over 100-degree-plus temperature. Frankly, when some of the migrants become ill or injured, they are simply left behind to die, and that is why so many bodies have been recovered, for example, in Brooks County on a regular basis. It is tough to imagine the toll this sort of discovery takes on a farmer or rancher, and then multiply that shock by more than 100. Then we heard about the losses to property suffered because of this crisis--stolen vehicles, broken fences, damaged crops, vandalism, people who are afraid to let their own family members live and work on their own property because they are worried about the drugs, and they are worried about the potential violence. They talked about the safety concerns for their families and employees because drug traffickers and human smugglers go right through their backyards. These men and women are understandably angry. They said to us: This is the United States of America, and I can't let my daughter or wife or children live and play or work on our own property? They are frustrated beyond belief because their families and employees, their homes and livelihoods are in jeopardy due to the Biden administration's failed border policies. In case there are any doubts, I want to emphasize that what is happening on the border right now does not benefit anyone. Border Patrol agents are stretched thin. They are frustrated. They are overwhelmed by everything they are expected to shoulder. They have been told they cannot do the job that they took an oath to perform under policies by the Department of Homeland Security, which can only be described as nonenforcement policies. Landowners are saddled with safety concerns and financial losses. Nongovernmental organizations, which are doing their best to help people in need, are carrying the weight of this humanitarian crisis with no end in sight. Brave Texas Department of Public Safety officers and National Guardsmen are making serious sacrifices as a result of the administration's failure to secure the border. These guardsmen and the Department of Homeland Security should not have to do a job that is the responsibility of the Federal Government, but when the Federal Government won't do its job, the State of Texas has no choice. One guardsman actually drowned while trying to save two migrants struggling to swim across the Rio Grande River. And the migrants themselves are routinely abused, exploited, even raped and sometimes left for dead in the middle of unforgiving terrain. The only people really winning in this crisis are the criminal organizations and the human smugglers that are getting richer by the day. These cartels are transnational criminal organizations. They will traffic in anything that makes them a buck. They are what one person has called commodity agnostic. They don't care what that commodity is; their goal is simply to maximize their profit by whatever means necessary. And there is no question that the Biden administration's policies have helped enrich the cartels and resulted in too many migrants having lost their lives. Throughout my time in the Senate, I have had the privilege of working with countless men and women who live and work along the southern border. Their experiences and input have shed light on the scope and scale of this crisis, and I am glad to be able to welcome some of our Senate colleagues to join us for an informative trip to the Rio Grande Valley. And I appreciate our colleagues taking the time to come visit the US-Mexico border for an update on the border crisis. Of course, most of them don't come from border States, but in the memorable words of one of our colleagues now, every State is a border State because the consequences of this huge migration and humanitarian crisis--not to mention the drugs that are smuggled across the border--affect every community and every State in our Nation. I also want to thank my constituents, my fellow Texans, who took the time out of their busy schedules to educate our colleagues: the officers, the agents, the landowners, the National Guardsmen, the Texas Department of Public Safety officials, the local sheriffs, and others. What is so shocking to me is, despite the complete security breakdown and, really, the lack of any dispute about what exactly is happening on the border, we just can't seem to get the Biden administration's attention. Landowners can tell them what it was like to discover the dead bodies of migrants who were abandoned by human smugglers, and those who do the Lord's work at nongovernmental organizations can tell the tale of migrants who were violently assaulted and raped on the way to our country, some of whom arrived pregnant. If President Biden would take a moment to sit down with these folks who live and work along the border, he may begin to learn more and view this situation for what it really is: a humanitarian and security crisis precipitated by his administration's unwillingness to secure our border. President Biden has an open invitation to visit the Texas border, and I hope he will take us up on that. If he would, we might finally be able to get something done on a bipartisan basis to abate this crisis and to secure our open borders. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-18-pt1-PgS3325 | null | 4,725 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | At 3:02 p.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Alli, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 203. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4020 Broadway Street in Houston, Texas, as the ``Benny C. Martinez Post Office Building''. H.R. 1934. An act to direct the Federal Government to provide assistance and technical expertise to enhance the representation and leadership of the United States at international standards-setting bodies that set standards for equipment, systems, software, and virtually defined networks that support 5th and future generations mobile telecommunications systems and infrastructure, and for other purposes. H.R. 5659. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1961 North C Street in Oxnard, California, as the ``John R. Hatcher III Post Office Building''. H.R. 7337. An act to require the Archivist of the United States to submit a plan to Congress to eliminate the records backlog at the National Personnel Records Center, and for other purposes. H.R. 8296. An act to protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's ability to provide abortion services. H.R. 8297. An act to prohibit the interference, under color of State law, with the provision of interstate abortion services, and for other purposes. The message further announced that the House has agreed to the following concurrent resolutions, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H. Con. Res. 45. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the execution-style murders of United States citizens Ylli, Agron, and Mehmet Bytyqi in the Republic of Serbia in July 1999. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-18-pt1-PgS3337-2 | null | 4,726 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 203. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4020 Broadway Street in Houston, Texas, as the ``Benny C. Martinez Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 1934. An act to direct the Federal Government to provide assistance and technical expertise to enhance the representation and leadership of the United States at international standards-setting bodies that set standards for equipment, systems, software, and virtually defined networks that support 5th and future generations mobile telecommunications systems and infrastructure, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. H.R. 5659. An act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1961 North C Street in Oxnard, California, as the ``John R. Hatcher III Post Office Building''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 7337. An act to require the Archivist of the United States to submit a plan to Congress to eliminate the records backlog at the National Personnel Records Center, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The following concurrent resolution was read, and referred as indicated: H. Con. Res. 45. Concurrent resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the execution-style murders of United States citizens Ylli, Agron, and Mehmet Bytyqi in the Republic of Serbia in July 1999; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-18-pt1-PgS3337-3 | null | 4,727 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on passage of the bill (H.R. 8404) to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgH6859-2 | null | 4,728 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to suspend the rules and pass the following bills: H.R. 1286, H.R. 2024, H.R. 3222, H.R. 6337, and H.R. 7002 on which the yeas and nays are ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgH6859-3 | null | 4,729 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 144) to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of the Indian Health Service, to acquire private land to facilitate access to the Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center in Hemet, California, and for other purposes, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgH6865 | null | 4,730 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7025) to prohibit the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service from funding entities that commit, fund, or support gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgH6866-2 | null | 4,731 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4404) to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Kissimmee River in the State of Florida as a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgH6866 | null | 4,732 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the clerk's desk and referred as follows: PT-124. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the City Council of Yonkers, New York, relative to Resolution No. 61- 2022, calling upon the Federal Government to take appropriate action to cancel student loan debt and take all available measures to address the student loan debt crisis; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor. PT-125. Also, a petition of the Legislature of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, relative to House Resolution No. 22-17, extending sincere condolences and sympathies to the family of the late Honorable Donald Edwin Young and to acknowledge his lifelong service and contributions to the people of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration. PT-126. Also, a petition of the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, relative to Resolution No. 122-22, supporting Ukrainian refugees, urging the City and County of San Francisco to welcome Ukrainian refugees and declaring the City and County's support for Ukrainian refugees; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. PT-127. Also, a petition of House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, relative to House Resolution 718, to grant partial exemption from the application of Coastwise Laws to the maritime transportation of crude oil and petroleum products between the United States of America and Puerto Rico for the duration of the armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia and the collateral effects thereof.; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgH6883-9 | null | 4,733 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Marriage Equality Mr. President, finally, on marriage equality, this week, the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on two pieces of legislation that will enshrine some of the most fundamental rights that every American should enjoy: the right to marriage equality and the access to contraceptives. These votes come at a disturbing and dangerous moment for our country. A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court concluded one of its worst and most destructive terms in history. Casting aside a half century of precedent, a conservative majority on the Court shamefully and disgustingly eliminated the fundamental right of women to make their own decisions regarding their bodies. It is a decision that will live in infamy, an indelible stain on the legacy of the highest Court in the land that will not be erased. Alarmingly, the nightmare is very likely far from over. The MAGA Republicans on the Court and the MAGA radicals who are taking over the Republican Party have made it abundantly clear they are not satisfied with repealing Roe. As I said, it is an indelible stain, and the attempts by some to talk it away and erase it will not happen because it is such a bad stain. Anyway, the MAGA Republicans who are taking over the Republican Party have made it abundantly clear they are not satisfied with repealing Roe. As many have openly said, they have turned their attention now to the Obergefell decision and marriage equality. A few days ago, the junior Senator from Texas said the Supreme Court's decision protecting marriage equality was ``clearly wrong'' and argued that partisan State legislatures should determine who can and cannot get married. Other MAGA Republicans have echoed the same thing. We need to think--we need to pause and think about how unhinged--unhinged--this idea is. Fresh off repealing the rights of every single woman in this country, MAGA Republicans now want to reopen the doors for discrimination and hatred targeted against same-sex couples. Even one of the Justices on the Supreme Court indicated in his opinion that gay marriage should be reconsidered by the courts. This is the future that MAGA Republicans clamor for: one where women and same-sex couples are branded as second-class citizens. If they succeed, they will take our country down a dark path from which there may be no return, although we will fight it tooth and nail. Every single American should stand in opposition against these MAGA Republican views. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3344-2 | null | 4,734 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Marriage Equality Mr. President, finally, on marriage equality, this week, the House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on two pieces of legislation that will enshrine some of the most fundamental rights that every American should enjoy: the right to marriage equality and the access to contraceptives. These votes come at a disturbing and dangerous moment for our country. A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court concluded one of its worst and most destructive terms in history. Casting aside a half century of precedent, a conservative majority on the Court shamefully and disgustingly eliminated the fundamental right of women to make their own decisions regarding their bodies. It is a decision that will live in infamy, an indelible stain on the legacy of the highest Court in the land that will not be erased. Alarmingly, the nightmare is very likely far from over. The MAGA Republicans on the Court and the MAGA radicals who are taking over the Republican Party have made it abundantly clear they are not satisfied with repealing Roe. As I said, it is an indelible stain, and the attempts by some to talk it away and erase it will not happen because it is such a bad stain. Anyway, the MAGA Republicans who are taking over the Republican Party have made it abundantly clear they are not satisfied with repealing Roe. As many have openly said, they have turned their attention now to the Obergefell decision and marriage equality. A few days ago, the junior Senator from Texas said the Supreme Court's decision protecting marriage equality was ``clearly wrong'' and argued that partisan State legislatures should determine who can and cannot get married. Other MAGA Republicans have echoed the same thing. We need to think--we need to pause and think about how unhinged--unhinged--this idea is. Fresh off repealing the rights of every single woman in this country, MAGA Republicans now want to reopen the doors for discrimination and hatred targeted against same-sex couples. Even one of the Justices on the Supreme Court indicated in his opinion that gay marriage should be reconsidered by the courts. This is the future that MAGA Republicans clamor for: one where women and same-sex couples are branded as second-class citizens. If they succeed, they will take our country down a dark path from which there may be no return, although we will fight it tooth and nail. Every single American should stand in opposition against these MAGA Republican views. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3344-2 | null | 4,735 |
formal | Detroit | null | racist | Judicial Nominations Mr. President, now on judges, as we move forward on legislation to boost chip manufacturing, there is a lot to do on the nominations front too. Let me start with a very important number: 73. Let me say that again: 73. That is the total number of judges the Senate will, hopefully, have confirmed by the end of today. A year and a half into President Biden's term, that is nothing short of a towering achievement. Here is how we reach that figure today: Later this morning, the Senate will vote to confirm Nina Nin-Yuen Wang as U.S. district court judge for the District of Colorado. This afternoon, we will hold a confirmation vote on Nancy Maldonado for the Northern District of Illinois. I expect these well-qualified nominees to move through this Chamber with bipartisan support. And as soon as today, the Senate will also vote on the confirmation of Judge Michelle Childs of South Carolina to serve on the DC Circuit. Judge Childs will be the fourth--only the fourth--Black woman to ever sit on the DC Circuit, founded nearly 130 years ago. Confirming this remarkable jurist is an important step to reversing generations of underrepresentation and making our courts better reflect the Nation. Let's not forget, after the Supreme Court, the DC Court of Appeals is the most important Federal court in the country, regularly taking up cases that the Supreme Court is unable to consider. Oftentimes, the DC Circuit makes the final decision on some of the most important cases in the country, particularly those involving Congress and the executive branch. It is a really important court. Remember, the Supreme Court only hears about 75 cases a year. So lots of very vital cases are decided by this circuit court of appeals. The judges who preside on the DC Circuit must be individuals of high character and unassailable qualification, and that is precisely what we have in Judge Childs. She is a native of Detroit, a graduate of the Universities of South Florida, South Carolina, and Duke. Judge Childs built a reputation as both a trailblazing jurist and a staunch defender of the Constitution. She already commands strong bipartisan support from both sides of the aisle, and I thank my Democratic and Republican colleagues for their support of the judge. As the Senate continues to fulfill its duty of confirming well-qualified judges, we hope the trailblazers of today can be closer to the norm of tomorrow. We want our courts to include more women, more diverse candidates, both demographically and professionally, and more judges who come from unique backgrounds. Our courts, our democracy, and the American people will be better off through these efforts. There is not a doubt in my mind Judge Childs will help advance this noble goal. I look forward to her final confirmation. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3344 | null | 4,736 |
formal | coincidence | null | antisemitic | DISCLOSE Act Mr. President, now on another matter, unfortunately, inflation and tax hikes don't exhaust Washington Democrats' capacity to make trouble for the American people. Today, the Rules Committee will be reviewing the DISCLOSE Act--a seemingly annual liberal attempt to restrict political speech by threatening the privacy of those who see things differently from them. For decades, Washington Democrats have looked for opportunities to expand the reach of unelected Federal bureaucrats to police the political activities of private citizens. The DISCLOSE Act is just one more example of a troubling tendency on today's political left: Quit trying to play by the rules and demanding a change in the rules instead. The DISCLOSE Act was a key pillar of the sweeping election takeover Democrats have been trying to pass since they lost an election in 2016. For years, they have failed to convince majorities in Congress or among the American people that the future of our democracy requires the playing field to be tilted toward their side. But failing to overhaul the system hasn't stopped liberals from sabotaging the guardrails that protect political speech from the inside. Remember, the naming and shaming of conservatives for ``wrong think'' was practically an official policy back in the Obama-Biden IRS. More recently, leaked confidential taxpayer information from the IRS wound up in the hands of liberal publications just in time for tax debates on the Hill. Now Washington Democrats want to grease the skids for more. Needless to say, whether or not disclosure was legal hasn't been a primary concern for the liberals behind these leaks in recent years. But to the extent our Democratic colleagues want to have a conversation about laws on the books, donations to political action committees are already disclosed to the FEC. So are donations to 501(c)(4) organizations aimed at influencing Federal elections. In other words, existing law has already thought of this. What our colleagues want to do is newly expand the definition of political speech and stretch disclosure requirements. They want Americans who oppose them politically to have to either abandon their privacy or abandon the public square. They want conservatives to choose between their livelihoods or their political beliefs. The chilling effect on Americans' speech is by design, not by coincidence. The same liberal groups who urged radical mobs to intimidate the Supreme Court Justices outside their private family homes and the same elected Democratic officials who refuse to condemn that illegal intimidation now want to systematically ``out'' ordinary private citizens' private donations and political speech. The pro-intimidation, anti-privacy modern left wants less privacy surrounding the First Amendment. It doesn't take much connecting the dots to see why. But even the liberal ACLU warned years ago that what liberals want here ``unconstitutionally infringes on freedom of political speech and the right to associational privacy.'' That is the ACLU, on the same side as myself. More recently, the NAACP and the ACLU teamed up in fighting State-level public disclosure laws at the Supreme Court--on the same side, again, as me and several other Republican Senators. They reiterated the landmark ruling in NAACP v. Alabama that ``inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.'' Ah, but today's Democrats disagree. Over the years, Washington Democrats have cycled through a litany of reasons for passing their sweeping takeover of American elections. But while the rationales changed constantly, the goal never changes one inch: more power for elected Democrats to rewrite the rules of their own elections and more power for the political left to harass and intimidate citizens who don't think like them. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3345 | null | 4,737 |
formal | freedom of association | null | racist | DISCLOSE Act Mr. President, now on another matter, unfortunately, inflation and tax hikes don't exhaust Washington Democrats' capacity to make trouble for the American people. Today, the Rules Committee will be reviewing the DISCLOSE Act--a seemingly annual liberal attempt to restrict political speech by threatening the privacy of those who see things differently from them. For decades, Washington Democrats have looked for opportunities to expand the reach of unelected Federal bureaucrats to police the political activities of private citizens. The DISCLOSE Act is just one more example of a troubling tendency on today's political left: Quit trying to play by the rules and demanding a change in the rules instead. The DISCLOSE Act was a key pillar of the sweeping election takeover Democrats have been trying to pass since they lost an election in 2016. For years, they have failed to convince majorities in Congress or among the American people that the future of our democracy requires the playing field to be tilted toward their side. But failing to overhaul the system hasn't stopped liberals from sabotaging the guardrails that protect political speech from the inside. Remember, the naming and shaming of conservatives for ``wrong think'' was practically an official policy back in the Obama-Biden IRS. More recently, leaked confidential taxpayer information from the IRS wound up in the hands of liberal publications just in time for tax debates on the Hill. Now Washington Democrats want to grease the skids for more. Needless to say, whether or not disclosure was legal hasn't been a primary concern for the liberals behind these leaks in recent years. But to the extent our Democratic colleagues want to have a conversation about laws on the books, donations to political action committees are already disclosed to the FEC. So are donations to 501(c)(4) organizations aimed at influencing Federal elections. In other words, existing law has already thought of this. What our colleagues want to do is newly expand the definition of political speech and stretch disclosure requirements. They want Americans who oppose them politically to have to either abandon their privacy or abandon the public square. They want conservatives to choose between their livelihoods or their political beliefs. The chilling effect on Americans' speech is by design, not by coincidence. The same liberal groups who urged radical mobs to intimidate the Supreme Court Justices outside their private family homes and the same elected Democratic officials who refuse to condemn that illegal intimidation now want to systematically ``out'' ordinary private citizens' private donations and political speech. The pro-intimidation, anti-privacy modern left wants less privacy surrounding the First Amendment. It doesn't take much connecting the dots to see why. But even the liberal ACLU warned years ago that what liberals want here ``unconstitutionally infringes on freedom of political speech and the right to associational privacy.'' That is the ACLU, on the same side as myself. More recently, the NAACP and the ACLU teamed up in fighting State-level public disclosure laws at the Supreme Court--on the same side, again, as me and several other Republican Senators. They reiterated the landmark ruling in NAACP v. Alabama that ``inviolability of privacy in group association may in many circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where a group espouses dissident beliefs.'' Ah, but today's Democrats disagree. Over the years, Washington Democrats have cycled through a litany of reasons for passing their sweeping takeover of American elections. But while the rationales changed constantly, the goal never changes one inch: more power for elected Democrats to rewrite the rules of their own elections and more power for the political left to harass and intimidate citizens who don't think like them. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3345 | null | 4,738 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Prescription Drug Costs Mr. President, ask Americans about the cost of living. They will certainly talk to you about gasoline and food and prescription drugs--particularly our seniors. It was ironic yesterday that after the Senator from Kentucky on the Republican side called cutting prescription drug pricing socialistic, just a few minutes later, the senior Republican Senator from Iowa took the floor and endorsed the very same policy. He said he was in favor of cutting prescription drug pricing for senior citizens. The two of them obviously are not talking with one another or certainly not agreeing on a basic issue. Here is what we think. We believe the pharmaceutical industry in America is a great industry and very profitable. We believe that they are spending more money to increase their profits--not as much on research as they are on marketing. What do I mean? Turn on the television station and try to avoid an ad for a drug. They are on constantly. Really, they spend a lot of money--the industry does--on those ads and marketing efforts, more money than they spend on actual research for new drugs. What are they trying to do? They are trying to convince the American consumers to ask for certain drugs when they go to the doctor. They have to work overtime to try to get us to the point where we can spell Xarelto and write it down on a piece of paper and go to a doctor and ask for it, and people do, and it works. The money they spend on advertising works. There are only two countries on Earth that allow television advertising for pharmaceutical drugs: the United States and New Zealand. Most every other country says that those decisions should be made by medical professionals. Consumers can't know the whole story, can't know the medical aspects--every aspect of a drug. It is best to leave it to the professionals. But the American pharmaceutical industry sees it another way. If they can educate, inform, and motivate American consumers to ask for drugs, many doctors will prescribe them without a battle, and the cost of healthcare goes up. BlueCross BlueShield based in Chicago, IL, told me that the push behind increases in health insurance premiums for families across America is the cost of prescription drugs. They are so expensive. So we are trying to, on the Democratic side, come up with a plan that reduces the cost of prescription drugs for Americans and American families--particularly for senior citizens. It is long overdue. Senior citizens who can't afford their prescriptions don't fill them or take half a dose when they should take a full dose for their good health in the future. We want to reach the point where these pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs are affordable. Right now, we have what I consider to be a fair deal between the Veterans' Administration and the pharma companies. They negotiated the prices of these drugs so that our veterans get the benefit of that negotiation. Incidentally, the pharmaceutical companies also have to negotiate with governments in other countries. Canada, selling exactly the same drugs made in the same place in the United States, charges a fraction for most drugs over what is charged to the American consumers. What is the difference? The difference is, the Canadian Government said: We are not going to let you exploit our customers in Canada. So they keep the costs of American drugs lower than what we pay in the United States. There is no fairness there. If we are going to have negotiation to bring pharmaceuticals down to an affordable level in Canada, we should do it in the United States. The bill being pushed by the Democrats and opposed by the Republicans would do several things. It would say that Medicare can negotiate prices for drugs. That will help senior citizens and will save our Treasury money. It also says that we are going to limit the amount of out-of-pocket expenditures that seniors will face under Medicare to $2,000 a year. That is a real break for a lot of people who are struggling to make ends meet among our senior citizens. We also say that if the pharmaceutical companies dramatically increase the price of drugs, they will be subject to a penalty. There are conditions for that, but we are trying to say to them that you can make a profit, but don't try to capitalize on that profit every single year by raising the cost of drugs. What we are talking about are actual family concerns for the affordability of lifesaving drugs. The Democrats are for it; the Republicans oppose it. They have said it is socialism; it is trying to make a buck--or whatever they want to characterize it, I don't know. They ought to sit down and talk to some of these families. In fact, they ought to talk amongst themselves when a Republican Senator took the floor yesterday and agreed with our position on pharmaceuticals. I would say to the Senator from South Dakota, he can continue his campaign for the Republican dream of making tax cuts for the wealthiest people permanent. I want to be part of the Democratic aspiration to make life more affordable, particularly for seniors and those in need of affordable drugs. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3346 | null | 4,739 |
formal | tax cut | null | racist | Prescription Drug Costs Mr. President, ask Americans about the cost of living. They will certainly talk to you about gasoline and food and prescription drugs--particularly our seniors. It was ironic yesterday that after the Senator from Kentucky on the Republican side called cutting prescription drug pricing socialistic, just a few minutes later, the senior Republican Senator from Iowa took the floor and endorsed the very same policy. He said he was in favor of cutting prescription drug pricing for senior citizens. The two of them obviously are not talking with one another or certainly not agreeing on a basic issue. Here is what we think. We believe the pharmaceutical industry in America is a great industry and very profitable. We believe that they are spending more money to increase their profits--not as much on research as they are on marketing. What do I mean? Turn on the television station and try to avoid an ad for a drug. They are on constantly. Really, they spend a lot of money--the industry does--on those ads and marketing efforts, more money than they spend on actual research for new drugs. What are they trying to do? They are trying to convince the American consumers to ask for certain drugs when they go to the doctor. They have to work overtime to try to get us to the point where we can spell Xarelto and write it down on a piece of paper and go to a doctor and ask for it, and people do, and it works. The money they spend on advertising works. There are only two countries on Earth that allow television advertising for pharmaceutical drugs: the United States and New Zealand. Most every other country says that those decisions should be made by medical professionals. Consumers can't know the whole story, can't know the medical aspects--every aspect of a drug. It is best to leave it to the professionals. But the American pharmaceutical industry sees it another way. If they can educate, inform, and motivate American consumers to ask for drugs, many doctors will prescribe them without a battle, and the cost of healthcare goes up. BlueCross BlueShield based in Chicago, IL, told me that the push behind increases in health insurance premiums for families across America is the cost of prescription drugs. They are so expensive. So we are trying to, on the Democratic side, come up with a plan that reduces the cost of prescription drugs for Americans and American families--particularly for senior citizens. It is long overdue. Senior citizens who can't afford their prescriptions don't fill them or take half a dose when they should take a full dose for their good health in the future. We want to reach the point where these pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs are affordable. Right now, we have what I consider to be a fair deal between the Veterans' Administration and the pharma companies. They negotiated the prices of these drugs so that our veterans get the benefit of that negotiation. Incidentally, the pharmaceutical companies also have to negotiate with governments in other countries. Canada, selling exactly the same drugs made in the same place in the United States, charges a fraction for most drugs over what is charged to the American consumers. What is the difference? The difference is, the Canadian Government said: We are not going to let you exploit our customers in Canada. So they keep the costs of American drugs lower than what we pay in the United States. There is no fairness there. If we are going to have negotiation to bring pharmaceuticals down to an affordable level in Canada, we should do it in the United States. The bill being pushed by the Democrats and opposed by the Republicans would do several things. It would say that Medicare can negotiate prices for drugs. That will help senior citizens and will save our Treasury money. It also says that we are going to limit the amount of out-of-pocket expenditures that seniors will face under Medicare to $2,000 a year. That is a real break for a lot of people who are struggling to make ends meet among our senior citizens. We also say that if the pharmaceutical companies dramatically increase the price of drugs, they will be subject to a penalty. There are conditions for that, but we are trying to say to them that you can make a profit, but don't try to capitalize on that profit every single year by raising the cost of drugs. What we are talking about are actual family concerns for the affordability of lifesaving drugs. The Democrats are for it; the Republicans oppose it. They have said it is socialism; it is trying to make a buck--or whatever they want to characterize it, I don't know. They ought to sit down and talk to some of these families. In fact, they ought to talk amongst themselves when a Republican Senator took the floor yesterday and agreed with our position on pharmaceuticals. I would say to the Senator from South Dakota, he can continue his campaign for the Republican dream of making tax cuts for the wealthiest people permanent. I want to be part of the Democratic aspiration to make life more affordable, particularly for seniors and those in need of affordable drugs. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3346 | null | 4,740 |
formal | tax cuts | null | racist | Prescription Drug Costs Mr. President, ask Americans about the cost of living. They will certainly talk to you about gasoline and food and prescription drugs--particularly our seniors. It was ironic yesterday that after the Senator from Kentucky on the Republican side called cutting prescription drug pricing socialistic, just a few minutes later, the senior Republican Senator from Iowa took the floor and endorsed the very same policy. He said he was in favor of cutting prescription drug pricing for senior citizens. The two of them obviously are not talking with one another or certainly not agreeing on a basic issue. Here is what we think. We believe the pharmaceutical industry in America is a great industry and very profitable. We believe that they are spending more money to increase their profits--not as much on research as they are on marketing. What do I mean? Turn on the television station and try to avoid an ad for a drug. They are on constantly. Really, they spend a lot of money--the industry does--on those ads and marketing efforts, more money than they spend on actual research for new drugs. What are they trying to do? They are trying to convince the American consumers to ask for certain drugs when they go to the doctor. They have to work overtime to try to get us to the point where we can spell Xarelto and write it down on a piece of paper and go to a doctor and ask for it, and people do, and it works. The money they spend on advertising works. There are only two countries on Earth that allow television advertising for pharmaceutical drugs: the United States and New Zealand. Most every other country says that those decisions should be made by medical professionals. Consumers can't know the whole story, can't know the medical aspects--every aspect of a drug. It is best to leave it to the professionals. But the American pharmaceutical industry sees it another way. If they can educate, inform, and motivate American consumers to ask for drugs, many doctors will prescribe them without a battle, and the cost of healthcare goes up. BlueCross BlueShield based in Chicago, IL, told me that the push behind increases in health insurance premiums for families across America is the cost of prescription drugs. They are so expensive. So we are trying to, on the Democratic side, come up with a plan that reduces the cost of prescription drugs for Americans and American families--particularly for senior citizens. It is long overdue. Senior citizens who can't afford their prescriptions don't fill them or take half a dose when they should take a full dose for their good health in the future. We want to reach the point where these pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs are affordable. Right now, we have what I consider to be a fair deal between the Veterans' Administration and the pharma companies. They negotiated the prices of these drugs so that our veterans get the benefit of that negotiation. Incidentally, the pharmaceutical companies also have to negotiate with governments in other countries. Canada, selling exactly the same drugs made in the same place in the United States, charges a fraction for most drugs over what is charged to the American consumers. What is the difference? The difference is, the Canadian Government said: We are not going to let you exploit our customers in Canada. So they keep the costs of American drugs lower than what we pay in the United States. There is no fairness there. If we are going to have negotiation to bring pharmaceuticals down to an affordable level in Canada, we should do it in the United States. The bill being pushed by the Democrats and opposed by the Republicans would do several things. It would say that Medicare can negotiate prices for drugs. That will help senior citizens and will save our Treasury money. It also says that we are going to limit the amount of out-of-pocket expenditures that seniors will face under Medicare to $2,000 a year. That is a real break for a lot of people who are struggling to make ends meet among our senior citizens. We also say that if the pharmaceutical companies dramatically increase the price of drugs, they will be subject to a penalty. There are conditions for that, but we are trying to say to them that you can make a profit, but don't try to capitalize on that profit every single year by raising the cost of drugs. What we are talking about are actual family concerns for the affordability of lifesaving drugs. The Democrats are for it; the Republicans oppose it. They have said it is socialism; it is trying to make a buck--or whatever they want to characterize it, I don't know. They ought to sit down and talk to some of these families. In fact, they ought to talk amongst themselves when a Republican Senator took the floor yesterday and agreed with our position on pharmaceuticals. I would say to the Senator from South Dakota, he can continue his campaign for the Republican dream of making tax cuts for the wealthiest people permanent. I want to be part of the Democratic aspiration to make life more affordable, particularly for seniors and those in need of affordable drugs. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3346 | null | 4,741 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Prescription Drug Costs Mr. President, ask Americans about the cost of living. They will certainly talk to you about gasoline and food and prescription drugs--particularly our seniors. It was ironic yesterday that after the Senator from Kentucky on the Republican side called cutting prescription drug pricing socialistic, just a few minutes later, the senior Republican Senator from Iowa took the floor and endorsed the very same policy. He said he was in favor of cutting prescription drug pricing for senior citizens. The two of them obviously are not talking with one another or certainly not agreeing on a basic issue. Here is what we think. We believe the pharmaceutical industry in America is a great industry and very profitable. We believe that they are spending more money to increase their profits--not as much on research as they are on marketing. What do I mean? Turn on the television station and try to avoid an ad for a drug. They are on constantly. Really, they spend a lot of money--the industry does--on those ads and marketing efforts, more money than they spend on actual research for new drugs. What are they trying to do? They are trying to convince the American consumers to ask for certain drugs when they go to the doctor. They have to work overtime to try to get us to the point where we can spell Xarelto and write it down on a piece of paper and go to a doctor and ask for it, and people do, and it works. The money they spend on advertising works. There are only two countries on Earth that allow television advertising for pharmaceutical drugs: the United States and New Zealand. Most every other country says that those decisions should be made by medical professionals. Consumers can't know the whole story, can't know the medical aspects--every aspect of a drug. It is best to leave it to the professionals. But the American pharmaceutical industry sees it another way. If they can educate, inform, and motivate American consumers to ask for drugs, many doctors will prescribe them without a battle, and the cost of healthcare goes up. BlueCross BlueShield based in Chicago, IL, told me that the push behind increases in health insurance premiums for families across America is the cost of prescription drugs. They are so expensive. So we are trying to, on the Democratic side, come up with a plan that reduces the cost of prescription drugs for Americans and American families--particularly for senior citizens. It is long overdue. Senior citizens who can't afford their prescriptions don't fill them or take half a dose when they should take a full dose for their good health in the future. We want to reach the point where these pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs are affordable. Right now, we have what I consider to be a fair deal between the Veterans' Administration and the pharma companies. They negotiated the prices of these drugs so that our veterans get the benefit of that negotiation. Incidentally, the pharmaceutical companies also have to negotiate with governments in other countries. Canada, selling exactly the same drugs made in the same place in the United States, charges a fraction for most drugs over what is charged to the American consumers. What is the difference? The difference is, the Canadian Government said: We are not going to let you exploit our customers in Canada. So they keep the costs of American drugs lower than what we pay in the United States. There is no fairness there. If we are going to have negotiation to bring pharmaceuticals down to an affordable level in Canada, we should do it in the United States. The bill being pushed by the Democrats and opposed by the Republicans would do several things. It would say that Medicare can negotiate prices for drugs. That will help senior citizens and will save our Treasury money. It also says that we are going to limit the amount of out-of-pocket expenditures that seniors will face under Medicare to $2,000 a year. That is a real break for a lot of people who are struggling to make ends meet among our senior citizens. We also say that if the pharmaceutical companies dramatically increase the price of drugs, they will be subject to a penalty. There are conditions for that, but we are trying to say to them that you can make a profit, but don't try to capitalize on that profit every single year by raising the cost of drugs. What we are talking about are actual family concerns for the affordability of lifesaving drugs. The Democrats are for it; the Republicans oppose it. They have said it is socialism; it is trying to make a buck--or whatever they want to characterize it, I don't know. They ought to sit down and talk to some of these families. In fact, they ought to talk amongst themselves when a Republican Senator took the floor yesterday and agreed with our position on pharmaceuticals. I would say to the Senator from South Dakota, he can continue his campaign for the Republican dream of making tax cuts for the wealthiest people permanent. I want to be part of the Democratic aspiration to make life more affordable, particularly for seniors and those in need of affordable drugs. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3346 | null | 4,742 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Prescription Drug Costs Mr. President, ask Americans about the cost of living. They will certainly talk to you about gasoline and food and prescription drugs--particularly our seniors. It was ironic yesterday that after the Senator from Kentucky on the Republican side called cutting prescription drug pricing socialistic, just a few minutes later, the senior Republican Senator from Iowa took the floor and endorsed the very same policy. He said he was in favor of cutting prescription drug pricing for senior citizens. The two of them obviously are not talking with one another or certainly not agreeing on a basic issue. Here is what we think. We believe the pharmaceutical industry in America is a great industry and very profitable. We believe that they are spending more money to increase their profits--not as much on research as they are on marketing. What do I mean? Turn on the television station and try to avoid an ad for a drug. They are on constantly. Really, they spend a lot of money--the industry does--on those ads and marketing efforts, more money than they spend on actual research for new drugs. What are they trying to do? They are trying to convince the American consumers to ask for certain drugs when they go to the doctor. They have to work overtime to try to get us to the point where we can spell Xarelto and write it down on a piece of paper and go to a doctor and ask for it, and people do, and it works. The money they spend on advertising works. There are only two countries on Earth that allow television advertising for pharmaceutical drugs: the United States and New Zealand. Most every other country says that those decisions should be made by medical professionals. Consumers can't know the whole story, can't know the medical aspects--every aspect of a drug. It is best to leave it to the professionals. But the American pharmaceutical industry sees it another way. If they can educate, inform, and motivate American consumers to ask for drugs, many doctors will prescribe them without a battle, and the cost of healthcare goes up. BlueCross BlueShield based in Chicago, IL, told me that the push behind increases in health insurance premiums for families across America is the cost of prescription drugs. They are so expensive. So we are trying to, on the Democratic side, come up with a plan that reduces the cost of prescription drugs for Americans and American families--particularly for senior citizens. It is long overdue. Senior citizens who can't afford their prescriptions don't fill them or take half a dose when they should take a full dose for their good health in the future. We want to reach the point where these pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs are affordable. Right now, we have what I consider to be a fair deal between the Veterans' Administration and the pharma companies. They negotiated the prices of these drugs so that our veterans get the benefit of that negotiation. Incidentally, the pharmaceutical companies also have to negotiate with governments in other countries. Canada, selling exactly the same drugs made in the same place in the United States, charges a fraction for most drugs over what is charged to the American consumers. What is the difference? The difference is, the Canadian Government said: We are not going to let you exploit our customers in Canada. So they keep the costs of American drugs lower than what we pay in the United States. There is no fairness there. If we are going to have negotiation to bring pharmaceuticals down to an affordable level in Canada, we should do it in the United States. The bill being pushed by the Democrats and opposed by the Republicans would do several things. It would say that Medicare can negotiate prices for drugs. That will help senior citizens and will save our Treasury money. It also says that we are going to limit the amount of out-of-pocket expenditures that seniors will face under Medicare to $2,000 a year. That is a real break for a lot of people who are struggling to make ends meet among our senior citizens. We also say that if the pharmaceutical companies dramatically increase the price of drugs, they will be subject to a penalty. There are conditions for that, but we are trying to say to them that you can make a profit, but don't try to capitalize on that profit every single year by raising the cost of drugs. What we are talking about are actual family concerns for the affordability of lifesaving drugs. The Democrats are for it; the Republicans oppose it. They have said it is socialism; it is trying to make a buck--or whatever they want to characterize it, I don't know. They ought to sit down and talk to some of these families. In fact, they ought to talk amongst themselves when a Republican Senator took the floor yesterday and agreed with our position on pharmaceuticals. I would say to the Senator from South Dakota, he can continue his campaign for the Republican dream of making tax cuts for the wealthiest people permanent. I want to be part of the Democratic aspiration to make life more affordable, particularly for seniors and those in need of affordable drugs. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3346 | null | 4,743 |
formal | buck | null | racist | Prescription Drug Costs Mr. President, ask Americans about the cost of living. They will certainly talk to you about gasoline and food and prescription drugs--particularly our seniors. It was ironic yesterday that after the Senator from Kentucky on the Republican side called cutting prescription drug pricing socialistic, just a few minutes later, the senior Republican Senator from Iowa took the floor and endorsed the very same policy. He said he was in favor of cutting prescription drug pricing for senior citizens. The two of them obviously are not talking with one another or certainly not agreeing on a basic issue. Here is what we think. We believe the pharmaceutical industry in America is a great industry and very profitable. We believe that they are spending more money to increase their profits--not as much on research as they are on marketing. What do I mean? Turn on the television station and try to avoid an ad for a drug. They are on constantly. Really, they spend a lot of money--the industry does--on those ads and marketing efforts, more money than they spend on actual research for new drugs. What are they trying to do? They are trying to convince the American consumers to ask for certain drugs when they go to the doctor. They have to work overtime to try to get us to the point where we can spell Xarelto and write it down on a piece of paper and go to a doctor and ask for it, and people do, and it works. The money they spend on advertising works. There are only two countries on Earth that allow television advertising for pharmaceutical drugs: the United States and New Zealand. Most every other country says that those decisions should be made by medical professionals. Consumers can't know the whole story, can't know the medical aspects--every aspect of a drug. It is best to leave it to the professionals. But the American pharmaceutical industry sees it another way. If they can educate, inform, and motivate American consumers to ask for drugs, many doctors will prescribe them without a battle, and the cost of healthcare goes up. BlueCross BlueShield based in Chicago, IL, told me that the push behind increases in health insurance premiums for families across America is the cost of prescription drugs. They are so expensive. So we are trying to, on the Democratic side, come up with a plan that reduces the cost of prescription drugs for Americans and American families--particularly for senior citizens. It is long overdue. Senior citizens who can't afford their prescriptions don't fill them or take half a dose when they should take a full dose for their good health in the future. We want to reach the point where these pharmaceuticals and prescription drugs are affordable. Right now, we have what I consider to be a fair deal between the Veterans' Administration and the pharma companies. They negotiated the prices of these drugs so that our veterans get the benefit of that negotiation. Incidentally, the pharmaceutical companies also have to negotiate with governments in other countries. Canada, selling exactly the same drugs made in the same place in the United States, charges a fraction for most drugs over what is charged to the American consumers. What is the difference? The difference is, the Canadian Government said: We are not going to let you exploit our customers in Canada. So they keep the costs of American drugs lower than what we pay in the United States. There is no fairness there. If we are going to have negotiation to bring pharmaceuticals down to an affordable level in Canada, we should do it in the United States. The bill being pushed by the Democrats and opposed by the Republicans would do several things. It would say that Medicare can negotiate prices for drugs. That will help senior citizens and will save our Treasury money. It also says that we are going to limit the amount of out-of-pocket expenditures that seniors will face under Medicare to $2,000 a year. That is a real break for a lot of people who are struggling to make ends meet among our senior citizens. We also say that if the pharmaceutical companies dramatically increase the price of drugs, they will be subject to a penalty. There are conditions for that, but we are trying to say to them that you can make a profit, but don't try to capitalize on that profit every single year by raising the cost of drugs. What we are talking about are actual family concerns for the affordability of lifesaving drugs. The Democrats are for it; the Republicans oppose it. They have said it is socialism; it is trying to make a buck--or whatever they want to characterize it, I don't know. They ought to sit down and talk to some of these families. In fact, they ought to talk amongst themselves when a Republican Senator took the floor yesterday and agreed with our position on pharmaceuticals. I would say to the Senator from South Dakota, he can continue his campaign for the Republican dream of making tax cuts for the wealthiest people permanent. I want to be part of the Democratic aspiration to make life more affordable, particularly for seniors and those in need of affordable drugs. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3346 | null | 4,744 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Semiconductors Mr. President, today, the Senate is going to take up the CHIPS Act of 2022. It is critical to our economy and national security. It will provide billions of dollars to boost our domestic semiconductor manufacturing industry. In 1990, the United States produced 37 percent of the world's semiconductors--1990. Today, it is 12 percent. Semiconductors are used in everything from vacuum cleaners to refrigerators, cell phones, cars, and fighter jets. The ongoing global shortage of microchips has led us to supply chain constraints on goods, higher prices, layoffs, and a great dependency on foreign suppliers. For generations, my home State of Illinois has been a leader in auto manufacturing. This includes companies like Stellantis, which has a plant in Belvidere, IL. Unfortunately, this plant has had forced shutdowns and layoffs in recent years--not because they lack customers; they lack chips. The global shortage of semiconductors has forced Stellantis to slash its workforce by more than 70 percent over the past 3 years. A similar story unfolded at Ford's Chicago Assembly Plant--repeatedly forced to stop production and lay off workers because of a shortage of chips. This isn't just an Illinois problem. U.S. automakers are building an estimated 3 million fewer vehicles than projected this year because of the semiconductor shortage. The global chip shortage and resultant slowdown in auto manufacturing has driven up the cost of cars and trucks. A new car costs 17 percent more today than a year ago. Talk about dealing with inflation--when it comes to the cost of vehicles, you are dealing with a shortage in semiconductor chips. Across America, layoffs, closed production lines, long waits, and high prices for cars, appliances, and other basics are evidence of the urgent need to invest in our domestic manufacturing industry and domestic production of semiconductors. If we fail to make these investments, American workers and consumers will pay the price. This isn't only about our Nation's economy; it is also about our Nation's security. Many U.S. defense systems and platforms rely on foreign-made chips for their performance, and semiconductors are particularly critical for the next generation of defense technology. Most of the chips that power U.S. defense systems today are made in Asia. Think about that for a minute. We are dependent on Asia for the chips that we need to keep America safe. We have seen what a pandemic can do to supply chains. Think about how military conflict could end up with supply chains, global supply chains, in danger. Imagine if China, for instance, decided to deliberately withhold microchips from a nation to weaken their national defense. Rebuilding America's microchip production is about defending our Nation and our allies in a dangerous world. I understand some have concern about the subsidies in the bill, framing them as corporate giveaways. It is true that many of the chipmakers who would benefit from this bill are profitable or they moved production overseas despite receiving previous Federal funding. But in this bill are incentives to bring microchip production back to the United States, and they are absolutely necessary for us to compete with other nations that are trying to lure chipmakers away from the United States. The bill also includes guardrails to protect and promote production in the United States, such as prohibiting the manufacture of certain chips in countries of concern, like China. Ultimately, this bill makes strategic investment to boost our domestic supply chain, counter the threat posed by other countries, like China and Russia, and help American consumers. I urge my colleagues to pass the CHIPS Act without delay. Mr. President, I would like to make one last statement on the record. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3347 | null | 4,745 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the bipartisan Global Learning Loss Assessment Act, S. 552, which I introduced along with Senator Boozman last year. This bill requires the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, to submit a report to Congress that assesses learning loss, identifies gaps in access to education, and outlines the response that is needed to help students recover from COVID-19 and reach their full potential. I applaud the advancement of this bill, which was voted on favorably in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier today and will now move to the Senate floor for consideration. I should note that the House companion bill passed the House in June 2021. So it is time for the Senate to act. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced schools around the world to suspend in-person learning as a measure to contain the spread of the virus and safeguard public health. Even before the pandemic began, UNESCO reported that 258 million children were out of school globally, including 130 million girls. Now, the pandemic has disrupted the education of an estimated 90 percent of the world's student population--over 1.6 billion children and youth--who saw their schools close at some point due to COVID-19. We already know that school closures lead to interrupted learning, poor nutrition, gaps in childcare, increased dropout rates, exposure to violence, and social isolation. What is more, students already at a disadvantage before COVID-19 will experience greater learning loss, thereby worsening inequity and inequality in education. School closures are especially burdensome for girls, who are frequently expected to shoulder more household responsibilities and are more vulnerable to gender-based violence--GBV. For example, according to a study by the United Nations Development Program, school closures in Sierra Leone necessitated by the Ebola pandemic led to increased instances of sexual- and gender-based violence, teenage pregnancy, school dropout, and child labor for girls. Restrictions associated with COVID-19 have also made girls more vulnerable to child and early forced marriage. The United Nations Population Fund--UNFPA--estimates that 13,000,000 more child marriages could take place by 2030 than would have without the pandemic, and when a girl gets married, her education almost always stops. When school closures occur, a significant percentage of distance learning alternatives rely exclusively on online platforms. However, according to UNICEF, two-thirds of the world's school-aged children do not have an internet connection in their homes, with that number rising to about 90 percent of students in sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, schools and local learning centers frequently have inadequate internet connectivity. The Global Learning Loss Assessment Act will help improve the quality and reach of international education assistance by giving Congress the information we need to assess the status of education worldwide. The critical information included in the report produced by USAID will be used to inform future policy, oversight, and programmatic decisions by Congress and USAID, and will help ensure that our partner countries are better prepared to respond to future crises that could disrupt the education system. Specifically, the USAID report shall include: an assessment of learning loss globally and of the impact on U.S. basic education programs; an overview of distance learning in low resource contexts; a description of the barriers to education or distance learning for marginalized children; data on USAID programs that have been supporting learning during the pandemic; an overview of how USAID has, independently and in coordination with partners, adapted basic education programming during the COVID-19 pandemic to support continued learning; and a description of the authorities and resources USAID needs to continue to support education programs during and after the pandemic to mitigate learning loss and help students get back on track. The Global Learning Loss Assessment Act has been endorsed by several important NGOs, including the Basic Education Coalition, Cambridge Education, Catholic Relief Services, Chemonics International, Childhood Education International, Food for the Hungry, Global Campaign for Education-US, Jesuit Refugee Service/USA, Luminos Fund, RESULTS, RISE Institute, RTI International, Save the Children, Unbounded Associates, UNICEF USA, World Education, and World Learning. I look forward to the opportunity for this important bill supporting education worldwide to be adopted by the Senate. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3367-3 | null | 4,746 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the bipartisan Global Learning Loss Assessment Act, S. 552, which I introduced along with Senator Boozman last year. This bill requires the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, to submit a report to Congress that assesses learning loss, identifies gaps in access to education, and outlines the response that is needed to help students recover from COVID-19 and reach their full potential. I applaud the advancement of this bill, which was voted on favorably in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier today and will now move to the Senate floor for consideration. I should note that the House companion bill passed the House in June 2021. So it is time for the Senate to act. The COVID-19 pandemic has forced schools around the world to suspend in-person learning as a measure to contain the spread of the virus and safeguard public health. Even before the pandemic began, UNESCO reported that 258 million children were out of school globally, including 130 million girls. Now, the pandemic has disrupted the education of an estimated 90 percent of the world's student population--over 1.6 billion children and youth--who saw their schools close at some point due to COVID-19. We already know that school closures lead to interrupted learning, poor nutrition, gaps in childcare, increased dropout rates, exposure to violence, and social isolation. What is more, students already at a disadvantage before COVID-19 will experience greater learning loss, thereby worsening inequity and inequality in education. School closures are especially burdensome for girls, who are frequently expected to shoulder more household responsibilities and are more vulnerable to gender-based violence--GBV. For example, according to a study by the United Nations Development Program, school closures in Sierra Leone necessitated by the Ebola pandemic led to increased instances of sexual- and gender-based violence, teenage pregnancy, school dropout, and child labor for girls. Restrictions associated with COVID-19 have also made girls more vulnerable to child and early forced marriage. The United Nations Population Fund--UNFPA--estimates that 13,000,000 more child marriages could take place by 2030 than would have without the pandemic, and when a girl gets married, her education almost always stops. When school closures occur, a significant percentage of distance learning alternatives rely exclusively on online platforms. However, according to UNICEF, two-thirds of the world's school-aged children do not have an internet connection in their homes, with that number rising to about 90 percent of students in sub-Saharan Africa. Furthermore, schools and local learning centers frequently have inadequate internet connectivity. The Global Learning Loss Assessment Act will help improve the quality and reach of international education assistance by giving Congress the information we need to assess the status of education worldwide. The critical information included in the report produced by USAID will be used to inform future policy, oversight, and programmatic decisions by Congress and USAID, and will help ensure that our partner countries are better prepared to respond to future crises that could disrupt the education system. Specifically, the USAID report shall include: an assessment of learning loss globally and of the impact on U.S. basic education programs; an overview of distance learning in low resource contexts; a description of the barriers to education or distance learning for marginalized children; data on USAID programs that have been supporting learning during the pandemic; an overview of how USAID has, independently and in coordination with partners, adapted basic education programming during the COVID-19 pandemic to support continued learning; and a description of the authorities and resources USAID needs to continue to support education programs during and after the pandemic to mitigate learning loss and help students get back on track. The Global Learning Loss Assessment Act has been endorsed by several important NGOs, including the Basic Education Coalition, Cambridge Education, Catholic Relief Services, Chemonics International, Childhood Education International, Food for the Hungry, Global Campaign for Education-US, Jesuit Refugee Service/USA, Luminos Fund, RESULTS, RISE Institute, RTI International, Save the Children, Unbounded Associates, UNICEF USA, World Education, and World Learning. I look forward to the opportunity for this important bill supporting education worldwide to be adopted by the Senate. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3367-3 | null | 4,747 |
formal | religious freedom | null | homophobic | The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated: POM-158. A resolution adopted by the House of Representatives of the State of Ohio urging the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom to take whatever action is necessary to address and rectify the situation described in this resolution, and consider adding Canada to the Special Watch List of countries where the government engages in violations of religious freedom; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. House Resolution No. 194 Whereas, The citizens of Ohio are citizens of the United States, which by its nature 1s a country of religious freedom free of government interference; and Whereas, Civilized societies normative structures show churches to have jurisdictions separate from civil authorities, with the civil authorities having no authority in church governance, courts, preaching, or sacraments; and Whereas, The first line of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'' thus upholding freedom of religion as one of our most sacred of Rights; and Whereas, The founders themselves elaborated upon and celebrated religious freedom in their writings; and Whereas, Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Convention, said ``Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ``make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties''; and Whereas, Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, believed that any government involvement in the church would corrupt the church and coined the term ``separation of church and state'' to keep the church safe from government interference; and Whereas, The State of Ohio itself was founded upon similar premises from its inception as a part of the Northwest Territory; and Whereas, The Northwest Ordinance stated in its first article, ``No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments in the said territory''; and Whereas, The Northwest Ordinance stated in its third article, ``Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged''; and Whereas, The Ohio Constitution's Bill of Rights states in Article I Section 7, ``All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society; nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required, as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction''; and Whereas, The citizens of Ohio have a robust system of local religious charity systems; and Whereas, The citizens of Ohio have stood against injustices throughout our history; and Whereas, During the American Civil War, to help rid the nation of the injustice of slavery, the State of Ohio provided the United States government with more than two hundred sixty regiments, upwards of three hundred thousand men, including the prominent Generals McDowell, Buell, Sheridan, McClellan, Sherman, and future President Ulysses S. Grant; and Whereas, Ohio abolitionists played a prominent role in the Underground Railroad, helping thousands escape the bondage of slavery to find freedom, such as our involvement in the abolition of slavery in the North; and Whereas, We, the members of the House of Representatives of the 134th General Assembly of the State of Ohio, are the State representative body of such a freedom-loving people; and Whereas, During the COVID-19 emergency, the government of Ohio stood up for religious liberty and exempted religious services from COVID-19 restrictions; and Whereas, The State of Ohio has a vested interest in the affairs of Canada, being our neighbor to the North and Ohio's number one trading partner in the world in both imports and exports; and Whereas, Ohio's exports to Canada benefit many segments of the economy, and thousands of individual companies, on both sides of the border; and Whereas, Indeed Ohio is not alone in valuing freedom. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that ``Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms,'' which include the ``freedom of conscience and religion.'' The arrests and actions described below, taken to enforce overly burdensome and unjustified orders, however, do not seem to live up to this praiseworthy statement; and Whereas, We, the members of the House of Representatives of the 134th General Assembly of the State of Ohio, have taken note of the abuses of religious liberty that have gone on throughout the Provinces of Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic; and Whereas, Pastor James Coates of Edmonton, Alberta was jailed for thirty-five days and in solitary confinement for seven days straight for holding religious services at a capacity not in keeping with the Public Health Act; and Whereas, Brothers Artur and David Pawlowski, pastors from Alberta, Canada were arrested and spent three days in jail for organizing a church service that ignored COVID-19 social distancing rules and mask mandates; and Whereas, Pastor Coates, and perhaps other Canadian pastors, have held services in undisclosed locations, essentially going underground, in order to avoid persecution by government authorities, and to allay congregant's fears; and Whereas, Pastor Tobias Tissen of Steinbach, Manitoba, was arrested for holding an outdoor service that violated a health order that prohibited gatherings of more than five people; and Whereas, Under Province of Alberta health orders, in-person faith group meetings, and other religious gatherings, have been prohibited in private homes while the emergency is in effect, thus intruding into the most sacred liberties of its citizens, those of religious freedom and privacy; and Whereas, All of the Canadian provinces have at times prohibited religious gatherings outright, or have limited the size of religious gatherings, and many provinces still have severe size limitations on religious gatherings either held indoors or outdoors, punishable by harassment, fines, and jail time of faith leaders, thus limiting the parishioners' or members' ability to attend the assembly of their choice, and generally limiting religious liberty; and Whereas, On December 8, 2021, Canada's Senate Bill C-4 received royal assent and became law. This act is overly broad in scope and has potential negative implications for religious liberties and expression, including a prison sentence of up to five years for merely expressing a biblical view of marriage, thus restricting the ability of religious leaders from expressing sincerely held religious beliefs on marriage and sexuality; and Whereas, In 1998, the Congress of the United States established the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom; and Whereas, The Commission includes members appointed by the President of the United States, by the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, and by the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; and Whereas, The purpose of the Commission, as enumerated in federal law, in part, is to consider and recommend options for policies of the United States government with respect to each foreign country the government of which has engaged in or tolerated violations of religious freedom; and Whereas, The Commission maintains a Special Watch List of countries where the government engages in or tolerates ``severe'' violations of religious freedom; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That we, the members of the House of Representatives of the 134th General Assembly of the State of Ohio, urge the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom to take whatever action is necessary to address and rectify the situation, described in this resolution, and consider adding Canada to the Special Watch List; and be it further Resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives transmit duly authenticated copies of this resolution to each commissioner of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, the President of the United States, the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, each member of the Ohio Congressional delegation, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada, the Speaker of the Senate of Canada, and the news media of Ohio. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3374 | null | 4,748 |
formal | religious liberty | null | homophobic | The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated: POM-158. A resolution adopted by the House of Representatives of the State of Ohio urging the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom to take whatever action is necessary to address and rectify the situation described in this resolution, and consider adding Canada to the Special Watch List of countries where the government engages in violations of religious freedom; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. House Resolution No. 194 Whereas, The citizens of Ohio are citizens of the United States, which by its nature 1s a country of religious freedom free of government interference; and Whereas, Civilized societies normative structures show churches to have jurisdictions separate from civil authorities, with the civil authorities having no authority in church governance, courts, preaching, or sacraments; and Whereas, The first line of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'' thus upholding freedom of religion as one of our most sacred of Rights; and Whereas, The founders themselves elaborated upon and celebrated religious freedom in their writings; and Whereas, Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Convention, said ``Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ``make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties''; and Whereas, Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, believed that any government involvement in the church would corrupt the church and coined the term ``separation of church and state'' to keep the church safe from government interference; and Whereas, The State of Ohio itself was founded upon similar premises from its inception as a part of the Northwest Territory; and Whereas, The Northwest Ordinance stated in its first article, ``No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments in the said territory''; and Whereas, The Northwest Ordinance stated in its third article, ``Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged''; and Whereas, The Ohio Constitution's Bill of Rights states in Article I Section 7, ``All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society; nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required, as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction''; and Whereas, The citizens of Ohio have a robust system of local religious charity systems; and Whereas, The citizens of Ohio have stood against injustices throughout our history; and Whereas, During the American Civil War, to help rid the nation of the injustice of slavery, the State of Ohio provided the United States government with more than two hundred sixty regiments, upwards of three hundred thousand men, including the prominent Generals McDowell, Buell, Sheridan, McClellan, Sherman, and future President Ulysses S. Grant; and Whereas, Ohio abolitionists played a prominent role in the Underground Railroad, helping thousands escape the bondage of slavery to find freedom, such as our involvement in the abolition of slavery in the North; and Whereas, We, the members of the House of Representatives of the 134th General Assembly of the State of Ohio, are the State representative body of such a freedom-loving people; and Whereas, During the COVID-19 emergency, the government of Ohio stood up for religious liberty and exempted religious services from COVID-19 restrictions; and Whereas, The State of Ohio has a vested interest in the affairs of Canada, being our neighbor to the North and Ohio's number one trading partner in the world in both imports and exports; and Whereas, Ohio's exports to Canada benefit many segments of the economy, and thousands of individual companies, on both sides of the border; and Whereas, Indeed Ohio is not alone in valuing freedom. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that ``Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms,'' which include the ``freedom of conscience and religion.'' The arrests and actions described below, taken to enforce overly burdensome and unjustified orders, however, do not seem to live up to this praiseworthy statement; and Whereas, We, the members of the House of Representatives of the 134th General Assembly of the State of Ohio, have taken note of the abuses of religious liberty that have gone on throughout the Provinces of Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic; and Whereas, Pastor James Coates of Edmonton, Alberta was jailed for thirty-five days and in solitary confinement for seven days straight for holding religious services at a capacity not in keeping with the Public Health Act; and Whereas, Brothers Artur and David Pawlowski, pastors from Alberta, Canada were arrested and spent three days in jail for organizing a church service that ignored COVID-19 social distancing rules and mask mandates; and Whereas, Pastor Coates, and perhaps other Canadian pastors, have held services in undisclosed locations, essentially going underground, in order to avoid persecution by government authorities, and to allay congregant's fears; and Whereas, Pastor Tobias Tissen of Steinbach, Manitoba, was arrested for holding an outdoor service that violated a health order that prohibited gatherings of more than five people; and Whereas, Under Province of Alberta health orders, in-person faith group meetings, and other religious gatherings, have been prohibited in private homes while the emergency is in effect, thus intruding into the most sacred liberties of its citizens, those of religious freedom and privacy; and Whereas, All of the Canadian provinces have at times prohibited religious gatherings outright, or have limited the size of religious gatherings, and many provinces still have severe size limitations on religious gatherings either held indoors or outdoors, punishable by harassment, fines, and jail time of faith leaders, thus limiting the parishioners' or members' ability to attend the assembly of their choice, and generally limiting religious liberty; and Whereas, On December 8, 2021, Canada's Senate Bill C-4 received royal assent and became law. This act is overly broad in scope and has potential negative implications for religious liberties and expression, including a prison sentence of up to five years for merely expressing a biblical view of marriage, thus restricting the ability of religious leaders from expressing sincerely held religious beliefs on marriage and sexuality; and Whereas, In 1998, the Congress of the United States established the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom; and Whereas, The Commission includes members appointed by the President of the United States, by the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, and by the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; and Whereas, The purpose of the Commission, as enumerated in federal law, in part, is to consider and recommend options for policies of the United States government with respect to each foreign country the government of which has engaged in or tolerated violations of religious freedom; and Whereas, The Commission maintains a Special Watch List of countries where the government engages in or tolerates ``severe'' violations of religious freedom; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That we, the members of the House of Representatives of the 134th General Assembly of the State of Ohio, urge the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom to take whatever action is necessary to address and rectify the situation, described in this resolution, and consider adding Canada to the Special Watch List; and be it further Resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives transmit duly authenticated copies of this resolution to each commissioner of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, the President of the United States, the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, each member of the Ohio Congressional delegation, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada, the Speaker of the Senate of Canada, and the news media of Ohio. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3374 | null | 4,749 |
formal | freedom of religion | null | homophobic | The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated: POM-158. A resolution adopted by the House of Representatives of the State of Ohio urging the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom to take whatever action is necessary to address and rectify the situation described in this resolution, and consider adding Canada to the Special Watch List of countries where the government engages in violations of religious freedom; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. House Resolution No. 194 Whereas, The citizens of Ohio are citizens of the United States, which by its nature 1s a country of religious freedom free of government interference; and Whereas, Civilized societies normative structures show churches to have jurisdictions separate from civil authorities, with the civil authorities having no authority in church governance, courts, preaching, or sacraments; and Whereas, The first line of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'' thus upholding freedom of religion as one of our most sacred of Rights; and Whereas, The founders themselves elaborated upon and celebrated religious freedom in their writings; and Whereas, Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Convention, said ``Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ``make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties''; and Whereas, Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, believed that any government involvement in the church would corrupt the church and coined the term ``separation of church and state'' to keep the church safe from government interference; and Whereas, The State of Ohio itself was founded upon similar premises from its inception as a part of the Northwest Territory; and Whereas, The Northwest Ordinance stated in its first article, ``No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments in the said territory''; and Whereas, The Northwest Ordinance stated in its third article, ``Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged''; and Whereas, The Ohio Constitution's Bill of Rights states in Article I Section 7, ``All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society; nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required, as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction''; and Whereas, The citizens of Ohio have a robust system of local religious charity systems; and Whereas, The citizens of Ohio have stood against injustices throughout our history; and Whereas, During the American Civil War, to help rid the nation of the injustice of slavery, the State of Ohio provided the United States government with more than two hundred sixty regiments, upwards of three hundred thousand men, including the prominent Generals McDowell, Buell, Sheridan, McClellan, Sherman, and future President Ulysses S. Grant; and Whereas, Ohio abolitionists played a prominent role in the Underground Railroad, helping thousands escape the bondage of slavery to find freedom, such as our involvement in the abolition of slavery in the North; and Whereas, We, the members of the House of Representatives of the 134th General Assembly of the State of Ohio, are the State representative body of such a freedom-loving people; and Whereas, During the COVID-19 emergency, the government of Ohio stood up for religious liberty and exempted religious services from COVID-19 restrictions; and Whereas, The State of Ohio has a vested interest in the affairs of Canada, being our neighbor to the North and Ohio's number one trading partner in the world in both imports and exports; and Whereas, Ohio's exports to Canada benefit many segments of the economy, and thousands of individual companies, on both sides of the border; and Whereas, Indeed Ohio is not alone in valuing freedom. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that ``Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms,'' which include the ``freedom of conscience and religion.'' The arrests and actions described below, taken to enforce overly burdensome and unjustified orders, however, do not seem to live up to this praiseworthy statement; and Whereas, We, the members of the House of Representatives of the 134th General Assembly of the State of Ohio, have taken note of the abuses of religious liberty that have gone on throughout the Provinces of Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic; and Whereas, Pastor James Coates of Edmonton, Alberta was jailed for thirty-five days and in solitary confinement for seven days straight for holding religious services at a capacity not in keeping with the Public Health Act; and Whereas, Brothers Artur and David Pawlowski, pastors from Alberta, Canada were arrested and spent three days in jail for organizing a church service that ignored COVID-19 social distancing rules and mask mandates; and Whereas, Pastor Coates, and perhaps other Canadian pastors, have held services in undisclosed locations, essentially going underground, in order to avoid persecution by government authorities, and to allay congregant's fears; and Whereas, Pastor Tobias Tissen of Steinbach, Manitoba, was arrested for holding an outdoor service that violated a health order that prohibited gatherings of more than five people; and Whereas, Under Province of Alberta health orders, in-person faith group meetings, and other religious gatherings, have been prohibited in private homes while the emergency is in effect, thus intruding into the most sacred liberties of its citizens, those of religious freedom and privacy; and Whereas, All of the Canadian provinces have at times prohibited religious gatherings outright, or have limited the size of religious gatherings, and many provinces still have severe size limitations on religious gatherings either held indoors or outdoors, punishable by harassment, fines, and jail time of faith leaders, thus limiting the parishioners' or members' ability to attend the assembly of their choice, and generally limiting religious liberty; and Whereas, On December 8, 2021, Canada's Senate Bill C-4 received royal assent and became law. This act is overly broad in scope and has potential negative implications for religious liberties and expression, including a prison sentence of up to five years for merely expressing a biblical view of marriage, thus restricting the ability of religious leaders from expressing sincerely held religious beliefs on marriage and sexuality; and Whereas, In 1998, the Congress of the United States established the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom; and Whereas, The Commission includes members appointed by the President of the United States, by the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, and by the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; and Whereas, The purpose of the Commission, as enumerated in federal law, in part, is to consider and recommend options for policies of the United States government with respect to each foreign country the government of which has engaged in or tolerated violations of religious freedom; and Whereas, The Commission maintains a Special Watch List of countries where the government engages in or tolerates ``severe'' violations of religious freedom; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That we, the members of the House of Representatives of the 134th General Assembly of the State of Ohio, urge the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom to take whatever action is necessary to address and rectify the situation, described in this resolution, and consider adding Canada to the Special Watch List; and be it further Resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives transmit duly authenticated copies of this resolution to each commissioner of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, the President of the United States, the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, each member of the Ohio Congressional delegation, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada, the Speaker of the Senate of Canada, and the news media of Ohio. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3374 | null | 4,750 |
formal | religious liberties | null | homophobic | The following petitions and memorials were laid before the Senate and were referred or ordered to lie on the table as indicated: POM-158. A resolution adopted by the House of Representatives of the State of Ohio urging the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom to take whatever action is necessary to address and rectify the situation described in this resolution, and consider adding Canada to the Special Watch List of countries where the government engages in violations of religious freedom; to the Committee on Foreign Relations. House Resolution No. 194 Whereas, The citizens of Ohio are citizens of the United States, which by its nature 1s a country of religious freedom free of government interference; and Whereas, Civilized societies normative structures show churches to have jurisdictions separate from civil authorities, with the civil authorities having no authority in church governance, courts, preaching, or sacraments; and Whereas, The first line of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'' thus upholding freedom of religion as one of our most sacred of Rights; and Whereas, The founders themselves elaborated upon and celebrated religious freedom in their writings; and Whereas, Thomas Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Convention, said ``Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ``make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,'' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties''; and Whereas, Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, believed that any government involvement in the church would corrupt the church and coined the term ``separation of church and state'' to keep the church safe from government interference; and Whereas, The State of Ohio itself was founded upon similar premises from its inception as a part of the Northwest Territory; and Whereas, The Northwest Ordinance stated in its first article, ``No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments in the said territory''; and Whereas, The Northwest Ordinance stated in its third article, ``Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged''; and Whereas, The Ohio Constitution's Bill of Rights states in Article I Section 7, ``All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society; nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required, as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations. Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction''; and Whereas, The citizens of Ohio have a robust system of local religious charity systems; and Whereas, The citizens of Ohio have stood against injustices throughout our history; and Whereas, During the American Civil War, to help rid the nation of the injustice of slavery, the State of Ohio provided the United States government with more than two hundred sixty regiments, upwards of three hundred thousand men, including the prominent Generals McDowell, Buell, Sheridan, McClellan, Sherman, and future President Ulysses S. Grant; and Whereas, Ohio abolitionists played a prominent role in the Underground Railroad, helping thousands escape the bondage of slavery to find freedom, such as our involvement in the abolition of slavery in the North; and Whereas, We, the members of the House of Representatives of the 134th General Assembly of the State of Ohio, are the State representative body of such a freedom-loving people; and Whereas, During the COVID-19 emergency, the government of Ohio stood up for religious liberty and exempted religious services from COVID-19 restrictions; and Whereas, The State of Ohio has a vested interest in the affairs of Canada, being our neighbor to the North and Ohio's number one trading partner in the world in both imports and exports; and Whereas, Ohio's exports to Canada benefit many segments of the economy, and thousands of individual companies, on both sides of the border; and Whereas, Indeed Ohio is not alone in valuing freedom. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that ``Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms,'' which include the ``freedom of conscience and religion.'' The arrests and actions described below, taken to enforce overly burdensome and unjustified orders, however, do not seem to live up to this praiseworthy statement; and Whereas, We, the members of the House of Representatives of the 134th General Assembly of the State of Ohio, have taken note of the abuses of religious liberty that have gone on throughout the Provinces of Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic; and Whereas, Pastor James Coates of Edmonton, Alberta was jailed for thirty-five days and in solitary confinement for seven days straight for holding religious services at a capacity not in keeping with the Public Health Act; and Whereas, Brothers Artur and David Pawlowski, pastors from Alberta, Canada were arrested and spent three days in jail for organizing a church service that ignored COVID-19 social distancing rules and mask mandates; and Whereas, Pastor Coates, and perhaps other Canadian pastors, have held services in undisclosed locations, essentially going underground, in order to avoid persecution by government authorities, and to allay congregant's fears; and Whereas, Pastor Tobias Tissen of Steinbach, Manitoba, was arrested for holding an outdoor service that violated a health order that prohibited gatherings of more than five people; and Whereas, Under Province of Alberta health orders, in-person faith group meetings, and other religious gatherings, have been prohibited in private homes while the emergency is in effect, thus intruding into the most sacred liberties of its citizens, those of religious freedom and privacy; and Whereas, All of the Canadian provinces have at times prohibited religious gatherings outright, or have limited the size of religious gatherings, and many provinces still have severe size limitations on religious gatherings either held indoors or outdoors, punishable by harassment, fines, and jail time of faith leaders, thus limiting the parishioners' or members' ability to attend the assembly of their choice, and generally limiting religious liberty; and Whereas, On December 8, 2021, Canada's Senate Bill C-4 received royal assent and became law. This act is overly broad in scope and has potential negative implications for religious liberties and expression, including a prison sentence of up to five years for merely expressing a biblical view of marriage, thus restricting the ability of religious leaders from expressing sincerely held religious beliefs on marriage and sexuality; and Whereas, In 1998, the Congress of the United States established the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom; and Whereas, The Commission includes members appointed by the President of the United States, by the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, and by the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives; and Whereas, The purpose of the Commission, as enumerated in federal law, in part, is to consider and recommend options for policies of the United States government with respect to each foreign country the government of which has engaged in or tolerated violations of religious freedom; and Whereas, The Commission maintains a Special Watch List of countries where the government engages in or tolerates ``severe'' violations of religious freedom; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That we, the members of the House of Representatives of the 134th General Assembly of the State of Ohio, urge the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom to take whatever action is necessary to address and rectify the situation, described in this resolution, and consider adding Canada to the Special Watch List; and be it further Resolved, That the Clerk of the House of Representatives transmit duly authenticated copies of this resolution to each commissioner of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, the President of the United States, the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, each member of the Ohio Congressional delegation, the Prime Minister of Canada, the Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada, the Speaker of the Senate of Canada, and the news media of Ohio. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3374 | null | 4,751 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today, as I will many times, to address my colleagues on the topic of competition policy, especially in our digital markets where we have a situation where a few Big Tech titans have grown into the largest corporations our country has ever seen. Just today, there is new reporting that shows that Google and Amazon have used their gatekeeper power to eliminate their competition for years. I don't think we are surprised by this, but this is new information that I think is important, as we learn new things all the time, that my colleagues know. According to a 2014 memo first obtained by the House Judiciary Committee, a Google executive described--this is what the memo says--``grave concerns'' about a new service from a rival ``competing with their core search experience.'' The documents also included an email from 2009 in which Amazon executives discussed ways to stop a company--that would be Diapers.com, a company it later bought--from advertising on their own platform. This gets to the core of what we are talking about here and why we must take action. This email that was made public today reads: We are under no obligation to allow them to advertise on our site. . . . I'd argue we should block them from buying product ads immediately, or at minimum price those ads so they truly reflect the opportunity costs. What does that mean? Well, Amazon could charge their rival whatever they wanted for advertisements and try and keep consumers in the dark about lower prices. That is only two from the dozens of documents newly released today by the House Judiciary Committee. I come to the floor today because the evidence is clear and continues to mount. These dominant tech platforms have abused their power for years, and now we are at a crossroads. Will America continue to be a place where entrepreneurs lead our economy forward or will we become a country where a handful of monopolists get to dictate who gets a chance to succeed? Remember when they all started--whether they were in garages or whatever--they started with this idea that they were platforms for sharing this information. I don't think anyone ever conceived they would also own things on the platform and then preference those things over other competitors. That is what is going on now. This is where consumers go to make their decisions about what they are going to buy. When you have situations where Google has 90 percent of the search market, that is a monopoly, clear as can be. The decisions we make and the actions we take today will set the trajectory for American innovation, for ingenuity, and prosperity for the next generation. I say we must meet the moment. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have had the opportunity to serve as chair of the committee's Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights. From my vantage point, I can tell you it has become painfully obvious, as many of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--have seen, that we have a serious competition problem throughout our economy, especially in Big Tech but not only in Big Tech. This issue impacts all Americans every single day. Why are there only two dominant smartphone operating systems? Why do social media companies face so few consequences for playing fast and loose with our personal data? Why does Amazon keep raising prices that consumers and small businesses pay? The answer is simple: They are monopolies. That is what monopolies do. They are the big guys on the block, and there is a lack of competition. Despite the volume of evidence that supports taking action, Congress has yet to pass a single bill on online platform competition since the dawn of the internet. That is right. At the beginning, we were told we don't want to squelch these new products and competition. That made sense back then, but it doesn't make sense now. This evening, I am going to talk about the problems consumers and small businesses are experiencing in the online marketplace and the cost of inaction. It is really easy around this place not to act, to say things are too hard to deal with, whether it is climate change, whether it is immigration reform, whether it is tech policy from competition to privacy. But at some point, you have to stop blaming other people and do something about it. I am going to review how other countries are attacking this problem and actually taking it on. I will discuss the many examples throughout history when Congress and enforcers have stepped up to confront monopoly power. This has long been a problem in our country. You go way back to the Founding Fathers. So many people actually came to America because they wanted to be entrepreneurs. They don't want to have to buy all their tea from the East India tea company. You think about the Senators from the past taking on monopolies. Whether it is the railroad trust, whether it is the sugar trust, they took on monopolies. There are old cartoons in this very Chamber, our Old Senate Chamber, showing these big, bloated monopoly trusts looking down on the Senators because they controlled them. We don't want that to happen in our modern day because we know many times from the past, the Senate did stand up and do something. That is the case I am going to make today for why my bipartisan bill with Senator Grassley, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, is necessary to level the playing field in our digital economy. First, let me say a word about what we are up against. That is what everyone sees. I am trying to measure my audience today on C-SPAN versus what we believe is well around $100 million that the Big Tech companies have purchased for ads, especially in States where Senators are up for reelection where they have purchased ads all over the country. But people do listen. There are a few people here right now, and if I give this speech in different ways a number of times, I can win. Let's talk about what we are up against. When I talk about the dominant digital platforms, I am talking about some of the most powerful companies in the world with armies of lobbyists and lawyers--thousands and thousands of lawyers and lobbyists. I have two. They are sitting right here in the Chamber. We do have kind of a David and Goliath situation, but the lawyers for Big Tech are everywhere, in every corner in this town, at every cocktail party, and all over this building. I tell my colleagues they don't even know sometimes when someone is trying to influence them because they may think they are just talking to a friend or someone who worked on their campaign a while ago. But once they talk about antitrust and Big Tech, they should ask the person if they are being paid by a tech company or if they are on the board of a tech company or if they have some affiliation with one of the Big Tech companies because, time and time again, they have been surprised to find the answer is yes. But these Big Tech companies aren't just lobbying my colleagues; they are also lobbying the American people with astroturf campaigning and other dishonest PR tactics. At the same time that I have been working with my colleagues in good faith on commonsense solutions to online competition problems, these companies have been telling anyone who will listen that acting to protect competition in our digital markets will sometimes or somehow cede our national security or it will outlaw Amazon Prime--claims that were disputed by the Department of Justice and Amazon's own lobbyists in the press. That is just two examples. We deal with this all the time. They will say anything and everything. Senator Grassley and I came down here together to the Senate floor to refute this a few months ago. Then, of course, there is the money. I think this is actually the best evidence of just how big and dominant and bullying these companies are, running ads in States where people are in tough races. I think they get the message. They are showing they are out there. They are showing they are going to be able to put whatever money it takes into ads to stop this bill. How obvious can it be? Message received: We are out here, and we can hurt you. And, by the way, they wouldn't be spending millions and millions of dollars to stop us if we didn't have momentum. Let me give you some numbers. In 2021, Big Tech companies spent more than $70 million combined lobbying Congress. That does not include these ads I am talking about. In the first quarter of this year, Facebook, Meta; Amazon; Alphabet, which is Google; and Apple spent more than $16 million lobbying Congress. That is in one quarter. And you see my two lawyers on the other side. In just one recent week in May, one industry group, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, spent $22 million on TV ads against this bill. That is $22 million against one bill in 1 week. So when you see those TV ads, which they love running in Washington so that Members will see them, remember that number, $22 million, and think ``two lawyers.'' That is what we are up against. But it doesn't surprise me. I am not trying to win a popularity contest with the tech companies. That ship has sailed. I am simply trying to do the right thing. Since I am a Senator and not a tech-backed industry group, I don't get to spread my message with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign. I don't have paid actors, but Big Tech lobbyists can't stop me from standing here today on the floor of the Senate and tell you the truth. The truth is these companies will stop at nothing to protect their profits, even if it means stifling the innovation and ingenuity that has made our Nation's economy second to none. American prosperity was, of course, built on a foundation of open markets and fair competition. It is competition between companies that give consumers lower prices, drives manufacturers to constantly innovate and improve their products, and forces companies to pay fair wages to compete for workers. Competition provides opportunities for entrepreneurs to start and grow new businesses, fueling future economic growth. But if you look at our markets today, we see big cracks in that free market foundation. We see bigger businesses and fewer competitors and more dominant companies using their market power to suppress their rivals and line their own pockets. As an example, more than two-thirds of U.S. industries have become more concentrated between--and these are the last figures we had, 1997 and 2012, because our government doesn't really collect these figures because someone stopped them from doing it. The White House highlighted this problem a year ago in its Executive order on competition, pointing out that in over 75 percent of our industries ranging from agriculture to banking to healthcare, a smaller number of large companies now control more of the business than they did 20 years ago. This is raising prices overall for Americans. The lack of competition is estimated to cost the median American household $5,000 per year. The problem, of course, is most obvious in the tech industry because that is a relatively new area compared to some of our more embedded industries. And while, over time, we did things with pharma, we have done things in other areas, there is, as I noted, no law passed since the advent of the internet involving tech competition. Tech has given us some great products. I am wearing one, a Fitbit. I use Google Maps, order from Amazon and other places, carry an iPhone. Over the last several decades, companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft have created many great innovations. We went from the Wall Street Gordon Gekko days with his cell phone affectionately known as the Brick, that weighed 2 pounds and was 13 inches long, to cell phones the size of a watch. But while these tech companies were once scrappy startups innovating to survive, they are now some of the largest companies the world has ever known. And when you get that big--guess what--you have responsibilities, you have to be accountable. You aren't just out there as a brandnew startup doing whatever you want. But that is the mentality. They are still introducing new products; that is great. But they are also gatekeepers, and they use their power as gatekeepers to stifle competition and innovation by their competitors and the businesses that have no choice but to use their services. So that is a problem. So if you want to sell something big time, you better get on the App Store. But when you get on the App Store, depending on the size of your company, as you get bigger--let's say you are Spotify--you have to pay 30 percent of the revenue you make on that App Store to Apple for the pleasure of competing with their own product, Apple Music. So to my colleagues I say this: Yes, you can love the products; you can love the CEOs themselves; you can love the companies--but you also have to love competition and love and take seriously the unique role that we are supposed to play as Senators and as Members of Congress to ensure there is an even playing field. You go back, way back, to the godfather of capitalism, Adam Smith, who said to always watch out for the standing army of monopolies. We knew from the beginnings of this country that we would have to step in time and time again to make sure that we rejuvenate capitalism. That is what this is about. Throughout history, whether in telecom in the 1990s with the breakup of AT&T--which, by the way, made the company, according to one of their former presidents, stronger--or by passing the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act in the 1970s, to stopping sweetheart merger settlements, Congress has brought down prices over time by ensuring that there is competition. It is actually a uniquely American way to do things. I am grateful for our friends in the House, Chairman Cicilline and Ranking Member Ken Buck, who led bipartisan hearings on Big Tech and its anticompetitive conduct. They gave us a whole treasure trove of information. They conducted an 18-month investigation in the House Judiciary Committee--18-months--focused on how the largest and most dominant digital platforms harm small businesses, quash innovation, raise prices, and reduce quality. This is, by the way, what bothers me when some of our colleagues say, Well, we don't know enough. Seriously? Eighteen months of an investigation. And anyone in this room--it is public--can go look at it: 1,287,997 documents and communications--this is on the record--testimony from 38 witnesses, a hearing record that spans more than 1,800 pages, 38 submissions from 60 antitrust experts from across the political spectrum, and interviews with more than 240 market participants, former employees of the investigative platforms, and other individuals totaling thousands of hours. That doesn't even include what we have done in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. So, please, spare me hearing that we have not learned enough about this. The report is 450 pages, but let me read some excerpts that capture the harms to consumers and small businesses that we have seen as a result of our failure to update our competition policy. Here we go. This is from the record: To put it simply, companies that once were scrappy underdog startups that challenge the status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons. Although these firms have delivered clear benefits to society, the dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, [and] Google has come at a price. These firms typically run the marketplace in each of their areas. You all know that. Everyone in this room knows that because 90 percent of the people, when they are doing a search engine, they go to one that is Google. You know the dominance of Amazon. You all know the dominance of these companies. These firms are in a position that enable them to write one set of rules for others while they play by another or to engage in a form of their own private quasi-regulation that is unaccountable to anyone but themselves. [T]he totality of the evidence produced during this investigation-- This is from the House-- demonstrates the pressing need for legislative action and reform. These firms have too much power, and that power must be reined in and subject to appropriate oversight and enforcement. Our economy and [our] democracy are at stake. The subcommittee identified numerous instances in which dominant platforms engaged in preferential or discriminatory treatment. In some cases, the dominant platform privileged its own products or services. In [another], a dominant platform gave preferential treatment to one business partner over [the other]. Because the dominant platform was, in most instances-- And this is what is key-- the only viable path to market, its discriminatory treatment had the effect of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. That is us. We are supposed to pick the winners and the losers in the marketplace and decide what is the best product based on what is supposed to be the least priced or what is supposed to be the highest quality. But now they have inserted themselves while at the same time, in many instances, placing their own product above others, not because they are less money, not because they are better, but because they are theirs. Google, for example, engaged in self-preferencing-- I am back to the report-- by systematically ranking its own content above third-party content, even when its content was inferior or less relevant for users. Web publishers of content that Google demoted suffered economic losses and had no way of competing on the merits. Over the course of the investigation, numerous third parties also told the House subcommittee that self- preferencing and discriminatory treatment by the dominant platforms forced businesses to lay off employees and divert resources away from developing new products and towards paying a dominant platform for advertisements or other ancillary services. They added that some of the harmful business practices of the platforms discouraged investors from supporting their business and made it challenging to grow and sustain a business, even with highly popular products. Without the opportunity to compete fairly, businesses and entrepreneurs are dissuaded from investing; and, over the long term, innovation suffers. By virtue of functioning as the only viable path to the market--and that is what they are in so many instances--dominant platforms enjoy superior bargaining power over the third parties that depend on their platform to access users and the market. Their bargaining leverage is a form of market power [in] which the dominant platforms routinely use to protect and expand their dominance. Since 1998, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google collectively have purchased more than 500 companies. The antitrust agencies did not block a single acquisition. They did not block a single acquisition. And as I look back, I remember, just--in bright lights--that e-mail that was discovered during the House hearing in which Mark Zuckerberg wrote, ``I would rather buy than compete.'' ``I would rather buy than compete.'' To me, that pretty much is exhibit A. The House report has far more information than I could ever share in a single speech, but I will be sharing it over the next few months. But overall, the House report found that if there was true competition, we would have a more dynamic and innovative tech center with more small and medium-sized businesses. Maybe if Facebook hadn't bought them--remember, ``I would rather buy than compete''--an independent Instagram, an independent WhatsApp--because Meta now owns them--could have developed the bells and whistles and privacy controls and other things. We will never know. Why will we never know? Because they bought them. But if you have big monopolies that buy up all of that potential innovation, that buy up smaller companies, you lose the ability to get at some of the major challenges that we see in our country. I believe in the market. I was in the private sector for over a decade. I believe in capitalism, but if you don't have an even playing field for competition, you have got a problem. Over time, if left unchecked, big companies dominate markets, exclude their rivals, and buy out their competitors. As one of the witnesses at a hearing that I chaired with Ranking Member Lee said before our Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Alex Harman of Public Citizen put it: When companies face less competition, either because of consolidation, or from forces that make competitive threats less likely, they invest less in research and development. They in turn are less likely to produce new innovations [that benefit consumers and the economy]. And, all too often, companies across the economic spectrum that depend on these gatekeeping firms to reach the marketplace slash jobs and cut back on developing new products. As one founder put it: ``It feels like we are treading water with cement blocks around our feet.'' This is what has been going on in our country. It describes the problems we are facing from these digital gatekeepers. We have also heard from many other companies, nonprofits, trade associations, about what has been happening to them as a consequence of the monopoly power wielded by the largest digital platforms. Consumer Reports says this: Multiple investigations and studies have found that the largest online platforms have too much market power, and that this is resulting in harm to consumers, businesses, and the economy. A group of 60 small and medium-sized businesses wrote a letter saying: Gaining access to the dominant platforms and integrating with their services has increasingly become a take-it-or- leave-it process replete with anticompetitive demands. It doesn't serve American consumers or small and medium sized businesses when the tech behemoths use their platform dominance to tilt the competitive scales. In January, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors wrote: Unchecked, Amazon's dominance threatens to cripple the highly competitive B2B system in the United States. The American Hotels and Lodging Association, not exactly a radical group, wrote: Dominant technology companies give their own paid advertising products and services preferential treatment and placement within their platforms to ensure that, despite the specifics of what a consumer may be searching for, they will likely be steered down a booking path that benefits the search provider. Not that benefits you, but benefits one of the biggest companies the world has ever known. From a group of 40 small and medium-sized businesses back in January: Due to their gatekeeper status, dominant technology companies can: use manipulative design tactics to steer individuals away from rival services; restrict the ability of competitors to interoperate on the platform; use non-public data to benefit the companies' own services or products. And I could go on. So what do we have here? Google has 90 percent market share in search engines. Apple controls 100 percent of app distribution for iPhones, and Google controls the other app distribution, so they are what we call a duopoly. Three out of every four social media users--and there are 4 billion of them--are active Facebook users. Amazon is expected to seize half of the entire e-commerce retail market this year. That is what is happening. What are we doing? Let me repeat: We have done nothing. We have done nothing. We have had hearings; we have thrown popcorn at CEOs. But we haven't passed one bill out of the U.S. Congress to do anything about this competitive situation. What do other countries do? Well, other countries are now leaving us in the dust. They look to our leadership because America has always been known as a country of entrepreneurs and a country that encourages competition, but now look what is happening. Canada introduced legislation in April to make the dominant digital platforms fairly compensate news publishers for their content, following Australia's lead, which took similar action about a year earlier. And Europe is moving forward with its Digital Markets Act, DMA, a broad and sweeping piece of legislation that will place many new obligations on digital gatekeepers. The legislation puts rules of the road in place for how the digital gatekeepers determine search rankings, set defaults, process and use personal data, negotiate with business users on their platforms, interoperate, and demonstrate the efficiency of their digital advertising programs and the effectiveness of them. It also required gatekeepers to notify the European Commission about intended mergers and other deals that include the collection of data. If that sounds more intense than the bill Senator Grassley and I have put together, it is more intense. But thepoint is that it has gone through the European Parliament. In the European Union, we are seeing the effects of efforts to rein in Big Tech. Just last week, Amazon made a settlement offer to the European Commission in an attempt to resolve an antitrust case. The European Commission investigations into Amazon's conduct were launched in 2019 and 2020 and involved three key issues that implicate self-preferencing conduct in the United States too. First, the Europeans investigated whether Amazon used nonpublic data from sellers. Remember, the sellers have no choice if they really want to sell their stuff. They have to go on Amazon, right? So they have to give data to get on that platform. What they found out was that Amazon was using the nonpublic data from sellers to inform its own targets for new product development. That is what monopolies do. The little sellers have no choice but to sell on the Amazon platform. Then Amazon says: Oh, now we are going to see what products are good and how they are doing because we uniquely have all the information, and then we are going to copy that product, either directly, as they did with a four-person luggage carrier firm where they literally ripped off every detail of the product--based on reporting from the Wall Street Journal we now know that--or they just know this product is doing well so they do one just like it, and then they put it at the top of the search engine. Amazon has sworn under oath in the U.S. Congress that it does not do that. Well, now let's look at what is happening in Europe. Amazon also tightly controls who wins the coveted Buy Box, often awarding that preferred placement to itself. Third, Amazon requires sellers who want to be Prime to use Amazon's logistics services even if there could be a better alternative. We are not getting rid of Prime. We are just saying you have got to open the door so there could be alternatives. Amazon's settlement offer is filled with elements from my bill. That is what is so interesting because around this place or if you watch the TV ads, you would think the world was going to end. If we did a modicum of things while investigations are going on--of course, we know that there are various investigations in the Justice Department and around the country at the FTC. We are just going to sit there and let this continue until every appeal is made? Here is what is so interesting. In Europe, under the offer that Amazon just made in Europe, Amazon will stop using seller data to decide what private label products to launch, make it easier for third parties to win the Buy Box, and allow sellers to participate in the Prime program without using ``fulfillment by Amazon'' services to manage logistics like warehousing and shipping. My bill with Senator Grassley and what was called the ``Ocean's 11 of cosponsors'' because everyone has such different political beliefs, but we come together in support of capitalism for this bill--this bill that we have here, that is what it would do. It would require Amazon to do the same things that I just mentioned that they put forward in their settlement offer in Europe. Yet Amazon has claimed, in its multimillion dollar ad campaign, that this will break Prime in the United States. The hypocrisy is simply stunning. Why should consumers in Europe and small businesses in Europe have the benefit of the offer they are giving them, and we in the United States--we, who host their company--try to simply put the same requirements into law, and we are told: Oh, this is outrageous, when they are offering the exact same thing in other countries. The British have been working on these issues, too, particularly when it comes to app stores. And I want to thank Senators Blumenthal and Blackburn for their leadership in this area. The Competition and Markets Authority in the United Kingdom just last month issued a final report on the app store ecosystem, reaching the following conclusions. This is in the United Kingdom, which is, of course, a government that is different than the one we have here. This is from the Brits: Apple and Google have each captured such a large proportion and volume of consumers in the UK that their ecosystems are, for practical purposes, indispensable to online businesses. I think that is pretty fair to say that is what is going on around here. Let me continue with the Brits. Apple and Google act as gatekeepers to most UK consumers with mobile devices, and as a result can set the rules of the game for providers of online content and services. The evidence demonstrates that in the areas where Apple and Google generate the vast majority of their revenues from their mobile ecosystems, there is room for greater and more effective price competition. In the case of Apple's mobile devices, both firms' app stores, and Google's search and advertising services, the evidence strongly suggests the prices charged are above a competitive rate. . . . Consumers would get a better deal if Apple and Google faced more robust competition, either from each other or from third parties. The report continues: Weak competition within and between Apple's and Google's mobile ecosystems is harming consumers, and will do so to a greater degree . . . absent [any] intervention. Most importantly, we are concerned that consumers will miss out on innovative new features or transformative new products and services that are held back or discouraged by the power that Apple and Google wield. That is one report. If we continue to fail to take action in this country, we will lose our leadership position when it comes to antitrust on the global stage. That actually is not that great of a thing because then we are letting other countries determine what is going to happen to the future of competition. That is a huge risk for our country. It is time to take action just as Congress has done before when facing significant evidence of market failures and massive consolidation. So when Big Tech companies talk about this bill or really any serious antitrust effort, they try to make it sound like we are pushing for some kind of unprecedented action. And, as I just discussed, that is not true because we know they are getting all kinds of pushback in other countries and actually are making settlement offers that are exactly akin to some of the things we have in the bill. But it also isn't true in the history of our own country. I think everyone--while people don't think they have something in their background to do with monopolies or their dads or their moms or their grandparents had nothing to do, everyone has got something about competitive policy that affected their lives in the past or affected their relatives. For me, I think of the James J. Hill House in St. Paul. No, we never lived there. I will get to that in a minute. Calling it a house is actually an understatement. The 36,000-square-foot mansion has 22 fireplaces, 13 bathrooms, and a 100-foot-long reception hall. It was constructed in 1890, which is the same year that Congress actually finally did something about competition by passing the Sherman Act. The man who built this house, James J. Hill, was a railroad magnate whose railroad ran from St. Paul to Seattle. He consolidated multiple railroads across the country using a legal concept called a trust--that is why we have antitrust--in which the stockholders of multiple competitors transferred their shares to a single set of trustees. There were all kinds of trusts, as I mentioned--rail trusts, oil trusts. Standard Oil Trust controlled more than 90 percent of the country's refining capacity. The Sugar Trust controlled 98 percent of refined sugar. And we had trusts in everything from sewer pipes to thread. When I was growing up, my mom would like to take me to see the Christmas lights by that house and other estate houses, and I remember at some of the houses, unlike this one, there were actually people in it and kind of ducking down. She loved to show me those things on my way from piano lessons in her red car. And she would remind me that in order to build that house, Hill needed workers. Hill needed the monopoly railroads that gave him the money to build this humongous mansion, and he needed cheap labor to do the work. That is where my family comes in. That is where the Klobuchars fit in. My great-grandpa and my grandpa were both miners in the iron ore mines in Northern Minnesota, and they did the work that supported the monopolies. Over time, unions came in; wages got better; the mines got safer. But in the end, that is how he built his house. Our Nation, as I noted, has a very, very rich and difficult history of dealing with monopolies. But every single time, whether it was the East India tea company and throwing that tea into the harbor--yes, it was about taxation without representation, but it was also about a monopoly company. Every single time we have found a way to push back, whether it was farmers in the Granger movement with their pitchforks taking on the cost of rail, whether it was in Chicago, the Pullman strikes, strikes by workers against monopolies in the beef industry. Finally, in 1901, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt rode his antimonopoly horse right into the White House. He finally did something about it. He used the first passed antitrust law, the Sherman Act, and was able to actually take on the trusts. And since then you have seen this rejuvenation over time. Sometimes, there is a lull, and then things get so bad--like what happened with AT&T--that between Democratic and Republican administrations, people come in and do something about it. I know a little bit about this because my first job out of law school was representing MCI at a law firm, and that is when they were fighting to get into the monopoly market. Finally, when AT&T was broken up, what happened? Long distance rates went way down, and we finally got a cell phone industry because one company wasn't controlling everything because they did not have at that time--after a while--they were cool at first, and then they didn't have any kind of incentive to innovate. Then they finally did. That gets us to the present where we have been hanging out and waiting and doing nothing for now decades and decades since the advent of the internet. And it is time to act--hence, our legislation. January 1, 1983, is considered the official birthday of the internet. So it has been 40 years since then, and we still have not passed, as I noted, competition legislation. That is why our group of Senators have come together. And that includes Dick Durbin, Lindsey Graham, Richard Blumenthal, John Kennedy, Cory Booker, Cynthia Lummis, Mazie Hirono, Mark Warner, Josh Hawley, Steve Daines, Sheldon Whitehouse, and several more who are supporting the bill and said enough is enough. Our bill creates rules of the road for these platforms. That means, first of all, that they can't abuse their gatekeeper power by favoring their own products or services and disadvantaging rivals in ways that harm competition. In other words, in the examples I have used, Amazon will not be able to use small business's data in order to copy their products and then compete against them. Apple won't be able to stifle competition by blocking other companies' services from interoperating with their platforms. And Google won't be able to bias their platform's search results in favor of their own products and services without merit. That is what our bill does. Amazon should rank products based on price and quality, not based on their own profit margins. The world's largest and most powerful platforms shouldn't be allowed to copy a small business's private data. I used the example of luggage carriers. There are many, many more. Another challenge to cracking down on antitrust violations is how difficult and time consuming it can be to try these cases in court. Currently, the government has to spend millions on economic experts and years in the courts, and even after all that, the likelihood of victory because of very conservative Supreme Court cases in the last few decades is small. This bill streamlines things in this area. It doesn't break up the companies. Some people would like to do that. That is not what this bill does. It doesn't stop mergers. I think we should put in stronger merger guidelines, but that is not what this bill does. This bill simply gives us rules of the road for these companies to be fair going forward, while we figure out the other things that need to be figured out. So support for this bill: The Boston Globe, October 2021, said on their editorial page that ``[i]f the largest platforms can't be trusted to enforce even their own anticompetitive policies, then Washington has little choice but to act.'' They noted that the bill I have with Senator Grassley represents ``a chance for Congress to turn concern over Big Tech's sway into action.'' The Seattle Times, March 2022, wrote that ``[a]s antitrust efforts ramp up in Congress, Big Tech is fighting back, unleashing an army of lobbyists, enlisting business groups to apply pressure and engaging in fearmongering to avoid critical legislation.'' Let me tell you, a lot of our Senators have proved that fearmongering. Lawmakers must forge ahead and support legislation that reins in the tech giants' worst impulses, ensures fair competition and protects consumers and small businesses. But no matter what the tech companies say, antitrust legislation will not slay these giants or kill innovation . . . that is not its goal. What it will do is limit Big Tech's ability to run roughshod over competitors and consumers. Enough Democrats and Republicans agree, but time is running out. Congress needs to act. The Washington Post editorial, in April of 2022, called our bill a ``sound'' bill and pressed for movement on the legislation, including by writing as follows: Antitrust . . . needs revisions that prevent dominant companies from building barriers to a marketplace where those consumers will have both choice and protection. Legislators should view the bills before Congress as an opportunity to achieve this aim at last. The bill also has support from Agency experts who have enforced antitrust laws and worked to protect competition in the U.S. markets. The Department of Justice has endorsed the bill. I know this is after the Department of Justice under the previous administration--under the Trump administration, with Bill Barr as the Attorney General and Makan Delrahim as the head of Antitrust--actually started the initial lawsuit--the major, major lawsuit--against Google and after the FTC, under the Trump administration, started the lawsuit against Facebook. They filed major lawsuits that are being continued by this administration. The Department of Justice wrote this: The Department views the rise of dominant platforms as presenting a threat to open markets and competition, with risks for consumers, businesses, innovation, resiliency, global competitiveness, and our democracy. By controlling key arteries of the nation's commerce and communications, such platforms can exercise outsized market power in our modern economy. Vesting the power to pick winners and losers across markets in a small number of corporations contravenes the foundations of our capitalist system, and given the increasing importance of these markets, the power of such platforms is likely to continue to grow unless checked. This puts at risk the nation's economic progress and prosperity, ultimately threatening the economic liberty that undergirds our democracy. The Department of Justice continued: If enacted, we believe that this legislation has the potential to have a positive effect on dynamism in digital markets going forward. Our future global competitiveness depends on innovators and entrepreneurs having the ability to access markets free from dominant incumbents that impede innovation, competition, resiliency, and widespread prosperity. And Commerce Secretary Raimondo testified before our Senate Commerce Committee--I was there--saying: I applaud your efforts and . . . clearly agree that we need to improve competition, which increases innovation. She said: Last month, the DOJ released a views letter-- That is what I just read-- on behalf of the administration in support of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and the [Commerce] Department and I . . . support . . . and concur with the aim of [that] legislation. It is not just officials currently in these roles who support this bill. Roger Alford, who served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division from 2017 to 2019, wrote to us, saying: Bills such as S. 2992 provide hope that Congress will restore competition to digital marketplaces. And while people may have seen the disingenuous ads on TV against the bill, I think it is worth reading portions of the letters that we have received. The Consumer Federation of America wrote: To maintain a healthy economy, it turns out we need both sensible regulation and antitrust enforcement. . . . The American Innovation and Choice Online Act addresses the key issues in a sector of the digital economy that has not been addressed by competition policy and antitrust law. It targets big data platforms, which can abuse their market power as gatekeepers and vertically integrated firms, using self-preferencing and data to block competition. . . . Antitrust legal scholars wrote--and I will put all of this in the Record. More than 60 small- and medium-sized businesses wrote, and YELP, DuckDuckGo, Y Combinator, and other businesses wrote that S. 2992 will ``help restore competition in the digital marketplace.'' Small Business Rising wrote that the legislation ``is a critical part of the solution to the harms caused by the outsized power of the tech giants.'' As the president of Hobby Works, a Maryland hobby shop, said recently, ``All that any small business asks for is a somewhat level playing field and a somewhat fair environment in which to compete.'' I will end with this: Monopoly power, consumer choice, and reduced innovation aren't topics that came up for the first time when we marked up and passed this bill. I just read to you the thousands and thousands of pieces of documents and testimony from the House for 18 months that our colleagues Representative Cicilline and Representative Buck put together. So don't tell me this is the first time, when that went on for 18 months and when we have had hearing after hearing in the U.S. Senate. It is time to stop throwing the popcorn at the CEOs and actually do something. We got this bill through the Judiciary Committee with a 16-to-6 vote just 6 months ago. Now it is time to bring this bill to a vote on the floor. We have monopoly problems. You can still like the products. You can like the companies if you want--OK--but at some point they have gotten so big that you have to put some rules of the road in place to ensure that we can have the next Google or that we can have another competitor to Google or that we can have a true competitor to Amazon or that we can find, finally, social media platforms that protect our privacy and our data and our democracy. This isn't going to happen if you just let four big platforms control the day. As long as they do, which looks like it will be for the well foreseeable future, at least let's protect capitalism by putting some rules of the road in place. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. KLOBUCHAR | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3497-2 | null | 4,752 |
formal | every single time | null | white supremacist | Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today, as I will many times, to address my colleagues on the topic of competition policy, especially in our digital markets where we have a situation where a few Big Tech titans have grown into the largest corporations our country has ever seen. Just today, there is new reporting that shows that Google and Amazon have used their gatekeeper power to eliminate their competition for years. I don't think we are surprised by this, but this is new information that I think is important, as we learn new things all the time, that my colleagues know. According to a 2014 memo first obtained by the House Judiciary Committee, a Google executive described--this is what the memo says--``grave concerns'' about a new service from a rival ``competing with their core search experience.'' The documents also included an email from 2009 in which Amazon executives discussed ways to stop a company--that would be Diapers.com, a company it later bought--from advertising on their own platform. This gets to the core of what we are talking about here and why we must take action. This email that was made public today reads: We are under no obligation to allow them to advertise on our site. . . . I'd argue we should block them from buying product ads immediately, or at minimum price those ads so they truly reflect the opportunity costs. What does that mean? Well, Amazon could charge their rival whatever they wanted for advertisements and try and keep consumers in the dark about lower prices. That is only two from the dozens of documents newly released today by the House Judiciary Committee. I come to the floor today because the evidence is clear and continues to mount. These dominant tech platforms have abused their power for years, and now we are at a crossroads. Will America continue to be a place where entrepreneurs lead our economy forward or will we become a country where a handful of monopolists get to dictate who gets a chance to succeed? Remember when they all started--whether they were in garages or whatever--they started with this idea that they were platforms for sharing this information. I don't think anyone ever conceived they would also own things on the platform and then preference those things over other competitors. That is what is going on now. This is where consumers go to make their decisions about what they are going to buy. When you have situations where Google has 90 percent of the search market, that is a monopoly, clear as can be. The decisions we make and the actions we take today will set the trajectory for American innovation, for ingenuity, and prosperity for the next generation. I say we must meet the moment. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have had the opportunity to serve as chair of the committee's Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights. From my vantage point, I can tell you it has become painfully obvious, as many of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--have seen, that we have a serious competition problem throughout our economy, especially in Big Tech but not only in Big Tech. This issue impacts all Americans every single day. Why are there only two dominant smartphone operating systems? Why do social media companies face so few consequences for playing fast and loose with our personal data? Why does Amazon keep raising prices that consumers and small businesses pay? The answer is simple: They are monopolies. That is what monopolies do. They are the big guys on the block, and there is a lack of competition. Despite the volume of evidence that supports taking action, Congress has yet to pass a single bill on online platform competition since the dawn of the internet. That is right. At the beginning, we were told we don't want to squelch these new products and competition. That made sense back then, but it doesn't make sense now. This evening, I am going to talk about the problems consumers and small businesses are experiencing in the online marketplace and the cost of inaction. It is really easy around this place not to act, to say things are too hard to deal with, whether it is climate change, whether it is immigration reform, whether it is tech policy from competition to privacy. But at some point, you have to stop blaming other people and do something about it. I am going to review how other countries are attacking this problem and actually taking it on. I will discuss the many examples throughout history when Congress and enforcers have stepped up to confront monopoly power. This has long been a problem in our country. You go way back to the Founding Fathers. So many people actually came to America because they wanted to be entrepreneurs. They don't want to have to buy all their tea from the East India tea company. You think about the Senators from the past taking on monopolies. Whether it is the railroad trust, whether it is the sugar trust, they took on monopolies. There are old cartoons in this very Chamber, our Old Senate Chamber, showing these big, bloated monopoly trusts looking down on the Senators because they controlled them. We don't want that to happen in our modern day because we know many times from the past, the Senate did stand up and do something. That is the case I am going to make today for why my bipartisan bill with Senator Grassley, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, is necessary to level the playing field in our digital economy. First, let me say a word about what we are up against. That is what everyone sees. I am trying to measure my audience today on C-SPAN versus what we believe is well around $100 million that the Big Tech companies have purchased for ads, especially in States where Senators are up for reelection where they have purchased ads all over the country. But people do listen. There are a few people here right now, and if I give this speech in different ways a number of times, I can win. Let's talk about what we are up against. When I talk about the dominant digital platforms, I am talking about some of the most powerful companies in the world with armies of lobbyists and lawyers--thousands and thousands of lawyers and lobbyists. I have two. They are sitting right here in the Chamber. We do have kind of a David and Goliath situation, but the lawyers for Big Tech are everywhere, in every corner in this town, at every cocktail party, and all over this building. I tell my colleagues they don't even know sometimes when someone is trying to influence them because they may think they are just talking to a friend or someone who worked on their campaign a while ago. But once they talk about antitrust and Big Tech, they should ask the person if they are being paid by a tech company or if they are on the board of a tech company or if they have some affiliation with one of the Big Tech companies because, time and time again, they have been surprised to find the answer is yes. But these Big Tech companies aren't just lobbying my colleagues; they are also lobbying the American people with astroturf campaigning and other dishonest PR tactics. At the same time that I have been working with my colleagues in good faith on commonsense solutions to online competition problems, these companies have been telling anyone who will listen that acting to protect competition in our digital markets will sometimes or somehow cede our national security or it will outlaw Amazon Prime--claims that were disputed by the Department of Justice and Amazon's own lobbyists in the press. That is just two examples. We deal with this all the time. They will say anything and everything. Senator Grassley and I came down here together to the Senate floor to refute this a few months ago. Then, of course, there is the money. I think this is actually the best evidence of just how big and dominant and bullying these companies are, running ads in States where people are in tough races. I think they get the message. They are showing they are out there. They are showing they are going to be able to put whatever money it takes into ads to stop this bill. How obvious can it be? Message received: We are out here, and we can hurt you. And, by the way, they wouldn't be spending millions and millions of dollars to stop us if we didn't have momentum. Let me give you some numbers. In 2021, Big Tech companies spent more than $70 million combined lobbying Congress. That does not include these ads I am talking about. In the first quarter of this year, Facebook, Meta; Amazon; Alphabet, which is Google; and Apple spent more than $16 million lobbying Congress. That is in one quarter. And you see my two lawyers on the other side. In just one recent week in May, one industry group, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, spent $22 million on TV ads against this bill. That is $22 million against one bill in 1 week. So when you see those TV ads, which they love running in Washington so that Members will see them, remember that number, $22 million, and think ``two lawyers.'' That is what we are up against. But it doesn't surprise me. I am not trying to win a popularity contest with the tech companies. That ship has sailed. I am simply trying to do the right thing. Since I am a Senator and not a tech-backed industry group, I don't get to spread my message with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign. I don't have paid actors, but Big Tech lobbyists can't stop me from standing here today on the floor of the Senate and tell you the truth. The truth is these companies will stop at nothing to protect their profits, even if it means stifling the innovation and ingenuity that has made our Nation's economy second to none. American prosperity was, of course, built on a foundation of open markets and fair competition. It is competition between companies that give consumers lower prices, drives manufacturers to constantly innovate and improve their products, and forces companies to pay fair wages to compete for workers. Competition provides opportunities for entrepreneurs to start and grow new businesses, fueling future economic growth. But if you look at our markets today, we see big cracks in that free market foundation. We see bigger businesses and fewer competitors and more dominant companies using their market power to suppress their rivals and line their own pockets. As an example, more than two-thirds of U.S. industries have become more concentrated between--and these are the last figures we had, 1997 and 2012, because our government doesn't really collect these figures because someone stopped them from doing it. The White House highlighted this problem a year ago in its Executive order on competition, pointing out that in over 75 percent of our industries ranging from agriculture to banking to healthcare, a smaller number of large companies now control more of the business than they did 20 years ago. This is raising prices overall for Americans. The lack of competition is estimated to cost the median American household $5,000 per year. The problem, of course, is most obvious in the tech industry because that is a relatively new area compared to some of our more embedded industries. And while, over time, we did things with pharma, we have done things in other areas, there is, as I noted, no law passed since the advent of the internet involving tech competition. Tech has given us some great products. I am wearing one, a Fitbit. I use Google Maps, order from Amazon and other places, carry an iPhone. Over the last several decades, companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft have created many great innovations. We went from the Wall Street Gordon Gekko days with his cell phone affectionately known as the Brick, that weighed 2 pounds and was 13 inches long, to cell phones the size of a watch. But while these tech companies were once scrappy startups innovating to survive, they are now some of the largest companies the world has ever known. And when you get that big--guess what--you have responsibilities, you have to be accountable. You aren't just out there as a brandnew startup doing whatever you want. But that is the mentality. They are still introducing new products; that is great. But they are also gatekeepers, and they use their power as gatekeepers to stifle competition and innovation by their competitors and the businesses that have no choice but to use their services. So that is a problem. So if you want to sell something big time, you better get on the App Store. But when you get on the App Store, depending on the size of your company, as you get bigger--let's say you are Spotify--you have to pay 30 percent of the revenue you make on that App Store to Apple for the pleasure of competing with their own product, Apple Music. So to my colleagues I say this: Yes, you can love the products; you can love the CEOs themselves; you can love the companies--but you also have to love competition and love and take seriously the unique role that we are supposed to play as Senators and as Members of Congress to ensure there is an even playing field. You go back, way back, to the godfather of capitalism, Adam Smith, who said to always watch out for the standing army of monopolies. We knew from the beginnings of this country that we would have to step in time and time again to make sure that we rejuvenate capitalism. That is what this is about. Throughout history, whether in telecom in the 1990s with the breakup of AT&T--which, by the way, made the company, according to one of their former presidents, stronger--or by passing the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act in the 1970s, to stopping sweetheart merger settlements, Congress has brought down prices over time by ensuring that there is competition. It is actually a uniquely American way to do things. I am grateful for our friends in the House, Chairman Cicilline and Ranking Member Ken Buck, who led bipartisan hearings on Big Tech and its anticompetitive conduct. They gave us a whole treasure trove of information. They conducted an 18-month investigation in the House Judiciary Committee--18-months--focused on how the largest and most dominant digital platforms harm small businesses, quash innovation, raise prices, and reduce quality. This is, by the way, what bothers me when some of our colleagues say, Well, we don't know enough. Seriously? Eighteen months of an investigation. And anyone in this room--it is public--can go look at it: 1,287,997 documents and communications--this is on the record--testimony from 38 witnesses, a hearing record that spans more than 1,800 pages, 38 submissions from 60 antitrust experts from across the political spectrum, and interviews with more than 240 market participants, former employees of the investigative platforms, and other individuals totaling thousands of hours. That doesn't even include what we have done in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. So, please, spare me hearing that we have not learned enough about this. The report is 450 pages, but let me read some excerpts that capture the harms to consumers and small businesses that we have seen as a result of our failure to update our competition policy. Here we go. This is from the record: To put it simply, companies that once were scrappy underdog startups that challenge the status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons. Although these firms have delivered clear benefits to society, the dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, [and] Google has come at a price. These firms typically run the marketplace in each of their areas. You all know that. Everyone in this room knows that because 90 percent of the people, when they are doing a search engine, they go to one that is Google. You know the dominance of Amazon. You all know the dominance of these companies. These firms are in a position that enable them to write one set of rules for others while they play by another or to engage in a form of their own private quasi-regulation that is unaccountable to anyone but themselves. [T]he totality of the evidence produced during this investigation-- This is from the House-- demonstrates the pressing need for legislative action and reform. These firms have too much power, and that power must be reined in and subject to appropriate oversight and enforcement. Our economy and [our] democracy are at stake. The subcommittee identified numerous instances in which dominant platforms engaged in preferential or discriminatory treatment. In some cases, the dominant platform privileged its own products or services. In [another], a dominant platform gave preferential treatment to one business partner over [the other]. Because the dominant platform was, in most instances-- And this is what is key-- the only viable path to market, its discriminatory treatment had the effect of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. That is us. We are supposed to pick the winners and the losers in the marketplace and decide what is the best product based on what is supposed to be the least priced or what is supposed to be the highest quality. But now they have inserted themselves while at the same time, in many instances, placing their own product above others, not because they are less money, not because they are better, but because they are theirs. Google, for example, engaged in self-preferencing-- I am back to the report-- by systematically ranking its own content above third-party content, even when its content was inferior or less relevant for users. Web publishers of content that Google demoted suffered economic losses and had no way of competing on the merits. Over the course of the investigation, numerous third parties also told the House subcommittee that self- preferencing and discriminatory treatment by the dominant platforms forced businesses to lay off employees and divert resources away from developing new products and towards paying a dominant platform for advertisements or other ancillary services. They added that some of the harmful business practices of the platforms discouraged investors from supporting their business and made it challenging to grow and sustain a business, even with highly popular products. Without the opportunity to compete fairly, businesses and entrepreneurs are dissuaded from investing; and, over the long term, innovation suffers. By virtue of functioning as the only viable path to the market--and that is what they are in so many instances--dominant platforms enjoy superior bargaining power over the third parties that depend on their platform to access users and the market. Their bargaining leverage is a form of market power [in] which the dominant platforms routinely use to protect and expand their dominance. Since 1998, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google collectively have purchased more than 500 companies. The antitrust agencies did not block a single acquisition. They did not block a single acquisition. And as I look back, I remember, just--in bright lights--that e-mail that was discovered during the House hearing in which Mark Zuckerberg wrote, ``I would rather buy than compete.'' ``I would rather buy than compete.'' To me, that pretty much is exhibit A. The House report has far more information than I could ever share in a single speech, but I will be sharing it over the next few months. But overall, the House report found that if there was true competition, we would have a more dynamic and innovative tech center with more small and medium-sized businesses. Maybe if Facebook hadn't bought them--remember, ``I would rather buy than compete''--an independent Instagram, an independent WhatsApp--because Meta now owns them--could have developed the bells and whistles and privacy controls and other things. We will never know. Why will we never know? Because they bought them. But if you have big monopolies that buy up all of that potential innovation, that buy up smaller companies, you lose the ability to get at some of the major challenges that we see in our country. I believe in the market. I was in the private sector for over a decade. I believe in capitalism, but if you don't have an even playing field for competition, you have got a problem. Over time, if left unchecked, big companies dominate markets, exclude their rivals, and buy out their competitors. As one of the witnesses at a hearing that I chaired with Ranking Member Lee said before our Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Alex Harman of Public Citizen put it: When companies face less competition, either because of consolidation, or from forces that make competitive threats less likely, they invest less in research and development. They in turn are less likely to produce new innovations [that benefit consumers and the economy]. And, all too often, companies across the economic spectrum that depend on these gatekeeping firms to reach the marketplace slash jobs and cut back on developing new products. As one founder put it: ``It feels like we are treading water with cement blocks around our feet.'' This is what has been going on in our country. It describes the problems we are facing from these digital gatekeepers. We have also heard from many other companies, nonprofits, trade associations, about what has been happening to them as a consequence of the monopoly power wielded by the largest digital platforms. Consumer Reports says this: Multiple investigations and studies have found that the largest online platforms have too much market power, and that this is resulting in harm to consumers, businesses, and the economy. A group of 60 small and medium-sized businesses wrote a letter saying: Gaining access to the dominant platforms and integrating with their services has increasingly become a take-it-or- leave-it process replete with anticompetitive demands. It doesn't serve American consumers or small and medium sized businesses when the tech behemoths use their platform dominance to tilt the competitive scales. In January, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors wrote: Unchecked, Amazon's dominance threatens to cripple the highly competitive B2B system in the United States. The American Hotels and Lodging Association, not exactly a radical group, wrote: Dominant technology companies give their own paid advertising products and services preferential treatment and placement within their platforms to ensure that, despite the specifics of what a consumer may be searching for, they will likely be steered down a booking path that benefits the search provider. Not that benefits you, but benefits one of the biggest companies the world has ever known. From a group of 40 small and medium-sized businesses back in January: Due to their gatekeeper status, dominant technology companies can: use manipulative design tactics to steer individuals away from rival services; restrict the ability of competitors to interoperate on the platform; use non-public data to benefit the companies' own services or products. And I could go on. So what do we have here? Google has 90 percent market share in search engines. Apple controls 100 percent of app distribution for iPhones, and Google controls the other app distribution, so they are what we call a duopoly. Three out of every four social media users--and there are 4 billion of them--are active Facebook users. Amazon is expected to seize half of the entire e-commerce retail market this year. That is what is happening. What are we doing? Let me repeat: We have done nothing. We have done nothing. We have had hearings; we have thrown popcorn at CEOs. But we haven't passed one bill out of the U.S. Congress to do anything about this competitive situation. What do other countries do? Well, other countries are now leaving us in the dust. They look to our leadership because America has always been known as a country of entrepreneurs and a country that encourages competition, but now look what is happening. Canada introduced legislation in April to make the dominant digital platforms fairly compensate news publishers for their content, following Australia's lead, which took similar action about a year earlier. And Europe is moving forward with its Digital Markets Act, DMA, a broad and sweeping piece of legislation that will place many new obligations on digital gatekeepers. The legislation puts rules of the road in place for how the digital gatekeepers determine search rankings, set defaults, process and use personal data, negotiate with business users on their platforms, interoperate, and demonstrate the efficiency of their digital advertising programs and the effectiveness of them. It also required gatekeepers to notify the European Commission about intended mergers and other deals that include the collection of data. If that sounds more intense than the bill Senator Grassley and I have put together, it is more intense. But thepoint is that it has gone through the European Parliament. In the European Union, we are seeing the effects of efforts to rein in Big Tech. Just last week, Amazon made a settlement offer to the European Commission in an attempt to resolve an antitrust case. The European Commission investigations into Amazon's conduct were launched in 2019 and 2020 and involved three key issues that implicate self-preferencing conduct in the United States too. First, the Europeans investigated whether Amazon used nonpublic data from sellers. Remember, the sellers have no choice if they really want to sell their stuff. They have to go on Amazon, right? So they have to give data to get on that platform. What they found out was that Amazon was using the nonpublic data from sellers to inform its own targets for new product development. That is what monopolies do. The little sellers have no choice but to sell on the Amazon platform. Then Amazon says: Oh, now we are going to see what products are good and how they are doing because we uniquely have all the information, and then we are going to copy that product, either directly, as they did with a four-person luggage carrier firm where they literally ripped off every detail of the product--based on reporting from the Wall Street Journal we now know that--or they just know this product is doing well so they do one just like it, and then they put it at the top of the search engine. Amazon has sworn under oath in the U.S. Congress that it does not do that. Well, now let's look at what is happening in Europe. Amazon also tightly controls who wins the coveted Buy Box, often awarding that preferred placement to itself. Third, Amazon requires sellers who want to be Prime to use Amazon's logistics services even if there could be a better alternative. We are not getting rid of Prime. We are just saying you have got to open the door so there could be alternatives. Amazon's settlement offer is filled with elements from my bill. That is what is so interesting because around this place or if you watch the TV ads, you would think the world was going to end. If we did a modicum of things while investigations are going on--of course, we know that there are various investigations in the Justice Department and around the country at the FTC. We are just going to sit there and let this continue until every appeal is made? Here is what is so interesting. In Europe, under the offer that Amazon just made in Europe, Amazon will stop using seller data to decide what private label products to launch, make it easier for third parties to win the Buy Box, and allow sellers to participate in the Prime program without using ``fulfillment by Amazon'' services to manage logistics like warehousing and shipping. My bill with Senator Grassley and what was called the ``Ocean's 11 of cosponsors'' because everyone has such different political beliefs, but we come together in support of capitalism for this bill--this bill that we have here, that is what it would do. It would require Amazon to do the same things that I just mentioned that they put forward in their settlement offer in Europe. Yet Amazon has claimed, in its multimillion dollar ad campaign, that this will break Prime in the United States. The hypocrisy is simply stunning. Why should consumers in Europe and small businesses in Europe have the benefit of the offer they are giving them, and we in the United States--we, who host their company--try to simply put the same requirements into law, and we are told: Oh, this is outrageous, when they are offering the exact same thing in other countries. The British have been working on these issues, too, particularly when it comes to app stores. And I want to thank Senators Blumenthal and Blackburn for their leadership in this area. The Competition and Markets Authority in the United Kingdom just last month issued a final report on the app store ecosystem, reaching the following conclusions. This is in the United Kingdom, which is, of course, a government that is different than the one we have here. This is from the Brits: Apple and Google have each captured such a large proportion and volume of consumers in the UK that their ecosystems are, for practical purposes, indispensable to online businesses. I think that is pretty fair to say that is what is going on around here. Let me continue with the Brits. Apple and Google act as gatekeepers to most UK consumers with mobile devices, and as a result can set the rules of the game for providers of online content and services. The evidence demonstrates that in the areas where Apple and Google generate the vast majority of their revenues from their mobile ecosystems, there is room for greater and more effective price competition. In the case of Apple's mobile devices, both firms' app stores, and Google's search and advertising services, the evidence strongly suggests the prices charged are above a competitive rate. . . . Consumers would get a better deal if Apple and Google faced more robust competition, either from each other or from third parties. The report continues: Weak competition within and between Apple's and Google's mobile ecosystems is harming consumers, and will do so to a greater degree . . . absent [any] intervention. Most importantly, we are concerned that consumers will miss out on innovative new features or transformative new products and services that are held back or discouraged by the power that Apple and Google wield. That is one report. If we continue to fail to take action in this country, we will lose our leadership position when it comes to antitrust on the global stage. That actually is not that great of a thing because then we are letting other countries determine what is going to happen to the future of competition. That is a huge risk for our country. It is time to take action just as Congress has done before when facing significant evidence of market failures and massive consolidation. So when Big Tech companies talk about this bill or really any serious antitrust effort, they try to make it sound like we are pushing for some kind of unprecedented action. And, as I just discussed, that is not true because we know they are getting all kinds of pushback in other countries and actually are making settlement offers that are exactly akin to some of the things we have in the bill. But it also isn't true in the history of our own country. I think everyone--while people don't think they have something in their background to do with monopolies or their dads or their moms or their grandparents had nothing to do, everyone has got something about competitive policy that affected their lives in the past or affected their relatives. For me, I think of the James J. Hill House in St. Paul. No, we never lived there. I will get to that in a minute. Calling it a house is actually an understatement. The 36,000-square-foot mansion has 22 fireplaces, 13 bathrooms, and a 100-foot-long reception hall. It was constructed in 1890, which is the same year that Congress actually finally did something about competition by passing the Sherman Act. The man who built this house, James J. Hill, was a railroad magnate whose railroad ran from St. Paul to Seattle. He consolidated multiple railroads across the country using a legal concept called a trust--that is why we have antitrust--in which the stockholders of multiple competitors transferred their shares to a single set of trustees. There were all kinds of trusts, as I mentioned--rail trusts, oil trusts. Standard Oil Trust controlled more than 90 percent of the country's refining capacity. The Sugar Trust controlled 98 percent of refined sugar. And we had trusts in everything from sewer pipes to thread. When I was growing up, my mom would like to take me to see the Christmas lights by that house and other estate houses, and I remember at some of the houses, unlike this one, there were actually people in it and kind of ducking down. She loved to show me those things on my way from piano lessons in her red car. And she would remind me that in order to build that house, Hill needed workers. Hill needed the monopoly railroads that gave him the money to build this humongous mansion, and he needed cheap labor to do the work. That is where my family comes in. That is where the Klobuchars fit in. My great-grandpa and my grandpa were both miners in the iron ore mines in Northern Minnesota, and they did the work that supported the monopolies. Over time, unions came in; wages got better; the mines got safer. But in the end, that is how he built his house. Our Nation, as I noted, has a very, very rich and difficult history of dealing with monopolies. But every single time, whether it was the East India tea company and throwing that tea into the harbor--yes, it was about taxation without representation, but it was also about a monopoly company. Every single time we have found a way to push back, whether it was farmers in the Granger movement with their pitchforks taking on the cost of rail, whether it was in Chicago, the Pullman strikes, strikes by workers against monopolies in the beef industry. Finally, in 1901, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt rode his antimonopoly horse right into the White House. He finally did something about it. He used the first passed antitrust law, the Sherman Act, and was able to actually take on the trusts. And since then you have seen this rejuvenation over time. Sometimes, there is a lull, and then things get so bad--like what happened with AT&T--that between Democratic and Republican administrations, people come in and do something about it. I know a little bit about this because my first job out of law school was representing MCI at a law firm, and that is when they were fighting to get into the monopoly market. Finally, when AT&T was broken up, what happened? Long distance rates went way down, and we finally got a cell phone industry because one company wasn't controlling everything because they did not have at that time--after a while--they were cool at first, and then they didn't have any kind of incentive to innovate. Then they finally did. That gets us to the present where we have been hanging out and waiting and doing nothing for now decades and decades since the advent of the internet. And it is time to act--hence, our legislation. January 1, 1983, is considered the official birthday of the internet. So it has been 40 years since then, and we still have not passed, as I noted, competition legislation. That is why our group of Senators have come together. And that includes Dick Durbin, Lindsey Graham, Richard Blumenthal, John Kennedy, Cory Booker, Cynthia Lummis, Mazie Hirono, Mark Warner, Josh Hawley, Steve Daines, Sheldon Whitehouse, and several more who are supporting the bill and said enough is enough. Our bill creates rules of the road for these platforms. That means, first of all, that they can't abuse their gatekeeper power by favoring their own products or services and disadvantaging rivals in ways that harm competition. In other words, in the examples I have used, Amazon will not be able to use small business's data in order to copy their products and then compete against them. Apple won't be able to stifle competition by blocking other companies' services from interoperating with their platforms. And Google won't be able to bias their platform's search results in favor of their own products and services without merit. That is what our bill does. Amazon should rank products based on price and quality, not based on their own profit margins. The world's largest and most powerful platforms shouldn't be allowed to copy a small business's private data. I used the example of luggage carriers. There are many, many more. Another challenge to cracking down on antitrust violations is how difficult and time consuming it can be to try these cases in court. Currently, the government has to spend millions on economic experts and years in the courts, and even after all that, the likelihood of victory because of very conservative Supreme Court cases in the last few decades is small. This bill streamlines things in this area. It doesn't break up the companies. Some people would like to do that. That is not what this bill does. It doesn't stop mergers. I think we should put in stronger merger guidelines, but that is not what this bill does. This bill simply gives us rules of the road for these companies to be fair going forward, while we figure out the other things that need to be figured out. So support for this bill: The Boston Globe, October 2021, said on their editorial page that ``[i]f the largest platforms can't be trusted to enforce even their own anticompetitive policies, then Washington has little choice but to act.'' They noted that the bill I have with Senator Grassley represents ``a chance for Congress to turn concern over Big Tech's sway into action.'' The Seattle Times, March 2022, wrote that ``[a]s antitrust efforts ramp up in Congress, Big Tech is fighting back, unleashing an army of lobbyists, enlisting business groups to apply pressure and engaging in fearmongering to avoid critical legislation.'' Let me tell you, a lot of our Senators have proved that fearmongering. Lawmakers must forge ahead and support legislation that reins in the tech giants' worst impulses, ensures fair competition and protects consumers and small businesses. But no matter what the tech companies say, antitrust legislation will not slay these giants or kill innovation . . . that is not its goal. What it will do is limit Big Tech's ability to run roughshod over competitors and consumers. Enough Democrats and Republicans agree, but time is running out. Congress needs to act. The Washington Post editorial, in April of 2022, called our bill a ``sound'' bill and pressed for movement on the legislation, including by writing as follows: Antitrust . . . needs revisions that prevent dominant companies from building barriers to a marketplace where those consumers will have both choice and protection. Legislators should view the bills before Congress as an opportunity to achieve this aim at last. The bill also has support from Agency experts who have enforced antitrust laws and worked to protect competition in the U.S. markets. The Department of Justice has endorsed the bill. I know this is after the Department of Justice under the previous administration--under the Trump administration, with Bill Barr as the Attorney General and Makan Delrahim as the head of Antitrust--actually started the initial lawsuit--the major, major lawsuit--against Google and after the FTC, under the Trump administration, started the lawsuit against Facebook. They filed major lawsuits that are being continued by this administration. The Department of Justice wrote this: The Department views the rise of dominant platforms as presenting a threat to open markets and competition, with risks for consumers, businesses, innovation, resiliency, global competitiveness, and our democracy. By controlling key arteries of the nation's commerce and communications, such platforms can exercise outsized market power in our modern economy. Vesting the power to pick winners and losers across markets in a small number of corporations contravenes the foundations of our capitalist system, and given the increasing importance of these markets, the power of such platforms is likely to continue to grow unless checked. This puts at risk the nation's economic progress and prosperity, ultimately threatening the economic liberty that undergirds our democracy. The Department of Justice continued: If enacted, we believe that this legislation has the potential to have a positive effect on dynamism in digital markets going forward. Our future global competitiveness depends on innovators and entrepreneurs having the ability to access markets free from dominant incumbents that impede innovation, competition, resiliency, and widespread prosperity. And Commerce Secretary Raimondo testified before our Senate Commerce Committee--I was there--saying: I applaud your efforts and . . . clearly agree that we need to improve competition, which increases innovation. She said: Last month, the DOJ released a views letter-- That is what I just read-- on behalf of the administration in support of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and the [Commerce] Department and I . . . support . . . and concur with the aim of [that] legislation. It is not just officials currently in these roles who support this bill. Roger Alford, who served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division from 2017 to 2019, wrote to us, saying: Bills such as S. 2992 provide hope that Congress will restore competition to digital marketplaces. And while people may have seen the disingenuous ads on TV against the bill, I think it is worth reading portions of the letters that we have received. The Consumer Federation of America wrote: To maintain a healthy economy, it turns out we need both sensible regulation and antitrust enforcement. . . . The American Innovation and Choice Online Act addresses the key issues in a sector of the digital economy that has not been addressed by competition policy and antitrust law. It targets big data platforms, which can abuse their market power as gatekeepers and vertically integrated firms, using self-preferencing and data to block competition. . . . Antitrust legal scholars wrote--and I will put all of this in the Record. More than 60 small- and medium-sized businesses wrote, and YELP, DuckDuckGo, Y Combinator, and other businesses wrote that S. 2992 will ``help restore competition in the digital marketplace.'' Small Business Rising wrote that the legislation ``is a critical part of the solution to the harms caused by the outsized power of the tech giants.'' As the president of Hobby Works, a Maryland hobby shop, said recently, ``All that any small business asks for is a somewhat level playing field and a somewhat fair environment in which to compete.'' I will end with this: Monopoly power, consumer choice, and reduced innovation aren't topics that came up for the first time when we marked up and passed this bill. I just read to you the thousands and thousands of pieces of documents and testimony from the House for 18 months that our colleagues Representative Cicilline and Representative Buck put together. So don't tell me this is the first time, when that went on for 18 months and when we have had hearing after hearing in the U.S. Senate. It is time to stop throwing the popcorn at the CEOs and actually do something. We got this bill through the Judiciary Committee with a 16-to-6 vote just 6 months ago. Now it is time to bring this bill to a vote on the floor. We have monopoly problems. You can still like the products. You can like the companies if you want--OK--but at some point they have gotten so big that you have to put some rules of the road in place to ensure that we can have the next Google or that we can have another competitor to Google or that we can have a true competitor to Amazon or that we can find, finally, social media platforms that protect our privacy and our data and our democracy. This isn't going to happen if you just let four big platforms control the day. As long as they do, which looks like it will be for the well foreseeable future, at least let's protect capitalism by putting some rules of the road in place. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. KLOBUCHAR | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3497-2 | null | 4,753 |
formal | Google | null | racist | Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today, as I will many times, to address my colleagues on the topic of competition policy, especially in our digital markets where we have a situation where a few Big Tech titans have grown into the largest corporations our country has ever seen. Just today, there is new reporting that shows that Google and Amazon have used their gatekeeper power to eliminate their competition for years. I don't think we are surprised by this, but this is new information that I think is important, as we learn new things all the time, that my colleagues know. According to a 2014 memo first obtained by the House Judiciary Committee, a Google executive described--this is what the memo says--``grave concerns'' about a new service from a rival ``competing with their core search experience.'' The documents also included an email from 2009 in which Amazon executives discussed ways to stop a company--that would be Diapers.com, a company it later bought--from advertising on their own platform. This gets to the core of what we are talking about here and why we must take action. This email that was made public today reads: We are under no obligation to allow them to advertise on our site. . . . I'd argue we should block them from buying product ads immediately, or at minimum price those ads so they truly reflect the opportunity costs. What does that mean? Well, Amazon could charge their rival whatever they wanted for advertisements and try and keep consumers in the dark about lower prices. That is only two from the dozens of documents newly released today by the House Judiciary Committee. I come to the floor today because the evidence is clear and continues to mount. These dominant tech platforms have abused their power for years, and now we are at a crossroads. Will America continue to be a place where entrepreneurs lead our economy forward or will we become a country where a handful of monopolists get to dictate who gets a chance to succeed? Remember when they all started--whether they were in garages or whatever--they started with this idea that they were platforms for sharing this information. I don't think anyone ever conceived they would also own things on the platform and then preference those things over other competitors. That is what is going on now. This is where consumers go to make their decisions about what they are going to buy. When you have situations where Google has 90 percent of the search market, that is a monopoly, clear as can be. The decisions we make and the actions we take today will set the trajectory for American innovation, for ingenuity, and prosperity for the next generation. I say we must meet the moment. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have had the opportunity to serve as chair of the committee's Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights. From my vantage point, I can tell you it has become painfully obvious, as many of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--have seen, that we have a serious competition problem throughout our economy, especially in Big Tech but not only in Big Tech. This issue impacts all Americans every single day. Why are there only two dominant smartphone operating systems? Why do social media companies face so few consequences for playing fast and loose with our personal data? Why does Amazon keep raising prices that consumers and small businesses pay? The answer is simple: They are monopolies. That is what monopolies do. They are the big guys on the block, and there is a lack of competition. Despite the volume of evidence that supports taking action, Congress has yet to pass a single bill on online platform competition since the dawn of the internet. That is right. At the beginning, we were told we don't want to squelch these new products and competition. That made sense back then, but it doesn't make sense now. This evening, I am going to talk about the problems consumers and small businesses are experiencing in the online marketplace and the cost of inaction. It is really easy around this place not to act, to say things are too hard to deal with, whether it is climate change, whether it is immigration reform, whether it is tech policy from competition to privacy. But at some point, you have to stop blaming other people and do something about it. I am going to review how other countries are attacking this problem and actually taking it on. I will discuss the many examples throughout history when Congress and enforcers have stepped up to confront monopoly power. This has long been a problem in our country. You go way back to the Founding Fathers. So many people actually came to America because they wanted to be entrepreneurs. They don't want to have to buy all their tea from the East India tea company. You think about the Senators from the past taking on monopolies. Whether it is the railroad trust, whether it is the sugar trust, they took on monopolies. There are old cartoons in this very Chamber, our Old Senate Chamber, showing these big, bloated monopoly trusts looking down on the Senators because they controlled them. We don't want that to happen in our modern day because we know many times from the past, the Senate did stand up and do something. That is the case I am going to make today for why my bipartisan bill with Senator Grassley, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, is necessary to level the playing field in our digital economy. First, let me say a word about what we are up against. That is what everyone sees. I am trying to measure my audience today on C-SPAN versus what we believe is well around $100 million that the Big Tech companies have purchased for ads, especially in States where Senators are up for reelection where they have purchased ads all over the country. But people do listen. There are a few people here right now, and if I give this speech in different ways a number of times, I can win. Let's talk about what we are up against. When I talk about the dominant digital platforms, I am talking about some of the most powerful companies in the world with armies of lobbyists and lawyers--thousands and thousands of lawyers and lobbyists. I have two. They are sitting right here in the Chamber. We do have kind of a David and Goliath situation, but the lawyers for Big Tech are everywhere, in every corner in this town, at every cocktail party, and all over this building. I tell my colleagues they don't even know sometimes when someone is trying to influence them because they may think they are just talking to a friend or someone who worked on their campaign a while ago. But once they talk about antitrust and Big Tech, they should ask the person if they are being paid by a tech company or if they are on the board of a tech company or if they have some affiliation with one of the Big Tech companies because, time and time again, they have been surprised to find the answer is yes. But these Big Tech companies aren't just lobbying my colleagues; they are also lobbying the American people with astroturf campaigning and other dishonest PR tactics. At the same time that I have been working with my colleagues in good faith on commonsense solutions to online competition problems, these companies have been telling anyone who will listen that acting to protect competition in our digital markets will sometimes or somehow cede our national security or it will outlaw Amazon Prime--claims that were disputed by the Department of Justice and Amazon's own lobbyists in the press. That is just two examples. We deal with this all the time. They will say anything and everything. Senator Grassley and I came down here together to the Senate floor to refute this a few months ago. Then, of course, there is the money. I think this is actually the best evidence of just how big and dominant and bullying these companies are, running ads in States where people are in tough races. I think they get the message. They are showing they are out there. They are showing they are going to be able to put whatever money it takes into ads to stop this bill. How obvious can it be? Message received: We are out here, and we can hurt you. And, by the way, they wouldn't be spending millions and millions of dollars to stop us if we didn't have momentum. Let me give you some numbers. In 2021, Big Tech companies spent more than $70 million combined lobbying Congress. That does not include these ads I am talking about. In the first quarter of this year, Facebook, Meta; Amazon; Alphabet, which is Google; and Apple spent more than $16 million lobbying Congress. That is in one quarter. And you see my two lawyers on the other side. In just one recent week in May, one industry group, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, spent $22 million on TV ads against this bill. That is $22 million against one bill in 1 week. So when you see those TV ads, which they love running in Washington so that Members will see them, remember that number, $22 million, and think ``two lawyers.'' That is what we are up against. But it doesn't surprise me. I am not trying to win a popularity contest with the tech companies. That ship has sailed. I am simply trying to do the right thing. Since I am a Senator and not a tech-backed industry group, I don't get to spread my message with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign. I don't have paid actors, but Big Tech lobbyists can't stop me from standing here today on the floor of the Senate and tell you the truth. The truth is these companies will stop at nothing to protect their profits, even if it means stifling the innovation and ingenuity that has made our Nation's economy second to none. American prosperity was, of course, built on a foundation of open markets and fair competition. It is competition between companies that give consumers lower prices, drives manufacturers to constantly innovate and improve their products, and forces companies to pay fair wages to compete for workers. Competition provides opportunities for entrepreneurs to start and grow new businesses, fueling future economic growth. But if you look at our markets today, we see big cracks in that free market foundation. We see bigger businesses and fewer competitors and more dominant companies using their market power to suppress their rivals and line their own pockets. As an example, more than two-thirds of U.S. industries have become more concentrated between--and these are the last figures we had, 1997 and 2012, because our government doesn't really collect these figures because someone stopped them from doing it. The White House highlighted this problem a year ago in its Executive order on competition, pointing out that in over 75 percent of our industries ranging from agriculture to banking to healthcare, a smaller number of large companies now control more of the business than they did 20 years ago. This is raising prices overall for Americans. The lack of competition is estimated to cost the median American household $5,000 per year. The problem, of course, is most obvious in the tech industry because that is a relatively new area compared to some of our more embedded industries. And while, over time, we did things with pharma, we have done things in other areas, there is, as I noted, no law passed since the advent of the internet involving tech competition. Tech has given us some great products. I am wearing one, a Fitbit. I use Google Maps, order from Amazon and other places, carry an iPhone. Over the last several decades, companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft have created many great innovations. We went from the Wall Street Gordon Gekko days with his cell phone affectionately known as the Brick, that weighed 2 pounds and was 13 inches long, to cell phones the size of a watch. But while these tech companies were once scrappy startups innovating to survive, they are now some of the largest companies the world has ever known. And when you get that big--guess what--you have responsibilities, you have to be accountable. You aren't just out there as a brandnew startup doing whatever you want. But that is the mentality. They are still introducing new products; that is great. But they are also gatekeepers, and they use their power as gatekeepers to stifle competition and innovation by their competitors and the businesses that have no choice but to use their services. So that is a problem. So if you want to sell something big time, you better get on the App Store. But when you get on the App Store, depending on the size of your company, as you get bigger--let's say you are Spotify--you have to pay 30 percent of the revenue you make on that App Store to Apple for the pleasure of competing with their own product, Apple Music. So to my colleagues I say this: Yes, you can love the products; you can love the CEOs themselves; you can love the companies--but you also have to love competition and love and take seriously the unique role that we are supposed to play as Senators and as Members of Congress to ensure there is an even playing field. You go back, way back, to the godfather of capitalism, Adam Smith, who said to always watch out for the standing army of monopolies. We knew from the beginnings of this country that we would have to step in time and time again to make sure that we rejuvenate capitalism. That is what this is about. Throughout history, whether in telecom in the 1990s with the breakup of AT&T--which, by the way, made the company, according to one of their former presidents, stronger--or by passing the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act in the 1970s, to stopping sweetheart merger settlements, Congress has brought down prices over time by ensuring that there is competition. It is actually a uniquely American way to do things. I am grateful for our friends in the House, Chairman Cicilline and Ranking Member Ken Buck, who led bipartisan hearings on Big Tech and its anticompetitive conduct. They gave us a whole treasure trove of information. They conducted an 18-month investigation in the House Judiciary Committee--18-months--focused on how the largest and most dominant digital platforms harm small businesses, quash innovation, raise prices, and reduce quality. This is, by the way, what bothers me when some of our colleagues say, Well, we don't know enough. Seriously? Eighteen months of an investigation. And anyone in this room--it is public--can go look at it: 1,287,997 documents and communications--this is on the record--testimony from 38 witnesses, a hearing record that spans more than 1,800 pages, 38 submissions from 60 antitrust experts from across the political spectrum, and interviews with more than 240 market participants, former employees of the investigative platforms, and other individuals totaling thousands of hours. That doesn't even include what we have done in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. So, please, spare me hearing that we have not learned enough about this. The report is 450 pages, but let me read some excerpts that capture the harms to consumers and small businesses that we have seen as a result of our failure to update our competition policy. Here we go. This is from the record: To put it simply, companies that once were scrappy underdog startups that challenge the status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons. Although these firms have delivered clear benefits to society, the dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, [and] Google has come at a price. These firms typically run the marketplace in each of their areas. You all know that. Everyone in this room knows that because 90 percent of the people, when they are doing a search engine, they go to one that is Google. You know the dominance of Amazon. You all know the dominance of these companies. These firms are in a position that enable them to write one set of rules for others while they play by another or to engage in a form of their own private quasi-regulation that is unaccountable to anyone but themselves. [T]he totality of the evidence produced during this investigation-- This is from the House-- demonstrates the pressing need for legislative action and reform. These firms have too much power, and that power must be reined in and subject to appropriate oversight and enforcement. Our economy and [our] democracy are at stake. The subcommittee identified numerous instances in which dominant platforms engaged in preferential or discriminatory treatment. In some cases, the dominant platform privileged its own products or services. In [another], a dominant platform gave preferential treatment to one business partner over [the other]. Because the dominant platform was, in most instances-- And this is what is key-- the only viable path to market, its discriminatory treatment had the effect of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. That is us. We are supposed to pick the winners and the losers in the marketplace and decide what is the best product based on what is supposed to be the least priced or what is supposed to be the highest quality. But now they have inserted themselves while at the same time, in many instances, placing their own product above others, not because they are less money, not because they are better, but because they are theirs. Google, for example, engaged in self-preferencing-- I am back to the report-- by systematically ranking its own content above third-party content, even when its content was inferior or less relevant for users. Web publishers of content that Google demoted suffered economic losses and had no way of competing on the merits. Over the course of the investigation, numerous third parties also told the House subcommittee that self- preferencing and discriminatory treatment by the dominant platforms forced businesses to lay off employees and divert resources away from developing new products and towards paying a dominant platform for advertisements or other ancillary services. They added that some of the harmful business practices of the platforms discouraged investors from supporting their business and made it challenging to grow and sustain a business, even with highly popular products. Without the opportunity to compete fairly, businesses and entrepreneurs are dissuaded from investing; and, over the long term, innovation suffers. By virtue of functioning as the only viable path to the market--and that is what they are in so many instances--dominant platforms enjoy superior bargaining power over the third parties that depend on their platform to access users and the market. Their bargaining leverage is a form of market power [in] which the dominant platforms routinely use to protect and expand their dominance. Since 1998, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google collectively have purchased more than 500 companies. The antitrust agencies did not block a single acquisition. They did not block a single acquisition. And as I look back, I remember, just--in bright lights--that e-mail that was discovered during the House hearing in which Mark Zuckerberg wrote, ``I would rather buy than compete.'' ``I would rather buy than compete.'' To me, that pretty much is exhibit A. The House report has far more information than I could ever share in a single speech, but I will be sharing it over the next few months. But overall, the House report found that if there was true competition, we would have a more dynamic and innovative tech center with more small and medium-sized businesses. Maybe if Facebook hadn't bought them--remember, ``I would rather buy than compete''--an independent Instagram, an independent WhatsApp--because Meta now owns them--could have developed the bells and whistles and privacy controls and other things. We will never know. Why will we never know? Because they bought them. But if you have big monopolies that buy up all of that potential innovation, that buy up smaller companies, you lose the ability to get at some of the major challenges that we see in our country. I believe in the market. I was in the private sector for over a decade. I believe in capitalism, but if you don't have an even playing field for competition, you have got a problem. Over time, if left unchecked, big companies dominate markets, exclude their rivals, and buy out their competitors. As one of the witnesses at a hearing that I chaired with Ranking Member Lee said before our Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Alex Harman of Public Citizen put it: When companies face less competition, either because of consolidation, or from forces that make competitive threats less likely, they invest less in research and development. They in turn are less likely to produce new innovations [that benefit consumers and the economy]. And, all too often, companies across the economic spectrum that depend on these gatekeeping firms to reach the marketplace slash jobs and cut back on developing new products. As one founder put it: ``It feels like we are treading water with cement blocks around our feet.'' This is what has been going on in our country. It describes the problems we are facing from these digital gatekeepers. We have also heard from many other companies, nonprofits, trade associations, about what has been happening to them as a consequence of the monopoly power wielded by the largest digital platforms. Consumer Reports says this: Multiple investigations and studies have found that the largest online platforms have too much market power, and that this is resulting in harm to consumers, businesses, and the economy. A group of 60 small and medium-sized businesses wrote a letter saying: Gaining access to the dominant platforms and integrating with their services has increasingly become a take-it-or- leave-it process replete with anticompetitive demands. It doesn't serve American consumers or small and medium sized businesses when the tech behemoths use their platform dominance to tilt the competitive scales. In January, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors wrote: Unchecked, Amazon's dominance threatens to cripple the highly competitive B2B system in the United States. The American Hotels and Lodging Association, not exactly a radical group, wrote: Dominant technology companies give their own paid advertising products and services preferential treatment and placement within their platforms to ensure that, despite the specifics of what a consumer may be searching for, they will likely be steered down a booking path that benefits the search provider. Not that benefits you, but benefits one of the biggest companies the world has ever known. From a group of 40 small and medium-sized businesses back in January: Due to their gatekeeper status, dominant technology companies can: use manipulative design tactics to steer individuals away from rival services; restrict the ability of competitors to interoperate on the platform; use non-public data to benefit the companies' own services or products. And I could go on. So what do we have here? Google has 90 percent market share in search engines. Apple controls 100 percent of app distribution for iPhones, and Google controls the other app distribution, so they are what we call a duopoly. Three out of every four social media users--and there are 4 billion of them--are active Facebook users. Amazon is expected to seize half of the entire e-commerce retail market this year. That is what is happening. What are we doing? Let me repeat: We have done nothing. We have done nothing. We have had hearings; we have thrown popcorn at CEOs. But we haven't passed one bill out of the U.S. Congress to do anything about this competitive situation. What do other countries do? Well, other countries are now leaving us in the dust. They look to our leadership because America has always been known as a country of entrepreneurs and a country that encourages competition, but now look what is happening. Canada introduced legislation in April to make the dominant digital platforms fairly compensate news publishers for their content, following Australia's lead, which took similar action about a year earlier. And Europe is moving forward with its Digital Markets Act, DMA, a broad and sweeping piece of legislation that will place many new obligations on digital gatekeepers. The legislation puts rules of the road in place for how the digital gatekeepers determine search rankings, set defaults, process and use personal data, negotiate with business users on their platforms, interoperate, and demonstrate the efficiency of their digital advertising programs and the effectiveness of them. It also required gatekeepers to notify the European Commission about intended mergers and other deals that include the collection of data. If that sounds more intense than the bill Senator Grassley and I have put together, it is more intense. But thepoint is that it has gone through the European Parliament. In the European Union, we are seeing the effects of efforts to rein in Big Tech. Just last week, Amazon made a settlement offer to the European Commission in an attempt to resolve an antitrust case. The European Commission investigations into Amazon's conduct were launched in 2019 and 2020 and involved three key issues that implicate self-preferencing conduct in the United States too. First, the Europeans investigated whether Amazon used nonpublic data from sellers. Remember, the sellers have no choice if they really want to sell their stuff. They have to go on Amazon, right? So they have to give data to get on that platform. What they found out was that Amazon was using the nonpublic data from sellers to inform its own targets for new product development. That is what monopolies do. The little sellers have no choice but to sell on the Amazon platform. Then Amazon says: Oh, now we are going to see what products are good and how they are doing because we uniquely have all the information, and then we are going to copy that product, either directly, as they did with a four-person luggage carrier firm where they literally ripped off every detail of the product--based on reporting from the Wall Street Journal we now know that--or they just know this product is doing well so they do one just like it, and then they put it at the top of the search engine. Amazon has sworn under oath in the U.S. Congress that it does not do that. Well, now let's look at what is happening in Europe. Amazon also tightly controls who wins the coveted Buy Box, often awarding that preferred placement to itself. Third, Amazon requires sellers who want to be Prime to use Amazon's logistics services even if there could be a better alternative. We are not getting rid of Prime. We are just saying you have got to open the door so there could be alternatives. Amazon's settlement offer is filled with elements from my bill. That is what is so interesting because around this place or if you watch the TV ads, you would think the world was going to end. If we did a modicum of things while investigations are going on--of course, we know that there are various investigations in the Justice Department and around the country at the FTC. We are just going to sit there and let this continue until every appeal is made? Here is what is so interesting. In Europe, under the offer that Amazon just made in Europe, Amazon will stop using seller data to decide what private label products to launch, make it easier for third parties to win the Buy Box, and allow sellers to participate in the Prime program without using ``fulfillment by Amazon'' services to manage logistics like warehousing and shipping. My bill with Senator Grassley and what was called the ``Ocean's 11 of cosponsors'' because everyone has such different political beliefs, but we come together in support of capitalism for this bill--this bill that we have here, that is what it would do. It would require Amazon to do the same things that I just mentioned that they put forward in their settlement offer in Europe. Yet Amazon has claimed, in its multimillion dollar ad campaign, that this will break Prime in the United States. The hypocrisy is simply stunning. Why should consumers in Europe and small businesses in Europe have the benefit of the offer they are giving them, and we in the United States--we, who host their company--try to simply put the same requirements into law, and we are told: Oh, this is outrageous, when they are offering the exact same thing in other countries. The British have been working on these issues, too, particularly when it comes to app stores. And I want to thank Senators Blumenthal and Blackburn for their leadership in this area. The Competition and Markets Authority in the United Kingdom just last month issued a final report on the app store ecosystem, reaching the following conclusions. This is in the United Kingdom, which is, of course, a government that is different than the one we have here. This is from the Brits: Apple and Google have each captured such a large proportion and volume of consumers in the UK that their ecosystems are, for practical purposes, indispensable to online businesses. I think that is pretty fair to say that is what is going on around here. Let me continue with the Brits. Apple and Google act as gatekeepers to most UK consumers with mobile devices, and as a result can set the rules of the game for providers of online content and services. The evidence demonstrates that in the areas where Apple and Google generate the vast majority of their revenues from their mobile ecosystems, there is room for greater and more effective price competition. In the case of Apple's mobile devices, both firms' app stores, and Google's search and advertising services, the evidence strongly suggests the prices charged are above a competitive rate. . . . Consumers would get a better deal if Apple and Google faced more robust competition, either from each other or from third parties. The report continues: Weak competition within and between Apple's and Google's mobile ecosystems is harming consumers, and will do so to a greater degree . . . absent [any] intervention. Most importantly, we are concerned that consumers will miss out on innovative new features or transformative new products and services that are held back or discouraged by the power that Apple and Google wield. That is one report. If we continue to fail to take action in this country, we will lose our leadership position when it comes to antitrust on the global stage. That actually is not that great of a thing because then we are letting other countries determine what is going to happen to the future of competition. That is a huge risk for our country. It is time to take action just as Congress has done before when facing significant evidence of market failures and massive consolidation. So when Big Tech companies talk about this bill or really any serious antitrust effort, they try to make it sound like we are pushing for some kind of unprecedented action. And, as I just discussed, that is not true because we know they are getting all kinds of pushback in other countries and actually are making settlement offers that are exactly akin to some of the things we have in the bill. But it also isn't true in the history of our own country. I think everyone--while people don't think they have something in their background to do with monopolies or their dads or their moms or their grandparents had nothing to do, everyone has got something about competitive policy that affected their lives in the past or affected their relatives. For me, I think of the James J. Hill House in St. Paul. No, we never lived there. I will get to that in a minute. Calling it a house is actually an understatement. The 36,000-square-foot mansion has 22 fireplaces, 13 bathrooms, and a 100-foot-long reception hall. It was constructed in 1890, which is the same year that Congress actually finally did something about competition by passing the Sherman Act. The man who built this house, James J. Hill, was a railroad magnate whose railroad ran from St. Paul to Seattle. He consolidated multiple railroads across the country using a legal concept called a trust--that is why we have antitrust--in which the stockholders of multiple competitors transferred their shares to a single set of trustees. There were all kinds of trusts, as I mentioned--rail trusts, oil trusts. Standard Oil Trust controlled more than 90 percent of the country's refining capacity. The Sugar Trust controlled 98 percent of refined sugar. And we had trusts in everything from sewer pipes to thread. When I was growing up, my mom would like to take me to see the Christmas lights by that house and other estate houses, and I remember at some of the houses, unlike this one, there were actually people in it and kind of ducking down. She loved to show me those things on my way from piano lessons in her red car. And she would remind me that in order to build that house, Hill needed workers. Hill needed the monopoly railroads that gave him the money to build this humongous mansion, and he needed cheap labor to do the work. That is where my family comes in. That is where the Klobuchars fit in. My great-grandpa and my grandpa were both miners in the iron ore mines in Northern Minnesota, and they did the work that supported the monopolies. Over time, unions came in; wages got better; the mines got safer. But in the end, that is how he built his house. Our Nation, as I noted, has a very, very rich and difficult history of dealing with monopolies. But every single time, whether it was the East India tea company and throwing that tea into the harbor--yes, it was about taxation without representation, but it was also about a monopoly company. Every single time we have found a way to push back, whether it was farmers in the Granger movement with their pitchforks taking on the cost of rail, whether it was in Chicago, the Pullman strikes, strikes by workers against monopolies in the beef industry. Finally, in 1901, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt rode his antimonopoly horse right into the White House. He finally did something about it. He used the first passed antitrust law, the Sherman Act, and was able to actually take on the trusts. And since then you have seen this rejuvenation over time. Sometimes, there is a lull, and then things get so bad--like what happened with AT&T--that between Democratic and Republican administrations, people come in and do something about it. I know a little bit about this because my first job out of law school was representing MCI at a law firm, and that is when they were fighting to get into the monopoly market. Finally, when AT&T was broken up, what happened? Long distance rates went way down, and we finally got a cell phone industry because one company wasn't controlling everything because they did not have at that time--after a while--they were cool at first, and then they didn't have any kind of incentive to innovate. Then they finally did. That gets us to the present where we have been hanging out and waiting and doing nothing for now decades and decades since the advent of the internet. And it is time to act--hence, our legislation. January 1, 1983, is considered the official birthday of the internet. So it has been 40 years since then, and we still have not passed, as I noted, competition legislation. That is why our group of Senators have come together. And that includes Dick Durbin, Lindsey Graham, Richard Blumenthal, John Kennedy, Cory Booker, Cynthia Lummis, Mazie Hirono, Mark Warner, Josh Hawley, Steve Daines, Sheldon Whitehouse, and several more who are supporting the bill and said enough is enough. Our bill creates rules of the road for these platforms. That means, first of all, that they can't abuse their gatekeeper power by favoring their own products or services and disadvantaging rivals in ways that harm competition. In other words, in the examples I have used, Amazon will not be able to use small business's data in order to copy their products and then compete against them. Apple won't be able to stifle competition by blocking other companies' services from interoperating with their platforms. And Google won't be able to bias their platform's search results in favor of their own products and services without merit. That is what our bill does. Amazon should rank products based on price and quality, not based on their own profit margins. The world's largest and most powerful platforms shouldn't be allowed to copy a small business's private data. I used the example of luggage carriers. There are many, many more. Another challenge to cracking down on antitrust violations is how difficult and time consuming it can be to try these cases in court. Currently, the government has to spend millions on economic experts and years in the courts, and even after all that, the likelihood of victory because of very conservative Supreme Court cases in the last few decades is small. This bill streamlines things in this area. It doesn't break up the companies. Some people would like to do that. That is not what this bill does. It doesn't stop mergers. I think we should put in stronger merger guidelines, but that is not what this bill does. This bill simply gives us rules of the road for these companies to be fair going forward, while we figure out the other things that need to be figured out. So support for this bill: The Boston Globe, October 2021, said on their editorial page that ``[i]f the largest platforms can't be trusted to enforce even their own anticompetitive policies, then Washington has little choice but to act.'' They noted that the bill I have with Senator Grassley represents ``a chance for Congress to turn concern over Big Tech's sway into action.'' The Seattle Times, March 2022, wrote that ``[a]s antitrust efforts ramp up in Congress, Big Tech is fighting back, unleashing an army of lobbyists, enlisting business groups to apply pressure and engaging in fearmongering to avoid critical legislation.'' Let me tell you, a lot of our Senators have proved that fearmongering. Lawmakers must forge ahead and support legislation that reins in the tech giants' worst impulses, ensures fair competition and protects consumers and small businesses. But no matter what the tech companies say, antitrust legislation will not slay these giants or kill innovation . . . that is not its goal. What it will do is limit Big Tech's ability to run roughshod over competitors and consumers. Enough Democrats and Republicans agree, but time is running out. Congress needs to act. The Washington Post editorial, in April of 2022, called our bill a ``sound'' bill and pressed for movement on the legislation, including by writing as follows: Antitrust . . . needs revisions that prevent dominant companies from building barriers to a marketplace where those consumers will have both choice and protection. Legislators should view the bills before Congress as an opportunity to achieve this aim at last. The bill also has support from Agency experts who have enforced antitrust laws and worked to protect competition in the U.S. markets. The Department of Justice has endorsed the bill. I know this is after the Department of Justice under the previous administration--under the Trump administration, with Bill Barr as the Attorney General and Makan Delrahim as the head of Antitrust--actually started the initial lawsuit--the major, major lawsuit--against Google and after the FTC, under the Trump administration, started the lawsuit against Facebook. They filed major lawsuits that are being continued by this administration. The Department of Justice wrote this: The Department views the rise of dominant platforms as presenting a threat to open markets and competition, with risks for consumers, businesses, innovation, resiliency, global competitiveness, and our democracy. By controlling key arteries of the nation's commerce and communications, such platforms can exercise outsized market power in our modern economy. Vesting the power to pick winners and losers across markets in a small number of corporations contravenes the foundations of our capitalist system, and given the increasing importance of these markets, the power of such platforms is likely to continue to grow unless checked. This puts at risk the nation's economic progress and prosperity, ultimately threatening the economic liberty that undergirds our democracy. The Department of Justice continued: If enacted, we believe that this legislation has the potential to have a positive effect on dynamism in digital markets going forward. Our future global competitiveness depends on innovators and entrepreneurs having the ability to access markets free from dominant incumbents that impede innovation, competition, resiliency, and widespread prosperity. And Commerce Secretary Raimondo testified before our Senate Commerce Committee--I was there--saying: I applaud your efforts and . . . clearly agree that we need to improve competition, which increases innovation. She said: Last month, the DOJ released a views letter-- That is what I just read-- on behalf of the administration in support of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and the [Commerce] Department and I . . . support . . . and concur with the aim of [that] legislation. It is not just officials currently in these roles who support this bill. Roger Alford, who served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division from 2017 to 2019, wrote to us, saying: Bills such as S. 2992 provide hope that Congress will restore competition to digital marketplaces. And while people may have seen the disingenuous ads on TV against the bill, I think it is worth reading portions of the letters that we have received. The Consumer Federation of America wrote: To maintain a healthy economy, it turns out we need both sensible regulation and antitrust enforcement. . . . The American Innovation and Choice Online Act addresses the key issues in a sector of the digital economy that has not been addressed by competition policy and antitrust law. It targets big data platforms, which can abuse their market power as gatekeepers and vertically integrated firms, using self-preferencing and data to block competition. . . . Antitrust legal scholars wrote--and I will put all of this in the Record. More than 60 small- and medium-sized businesses wrote, and YELP, DuckDuckGo, Y Combinator, and other businesses wrote that S. 2992 will ``help restore competition in the digital marketplace.'' Small Business Rising wrote that the legislation ``is a critical part of the solution to the harms caused by the outsized power of the tech giants.'' As the president of Hobby Works, a Maryland hobby shop, said recently, ``All that any small business asks for is a somewhat level playing field and a somewhat fair environment in which to compete.'' I will end with this: Monopoly power, consumer choice, and reduced innovation aren't topics that came up for the first time when we marked up and passed this bill. I just read to you the thousands and thousands of pieces of documents and testimony from the House for 18 months that our colleagues Representative Cicilline and Representative Buck put together. So don't tell me this is the first time, when that went on for 18 months and when we have had hearing after hearing in the U.S. Senate. It is time to stop throwing the popcorn at the CEOs and actually do something. We got this bill through the Judiciary Committee with a 16-to-6 vote just 6 months ago. Now it is time to bring this bill to a vote on the floor. We have monopoly problems. You can still like the products. You can like the companies if you want--OK--but at some point they have gotten so big that you have to put some rules of the road in place to ensure that we can have the next Google or that we can have another competitor to Google or that we can have a true competitor to Amazon or that we can find, finally, social media platforms that protect our privacy and our data and our democracy. This isn't going to happen if you just let four big platforms control the day. As long as they do, which looks like it will be for the well foreseeable future, at least let's protect capitalism by putting some rules of the road in place. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. KLOBUCHAR | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3497-2 | null | 4,754 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today, as I will many times, to address my colleagues on the topic of competition policy, especially in our digital markets where we have a situation where a few Big Tech titans have grown into the largest corporations our country has ever seen. Just today, there is new reporting that shows that Google and Amazon have used their gatekeeper power to eliminate their competition for years. I don't think we are surprised by this, but this is new information that I think is important, as we learn new things all the time, that my colleagues know. According to a 2014 memo first obtained by the House Judiciary Committee, a Google executive described--this is what the memo says--``grave concerns'' about a new service from a rival ``competing with their core search experience.'' The documents also included an email from 2009 in which Amazon executives discussed ways to stop a company--that would be Diapers.com, a company it later bought--from advertising on their own platform. This gets to the core of what we are talking about here and why we must take action. This email that was made public today reads: We are under no obligation to allow them to advertise on our site. . . . I'd argue we should block them from buying product ads immediately, or at minimum price those ads so they truly reflect the opportunity costs. What does that mean? Well, Amazon could charge their rival whatever they wanted for advertisements and try and keep consumers in the dark about lower prices. That is only two from the dozens of documents newly released today by the House Judiciary Committee. I come to the floor today because the evidence is clear and continues to mount. These dominant tech platforms have abused their power for years, and now we are at a crossroads. Will America continue to be a place where entrepreneurs lead our economy forward or will we become a country where a handful of monopolists get to dictate who gets a chance to succeed? Remember when they all started--whether they were in garages or whatever--they started with this idea that they were platforms for sharing this information. I don't think anyone ever conceived they would also own things on the platform and then preference those things over other competitors. That is what is going on now. This is where consumers go to make their decisions about what they are going to buy. When you have situations where Google has 90 percent of the search market, that is a monopoly, clear as can be. The decisions we make and the actions we take today will set the trajectory for American innovation, for ingenuity, and prosperity for the next generation. I say we must meet the moment. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have had the opportunity to serve as chair of the committee's Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights. From my vantage point, I can tell you it has become painfully obvious, as many of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--have seen, that we have a serious competition problem throughout our economy, especially in Big Tech but not only in Big Tech. This issue impacts all Americans every single day. Why are there only two dominant smartphone operating systems? Why do social media companies face so few consequences for playing fast and loose with our personal data? Why does Amazon keep raising prices that consumers and small businesses pay? The answer is simple: They are monopolies. That is what monopolies do. They are the big guys on the block, and there is a lack of competition. Despite the volume of evidence that supports taking action, Congress has yet to pass a single bill on online platform competition since the dawn of the internet. That is right. At the beginning, we were told we don't want to squelch these new products and competition. That made sense back then, but it doesn't make sense now. This evening, I am going to talk about the problems consumers and small businesses are experiencing in the online marketplace and the cost of inaction. It is really easy around this place not to act, to say things are too hard to deal with, whether it is climate change, whether it is immigration reform, whether it is tech policy from competition to privacy. But at some point, you have to stop blaming other people and do something about it. I am going to review how other countries are attacking this problem and actually taking it on. I will discuss the many examples throughout history when Congress and enforcers have stepped up to confront monopoly power. This has long been a problem in our country. You go way back to the Founding Fathers. So many people actually came to America because they wanted to be entrepreneurs. They don't want to have to buy all their tea from the East India tea company. You think about the Senators from the past taking on monopolies. Whether it is the railroad trust, whether it is the sugar trust, they took on monopolies. There are old cartoons in this very Chamber, our Old Senate Chamber, showing these big, bloated monopoly trusts looking down on the Senators because they controlled them. We don't want that to happen in our modern day because we know many times from the past, the Senate did stand up and do something. That is the case I am going to make today for why my bipartisan bill with Senator Grassley, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, is necessary to level the playing field in our digital economy. First, let me say a word about what we are up against. That is what everyone sees. I am trying to measure my audience today on C-SPAN versus what we believe is well around $100 million that the Big Tech companies have purchased for ads, especially in States where Senators are up for reelection where they have purchased ads all over the country. But people do listen. There are a few people here right now, and if I give this speech in different ways a number of times, I can win. Let's talk about what we are up against. When I talk about the dominant digital platforms, I am talking about some of the most powerful companies in the world with armies of lobbyists and lawyers--thousands and thousands of lawyers and lobbyists. I have two. They are sitting right here in the Chamber. We do have kind of a David and Goliath situation, but the lawyers for Big Tech are everywhere, in every corner in this town, at every cocktail party, and all over this building. I tell my colleagues they don't even know sometimes when someone is trying to influence them because they may think they are just talking to a friend or someone who worked on their campaign a while ago. But once they talk about antitrust and Big Tech, they should ask the person if they are being paid by a tech company or if they are on the board of a tech company or if they have some affiliation with one of the Big Tech companies because, time and time again, they have been surprised to find the answer is yes. But these Big Tech companies aren't just lobbying my colleagues; they are also lobbying the American people with astroturf campaigning and other dishonest PR tactics. At the same time that I have been working with my colleagues in good faith on commonsense solutions to online competition problems, these companies have been telling anyone who will listen that acting to protect competition in our digital markets will sometimes or somehow cede our national security or it will outlaw Amazon Prime--claims that were disputed by the Department of Justice and Amazon's own lobbyists in the press. That is just two examples. We deal with this all the time. They will say anything and everything. Senator Grassley and I came down here together to the Senate floor to refute this a few months ago. Then, of course, there is the money. I think this is actually the best evidence of just how big and dominant and bullying these companies are, running ads in States where people are in tough races. I think they get the message. They are showing they are out there. They are showing they are going to be able to put whatever money it takes into ads to stop this bill. How obvious can it be? Message received: We are out here, and we can hurt you. And, by the way, they wouldn't be spending millions and millions of dollars to stop us if we didn't have momentum. Let me give you some numbers. In 2021, Big Tech companies spent more than $70 million combined lobbying Congress. That does not include these ads I am talking about. In the first quarter of this year, Facebook, Meta; Amazon; Alphabet, which is Google; and Apple spent more than $16 million lobbying Congress. That is in one quarter. And you see my two lawyers on the other side. In just one recent week in May, one industry group, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, spent $22 million on TV ads against this bill. That is $22 million against one bill in 1 week. So when you see those TV ads, which they love running in Washington so that Members will see them, remember that number, $22 million, and think ``two lawyers.'' That is what we are up against. But it doesn't surprise me. I am not trying to win a popularity contest with the tech companies. That ship has sailed. I am simply trying to do the right thing. Since I am a Senator and not a tech-backed industry group, I don't get to spread my message with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign. I don't have paid actors, but Big Tech lobbyists can't stop me from standing here today on the floor of the Senate and tell you the truth. The truth is these companies will stop at nothing to protect their profits, even if it means stifling the innovation and ingenuity that has made our Nation's economy second to none. American prosperity was, of course, built on a foundation of open markets and fair competition. It is competition between companies that give consumers lower prices, drives manufacturers to constantly innovate and improve their products, and forces companies to pay fair wages to compete for workers. Competition provides opportunities for entrepreneurs to start and grow new businesses, fueling future economic growth. But if you look at our markets today, we see big cracks in that free market foundation. We see bigger businesses and fewer competitors and more dominant companies using their market power to suppress their rivals and line their own pockets. As an example, more than two-thirds of U.S. industries have become more concentrated between--and these are the last figures we had, 1997 and 2012, because our government doesn't really collect these figures because someone stopped them from doing it. The White House highlighted this problem a year ago in its Executive order on competition, pointing out that in over 75 percent of our industries ranging from agriculture to banking to healthcare, a smaller number of large companies now control more of the business than they did 20 years ago. This is raising prices overall for Americans. The lack of competition is estimated to cost the median American household $5,000 per year. The problem, of course, is most obvious in the tech industry because that is a relatively new area compared to some of our more embedded industries. And while, over time, we did things with pharma, we have done things in other areas, there is, as I noted, no law passed since the advent of the internet involving tech competition. Tech has given us some great products. I am wearing one, a Fitbit. I use Google Maps, order from Amazon and other places, carry an iPhone. Over the last several decades, companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft have created many great innovations. We went from the Wall Street Gordon Gekko days with his cell phone affectionately known as the Brick, that weighed 2 pounds and was 13 inches long, to cell phones the size of a watch. But while these tech companies were once scrappy startups innovating to survive, they are now some of the largest companies the world has ever known. And when you get that big--guess what--you have responsibilities, you have to be accountable. You aren't just out there as a brandnew startup doing whatever you want. But that is the mentality. They are still introducing new products; that is great. But they are also gatekeepers, and they use their power as gatekeepers to stifle competition and innovation by their competitors and the businesses that have no choice but to use their services. So that is a problem. So if you want to sell something big time, you better get on the App Store. But when you get on the App Store, depending on the size of your company, as you get bigger--let's say you are Spotify--you have to pay 30 percent of the revenue you make on that App Store to Apple for the pleasure of competing with their own product, Apple Music. So to my colleagues I say this: Yes, you can love the products; you can love the CEOs themselves; you can love the companies--but you also have to love competition and love and take seriously the unique role that we are supposed to play as Senators and as Members of Congress to ensure there is an even playing field. You go back, way back, to the godfather of capitalism, Adam Smith, who said to always watch out for the standing army of monopolies. We knew from the beginnings of this country that we would have to step in time and time again to make sure that we rejuvenate capitalism. That is what this is about. Throughout history, whether in telecom in the 1990s with the breakup of AT&T--which, by the way, made the company, according to one of their former presidents, stronger--or by passing the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act in the 1970s, to stopping sweetheart merger settlements, Congress has brought down prices over time by ensuring that there is competition. It is actually a uniquely American way to do things. I am grateful for our friends in the House, Chairman Cicilline and Ranking Member Ken Buck, who led bipartisan hearings on Big Tech and its anticompetitive conduct. They gave us a whole treasure trove of information. They conducted an 18-month investigation in the House Judiciary Committee--18-months--focused on how the largest and most dominant digital platforms harm small businesses, quash innovation, raise prices, and reduce quality. This is, by the way, what bothers me when some of our colleagues say, Well, we don't know enough. Seriously? Eighteen months of an investigation. And anyone in this room--it is public--can go look at it: 1,287,997 documents and communications--this is on the record--testimony from 38 witnesses, a hearing record that spans more than 1,800 pages, 38 submissions from 60 antitrust experts from across the political spectrum, and interviews with more than 240 market participants, former employees of the investigative platforms, and other individuals totaling thousands of hours. That doesn't even include what we have done in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. So, please, spare me hearing that we have not learned enough about this. The report is 450 pages, but let me read some excerpts that capture the harms to consumers and small businesses that we have seen as a result of our failure to update our competition policy. Here we go. This is from the record: To put it simply, companies that once were scrappy underdog startups that challenge the status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons. Although these firms have delivered clear benefits to society, the dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, [and] Google has come at a price. These firms typically run the marketplace in each of their areas. You all know that. Everyone in this room knows that because 90 percent of the people, when they are doing a search engine, they go to one that is Google. You know the dominance of Amazon. You all know the dominance of these companies. These firms are in a position that enable them to write one set of rules for others while they play by another or to engage in a form of their own private quasi-regulation that is unaccountable to anyone but themselves. [T]he totality of the evidence produced during this investigation-- This is from the House-- demonstrates the pressing need for legislative action and reform. These firms have too much power, and that power must be reined in and subject to appropriate oversight and enforcement. Our economy and [our] democracy are at stake. The subcommittee identified numerous instances in which dominant platforms engaged in preferential or discriminatory treatment. In some cases, the dominant platform privileged its own products or services. In [another], a dominant platform gave preferential treatment to one business partner over [the other]. Because the dominant platform was, in most instances-- And this is what is key-- the only viable path to market, its discriminatory treatment had the effect of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. That is us. We are supposed to pick the winners and the losers in the marketplace and decide what is the best product based on what is supposed to be the least priced or what is supposed to be the highest quality. But now they have inserted themselves while at the same time, in many instances, placing their own product above others, not because they are less money, not because they are better, but because they are theirs. Google, for example, engaged in self-preferencing-- I am back to the report-- by systematically ranking its own content above third-party content, even when its content was inferior or less relevant for users. Web publishers of content that Google demoted suffered economic losses and had no way of competing on the merits. Over the course of the investigation, numerous third parties also told the House subcommittee that self- preferencing and discriminatory treatment by the dominant platforms forced businesses to lay off employees and divert resources away from developing new products and towards paying a dominant platform for advertisements or other ancillary services. They added that some of the harmful business practices of the platforms discouraged investors from supporting their business and made it challenging to grow and sustain a business, even with highly popular products. Without the opportunity to compete fairly, businesses and entrepreneurs are dissuaded from investing; and, over the long term, innovation suffers. By virtue of functioning as the only viable path to the market--and that is what they are in so many instances--dominant platforms enjoy superior bargaining power over the third parties that depend on their platform to access users and the market. Their bargaining leverage is a form of market power [in] which the dominant platforms routinely use to protect and expand their dominance. Since 1998, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google collectively have purchased more than 500 companies. The antitrust agencies did not block a single acquisition. They did not block a single acquisition. And as I look back, I remember, just--in bright lights--that e-mail that was discovered during the House hearing in which Mark Zuckerberg wrote, ``I would rather buy than compete.'' ``I would rather buy than compete.'' To me, that pretty much is exhibit A. The House report has far more information than I could ever share in a single speech, but I will be sharing it over the next few months. But overall, the House report found that if there was true competition, we would have a more dynamic and innovative tech center with more small and medium-sized businesses. Maybe if Facebook hadn't bought them--remember, ``I would rather buy than compete''--an independent Instagram, an independent WhatsApp--because Meta now owns them--could have developed the bells and whistles and privacy controls and other things. We will never know. Why will we never know? Because they bought them. But if you have big monopolies that buy up all of that potential innovation, that buy up smaller companies, you lose the ability to get at some of the major challenges that we see in our country. I believe in the market. I was in the private sector for over a decade. I believe in capitalism, but if you don't have an even playing field for competition, you have got a problem. Over time, if left unchecked, big companies dominate markets, exclude their rivals, and buy out their competitors. As one of the witnesses at a hearing that I chaired with Ranking Member Lee said before our Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Alex Harman of Public Citizen put it: When companies face less competition, either because of consolidation, or from forces that make competitive threats less likely, they invest less in research and development. They in turn are less likely to produce new innovations [that benefit consumers and the economy]. And, all too often, companies across the economic spectrum that depend on these gatekeeping firms to reach the marketplace slash jobs and cut back on developing new products. As one founder put it: ``It feels like we are treading water with cement blocks around our feet.'' This is what has been going on in our country. It describes the problems we are facing from these digital gatekeepers. We have also heard from many other companies, nonprofits, trade associations, about what has been happening to them as a consequence of the monopoly power wielded by the largest digital platforms. Consumer Reports says this: Multiple investigations and studies have found that the largest online platforms have too much market power, and that this is resulting in harm to consumers, businesses, and the economy. A group of 60 small and medium-sized businesses wrote a letter saying: Gaining access to the dominant platforms and integrating with their services has increasingly become a take-it-or- leave-it process replete with anticompetitive demands. It doesn't serve American consumers or small and medium sized businesses when the tech behemoths use their platform dominance to tilt the competitive scales. In January, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors wrote: Unchecked, Amazon's dominance threatens to cripple the highly competitive B2B system in the United States. The American Hotels and Lodging Association, not exactly a radical group, wrote: Dominant technology companies give their own paid advertising products and services preferential treatment and placement within their platforms to ensure that, despite the specifics of what a consumer may be searching for, they will likely be steered down a booking path that benefits the search provider. Not that benefits you, but benefits one of the biggest companies the world has ever known. From a group of 40 small and medium-sized businesses back in January: Due to their gatekeeper status, dominant technology companies can: use manipulative design tactics to steer individuals away from rival services; restrict the ability of competitors to interoperate on the platform; use non-public data to benefit the companies' own services or products. And I could go on. So what do we have here? Google has 90 percent market share in search engines. Apple controls 100 percent of app distribution for iPhones, and Google controls the other app distribution, so they are what we call a duopoly. Three out of every four social media users--and there are 4 billion of them--are active Facebook users. Amazon is expected to seize half of the entire e-commerce retail market this year. That is what is happening. What are we doing? Let me repeat: We have done nothing. We have done nothing. We have had hearings; we have thrown popcorn at CEOs. But we haven't passed one bill out of the U.S. Congress to do anything about this competitive situation. What do other countries do? Well, other countries are now leaving us in the dust. They look to our leadership because America has always been known as a country of entrepreneurs and a country that encourages competition, but now look what is happening. Canada introduced legislation in April to make the dominant digital platforms fairly compensate news publishers for their content, following Australia's lead, which took similar action about a year earlier. And Europe is moving forward with its Digital Markets Act, DMA, a broad and sweeping piece of legislation that will place many new obligations on digital gatekeepers. The legislation puts rules of the road in place for how the digital gatekeepers determine search rankings, set defaults, process and use personal data, negotiate with business users on their platforms, interoperate, and demonstrate the efficiency of their digital advertising programs and the effectiveness of them. It also required gatekeepers to notify the European Commission about intended mergers and other deals that include the collection of data. If that sounds more intense than the bill Senator Grassley and I have put together, it is more intense. But thepoint is that it has gone through the European Parliament. In the European Union, we are seeing the effects of efforts to rein in Big Tech. Just last week, Amazon made a settlement offer to the European Commission in an attempt to resolve an antitrust case. The European Commission investigations into Amazon's conduct were launched in 2019 and 2020 and involved three key issues that implicate self-preferencing conduct in the United States too. First, the Europeans investigated whether Amazon used nonpublic data from sellers. Remember, the sellers have no choice if they really want to sell their stuff. They have to go on Amazon, right? So they have to give data to get on that platform. What they found out was that Amazon was using the nonpublic data from sellers to inform its own targets for new product development. That is what monopolies do. The little sellers have no choice but to sell on the Amazon platform. Then Amazon says: Oh, now we are going to see what products are good and how they are doing because we uniquely have all the information, and then we are going to copy that product, either directly, as they did with a four-person luggage carrier firm where they literally ripped off every detail of the product--based on reporting from the Wall Street Journal we now know that--or they just know this product is doing well so they do one just like it, and then they put it at the top of the search engine. Amazon has sworn under oath in the U.S. Congress that it does not do that. Well, now let's look at what is happening in Europe. Amazon also tightly controls who wins the coveted Buy Box, often awarding that preferred placement to itself. Third, Amazon requires sellers who want to be Prime to use Amazon's logistics services even if there could be a better alternative. We are not getting rid of Prime. We are just saying you have got to open the door so there could be alternatives. Amazon's settlement offer is filled with elements from my bill. That is what is so interesting because around this place or if you watch the TV ads, you would think the world was going to end. If we did a modicum of things while investigations are going on--of course, we know that there are various investigations in the Justice Department and around the country at the FTC. We are just going to sit there and let this continue until every appeal is made? Here is what is so interesting. In Europe, under the offer that Amazon just made in Europe, Amazon will stop using seller data to decide what private label products to launch, make it easier for third parties to win the Buy Box, and allow sellers to participate in the Prime program without using ``fulfillment by Amazon'' services to manage logistics like warehousing and shipping. My bill with Senator Grassley and what was called the ``Ocean's 11 of cosponsors'' because everyone has such different political beliefs, but we come together in support of capitalism for this bill--this bill that we have here, that is what it would do. It would require Amazon to do the same things that I just mentioned that they put forward in their settlement offer in Europe. Yet Amazon has claimed, in its multimillion dollar ad campaign, that this will break Prime in the United States. The hypocrisy is simply stunning. Why should consumers in Europe and small businesses in Europe have the benefit of the offer they are giving them, and we in the United States--we, who host their company--try to simply put the same requirements into law, and we are told: Oh, this is outrageous, when they are offering the exact same thing in other countries. The British have been working on these issues, too, particularly when it comes to app stores. And I want to thank Senators Blumenthal and Blackburn for their leadership in this area. The Competition and Markets Authority in the United Kingdom just last month issued a final report on the app store ecosystem, reaching the following conclusions. This is in the United Kingdom, which is, of course, a government that is different than the one we have here. This is from the Brits: Apple and Google have each captured such a large proportion and volume of consumers in the UK that their ecosystems are, for practical purposes, indispensable to online businesses. I think that is pretty fair to say that is what is going on around here. Let me continue with the Brits. Apple and Google act as gatekeepers to most UK consumers with mobile devices, and as a result can set the rules of the game for providers of online content and services. The evidence demonstrates that in the areas where Apple and Google generate the vast majority of their revenues from their mobile ecosystems, there is room for greater and more effective price competition. In the case of Apple's mobile devices, both firms' app stores, and Google's search and advertising services, the evidence strongly suggests the prices charged are above a competitive rate. . . . Consumers would get a better deal if Apple and Google faced more robust competition, either from each other or from third parties. The report continues: Weak competition within and between Apple's and Google's mobile ecosystems is harming consumers, and will do so to a greater degree . . . absent [any] intervention. Most importantly, we are concerned that consumers will miss out on innovative new features or transformative new products and services that are held back or discouraged by the power that Apple and Google wield. That is one report. If we continue to fail to take action in this country, we will lose our leadership position when it comes to antitrust on the global stage. That actually is not that great of a thing because then we are letting other countries determine what is going to happen to the future of competition. That is a huge risk for our country. It is time to take action just as Congress has done before when facing significant evidence of market failures and massive consolidation. So when Big Tech companies talk about this bill or really any serious antitrust effort, they try to make it sound like we are pushing for some kind of unprecedented action. And, as I just discussed, that is not true because we know they are getting all kinds of pushback in other countries and actually are making settlement offers that are exactly akin to some of the things we have in the bill. But it also isn't true in the history of our own country. I think everyone--while people don't think they have something in their background to do with monopolies or their dads or their moms or their grandparents had nothing to do, everyone has got something about competitive policy that affected their lives in the past or affected their relatives. For me, I think of the James J. Hill House in St. Paul. No, we never lived there. I will get to that in a minute. Calling it a house is actually an understatement. The 36,000-square-foot mansion has 22 fireplaces, 13 bathrooms, and a 100-foot-long reception hall. It was constructed in 1890, which is the same year that Congress actually finally did something about competition by passing the Sherman Act. The man who built this house, James J. Hill, was a railroad magnate whose railroad ran from St. Paul to Seattle. He consolidated multiple railroads across the country using a legal concept called a trust--that is why we have antitrust--in which the stockholders of multiple competitors transferred their shares to a single set of trustees. There were all kinds of trusts, as I mentioned--rail trusts, oil trusts. Standard Oil Trust controlled more than 90 percent of the country's refining capacity. The Sugar Trust controlled 98 percent of refined sugar. And we had trusts in everything from sewer pipes to thread. When I was growing up, my mom would like to take me to see the Christmas lights by that house and other estate houses, and I remember at some of the houses, unlike this one, there were actually people in it and kind of ducking down. She loved to show me those things on my way from piano lessons in her red car. And she would remind me that in order to build that house, Hill needed workers. Hill needed the monopoly railroads that gave him the money to build this humongous mansion, and he needed cheap labor to do the work. That is where my family comes in. That is where the Klobuchars fit in. My great-grandpa and my grandpa were both miners in the iron ore mines in Northern Minnesota, and they did the work that supported the monopolies. Over time, unions came in; wages got better; the mines got safer. But in the end, that is how he built his house. Our Nation, as I noted, has a very, very rich and difficult history of dealing with monopolies. But every single time, whether it was the East India tea company and throwing that tea into the harbor--yes, it was about taxation without representation, but it was also about a monopoly company. Every single time we have found a way to push back, whether it was farmers in the Granger movement with their pitchforks taking on the cost of rail, whether it was in Chicago, the Pullman strikes, strikes by workers against monopolies in the beef industry. Finally, in 1901, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt rode his antimonopoly horse right into the White House. He finally did something about it. He used the first passed antitrust law, the Sherman Act, and was able to actually take on the trusts. And since then you have seen this rejuvenation over time. Sometimes, there is a lull, and then things get so bad--like what happened with AT&T--that between Democratic and Republican administrations, people come in and do something about it. I know a little bit about this because my first job out of law school was representing MCI at a law firm, and that is when they were fighting to get into the monopoly market. Finally, when AT&T was broken up, what happened? Long distance rates went way down, and we finally got a cell phone industry because one company wasn't controlling everything because they did not have at that time--after a while--they were cool at first, and then they didn't have any kind of incentive to innovate. Then they finally did. That gets us to the present where we have been hanging out and waiting and doing nothing for now decades and decades since the advent of the internet. And it is time to act--hence, our legislation. January 1, 1983, is considered the official birthday of the internet. So it has been 40 years since then, and we still have not passed, as I noted, competition legislation. That is why our group of Senators have come together. And that includes Dick Durbin, Lindsey Graham, Richard Blumenthal, John Kennedy, Cory Booker, Cynthia Lummis, Mazie Hirono, Mark Warner, Josh Hawley, Steve Daines, Sheldon Whitehouse, and several more who are supporting the bill and said enough is enough. Our bill creates rules of the road for these platforms. That means, first of all, that they can't abuse their gatekeeper power by favoring their own products or services and disadvantaging rivals in ways that harm competition. In other words, in the examples I have used, Amazon will not be able to use small business's data in order to copy their products and then compete against them. Apple won't be able to stifle competition by blocking other companies' services from interoperating with their platforms. And Google won't be able to bias their platform's search results in favor of their own products and services without merit. That is what our bill does. Amazon should rank products based on price and quality, not based on their own profit margins. The world's largest and most powerful platforms shouldn't be allowed to copy a small business's private data. I used the example of luggage carriers. There are many, many more. Another challenge to cracking down on antitrust violations is how difficult and time consuming it can be to try these cases in court. Currently, the government has to spend millions on economic experts and years in the courts, and even after all that, the likelihood of victory because of very conservative Supreme Court cases in the last few decades is small. This bill streamlines things in this area. It doesn't break up the companies. Some people would like to do that. That is not what this bill does. It doesn't stop mergers. I think we should put in stronger merger guidelines, but that is not what this bill does. This bill simply gives us rules of the road for these companies to be fair going forward, while we figure out the other things that need to be figured out. So support for this bill: The Boston Globe, October 2021, said on their editorial page that ``[i]f the largest platforms can't be trusted to enforce even their own anticompetitive policies, then Washington has little choice but to act.'' They noted that the bill I have with Senator Grassley represents ``a chance for Congress to turn concern over Big Tech's sway into action.'' The Seattle Times, March 2022, wrote that ``[a]s antitrust efforts ramp up in Congress, Big Tech is fighting back, unleashing an army of lobbyists, enlisting business groups to apply pressure and engaging in fearmongering to avoid critical legislation.'' Let me tell you, a lot of our Senators have proved that fearmongering. Lawmakers must forge ahead and support legislation that reins in the tech giants' worst impulses, ensures fair competition and protects consumers and small businesses. But no matter what the tech companies say, antitrust legislation will not slay these giants or kill innovation . . . that is not its goal. What it will do is limit Big Tech's ability to run roughshod over competitors and consumers. Enough Democrats and Republicans agree, but time is running out. Congress needs to act. The Washington Post editorial, in April of 2022, called our bill a ``sound'' bill and pressed for movement on the legislation, including by writing as follows: Antitrust . . . needs revisions that prevent dominant companies from building barriers to a marketplace where those consumers will have both choice and protection. Legislators should view the bills before Congress as an opportunity to achieve this aim at last. The bill also has support from Agency experts who have enforced antitrust laws and worked to protect competition in the U.S. markets. The Department of Justice has endorsed the bill. I know this is after the Department of Justice under the previous administration--under the Trump administration, with Bill Barr as the Attorney General and Makan Delrahim as the head of Antitrust--actually started the initial lawsuit--the major, major lawsuit--against Google and after the FTC, under the Trump administration, started the lawsuit against Facebook. They filed major lawsuits that are being continued by this administration. The Department of Justice wrote this: The Department views the rise of dominant platforms as presenting a threat to open markets and competition, with risks for consumers, businesses, innovation, resiliency, global competitiveness, and our democracy. By controlling key arteries of the nation's commerce and communications, such platforms can exercise outsized market power in our modern economy. Vesting the power to pick winners and losers across markets in a small number of corporations contravenes the foundations of our capitalist system, and given the increasing importance of these markets, the power of such platforms is likely to continue to grow unless checked. This puts at risk the nation's economic progress and prosperity, ultimately threatening the economic liberty that undergirds our democracy. The Department of Justice continued: If enacted, we believe that this legislation has the potential to have a positive effect on dynamism in digital markets going forward. Our future global competitiveness depends on innovators and entrepreneurs having the ability to access markets free from dominant incumbents that impede innovation, competition, resiliency, and widespread prosperity. And Commerce Secretary Raimondo testified before our Senate Commerce Committee--I was there--saying: I applaud your efforts and . . . clearly agree that we need to improve competition, which increases innovation. She said: Last month, the DOJ released a views letter-- That is what I just read-- on behalf of the administration in support of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and the [Commerce] Department and I . . . support . . . and concur with the aim of [that] legislation. It is not just officials currently in these roles who support this bill. Roger Alford, who served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division from 2017 to 2019, wrote to us, saying: Bills such as S. 2992 provide hope that Congress will restore competition to digital marketplaces. And while people may have seen the disingenuous ads on TV against the bill, I think it is worth reading portions of the letters that we have received. The Consumer Federation of America wrote: To maintain a healthy economy, it turns out we need both sensible regulation and antitrust enforcement. . . . The American Innovation and Choice Online Act addresses the key issues in a sector of the digital economy that has not been addressed by competition policy and antitrust law. It targets big data platforms, which can abuse their market power as gatekeepers and vertically integrated firms, using self-preferencing and data to block competition. . . . Antitrust legal scholars wrote--and I will put all of this in the Record. More than 60 small- and medium-sized businesses wrote, and YELP, DuckDuckGo, Y Combinator, and other businesses wrote that S. 2992 will ``help restore competition in the digital marketplace.'' Small Business Rising wrote that the legislation ``is a critical part of the solution to the harms caused by the outsized power of the tech giants.'' As the president of Hobby Works, a Maryland hobby shop, said recently, ``All that any small business asks for is a somewhat level playing field and a somewhat fair environment in which to compete.'' I will end with this: Monopoly power, consumer choice, and reduced innovation aren't topics that came up for the first time when we marked up and passed this bill. I just read to you the thousands and thousands of pieces of documents and testimony from the House for 18 months that our colleagues Representative Cicilline and Representative Buck put together. So don't tell me this is the first time, when that went on for 18 months and when we have had hearing after hearing in the U.S. Senate. It is time to stop throwing the popcorn at the CEOs and actually do something. We got this bill through the Judiciary Committee with a 16-to-6 vote just 6 months ago. Now it is time to bring this bill to a vote on the floor. We have monopoly problems. You can still like the products. You can like the companies if you want--OK--but at some point they have gotten so big that you have to put some rules of the road in place to ensure that we can have the next Google or that we can have another competitor to Google or that we can have a true competitor to Amazon or that we can find, finally, social media platforms that protect our privacy and our data and our democracy. This isn't going to happen if you just let four big platforms control the day. As long as they do, which looks like it will be for the well foreseeable future, at least let's protect capitalism by putting some rules of the road in place. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. KLOBUCHAR | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3497-2 | null | 4,755 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I rise today, as I will many times, to address my colleagues on the topic of competition policy, especially in our digital markets where we have a situation where a few Big Tech titans have grown into the largest corporations our country has ever seen. Just today, there is new reporting that shows that Google and Amazon have used their gatekeeper power to eliminate their competition for years. I don't think we are surprised by this, but this is new information that I think is important, as we learn new things all the time, that my colleagues know. According to a 2014 memo first obtained by the House Judiciary Committee, a Google executive described--this is what the memo says--``grave concerns'' about a new service from a rival ``competing with their core search experience.'' The documents also included an email from 2009 in which Amazon executives discussed ways to stop a company--that would be Diapers.com, a company it later bought--from advertising on their own platform. This gets to the core of what we are talking about here and why we must take action. This email that was made public today reads: We are under no obligation to allow them to advertise on our site. . . . I'd argue we should block them from buying product ads immediately, or at minimum price those ads so they truly reflect the opportunity costs. What does that mean? Well, Amazon could charge their rival whatever they wanted for advertisements and try and keep consumers in the dark about lower prices. That is only two from the dozens of documents newly released today by the House Judiciary Committee. I come to the floor today because the evidence is clear and continues to mount. These dominant tech platforms have abused their power for years, and now we are at a crossroads. Will America continue to be a place where entrepreneurs lead our economy forward or will we become a country where a handful of monopolists get to dictate who gets a chance to succeed? Remember when they all started--whether they were in garages or whatever--they started with this idea that they were platforms for sharing this information. I don't think anyone ever conceived they would also own things on the platform and then preference those things over other competitors. That is what is going on now. This is where consumers go to make their decisions about what they are going to buy. When you have situations where Google has 90 percent of the search market, that is a monopoly, clear as can be. The decisions we make and the actions we take today will set the trajectory for American innovation, for ingenuity, and prosperity for the next generation. I say we must meet the moment. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I have had the opportunity to serve as chair of the committee's Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights. From my vantage point, I can tell you it has become painfully obvious, as many of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--have seen, that we have a serious competition problem throughout our economy, especially in Big Tech but not only in Big Tech. This issue impacts all Americans every single day. Why are there only two dominant smartphone operating systems? Why do social media companies face so few consequences for playing fast and loose with our personal data? Why does Amazon keep raising prices that consumers and small businesses pay? The answer is simple: They are monopolies. That is what monopolies do. They are the big guys on the block, and there is a lack of competition. Despite the volume of evidence that supports taking action, Congress has yet to pass a single bill on online platform competition since the dawn of the internet. That is right. At the beginning, we were told we don't want to squelch these new products and competition. That made sense back then, but it doesn't make sense now. This evening, I am going to talk about the problems consumers and small businesses are experiencing in the online marketplace and the cost of inaction. It is really easy around this place not to act, to say things are too hard to deal with, whether it is climate change, whether it is immigration reform, whether it is tech policy from competition to privacy. But at some point, you have to stop blaming other people and do something about it. I am going to review how other countries are attacking this problem and actually taking it on. I will discuss the many examples throughout history when Congress and enforcers have stepped up to confront monopoly power. This has long been a problem in our country. You go way back to the Founding Fathers. So many people actually came to America because they wanted to be entrepreneurs. They don't want to have to buy all their tea from the East India tea company. You think about the Senators from the past taking on monopolies. Whether it is the railroad trust, whether it is the sugar trust, they took on monopolies. There are old cartoons in this very Chamber, our Old Senate Chamber, showing these big, bloated monopoly trusts looking down on the Senators because they controlled them. We don't want that to happen in our modern day because we know many times from the past, the Senate did stand up and do something. That is the case I am going to make today for why my bipartisan bill with Senator Grassley, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, is necessary to level the playing field in our digital economy. First, let me say a word about what we are up against. That is what everyone sees. I am trying to measure my audience today on C-SPAN versus what we believe is well around $100 million that the Big Tech companies have purchased for ads, especially in States where Senators are up for reelection where they have purchased ads all over the country. But people do listen. There are a few people here right now, and if I give this speech in different ways a number of times, I can win. Let's talk about what we are up against. When I talk about the dominant digital platforms, I am talking about some of the most powerful companies in the world with armies of lobbyists and lawyers--thousands and thousands of lawyers and lobbyists. I have two. They are sitting right here in the Chamber. We do have kind of a David and Goliath situation, but the lawyers for Big Tech are everywhere, in every corner in this town, at every cocktail party, and all over this building. I tell my colleagues they don't even know sometimes when someone is trying to influence them because they may think they are just talking to a friend or someone who worked on their campaign a while ago. But once they talk about antitrust and Big Tech, they should ask the person if they are being paid by a tech company or if they are on the board of a tech company or if they have some affiliation with one of the Big Tech companies because, time and time again, they have been surprised to find the answer is yes. But these Big Tech companies aren't just lobbying my colleagues; they are also lobbying the American people with astroturf campaigning and other dishonest PR tactics. At the same time that I have been working with my colleagues in good faith on commonsense solutions to online competition problems, these companies have been telling anyone who will listen that acting to protect competition in our digital markets will sometimes or somehow cede our national security or it will outlaw Amazon Prime--claims that were disputed by the Department of Justice and Amazon's own lobbyists in the press. That is just two examples. We deal with this all the time. They will say anything and everything. Senator Grassley and I came down here together to the Senate floor to refute this a few months ago. Then, of course, there is the money. I think this is actually the best evidence of just how big and dominant and bullying these companies are, running ads in States where people are in tough races. I think they get the message. They are showing they are out there. They are showing they are going to be able to put whatever money it takes into ads to stop this bill. How obvious can it be? Message received: We are out here, and we can hurt you. And, by the way, they wouldn't be spending millions and millions of dollars to stop us if we didn't have momentum. Let me give you some numbers. In 2021, Big Tech companies spent more than $70 million combined lobbying Congress. That does not include these ads I am talking about. In the first quarter of this year, Facebook, Meta; Amazon; Alphabet, which is Google; and Apple spent more than $16 million lobbying Congress. That is in one quarter. And you see my two lawyers on the other side. In just one recent week in May, one industry group, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, spent $22 million on TV ads against this bill. That is $22 million against one bill in 1 week. So when you see those TV ads, which they love running in Washington so that Members will see them, remember that number, $22 million, and think ``two lawyers.'' That is what we are up against. But it doesn't surprise me. I am not trying to win a popularity contest with the tech companies. That ship has sailed. I am simply trying to do the right thing. Since I am a Senator and not a tech-backed industry group, I don't get to spread my message with a multimillion-dollar ad campaign. I don't have paid actors, but Big Tech lobbyists can't stop me from standing here today on the floor of the Senate and tell you the truth. The truth is these companies will stop at nothing to protect their profits, even if it means stifling the innovation and ingenuity that has made our Nation's economy second to none. American prosperity was, of course, built on a foundation of open markets and fair competition. It is competition between companies that give consumers lower prices, drives manufacturers to constantly innovate and improve their products, and forces companies to pay fair wages to compete for workers. Competition provides opportunities for entrepreneurs to start and grow new businesses, fueling future economic growth. But if you look at our markets today, we see big cracks in that free market foundation. We see bigger businesses and fewer competitors and more dominant companies using their market power to suppress their rivals and line their own pockets. As an example, more than two-thirds of U.S. industries have become more concentrated between--and these are the last figures we had, 1997 and 2012, because our government doesn't really collect these figures because someone stopped them from doing it. The White House highlighted this problem a year ago in its Executive order on competition, pointing out that in over 75 percent of our industries ranging from agriculture to banking to healthcare, a smaller number of large companies now control more of the business than they did 20 years ago. This is raising prices overall for Americans. The lack of competition is estimated to cost the median American household $5,000 per year. The problem, of course, is most obvious in the tech industry because that is a relatively new area compared to some of our more embedded industries. And while, over time, we did things with pharma, we have done things in other areas, there is, as I noted, no law passed since the advent of the internet involving tech competition. Tech has given us some great products. I am wearing one, a Fitbit. I use Google Maps, order from Amazon and other places, carry an iPhone. Over the last several decades, companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft have created many great innovations. We went from the Wall Street Gordon Gekko days with his cell phone affectionately known as the Brick, that weighed 2 pounds and was 13 inches long, to cell phones the size of a watch. But while these tech companies were once scrappy startups innovating to survive, they are now some of the largest companies the world has ever known. And when you get that big--guess what--you have responsibilities, you have to be accountable. You aren't just out there as a brandnew startup doing whatever you want. But that is the mentality. They are still introducing new products; that is great. But they are also gatekeepers, and they use their power as gatekeepers to stifle competition and innovation by their competitors and the businesses that have no choice but to use their services. So that is a problem. So if you want to sell something big time, you better get on the App Store. But when you get on the App Store, depending on the size of your company, as you get bigger--let's say you are Spotify--you have to pay 30 percent of the revenue you make on that App Store to Apple for the pleasure of competing with their own product, Apple Music. So to my colleagues I say this: Yes, you can love the products; you can love the CEOs themselves; you can love the companies--but you also have to love competition and love and take seriously the unique role that we are supposed to play as Senators and as Members of Congress to ensure there is an even playing field. You go back, way back, to the godfather of capitalism, Adam Smith, who said to always watch out for the standing army of monopolies. We knew from the beginnings of this country that we would have to step in time and time again to make sure that we rejuvenate capitalism. That is what this is about. Throughout history, whether in telecom in the 1990s with the breakup of AT&T--which, by the way, made the company, according to one of their former presidents, stronger--or by passing the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act in the 1970s, to stopping sweetheart merger settlements, Congress has brought down prices over time by ensuring that there is competition. It is actually a uniquely American way to do things. I am grateful for our friends in the House, Chairman Cicilline and Ranking Member Ken Buck, who led bipartisan hearings on Big Tech and its anticompetitive conduct. They gave us a whole treasure trove of information. They conducted an 18-month investigation in the House Judiciary Committee--18-months--focused on how the largest and most dominant digital platforms harm small businesses, quash innovation, raise prices, and reduce quality. This is, by the way, what bothers me when some of our colleagues say, Well, we don't know enough. Seriously? Eighteen months of an investigation. And anyone in this room--it is public--can go look at it: 1,287,997 documents and communications--this is on the record--testimony from 38 witnesses, a hearing record that spans more than 1,800 pages, 38 submissions from 60 antitrust experts from across the political spectrum, and interviews with more than 240 market participants, former employees of the investigative platforms, and other individuals totaling thousands of hours. That doesn't even include what we have done in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. So, please, spare me hearing that we have not learned enough about this. The report is 450 pages, but let me read some excerpts that capture the harms to consumers and small businesses that we have seen as a result of our failure to update our competition policy. Here we go. This is from the record: To put it simply, companies that once were scrappy underdog startups that challenge the status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons. Although these firms have delivered clear benefits to society, the dominance of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, [and] Google has come at a price. These firms typically run the marketplace in each of their areas. You all know that. Everyone in this room knows that because 90 percent of the people, when they are doing a search engine, they go to one that is Google. You know the dominance of Amazon. You all know the dominance of these companies. These firms are in a position that enable them to write one set of rules for others while they play by another or to engage in a form of their own private quasi-regulation that is unaccountable to anyone but themselves. [T]he totality of the evidence produced during this investigation-- This is from the House-- demonstrates the pressing need for legislative action and reform. These firms have too much power, and that power must be reined in and subject to appropriate oversight and enforcement. Our economy and [our] democracy are at stake. The subcommittee identified numerous instances in which dominant platforms engaged in preferential or discriminatory treatment. In some cases, the dominant platform privileged its own products or services. In [another], a dominant platform gave preferential treatment to one business partner over [the other]. Because the dominant platform was, in most instances-- And this is what is key-- the only viable path to market, its discriminatory treatment had the effect of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. That is us. We are supposed to pick the winners and the losers in the marketplace and decide what is the best product based on what is supposed to be the least priced or what is supposed to be the highest quality. But now they have inserted themselves while at the same time, in many instances, placing their own product above others, not because they are less money, not because they are better, but because they are theirs. Google, for example, engaged in self-preferencing-- I am back to the report-- by systematically ranking its own content above third-party content, even when its content was inferior or less relevant for users. Web publishers of content that Google demoted suffered economic losses and had no way of competing on the merits. Over the course of the investigation, numerous third parties also told the House subcommittee that self- preferencing and discriminatory treatment by the dominant platforms forced businesses to lay off employees and divert resources away from developing new products and towards paying a dominant platform for advertisements or other ancillary services. They added that some of the harmful business practices of the platforms discouraged investors from supporting their business and made it challenging to grow and sustain a business, even with highly popular products. Without the opportunity to compete fairly, businesses and entrepreneurs are dissuaded from investing; and, over the long term, innovation suffers. By virtue of functioning as the only viable path to the market--and that is what they are in so many instances--dominant platforms enjoy superior bargaining power over the third parties that depend on their platform to access users and the market. Their bargaining leverage is a form of market power [in] which the dominant platforms routinely use to protect and expand their dominance. Since 1998, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google collectively have purchased more than 500 companies. The antitrust agencies did not block a single acquisition. They did not block a single acquisition. And as I look back, I remember, just--in bright lights--that e-mail that was discovered during the House hearing in which Mark Zuckerberg wrote, ``I would rather buy than compete.'' ``I would rather buy than compete.'' To me, that pretty much is exhibit A. The House report has far more information than I could ever share in a single speech, but I will be sharing it over the next few months. But overall, the House report found that if there was true competition, we would have a more dynamic and innovative tech center with more small and medium-sized businesses. Maybe if Facebook hadn't bought them--remember, ``I would rather buy than compete''--an independent Instagram, an independent WhatsApp--because Meta now owns them--could have developed the bells and whistles and privacy controls and other things. We will never know. Why will we never know? Because they bought them. But if you have big monopolies that buy up all of that potential innovation, that buy up smaller companies, you lose the ability to get at some of the major challenges that we see in our country. I believe in the market. I was in the private sector for over a decade. I believe in capitalism, but if you don't have an even playing field for competition, you have got a problem. Over time, if left unchecked, big companies dominate markets, exclude their rivals, and buy out their competitors. As one of the witnesses at a hearing that I chaired with Ranking Member Lee said before our Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Alex Harman of Public Citizen put it: When companies face less competition, either because of consolidation, or from forces that make competitive threats less likely, they invest less in research and development. They in turn are less likely to produce new innovations [that benefit consumers and the economy]. And, all too often, companies across the economic spectrum that depend on these gatekeeping firms to reach the marketplace slash jobs and cut back on developing new products. As one founder put it: ``It feels like we are treading water with cement blocks around our feet.'' This is what has been going on in our country. It describes the problems we are facing from these digital gatekeepers. We have also heard from many other companies, nonprofits, trade associations, about what has been happening to them as a consequence of the monopoly power wielded by the largest digital platforms. Consumer Reports says this: Multiple investigations and studies have found that the largest online platforms have too much market power, and that this is resulting in harm to consumers, businesses, and the economy. A group of 60 small and medium-sized businesses wrote a letter saying: Gaining access to the dominant platforms and integrating with their services has increasingly become a take-it-or- leave-it process replete with anticompetitive demands. It doesn't serve American consumers or small and medium sized businesses when the tech behemoths use their platform dominance to tilt the competitive scales. In January, the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors wrote: Unchecked, Amazon's dominance threatens to cripple the highly competitive B2B system in the United States. The American Hotels and Lodging Association, not exactly a radical group, wrote: Dominant technology companies give their own paid advertising products and services preferential treatment and placement within their platforms to ensure that, despite the specifics of what a consumer may be searching for, they will likely be steered down a booking path that benefits the search provider. Not that benefits you, but benefits one of the biggest companies the world has ever known. From a group of 40 small and medium-sized businesses back in January: Due to their gatekeeper status, dominant technology companies can: use manipulative design tactics to steer individuals away from rival services; restrict the ability of competitors to interoperate on the platform; use non-public data to benefit the companies' own services or products. And I could go on. So what do we have here? Google has 90 percent market share in search engines. Apple controls 100 percent of app distribution for iPhones, and Google controls the other app distribution, so they are what we call a duopoly. Three out of every four social media users--and there are 4 billion of them--are active Facebook users. Amazon is expected to seize half of the entire e-commerce retail market this year. That is what is happening. What are we doing? Let me repeat: We have done nothing. We have done nothing. We have had hearings; we have thrown popcorn at CEOs. But we haven't passed one bill out of the U.S. Congress to do anything about this competitive situation. What do other countries do? Well, other countries are now leaving us in the dust. They look to our leadership because America has always been known as a country of entrepreneurs and a country that encourages competition, but now look what is happening. Canada introduced legislation in April to make the dominant digital platforms fairly compensate news publishers for their content, following Australia's lead, which took similar action about a year earlier. And Europe is moving forward with its Digital Markets Act, DMA, a broad and sweeping piece of legislation that will place many new obligations on digital gatekeepers. The legislation puts rules of the road in place for how the digital gatekeepers determine search rankings, set defaults, process and use personal data, negotiate with business users on their platforms, interoperate, and demonstrate the efficiency of their digital advertising programs and the effectiveness of them. It also required gatekeepers to notify the European Commission about intended mergers and other deals that include the collection of data. If that sounds more intense than the bill Senator Grassley and I have put together, it is more intense. But thepoint is that it has gone through the European Parliament. In the European Union, we are seeing the effects of efforts to rein in Big Tech. Just last week, Amazon made a settlement offer to the European Commission in an attempt to resolve an antitrust case. The European Commission investigations into Amazon's conduct were launched in 2019 and 2020 and involved three key issues that implicate self-preferencing conduct in the United States too. First, the Europeans investigated whether Amazon used nonpublic data from sellers. Remember, the sellers have no choice if they really want to sell their stuff. They have to go on Amazon, right? So they have to give data to get on that platform. What they found out was that Amazon was using the nonpublic data from sellers to inform its own targets for new product development. That is what monopolies do. The little sellers have no choice but to sell on the Amazon platform. Then Amazon says: Oh, now we are going to see what products are good and how they are doing because we uniquely have all the information, and then we are going to copy that product, either directly, as they did with a four-person luggage carrier firm where they literally ripped off every detail of the product--based on reporting from the Wall Street Journal we now know that--or they just know this product is doing well so they do one just like it, and then they put it at the top of the search engine. Amazon has sworn under oath in the U.S. Congress that it does not do that. Well, now let's look at what is happening in Europe. Amazon also tightly controls who wins the coveted Buy Box, often awarding that preferred placement to itself. Third, Amazon requires sellers who want to be Prime to use Amazon's logistics services even if there could be a better alternative. We are not getting rid of Prime. We are just saying you have got to open the door so there could be alternatives. Amazon's settlement offer is filled with elements from my bill. That is what is so interesting because around this place or if you watch the TV ads, you would think the world was going to end. If we did a modicum of things while investigations are going on--of course, we know that there are various investigations in the Justice Department and around the country at the FTC. We are just going to sit there and let this continue until every appeal is made? Here is what is so interesting. In Europe, under the offer that Amazon just made in Europe, Amazon will stop using seller data to decide what private label products to launch, make it easier for third parties to win the Buy Box, and allow sellers to participate in the Prime program without using ``fulfillment by Amazon'' services to manage logistics like warehousing and shipping. My bill with Senator Grassley and what was called the ``Ocean's 11 of cosponsors'' because everyone has such different political beliefs, but we come together in support of capitalism for this bill--this bill that we have here, that is what it would do. It would require Amazon to do the same things that I just mentioned that they put forward in their settlement offer in Europe. Yet Amazon has claimed, in its multimillion dollar ad campaign, that this will break Prime in the United States. The hypocrisy is simply stunning. Why should consumers in Europe and small businesses in Europe have the benefit of the offer they are giving them, and we in the United States--we, who host their company--try to simply put the same requirements into law, and we are told: Oh, this is outrageous, when they are offering the exact same thing in other countries. The British have been working on these issues, too, particularly when it comes to app stores. And I want to thank Senators Blumenthal and Blackburn for their leadership in this area. The Competition and Markets Authority in the United Kingdom just last month issued a final report on the app store ecosystem, reaching the following conclusions. This is in the United Kingdom, which is, of course, a government that is different than the one we have here. This is from the Brits: Apple and Google have each captured such a large proportion and volume of consumers in the UK that their ecosystems are, for practical purposes, indispensable to online businesses. I think that is pretty fair to say that is what is going on around here. Let me continue with the Brits. Apple and Google act as gatekeepers to most UK consumers with mobile devices, and as a result can set the rules of the game for providers of online content and services. The evidence demonstrates that in the areas where Apple and Google generate the vast majority of their revenues from their mobile ecosystems, there is room for greater and more effective price competition. In the case of Apple's mobile devices, both firms' app stores, and Google's search and advertising services, the evidence strongly suggests the prices charged are above a competitive rate. . . . Consumers would get a better deal if Apple and Google faced more robust competition, either from each other or from third parties. The report continues: Weak competition within and between Apple's and Google's mobile ecosystems is harming consumers, and will do so to a greater degree . . . absent [any] intervention. Most importantly, we are concerned that consumers will miss out on innovative new features or transformative new products and services that are held back or discouraged by the power that Apple and Google wield. That is one report. If we continue to fail to take action in this country, we will lose our leadership position when it comes to antitrust on the global stage. That actually is not that great of a thing because then we are letting other countries determine what is going to happen to the future of competition. That is a huge risk for our country. It is time to take action just as Congress has done before when facing significant evidence of market failures and massive consolidation. So when Big Tech companies talk about this bill or really any serious antitrust effort, they try to make it sound like we are pushing for some kind of unprecedented action. And, as I just discussed, that is not true because we know they are getting all kinds of pushback in other countries and actually are making settlement offers that are exactly akin to some of the things we have in the bill. But it also isn't true in the history of our own country. I think everyone--while people don't think they have something in their background to do with monopolies or their dads or their moms or their grandparents had nothing to do, everyone has got something about competitive policy that affected their lives in the past or affected their relatives. For me, I think of the James J. Hill House in St. Paul. No, we never lived there. I will get to that in a minute. Calling it a house is actually an understatement. The 36,000-square-foot mansion has 22 fireplaces, 13 bathrooms, and a 100-foot-long reception hall. It was constructed in 1890, which is the same year that Congress actually finally did something about competition by passing the Sherman Act. The man who built this house, James J. Hill, was a railroad magnate whose railroad ran from St. Paul to Seattle. He consolidated multiple railroads across the country using a legal concept called a trust--that is why we have antitrust--in which the stockholders of multiple competitors transferred their shares to a single set of trustees. There were all kinds of trusts, as I mentioned--rail trusts, oil trusts. Standard Oil Trust controlled more than 90 percent of the country's refining capacity. The Sugar Trust controlled 98 percent of refined sugar. And we had trusts in everything from sewer pipes to thread. When I was growing up, my mom would like to take me to see the Christmas lights by that house and other estate houses, and I remember at some of the houses, unlike this one, there were actually people in it and kind of ducking down. She loved to show me those things on my way from piano lessons in her red car. And she would remind me that in order to build that house, Hill needed workers. Hill needed the monopoly railroads that gave him the money to build this humongous mansion, and he needed cheap labor to do the work. That is where my family comes in. That is where the Klobuchars fit in. My great-grandpa and my grandpa were both miners in the iron ore mines in Northern Minnesota, and they did the work that supported the monopolies. Over time, unions came in; wages got better; the mines got safer. But in the end, that is how he built his house. Our Nation, as I noted, has a very, very rich and difficult history of dealing with monopolies. But every single time, whether it was the East India tea company and throwing that tea into the harbor--yes, it was about taxation without representation, but it was also about a monopoly company. Every single time we have found a way to push back, whether it was farmers in the Granger movement with their pitchforks taking on the cost of rail, whether it was in Chicago, the Pullman strikes, strikes by workers against monopolies in the beef industry. Finally, in 1901, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt rode his antimonopoly horse right into the White House. He finally did something about it. He used the first passed antitrust law, the Sherman Act, and was able to actually take on the trusts. And since then you have seen this rejuvenation over time. Sometimes, there is a lull, and then things get so bad--like what happened with AT&T--that between Democratic and Republican administrations, people come in and do something about it. I know a little bit about this because my first job out of law school was representing MCI at a law firm, and that is when they were fighting to get into the monopoly market. Finally, when AT&T was broken up, what happened? Long distance rates went way down, and we finally got a cell phone industry because one company wasn't controlling everything because they did not have at that time--after a while--they were cool at first, and then they didn't have any kind of incentive to innovate. Then they finally did. That gets us to the present where we have been hanging out and waiting and doing nothing for now decades and decades since the advent of the internet. And it is time to act--hence, our legislation. January 1, 1983, is considered the official birthday of the internet. So it has been 40 years since then, and we still have not passed, as I noted, competition legislation. That is why our group of Senators have come together. And that includes Dick Durbin, Lindsey Graham, Richard Blumenthal, John Kennedy, Cory Booker, Cynthia Lummis, Mazie Hirono, Mark Warner, Josh Hawley, Steve Daines, Sheldon Whitehouse, and several more who are supporting the bill and said enough is enough. Our bill creates rules of the road for these platforms. That means, first of all, that they can't abuse their gatekeeper power by favoring their own products or services and disadvantaging rivals in ways that harm competition. In other words, in the examples I have used, Amazon will not be able to use small business's data in order to copy their products and then compete against them. Apple won't be able to stifle competition by blocking other companies' services from interoperating with their platforms. And Google won't be able to bias their platform's search results in favor of their own products and services without merit. That is what our bill does. Amazon should rank products based on price and quality, not based on their own profit margins. The world's largest and most powerful platforms shouldn't be allowed to copy a small business's private data. I used the example of luggage carriers. There are many, many more. Another challenge to cracking down on antitrust violations is how difficult and time consuming it can be to try these cases in court. Currently, the government has to spend millions on economic experts and years in the courts, and even after all that, the likelihood of victory because of very conservative Supreme Court cases in the last few decades is small. This bill streamlines things in this area. It doesn't break up the companies. Some people would like to do that. That is not what this bill does. It doesn't stop mergers. I think we should put in stronger merger guidelines, but that is not what this bill does. This bill simply gives us rules of the road for these companies to be fair going forward, while we figure out the other things that need to be figured out. So support for this bill: The Boston Globe, October 2021, said on their editorial page that ``[i]f the largest platforms can't be trusted to enforce even their own anticompetitive policies, then Washington has little choice but to act.'' They noted that the bill I have with Senator Grassley represents ``a chance for Congress to turn concern over Big Tech's sway into action.'' The Seattle Times, March 2022, wrote that ``[a]s antitrust efforts ramp up in Congress, Big Tech is fighting back, unleashing an army of lobbyists, enlisting business groups to apply pressure and engaging in fearmongering to avoid critical legislation.'' Let me tell you, a lot of our Senators have proved that fearmongering. Lawmakers must forge ahead and support legislation that reins in the tech giants' worst impulses, ensures fair competition and protects consumers and small businesses. But no matter what the tech companies say, antitrust legislation will not slay these giants or kill innovation . . . that is not its goal. What it will do is limit Big Tech's ability to run roughshod over competitors and consumers. Enough Democrats and Republicans agree, but time is running out. Congress needs to act. The Washington Post editorial, in April of 2022, called our bill a ``sound'' bill and pressed for movement on the legislation, including by writing as follows: Antitrust . . . needs revisions that prevent dominant companies from building barriers to a marketplace where those consumers will have both choice and protection. Legislators should view the bills before Congress as an opportunity to achieve this aim at last. The bill also has support from Agency experts who have enforced antitrust laws and worked to protect competition in the U.S. markets. The Department of Justice has endorsed the bill. I know this is after the Department of Justice under the previous administration--under the Trump administration, with Bill Barr as the Attorney General and Makan Delrahim as the head of Antitrust--actually started the initial lawsuit--the major, major lawsuit--against Google and after the FTC, under the Trump administration, started the lawsuit against Facebook. They filed major lawsuits that are being continued by this administration. The Department of Justice wrote this: The Department views the rise of dominant platforms as presenting a threat to open markets and competition, with risks for consumers, businesses, innovation, resiliency, global competitiveness, and our democracy. By controlling key arteries of the nation's commerce and communications, such platforms can exercise outsized market power in our modern economy. Vesting the power to pick winners and losers across markets in a small number of corporations contravenes the foundations of our capitalist system, and given the increasing importance of these markets, the power of such platforms is likely to continue to grow unless checked. This puts at risk the nation's economic progress and prosperity, ultimately threatening the economic liberty that undergirds our democracy. The Department of Justice continued: If enacted, we believe that this legislation has the potential to have a positive effect on dynamism in digital markets going forward. Our future global competitiveness depends on innovators and entrepreneurs having the ability to access markets free from dominant incumbents that impede innovation, competition, resiliency, and widespread prosperity. And Commerce Secretary Raimondo testified before our Senate Commerce Committee--I was there--saying: I applaud your efforts and . . . clearly agree that we need to improve competition, which increases innovation. She said: Last month, the DOJ released a views letter-- That is what I just read-- on behalf of the administration in support of the American Innovation and Choice Online Act and the [Commerce] Department and I . . . support . . . and concur with the aim of [that] legislation. It is not just officials currently in these roles who support this bill. Roger Alford, who served as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Division from 2017 to 2019, wrote to us, saying: Bills such as S. 2992 provide hope that Congress will restore competition to digital marketplaces. And while people may have seen the disingenuous ads on TV against the bill, I think it is worth reading portions of the letters that we have received. The Consumer Federation of America wrote: To maintain a healthy economy, it turns out we need both sensible regulation and antitrust enforcement. . . . The American Innovation and Choice Online Act addresses the key issues in a sector of the digital economy that has not been addressed by competition policy and antitrust law. It targets big data platforms, which can abuse their market power as gatekeepers and vertically integrated firms, using self-preferencing and data to block competition. . . . Antitrust legal scholars wrote--and I will put all of this in the Record. More than 60 small- and medium-sized businesses wrote, and YELP, DuckDuckGo, Y Combinator, and other businesses wrote that S. 2992 will ``help restore competition in the digital marketplace.'' Small Business Rising wrote that the legislation ``is a critical part of the solution to the harms caused by the outsized power of the tech giants.'' As the president of Hobby Works, a Maryland hobby shop, said recently, ``All that any small business asks for is a somewhat level playing field and a somewhat fair environment in which to compete.'' I will end with this: Monopoly power, consumer choice, and reduced innovation aren't topics that came up for the first time when we marked up and passed this bill. I just read to you the thousands and thousands of pieces of documents and testimony from the House for 18 months that our colleagues Representative Cicilline and Representative Buck put together. So don't tell me this is the first time, when that went on for 18 months and when we have had hearing after hearing in the U.S. Senate. It is time to stop throwing the popcorn at the CEOs and actually do something. We got this bill through the Judiciary Committee with a 16-to-6 vote just 6 months ago. Now it is time to bring this bill to a vote on the floor. We have monopoly problems. You can still like the products. You can like the companies if you want--OK--but at some point they have gotten so big that you have to put some rules of the road in place to ensure that we can have the next Google or that we can have another competitor to Google or that we can have a true competitor to Amazon or that we can find, finally, social media platforms that protect our privacy and our data and our democracy. This isn't going to happen if you just let four big platforms control the day. As long as they do, which looks like it will be for the well foreseeable future, at least let's protect capitalism by putting some rules of the road in place. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. KLOBUCHAR | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3497-2 | null | 4,756 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows: Ms. WATERS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 4586. A bill to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to risk-based examinations of Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations; with an amendment (Rept. 117-421). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Ms. WATERS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 6528. A bill to require owners of covered federally assisted rental dwelling units to install temperature sensors in such units, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-422). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Ms. WATERS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 7195. A bill to provide for certain whistleblower incentives and protections; with amendments (Rept. 117-423). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Ms. WATERS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 7196. A bill to amend the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to expand the authorized activities under the Continuum of Care program to include activities that address barriers to transitioning families in rural areas to permanent housing, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-424). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Ms. WATERS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 7734. A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to require the timely production of reports to Congress under the Bank Secrecy Act, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-425). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. Ms. WATERS: Committee on Financial Services. H.R. 7981. A bill to require qualifying smoke alarms in certain federally assisted housing, and for other purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 117-426). Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgH6921 | null | 4,757 |
formal | working families | null | racist | Energy and Foreign Policy Mr. President, now on another matter, right now, Washington Democrats are frustrated by the pace of the radical green transformation they envision for our country. They are having trouble getting enough Senators to agree to make the most reliable and abundant forms of American energy more expensive for working Americans. Energy prices are rising faster than at any point since 1980. Gasoline is nearly 60 percent more expensive than it was last summer. Natural gas is up nearly 40 percent in the same timeframe. Washington Democrats have surveyed this scene and decided it is the perfect time--perfect time--to hike taxes on American energy, reviving a failed tax from the 1980s on American oil refineries and exporters and--listen to this--increasing it by nearly 60 percent, new sky-high fees on American natural gas producers and more pain at the pump for working families. It is an insane proposition. But there does appear to be an exception. If you are not among the 75 percent of Americans who say inflation has caused you financial hardship, and you happen to have a spare $80,000 lying around, Washington Democrats want to give you a green energy tax credit if you buy an electric vehicle made with Chinese supply chains. This is what Washington Democrats are trying to do with their one-party control of government, and they are hoping President Biden will declare a national emergency to help them do it faster. Well, unfortunately for the far left, the President is occupied with a climate conundrum of his own. On the campaign trail, Candidate Biden left no room for doubt that he had bought his party's radical climate dogma, whole hog. This is what he said back then: I guarantee you we are going to end fossil fuel. ``End fossil fuel.'' Sure enough, his first year in office was an all-out assault on American energy, just like green activists drew it up--day 1 bans on energy exploration; canceling a safe, efficient pipeline that was set to create American jobs; and ghoulish, reanimated regulations from the War on Coal. But unlike the radical base that is frustrated their ideas aren't moving faster, the Biden administration now appears to be concerned that their assault on American energy has actually worked too quickly. Americans have seen gas prices double on this President's watch. Sky-high diesel is driving other prices up all across the country, and big majorities of Americans don't like what Democrats are doing about it. But rather than call off the onslaught and clear the way for a return to domestic energy dominance, the Biden administration has dispatched officials to beg other countries to take over America's share of the market for reliable energy that the President has purposely abandoned. They have literally chosen places like Venezuela over States like Pennsylvania or Texas or Alaska. Then, on a trip to oil-rich Saudi Arabia, President Biden announced that ``I'm doing all I can to increase [oil] supply for the United States of America.'' The President who promised he would ``end fossil fuels'' thinks that finding more energy for American families means flying to the Middle East and asking politely instead of unleashing our own production right here at home. And for the record, U.S. producers extract oil and gas in a far, far more environmentally friendly manner than many of their competitors overseas. So if the priority is reducing our environmental impact, outsourcing seems more than a little bit shortsighted. So, Mr. President, if the Biden administration really is serious about helping American consumers, then they will stop waging war on American producers. If they are serious, they will call off Democrats' plan to tax reliable American energy into extinction. For the sake of working families who are struggling to fill their gas tanks and keep the lights on, I hope they get serious sometime soon. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3504 | null | 4,758 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Tucker Carlson Mr. President, finally, on Tucker Carlson, FOX News. Last night, FOXNews host Tucker Carlson began his prime time show with another deranged rant on the conspiracy theory known as the ``great replacement.'' This racist theory, which asserts that a conspiracy exists to replace White Americans with immigrants and people of color, motivated a White supremacist to gun down 10 Black Americans in a grocery store in my home State of New York, in Buffalo, just over 2 months ago. Here is what Mr. Carlson said last night, among many deranged things. These are his words: Sometime around 1965, our leaders stopped trying to make the United States a hospitable place for American citizens, their constituents, to have their own families. . . . They just imported new people. That's literally what happened. Can you believe someone said that on a national network and the network does nothing about it? There is only one way to describe what Mr. Carlson is doing: He is stoking racial resentment among his viewers. It is deranged. It is dangerous. It is racist. Not long ago, views like ``replacement theory'' were only found in the darkest places in disturbed minds. Now someone as prominent as Carlson is spreading night after night to an audience that often tops 3 million viewers. And it is not an isolated incident. According to one measure by the New York Times, Mr. Carlson has spewed rhetoric that echoes ``replacement theory'' at least 400 times on his show since 2016--400 times. This is not a one-off, what he just did last night. The more that MAGA radicals like Carlson spread ``replacement theory,'' it is not out of the question that racially motivated violence will further ignite the country. FOX News should be ashamed that they are enabling these racist views and giving them an enormous platform on their network. It is dangerous and un-American for one of the biggest news networks in the world to amplify conspiracy theories that are eerily similar to those cited by the Buffalo shooter. I urge Carlson to stop spreading ``replacement theory'' or else risk seeing more tragedies like the one we saw in Buffalo last month. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3505-4 | null | 4,759 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | CHIPS Act Mr. President, last night, the Senate moved forward on the CHIPS Act. As colleagues have heard me talk about this before, this was actually filed in 2020. Senator Warner, the senior Senator from Virginia, a Democrat, and I, a Republican from Texas, introduced this bill more than 2 years ago. The main concern was that our supply of microcircuits that run everything from our cell phones to our laptops, to F-35 Joint Strike Fighters--we depended on a vulnerable supply chain from Asia for those advanced semiconductors. The United States produces zero percent of the advanced semiconductors we need here in America. And anybody who has tried to buy a car lately or even a washing machine or a laptop or a desktop computer knows that the supply chains of semiconductors, and thus these products, are severely constrained because our economy has taken off post-COVID-19, but the supply chains can't keep up with them and particularly the supply of these semiconductors. So that is why this bill is so important. Over the last several days, I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to craft a dramatically slimmed-down version of the competitiveness bill we passed here in the Senate last summer. The final text of the bill was not released before the procedural vote last night, which was a point of frustration for a number of colleagues, and I can certainly understand. Here they are, asked to vote on a procedural vehicle to get on this bill, and they don't know exactly what the bill is going to look like. And that was the reason some of them decided to vote no against the motion to proceed. I completely understand that. But our colleagues will have time to review this bill in the coming days, and I hope that support for this legislation will continue to grow. After all, it is a matter of our economic and national security. The global semiconductor shortage has claimed a lot of attention over the last couple of years because of the impact it has had on consumers, but these aren't existential threats; these are inconveniences because of these constrained supply chains. If, for example, there was another pandemic or a natural disaster or if, Heaven forbid, the People's Republic of China decided to forcibly unify with Taiwan, this could potentially block access to all of the advanced semiconductors that we need in America, and this would be a dramatic negative effect. First of all, it would create almost instantaneously a recession here in America. Thousands of people would be put out of work. But what I want to focus on are the national security consequences. When we send our troops on any mission--by air, land, sea, or cyber--we need the very best equipment and technology available. And now more thanever, this technology cannot function without semiconductors, without these chips. Just one example is, look at the Javelin missiles that we are sending over to Ukraine to defeat the Russian Federation invasion. Each one of these Javelin missiles that the Ukrainians are using to such good effect requires more than 200 semiconductors in just one Javelin missile, and so far we have sent 5,500 of them to Ukraine. But it is not just these big items that need chips, it is things like the helmets that our fighter pilots use to fly and navigate; communications devices like radio sets to call in reinforcements to save American lives; smart hand-held cameras that attach to our troops' gear that see around the corners to keep them out of harm's way; and even advanced body armor uses semiconductors. If we ever needed to deploy the full force of the U.S. military and ramp up production to replenish our supplies, we would need an astronomical number of semiconductor chips. That is why bringing that manufacturing capacity back onshore, back home to America, is so important. This had been a big bipartisan priority, as I said, for the last couple of years, and this isn't the first time that semiconductors have been regarded as a matter of national security. Interestingly, in the 1980s, it was a big priority item for President Reagan. At that time, our country was up against the Soviet Union's expansive military forces. President Reagan knew that maintaining our edge would be a result of smarter military systems, not just bigger ones or more of them. As two national security and foreign policy experts from the University of Texas put it, ``Reagan didn't merely outspend the Soviets, he . . . sought to out-innovate them'' as well. He pushed to maintain our competitive edge in chips, thereby helping us lead in the advanced weapons and airframes that they enabled. But this isn't just about what happens tomorrow or 6 months from now; we are talking about safeguarding the developments that will underpin our national security in 10, 20, or 30 years. That is why so many people from diverse political viewpoints support this effort. As we all remember, the CHIPS for America Act received broad bipartisan support when we first voted on it. It was adopted as an amendment to the annual Defense authorization bill by a vote of 96 to 4. Ninety-six percent of the U.S. Senate supported the bill. Since it became law a year and a half ago, we have heard from a range of voices and stakeholders who don't typically align. For example, former USTR--U.S. Trade Representative--Robert Lighthizer, who served in the Trump administration, has been a vocal advocate for chips funding. At a Senate Finance Committee meeting 2 years ago, he said semiconductors are a key part of our economy as well as the future of American security. Biden officials have shared this same sentiment. The Secretaries of Defense and Commerce recently sent a letter to Congress urging swift passage of this chips funding, saying it is ``an imperative to our national security.'' Countless organizations, experts, businesses, and industry groups have expressed the same point of view. Some of the most respected men and women in the national security world wrote a letter to Congress urging quick action on this funding. That group included a former Secretary of Defense, former CIA Director, and former Director of National Intelligence. We have also heard from the National Governors Association and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which represents State and local leaders across the country. We have heard from groups that represent automakers, the defense industry, consumer electronics, and telecommunications companies as well. Last month, a group of more than 120 tech CEOs sent a letter to congressional leaders urging quick action on this legislation. It is rare, especially today, to have such a broad consensus from so many different perspectives on a single issue advocating one priority, but that is how important this legislation is. I am optimistic about where we are at the moment after 2 long years of getting here, and I am glad Speaker Pelosi has said the House will take up the Senate bill as early as next week. The bottom line is, there is a lot at stake here, and I hope we can deliver a major win for our national security in the coming days. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3513 | null | 4,760 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | CHIPS Act Mr. President, last night, the Senate moved forward on the CHIPS Act. As colleagues have heard me talk about this before, this was actually filed in 2020. Senator Warner, the senior Senator from Virginia, a Democrat, and I, a Republican from Texas, introduced this bill more than 2 years ago. The main concern was that our supply of microcircuits that run everything from our cell phones to our laptops, to F-35 Joint Strike Fighters--we depended on a vulnerable supply chain from Asia for those advanced semiconductors. The United States produces zero percent of the advanced semiconductors we need here in America. And anybody who has tried to buy a car lately or even a washing machine or a laptop or a desktop computer knows that the supply chains of semiconductors, and thus these products, are severely constrained because our economy has taken off post-COVID-19, but the supply chains can't keep up with them and particularly the supply of these semiconductors. So that is why this bill is so important. Over the last several days, I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to craft a dramatically slimmed-down version of the competitiveness bill we passed here in the Senate last summer. The final text of the bill was not released before the procedural vote last night, which was a point of frustration for a number of colleagues, and I can certainly understand. Here they are, asked to vote on a procedural vehicle to get on this bill, and they don't know exactly what the bill is going to look like. And that was the reason some of them decided to vote no against the motion to proceed. I completely understand that. But our colleagues will have time to review this bill in the coming days, and I hope that support for this legislation will continue to grow. After all, it is a matter of our economic and national security. The global semiconductor shortage has claimed a lot of attention over the last couple of years because of the impact it has had on consumers, but these aren't existential threats; these are inconveniences because of these constrained supply chains. If, for example, there was another pandemic or a natural disaster or if, Heaven forbid, the People's Republic of China decided to forcibly unify with Taiwan, this could potentially block access to all of the advanced semiconductors that we need in America, and this would be a dramatic negative effect. First of all, it would create almost instantaneously a recession here in America. Thousands of people would be put out of work. But what I want to focus on are the national security consequences. When we send our troops on any mission--by air, land, sea, or cyber--we need the very best equipment and technology available. And now more thanever, this technology cannot function without semiconductors, without these chips. Just one example is, look at the Javelin missiles that we are sending over to Ukraine to defeat the Russian Federation invasion. Each one of these Javelin missiles that the Ukrainians are using to such good effect requires more than 200 semiconductors in just one Javelin missile, and so far we have sent 5,500 of them to Ukraine. But it is not just these big items that need chips, it is things like the helmets that our fighter pilots use to fly and navigate; communications devices like radio sets to call in reinforcements to save American lives; smart hand-held cameras that attach to our troops' gear that see around the corners to keep them out of harm's way; and even advanced body armor uses semiconductors. If we ever needed to deploy the full force of the U.S. military and ramp up production to replenish our supplies, we would need an astronomical number of semiconductor chips. That is why bringing that manufacturing capacity back onshore, back home to America, is so important. This had been a big bipartisan priority, as I said, for the last couple of years, and this isn't the first time that semiconductors have been regarded as a matter of national security. Interestingly, in the 1980s, it was a big priority item for President Reagan. At that time, our country was up against the Soviet Union's expansive military forces. President Reagan knew that maintaining our edge would be a result of smarter military systems, not just bigger ones or more of them. As two national security and foreign policy experts from the University of Texas put it, ``Reagan didn't merely outspend the Soviets, he . . . sought to out-innovate them'' as well. He pushed to maintain our competitive edge in chips, thereby helping us lead in the advanced weapons and airframes that they enabled. But this isn't just about what happens tomorrow or 6 months from now; we are talking about safeguarding the developments that will underpin our national security in 10, 20, or 30 years. That is why so many people from diverse political viewpoints support this effort. As we all remember, the CHIPS for America Act received broad bipartisan support when we first voted on it. It was adopted as an amendment to the annual Defense authorization bill by a vote of 96 to 4. Ninety-six percent of the U.S. Senate supported the bill. Since it became law a year and a half ago, we have heard from a range of voices and stakeholders who don't typically align. For example, former USTR--U.S. Trade Representative--Robert Lighthizer, who served in the Trump administration, has been a vocal advocate for chips funding. At a Senate Finance Committee meeting 2 years ago, he said semiconductors are a key part of our economy as well as the future of American security. Biden officials have shared this same sentiment. The Secretaries of Defense and Commerce recently sent a letter to Congress urging swift passage of this chips funding, saying it is ``an imperative to our national security.'' Countless organizations, experts, businesses, and industry groups have expressed the same point of view. Some of the most respected men and women in the national security world wrote a letter to Congress urging quick action on this funding. That group included a former Secretary of Defense, former CIA Director, and former Director of National Intelligence. We have also heard from the National Governors Association and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which represents State and local leaders across the country. We have heard from groups that represent automakers, the defense industry, consumer electronics, and telecommunications companies as well. Last month, a group of more than 120 tech CEOs sent a letter to congressional leaders urging quick action on this legislation. It is rare, especially today, to have such a broad consensus from so many different perspectives on a single issue advocating one priority, but that is how important this legislation is. I am optimistic about where we are at the moment after 2 long years of getting here, and I am glad Speaker Pelosi has said the House will take up the Senate bill as early as next week. The bottom line is, there is a lot at stake here, and I hope we can deliver a major win for our national security in the coming days. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3513 | null | 4,761 |
formal | safeguarding | null | transphobic | CHIPS Act Mr. President, last night, the Senate moved forward on the CHIPS Act. As colleagues have heard me talk about this before, this was actually filed in 2020. Senator Warner, the senior Senator from Virginia, a Democrat, and I, a Republican from Texas, introduced this bill more than 2 years ago. The main concern was that our supply of microcircuits that run everything from our cell phones to our laptops, to F-35 Joint Strike Fighters--we depended on a vulnerable supply chain from Asia for those advanced semiconductors. The United States produces zero percent of the advanced semiconductors we need here in America. And anybody who has tried to buy a car lately or even a washing machine or a laptop or a desktop computer knows that the supply chains of semiconductors, and thus these products, are severely constrained because our economy has taken off post-COVID-19, but the supply chains can't keep up with them and particularly the supply of these semiconductors. So that is why this bill is so important. Over the last several days, I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to craft a dramatically slimmed-down version of the competitiveness bill we passed here in the Senate last summer. The final text of the bill was not released before the procedural vote last night, which was a point of frustration for a number of colleagues, and I can certainly understand. Here they are, asked to vote on a procedural vehicle to get on this bill, and they don't know exactly what the bill is going to look like. And that was the reason some of them decided to vote no against the motion to proceed. I completely understand that. But our colleagues will have time to review this bill in the coming days, and I hope that support for this legislation will continue to grow. After all, it is a matter of our economic and national security. The global semiconductor shortage has claimed a lot of attention over the last couple of years because of the impact it has had on consumers, but these aren't existential threats; these are inconveniences because of these constrained supply chains. If, for example, there was another pandemic or a natural disaster or if, Heaven forbid, the People's Republic of China decided to forcibly unify with Taiwan, this could potentially block access to all of the advanced semiconductors that we need in America, and this would be a dramatic negative effect. First of all, it would create almost instantaneously a recession here in America. Thousands of people would be put out of work. But what I want to focus on are the national security consequences. When we send our troops on any mission--by air, land, sea, or cyber--we need the very best equipment and technology available. And now more thanever, this technology cannot function without semiconductors, without these chips. Just one example is, look at the Javelin missiles that we are sending over to Ukraine to defeat the Russian Federation invasion. Each one of these Javelin missiles that the Ukrainians are using to such good effect requires more than 200 semiconductors in just one Javelin missile, and so far we have sent 5,500 of them to Ukraine. But it is not just these big items that need chips, it is things like the helmets that our fighter pilots use to fly and navigate; communications devices like radio sets to call in reinforcements to save American lives; smart hand-held cameras that attach to our troops' gear that see around the corners to keep them out of harm's way; and even advanced body armor uses semiconductors. If we ever needed to deploy the full force of the U.S. military and ramp up production to replenish our supplies, we would need an astronomical number of semiconductor chips. That is why bringing that manufacturing capacity back onshore, back home to America, is so important. This had been a big bipartisan priority, as I said, for the last couple of years, and this isn't the first time that semiconductors have been regarded as a matter of national security. Interestingly, in the 1980s, it was a big priority item for President Reagan. At that time, our country was up against the Soviet Union's expansive military forces. President Reagan knew that maintaining our edge would be a result of smarter military systems, not just bigger ones or more of them. As two national security and foreign policy experts from the University of Texas put it, ``Reagan didn't merely outspend the Soviets, he . . . sought to out-innovate them'' as well. He pushed to maintain our competitive edge in chips, thereby helping us lead in the advanced weapons and airframes that they enabled. But this isn't just about what happens tomorrow or 6 months from now; we are talking about safeguarding the developments that will underpin our national security in 10, 20, or 30 years. That is why so many people from diverse political viewpoints support this effort. As we all remember, the CHIPS for America Act received broad bipartisan support when we first voted on it. It was adopted as an amendment to the annual Defense authorization bill by a vote of 96 to 4. Ninety-six percent of the U.S. Senate supported the bill. Since it became law a year and a half ago, we have heard from a range of voices and stakeholders who don't typically align. For example, former USTR--U.S. Trade Representative--Robert Lighthizer, who served in the Trump administration, has been a vocal advocate for chips funding. At a Senate Finance Committee meeting 2 years ago, he said semiconductors are a key part of our economy as well as the future of American security. Biden officials have shared this same sentiment. The Secretaries of Defense and Commerce recently sent a letter to Congress urging swift passage of this chips funding, saying it is ``an imperative to our national security.'' Countless organizations, experts, businesses, and industry groups have expressed the same point of view. Some of the most respected men and women in the national security world wrote a letter to Congress urging quick action on this funding. That group included a former Secretary of Defense, former CIA Director, and former Director of National Intelligence. We have also heard from the National Governors Association and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which represents State and local leaders across the country. We have heard from groups that represent automakers, the defense industry, consumer electronics, and telecommunications companies as well. Last month, a group of more than 120 tech CEOs sent a letter to congressional leaders urging quick action on this legislation. It is rare, especially today, to have such a broad consensus from so many different perspectives on a single issue advocating one priority, but that is how important this legislation is. I am optimistic about where we are at the moment after 2 long years of getting here, and I am glad Speaker Pelosi has said the House will take up the Senate bill as early as next week. The bottom line is, there is a lot at stake here, and I hope we can deliver a major win for our national security in the coming days. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3513 | null | 4,762 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, on July 4, we celebrated the founding of our Nation, as we do every year. But when I woke up on this July 4, I had a strange thought, a thought I never had before, the question of, What kind of country are we celebrating? I have always had immense pride in the founding vision of our Nation, in that vision of equality, of opportunity for all, of freedom of religion, of equal justice under the law, of equal representation, and, most importantly, of government of, by, and for the people. Our journey as a nation over nearly 250 years has been a difficult journey of moving toward full implementation of this vision. That is an inspiring journey--a journey I have been proud to witness, a journey I have been proud to be a part of. But just days before this year's July 4 celebration, we saw the conclusion of the Supreme Court's latest judicial term--a term over which the Court displayed a far different vision for America: one with devastating repercussions that will reverberate in the lives of countless Americans for decades to come. For years now--actually, for decades, we have watched a steady, relentless effort by rightwing extremists to rig the courts so they can transform America and American society as we have known it. Their big goal is corporations over people and their second goal is to implement conservative cultural policy over individual freedom and liberty. Now, with this Court's recent decisions, we are left with an inescapable conclusion: The extremists have succeeded. The Court is now operating as an unelected super-legislature with a MAGA political agenda. Their decisions this term read like planks out of the Republican Party platform. Here is what the MAGA Court's vision is for our Nation. It is a vision that obliterates the right to privacy, giving an overbearing Federal Government the power to be in the medical exam room making reproductive health decisions for American women, when the only people who should be in the exam room, under an ``of and by the people'' Republic is the woman, her doctor, and whomever else she chooses to invite--her partner, her friend, or her religious adviser. This Court's vision is a vision that embraces never-ending gun violence, stripping Congress and the States ofthe ability to make commonsense gun safety laws. It is a vision of a nation where public schools can impose religion on their students. So much for freedom of religion and separation of church and State. It is a vision of a nation where wrongfully incarcerated Americans don't have the right to prove their innocence and can't find justice if their Miranda rights were violated. So much for the principle of equal justice under law, the very principle carved into stone above the doors of the Supreme Court. In fact, if you go out this door and out the front steps, you can see those words while standing here on the steps of the Senate. This Court's vision is of a nation where the Court strips the Federal Government of its legally enacted power to regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane pollution that is destroying our Nation and our planet. It is a vision where the powerful corrupt the integrity of our elections with gerrymandering and dark money and measures to prevent targeted groups of Americans from voting. This vision is a vision for a government by and for the powerful, not by and for the people. This vision in which the Supreme Court becomes a superlegislature for a MAGA agenda infuriates me. It infuriates me because I believe in government by and for the people, not by and for the powerful. It infuriates me because I know the pain that these decisions will inflict on millions of Americans--the pain of a woman forced by a State government to carry a fetus to term that was conceived through rape or incest or the pain of any woman, for that matter, who simply is unprepared to be pregnant or become a parent; the pain of every single person who will have to mourn the death of a loved one lost to an ever-growing epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings like we saw in Uvalde and in Highland Park and in countless other communities with more than one mass shooting per day; the pain of the citizens blocked from the ballot box, effectively denied their most fundamental right as Americans because of voter suppression schemes enacted in many States over this past year; the pain of students in our public schools pressured to participate in religious acts in conflict with their own beliefs; the pain of rural Americans, ranchers, and farmers whose farms and ranches will be lost to fire and drought because the Court says the Federal Government cannot regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane causing climate chaos. And I am infuriated because I know more Supreme Court decisions like these are coming from the six MAGA Justices on the Court. They want to cement their vision of America through superlegislative powers rather than calling the balls and strikes defending the Constitution, which is their job. They have announced that next term they are going to hear a case on the fringe doctrine known as the independent State legislature doctrine. It has been considered an extremist idea, which says only State legislatures have the power to make decisions about Federal elections and how to appoint electors. State courts would have no power to ensure checks and balances or decide which decisions about elections violate a State constitution or ignore the will of the voters, nor could State Governors veto such legislative decisions. And that is just the start. Justice Thomas himself said in his concurring opinion that, based on the reasoning in Dobbs, he wants the Court to consider a whole host of other rights that have been secured and protected by previous Courts, including the possibility of striking down the right to intimacy and marriage for same-sex couples and the right to contraception. Make no mistake, this is not some sudden occurrence. It is exactly what the Federalist Society has been working toward for decades. Before joining the Court in 1972, Lewis Powell wrote about the need to rebuild the power of industrial elites and fight back ``from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians'' against progressive changes in society. In outlining a plan for rebuilding the power of Big Business, he declared that, with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for achieving that goal. That is exactly why, as majority leader in 2017, Senator McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat from one President so another President could fill it. He stole it in 2016, and he filled it in 2017 with MAGA Justice Neil Gorsuch. It is why, in 2018, Leader McConnell completely ignored credible accounts of sexual assault and rushed through a confirmation without giving Senators access to the nominee's full records and bypassing committee quorum rules to fill another seat with MAGA Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And it is why, when a seat opened up in another election year, 2020, just weeks before the voters would vote, Leader McConnell completely reversed his argument that he had used to justify the theft of a Supreme Court seat in 2016, and he rammed through the nomination of MAGA Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The Republican Party has won one popular vote for President in the last 30 years but has appointed two-thirds of the sitting Justices, who now see it as their job to become a super-legislature for a cultural agenda and corporate power. In one of his columns, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post described the resulting unelected, unaccountable majority of Supreme Court Justices as a ``junta''--a word used to describe authoritarian leaders who rule through edicts rather than through legislative determination or deliberation on constitutional principles. It is hard to argue with Eugene Robinson's characterization. In spite of what the vast majority of Americans want--the protection of a woman's right to full reproductive healthcare and more gun safety, not less, and free and fair elections--the Court's MAGA majority has chosen to rule by Supreme Court edict to inflict their narrow preferences for society on hundreds of millions of Americans. And they are not just using the regular process for considering cases. Over the past 5 years, we have seen a monumental shift in the Court's use of emergency orders--the so-called shadow docket--to enact sweeping decisions on the American people. These cases don't get the full process we are familiar with--formal briefings, formal hearings, lengthy deliberations, and opinion writings--because it is argued that the applicant would suffer ``irreparable harm'' if their request were not immediately granted. The shadow docket decisions, by the way, are usually unsigned and unexplained. In the past, they have essentially involved death penalty cases--cases of literal life and death--of pretty much extreme importance to the applicant because, if someone is executed before their case is heard, they do suffer ``irreparable harm''--the standard. Then, about 5 years ago, we started to see a big shift in the emergency cases being taken up and in the substances of them as well. We have seen the shadow docket used to stop the Federal Government from implementing a vaccine and testing mandate on businesses to protect public health in the middle of an unprecedented global health crisis that has killed more than a million Americans. We have seen it used to uphold a Texas law banning abortion after 6 weeks. We have seen it used when a lower court blocked Alabama's congressional map because it violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black voters. The Court said: You have got to draw a new map that is fair. The Supreme Court stepped in with their shadow docket and said: No. Alabama can use this faulty map that dilutes the power of Black Americans. In this situation, the Court didn't stop the infliction of harm; they inflicted the harm on Black Americans, who want fair maps, who deserve fair maps for voting in our democracy. That gerrymandered map is now in place to disenfranchise Black voters in this November's election because of the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket. It is hard to see how any of these cases met the test for the shadow docket. The state of abuse of the shadow docket has gotten so bad and so blatant that even Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Court, joined a dissent in a case reinstating a Trump administration Clean Water Act regulation limiting Federal protections for streams and wetlands. This dissentstated that the majority's decision ``renders the court's emergency docket,'' meaning the shadow docket, ``not for emergencies at all . . . . The docket becomes only another place for merits determinations--except made without full briefing and argument.'' When the Supreme Court's Chief Justice says the shadow docket is being abused, you know it is true. This MAGA Court is so determined to impose their legislative priorities and values on our country that they have abandoned one of the core principles of American jurisprudence, going back to even before there was a United States of America, and that is that the Court only rules when there is an actual dispute or controversy in question. In their eagerness to cripple the Federal Government's ability to fight fossil carbon pollution, the MAGA Justices weighed in on a regulation that had never been enforced--a regulation that had been withdrawn by President Trump and a regulation which President Biden had indicated was never going to be reinstated. Even the utilities that would have been regulated didn't want the Supreme Court to decide this case. This out-of-control MAGA Supreme Court super-legislature wanted to legislate--and legislate they did--violating a core principle that the Court does not address moot cases. Moot cases are cases where there is nothing still in dispute, and this certainly was the case that this case was as dead or as moot as it could be because nobody could be impacted by a rule that doesn't exist. Why did the Court take up this case? Well, we may not be able to specify the exact reasoning by each Justice, but the effect is clear. By taking up this case, the Court furthered the MAGA policy agenda. Their ruling handcuffed Federal authorities' ability to pursue future limitations on pollutions from fossil fuels like carbon dioxide and fossil methane. This is to the enormous benefit of the fossil fuel billionaires who funded the massive dark money campaigns that supported these Justices' confirmations. That situation of their breaking precedent to benefit the fossil billionaires, who had just funded their confirmation campaigns, reeks of corruption. When generations ahead of us look back at this moment, I have no doubt--especially when they look at this year, 2022, and what the Court did in a single year--they will look back with a sense of profound disbelief--disbelief--like that disbelief that we experience when we look back on cases like Dred Scott, which dehumanized Black Americans and legitimized slavery, or Plessy v. Ferguson, which locked in 60 years of vicious discrimination and racial terrorism under a separate but equal philosophy. The disbelief that future generations will have will be directed at Dobbs--a decision this year in which the Court obliterated privacy and put an overbearing government in charge of women's reproductive health. They will have the disbelief that, in Kennedy v. Bremerton--decided this year--the Court destroyed freedom of religion in our public schools; the disbelief that, in West Virginia v. EPA--a decision this year--the Court violated centuries of precedent to rule on a regulation that is no longer on books, with the effect--perhaps the goal--of limiting the future regulation of greenhouse gas pollution; the disbelief in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen--decided this year--that the Court ruled that a State legislature can't require folks to have a good reason to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Let me be clear. This activist, extremist MAGA Court faces a legitimacy crisis, and a legitimacy crisis for the Court is a crisis for our democratic Republic. Part of that illegitimacy is Justices of the Supreme Court selectively using a doctrine of so-called originalism to justify their politically inspired decisions. The doctrine of originalism is based on a reasonable argument, one on which you and I would say makes sense: a goal of understanding what the Founders meant when they wrote what they wrote in our Constitution more than two centuries ago. But if that effort is applied selectively, it simply becomes a measure to justify, after the fact, where the Justices want it to come out. They use it when it works, and they abandon it when it doesn't. For example, the Founders wrote the Second Amendment to ensure that members of well-regulated militias had access to their rifles, but the so-called originalists on the Court cast originalism aside, declaring that the Founders wrote that clause to ensure that nonmilitia members had the right to bring assault rifles--that didn't exist in 1787--onto subways, which didn't exist in 1787. That is bogus originalism in its purist form. Consider this: Corporations, as we know them today, did not exist in 1787. Yet the so-called originalists on the Court insist that the Founders' vision of the First Amendment, to protect freedom of speech, gives corporations speech rights even though the word ``corporation'' doesn't appear in the Constitution--a point that they use when they want to take an originalist argument: that the Founders had to have it be something written in the Constitution and be something they discussed and something they considered and something they envisioned. None of those are true. Not a one of them is true in this case. The MAGA Court also claims that a corporation is a person, which no Founder would ever have argued. They didn't even know what a ``corporation'' was because they didn't exist in this form that we have now. The MAGA Court goes on to claim that the members comprising the corporate personhood--those are the stockholders of a corporation--have absolutely no right to know how that corporation that they are part of spends their money. This is absurdity stacked on the fallacy that a corporation is a person. I have yet to see and yet to hear any plausible explanation as to how the MAGA Justices can be confident that the Founders intended for billionaire CEOs to hijack the accumulated wealth of their stockholders without their stockholders' knowledge or permission or opportunity to know what is being said and to use that money as speech and to spend it on secretly funded campaigns, including campaigns to confirm Supreme Court Justices. The problem we face, colleagues, isn't just a MAGA-majority Court enacting terrible policy rather than defending the balls and strikes against the Constitution. The problem is greater if the highest Court in the land loses its legitimacy, the law itself loses its legitimacy. If the American people see the Supreme Court Justices making clear that the law has no meaning other than their political preferences, then the law is not the foundation for our society that it is supposed to be. We have seen with deadly results on January 6, 2021, the consequences to our policies, to our politics, and to our society when the rule of law is replaced by violence and power as the organizing principle for society. The Court is essential in a society based on the rule of law, and it is essential to have a Court that honors the law rather than trying to write the law. This MAGA majority and its desire, and operation as a super-legislature--unelected, lifetime appointments--is a dire threat to our Republic. Here in Congress, we must not only shine a light--a spotlight--on the threat; we must stop the runaway MAGA Court from corrupting the rule of law and try to restore the legitimate role of the Court as a panel defending our Constitution. Some will say there is no way to restore the Court and that any strategy for restoring the Court will simply compound the problems we are now facing, and I agree that there is no simple way to restore the legitimacy of the Court. Back in 2017, when then-Majority Leader McConnell was striving to complete the theft of the Supreme Court seat taken from the administration of Barack Obama, I took to this floor for 15\1/2\ hours with one simple message: Don't do it. Don't do it because, if you do, you will damage the legitimacy of the Court and there will be no simple path, no easy remedy to restore the Court's legitimacy. But Leader McConnell, he doused the Supreme Court with gasoline on that day, and he set it on fire. He did the damage. I stood here for 15\1/2\ hours and said don't do it. You know, we take an oath of office to a Constitution. That involves defending the Court, not delegitimizing the Court, not stealing Supreme Courtseats. It was the first time in the history of the United States of America that this Senate failed to debate and vote on a nominee. But here we are; the damage is done. What do we do now? When an arsonist sets fire to your house, you don't let it burn because you are worried about water damage. You have to strive to put out that fire, regardless of how difficult the task. So I say to you today, we cannot accept the defeatist attitude that fails to confront the forces destroying our Republic. There are two things we must do. Mission one, we have to reform the ability of this broken Senate to serve as a legislature because, if it serves effectively as a legislature, it can serve as a counterweight to decisions of a corrupted Court. The second thing we have to do is put all options on the table and debate them for directly reforming the Court, recognizing that we are left with difficult choices on how to do that. But we have to step up. It is necessary to save our Republic. So let's take each of these missions in turn. The first is to restore the Senate. Our goal: Restore the Senate as a legislative body to serve as a counterweight to the corruption of a MAGA-majority Court. There are three massive problems currently afflicting the Senate's ability to serve as a functioning legislative body. First, we spend virtually all of our time on nominations, so much time that it keeps us from doing much legislating, even though we have a massively complex society and a lot of possibilities for making it work better. When George Washington was assembling his first administration, he had to appoint and the Senate had to confirm four Cabinet positions: Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General--four positions. Today, the Senate is responsible for confirming over 1,200 Presidential appointments to executive branch positions and commissions. Now, in the past, both parties worked to exercise the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities in a manner that minimized the amount of Senate time required. Most were done by unanimous consent late at night, when practically anyone was here because most nominations are not ones to which anyone has an objection. In the entire decade of the 1960s, there was one vote required to close debate on a nominee--one, in an entire 10 years. But, last decade, that number went to 545. Now, it is like every nomination. Virtually every nomination we have to file to close debate and vote to close debate before we can vote on the nominee. And do you know what? The way it works, you can also require 30 hours of debate after the vote to close debate succeeds. So the rules, which were designed for exceptional situations where there is a significant objection, are now used as partisan obstruction. Democrats are in the minority. They want to tie up the Republicans. So they have little time to legislate. Republicans are in the minority. They want to tie up the Democrats. So they have little time to legislate. They want each other to fail, partly because they disagree and partly because they know if the other side succeeds in making something work, the voters might reward them at the ballot box. We have to massively streamline this nomination process. We have to--100 Senators--work together, not do what is best for us when we are in the majority and oppose it when we are in the minority, or vice versa. We all have a responsibility to completely streamline that process so we can return to being a legislature. The second big problem for the Senate is that the rules provide a complicated, time-consuming process for debating and voting on whether to debate a bill. It involves a motion to proceed or requirement to close debate on the motion to proceed and whose nomination is up to 30 hours of additional of debate--all on the question of whether to debate. You have 100 capable people sent here by their constituents in their various States to solve problems for America, not to spend a week debating whether to debate a single bill. That could be a week spent debating the amendments that could make the bill better, a week spent considering individual pieces of the bills so the public knows where we stand and there is public accountability. But, instead, we have partisan paralysis. A completely dysfunctional Senate, that is what we have. We have to change the rules to stop this completely meritless waste of the time and efforts of 100 Senators. It is an easy solution: 1 hour spent debating whether to debate a bill, and then a simple majority vote, either we go to the bill or we don't; easy solution. One hour makes much more sense than 1 week. The third big problem this Senate Chamber faces is a secret silent filibuster. Under the Senate rule--and by the way, the term ``filibuster'' is really inappropriate because this involves no speaking of any kind. Under the Senate rule, 41 Senators can, operating as a block, veto the opportunity for the Senate to debate a bill, veto the opportunity for the Senate to consider an amendment, and veto the ability, after amendments have been considered, to have a final vote on the bill. It is the triple veto: three opportunities for the minority to blockade the majority from being able to consider legislation to address the issues facing America. And both parties have attempted to use it when they are in the minority. We have to restore the ability to actually debate. It is exactly what the Founders feared. When I lay out that 41 can block and veto these 3 steps of the process, it means to reverse it--that 60 out of 100, a supermajority, has to agree to go forward through each of those three steps. The Founders warned us: Never allow the minority to make the decisions by requiring a supermajority. Don't to it. That is why James Madison said that, with a supermajority, when ``the general good might require new laws . . . the principle of free government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.'' It is why Alexander Hamilton warned that a supermajority requirement would result in ``tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.'' He also warned that ``the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed''--the principle of supermajority--``is a history impotence, perplexity, and disorder.'' Now, you may wonder if the Founders had simply read about someone somewhere requiring a supermajority for legislature and said it didn't work very well and thought, We had better warn Americans not to do this. No, they were writing from their direct experience because, as they were drafting and debating our 1787 Constitution, they were actually in the middle of living through the impotence and incompetence of the Confederation Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded our 1787 Constitution, the Congress had to have a supermajority on every provision; meaning, the position of the minority could prevail over the position of the majority. The result was paralysis on the most fundamental issues they faced. They failed to raise the funds to pay the pensions of the veterans who spilled their blood in the Revolutionary War that created this Nation. They failed to raise the funds to put down Shays' Rebellion. Well, today, we have not one stage of veto, like they faced in the Confederation Congress, we have the triple veto power under the current secret, silent filibuster, and we are seeing the same impotence, the same paralysis, the same partisanship that it drives. The triple veto power of the minority is destroying the Senate to address challenges facing America, and there are a lot of them. We have got the climate crisis that is literally setting our country on fire. Right now, at this very moment, around 40 million Americans across the Plains and the Mississippi Valley are dealing with alerts for dangerous and intense heat, while firefighters are confronting 89 large fires across 12 States. And as of last week, four times as much acreage has burned this year as last year at this moment. And it is not just America, of course. Across the Atlantic, Europe is going through a recordbreaking heat wave, reaching temperatures some of thoseplaces have never seen and causing wildfires to burn in France and Spain and Italy and Greece. Congress should be immersed in considering bills to address the climate crisis that is damaging communities across our country, and not just through fires but through rising sea levels and rising erosion, through pine beetle infestations and mosquito infestations, through stronger hurricanes and stronger tornadoes, and, certainly, through the power of multiyear droughts. But we are not because the triple veto of the silent, secret filibuster afflicting this body is blocking us from doing so. We have a housing crisis. Out-of-control rents and prices make it impossible for millions of Americans to afford a decent home to rent or buy. And colleagues have one idea after another about how we should address it, but because we are paralyzed and our process is taken up, our time is taken up with nominations and debating whether to debate and we have the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster, they can't move forward. And we aren't debating, discussing, and hopefully passing measures that can make a difference. And Americans are outraged by the prices they pay on drugs, which are so much higher than any other developed country. Eighty percent of Americans say: Do something about it. And I think the other 20 percent don't realize how much we are getting ripped off. And Americans know we should get the best price because we invest the most in the research and development that creates these drugs, not the worst price, and they are absolutely right. And we would have passed legislation by now to get the best prices in the developed world, but we are blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. And now States are passing laws to block targeted groups of Americans from voting. We can fix that by passing S. 1, the For the People Act, or its reincarnation, the Freedom to Vote Act, but we can't because it was blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. Let me be absolutely clear. The single most effective way we can counterbalance an out-of-control Court with a MAGA agenda is to have a functioning Senate. That is the most immediate remedy available to us to respond to this terrible affliction undermining our Republic. If the Court says there is no problem with gerrymandered districts, where politicians choose their constituents instead of Americans choosing their leaders, as they did in the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, well, a reformed, restored Senate could pass legislation to require nonpartisan commissions to draw legislative districts. At least we could have a robust debate over it, maybe pass a few amendments modifying it in different forms--or perhaps find some other solution--if we had a functioning legislative process. If the Court says there is no limit to dark money from corporations and billionaires who flood and drown out the voices of ordinary Americans and campaigns, as they did in the 2010 Citizens United decision, a reformed, restored Senate could pass the DISCLOSE Act to shine a light on every dollar and where it is coming from in American campaigns. If the Court says that anyone who wants to be able to carry a concealed weapon should be able to like they did in their New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, a restored, functioning Senate could pass stronger gun safety laws that most Americans support, like ending the background check loophole--when guns are bought and sold by unlicensed parties online or at gun shows--or by outlawing the kinds of large magazines that carry 30 or more bullets that are often used in mass shootings. And when the Court went to abnormally great lengths to decide in last month's West Virginia v. EPA that the Agency can't regulate fossil carbon or fossil methane emissions, a functioning Senate would be able to step up and create the programs designed to speed up the transition to renewable energy, which would have the added benefit of ending our addiction to oil and dropping the prices at the pump, and it would keep money out of the hands of dictators in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. But the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster has blocked us from doing so. The remedy is not to eliminate the filibuster. The remedy is to reform it. The right reform is to adopt the public, talking filibuster. The talking filibuster would reassert the fundamental principle of legislative conduct: the Senate Code, adopted by the original Senate. Under that code, the Senate listened to every Senator's perspective, and then it took a vote on the issue, be it a bill or be it an amendment. That was the Senate Code. The original rules provided that every Senator had the right to speak twice to a question. It was rule No. 4 in the original rules. It is in our rules today. But the spirit of that code--listening to each Senator and then voting, with the majority winning, not losing--that part is gone. Now, it is the minority that can exercise a triple veto, a veto absolutely exactly the opposite of what the Founders said to us. They said: Don't do it. And we have done it in triplicate form, paralyzing this place and accentuating the temptation of yielding to partisanship rather than problem-solving. Jefferson did say that this rule, this code of listening to every Senator and voting, should not be abused. In fact, he said this in his manual for rules in 1801: No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. It worked for the Founders. They exercised some self-control, so much so that they didn't need the rule that they had to close debate. They just simply listened to everyone with mutual respect and then said: OK. Let's take a vote. You want to see that in action today? Watch the committee process on a bill with amendments. There is no one filibustering, speaking forever. There is no one requiring a supermajority to close debate in committee. They operate--we operate--in committee, much like the original Senate, and it works pretty well, but we have completely lost that discipline when it comes to debate here on our floor. So the early Senate had a rule for the previous question motion, to close debate or accelerate the closure of debate. And when they rewrote the rule book--and Aaron Burr was in charge of it--in 1806, they dropped the rule because they never used it, didn't feel they ever needed it. Well, we need to reclaim that vision, and our rules have gotten so crazy, so out of whack, that we encourage partisanship and paralysis rather than problem-solving. Let's fix that. So let's have the talking filibuster. The talking filibuster says, Yes, you can speak on the issue. We will listen to everyone. You can speak twice. But then we vote, and the majority wins--not a supermajority required. The minority doesn't win over the majority. The majority wins. That was the Senate. That was the design of our Constitution that we have the responsibility to restore because we took an oath to the Constitution. So let's restore it. And that talking filibuster encourages bipartisan problem-solving. The minority, be it the Democratic or Republican, that wants to slow things down for leverage, they can. So they have significant leverage, but, on the other hand, they have an incentive to negotiate because they are not sure how long they can maintain continuous debate. And that is the heart of the talking filibuster: maintaining continuous debate. If there is a break in debate, you go to the vote. Meanwhile, the majority has an incentive to compromise because they know the minority can tie this place up on a single bill for week after week, and they can't afford to have that much time taken over a single bill. So the talking filibuster restores an incentive for compromise and bipartisan problem-solving and, in the end, restores the vision that the majority makes the decision, not the minority. In the end, it gives the minority a voice, it gives the minority massive leverage, but it takes away their veto. That is the right way to legislate in a democracy. As I noted before, fixing the Senate is probably the best immediate tool we have for repairing the damage from the Supreme Court across the grounds. But we also have to consider every possible remedy to restore the Court itself, to restore a Court that calls the balls and strikes on the Constitution, defendingits core principles, and recognizes it is not there to legislate--not to legislate on the left side, not to legislate on the right side. They are there to defend the Constitution. Well, reforming the Court won't be easily done. But President Biden did convene a Commission to explore the option, and that Commission has produced a lengthy, lengthy report. This is part of it: The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, December of last year. I encourage all my colleagues to read this and consider the ideas in it. In this 300-page report, the Commission does review the history of how the Court has been in different phases, and its size has changed all the time because that is not established in the Constitution. It has been as few as 5, and it has been more than 10. There was not nine locked in like it is now. And, certainly, one of the ideas they review is adjustment to the size of the Court. Many people have said that is something to look at to balance what has happened with the Court, with the stolen Supreme Court seat and a decision by several Justices to be a legislature rather than a court. Well, that is one idea. Another is implementing term limits or a mandatory retirement age because, when the Constitution was first written, people weren't living the long lives they have today, and they didn't stay in the Court forever. In 1787, the Founders wrote that Justices would hold their seats during good behavior. Now, I am not sure that every Justice across these grounds has been engaged in good behavior when they are choosing to legislate rather than to rule on the defense of the Constitution, but there is no easy way to remove them from the Court for misbehavior. But one possibility is for the Court members to rotate out with term limits of some kind. That is one possibility. In much of our history, Justices only served an average of 15 years on the Court. The average is now 26 and getting longer. And, did you know, America is the only constitutional democracy that gives lifetime presence on the Court, that doesn't have either a term limit or a mandatory retirement age? This report, this Commission, has other ideas in it: rotating membership on the Court with judges selected from the circuit court. You know, the original Supreme Court, they served as circuit court writers. They went out and made decisions across this country. They didn't just sit in a room in the capital. So there is some precedent for that idea. And others point out that there is the power to restrict the Court's jurisdiction. There are pros and cons for these various ideas, and our commitment needs to be to examine them. The American public is open to examining them. Earlier this week, the FOX News poll reported that 66 percent of the folks in their poll support an 18-year term for Justices, and 71 percent support a mandatory retirement age. So the American people are open to trying to fix the challenge with the Court. We have to be open to fixing it, and we need to look at every option and idea very carefully to ensure that the highest Court in our land fulfills the vision for it in our Constitution. And the vision in our Constitution was not that it would be an unelected super-legislature. Colleagues, this is a perilous moment for our Republic. It is a moment when the will of the people is being overrun by an extreme agenda of a Court legislating from the Bench, imposing their narrow and precedent-destroying will on all Americans. We have to restore the ability of this Senate to operate as a legislature that can be a counterbalance to what the Court does, and we must thoughtfully consider every proposal for reforming the Court directly. We can and we must act before it is too late. We can't stand by and watch the continuous disintegration of our Republic. Our oath to the Constitution demands that we protect these institutions and repair them when they go off track. And when we do, the next July 4, we can all join together and celebrate the restoration of our paralyzed and partisan Senate into an actual legislative body. We can celebrate the restoration of Americans' rights that are being continuously stripped away across the grounds by the Supreme Court. We can have a renewed belief and confidence in the integrity of all of our institutions and our democratic form of governance. That would be a moment justifying a massive celebration next July 4. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | null | 4,763 |
formal | Dred Scott | null | conservative | Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, on July 4, we celebrated the founding of our Nation, as we do every year. But when I woke up on this July 4, I had a strange thought, a thought I never had before, the question of, What kind of country are we celebrating? I have always had immense pride in the founding vision of our Nation, in that vision of equality, of opportunity for all, of freedom of religion, of equal justice under the law, of equal representation, and, most importantly, of government of, by, and for the people. Our journey as a nation over nearly 250 years has been a difficult journey of moving toward full implementation of this vision. That is an inspiring journey--a journey I have been proud to witness, a journey I have been proud to be a part of. But just days before this year's July 4 celebration, we saw the conclusion of the Supreme Court's latest judicial term--a term over which the Court displayed a far different vision for America: one with devastating repercussions that will reverberate in the lives of countless Americans for decades to come. For years now--actually, for decades, we have watched a steady, relentless effort by rightwing extremists to rig the courts so they can transform America and American society as we have known it. Their big goal is corporations over people and their second goal is to implement conservative cultural policy over individual freedom and liberty. Now, with this Court's recent decisions, we are left with an inescapable conclusion: The extremists have succeeded. The Court is now operating as an unelected super-legislature with a MAGA political agenda. Their decisions this term read like planks out of the Republican Party platform. Here is what the MAGA Court's vision is for our Nation. It is a vision that obliterates the right to privacy, giving an overbearing Federal Government the power to be in the medical exam room making reproductive health decisions for American women, when the only people who should be in the exam room, under an ``of and by the people'' Republic is the woman, her doctor, and whomever else she chooses to invite--her partner, her friend, or her religious adviser. This Court's vision is a vision that embraces never-ending gun violence, stripping Congress and the States ofthe ability to make commonsense gun safety laws. It is a vision of a nation where public schools can impose religion on their students. So much for freedom of religion and separation of church and State. It is a vision of a nation where wrongfully incarcerated Americans don't have the right to prove their innocence and can't find justice if their Miranda rights were violated. So much for the principle of equal justice under law, the very principle carved into stone above the doors of the Supreme Court. In fact, if you go out this door and out the front steps, you can see those words while standing here on the steps of the Senate. This Court's vision is of a nation where the Court strips the Federal Government of its legally enacted power to regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane pollution that is destroying our Nation and our planet. It is a vision where the powerful corrupt the integrity of our elections with gerrymandering and dark money and measures to prevent targeted groups of Americans from voting. This vision is a vision for a government by and for the powerful, not by and for the people. This vision in which the Supreme Court becomes a superlegislature for a MAGA agenda infuriates me. It infuriates me because I believe in government by and for the people, not by and for the powerful. It infuriates me because I know the pain that these decisions will inflict on millions of Americans--the pain of a woman forced by a State government to carry a fetus to term that was conceived through rape or incest or the pain of any woman, for that matter, who simply is unprepared to be pregnant or become a parent; the pain of every single person who will have to mourn the death of a loved one lost to an ever-growing epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings like we saw in Uvalde and in Highland Park and in countless other communities with more than one mass shooting per day; the pain of the citizens blocked from the ballot box, effectively denied their most fundamental right as Americans because of voter suppression schemes enacted in many States over this past year; the pain of students in our public schools pressured to participate in religious acts in conflict with their own beliefs; the pain of rural Americans, ranchers, and farmers whose farms and ranches will be lost to fire and drought because the Court says the Federal Government cannot regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane causing climate chaos. And I am infuriated because I know more Supreme Court decisions like these are coming from the six MAGA Justices on the Court. They want to cement their vision of America through superlegislative powers rather than calling the balls and strikes defending the Constitution, which is their job. They have announced that next term they are going to hear a case on the fringe doctrine known as the independent State legislature doctrine. It has been considered an extremist idea, which says only State legislatures have the power to make decisions about Federal elections and how to appoint electors. State courts would have no power to ensure checks and balances or decide which decisions about elections violate a State constitution or ignore the will of the voters, nor could State Governors veto such legislative decisions. And that is just the start. Justice Thomas himself said in his concurring opinion that, based on the reasoning in Dobbs, he wants the Court to consider a whole host of other rights that have been secured and protected by previous Courts, including the possibility of striking down the right to intimacy and marriage for same-sex couples and the right to contraception. Make no mistake, this is not some sudden occurrence. It is exactly what the Federalist Society has been working toward for decades. Before joining the Court in 1972, Lewis Powell wrote about the need to rebuild the power of industrial elites and fight back ``from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians'' against progressive changes in society. In outlining a plan for rebuilding the power of Big Business, he declared that, with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for achieving that goal. That is exactly why, as majority leader in 2017, Senator McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat from one President so another President could fill it. He stole it in 2016, and he filled it in 2017 with MAGA Justice Neil Gorsuch. It is why, in 2018, Leader McConnell completely ignored credible accounts of sexual assault and rushed through a confirmation without giving Senators access to the nominee's full records and bypassing committee quorum rules to fill another seat with MAGA Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And it is why, when a seat opened up in another election year, 2020, just weeks before the voters would vote, Leader McConnell completely reversed his argument that he had used to justify the theft of a Supreme Court seat in 2016, and he rammed through the nomination of MAGA Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The Republican Party has won one popular vote for President in the last 30 years but has appointed two-thirds of the sitting Justices, who now see it as their job to become a super-legislature for a cultural agenda and corporate power. In one of his columns, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post described the resulting unelected, unaccountable majority of Supreme Court Justices as a ``junta''--a word used to describe authoritarian leaders who rule through edicts rather than through legislative determination or deliberation on constitutional principles. It is hard to argue with Eugene Robinson's characterization. In spite of what the vast majority of Americans want--the protection of a woman's right to full reproductive healthcare and more gun safety, not less, and free and fair elections--the Court's MAGA majority has chosen to rule by Supreme Court edict to inflict their narrow preferences for society on hundreds of millions of Americans. And they are not just using the regular process for considering cases. Over the past 5 years, we have seen a monumental shift in the Court's use of emergency orders--the so-called shadow docket--to enact sweeping decisions on the American people. These cases don't get the full process we are familiar with--formal briefings, formal hearings, lengthy deliberations, and opinion writings--because it is argued that the applicant would suffer ``irreparable harm'' if their request were not immediately granted. The shadow docket decisions, by the way, are usually unsigned and unexplained. In the past, they have essentially involved death penalty cases--cases of literal life and death--of pretty much extreme importance to the applicant because, if someone is executed before their case is heard, they do suffer ``irreparable harm''--the standard. Then, about 5 years ago, we started to see a big shift in the emergency cases being taken up and in the substances of them as well. We have seen the shadow docket used to stop the Federal Government from implementing a vaccine and testing mandate on businesses to protect public health in the middle of an unprecedented global health crisis that has killed more than a million Americans. We have seen it used to uphold a Texas law banning abortion after 6 weeks. We have seen it used when a lower court blocked Alabama's congressional map because it violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black voters. The Court said: You have got to draw a new map that is fair. The Supreme Court stepped in with their shadow docket and said: No. Alabama can use this faulty map that dilutes the power of Black Americans. In this situation, the Court didn't stop the infliction of harm; they inflicted the harm on Black Americans, who want fair maps, who deserve fair maps for voting in our democracy. That gerrymandered map is now in place to disenfranchise Black voters in this November's election because of the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket. It is hard to see how any of these cases met the test for the shadow docket. The state of abuse of the shadow docket has gotten so bad and so blatant that even Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Court, joined a dissent in a case reinstating a Trump administration Clean Water Act regulation limiting Federal protections for streams and wetlands. This dissentstated that the majority's decision ``renders the court's emergency docket,'' meaning the shadow docket, ``not for emergencies at all . . . . The docket becomes only another place for merits determinations--except made without full briefing and argument.'' When the Supreme Court's Chief Justice says the shadow docket is being abused, you know it is true. This MAGA Court is so determined to impose their legislative priorities and values on our country that they have abandoned one of the core principles of American jurisprudence, going back to even before there was a United States of America, and that is that the Court only rules when there is an actual dispute or controversy in question. In their eagerness to cripple the Federal Government's ability to fight fossil carbon pollution, the MAGA Justices weighed in on a regulation that had never been enforced--a regulation that had been withdrawn by President Trump and a regulation which President Biden had indicated was never going to be reinstated. Even the utilities that would have been regulated didn't want the Supreme Court to decide this case. This out-of-control MAGA Supreme Court super-legislature wanted to legislate--and legislate they did--violating a core principle that the Court does not address moot cases. Moot cases are cases where there is nothing still in dispute, and this certainly was the case that this case was as dead or as moot as it could be because nobody could be impacted by a rule that doesn't exist. Why did the Court take up this case? Well, we may not be able to specify the exact reasoning by each Justice, but the effect is clear. By taking up this case, the Court furthered the MAGA policy agenda. Their ruling handcuffed Federal authorities' ability to pursue future limitations on pollutions from fossil fuels like carbon dioxide and fossil methane. This is to the enormous benefit of the fossil fuel billionaires who funded the massive dark money campaigns that supported these Justices' confirmations. That situation of their breaking precedent to benefit the fossil billionaires, who had just funded their confirmation campaigns, reeks of corruption. When generations ahead of us look back at this moment, I have no doubt--especially when they look at this year, 2022, and what the Court did in a single year--they will look back with a sense of profound disbelief--disbelief--like that disbelief that we experience when we look back on cases like Dred Scott, which dehumanized Black Americans and legitimized slavery, or Plessy v. Ferguson, which locked in 60 years of vicious discrimination and racial terrorism under a separate but equal philosophy. The disbelief that future generations will have will be directed at Dobbs--a decision this year in which the Court obliterated privacy and put an overbearing government in charge of women's reproductive health. They will have the disbelief that, in Kennedy v. Bremerton--decided this year--the Court destroyed freedom of religion in our public schools; the disbelief that, in West Virginia v. EPA--a decision this year--the Court violated centuries of precedent to rule on a regulation that is no longer on books, with the effect--perhaps the goal--of limiting the future regulation of greenhouse gas pollution; the disbelief in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen--decided this year--that the Court ruled that a State legislature can't require folks to have a good reason to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Let me be clear. This activist, extremist MAGA Court faces a legitimacy crisis, and a legitimacy crisis for the Court is a crisis for our democratic Republic. Part of that illegitimacy is Justices of the Supreme Court selectively using a doctrine of so-called originalism to justify their politically inspired decisions. The doctrine of originalism is based on a reasonable argument, one on which you and I would say makes sense: a goal of understanding what the Founders meant when they wrote what they wrote in our Constitution more than two centuries ago. But if that effort is applied selectively, it simply becomes a measure to justify, after the fact, where the Justices want it to come out. They use it when it works, and they abandon it when it doesn't. For example, the Founders wrote the Second Amendment to ensure that members of well-regulated militias had access to their rifles, but the so-called originalists on the Court cast originalism aside, declaring that the Founders wrote that clause to ensure that nonmilitia members had the right to bring assault rifles--that didn't exist in 1787--onto subways, which didn't exist in 1787. That is bogus originalism in its purist form. Consider this: Corporations, as we know them today, did not exist in 1787. Yet the so-called originalists on the Court insist that the Founders' vision of the First Amendment, to protect freedom of speech, gives corporations speech rights even though the word ``corporation'' doesn't appear in the Constitution--a point that they use when they want to take an originalist argument: that the Founders had to have it be something written in the Constitution and be something they discussed and something they considered and something they envisioned. None of those are true. Not a one of them is true in this case. The MAGA Court also claims that a corporation is a person, which no Founder would ever have argued. They didn't even know what a ``corporation'' was because they didn't exist in this form that we have now. The MAGA Court goes on to claim that the members comprising the corporate personhood--those are the stockholders of a corporation--have absolutely no right to know how that corporation that they are part of spends their money. This is absurdity stacked on the fallacy that a corporation is a person. I have yet to see and yet to hear any plausible explanation as to how the MAGA Justices can be confident that the Founders intended for billionaire CEOs to hijack the accumulated wealth of their stockholders without their stockholders' knowledge or permission or opportunity to know what is being said and to use that money as speech and to spend it on secretly funded campaigns, including campaigns to confirm Supreme Court Justices. The problem we face, colleagues, isn't just a MAGA-majority Court enacting terrible policy rather than defending the balls and strikes against the Constitution. The problem is greater if the highest Court in the land loses its legitimacy, the law itself loses its legitimacy. If the American people see the Supreme Court Justices making clear that the law has no meaning other than their political preferences, then the law is not the foundation for our society that it is supposed to be. We have seen with deadly results on January 6, 2021, the consequences to our policies, to our politics, and to our society when the rule of law is replaced by violence and power as the organizing principle for society. The Court is essential in a society based on the rule of law, and it is essential to have a Court that honors the law rather than trying to write the law. This MAGA majority and its desire, and operation as a super-legislature--unelected, lifetime appointments--is a dire threat to our Republic. Here in Congress, we must not only shine a light--a spotlight--on the threat; we must stop the runaway MAGA Court from corrupting the rule of law and try to restore the legitimate role of the Court as a panel defending our Constitution. Some will say there is no way to restore the Court and that any strategy for restoring the Court will simply compound the problems we are now facing, and I agree that there is no simple way to restore the legitimacy of the Court. Back in 2017, when then-Majority Leader McConnell was striving to complete the theft of the Supreme Court seat taken from the administration of Barack Obama, I took to this floor for 15\1/2\ hours with one simple message: Don't do it. Don't do it because, if you do, you will damage the legitimacy of the Court and there will be no simple path, no easy remedy to restore the Court's legitimacy. But Leader McConnell, he doused the Supreme Court with gasoline on that day, and he set it on fire. He did the damage. I stood here for 15\1/2\ hours and said don't do it. You know, we take an oath of office to a Constitution. That involves defending the Court, not delegitimizing the Court, not stealing Supreme Courtseats. It was the first time in the history of the United States of America that this Senate failed to debate and vote on a nominee. But here we are; the damage is done. What do we do now? When an arsonist sets fire to your house, you don't let it burn because you are worried about water damage. You have to strive to put out that fire, regardless of how difficult the task. So I say to you today, we cannot accept the defeatist attitude that fails to confront the forces destroying our Republic. There are two things we must do. Mission one, we have to reform the ability of this broken Senate to serve as a legislature because, if it serves effectively as a legislature, it can serve as a counterweight to decisions of a corrupted Court. The second thing we have to do is put all options on the table and debate them for directly reforming the Court, recognizing that we are left with difficult choices on how to do that. But we have to step up. It is necessary to save our Republic. So let's take each of these missions in turn. The first is to restore the Senate. Our goal: Restore the Senate as a legislative body to serve as a counterweight to the corruption of a MAGA-majority Court. There are three massive problems currently afflicting the Senate's ability to serve as a functioning legislative body. First, we spend virtually all of our time on nominations, so much time that it keeps us from doing much legislating, even though we have a massively complex society and a lot of possibilities for making it work better. When George Washington was assembling his first administration, he had to appoint and the Senate had to confirm four Cabinet positions: Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General--four positions. Today, the Senate is responsible for confirming over 1,200 Presidential appointments to executive branch positions and commissions. Now, in the past, both parties worked to exercise the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities in a manner that minimized the amount of Senate time required. Most were done by unanimous consent late at night, when practically anyone was here because most nominations are not ones to which anyone has an objection. In the entire decade of the 1960s, there was one vote required to close debate on a nominee--one, in an entire 10 years. But, last decade, that number went to 545. Now, it is like every nomination. Virtually every nomination we have to file to close debate and vote to close debate before we can vote on the nominee. And do you know what? The way it works, you can also require 30 hours of debate after the vote to close debate succeeds. So the rules, which were designed for exceptional situations where there is a significant objection, are now used as partisan obstruction. Democrats are in the minority. They want to tie up the Republicans. So they have little time to legislate. Republicans are in the minority. They want to tie up the Democrats. So they have little time to legislate. They want each other to fail, partly because they disagree and partly because they know if the other side succeeds in making something work, the voters might reward them at the ballot box. We have to massively streamline this nomination process. We have to--100 Senators--work together, not do what is best for us when we are in the majority and oppose it when we are in the minority, or vice versa. We all have a responsibility to completely streamline that process so we can return to being a legislature. The second big problem for the Senate is that the rules provide a complicated, time-consuming process for debating and voting on whether to debate a bill. It involves a motion to proceed or requirement to close debate on the motion to proceed and whose nomination is up to 30 hours of additional of debate--all on the question of whether to debate. You have 100 capable people sent here by their constituents in their various States to solve problems for America, not to spend a week debating whether to debate a single bill. That could be a week spent debating the amendments that could make the bill better, a week spent considering individual pieces of the bills so the public knows where we stand and there is public accountability. But, instead, we have partisan paralysis. A completely dysfunctional Senate, that is what we have. We have to change the rules to stop this completely meritless waste of the time and efforts of 100 Senators. It is an easy solution: 1 hour spent debating whether to debate a bill, and then a simple majority vote, either we go to the bill or we don't; easy solution. One hour makes much more sense than 1 week. The third big problem this Senate Chamber faces is a secret silent filibuster. Under the Senate rule--and by the way, the term ``filibuster'' is really inappropriate because this involves no speaking of any kind. Under the Senate rule, 41 Senators can, operating as a block, veto the opportunity for the Senate to debate a bill, veto the opportunity for the Senate to consider an amendment, and veto the ability, after amendments have been considered, to have a final vote on the bill. It is the triple veto: three opportunities for the minority to blockade the majority from being able to consider legislation to address the issues facing America. And both parties have attempted to use it when they are in the minority. We have to restore the ability to actually debate. It is exactly what the Founders feared. When I lay out that 41 can block and veto these 3 steps of the process, it means to reverse it--that 60 out of 100, a supermajority, has to agree to go forward through each of those three steps. The Founders warned us: Never allow the minority to make the decisions by requiring a supermajority. Don't to it. That is why James Madison said that, with a supermajority, when ``the general good might require new laws . . . the principle of free government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.'' It is why Alexander Hamilton warned that a supermajority requirement would result in ``tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.'' He also warned that ``the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed''--the principle of supermajority--``is a history impotence, perplexity, and disorder.'' Now, you may wonder if the Founders had simply read about someone somewhere requiring a supermajority for legislature and said it didn't work very well and thought, We had better warn Americans not to do this. No, they were writing from their direct experience because, as they were drafting and debating our 1787 Constitution, they were actually in the middle of living through the impotence and incompetence of the Confederation Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded our 1787 Constitution, the Congress had to have a supermajority on every provision; meaning, the position of the minority could prevail over the position of the majority. The result was paralysis on the most fundamental issues they faced. They failed to raise the funds to pay the pensions of the veterans who spilled their blood in the Revolutionary War that created this Nation. They failed to raise the funds to put down Shays' Rebellion. Well, today, we have not one stage of veto, like they faced in the Confederation Congress, we have the triple veto power under the current secret, silent filibuster, and we are seeing the same impotence, the same paralysis, the same partisanship that it drives. The triple veto power of the minority is destroying the Senate to address challenges facing America, and there are a lot of them. We have got the climate crisis that is literally setting our country on fire. Right now, at this very moment, around 40 million Americans across the Plains and the Mississippi Valley are dealing with alerts for dangerous and intense heat, while firefighters are confronting 89 large fires across 12 States. And as of last week, four times as much acreage has burned this year as last year at this moment. And it is not just America, of course. Across the Atlantic, Europe is going through a recordbreaking heat wave, reaching temperatures some of thoseplaces have never seen and causing wildfires to burn in France and Spain and Italy and Greece. Congress should be immersed in considering bills to address the climate crisis that is damaging communities across our country, and not just through fires but through rising sea levels and rising erosion, through pine beetle infestations and mosquito infestations, through stronger hurricanes and stronger tornadoes, and, certainly, through the power of multiyear droughts. But we are not because the triple veto of the silent, secret filibuster afflicting this body is blocking us from doing so. We have a housing crisis. Out-of-control rents and prices make it impossible for millions of Americans to afford a decent home to rent or buy. And colleagues have one idea after another about how we should address it, but because we are paralyzed and our process is taken up, our time is taken up with nominations and debating whether to debate and we have the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster, they can't move forward. And we aren't debating, discussing, and hopefully passing measures that can make a difference. And Americans are outraged by the prices they pay on drugs, which are so much higher than any other developed country. Eighty percent of Americans say: Do something about it. And I think the other 20 percent don't realize how much we are getting ripped off. And Americans know we should get the best price because we invest the most in the research and development that creates these drugs, not the worst price, and they are absolutely right. And we would have passed legislation by now to get the best prices in the developed world, but we are blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. And now States are passing laws to block targeted groups of Americans from voting. We can fix that by passing S. 1, the For the People Act, or its reincarnation, the Freedom to Vote Act, but we can't because it was blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. Let me be absolutely clear. The single most effective way we can counterbalance an out-of-control Court with a MAGA agenda is to have a functioning Senate. That is the most immediate remedy available to us to respond to this terrible affliction undermining our Republic. If the Court says there is no problem with gerrymandered districts, where politicians choose their constituents instead of Americans choosing their leaders, as they did in the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, well, a reformed, restored Senate could pass legislation to require nonpartisan commissions to draw legislative districts. At least we could have a robust debate over it, maybe pass a few amendments modifying it in different forms--or perhaps find some other solution--if we had a functioning legislative process. If the Court says there is no limit to dark money from corporations and billionaires who flood and drown out the voices of ordinary Americans and campaigns, as they did in the 2010 Citizens United decision, a reformed, restored Senate could pass the DISCLOSE Act to shine a light on every dollar and where it is coming from in American campaigns. If the Court says that anyone who wants to be able to carry a concealed weapon should be able to like they did in their New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, a restored, functioning Senate could pass stronger gun safety laws that most Americans support, like ending the background check loophole--when guns are bought and sold by unlicensed parties online or at gun shows--or by outlawing the kinds of large magazines that carry 30 or more bullets that are often used in mass shootings. And when the Court went to abnormally great lengths to decide in last month's West Virginia v. EPA that the Agency can't regulate fossil carbon or fossil methane emissions, a functioning Senate would be able to step up and create the programs designed to speed up the transition to renewable energy, which would have the added benefit of ending our addiction to oil and dropping the prices at the pump, and it would keep money out of the hands of dictators in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. But the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster has blocked us from doing so. The remedy is not to eliminate the filibuster. The remedy is to reform it. The right reform is to adopt the public, talking filibuster. The talking filibuster would reassert the fundamental principle of legislative conduct: the Senate Code, adopted by the original Senate. Under that code, the Senate listened to every Senator's perspective, and then it took a vote on the issue, be it a bill or be it an amendment. That was the Senate Code. The original rules provided that every Senator had the right to speak twice to a question. It was rule No. 4 in the original rules. It is in our rules today. But the spirit of that code--listening to each Senator and then voting, with the majority winning, not losing--that part is gone. Now, it is the minority that can exercise a triple veto, a veto absolutely exactly the opposite of what the Founders said to us. They said: Don't do it. And we have done it in triplicate form, paralyzing this place and accentuating the temptation of yielding to partisanship rather than problem-solving. Jefferson did say that this rule, this code of listening to every Senator and voting, should not be abused. In fact, he said this in his manual for rules in 1801: No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. It worked for the Founders. They exercised some self-control, so much so that they didn't need the rule that they had to close debate. They just simply listened to everyone with mutual respect and then said: OK. Let's take a vote. You want to see that in action today? Watch the committee process on a bill with amendments. There is no one filibustering, speaking forever. There is no one requiring a supermajority to close debate in committee. They operate--we operate--in committee, much like the original Senate, and it works pretty well, but we have completely lost that discipline when it comes to debate here on our floor. So the early Senate had a rule for the previous question motion, to close debate or accelerate the closure of debate. And when they rewrote the rule book--and Aaron Burr was in charge of it--in 1806, they dropped the rule because they never used it, didn't feel they ever needed it. Well, we need to reclaim that vision, and our rules have gotten so crazy, so out of whack, that we encourage partisanship and paralysis rather than problem-solving. Let's fix that. So let's have the talking filibuster. The talking filibuster says, Yes, you can speak on the issue. We will listen to everyone. You can speak twice. But then we vote, and the majority wins--not a supermajority required. The minority doesn't win over the majority. The majority wins. That was the Senate. That was the design of our Constitution that we have the responsibility to restore because we took an oath to the Constitution. So let's restore it. And that talking filibuster encourages bipartisan problem-solving. The minority, be it the Democratic or Republican, that wants to slow things down for leverage, they can. So they have significant leverage, but, on the other hand, they have an incentive to negotiate because they are not sure how long they can maintain continuous debate. And that is the heart of the talking filibuster: maintaining continuous debate. If there is a break in debate, you go to the vote. Meanwhile, the majority has an incentive to compromise because they know the minority can tie this place up on a single bill for week after week, and they can't afford to have that much time taken over a single bill. So the talking filibuster restores an incentive for compromise and bipartisan problem-solving and, in the end, restores the vision that the majority makes the decision, not the minority. In the end, it gives the minority a voice, it gives the minority massive leverage, but it takes away their veto. That is the right way to legislate in a democracy. As I noted before, fixing the Senate is probably the best immediate tool we have for repairing the damage from the Supreme Court across the grounds. But we also have to consider every possible remedy to restore the Court itself, to restore a Court that calls the balls and strikes on the Constitution, defendingits core principles, and recognizes it is not there to legislate--not to legislate on the left side, not to legislate on the right side. They are there to defend the Constitution. Well, reforming the Court won't be easily done. But President Biden did convene a Commission to explore the option, and that Commission has produced a lengthy, lengthy report. This is part of it: The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, December of last year. I encourage all my colleagues to read this and consider the ideas in it. In this 300-page report, the Commission does review the history of how the Court has been in different phases, and its size has changed all the time because that is not established in the Constitution. It has been as few as 5, and it has been more than 10. There was not nine locked in like it is now. And, certainly, one of the ideas they review is adjustment to the size of the Court. Many people have said that is something to look at to balance what has happened with the Court, with the stolen Supreme Court seat and a decision by several Justices to be a legislature rather than a court. Well, that is one idea. Another is implementing term limits or a mandatory retirement age because, when the Constitution was first written, people weren't living the long lives they have today, and they didn't stay in the Court forever. In 1787, the Founders wrote that Justices would hold their seats during good behavior. Now, I am not sure that every Justice across these grounds has been engaged in good behavior when they are choosing to legislate rather than to rule on the defense of the Constitution, but there is no easy way to remove them from the Court for misbehavior. But one possibility is for the Court members to rotate out with term limits of some kind. That is one possibility. In much of our history, Justices only served an average of 15 years on the Court. The average is now 26 and getting longer. And, did you know, America is the only constitutional democracy that gives lifetime presence on the Court, that doesn't have either a term limit or a mandatory retirement age? This report, this Commission, has other ideas in it: rotating membership on the Court with judges selected from the circuit court. You know, the original Supreme Court, they served as circuit court writers. They went out and made decisions across this country. They didn't just sit in a room in the capital. So there is some precedent for that idea. And others point out that there is the power to restrict the Court's jurisdiction. There are pros and cons for these various ideas, and our commitment needs to be to examine them. The American public is open to examining them. Earlier this week, the FOX News poll reported that 66 percent of the folks in their poll support an 18-year term for Justices, and 71 percent support a mandatory retirement age. So the American people are open to trying to fix the challenge with the Court. We have to be open to fixing it, and we need to look at every option and idea very carefully to ensure that the highest Court in our land fulfills the vision for it in our Constitution. And the vision in our Constitution was not that it would be an unelected super-legislature. Colleagues, this is a perilous moment for our Republic. It is a moment when the will of the people is being overrun by an extreme agenda of a Court legislating from the Bench, imposing their narrow and precedent-destroying will on all Americans. We have to restore the ability of this Senate to operate as a legislature that can be a counterbalance to what the Court does, and we must thoughtfully consider every proposal for reforming the Court directly. We can and we must act before it is too late. We can't stand by and watch the continuous disintegration of our Republic. Our oath to the Constitution demands that we protect these institutions and repair them when they go off track. And when we do, the next July 4, we can all join together and celebrate the restoration of our paralyzed and partisan Senate into an actual legislative body. We can celebrate the restoration of Americans' rights that are being continuously stripped away across the grounds by the Supreme Court. We can have a renewed belief and confidence in the integrity of all of our institutions and our democratic form of governance. That would be a moment justifying a massive celebration next July 4. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | null | 4,764 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, on July 4, we celebrated the founding of our Nation, as we do every year. But when I woke up on this July 4, I had a strange thought, a thought I never had before, the question of, What kind of country are we celebrating? I have always had immense pride in the founding vision of our Nation, in that vision of equality, of opportunity for all, of freedom of religion, of equal justice under the law, of equal representation, and, most importantly, of government of, by, and for the people. Our journey as a nation over nearly 250 years has been a difficult journey of moving toward full implementation of this vision. That is an inspiring journey--a journey I have been proud to witness, a journey I have been proud to be a part of. But just days before this year's July 4 celebration, we saw the conclusion of the Supreme Court's latest judicial term--a term over which the Court displayed a far different vision for America: one with devastating repercussions that will reverberate in the lives of countless Americans for decades to come. For years now--actually, for decades, we have watched a steady, relentless effort by rightwing extremists to rig the courts so they can transform America and American society as we have known it. Their big goal is corporations over people and their second goal is to implement conservative cultural policy over individual freedom and liberty. Now, with this Court's recent decisions, we are left with an inescapable conclusion: The extremists have succeeded. The Court is now operating as an unelected super-legislature with a MAGA political agenda. Their decisions this term read like planks out of the Republican Party platform. Here is what the MAGA Court's vision is for our Nation. It is a vision that obliterates the right to privacy, giving an overbearing Federal Government the power to be in the medical exam room making reproductive health decisions for American women, when the only people who should be in the exam room, under an ``of and by the people'' Republic is the woman, her doctor, and whomever else she chooses to invite--her partner, her friend, or her religious adviser. This Court's vision is a vision that embraces never-ending gun violence, stripping Congress and the States ofthe ability to make commonsense gun safety laws. It is a vision of a nation where public schools can impose religion on their students. So much for freedom of religion and separation of church and State. It is a vision of a nation where wrongfully incarcerated Americans don't have the right to prove their innocence and can't find justice if their Miranda rights were violated. So much for the principle of equal justice under law, the very principle carved into stone above the doors of the Supreme Court. In fact, if you go out this door and out the front steps, you can see those words while standing here on the steps of the Senate. This Court's vision is of a nation where the Court strips the Federal Government of its legally enacted power to regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane pollution that is destroying our Nation and our planet. It is a vision where the powerful corrupt the integrity of our elections with gerrymandering and dark money and measures to prevent targeted groups of Americans from voting. This vision is a vision for a government by and for the powerful, not by and for the people. This vision in which the Supreme Court becomes a superlegislature for a MAGA agenda infuriates me. It infuriates me because I believe in government by and for the people, not by and for the powerful. It infuriates me because I know the pain that these decisions will inflict on millions of Americans--the pain of a woman forced by a State government to carry a fetus to term that was conceived through rape or incest or the pain of any woman, for that matter, who simply is unprepared to be pregnant or become a parent; the pain of every single person who will have to mourn the death of a loved one lost to an ever-growing epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings like we saw in Uvalde and in Highland Park and in countless other communities with more than one mass shooting per day; the pain of the citizens blocked from the ballot box, effectively denied their most fundamental right as Americans because of voter suppression schemes enacted in many States over this past year; the pain of students in our public schools pressured to participate in religious acts in conflict with their own beliefs; the pain of rural Americans, ranchers, and farmers whose farms and ranches will be lost to fire and drought because the Court says the Federal Government cannot regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane causing climate chaos. And I am infuriated because I know more Supreme Court decisions like these are coming from the six MAGA Justices on the Court. They want to cement their vision of America through superlegislative powers rather than calling the balls and strikes defending the Constitution, which is their job. They have announced that next term they are going to hear a case on the fringe doctrine known as the independent State legislature doctrine. It has been considered an extremist idea, which says only State legislatures have the power to make decisions about Federal elections and how to appoint electors. State courts would have no power to ensure checks and balances or decide which decisions about elections violate a State constitution or ignore the will of the voters, nor could State Governors veto such legislative decisions. And that is just the start. Justice Thomas himself said in his concurring opinion that, based on the reasoning in Dobbs, he wants the Court to consider a whole host of other rights that have been secured and protected by previous Courts, including the possibility of striking down the right to intimacy and marriage for same-sex couples and the right to contraception. Make no mistake, this is not some sudden occurrence. It is exactly what the Federalist Society has been working toward for decades. Before joining the Court in 1972, Lewis Powell wrote about the need to rebuild the power of industrial elites and fight back ``from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians'' against progressive changes in society. In outlining a plan for rebuilding the power of Big Business, he declared that, with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for achieving that goal. That is exactly why, as majority leader in 2017, Senator McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat from one President so another President could fill it. He stole it in 2016, and he filled it in 2017 with MAGA Justice Neil Gorsuch. It is why, in 2018, Leader McConnell completely ignored credible accounts of sexual assault and rushed through a confirmation without giving Senators access to the nominee's full records and bypassing committee quorum rules to fill another seat with MAGA Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And it is why, when a seat opened up in another election year, 2020, just weeks before the voters would vote, Leader McConnell completely reversed his argument that he had used to justify the theft of a Supreme Court seat in 2016, and he rammed through the nomination of MAGA Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The Republican Party has won one popular vote for President in the last 30 years but has appointed two-thirds of the sitting Justices, who now see it as their job to become a super-legislature for a cultural agenda and corporate power. In one of his columns, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post described the resulting unelected, unaccountable majority of Supreme Court Justices as a ``junta''--a word used to describe authoritarian leaders who rule through edicts rather than through legislative determination or deliberation on constitutional principles. It is hard to argue with Eugene Robinson's characterization. In spite of what the vast majority of Americans want--the protection of a woman's right to full reproductive healthcare and more gun safety, not less, and free and fair elections--the Court's MAGA majority has chosen to rule by Supreme Court edict to inflict their narrow preferences for society on hundreds of millions of Americans. And they are not just using the regular process for considering cases. Over the past 5 years, we have seen a monumental shift in the Court's use of emergency orders--the so-called shadow docket--to enact sweeping decisions on the American people. These cases don't get the full process we are familiar with--formal briefings, formal hearings, lengthy deliberations, and opinion writings--because it is argued that the applicant would suffer ``irreparable harm'' if their request were not immediately granted. The shadow docket decisions, by the way, are usually unsigned and unexplained. In the past, they have essentially involved death penalty cases--cases of literal life and death--of pretty much extreme importance to the applicant because, if someone is executed before their case is heard, they do suffer ``irreparable harm''--the standard. Then, about 5 years ago, we started to see a big shift in the emergency cases being taken up and in the substances of them as well. We have seen the shadow docket used to stop the Federal Government from implementing a vaccine and testing mandate on businesses to protect public health in the middle of an unprecedented global health crisis that has killed more than a million Americans. We have seen it used to uphold a Texas law banning abortion after 6 weeks. We have seen it used when a lower court blocked Alabama's congressional map because it violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black voters. The Court said: You have got to draw a new map that is fair. The Supreme Court stepped in with their shadow docket and said: No. Alabama can use this faulty map that dilutes the power of Black Americans. In this situation, the Court didn't stop the infliction of harm; they inflicted the harm on Black Americans, who want fair maps, who deserve fair maps for voting in our democracy. That gerrymandered map is now in place to disenfranchise Black voters in this November's election because of the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket. It is hard to see how any of these cases met the test for the shadow docket. The state of abuse of the shadow docket has gotten so bad and so blatant that even Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Court, joined a dissent in a case reinstating a Trump administration Clean Water Act regulation limiting Federal protections for streams and wetlands. This dissentstated that the majority's decision ``renders the court's emergency docket,'' meaning the shadow docket, ``not for emergencies at all . . . . The docket becomes only another place for merits determinations--except made without full briefing and argument.'' When the Supreme Court's Chief Justice says the shadow docket is being abused, you know it is true. This MAGA Court is so determined to impose their legislative priorities and values on our country that they have abandoned one of the core principles of American jurisprudence, going back to even before there was a United States of America, and that is that the Court only rules when there is an actual dispute or controversy in question. In their eagerness to cripple the Federal Government's ability to fight fossil carbon pollution, the MAGA Justices weighed in on a regulation that had never been enforced--a regulation that had been withdrawn by President Trump and a regulation which President Biden had indicated was never going to be reinstated. Even the utilities that would have been regulated didn't want the Supreme Court to decide this case. This out-of-control MAGA Supreme Court super-legislature wanted to legislate--and legislate they did--violating a core principle that the Court does not address moot cases. Moot cases are cases where there is nothing still in dispute, and this certainly was the case that this case was as dead or as moot as it could be because nobody could be impacted by a rule that doesn't exist. Why did the Court take up this case? Well, we may not be able to specify the exact reasoning by each Justice, but the effect is clear. By taking up this case, the Court furthered the MAGA policy agenda. Their ruling handcuffed Federal authorities' ability to pursue future limitations on pollutions from fossil fuels like carbon dioxide and fossil methane. This is to the enormous benefit of the fossil fuel billionaires who funded the massive dark money campaigns that supported these Justices' confirmations. That situation of their breaking precedent to benefit the fossil billionaires, who had just funded their confirmation campaigns, reeks of corruption. When generations ahead of us look back at this moment, I have no doubt--especially when they look at this year, 2022, and what the Court did in a single year--they will look back with a sense of profound disbelief--disbelief--like that disbelief that we experience when we look back on cases like Dred Scott, which dehumanized Black Americans and legitimized slavery, or Plessy v. Ferguson, which locked in 60 years of vicious discrimination and racial terrorism under a separate but equal philosophy. The disbelief that future generations will have will be directed at Dobbs--a decision this year in which the Court obliterated privacy and put an overbearing government in charge of women's reproductive health. They will have the disbelief that, in Kennedy v. Bremerton--decided this year--the Court destroyed freedom of religion in our public schools; the disbelief that, in West Virginia v. EPA--a decision this year--the Court violated centuries of precedent to rule on a regulation that is no longer on books, with the effect--perhaps the goal--of limiting the future regulation of greenhouse gas pollution; the disbelief in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen--decided this year--that the Court ruled that a State legislature can't require folks to have a good reason to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Let me be clear. This activist, extremist MAGA Court faces a legitimacy crisis, and a legitimacy crisis for the Court is a crisis for our democratic Republic. Part of that illegitimacy is Justices of the Supreme Court selectively using a doctrine of so-called originalism to justify their politically inspired decisions. The doctrine of originalism is based on a reasonable argument, one on which you and I would say makes sense: a goal of understanding what the Founders meant when they wrote what they wrote in our Constitution more than two centuries ago. But if that effort is applied selectively, it simply becomes a measure to justify, after the fact, where the Justices want it to come out. They use it when it works, and they abandon it when it doesn't. For example, the Founders wrote the Second Amendment to ensure that members of well-regulated militias had access to their rifles, but the so-called originalists on the Court cast originalism aside, declaring that the Founders wrote that clause to ensure that nonmilitia members had the right to bring assault rifles--that didn't exist in 1787--onto subways, which didn't exist in 1787. That is bogus originalism in its purist form. Consider this: Corporations, as we know them today, did not exist in 1787. Yet the so-called originalists on the Court insist that the Founders' vision of the First Amendment, to protect freedom of speech, gives corporations speech rights even though the word ``corporation'' doesn't appear in the Constitution--a point that they use when they want to take an originalist argument: that the Founders had to have it be something written in the Constitution and be something they discussed and something they considered and something they envisioned. None of those are true. Not a one of them is true in this case. The MAGA Court also claims that a corporation is a person, which no Founder would ever have argued. They didn't even know what a ``corporation'' was because they didn't exist in this form that we have now. The MAGA Court goes on to claim that the members comprising the corporate personhood--those are the stockholders of a corporation--have absolutely no right to know how that corporation that they are part of spends their money. This is absurdity stacked on the fallacy that a corporation is a person. I have yet to see and yet to hear any plausible explanation as to how the MAGA Justices can be confident that the Founders intended for billionaire CEOs to hijack the accumulated wealth of their stockholders without their stockholders' knowledge or permission or opportunity to know what is being said and to use that money as speech and to spend it on secretly funded campaigns, including campaigns to confirm Supreme Court Justices. The problem we face, colleagues, isn't just a MAGA-majority Court enacting terrible policy rather than defending the balls and strikes against the Constitution. The problem is greater if the highest Court in the land loses its legitimacy, the law itself loses its legitimacy. If the American people see the Supreme Court Justices making clear that the law has no meaning other than their political preferences, then the law is not the foundation for our society that it is supposed to be. We have seen with deadly results on January 6, 2021, the consequences to our policies, to our politics, and to our society when the rule of law is replaced by violence and power as the organizing principle for society. The Court is essential in a society based on the rule of law, and it is essential to have a Court that honors the law rather than trying to write the law. This MAGA majority and its desire, and operation as a super-legislature--unelected, lifetime appointments--is a dire threat to our Republic. Here in Congress, we must not only shine a light--a spotlight--on the threat; we must stop the runaway MAGA Court from corrupting the rule of law and try to restore the legitimate role of the Court as a panel defending our Constitution. Some will say there is no way to restore the Court and that any strategy for restoring the Court will simply compound the problems we are now facing, and I agree that there is no simple way to restore the legitimacy of the Court. Back in 2017, when then-Majority Leader McConnell was striving to complete the theft of the Supreme Court seat taken from the administration of Barack Obama, I took to this floor for 15\1/2\ hours with one simple message: Don't do it. Don't do it because, if you do, you will damage the legitimacy of the Court and there will be no simple path, no easy remedy to restore the Court's legitimacy. But Leader McConnell, he doused the Supreme Court with gasoline on that day, and he set it on fire. He did the damage. I stood here for 15\1/2\ hours and said don't do it. You know, we take an oath of office to a Constitution. That involves defending the Court, not delegitimizing the Court, not stealing Supreme Courtseats. It was the first time in the history of the United States of America that this Senate failed to debate and vote on a nominee. But here we are; the damage is done. What do we do now? When an arsonist sets fire to your house, you don't let it burn because you are worried about water damage. You have to strive to put out that fire, regardless of how difficult the task. So I say to you today, we cannot accept the defeatist attitude that fails to confront the forces destroying our Republic. There are two things we must do. Mission one, we have to reform the ability of this broken Senate to serve as a legislature because, if it serves effectively as a legislature, it can serve as a counterweight to decisions of a corrupted Court. The second thing we have to do is put all options on the table and debate them for directly reforming the Court, recognizing that we are left with difficult choices on how to do that. But we have to step up. It is necessary to save our Republic. So let's take each of these missions in turn. The first is to restore the Senate. Our goal: Restore the Senate as a legislative body to serve as a counterweight to the corruption of a MAGA-majority Court. There are three massive problems currently afflicting the Senate's ability to serve as a functioning legislative body. First, we spend virtually all of our time on nominations, so much time that it keeps us from doing much legislating, even though we have a massively complex society and a lot of possibilities for making it work better. When George Washington was assembling his first administration, he had to appoint and the Senate had to confirm four Cabinet positions: Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General--four positions. Today, the Senate is responsible for confirming over 1,200 Presidential appointments to executive branch positions and commissions. Now, in the past, both parties worked to exercise the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities in a manner that minimized the amount of Senate time required. Most were done by unanimous consent late at night, when practically anyone was here because most nominations are not ones to which anyone has an objection. In the entire decade of the 1960s, there was one vote required to close debate on a nominee--one, in an entire 10 years. But, last decade, that number went to 545. Now, it is like every nomination. Virtually every nomination we have to file to close debate and vote to close debate before we can vote on the nominee. And do you know what? The way it works, you can also require 30 hours of debate after the vote to close debate succeeds. So the rules, which were designed for exceptional situations where there is a significant objection, are now used as partisan obstruction. Democrats are in the minority. They want to tie up the Republicans. So they have little time to legislate. Republicans are in the minority. They want to tie up the Democrats. So they have little time to legislate. They want each other to fail, partly because they disagree and partly because they know if the other side succeeds in making something work, the voters might reward them at the ballot box. We have to massively streamline this nomination process. We have to--100 Senators--work together, not do what is best for us when we are in the majority and oppose it when we are in the minority, or vice versa. We all have a responsibility to completely streamline that process so we can return to being a legislature. The second big problem for the Senate is that the rules provide a complicated, time-consuming process for debating and voting on whether to debate a bill. It involves a motion to proceed or requirement to close debate on the motion to proceed and whose nomination is up to 30 hours of additional of debate--all on the question of whether to debate. You have 100 capable people sent here by their constituents in their various States to solve problems for America, not to spend a week debating whether to debate a single bill. That could be a week spent debating the amendments that could make the bill better, a week spent considering individual pieces of the bills so the public knows where we stand and there is public accountability. But, instead, we have partisan paralysis. A completely dysfunctional Senate, that is what we have. We have to change the rules to stop this completely meritless waste of the time and efforts of 100 Senators. It is an easy solution: 1 hour spent debating whether to debate a bill, and then a simple majority vote, either we go to the bill or we don't; easy solution. One hour makes much more sense than 1 week. The third big problem this Senate Chamber faces is a secret silent filibuster. Under the Senate rule--and by the way, the term ``filibuster'' is really inappropriate because this involves no speaking of any kind. Under the Senate rule, 41 Senators can, operating as a block, veto the opportunity for the Senate to debate a bill, veto the opportunity for the Senate to consider an amendment, and veto the ability, after amendments have been considered, to have a final vote on the bill. It is the triple veto: three opportunities for the minority to blockade the majority from being able to consider legislation to address the issues facing America. And both parties have attempted to use it when they are in the minority. We have to restore the ability to actually debate. It is exactly what the Founders feared. When I lay out that 41 can block and veto these 3 steps of the process, it means to reverse it--that 60 out of 100, a supermajority, has to agree to go forward through each of those three steps. The Founders warned us: Never allow the minority to make the decisions by requiring a supermajority. Don't to it. That is why James Madison said that, with a supermajority, when ``the general good might require new laws . . . the principle of free government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.'' It is why Alexander Hamilton warned that a supermajority requirement would result in ``tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.'' He also warned that ``the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed''--the principle of supermajority--``is a history impotence, perplexity, and disorder.'' Now, you may wonder if the Founders had simply read about someone somewhere requiring a supermajority for legislature and said it didn't work very well and thought, We had better warn Americans not to do this. No, they were writing from their direct experience because, as they were drafting and debating our 1787 Constitution, they were actually in the middle of living through the impotence and incompetence of the Confederation Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded our 1787 Constitution, the Congress had to have a supermajority on every provision; meaning, the position of the minority could prevail over the position of the majority. The result was paralysis on the most fundamental issues they faced. They failed to raise the funds to pay the pensions of the veterans who spilled their blood in the Revolutionary War that created this Nation. They failed to raise the funds to put down Shays' Rebellion. Well, today, we have not one stage of veto, like they faced in the Confederation Congress, we have the triple veto power under the current secret, silent filibuster, and we are seeing the same impotence, the same paralysis, the same partisanship that it drives. The triple veto power of the minority is destroying the Senate to address challenges facing America, and there are a lot of them. We have got the climate crisis that is literally setting our country on fire. Right now, at this very moment, around 40 million Americans across the Plains and the Mississippi Valley are dealing with alerts for dangerous and intense heat, while firefighters are confronting 89 large fires across 12 States. And as of last week, four times as much acreage has burned this year as last year at this moment. And it is not just America, of course. Across the Atlantic, Europe is going through a recordbreaking heat wave, reaching temperatures some of thoseplaces have never seen and causing wildfires to burn in France and Spain and Italy and Greece. Congress should be immersed in considering bills to address the climate crisis that is damaging communities across our country, and not just through fires but through rising sea levels and rising erosion, through pine beetle infestations and mosquito infestations, through stronger hurricanes and stronger tornadoes, and, certainly, through the power of multiyear droughts. But we are not because the triple veto of the silent, secret filibuster afflicting this body is blocking us from doing so. We have a housing crisis. Out-of-control rents and prices make it impossible for millions of Americans to afford a decent home to rent or buy. And colleagues have one idea after another about how we should address it, but because we are paralyzed and our process is taken up, our time is taken up with nominations and debating whether to debate and we have the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster, they can't move forward. And we aren't debating, discussing, and hopefully passing measures that can make a difference. And Americans are outraged by the prices they pay on drugs, which are so much higher than any other developed country. Eighty percent of Americans say: Do something about it. And I think the other 20 percent don't realize how much we are getting ripped off. And Americans know we should get the best price because we invest the most in the research and development that creates these drugs, not the worst price, and they are absolutely right. And we would have passed legislation by now to get the best prices in the developed world, but we are blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. And now States are passing laws to block targeted groups of Americans from voting. We can fix that by passing S. 1, the For the People Act, or its reincarnation, the Freedom to Vote Act, but we can't because it was blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. Let me be absolutely clear. The single most effective way we can counterbalance an out-of-control Court with a MAGA agenda is to have a functioning Senate. That is the most immediate remedy available to us to respond to this terrible affliction undermining our Republic. If the Court says there is no problem with gerrymandered districts, where politicians choose their constituents instead of Americans choosing their leaders, as they did in the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, well, a reformed, restored Senate could pass legislation to require nonpartisan commissions to draw legislative districts. At least we could have a robust debate over it, maybe pass a few amendments modifying it in different forms--or perhaps find some other solution--if we had a functioning legislative process. If the Court says there is no limit to dark money from corporations and billionaires who flood and drown out the voices of ordinary Americans and campaigns, as they did in the 2010 Citizens United decision, a reformed, restored Senate could pass the DISCLOSE Act to shine a light on every dollar and where it is coming from in American campaigns. If the Court says that anyone who wants to be able to carry a concealed weapon should be able to like they did in their New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, a restored, functioning Senate could pass stronger gun safety laws that most Americans support, like ending the background check loophole--when guns are bought and sold by unlicensed parties online or at gun shows--or by outlawing the kinds of large magazines that carry 30 or more bullets that are often used in mass shootings. And when the Court went to abnormally great lengths to decide in last month's West Virginia v. EPA that the Agency can't regulate fossil carbon or fossil methane emissions, a functioning Senate would be able to step up and create the programs designed to speed up the transition to renewable energy, which would have the added benefit of ending our addiction to oil and dropping the prices at the pump, and it would keep money out of the hands of dictators in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. But the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster has blocked us from doing so. The remedy is not to eliminate the filibuster. The remedy is to reform it. The right reform is to adopt the public, talking filibuster. The talking filibuster would reassert the fundamental principle of legislative conduct: the Senate Code, adopted by the original Senate. Under that code, the Senate listened to every Senator's perspective, and then it took a vote on the issue, be it a bill or be it an amendment. That was the Senate Code. The original rules provided that every Senator had the right to speak twice to a question. It was rule No. 4 in the original rules. It is in our rules today. But the spirit of that code--listening to each Senator and then voting, with the majority winning, not losing--that part is gone. Now, it is the minority that can exercise a triple veto, a veto absolutely exactly the opposite of what the Founders said to us. They said: Don't do it. And we have done it in triplicate form, paralyzing this place and accentuating the temptation of yielding to partisanship rather than problem-solving. Jefferson did say that this rule, this code of listening to every Senator and voting, should not be abused. In fact, he said this in his manual for rules in 1801: No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. It worked for the Founders. They exercised some self-control, so much so that they didn't need the rule that they had to close debate. They just simply listened to everyone with mutual respect and then said: OK. Let's take a vote. You want to see that in action today? Watch the committee process on a bill with amendments. There is no one filibustering, speaking forever. There is no one requiring a supermajority to close debate in committee. They operate--we operate--in committee, much like the original Senate, and it works pretty well, but we have completely lost that discipline when it comes to debate here on our floor. So the early Senate had a rule for the previous question motion, to close debate or accelerate the closure of debate. And when they rewrote the rule book--and Aaron Burr was in charge of it--in 1806, they dropped the rule because they never used it, didn't feel they ever needed it. Well, we need to reclaim that vision, and our rules have gotten so crazy, so out of whack, that we encourage partisanship and paralysis rather than problem-solving. Let's fix that. So let's have the talking filibuster. The talking filibuster says, Yes, you can speak on the issue. We will listen to everyone. You can speak twice. But then we vote, and the majority wins--not a supermajority required. The minority doesn't win over the majority. The majority wins. That was the Senate. That was the design of our Constitution that we have the responsibility to restore because we took an oath to the Constitution. So let's restore it. And that talking filibuster encourages bipartisan problem-solving. The minority, be it the Democratic or Republican, that wants to slow things down for leverage, they can. So they have significant leverage, but, on the other hand, they have an incentive to negotiate because they are not sure how long they can maintain continuous debate. And that is the heart of the talking filibuster: maintaining continuous debate. If there is a break in debate, you go to the vote. Meanwhile, the majority has an incentive to compromise because they know the minority can tie this place up on a single bill for week after week, and they can't afford to have that much time taken over a single bill. So the talking filibuster restores an incentive for compromise and bipartisan problem-solving and, in the end, restores the vision that the majority makes the decision, not the minority. In the end, it gives the minority a voice, it gives the minority massive leverage, but it takes away their veto. That is the right way to legislate in a democracy. As I noted before, fixing the Senate is probably the best immediate tool we have for repairing the damage from the Supreme Court across the grounds. But we also have to consider every possible remedy to restore the Court itself, to restore a Court that calls the balls and strikes on the Constitution, defendingits core principles, and recognizes it is not there to legislate--not to legislate on the left side, not to legislate on the right side. They are there to defend the Constitution. Well, reforming the Court won't be easily done. But President Biden did convene a Commission to explore the option, and that Commission has produced a lengthy, lengthy report. This is part of it: The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, December of last year. I encourage all my colleagues to read this and consider the ideas in it. In this 300-page report, the Commission does review the history of how the Court has been in different phases, and its size has changed all the time because that is not established in the Constitution. It has been as few as 5, and it has been more than 10. There was not nine locked in like it is now. And, certainly, one of the ideas they review is adjustment to the size of the Court. Many people have said that is something to look at to balance what has happened with the Court, with the stolen Supreme Court seat and a decision by several Justices to be a legislature rather than a court. Well, that is one idea. Another is implementing term limits or a mandatory retirement age because, when the Constitution was first written, people weren't living the long lives they have today, and they didn't stay in the Court forever. In 1787, the Founders wrote that Justices would hold their seats during good behavior. Now, I am not sure that every Justice across these grounds has been engaged in good behavior when they are choosing to legislate rather than to rule on the defense of the Constitution, but there is no easy way to remove them from the Court for misbehavior. But one possibility is for the Court members to rotate out with term limits of some kind. That is one possibility. In much of our history, Justices only served an average of 15 years on the Court. The average is now 26 and getting longer. And, did you know, America is the only constitutional democracy that gives lifetime presence on the Court, that doesn't have either a term limit or a mandatory retirement age? This report, this Commission, has other ideas in it: rotating membership on the Court with judges selected from the circuit court. You know, the original Supreme Court, they served as circuit court writers. They went out and made decisions across this country. They didn't just sit in a room in the capital. So there is some precedent for that idea. And others point out that there is the power to restrict the Court's jurisdiction. There are pros and cons for these various ideas, and our commitment needs to be to examine them. The American public is open to examining them. Earlier this week, the FOX News poll reported that 66 percent of the folks in their poll support an 18-year term for Justices, and 71 percent support a mandatory retirement age. So the American people are open to trying to fix the challenge with the Court. We have to be open to fixing it, and we need to look at every option and idea very carefully to ensure that the highest Court in our land fulfills the vision for it in our Constitution. And the vision in our Constitution was not that it would be an unelected super-legislature. Colleagues, this is a perilous moment for our Republic. It is a moment when the will of the people is being overrun by an extreme agenda of a Court legislating from the Bench, imposing their narrow and precedent-destroying will on all Americans. We have to restore the ability of this Senate to operate as a legislature that can be a counterbalance to what the Court does, and we must thoughtfully consider every proposal for reforming the Court directly. We can and we must act before it is too late. We can't stand by and watch the continuous disintegration of our Republic. Our oath to the Constitution demands that we protect these institutions and repair them when they go off track. And when we do, the next July 4, we can all join together and celebrate the restoration of our paralyzed and partisan Senate into an actual legislative body. We can celebrate the restoration of Americans' rights that are being continuously stripped away across the grounds by the Supreme Court. We can have a renewed belief and confidence in the integrity of all of our institutions and our democratic form of governance. That would be a moment justifying a massive celebration next July 4. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | null | 4,765 |
formal | extremist | null | Islamophobic | Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, on July 4, we celebrated the founding of our Nation, as we do every year. But when I woke up on this July 4, I had a strange thought, a thought I never had before, the question of, What kind of country are we celebrating? I have always had immense pride in the founding vision of our Nation, in that vision of equality, of opportunity for all, of freedom of religion, of equal justice under the law, of equal representation, and, most importantly, of government of, by, and for the people. Our journey as a nation over nearly 250 years has been a difficult journey of moving toward full implementation of this vision. That is an inspiring journey--a journey I have been proud to witness, a journey I have been proud to be a part of. But just days before this year's July 4 celebration, we saw the conclusion of the Supreme Court's latest judicial term--a term over which the Court displayed a far different vision for America: one with devastating repercussions that will reverberate in the lives of countless Americans for decades to come. For years now--actually, for decades, we have watched a steady, relentless effort by rightwing extremists to rig the courts so they can transform America and American society as we have known it. Their big goal is corporations over people and their second goal is to implement conservative cultural policy over individual freedom and liberty. Now, with this Court's recent decisions, we are left with an inescapable conclusion: The extremists have succeeded. The Court is now operating as an unelected super-legislature with a MAGA political agenda. Their decisions this term read like planks out of the Republican Party platform. Here is what the MAGA Court's vision is for our Nation. It is a vision that obliterates the right to privacy, giving an overbearing Federal Government the power to be in the medical exam room making reproductive health decisions for American women, when the only people who should be in the exam room, under an ``of and by the people'' Republic is the woman, her doctor, and whomever else she chooses to invite--her partner, her friend, or her religious adviser. This Court's vision is a vision that embraces never-ending gun violence, stripping Congress and the States ofthe ability to make commonsense gun safety laws. It is a vision of a nation where public schools can impose religion on their students. So much for freedom of religion and separation of church and State. It is a vision of a nation where wrongfully incarcerated Americans don't have the right to prove their innocence and can't find justice if their Miranda rights were violated. So much for the principle of equal justice under law, the very principle carved into stone above the doors of the Supreme Court. In fact, if you go out this door and out the front steps, you can see those words while standing here on the steps of the Senate. This Court's vision is of a nation where the Court strips the Federal Government of its legally enacted power to regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane pollution that is destroying our Nation and our planet. It is a vision where the powerful corrupt the integrity of our elections with gerrymandering and dark money and measures to prevent targeted groups of Americans from voting. This vision is a vision for a government by and for the powerful, not by and for the people. This vision in which the Supreme Court becomes a superlegislature for a MAGA agenda infuriates me. It infuriates me because I believe in government by and for the people, not by and for the powerful. It infuriates me because I know the pain that these decisions will inflict on millions of Americans--the pain of a woman forced by a State government to carry a fetus to term that was conceived through rape or incest or the pain of any woman, for that matter, who simply is unprepared to be pregnant or become a parent; the pain of every single person who will have to mourn the death of a loved one lost to an ever-growing epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings like we saw in Uvalde and in Highland Park and in countless other communities with more than one mass shooting per day; the pain of the citizens blocked from the ballot box, effectively denied their most fundamental right as Americans because of voter suppression schemes enacted in many States over this past year; the pain of students in our public schools pressured to participate in religious acts in conflict with their own beliefs; the pain of rural Americans, ranchers, and farmers whose farms and ranches will be lost to fire and drought because the Court says the Federal Government cannot regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane causing climate chaos. And I am infuriated because I know more Supreme Court decisions like these are coming from the six MAGA Justices on the Court. They want to cement their vision of America through superlegislative powers rather than calling the balls and strikes defending the Constitution, which is their job. They have announced that next term they are going to hear a case on the fringe doctrine known as the independent State legislature doctrine. It has been considered an extremist idea, which says only State legislatures have the power to make decisions about Federal elections and how to appoint electors. State courts would have no power to ensure checks and balances or decide which decisions about elections violate a State constitution or ignore the will of the voters, nor could State Governors veto such legislative decisions. And that is just the start. Justice Thomas himself said in his concurring opinion that, based on the reasoning in Dobbs, he wants the Court to consider a whole host of other rights that have been secured and protected by previous Courts, including the possibility of striking down the right to intimacy and marriage for same-sex couples and the right to contraception. Make no mistake, this is not some sudden occurrence. It is exactly what the Federalist Society has been working toward for decades. Before joining the Court in 1972, Lewis Powell wrote about the need to rebuild the power of industrial elites and fight back ``from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians'' against progressive changes in society. In outlining a plan for rebuilding the power of Big Business, he declared that, with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for achieving that goal. That is exactly why, as majority leader in 2017, Senator McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat from one President so another President could fill it. He stole it in 2016, and he filled it in 2017 with MAGA Justice Neil Gorsuch. It is why, in 2018, Leader McConnell completely ignored credible accounts of sexual assault and rushed through a confirmation without giving Senators access to the nominee's full records and bypassing committee quorum rules to fill another seat with MAGA Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And it is why, when a seat opened up in another election year, 2020, just weeks before the voters would vote, Leader McConnell completely reversed his argument that he had used to justify the theft of a Supreme Court seat in 2016, and he rammed through the nomination of MAGA Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The Republican Party has won one popular vote for President in the last 30 years but has appointed two-thirds of the sitting Justices, who now see it as their job to become a super-legislature for a cultural agenda and corporate power. In one of his columns, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post described the resulting unelected, unaccountable majority of Supreme Court Justices as a ``junta''--a word used to describe authoritarian leaders who rule through edicts rather than through legislative determination or deliberation on constitutional principles. It is hard to argue with Eugene Robinson's characterization. In spite of what the vast majority of Americans want--the protection of a woman's right to full reproductive healthcare and more gun safety, not less, and free and fair elections--the Court's MAGA majority has chosen to rule by Supreme Court edict to inflict their narrow preferences for society on hundreds of millions of Americans. And they are not just using the regular process for considering cases. Over the past 5 years, we have seen a monumental shift in the Court's use of emergency orders--the so-called shadow docket--to enact sweeping decisions on the American people. These cases don't get the full process we are familiar with--formal briefings, formal hearings, lengthy deliberations, and opinion writings--because it is argued that the applicant would suffer ``irreparable harm'' if their request were not immediately granted. The shadow docket decisions, by the way, are usually unsigned and unexplained. In the past, they have essentially involved death penalty cases--cases of literal life and death--of pretty much extreme importance to the applicant because, if someone is executed before their case is heard, they do suffer ``irreparable harm''--the standard. Then, about 5 years ago, we started to see a big shift in the emergency cases being taken up and in the substances of them as well. We have seen the shadow docket used to stop the Federal Government from implementing a vaccine and testing mandate on businesses to protect public health in the middle of an unprecedented global health crisis that has killed more than a million Americans. We have seen it used to uphold a Texas law banning abortion after 6 weeks. We have seen it used when a lower court blocked Alabama's congressional map because it violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black voters. The Court said: You have got to draw a new map that is fair. The Supreme Court stepped in with their shadow docket and said: No. Alabama can use this faulty map that dilutes the power of Black Americans. In this situation, the Court didn't stop the infliction of harm; they inflicted the harm on Black Americans, who want fair maps, who deserve fair maps for voting in our democracy. That gerrymandered map is now in place to disenfranchise Black voters in this November's election because of the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket. It is hard to see how any of these cases met the test for the shadow docket. The state of abuse of the shadow docket has gotten so bad and so blatant that even Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Court, joined a dissent in a case reinstating a Trump administration Clean Water Act regulation limiting Federal protections for streams and wetlands. This dissentstated that the majority's decision ``renders the court's emergency docket,'' meaning the shadow docket, ``not for emergencies at all . . . . The docket becomes only another place for merits determinations--except made without full briefing and argument.'' When the Supreme Court's Chief Justice says the shadow docket is being abused, you know it is true. This MAGA Court is so determined to impose their legislative priorities and values on our country that they have abandoned one of the core principles of American jurisprudence, going back to even before there was a United States of America, and that is that the Court only rules when there is an actual dispute or controversy in question. In their eagerness to cripple the Federal Government's ability to fight fossil carbon pollution, the MAGA Justices weighed in on a regulation that had never been enforced--a regulation that had been withdrawn by President Trump and a regulation which President Biden had indicated was never going to be reinstated. Even the utilities that would have been regulated didn't want the Supreme Court to decide this case. This out-of-control MAGA Supreme Court super-legislature wanted to legislate--and legislate they did--violating a core principle that the Court does not address moot cases. Moot cases are cases where there is nothing still in dispute, and this certainly was the case that this case was as dead or as moot as it could be because nobody could be impacted by a rule that doesn't exist. Why did the Court take up this case? Well, we may not be able to specify the exact reasoning by each Justice, but the effect is clear. By taking up this case, the Court furthered the MAGA policy agenda. Their ruling handcuffed Federal authorities' ability to pursue future limitations on pollutions from fossil fuels like carbon dioxide and fossil methane. This is to the enormous benefit of the fossil fuel billionaires who funded the massive dark money campaigns that supported these Justices' confirmations. That situation of their breaking precedent to benefit the fossil billionaires, who had just funded their confirmation campaigns, reeks of corruption. When generations ahead of us look back at this moment, I have no doubt--especially when they look at this year, 2022, and what the Court did in a single year--they will look back with a sense of profound disbelief--disbelief--like that disbelief that we experience when we look back on cases like Dred Scott, which dehumanized Black Americans and legitimized slavery, or Plessy v. Ferguson, which locked in 60 years of vicious discrimination and racial terrorism under a separate but equal philosophy. The disbelief that future generations will have will be directed at Dobbs--a decision this year in which the Court obliterated privacy and put an overbearing government in charge of women's reproductive health. They will have the disbelief that, in Kennedy v. Bremerton--decided this year--the Court destroyed freedom of religion in our public schools; the disbelief that, in West Virginia v. EPA--a decision this year--the Court violated centuries of precedent to rule on a regulation that is no longer on books, with the effect--perhaps the goal--of limiting the future regulation of greenhouse gas pollution; the disbelief in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen--decided this year--that the Court ruled that a State legislature can't require folks to have a good reason to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Let me be clear. This activist, extremist MAGA Court faces a legitimacy crisis, and a legitimacy crisis for the Court is a crisis for our democratic Republic. Part of that illegitimacy is Justices of the Supreme Court selectively using a doctrine of so-called originalism to justify their politically inspired decisions. The doctrine of originalism is based on a reasonable argument, one on which you and I would say makes sense: a goal of understanding what the Founders meant when they wrote what they wrote in our Constitution more than two centuries ago. But if that effort is applied selectively, it simply becomes a measure to justify, after the fact, where the Justices want it to come out. They use it when it works, and they abandon it when it doesn't. For example, the Founders wrote the Second Amendment to ensure that members of well-regulated militias had access to their rifles, but the so-called originalists on the Court cast originalism aside, declaring that the Founders wrote that clause to ensure that nonmilitia members had the right to bring assault rifles--that didn't exist in 1787--onto subways, which didn't exist in 1787. That is bogus originalism in its purist form. Consider this: Corporations, as we know them today, did not exist in 1787. Yet the so-called originalists on the Court insist that the Founders' vision of the First Amendment, to protect freedom of speech, gives corporations speech rights even though the word ``corporation'' doesn't appear in the Constitution--a point that they use when they want to take an originalist argument: that the Founders had to have it be something written in the Constitution and be something they discussed and something they considered and something they envisioned. None of those are true. Not a one of them is true in this case. The MAGA Court also claims that a corporation is a person, which no Founder would ever have argued. They didn't even know what a ``corporation'' was because they didn't exist in this form that we have now. The MAGA Court goes on to claim that the members comprising the corporate personhood--those are the stockholders of a corporation--have absolutely no right to know how that corporation that they are part of spends their money. This is absurdity stacked on the fallacy that a corporation is a person. I have yet to see and yet to hear any plausible explanation as to how the MAGA Justices can be confident that the Founders intended for billionaire CEOs to hijack the accumulated wealth of their stockholders without their stockholders' knowledge or permission or opportunity to know what is being said and to use that money as speech and to spend it on secretly funded campaigns, including campaigns to confirm Supreme Court Justices. The problem we face, colleagues, isn't just a MAGA-majority Court enacting terrible policy rather than defending the balls and strikes against the Constitution. The problem is greater if the highest Court in the land loses its legitimacy, the law itself loses its legitimacy. If the American people see the Supreme Court Justices making clear that the law has no meaning other than their political preferences, then the law is not the foundation for our society that it is supposed to be. We have seen with deadly results on January 6, 2021, the consequences to our policies, to our politics, and to our society when the rule of law is replaced by violence and power as the organizing principle for society. The Court is essential in a society based on the rule of law, and it is essential to have a Court that honors the law rather than trying to write the law. This MAGA majority and its desire, and operation as a super-legislature--unelected, lifetime appointments--is a dire threat to our Republic. Here in Congress, we must not only shine a light--a spotlight--on the threat; we must stop the runaway MAGA Court from corrupting the rule of law and try to restore the legitimate role of the Court as a panel defending our Constitution. Some will say there is no way to restore the Court and that any strategy for restoring the Court will simply compound the problems we are now facing, and I agree that there is no simple way to restore the legitimacy of the Court. Back in 2017, when then-Majority Leader McConnell was striving to complete the theft of the Supreme Court seat taken from the administration of Barack Obama, I took to this floor for 15\1/2\ hours with one simple message: Don't do it. Don't do it because, if you do, you will damage the legitimacy of the Court and there will be no simple path, no easy remedy to restore the Court's legitimacy. But Leader McConnell, he doused the Supreme Court with gasoline on that day, and he set it on fire. He did the damage. I stood here for 15\1/2\ hours and said don't do it. You know, we take an oath of office to a Constitution. That involves defending the Court, not delegitimizing the Court, not stealing Supreme Courtseats. It was the first time in the history of the United States of America that this Senate failed to debate and vote on a nominee. But here we are; the damage is done. What do we do now? When an arsonist sets fire to your house, you don't let it burn because you are worried about water damage. You have to strive to put out that fire, regardless of how difficult the task. So I say to you today, we cannot accept the defeatist attitude that fails to confront the forces destroying our Republic. There are two things we must do. Mission one, we have to reform the ability of this broken Senate to serve as a legislature because, if it serves effectively as a legislature, it can serve as a counterweight to decisions of a corrupted Court. The second thing we have to do is put all options on the table and debate them for directly reforming the Court, recognizing that we are left with difficult choices on how to do that. But we have to step up. It is necessary to save our Republic. So let's take each of these missions in turn. The first is to restore the Senate. Our goal: Restore the Senate as a legislative body to serve as a counterweight to the corruption of a MAGA-majority Court. There are three massive problems currently afflicting the Senate's ability to serve as a functioning legislative body. First, we spend virtually all of our time on nominations, so much time that it keeps us from doing much legislating, even though we have a massively complex society and a lot of possibilities for making it work better. When George Washington was assembling his first administration, he had to appoint and the Senate had to confirm four Cabinet positions: Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General--four positions. Today, the Senate is responsible for confirming over 1,200 Presidential appointments to executive branch positions and commissions. Now, in the past, both parties worked to exercise the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities in a manner that minimized the amount of Senate time required. Most were done by unanimous consent late at night, when practically anyone was here because most nominations are not ones to which anyone has an objection. In the entire decade of the 1960s, there was one vote required to close debate on a nominee--one, in an entire 10 years. But, last decade, that number went to 545. Now, it is like every nomination. Virtually every nomination we have to file to close debate and vote to close debate before we can vote on the nominee. And do you know what? The way it works, you can also require 30 hours of debate after the vote to close debate succeeds. So the rules, which were designed for exceptional situations where there is a significant objection, are now used as partisan obstruction. Democrats are in the minority. They want to tie up the Republicans. So they have little time to legislate. Republicans are in the minority. They want to tie up the Democrats. So they have little time to legislate. They want each other to fail, partly because they disagree and partly because they know if the other side succeeds in making something work, the voters might reward them at the ballot box. We have to massively streamline this nomination process. We have to--100 Senators--work together, not do what is best for us when we are in the majority and oppose it when we are in the minority, or vice versa. We all have a responsibility to completely streamline that process so we can return to being a legislature. The second big problem for the Senate is that the rules provide a complicated, time-consuming process for debating and voting on whether to debate a bill. It involves a motion to proceed or requirement to close debate on the motion to proceed and whose nomination is up to 30 hours of additional of debate--all on the question of whether to debate. You have 100 capable people sent here by their constituents in their various States to solve problems for America, not to spend a week debating whether to debate a single bill. That could be a week spent debating the amendments that could make the bill better, a week spent considering individual pieces of the bills so the public knows where we stand and there is public accountability. But, instead, we have partisan paralysis. A completely dysfunctional Senate, that is what we have. We have to change the rules to stop this completely meritless waste of the time and efforts of 100 Senators. It is an easy solution: 1 hour spent debating whether to debate a bill, and then a simple majority vote, either we go to the bill or we don't; easy solution. One hour makes much more sense than 1 week. The third big problem this Senate Chamber faces is a secret silent filibuster. Under the Senate rule--and by the way, the term ``filibuster'' is really inappropriate because this involves no speaking of any kind. Under the Senate rule, 41 Senators can, operating as a block, veto the opportunity for the Senate to debate a bill, veto the opportunity for the Senate to consider an amendment, and veto the ability, after amendments have been considered, to have a final vote on the bill. It is the triple veto: three opportunities for the minority to blockade the majority from being able to consider legislation to address the issues facing America. And both parties have attempted to use it when they are in the minority. We have to restore the ability to actually debate. It is exactly what the Founders feared. When I lay out that 41 can block and veto these 3 steps of the process, it means to reverse it--that 60 out of 100, a supermajority, has to agree to go forward through each of those three steps. The Founders warned us: Never allow the minority to make the decisions by requiring a supermajority. Don't to it. That is why James Madison said that, with a supermajority, when ``the general good might require new laws . . . the principle of free government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.'' It is why Alexander Hamilton warned that a supermajority requirement would result in ``tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.'' He also warned that ``the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed''--the principle of supermajority--``is a history impotence, perplexity, and disorder.'' Now, you may wonder if the Founders had simply read about someone somewhere requiring a supermajority for legislature and said it didn't work very well and thought, We had better warn Americans not to do this. No, they were writing from their direct experience because, as they were drafting and debating our 1787 Constitution, they were actually in the middle of living through the impotence and incompetence of the Confederation Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded our 1787 Constitution, the Congress had to have a supermajority on every provision; meaning, the position of the minority could prevail over the position of the majority. The result was paralysis on the most fundamental issues they faced. They failed to raise the funds to pay the pensions of the veterans who spilled their blood in the Revolutionary War that created this Nation. They failed to raise the funds to put down Shays' Rebellion. Well, today, we have not one stage of veto, like they faced in the Confederation Congress, we have the triple veto power under the current secret, silent filibuster, and we are seeing the same impotence, the same paralysis, the same partisanship that it drives. The triple veto power of the minority is destroying the Senate to address challenges facing America, and there are a lot of them. We have got the climate crisis that is literally setting our country on fire. Right now, at this very moment, around 40 million Americans across the Plains and the Mississippi Valley are dealing with alerts for dangerous and intense heat, while firefighters are confronting 89 large fires across 12 States. And as of last week, four times as much acreage has burned this year as last year at this moment. And it is not just America, of course. Across the Atlantic, Europe is going through a recordbreaking heat wave, reaching temperatures some of thoseplaces have never seen and causing wildfires to burn in France and Spain and Italy and Greece. Congress should be immersed in considering bills to address the climate crisis that is damaging communities across our country, and not just through fires but through rising sea levels and rising erosion, through pine beetle infestations and mosquito infestations, through stronger hurricanes and stronger tornadoes, and, certainly, through the power of multiyear droughts. But we are not because the triple veto of the silent, secret filibuster afflicting this body is blocking us from doing so. We have a housing crisis. Out-of-control rents and prices make it impossible for millions of Americans to afford a decent home to rent or buy. And colleagues have one idea after another about how we should address it, but because we are paralyzed and our process is taken up, our time is taken up with nominations and debating whether to debate and we have the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster, they can't move forward. And we aren't debating, discussing, and hopefully passing measures that can make a difference. And Americans are outraged by the prices they pay on drugs, which are so much higher than any other developed country. Eighty percent of Americans say: Do something about it. And I think the other 20 percent don't realize how much we are getting ripped off. And Americans know we should get the best price because we invest the most in the research and development that creates these drugs, not the worst price, and they are absolutely right. And we would have passed legislation by now to get the best prices in the developed world, but we are blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. And now States are passing laws to block targeted groups of Americans from voting. We can fix that by passing S. 1, the For the People Act, or its reincarnation, the Freedom to Vote Act, but we can't because it was blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. Let me be absolutely clear. The single most effective way we can counterbalance an out-of-control Court with a MAGA agenda is to have a functioning Senate. That is the most immediate remedy available to us to respond to this terrible affliction undermining our Republic. If the Court says there is no problem with gerrymandered districts, where politicians choose their constituents instead of Americans choosing their leaders, as they did in the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, well, a reformed, restored Senate could pass legislation to require nonpartisan commissions to draw legislative districts. At least we could have a robust debate over it, maybe pass a few amendments modifying it in different forms--or perhaps find some other solution--if we had a functioning legislative process. If the Court says there is no limit to dark money from corporations and billionaires who flood and drown out the voices of ordinary Americans and campaigns, as they did in the 2010 Citizens United decision, a reformed, restored Senate could pass the DISCLOSE Act to shine a light on every dollar and where it is coming from in American campaigns. If the Court says that anyone who wants to be able to carry a concealed weapon should be able to like they did in their New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, a restored, functioning Senate could pass stronger gun safety laws that most Americans support, like ending the background check loophole--when guns are bought and sold by unlicensed parties online or at gun shows--or by outlawing the kinds of large magazines that carry 30 or more bullets that are often used in mass shootings. And when the Court went to abnormally great lengths to decide in last month's West Virginia v. EPA that the Agency can't regulate fossil carbon or fossil methane emissions, a functioning Senate would be able to step up and create the programs designed to speed up the transition to renewable energy, which would have the added benefit of ending our addiction to oil and dropping the prices at the pump, and it would keep money out of the hands of dictators in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. But the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster has blocked us from doing so. The remedy is not to eliminate the filibuster. The remedy is to reform it. The right reform is to adopt the public, talking filibuster. The talking filibuster would reassert the fundamental principle of legislative conduct: the Senate Code, adopted by the original Senate. Under that code, the Senate listened to every Senator's perspective, and then it took a vote on the issue, be it a bill or be it an amendment. That was the Senate Code. The original rules provided that every Senator had the right to speak twice to a question. It was rule No. 4 in the original rules. It is in our rules today. But the spirit of that code--listening to each Senator and then voting, with the majority winning, not losing--that part is gone. Now, it is the minority that can exercise a triple veto, a veto absolutely exactly the opposite of what the Founders said to us. They said: Don't do it. And we have done it in triplicate form, paralyzing this place and accentuating the temptation of yielding to partisanship rather than problem-solving. Jefferson did say that this rule, this code of listening to every Senator and voting, should not be abused. In fact, he said this in his manual for rules in 1801: No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. It worked for the Founders. They exercised some self-control, so much so that they didn't need the rule that they had to close debate. They just simply listened to everyone with mutual respect and then said: OK. Let's take a vote. You want to see that in action today? Watch the committee process on a bill with amendments. There is no one filibustering, speaking forever. There is no one requiring a supermajority to close debate in committee. They operate--we operate--in committee, much like the original Senate, and it works pretty well, but we have completely lost that discipline when it comes to debate here on our floor. So the early Senate had a rule for the previous question motion, to close debate or accelerate the closure of debate. And when they rewrote the rule book--and Aaron Burr was in charge of it--in 1806, they dropped the rule because they never used it, didn't feel they ever needed it. Well, we need to reclaim that vision, and our rules have gotten so crazy, so out of whack, that we encourage partisanship and paralysis rather than problem-solving. Let's fix that. So let's have the talking filibuster. The talking filibuster says, Yes, you can speak on the issue. We will listen to everyone. You can speak twice. But then we vote, and the majority wins--not a supermajority required. The minority doesn't win over the majority. The majority wins. That was the Senate. That was the design of our Constitution that we have the responsibility to restore because we took an oath to the Constitution. So let's restore it. And that talking filibuster encourages bipartisan problem-solving. The minority, be it the Democratic or Republican, that wants to slow things down for leverage, they can. So they have significant leverage, but, on the other hand, they have an incentive to negotiate because they are not sure how long they can maintain continuous debate. And that is the heart of the talking filibuster: maintaining continuous debate. If there is a break in debate, you go to the vote. Meanwhile, the majority has an incentive to compromise because they know the minority can tie this place up on a single bill for week after week, and they can't afford to have that much time taken over a single bill. So the talking filibuster restores an incentive for compromise and bipartisan problem-solving and, in the end, restores the vision that the majority makes the decision, not the minority. In the end, it gives the minority a voice, it gives the minority massive leverage, but it takes away their veto. That is the right way to legislate in a democracy. As I noted before, fixing the Senate is probably the best immediate tool we have for repairing the damage from the Supreme Court across the grounds. But we also have to consider every possible remedy to restore the Court itself, to restore a Court that calls the balls and strikes on the Constitution, defendingits core principles, and recognizes it is not there to legislate--not to legislate on the left side, not to legislate on the right side. They are there to defend the Constitution. Well, reforming the Court won't be easily done. But President Biden did convene a Commission to explore the option, and that Commission has produced a lengthy, lengthy report. This is part of it: The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, December of last year. I encourage all my colleagues to read this and consider the ideas in it. In this 300-page report, the Commission does review the history of how the Court has been in different phases, and its size has changed all the time because that is not established in the Constitution. It has been as few as 5, and it has been more than 10. There was not nine locked in like it is now. And, certainly, one of the ideas they review is adjustment to the size of the Court. Many people have said that is something to look at to balance what has happened with the Court, with the stolen Supreme Court seat and a decision by several Justices to be a legislature rather than a court. Well, that is one idea. Another is implementing term limits or a mandatory retirement age because, when the Constitution was first written, people weren't living the long lives they have today, and they didn't stay in the Court forever. In 1787, the Founders wrote that Justices would hold their seats during good behavior. Now, I am not sure that every Justice across these grounds has been engaged in good behavior when they are choosing to legislate rather than to rule on the defense of the Constitution, but there is no easy way to remove them from the Court for misbehavior. But one possibility is for the Court members to rotate out with term limits of some kind. That is one possibility. In much of our history, Justices only served an average of 15 years on the Court. The average is now 26 and getting longer. And, did you know, America is the only constitutional democracy that gives lifetime presence on the Court, that doesn't have either a term limit or a mandatory retirement age? This report, this Commission, has other ideas in it: rotating membership on the Court with judges selected from the circuit court. You know, the original Supreme Court, they served as circuit court writers. They went out and made decisions across this country. They didn't just sit in a room in the capital. So there is some precedent for that idea. And others point out that there is the power to restrict the Court's jurisdiction. There are pros and cons for these various ideas, and our commitment needs to be to examine them. The American public is open to examining them. Earlier this week, the FOX News poll reported that 66 percent of the folks in their poll support an 18-year term for Justices, and 71 percent support a mandatory retirement age. So the American people are open to trying to fix the challenge with the Court. We have to be open to fixing it, and we need to look at every option and idea very carefully to ensure that the highest Court in our land fulfills the vision for it in our Constitution. And the vision in our Constitution was not that it would be an unelected super-legislature. Colleagues, this is a perilous moment for our Republic. It is a moment when the will of the people is being overrun by an extreme agenda of a Court legislating from the Bench, imposing their narrow and precedent-destroying will on all Americans. We have to restore the ability of this Senate to operate as a legislature that can be a counterbalance to what the Court does, and we must thoughtfully consider every proposal for reforming the Court directly. We can and we must act before it is too late. We can't stand by and watch the continuous disintegration of our Republic. Our oath to the Constitution demands that we protect these institutions and repair them when they go off track. And when we do, the next July 4, we can all join together and celebrate the restoration of our paralyzed and partisan Senate into an actual legislative body. We can celebrate the restoration of Americans' rights that are being continuously stripped away across the grounds by the Supreme Court. We can have a renewed belief and confidence in the integrity of all of our institutions and our democratic form of governance. That would be a moment justifying a massive celebration next July 4. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | null | 4,766 |
formal | extremists | null | Islamophobic | Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, on July 4, we celebrated the founding of our Nation, as we do every year. But when I woke up on this July 4, I had a strange thought, a thought I never had before, the question of, What kind of country are we celebrating? I have always had immense pride in the founding vision of our Nation, in that vision of equality, of opportunity for all, of freedom of religion, of equal justice under the law, of equal representation, and, most importantly, of government of, by, and for the people. Our journey as a nation over nearly 250 years has been a difficult journey of moving toward full implementation of this vision. That is an inspiring journey--a journey I have been proud to witness, a journey I have been proud to be a part of. But just days before this year's July 4 celebration, we saw the conclusion of the Supreme Court's latest judicial term--a term over which the Court displayed a far different vision for America: one with devastating repercussions that will reverberate in the lives of countless Americans for decades to come. For years now--actually, for decades, we have watched a steady, relentless effort by rightwing extremists to rig the courts so they can transform America and American society as we have known it. Their big goal is corporations over people and their second goal is to implement conservative cultural policy over individual freedom and liberty. Now, with this Court's recent decisions, we are left with an inescapable conclusion: The extremists have succeeded. The Court is now operating as an unelected super-legislature with a MAGA political agenda. Their decisions this term read like planks out of the Republican Party platform. Here is what the MAGA Court's vision is for our Nation. It is a vision that obliterates the right to privacy, giving an overbearing Federal Government the power to be in the medical exam room making reproductive health decisions for American women, when the only people who should be in the exam room, under an ``of and by the people'' Republic is the woman, her doctor, and whomever else she chooses to invite--her partner, her friend, or her religious adviser. This Court's vision is a vision that embraces never-ending gun violence, stripping Congress and the States ofthe ability to make commonsense gun safety laws. It is a vision of a nation where public schools can impose religion on their students. So much for freedom of religion and separation of church and State. It is a vision of a nation where wrongfully incarcerated Americans don't have the right to prove their innocence and can't find justice if their Miranda rights were violated. So much for the principle of equal justice under law, the very principle carved into stone above the doors of the Supreme Court. In fact, if you go out this door and out the front steps, you can see those words while standing here on the steps of the Senate. This Court's vision is of a nation where the Court strips the Federal Government of its legally enacted power to regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane pollution that is destroying our Nation and our planet. It is a vision where the powerful corrupt the integrity of our elections with gerrymandering and dark money and measures to prevent targeted groups of Americans from voting. This vision is a vision for a government by and for the powerful, not by and for the people. This vision in which the Supreme Court becomes a superlegislature for a MAGA agenda infuriates me. It infuriates me because I believe in government by and for the people, not by and for the powerful. It infuriates me because I know the pain that these decisions will inflict on millions of Americans--the pain of a woman forced by a State government to carry a fetus to term that was conceived through rape or incest or the pain of any woman, for that matter, who simply is unprepared to be pregnant or become a parent; the pain of every single person who will have to mourn the death of a loved one lost to an ever-growing epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings like we saw in Uvalde and in Highland Park and in countless other communities with more than one mass shooting per day; the pain of the citizens blocked from the ballot box, effectively denied their most fundamental right as Americans because of voter suppression schemes enacted in many States over this past year; the pain of students in our public schools pressured to participate in religious acts in conflict with their own beliefs; the pain of rural Americans, ranchers, and farmers whose farms and ranches will be lost to fire and drought because the Court says the Federal Government cannot regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane causing climate chaos. And I am infuriated because I know more Supreme Court decisions like these are coming from the six MAGA Justices on the Court. They want to cement their vision of America through superlegislative powers rather than calling the balls and strikes defending the Constitution, which is their job. They have announced that next term they are going to hear a case on the fringe doctrine known as the independent State legislature doctrine. It has been considered an extremist idea, which says only State legislatures have the power to make decisions about Federal elections and how to appoint electors. State courts would have no power to ensure checks and balances or decide which decisions about elections violate a State constitution or ignore the will of the voters, nor could State Governors veto such legislative decisions. And that is just the start. Justice Thomas himself said in his concurring opinion that, based on the reasoning in Dobbs, he wants the Court to consider a whole host of other rights that have been secured and protected by previous Courts, including the possibility of striking down the right to intimacy and marriage for same-sex couples and the right to contraception. Make no mistake, this is not some sudden occurrence. It is exactly what the Federalist Society has been working toward for decades. Before joining the Court in 1972, Lewis Powell wrote about the need to rebuild the power of industrial elites and fight back ``from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians'' against progressive changes in society. In outlining a plan for rebuilding the power of Big Business, he declared that, with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for achieving that goal. That is exactly why, as majority leader in 2017, Senator McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat from one President so another President could fill it. He stole it in 2016, and he filled it in 2017 with MAGA Justice Neil Gorsuch. It is why, in 2018, Leader McConnell completely ignored credible accounts of sexual assault and rushed through a confirmation without giving Senators access to the nominee's full records and bypassing committee quorum rules to fill another seat with MAGA Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And it is why, when a seat opened up in another election year, 2020, just weeks before the voters would vote, Leader McConnell completely reversed his argument that he had used to justify the theft of a Supreme Court seat in 2016, and he rammed through the nomination of MAGA Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The Republican Party has won one popular vote for President in the last 30 years but has appointed two-thirds of the sitting Justices, who now see it as their job to become a super-legislature for a cultural agenda and corporate power. In one of his columns, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post described the resulting unelected, unaccountable majority of Supreme Court Justices as a ``junta''--a word used to describe authoritarian leaders who rule through edicts rather than through legislative determination or deliberation on constitutional principles. It is hard to argue with Eugene Robinson's characterization. In spite of what the vast majority of Americans want--the protection of a woman's right to full reproductive healthcare and more gun safety, not less, and free and fair elections--the Court's MAGA majority has chosen to rule by Supreme Court edict to inflict their narrow preferences for society on hundreds of millions of Americans. And they are not just using the regular process for considering cases. Over the past 5 years, we have seen a monumental shift in the Court's use of emergency orders--the so-called shadow docket--to enact sweeping decisions on the American people. These cases don't get the full process we are familiar with--formal briefings, formal hearings, lengthy deliberations, and opinion writings--because it is argued that the applicant would suffer ``irreparable harm'' if their request were not immediately granted. The shadow docket decisions, by the way, are usually unsigned and unexplained. In the past, they have essentially involved death penalty cases--cases of literal life and death--of pretty much extreme importance to the applicant because, if someone is executed before their case is heard, they do suffer ``irreparable harm''--the standard. Then, about 5 years ago, we started to see a big shift in the emergency cases being taken up and in the substances of them as well. We have seen the shadow docket used to stop the Federal Government from implementing a vaccine and testing mandate on businesses to protect public health in the middle of an unprecedented global health crisis that has killed more than a million Americans. We have seen it used to uphold a Texas law banning abortion after 6 weeks. We have seen it used when a lower court blocked Alabama's congressional map because it violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black voters. The Court said: You have got to draw a new map that is fair. The Supreme Court stepped in with their shadow docket and said: No. Alabama can use this faulty map that dilutes the power of Black Americans. In this situation, the Court didn't stop the infliction of harm; they inflicted the harm on Black Americans, who want fair maps, who deserve fair maps for voting in our democracy. That gerrymandered map is now in place to disenfranchise Black voters in this November's election because of the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket. It is hard to see how any of these cases met the test for the shadow docket. The state of abuse of the shadow docket has gotten so bad and so blatant that even Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Court, joined a dissent in a case reinstating a Trump administration Clean Water Act regulation limiting Federal protections for streams and wetlands. This dissentstated that the majority's decision ``renders the court's emergency docket,'' meaning the shadow docket, ``not for emergencies at all . . . . The docket becomes only another place for merits determinations--except made without full briefing and argument.'' When the Supreme Court's Chief Justice says the shadow docket is being abused, you know it is true. This MAGA Court is so determined to impose their legislative priorities and values on our country that they have abandoned one of the core principles of American jurisprudence, going back to even before there was a United States of America, and that is that the Court only rules when there is an actual dispute or controversy in question. In their eagerness to cripple the Federal Government's ability to fight fossil carbon pollution, the MAGA Justices weighed in on a regulation that had never been enforced--a regulation that had been withdrawn by President Trump and a regulation which President Biden had indicated was never going to be reinstated. Even the utilities that would have been regulated didn't want the Supreme Court to decide this case. This out-of-control MAGA Supreme Court super-legislature wanted to legislate--and legislate they did--violating a core principle that the Court does not address moot cases. Moot cases are cases where there is nothing still in dispute, and this certainly was the case that this case was as dead or as moot as it could be because nobody could be impacted by a rule that doesn't exist. Why did the Court take up this case? Well, we may not be able to specify the exact reasoning by each Justice, but the effect is clear. By taking up this case, the Court furthered the MAGA policy agenda. Their ruling handcuffed Federal authorities' ability to pursue future limitations on pollutions from fossil fuels like carbon dioxide and fossil methane. This is to the enormous benefit of the fossil fuel billionaires who funded the massive dark money campaigns that supported these Justices' confirmations. That situation of their breaking precedent to benefit the fossil billionaires, who had just funded their confirmation campaigns, reeks of corruption. When generations ahead of us look back at this moment, I have no doubt--especially when they look at this year, 2022, and what the Court did in a single year--they will look back with a sense of profound disbelief--disbelief--like that disbelief that we experience when we look back on cases like Dred Scott, which dehumanized Black Americans and legitimized slavery, or Plessy v. Ferguson, which locked in 60 years of vicious discrimination and racial terrorism under a separate but equal philosophy. The disbelief that future generations will have will be directed at Dobbs--a decision this year in which the Court obliterated privacy and put an overbearing government in charge of women's reproductive health. They will have the disbelief that, in Kennedy v. Bremerton--decided this year--the Court destroyed freedom of religion in our public schools; the disbelief that, in West Virginia v. EPA--a decision this year--the Court violated centuries of precedent to rule on a regulation that is no longer on books, with the effect--perhaps the goal--of limiting the future regulation of greenhouse gas pollution; the disbelief in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen--decided this year--that the Court ruled that a State legislature can't require folks to have a good reason to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Let me be clear. This activist, extremist MAGA Court faces a legitimacy crisis, and a legitimacy crisis for the Court is a crisis for our democratic Republic. Part of that illegitimacy is Justices of the Supreme Court selectively using a doctrine of so-called originalism to justify their politically inspired decisions. The doctrine of originalism is based on a reasonable argument, one on which you and I would say makes sense: a goal of understanding what the Founders meant when they wrote what they wrote in our Constitution more than two centuries ago. But if that effort is applied selectively, it simply becomes a measure to justify, after the fact, where the Justices want it to come out. They use it when it works, and they abandon it when it doesn't. For example, the Founders wrote the Second Amendment to ensure that members of well-regulated militias had access to their rifles, but the so-called originalists on the Court cast originalism aside, declaring that the Founders wrote that clause to ensure that nonmilitia members had the right to bring assault rifles--that didn't exist in 1787--onto subways, which didn't exist in 1787. That is bogus originalism in its purist form. Consider this: Corporations, as we know them today, did not exist in 1787. Yet the so-called originalists on the Court insist that the Founders' vision of the First Amendment, to protect freedom of speech, gives corporations speech rights even though the word ``corporation'' doesn't appear in the Constitution--a point that they use when they want to take an originalist argument: that the Founders had to have it be something written in the Constitution and be something they discussed and something they considered and something they envisioned. None of those are true. Not a one of them is true in this case. The MAGA Court also claims that a corporation is a person, which no Founder would ever have argued. They didn't even know what a ``corporation'' was because they didn't exist in this form that we have now. The MAGA Court goes on to claim that the members comprising the corporate personhood--those are the stockholders of a corporation--have absolutely no right to know how that corporation that they are part of spends their money. This is absurdity stacked on the fallacy that a corporation is a person. I have yet to see and yet to hear any plausible explanation as to how the MAGA Justices can be confident that the Founders intended for billionaire CEOs to hijack the accumulated wealth of their stockholders without their stockholders' knowledge or permission or opportunity to know what is being said and to use that money as speech and to spend it on secretly funded campaigns, including campaigns to confirm Supreme Court Justices. The problem we face, colleagues, isn't just a MAGA-majority Court enacting terrible policy rather than defending the balls and strikes against the Constitution. The problem is greater if the highest Court in the land loses its legitimacy, the law itself loses its legitimacy. If the American people see the Supreme Court Justices making clear that the law has no meaning other than their political preferences, then the law is not the foundation for our society that it is supposed to be. We have seen with deadly results on January 6, 2021, the consequences to our policies, to our politics, and to our society when the rule of law is replaced by violence and power as the organizing principle for society. The Court is essential in a society based on the rule of law, and it is essential to have a Court that honors the law rather than trying to write the law. This MAGA majority and its desire, and operation as a super-legislature--unelected, lifetime appointments--is a dire threat to our Republic. Here in Congress, we must not only shine a light--a spotlight--on the threat; we must stop the runaway MAGA Court from corrupting the rule of law and try to restore the legitimate role of the Court as a panel defending our Constitution. Some will say there is no way to restore the Court and that any strategy for restoring the Court will simply compound the problems we are now facing, and I agree that there is no simple way to restore the legitimacy of the Court. Back in 2017, when then-Majority Leader McConnell was striving to complete the theft of the Supreme Court seat taken from the administration of Barack Obama, I took to this floor for 15\1/2\ hours with one simple message: Don't do it. Don't do it because, if you do, you will damage the legitimacy of the Court and there will be no simple path, no easy remedy to restore the Court's legitimacy. But Leader McConnell, he doused the Supreme Court with gasoline on that day, and he set it on fire. He did the damage. I stood here for 15\1/2\ hours and said don't do it. You know, we take an oath of office to a Constitution. That involves defending the Court, not delegitimizing the Court, not stealing Supreme Courtseats. It was the first time in the history of the United States of America that this Senate failed to debate and vote on a nominee. But here we are; the damage is done. What do we do now? When an arsonist sets fire to your house, you don't let it burn because you are worried about water damage. You have to strive to put out that fire, regardless of how difficult the task. So I say to you today, we cannot accept the defeatist attitude that fails to confront the forces destroying our Republic. There are two things we must do. Mission one, we have to reform the ability of this broken Senate to serve as a legislature because, if it serves effectively as a legislature, it can serve as a counterweight to decisions of a corrupted Court. The second thing we have to do is put all options on the table and debate them for directly reforming the Court, recognizing that we are left with difficult choices on how to do that. But we have to step up. It is necessary to save our Republic. So let's take each of these missions in turn. The first is to restore the Senate. Our goal: Restore the Senate as a legislative body to serve as a counterweight to the corruption of a MAGA-majority Court. There are three massive problems currently afflicting the Senate's ability to serve as a functioning legislative body. First, we spend virtually all of our time on nominations, so much time that it keeps us from doing much legislating, even though we have a massively complex society and a lot of possibilities for making it work better. When George Washington was assembling his first administration, he had to appoint and the Senate had to confirm four Cabinet positions: Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General--four positions. Today, the Senate is responsible for confirming over 1,200 Presidential appointments to executive branch positions and commissions. Now, in the past, both parties worked to exercise the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities in a manner that minimized the amount of Senate time required. Most were done by unanimous consent late at night, when practically anyone was here because most nominations are not ones to which anyone has an objection. In the entire decade of the 1960s, there was one vote required to close debate on a nominee--one, in an entire 10 years. But, last decade, that number went to 545. Now, it is like every nomination. Virtually every nomination we have to file to close debate and vote to close debate before we can vote on the nominee. And do you know what? The way it works, you can also require 30 hours of debate after the vote to close debate succeeds. So the rules, which were designed for exceptional situations where there is a significant objection, are now used as partisan obstruction. Democrats are in the minority. They want to tie up the Republicans. So they have little time to legislate. Republicans are in the minority. They want to tie up the Democrats. So they have little time to legislate. They want each other to fail, partly because they disagree and partly because they know if the other side succeeds in making something work, the voters might reward them at the ballot box. We have to massively streamline this nomination process. We have to--100 Senators--work together, not do what is best for us when we are in the majority and oppose it when we are in the minority, or vice versa. We all have a responsibility to completely streamline that process so we can return to being a legislature. The second big problem for the Senate is that the rules provide a complicated, time-consuming process for debating and voting on whether to debate a bill. It involves a motion to proceed or requirement to close debate on the motion to proceed and whose nomination is up to 30 hours of additional of debate--all on the question of whether to debate. You have 100 capable people sent here by their constituents in their various States to solve problems for America, not to spend a week debating whether to debate a single bill. That could be a week spent debating the amendments that could make the bill better, a week spent considering individual pieces of the bills so the public knows where we stand and there is public accountability. But, instead, we have partisan paralysis. A completely dysfunctional Senate, that is what we have. We have to change the rules to stop this completely meritless waste of the time and efforts of 100 Senators. It is an easy solution: 1 hour spent debating whether to debate a bill, and then a simple majority vote, either we go to the bill or we don't; easy solution. One hour makes much more sense than 1 week. The third big problem this Senate Chamber faces is a secret silent filibuster. Under the Senate rule--and by the way, the term ``filibuster'' is really inappropriate because this involves no speaking of any kind. Under the Senate rule, 41 Senators can, operating as a block, veto the opportunity for the Senate to debate a bill, veto the opportunity for the Senate to consider an amendment, and veto the ability, after amendments have been considered, to have a final vote on the bill. It is the triple veto: three opportunities for the minority to blockade the majority from being able to consider legislation to address the issues facing America. And both parties have attempted to use it when they are in the minority. We have to restore the ability to actually debate. It is exactly what the Founders feared. When I lay out that 41 can block and veto these 3 steps of the process, it means to reverse it--that 60 out of 100, a supermajority, has to agree to go forward through each of those three steps. The Founders warned us: Never allow the minority to make the decisions by requiring a supermajority. Don't to it. That is why James Madison said that, with a supermajority, when ``the general good might require new laws . . . the principle of free government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.'' It is why Alexander Hamilton warned that a supermajority requirement would result in ``tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.'' He also warned that ``the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed''--the principle of supermajority--``is a history impotence, perplexity, and disorder.'' Now, you may wonder if the Founders had simply read about someone somewhere requiring a supermajority for legislature and said it didn't work very well and thought, We had better warn Americans not to do this. No, they were writing from their direct experience because, as they were drafting and debating our 1787 Constitution, they were actually in the middle of living through the impotence and incompetence of the Confederation Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded our 1787 Constitution, the Congress had to have a supermajority on every provision; meaning, the position of the minority could prevail over the position of the majority. The result was paralysis on the most fundamental issues they faced. They failed to raise the funds to pay the pensions of the veterans who spilled their blood in the Revolutionary War that created this Nation. They failed to raise the funds to put down Shays' Rebellion. Well, today, we have not one stage of veto, like they faced in the Confederation Congress, we have the triple veto power under the current secret, silent filibuster, and we are seeing the same impotence, the same paralysis, the same partisanship that it drives. The triple veto power of the minority is destroying the Senate to address challenges facing America, and there are a lot of them. We have got the climate crisis that is literally setting our country on fire. Right now, at this very moment, around 40 million Americans across the Plains and the Mississippi Valley are dealing with alerts for dangerous and intense heat, while firefighters are confronting 89 large fires across 12 States. And as of last week, four times as much acreage has burned this year as last year at this moment. And it is not just America, of course. Across the Atlantic, Europe is going through a recordbreaking heat wave, reaching temperatures some of thoseplaces have never seen and causing wildfires to burn in France and Spain and Italy and Greece. Congress should be immersed in considering bills to address the climate crisis that is damaging communities across our country, and not just through fires but through rising sea levels and rising erosion, through pine beetle infestations and mosquito infestations, through stronger hurricanes and stronger tornadoes, and, certainly, through the power of multiyear droughts. But we are not because the triple veto of the silent, secret filibuster afflicting this body is blocking us from doing so. We have a housing crisis. Out-of-control rents and prices make it impossible for millions of Americans to afford a decent home to rent or buy. And colleagues have one idea after another about how we should address it, but because we are paralyzed and our process is taken up, our time is taken up with nominations and debating whether to debate and we have the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster, they can't move forward. And we aren't debating, discussing, and hopefully passing measures that can make a difference. And Americans are outraged by the prices they pay on drugs, which are so much higher than any other developed country. Eighty percent of Americans say: Do something about it. And I think the other 20 percent don't realize how much we are getting ripped off. And Americans know we should get the best price because we invest the most in the research and development that creates these drugs, not the worst price, and they are absolutely right. And we would have passed legislation by now to get the best prices in the developed world, but we are blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. And now States are passing laws to block targeted groups of Americans from voting. We can fix that by passing S. 1, the For the People Act, or its reincarnation, the Freedom to Vote Act, but we can't because it was blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. Let me be absolutely clear. The single most effective way we can counterbalance an out-of-control Court with a MAGA agenda is to have a functioning Senate. That is the most immediate remedy available to us to respond to this terrible affliction undermining our Republic. If the Court says there is no problem with gerrymandered districts, where politicians choose their constituents instead of Americans choosing their leaders, as they did in the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, well, a reformed, restored Senate could pass legislation to require nonpartisan commissions to draw legislative districts. At least we could have a robust debate over it, maybe pass a few amendments modifying it in different forms--or perhaps find some other solution--if we had a functioning legislative process. If the Court says there is no limit to dark money from corporations and billionaires who flood and drown out the voices of ordinary Americans and campaigns, as they did in the 2010 Citizens United decision, a reformed, restored Senate could pass the DISCLOSE Act to shine a light on every dollar and where it is coming from in American campaigns. If the Court says that anyone who wants to be able to carry a concealed weapon should be able to like they did in their New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, a restored, functioning Senate could pass stronger gun safety laws that most Americans support, like ending the background check loophole--when guns are bought and sold by unlicensed parties online or at gun shows--or by outlawing the kinds of large magazines that carry 30 or more bullets that are often used in mass shootings. And when the Court went to abnormally great lengths to decide in last month's West Virginia v. EPA that the Agency can't regulate fossil carbon or fossil methane emissions, a functioning Senate would be able to step up and create the programs designed to speed up the transition to renewable energy, which would have the added benefit of ending our addiction to oil and dropping the prices at the pump, and it would keep money out of the hands of dictators in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. But the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster has blocked us from doing so. The remedy is not to eliminate the filibuster. The remedy is to reform it. The right reform is to adopt the public, talking filibuster. The talking filibuster would reassert the fundamental principle of legislative conduct: the Senate Code, adopted by the original Senate. Under that code, the Senate listened to every Senator's perspective, and then it took a vote on the issue, be it a bill or be it an amendment. That was the Senate Code. The original rules provided that every Senator had the right to speak twice to a question. It was rule No. 4 in the original rules. It is in our rules today. But the spirit of that code--listening to each Senator and then voting, with the majority winning, not losing--that part is gone. Now, it is the minority that can exercise a triple veto, a veto absolutely exactly the opposite of what the Founders said to us. They said: Don't do it. And we have done it in triplicate form, paralyzing this place and accentuating the temptation of yielding to partisanship rather than problem-solving. Jefferson did say that this rule, this code of listening to every Senator and voting, should not be abused. In fact, he said this in his manual for rules in 1801: No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. It worked for the Founders. They exercised some self-control, so much so that they didn't need the rule that they had to close debate. They just simply listened to everyone with mutual respect and then said: OK. Let's take a vote. You want to see that in action today? Watch the committee process on a bill with amendments. There is no one filibustering, speaking forever. There is no one requiring a supermajority to close debate in committee. They operate--we operate--in committee, much like the original Senate, and it works pretty well, but we have completely lost that discipline when it comes to debate here on our floor. So the early Senate had a rule for the previous question motion, to close debate or accelerate the closure of debate. And when they rewrote the rule book--and Aaron Burr was in charge of it--in 1806, they dropped the rule because they never used it, didn't feel they ever needed it. Well, we need to reclaim that vision, and our rules have gotten so crazy, so out of whack, that we encourage partisanship and paralysis rather than problem-solving. Let's fix that. So let's have the talking filibuster. The talking filibuster says, Yes, you can speak on the issue. We will listen to everyone. You can speak twice. But then we vote, and the majority wins--not a supermajority required. The minority doesn't win over the majority. The majority wins. That was the Senate. That was the design of our Constitution that we have the responsibility to restore because we took an oath to the Constitution. So let's restore it. And that talking filibuster encourages bipartisan problem-solving. The minority, be it the Democratic or Republican, that wants to slow things down for leverage, they can. So they have significant leverage, but, on the other hand, they have an incentive to negotiate because they are not sure how long they can maintain continuous debate. And that is the heart of the talking filibuster: maintaining continuous debate. If there is a break in debate, you go to the vote. Meanwhile, the majority has an incentive to compromise because they know the minority can tie this place up on a single bill for week after week, and they can't afford to have that much time taken over a single bill. So the talking filibuster restores an incentive for compromise and bipartisan problem-solving and, in the end, restores the vision that the majority makes the decision, not the minority. In the end, it gives the minority a voice, it gives the minority massive leverage, but it takes away their veto. That is the right way to legislate in a democracy. As I noted before, fixing the Senate is probably the best immediate tool we have for repairing the damage from the Supreme Court across the grounds. But we also have to consider every possible remedy to restore the Court itself, to restore a Court that calls the balls and strikes on the Constitution, defendingits core principles, and recognizes it is not there to legislate--not to legislate on the left side, not to legislate on the right side. They are there to defend the Constitution. Well, reforming the Court won't be easily done. But President Biden did convene a Commission to explore the option, and that Commission has produced a lengthy, lengthy report. This is part of it: The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, December of last year. I encourage all my colleagues to read this and consider the ideas in it. In this 300-page report, the Commission does review the history of how the Court has been in different phases, and its size has changed all the time because that is not established in the Constitution. It has been as few as 5, and it has been more than 10. There was not nine locked in like it is now. And, certainly, one of the ideas they review is adjustment to the size of the Court. Many people have said that is something to look at to balance what has happened with the Court, with the stolen Supreme Court seat and a decision by several Justices to be a legislature rather than a court. Well, that is one idea. Another is implementing term limits or a mandatory retirement age because, when the Constitution was first written, people weren't living the long lives they have today, and they didn't stay in the Court forever. In 1787, the Founders wrote that Justices would hold their seats during good behavior. Now, I am not sure that every Justice across these grounds has been engaged in good behavior when they are choosing to legislate rather than to rule on the defense of the Constitution, but there is no easy way to remove them from the Court for misbehavior. But one possibility is for the Court members to rotate out with term limits of some kind. That is one possibility. In much of our history, Justices only served an average of 15 years on the Court. The average is now 26 and getting longer. And, did you know, America is the only constitutional democracy that gives lifetime presence on the Court, that doesn't have either a term limit or a mandatory retirement age? This report, this Commission, has other ideas in it: rotating membership on the Court with judges selected from the circuit court. You know, the original Supreme Court, they served as circuit court writers. They went out and made decisions across this country. They didn't just sit in a room in the capital. So there is some precedent for that idea. And others point out that there is the power to restrict the Court's jurisdiction. There are pros and cons for these various ideas, and our commitment needs to be to examine them. The American public is open to examining them. Earlier this week, the FOX News poll reported that 66 percent of the folks in their poll support an 18-year term for Justices, and 71 percent support a mandatory retirement age. So the American people are open to trying to fix the challenge with the Court. We have to be open to fixing it, and we need to look at every option and idea very carefully to ensure that the highest Court in our land fulfills the vision for it in our Constitution. And the vision in our Constitution was not that it would be an unelected super-legislature. Colleagues, this is a perilous moment for our Republic. It is a moment when the will of the people is being overrun by an extreme agenda of a Court legislating from the Bench, imposing their narrow and precedent-destroying will on all Americans. We have to restore the ability of this Senate to operate as a legislature that can be a counterbalance to what the Court does, and we must thoughtfully consider every proposal for reforming the Court directly. We can and we must act before it is too late. We can't stand by and watch the continuous disintegration of our Republic. Our oath to the Constitution demands that we protect these institutions and repair them when they go off track. And when we do, the next July 4, we can all join together and celebrate the restoration of our paralyzed and partisan Senate into an actual legislative body. We can celebrate the restoration of Americans' rights that are being continuously stripped away across the grounds by the Supreme Court. We can have a renewed belief and confidence in the integrity of all of our institutions and our democratic form of governance. That would be a moment justifying a massive celebration next July 4. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | null | 4,767 |
formal | terrorism | null | Islamophobic | Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, on July 4, we celebrated the founding of our Nation, as we do every year. But when I woke up on this July 4, I had a strange thought, a thought I never had before, the question of, What kind of country are we celebrating? I have always had immense pride in the founding vision of our Nation, in that vision of equality, of opportunity for all, of freedom of religion, of equal justice under the law, of equal representation, and, most importantly, of government of, by, and for the people. Our journey as a nation over nearly 250 years has been a difficult journey of moving toward full implementation of this vision. That is an inspiring journey--a journey I have been proud to witness, a journey I have been proud to be a part of. But just days before this year's July 4 celebration, we saw the conclusion of the Supreme Court's latest judicial term--a term over which the Court displayed a far different vision for America: one with devastating repercussions that will reverberate in the lives of countless Americans for decades to come. For years now--actually, for decades, we have watched a steady, relentless effort by rightwing extremists to rig the courts so they can transform America and American society as we have known it. Their big goal is corporations over people and their second goal is to implement conservative cultural policy over individual freedom and liberty. Now, with this Court's recent decisions, we are left with an inescapable conclusion: The extremists have succeeded. The Court is now operating as an unelected super-legislature with a MAGA political agenda. Their decisions this term read like planks out of the Republican Party platform. Here is what the MAGA Court's vision is for our Nation. It is a vision that obliterates the right to privacy, giving an overbearing Federal Government the power to be in the medical exam room making reproductive health decisions for American women, when the only people who should be in the exam room, under an ``of and by the people'' Republic is the woman, her doctor, and whomever else she chooses to invite--her partner, her friend, or her religious adviser. This Court's vision is a vision that embraces never-ending gun violence, stripping Congress and the States ofthe ability to make commonsense gun safety laws. It is a vision of a nation where public schools can impose religion on their students. So much for freedom of religion and separation of church and State. It is a vision of a nation where wrongfully incarcerated Americans don't have the right to prove their innocence and can't find justice if their Miranda rights were violated. So much for the principle of equal justice under law, the very principle carved into stone above the doors of the Supreme Court. In fact, if you go out this door and out the front steps, you can see those words while standing here on the steps of the Senate. This Court's vision is of a nation where the Court strips the Federal Government of its legally enacted power to regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane pollution that is destroying our Nation and our planet. It is a vision where the powerful corrupt the integrity of our elections with gerrymandering and dark money and measures to prevent targeted groups of Americans from voting. This vision is a vision for a government by and for the powerful, not by and for the people. This vision in which the Supreme Court becomes a superlegislature for a MAGA agenda infuriates me. It infuriates me because I believe in government by and for the people, not by and for the powerful. It infuriates me because I know the pain that these decisions will inflict on millions of Americans--the pain of a woman forced by a State government to carry a fetus to term that was conceived through rape or incest or the pain of any woman, for that matter, who simply is unprepared to be pregnant or become a parent; the pain of every single person who will have to mourn the death of a loved one lost to an ever-growing epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings like we saw in Uvalde and in Highland Park and in countless other communities with more than one mass shooting per day; the pain of the citizens blocked from the ballot box, effectively denied their most fundamental right as Americans because of voter suppression schemes enacted in many States over this past year; the pain of students in our public schools pressured to participate in religious acts in conflict with their own beliefs; the pain of rural Americans, ranchers, and farmers whose farms and ranches will be lost to fire and drought because the Court says the Federal Government cannot regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane causing climate chaos. And I am infuriated because I know more Supreme Court decisions like these are coming from the six MAGA Justices on the Court. They want to cement their vision of America through superlegislative powers rather than calling the balls and strikes defending the Constitution, which is their job. They have announced that next term they are going to hear a case on the fringe doctrine known as the independent State legislature doctrine. It has been considered an extremist idea, which says only State legislatures have the power to make decisions about Federal elections and how to appoint electors. State courts would have no power to ensure checks and balances or decide which decisions about elections violate a State constitution or ignore the will of the voters, nor could State Governors veto such legislative decisions. And that is just the start. Justice Thomas himself said in his concurring opinion that, based on the reasoning in Dobbs, he wants the Court to consider a whole host of other rights that have been secured and protected by previous Courts, including the possibility of striking down the right to intimacy and marriage for same-sex couples and the right to contraception. Make no mistake, this is not some sudden occurrence. It is exactly what the Federalist Society has been working toward for decades. Before joining the Court in 1972, Lewis Powell wrote about the need to rebuild the power of industrial elites and fight back ``from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians'' against progressive changes in society. In outlining a plan for rebuilding the power of Big Business, he declared that, with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for achieving that goal. That is exactly why, as majority leader in 2017, Senator McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat from one President so another President could fill it. He stole it in 2016, and he filled it in 2017 with MAGA Justice Neil Gorsuch. It is why, in 2018, Leader McConnell completely ignored credible accounts of sexual assault and rushed through a confirmation without giving Senators access to the nominee's full records and bypassing committee quorum rules to fill another seat with MAGA Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And it is why, when a seat opened up in another election year, 2020, just weeks before the voters would vote, Leader McConnell completely reversed his argument that he had used to justify the theft of a Supreme Court seat in 2016, and he rammed through the nomination of MAGA Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The Republican Party has won one popular vote for President in the last 30 years but has appointed two-thirds of the sitting Justices, who now see it as their job to become a super-legislature for a cultural agenda and corporate power. In one of his columns, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post described the resulting unelected, unaccountable majority of Supreme Court Justices as a ``junta''--a word used to describe authoritarian leaders who rule through edicts rather than through legislative determination or deliberation on constitutional principles. It is hard to argue with Eugene Robinson's characterization. In spite of what the vast majority of Americans want--the protection of a woman's right to full reproductive healthcare and more gun safety, not less, and free and fair elections--the Court's MAGA majority has chosen to rule by Supreme Court edict to inflict their narrow preferences for society on hundreds of millions of Americans. And they are not just using the regular process for considering cases. Over the past 5 years, we have seen a monumental shift in the Court's use of emergency orders--the so-called shadow docket--to enact sweeping decisions on the American people. These cases don't get the full process we are familiar with--formal briefings, formal hearings, lengthy deliberations, and opinion writings--because it is argued that the applicant would suffer ``irreparable harm'' if their request were not immediately granted. The shadow docket decisions, by the way, are usually unsigned and unexplained. In the past, they have essentially involved death penalty cases--cases of literal life and death--of pretty much extreme importance to the applicant because, if someone is executed before their case is heard, they do suffer ``irreparable harm''--the standard. Then, about 5 years ago, we started to see a big shift in the emergency cases being taken up and in the substances of them as well. We have seen the shadow docket used to stop the Federal Government from implementing a vaccine and testing mandate on businesses to protect public health in the middle of an unprecedented global health crisis that has killed more than a million Americans. We have seen it used to uphold a Texas law banning abortion after 6 weeks. We have seen it used when a lower court blocked Alabama's congressional map because it violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black voters. The Court said: You have got to draw a new map that is fair. The Supreme Court stepped in with their shadow docket and said: No. Alabama can use this faulty map that dilutes the power of Black Americans. In this situation, the Court didn't stop the infliction of harm; they inflicted the harm on Black Americans, who want fair maps, who deserve fair maps for voting in our democracy. That gerrymandered map is now in place to disenfranchise Black voters in this November's election because of the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket. It is hard to see how any of these cases met the test for the shadow docket. The state of abuse of the shadow docket has gotten so bad and so blatant that even Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Court, joined a dissent in a case reinstating a Trump administration Clean Water Act regulation limiting Federal protections for streams and wetlands. This dissentstated that the majority's decision ``renders the court's emergency docket,'' meaning the shadow docket, ``not for emergencies at all . . . . The docket becomes only another place for merits determinations--except made without full briefing and argument.'' When the Supreme Court's Chief Justice says the shadow docket is being abused, you know it is true. This MAGA Court is so determined to impose their legislative priorities and values on our country that they have abandoned one of the core principles of American jurisprudence, going back to even before there was a United States of America, and that is that the Court only rules when there is an actual dispute or controversy in question. In their eagerness to cripple the Federal Government's ability to fight fossil carbon pollution, the MAGA Justices weighed in on a regulation that had never been enforced--a regulation that had been withdrawn by President Trump and a regulation which President Biden had indicated was never going to be reinstated. Even the utilities that would have been regulated didn't want the Supreme Court to decide this case. This out-of-control MAGA Supreme Court super-legislature wanted to legislate--and legislate they did--violating a core principle that the Court does not address moot cases. Moot cases are cases where there is nothing still in dispute, and this certainly was the case that this case was as dead or as moot as it could be because nobody could be impacted by a rule that doesn't exist. Why did the Court take up this case? Well, we may not be able to specify the exact reasoning by each Justice, but the effect is clear. By taking up this case, the Court furthered the MAGA policy agenda. Their ruling handcuffed Federal authorities' ability to pursue future limitations on pollutions from fossil fuels like carbon dioxide and fossil methane. This is to the enormous benefit of the fossil fuel billionaires who funded the massive dark money campaigns that supported these Justices' confirmations. That situation of their breaking precedent to benefit the fossil billionaires, who had just funded their confirmation campaigns, reeks of corruption. When generations ahead of us look back at this moment, I have no doubt--especially when they look at this year, 2022, and what the Court did in a single year--they will look back with a sense of profound disbelief--disbelief--like that disbelief that we experience when we look back on cases like Dred Scott, which dehumanized Black Americans and legitimized slavery, or Plessy v. Ferguson, which locked in 60 years of vicious discrimination and racial terrorism under a separate but equal philosophy. The disbelief that future generations will have will be directed at Dobbs--a decision this year in which the Court obliterated privacy and put an overbearing government in charge of women's reproductive health. They will have the disbelief that, in Kennedy v. Bremerton--decided this year--the Court destroyed freedom of religion in our public schools; the disbelief that, in West Virginia v. EPA--a decision this year--the Court violated centuries of precedent to rule on a regulation that is no longer on books, with the effect--perhaps the goal--of limiting the future regulation of greenhouse gas pollution; the disbelief in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen--decided this year--that the Court ruled that a State legislature can't require folks to have a good reason to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Let me be clear. This activist, extremist MAGA Court faces a legitimacy crisis, and a legitimacy crisis for the Court is a crisis for our democratic Republic. Part of that illegitimacy is Justices of the Supreme Court selectively using a doctrine of so-called originalism to justify their politically inspired decisions. The doctrine of originalism is based on a reasonable argument, one on which you and I would say makes sense: a goal of understanding what the Founders meant when they wrote what they wrote in our Constitution more than two centuries ago. But if that effort is applied selectively, it simply becomes a measure to justify, after the fact, where the Justices want it to come out. They use it when it works, and they abandon it when it doesn't. For example, the Founders wrote the Second Amendment to ensure that members of well-regulated militias had access to their rifles, but the so-called originalists on the Court cast originalism aside, declaring that the Founders wrote that clause to ensure that nonmilitia members had the right to bring assault rifles--that didn't exist in 1787--onto subways, which didn't exist in 1787. That is bogus originalism in its purist form. Consider this: Corporations, as we know them today, did not exist in 1787. Yet the so-called originalists on the Court insist that the Founders' vision of the First Amendment, to protect freedom of speech, gives corporations speech rights even though the word ``corporation'' doesn't appear in the Constitution--a point that they use when they want to take an originalist argument: that the Founders had to have it be something written in the Constitution and be something they discussed and something they considered and something they envisioned. None of those are true. Not a one of them is true in this case. The MAGA Court also claims that a corporation is a person, which no Founder would ever have argued. They didn't even know what a ``corporation'' was because they didn't exist in this form that we have now. The MAGA Court goes on to claim that the members comprising the corporate personhood--those are the stockholders of a corporation--have absolutely no right to know how that corporation that they are part of spends their money. This is absurdity stacked on the fallacy that a corporation is a person. I have yet to see and yet to hear any plausible explanation as to how the MAGA Justices can be confident that the Founders intended for billionaire CEOs to hijack the accumulated wealth of their stockholders without their stockholders' knowledge or permission or opportunity to know what is being said and to use that money as speech and to spend it on secretly funded campaigns, including campaigns to confirm Supreme Court Justices. The problem we face, colleagues, isn't just a MAGA-majority Court enacting terrible policy rather than defending the balls and strikes against the Constitution. The problem is greater if the highest Court in the land loses its legitimacy, the law itself loses its legitimacy. If the American people see the Supreme Court Justices making clear that the law has no meaning other than their political preferences, then the law is not the foundation for our society that it is supposed to be. We have seen with deadly results on January 6, 2021, the consequences to our policies, to our politics, and to our society when the rule of law is replaced by violence and power as the organizing principle for society. The Court is essential in a society based on the rule of law, and it is essential to have a Court that honors the law rather than trying to write the law. This MAGA majority and its desire, and operation as a super-legislature--unelected, lifetime appointments--is a dire threat to our Republic. Here in Congress, we must not only shine a light--a spotlight--on the threat; we must stop the runaway MAGA Court from corrupting the rule of law and try to restore the legitimate role of the Court as a panel defending our Constitution. Some will say there is no way to restore the Court and that any strategy for restoring the Court will simply compound the problems we are now facing, and I agree that there is no simple way to restore the legitimacy of the Court. Back in 2017, when then-Majority Leader McConnell was striving to complete the theft of the Supreme Court seat taken from the administration of Barack Obama, I took to this floor for 15\1/2\ hours with one simple message: Don't do it. Don't do it because, if you do, you will damage the legitimacy of the Court and there will be no simple path, no easy remedy to restore the Court's legitimacy. But Leader McConnell, he doused the Supreme Court with gasoline on that day, and he set it on fire. He did the damage. I stood here for 15\1/2\ hours and said don't do it. You know, we take an oath of office to a Constitution. That involves defending the Court, not delegitimizing the Court, not stealing Supreme Courtseats. It was the first time in the history of the United States of America that this Senate failed to debate and vote on a nominee. But here we are; the damage is done. What do we do now? When an arsonist sets fire to your house, you don't let it burn because you are worried about water damage. You have to strive to put out that fire, regardless of how difficult the task. So I say to you today, we cannot accept the defeatist attitude that fails to confront the forces destroying our Republic. There are two things we must do. Mission one, we have to reform the ability of this broken Senate to serve as a legislature because, if it serves effectively as a legislature, it can serve as a counterweight to decisions of a corrupted Court. The second thing we have to do is put all options on the table and debate them for directly reforming the Court, recognizing that we are left with difficult choices on how to do that. But we have to step up. It is necessary to save our Republic. So let's take each of these missions in turn. The first is to restore the Senate. Our goal: Restore the Senate as a legislative body to serve as a counterweight to the corruption of a MAGA-majority Court. There are three massive problems currently afflicting the Senate's ability to serve as a functioning legislative body. First, we spend virtually all of our time on nominations, so much time that it keeps us from doing much legislating, even though we have a massively complex society and a lot of possibilities for making it work better. When George Washington was assembling his first administration, he had to appoint and the Senate had to confirm four Cabinet positions: Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General--four positions. Today, the Senate is responsible for confirming over 1,200 Presidential appointments to executive branch positions and commissions. Now, in the past, both parties worked to exercise the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities in a manner that minimized the amount of Senate time required. Most were done by unanimous consent late at night, when practically anyone was here because most nominations are not ones to which anyone has an objection. In the entire decade of the 1960s, there was one vote required to close debate on a nominee--one, in an entire 10 years. But, last decade, that number went to 545. Now, it is like every nomination. Virtually every nomination we have to file to close debate and vote to close debate before we can vote on the nominee. And do you know what? The way it works, you can also require 30 hours of debate after the vote to close debate succeeds. So the rules, which were designed for exceptional situations where there is a significant objection, are now used as partisan obstruction. Democrats are in the minority. They want to tie up the Republicans. So they have little time to legislate. Republicans are in the minority. They want to tie up the Democrats. So they have little time to legislate. They want each other to fail, partly because they disagree and partly because they know if the other side succeeds in making something work, the voters might reward them at the ballot box. We have to massively streamline this nomination process. We have to--100 Senators--work together, not do what is best for us when we are in the majority and oppose it when we are in the minority, or vice versa. We all have a responsibility to completely streamline that process so we can return to being a legislature. The second big problem for the Senate is that the rules provide a complicated, time-consuming process for debating and voting on whether to debate a bill. It involves a motion to proceed or requirement to close debate on the motion to proceed and whose nomination is up to 30 hours of additional of debate--all on the question of whether to debate. You have 100 capable people sent here by their constituents in their various States to solve problems for America, not to spend a week debating whether to debate a single bill. That could be a week spent debating the amendments that could make the bill better, a week spent considering individual pieces of the bills so the public knows where we stand and there is public accountability. But, instead, we have partisan paralysis. A completely dysfunctional Senate, that is what we have. We have to change the rules to stop this completely meritless waste of the time and efforts of 100 Senators. It is an easy solution: 1 hour spent debating whether to debate a bill, and then a simple majority vote, either we go to the bill or we don't; easy solution. One hour makes much more sense than 1 week. The third big problem this Senate Chamber faces is a secret silent filibuster. Under the Senate rule--and by the way, the term ``filibuster'' is really inappropriate because this involves no speaking of any kind. Under the Senate rule, 41 Senators can, operating as a block, veto the opportunity for the Senate to debate a bill, veto the opportunity for the Senate to consider an amendment, and veto the ability, after amendments have been considered, to have a final vote on the bill. It is the triple veto: three opportunities for the minority to blockade the majority from being able to consider legislation to address the issues facing America. And both parties have attempted to use it when they are in the minority. We have to restore the ability to actually debate. It is exactly what the Founders feared. When I lay out that 41 can block and veto these 3 steps of the process, it means to reverse it--that 60 out of 100, a supermajority, has to agree to go forward through each of those three steps. The Founders warned us: Never allow the minority to make the decisions by requiring a supermajority. Don't to it. That is why James Madison said that, with a supermajority, when ``the general good might require new laws . . . the principle of free government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.'' It is why Alexander Hamilton warned that a supermajority requirement would result in ``tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.'' He also warned that ``the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed''--the principle of supermajority--``is a history impotence, perplexity, and disorder.'' Now, you may wonder if the Founders had simply read about someone somewhere requiring a supermajority for legislature and said it didn't work very well and thought, We had better warn Americans not to do this. No, they were writing from their direct experience because, as they were drafting and debating our 1787 Constitution, they were actually in the middle of living through the impotence and incompetence of the Confederation Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded our 1787 Constitution, the Congress had to have a supermajority on every provision; meaning, the position of the minority could prevail over the position of the majority. The result was paralysis on the most fundamental issues they faced. They failed to raise the funds to pay the pensions of the veterans who spilled their blood in the Revolutionary War that created this Nation. They failed to raise the funds to put down Shays' Rebellion. Well, today, we have not one stage of veto, like they faced in the Confederation Congress, we have the triple veto power under the current secret, silent filibuster, and we are seeing the same impotence, the same paralysis, the same partisanship that it drives. The triple veto power of the minority is destroying the Senate to address challenges facing America, and there are a lot of them. We have got the climate crisis that is literally setting our country on fire. Right now, at this very moment, around 40 million Americans across the Plains and the Mississippi Valley are dealing with alerts for dangerous and intense heat, while firefighters are confronting 89 large fires across 12 States. And as of last week, four times as much acreage has burned this year as last year at this moment. And it is not just America, of course. Across the Atlantic, Europe is going through a recordbreaking heat wave, reaching temperatures some of thoseplaces have never seen and causing wildfires to burn in France and Spain and Italy and Greece. Congress should be immersed in considering bills to address the climate crisis that is damaging communities across our country, and not just through fires but through rising sea levels and rising erosion, through pine beetle infestations and mosquito infestations, through stronger hurricanes and stronger tornadoes, and, certainly, through the power of multiyear droughts. But we are not because the triple veto of the silent, secret filibuster afflicting this body is blocking us from doing so. We have a housing crisis. Out-of-control rents and prices make it impossible for millions of Americans to afford a decent home to rent or buy. And colleagues have one idea after another about how we should address it, but because we are paralyzed and our process is taken up, our time is taken up with nominations and debating whether to debate and we have the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster, they can't move forward. And we aren't debating, discussing, and hopefully passing measures that can make a difference. And Americans are outraged by the prices they pay on drugs, which are so much higher than any other developed country. Eighty percent of Americans say: Do something about it. And I think the other 20 percent don't realize how much we are getting ripped off. And Americans know we should get the best price because we invest the most in the research and development that creates these drugs, not the worst price, and they are absolutely right. And we would have passed legislation by now to get the best prices in the developed world, but we are blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. And now States are passing laws to block targeted groups of Americans from voting. We can fix that by passing S. 1, the For the People Act, or its reincarnation, the Freedom to Vote Act, but we can't because it was blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. Let me be absolutely clear. The single most effective way we can counterbalance an out-of-control Court with a MAGA agenda is to have a functioning Senate. That is the most immediate remedy available to us to respond to this terrible affliction undermining our Republic. If the Court says there is no problem with gerrymandered districts, where politicians choose their constituents instead of Americans choosing their leaders, as they did in the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, well, a reformed, restored Senate could pass legislation to require nonpartisan commissions to draw legislative districts. At least we could have a robust debate over it, maybe pass a few amendments modifying it in different forms--or perhaps find some other solution--if we had a functioning legislative process. If the Court says there is no limit to dark money from corporations and billionaires who flood and drown out the voices of ordinary Americans and campaigns, as they did in the 2010 Citizens United decision, a reformed, restored Senate could pass the DISCLOSE Act to shine a light on every dollar and where it is coming from in American campaigns. If the Court says that anyone who wants to be able to carry a concealed weapon should be able to like they did in their New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, a restored, functioning Senate could pass stronger gun safety laws that most Americans support, like ending the background check loophole--when guns are bought and sold by unlicensed parties online or at gun shows--or by outlawing the kinds of large magazines that carry 30 or more bullets that are often used in mass shootings. And when the Court went to abnormally great lengths to decide in last month's West Virginia v. EPA that the Agency can't regulate fossil carbon or fossil methane emissions, a functioning Senate would be able to step up and create the programs designed to speed up the transition to renewable energy, which would have the added benefit of ending our addiction to oil and dropping the prices at the pump, and it would keep money out of the hands of dictators in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. But the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster has blocked us from doing so. The remedy is not to eliminate the filibuster. The remedy is to reform it. The right reform is to adopt the public, talking filibuster. The talking filibuster would reassert the fundamental principle of legislative conduct: the Senate Code, adopted by the original Senate. Under that code, the Senate listened to every Senator's perspective, and then it took a vote on the issue, be it a bill or be it an amendment. That was the Senate Code. The original rules provided that every Senator had the right to speak twice to a question. It was rule No. 4 in the original rules. It is in our rules today. But the spirit of that code--listening to each Senator and then voting, with the majority winning, not losing--that part is gone. Now, it is the minority that can exercise a triple veto, a veto absolutely exactly the opposite of what the Founders said to us. They said: Don't do it. And we have done it in triplicate form, paralyzing this place and accentuating the temptation of yielding to partisanship rather than problem-solving. Jefferson did say that this rule, this code of listening to every Senator and voting, should not be abused. In fact, he said this in his manual for rules in 1801: No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. It worked for the Founders. They exercised some self-control, so much so that they didn't need the rule that they had to close debate. They just simply listened to everyone with mutual respect and then said: OK. Let's take a vote. You want to see that in action today? Watch the committee process on a bill with amendments. There is no one filibustering, speaking forever. There is no one requiring a supermajority to close debate in committee. They operate--we operate--in committee, much like the original Senate, and it works pretty well, but we have completely lost that discipline when it comes to debate here on our floor. So the early Senate had a rule for the previous question motion, to close debate or accelerate the closure of debate. And when they rewrote the rule book--and Aaron Burr was in charge of it--in 1806, they dropped the rule because they never used it, didn't feel they ever needed it. Well, we need to reclaim that vision, and our rules have gotten so crazy, so out of whack, that we encourage partisanship and paralysis rather than problem-solving. Let's fix that. So let's have the talking filibuster. The talking filibuster says, Yes, you can speak on the issue. We will listen to everyone. You can speak twice. But then we vote, and the majority wins--not a supermajority required. The minority doesn't win over the majority. The majority wins. That was the Senate. That was the design of our Constitution that we have the responsibility to restore because we took an oath to the Constitution. So let's restore it. And that talking filibuster encourages bipartisan problem-solving. The minority, be it the Democratic or Republican, that wants to slow things down for leverage, they can. So they have significant leverage, but, on the other hand, they have an incentive to negotiate because they are not sure how long they can maintain continuous debate. And that is the heart of the talking filibuster: maintaining continuous debate. If there is a break in debate, you go to the vote. Meanwhile, the majority has an incentive to compromise because they know the minority can tie this place up on a single bill for week after week, and they can't afford to have that much time taken over a single bill. So the talking filibuster restores an incentive for compromise and bipartisan problem-solving and, in the end, restores the vision that the majority makes the decision, not the minority. In the end, it gives the minority a voice, it gives the minority massive leverage, but it takes away their veto. That is the right way to legislate in a democracy. As I noted before, fixing the Senate is probably the best immediate tool we have for repairing the damage from the Supreme Court across the grounds. But we also have to consider every possible remedy to restore the Court itself, to restore a Court that calls the balls and strikes on the Constitution, defendingits core principles, and recognizes it is not there to legislate--not to legislate on the left side, not to legislate on the right side. They are there to defend the Constitution. Well, reforming the Court won't be easily done. But President Biden did convene a Commission to explore the option, and that Commission has produced a lengthy, lengthy report. This is part of it: The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, December of last year. I encourage all my colleagues to read this and consider the ideas in it. In this 300-page report, the Commission does review the history of how the Court has been in different phases, and its size has changed all the time because that is not established in the Constitution. It has been as few as 5, and it has been more than 10. There was not nine locked in like it is now. And, certainly, one of the ideas they review is adjustment to the size of the Court. Many people have said that is something to look at to balance what has happened with the Court, with the stolen Supreme Court seat and a decision by several Justices to be a legislature rather than a court. Well, that is one idea. Another is implementing term limits or a mandatory retirement age because, when the Constitution was first written, people weren't living the long lives they have today, and they didn't stay in the Court forever. In 1787, the Founders wrote that Justices would hold their seats during good behavior. Now, I am not sure that every Justice across these grounds has been engaged in good behavior when they are choosing to legislate rather than to rule on the defense of the Constitution, but there is no easy way to remove them from the Court for misbehavior. But one possibility is for the Court members to rotate out with term limits of some kind. That is one possibility. In much of our history, Justices only served an average of 15 years on the Court. The average is now 26 and getting longer. And, did you know, America is the only constitutional democracy that gives lifetime presence on the Court, that doesn't have either a term limit or a mandatory retirement age? This report, this Commission, has other ideas in it: rotating membership on the Court with judges selected from the circuit court. You know, the original Supreme Court, they served as circuit court writers. They went out and made decisions across this country. They didn't just sit in a room in the capital. So there is some precedent for that idea. And others point out that there is the power to restrict the Court's jurisdiction. There are pros and cons for these various ideas, and our commitment needs to be to examine them. The American public is open to examining them. Earlier this week, the FOX News poll reported that 66 percent of the folks in their poll support an 18-year term for Justices, and 71 percent support a mandatory retirement age. So the American people are open to trying to fix the challenge with the Court. We have to be open to fixing it, and we need to look at every option and idea very carefully to ensure that the highest Court in our land fulfills the vision for it in our Constitution. And the vision in our Constitution was not that it would be an unelected super-legislature. Colleagues, this is a perilous moment for our Republic. It is a moment when the will of the people is being overrun by an extreme agenda of a Court legislating from the Bench, imposing their narrow and precedent-destroying will on all Americans. We have to restore the ability of this Senate to operate as a legislature that can be a counterbalance to what the Court does, and we must thoughtfully consider every proposal for reforming the Court directly. We can and we must act before it is too late. We can't stand by and watch the continuous disintegration of our Republic. Our oath to the Constitution demands that we protect these institutions and repair them when they go off track. And when we do, the next July 4, we can all join together and celebrate the restoration of our paralyzed and partisan Senate into an actual legislative body. We can celebrate the restoration of Americans' rights that are being continuously stripped away across the grounds by the Supreme Court. We can have a renewed belief and confidence in the integrity of all of our institutions and our democratic form of governance. That would be a moment justifying a massive celebration next July 4. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | null | 4,768 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, on July 4, we celebrated the founding of our Nation, as we do every year. But when I woke up on this July 4, I had a strange thought, a thought I never had before, the question of, What kind of country are we celebrating? I have always had immense pride in the founding vision of our Nation, in that vision of equality, of opportunity for all, of freedom of religion, of equal justice under the law, of equal representation, and, most importantly, of government of, by, and for the people. Our journey as a nation over nearly 250 years has been a difficult journey of moving toward full implementation of this vision. That is an inspiring journey--a journey I have been proud to witness, a journey I have been proud to be a part of. But just days before this year's July 4 celebration, we saw the conclusion of the Supreme Court's latest judicial term--a term over which the Court displayed a far different vision for America: one with devastating repercussions that will reverberate in the lives of countless Americans for decades to come. For years now--actually, for decades, we have watched a steady, relentless effort by rightwing extremists to rig the courts so they can transform America and American society as we have known it. Their big goal is corporations over people and their second goal is to implement conservative cultural policy over individual freedom and liberty. Now, with this Court's recent decisions, we are left with an inescapable conclusion: The extremists have succeeded. The Court is now operating as an unelected super-legislature with a MAGA political agenda. Their decisions this term read like planks out of the Republican Party platform. Here is what the MAGA Court's vision is for our Nation. It is a vision that obliterates the right to privacy, giving an overbearing Federal Government the power to be in the medical exam room making reproductive health decisions for American women, when the only people who should be in the exam room, under an ``of and by the people'' Republic is the woman, her doctor, and whomever else she chooses to invite--her partner, her friend, or her religious adviser. This Court's vision is a vision that embraces never-ending gun violence, stripping Congress and the States ofthe ability to make commonsense gun safety laws. It is a vision of a nation where public schools can impose religion on their students. So much for freedom of religion and separation of church and State. It is a vision of a nation where wrongfully incarcerated Americans don't have the right to prove their innocence and can't find justice if their Miranda rights were violated. So much for the principle of equal justice under law, the very principle carved into stone above the doors of the Supreme Court. In fact, if you go out this door and out the front steps, you can see those words while standing here on the steps of the Senate. This Court's vision is of a nation where the Court strips the Federal Government of its legally enacted power to regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane pollution that is destroying our Nation and our planet. It is a vision where the powerful corrupt the integrity of our elections with gerrymandering and dark money and measures to prevent targeted groups of Americans from voting. This vision is a vision for a government by and for the powerful, not by and for the people. This vision in which the Supreme Court becomes a superlegislature for a MAGA agenda infuriates me. It infuriates me because I believe in government by and for the people, not by and for the powerful. It infuriates me because I know the pain that these decisions will inflict on millions of Americans--the pain of a woman forced by a State government to carry a fetus to term that was conceived through rape or incest or the pain of any woman, for that matter, who simply is unprepared to be pregnant or become a parent; the pain of every single person who will have to mourn the death of a loved one lost to an ever-growing epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings like we saw in Uvalde and in Highland Park and in countless other communities with more than one mass shooting per day; the pain of the citizens blocked from the ballot box, effectively denied their most fundamental right as Americans because of voter suppression schemes enacted in many States over this past year; the pain of students in our public schools pressured to participate in religious acts in conflict with their own beliefs; the pain of rural Americans, ranchers, and farmers whose farms and ranches will be lost to fire and drought because the Court says the Federal Government cannot regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane causing climate chaos. And I am infuriated because I know more Supreme Court decisions like these are coming from the six MAGA Justices on the Court. They want to cement their vision of America through superlegislative powers rather than calling the balls and strikes defending the Constitution, which is their job. They have announced that next term they are going to hear a case on the fringe doctrine known as the independent State legislature doctrine. It has been considered an extremist idea, which says only State legislatures have the power to make decisions about Federal elections and how to appoint electors. State courts would have no power to ensure checks and balances or decide which decisions about elections violate a State constitution or ignore the will of the voters, nor could State Governors veto such legislative decisions. And that is just the start. Justice Thomas himself said in his concurring opinion that, based on the reasoning in Dobbs, he wants the Court to consider a whole host of other rights that have been secured and protected by previous Courts, including the possibility of striking down the right to intimacy and marriage for same-sex couples and the right to contraception. Make no mistake, this is not some sudden occurrence. It is exactly what the Federalist Society has been working toward for decades. Before joining the Court in 1972, Lewis Powell wrote about the need to rebuild the power of industrial elites and fight back ``from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians'' against progressive changes in society. In outlining a plan for rebuilding the power of Big Business, he declared that, with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for achieving that goal. That is exactly why, as majority leader in 2017, Senator McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat from one President so another President could fill it. He stole it in 2016, and he filled it in 2017 with MAGA Justice Neil Gorsuch. It is why, in 2018, Leader McConnell completely ignored credible accounts of sexual assault and rushed through a confirmation without giving Senators access to the nominee's full records and bypassing committee quorum rules to fill another seat with MAGA Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And it is why, when a seat opened up in another election year, 2020, just weeks before the voters would vote, Leader McConnell completely reversed his argument that he had used to justify the theft of a Supreme Court seat in 2016, and he rammed through the nomination of MAGA Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The Republican Party has won one popular vote for President in the last 30 years but has appointed two-thirds of the sitting Justices, who now see it as their job to become a super-legislature for a cultural agenda and corporate power. In one of his columns, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post described the resulting unelected, unaccountable majority of Supreme Court Justices as a ``junta''--a word used to describe authoritarian leaders who rule through edicts rather than through legislative determination or deliberation on constitutional principles. It is hard to argue with Eugene Robinson's characterization. In spite of what the vast majority of Americans want--the protection of a woman's right to full reproductive healthcare and more gun safety, not less, and free and fair elections--the Court's MAGA majority has chosen to rule by Supreme Court edict to inflict their narrow preferences for society on hundreds of millions of Americans. And they are not just using the regular process for considering cases. Over the past 5 years, we have seen a monumental shift in the Court's use of emergency orders--the so-called shadow docket--to enact sweeping decisions on the American people. These cases don't get the full process we are familiar with--formal briefings, formal hearings, lengthy deliberations, and opinion writings--because it is argued that the applicant would suffer ``irreparable harm'' if their request were not immediately granted. The shadow docket decisions, by the way, are usually unsigned and unexplained. In the past, they have essentially involved death penalty cases--cases of literal life and death--of pretty much extreme importance to the applicant because, if someone is executed before their case is heard, they do suffer ``irreparable harm''--the standard. Then, about 5 years ago, we started to see a big shift in the emergency cases being taken up and in the substances of them as well. We have seen the shadow docket used to stop the Federal Government from implementing a vaccine and testing mandate on businesses to protect public health in the middle of an unprecedented global health crisis that has killed more than a million Americans. We have seen it used to uphold a Texas law banning abortion after 6 weeks. We have seen it used when a lower court blocked Alabama's congressional map because it violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black voters. The Court said: You have got to draw a new map that is fair. The Supreme Court stepped in with their shadow docket and said: No. Alabama can use this faulty map that dilutes the power of Black Americans. In this situation, the Court didn't stop the infliction of harm; they inflicted the harm on Black Americans, who want fair maps, who deserve fair maps for voting in our democracy. That gerrymandered map is now in place to disenfranchise Black voters in this November's election because of the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket. It is hard to see how any of these cases met the test for the shadow docket. The state of abuse of the shadow docket has gotten so bad and so blatant that even Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Court, joined a dissent in a case reinstating a Trump administration Clean Water Act regulation limiting Federal protections for streams and wetlands. This dissentstated that the majority's decision ``renders the court's emergency docket,'' meaning the shadow docket, ``not for emergencies at all . . . . The docket becomes only another place for merits determinations--except made without full briefing and argument.'' When the Supreme Court's Chief Justice says the shadow docket is being abused, you know it is true. This MAGA Court is so determined to impose their legislative priorities and values on our country that they have abandoned one of the core principles of American jurisprudence, going back to even before there was a United States of America, and that is that the Court only rules when there is an actual dispute or controversy in question. In their eagerness to cripple the Federal Government's ability to fight fossil carbon pollution, the MAGA Justices weighed in on a regulation that had never been enforced--a regulation that had been withdrawn by President Trump and a regulation which President Biden had indicated was never going to be reinstated. Even the utilities that would have been regulated didn't want the Supreme Court to decide this case. This out-of-control MAGA Supreme Court super-legislature wanted to legislate--and legislate they did--violating a core principle that the Court does not address moot cases. Moot cases are cases where there is nothing still in dispute, and this certainly was the case that this case was as dead or as moot as it could be because nobody could be impacted by a rule that doesn't exist. Why did the Court take up this case? Well, we may not be able to specify the exact reasoning by each Justice, but the effect is clear. By taking up this case, the Court furthered the MAGA policy agenda. Their ruling handcuffed Federal authorities' ability to pursue future limitations on pollutions from fossil fuels like carbon dioxide and fossil methane. This is to the enormous benefit of the fossil fuel billionaires who funded the massive dark money campaigns that supported these Justices' confirmations. That situation of their breaking precedent to benefit the fossil billionaires, who had just funded their confirmation campaigns, reeks of corruption. When generations ahead of us look back at this moment, I have no doubt--especially when they look at this year, 2022, and what the Court did in a single year--they will look back with a sense of profound disbelief--disbelief--like that disbelief that we experience when we look back on cases like Dred Scott, which dehumanized Black Americans and legitimized slavery, or Plessy v. Ferguson, which locked in 60 years of vicious discrimination and racial terrorism under a separate but equal philosophy. The disbelief that future generations will have will be directed at Dobbs--a decision this year in which the Court obliterated privacy and put an overbearing government in charge of women's reproductive health. They will have the disbelief that, in Kennedy v. Bremerton--decided this year--the Court destroyed freedom of religion in our public schools; the disbelief that, in West Virginia v. EPA--a decision this year--the Court violated centuries of precedent to rule on a regulation that is no longer on books, with the effect--perhaps the goal--of limiting the future regulation of greenhouse gas pollution; the disbelief in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen--decided this year--that the Court ruled that a State legislature can't require folks to have a good reason to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Let me be clear. This activist, extremist MAGA Court faces a legitimacy crisis, and a legitimacy crisis for the Court is a crisis for our democratic Republic. Part of that illegitimacy is Justices of the Supreme Court selectively using a doctrine of so-called originalism to justify their politically inspired decisions. The doctrine of originalism is based on a reasonable argument, one on which you and I would say makes sense: a goal of understanding what the Founders meant when they wrote what they wrote in our Constitution more than two centuries ago. But if that effort is applied selectively, it simply becomes a measure to justify, after the fact, where the Justices want it to come out. They use it when it works, and they abandon it when it doesn't. For example, the Founders wrote the Second Amendment to ensure that members of well-regulated militias had access to their rifles, but the so-called originalists on the Court cast originalism aside, declaring that the Founders wrote that clause to ensure that nonmilitia members had the right to bring assault rifles--that didn't exist in 1787--onto subways, which didn't exist in 1787. That is bogus originalism in its purist form. Consider this: Corporations, as we know them today, did not exist in 1787. Yet the so-called originalists on the Court insist that the Founders' vision of the First Amendment, to protect freedom of speech, gives corporations speech rights even though the word ``corporation'' doesn't appear in the Constitution--a point that they use when they want to take an originalist argument: that the Founders had to have it be something written in the Constitution and be something they discussed and something they considered and something they envisioned. None of those are true. Not a one of them is true in this case. The MAGA Court also claims that a corporation is a person, which no Founder would ever have argued. They didn't even know what a ``corporation'' was because they didn't exist in this form that we have now. The MAGA Court goes on to claim that the members comprising the corporate personhood--those are the stockholders of a corporation--have absolutely no right to know how that corporation that they are part of spends their money. This is absurdity stacked on the fallacy that a corporation is a person. I have yet to see and yet to hear any plausible explanation as to how the MAGA Justices can be confident that the Founders intended for billionaire CEOs to hijack the accumulated wealth of their stockholders without their stockholders' knowledge or permission or opportunity to know what is being said and to use that money as speech and to spend it on secretly funded campaigns, including campaigns to confirm Supreme Court Justices. The problem we face, colleagues, isn't just a MAGA-majority Court enacting terrible policy rather than defending the balls and strikes against the Constitution. The problem is greater if the highest Court in the land loses its legitimacy, the law itself loses its legitimacy. If the American people see the Supreme Court Justices making clear that the law has no meaning other than their political preferences, then the law is not the foundation for our society that it is supposed to be. We have seen with deadly results on January 6, 2021, the consequences to our policies, to our politics, and to our society when the rule of law is replaced by violence and power as the organizing principle for society. The Court is essential in a society based on the rule of law, and it is essential to have a Court that honors the law rather than trying to write the law. This MAGA majority and its desire, and operation as a super-legislature--unelected, lifetime appointments--is a dire threat to our Republic. Here in Congress, we must not only shine a light--a spotlight--on the threat; we must stop the runaway MAGA Court from corrupting the rule of law and try to restore the legitimate role of the Court as a panel defending our Constitution. Some will say there is no way to restore the Court and that any strategy for restoring the Court will simply compound the problems we are now facing, and I agree that there is no simple way to restore the legitimacy of the Court. Back in 2017, when then-Majority Leader McConnell was striving to complete the theft of the Supreme Court seat taken from the administration of Barack Obama, I took to this floor for 15\1/2\ hours with one simple message: Don't do it. Don't do it because, if you do, you will damage the legitimacy of the Court and there will be no simple path, no easy remedy to restore the Court's legitimacy. But Leader McConnell, he doused the Supreme Court with gasoline on that day, and he set it on fire. He did the damage. I stood here for 15\1/2\ hours and said don't do it. You know, we take an oath of office to a Constitution. That involves defending the Court, not delegitimizing the Court, not stealing Supreme Courtseats. It was the first time in the history of the United States of America that this Senate failed to debate and vote on a nominee. But here we are; the damage is done. What do we do now? When an arsonist sets fire to your house, you don't let it burn because you are worried about water damage. You have to strive to put out that fire, regardless of how difficult the task. So I say to you today, we cannot accept the defeatist attitude that fails to confront the forces destroying our Republic. There are two things we must do. Mission one, we have to reform the ability of this broken Senate to serve as a legislature because, if it serves effectively as a legislature, it can serve as a counterweight to decisions of a corrupted Court. The second thing we have to do is put all options on the table and debate them for directly reforming the Court, recognizing that we are left with difficult choices on how to do that. But we have to step up. It is necessary to save our Republic. So let's take each of these missions in turn. The first is to restore the Senate. Our goal: Restore the Senate as a legislative body to serve as a counterweight to the corruption of a MAGA-majority Court. There are three massive problems currently afflicting the Senate's ability to serve as a functioning legislative body. First, we spend virtually all of our time on nominations, so much time that it keeps us from doing much legislating, even though we have a massively complex society and a lot of possibilities for making it work better. When George Washington was assembling his first administration, he had to appoint and the Senate had to confirm four Cabinet positions: Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General--four positions. Today, the Senate is responsible for confirming over 1,200 Presidential appointments to executive branch positions and commissions. Now, in the past, both parties worked to exercise the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities in a manner that minimized the amount of Senate time required. Most were done by unanimous consent late at night, when practically anyone was here because most nominations are not ones to which anyone has an objection. In the entire decade of the 1960s, there was one vote required to close debate on a nominee--one, in an entire 10 years. But, last decade, that number went to 545. Now, it is like every nomination. Virtually every nomination we have to file to close debate and vote to close debate before we can vote on the nominee. And do you know what? The way it works, you can also require 30 hours of debate after the vote to close debate succeeds. So the rules, which were designed for exceptional situations where there is a significant objection, are now used as partisan obstruction. Democrats are in the minority. They want to tie up the Republicans. So they have little time to legislate. Republicans are in the minority. They want to tie up the Democrats. So they have little time to legislate. They want each other to fail, partly because they disagree and partly because they know if the other side succeeds in making something work, the voters might reward them at the ballot box. We have to massively streamline this nomination process. We have to--100 Senators--work together, not do what is best for us when we are in the majority and oppose it when we are in the minority, or vice versa. We all have a responsibility to completely streamline that process so we can return to being a legislature. The second big problem for the Senate is that the rules provide a complicated, time-consuming process for debating and voting on whether to debate a bill. It involves a motion to proceed or requirement to close debate on the motion to proceed and whose nomination is up to 30 hours of additional of debate--all on the question of whether to debate. You have 100 capable people sent here by their constituents in their various States to solve problems for America, not to spend a week debating whether to debate a single bill. That could be a week spent debating the amendments that could make the bill better, a week spent considering individual pieces of the bills so the public knows where we stand and there is public accountability. But, instead, we have partisan paralysis. A completely dysfunctional Senate, that is what we have. We have to change the rules to stop this completely meritless waste of the time and efforts of 100 Senators. It is an easy solution: 1 hour spent debating whether to debate a bill, and then a simple majority vote, either we go to the bill or we don't; easy solution. One hour makes much more sense than 1 week. The third big problem this Senate Chamber faces is a secret silent filibuster. Under the Senate rule--and by the way, the term ``filibuster'' is really inappropriate because this involves no speaking of any kind. Under the Senate rule, 41 Senators can, operating as a block, veto the opportunity for the Senate to debate a bill, veto the opportunity for the Senate to consider an amendment, and veto the ability, after amendments have been considered, to have a final vote on the bill. It is the triple veto: three opportunities for the minority to blockade the majority from being able to consider legislation to address the issues facing America. And both parties have attempted to use it when they are in the minority. We have to restore the ability to actually debate. It is exactly what the Founders feared. When I lay out that 41 can block and veto these 3 steps of the process, it means to reverse it--that 60 out of 100, a supermajority, has to agree to go forward through each of those three steps. The Founders warned us: Never allow the minority to make the decisions by requiring a supermajority. Don't to it. That is why James Madison said that, with a supermajority, when ``the general good might require new laws . . . the principle of free government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.'' It is why Alexander Hamilton warned that a supermajority requirement would result in ``tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.'' He also warned that ``the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed''--the principle of supermajority--``is a history impotence, perplexity, and disorder.'' Now, you may wonder if the Founders had simply read about someone somewhere requiring a supermajority for legislature and said it didn't work very well and thought, We had better warn Americans not to do this. No, they were writing from their direct experience because, as they were drafting and debating our 1787 Constitution, they were actually in the middle of living through the impotence and incompetence of the Confederation Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded our 1787 Constitution, the Congress had to have a supermajority on every provision; meaning, the position of the minority could prevail over the position of the majority. The result was paralysis on the most fundamental issues they faced. They failed to raise the funds to pay the pensions of the veterans who spilled their blood in the Revolutionary War that created this Nation. They failed to raise the funds to put down Shays' Rebellion. Well, today, we have not one stage of veto, like they faced in the Confederation Congress, we have the triple veto power under the current secret, silent filibuster, and we are seeing the same impotence, the same paralysis, the same partisanship that it drives. The triple veto power of the minority is destroying the Senate to address challenges facing America, and there are a lot of them. We have got the climate crisis that is literally setting our country on fire. Right now, at this very moment, around 40 million Americans across the Plains and the Mississippi Valley are dealing with alerts for dangerous and intense heat, while firefighters are confronting 89 large fires across 12 States. And as of last week, four times as much acreage has burned this year as last year at this moment. And it is not just America, of course. Across the Atlantic, Europe is going through a recordbreaking heat wave, reaching temperatures some of thoseplaces have never seen and causing wildfires to burn in France and Spain and Italy and Greece. Congress should be immersed in considering bills to address the climate crisis that is damaging communities across our country, and not just through fires but through rising sea levels and rising erosion, through pine beetle infestations and mosquito infestations, through stronger hurricanes and stronger tornadoes, and, certainly, through the power of multiyear droughts. But we are not because the triple veto of the silent, secret filibuster afflicting this body is blocking us from doing so. We have a housing crisis. Out-of-control rents and prices make it impossible for millions of Americans to afford a decent home to rent or buy. And colleagues have one idea after another about how we should address it, but because we are paralyzed and our process is taken up, our time is taken up with nominations and debating whether to debate and we have the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster, they can't move forward. And we aren't debating, discussing, and hopefully passing measures that can make a difference. And Americans are outraged by the prices they pay on drugs, which are so much higher than any other developed country. Eighty percent of Americans say: Do something about it. And I think the other 20 percent don't realize how much we are getting ripped off. And Americans know we should get the best price because we invest the most in the research and development that creates these drugs, not the worst price, and they are absolutely right. And we would have passed legislation by now to get the best prices in the developed world, but we are blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. And now States are passing laws to block targeted groups of Americans from voting. We can fix that by passing S. 1, the For the People Act, or its reincarnation, the Freedom to Vote Act, but we can't because it was blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. Let me be absolutely clear. The single most effective way we can counterbalance an out-of-control Court with a MAGA agenda is to have a functioning Senate. That is the most immediate remedy available to us to respond to this terrible affliction undermining our Republic. If the Court says there is no problem with gerrymandered districts, where politicians choose their constituents instead of Americans choosing their leaders, as they did in the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, well, a reformed, restored Senate could pass legislation to require nonpartisan commissions to draw legislative districts. At least we could have a robust debate over it, maybe pass a few amendments modifying it in different forms--or perhaps find some other solution--if we had a functioning legislative process. If the Court says there is no limit to dark money from corporations and billionaires who flood and drown out the voices of ordinary Americans and campaigns, as they did in the 2010 Citizens United decision, a reformed, restored Senate could pass the DISCLOSE Act to shine a light on every dollar and where it is coming from in American campaigns. If the Court says that anyone who wants to be able to carry a concealed weapon should be able to like they did in their New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, a restored, functioning Senate could pass stronger gun safety laws that most Americans support, like ending the background check loophole--when guns are bought and sold by unlicensed parties online or at gun shows--or by outlawing the kinds of large magazines that carry 30 or more bullets that are often used in mass shootings. And when the Court went to abnormally great lengths to decide in last month's West Virginia v. EPA that the Agency can't regulate fossil carbon or fossil methane emissions, a functioning Senate would be able to step up and create the programs designed to speed up the transition to renewable energy, which would have the added benefit of ending our addiction to oil and dropping the prices at the pump, and it would keep money out of the hands of dictators in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. But the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster has blocked us from doing so. The remedy is not to eliminate the filibuster. The remedy is to reform it. The right reform is to adopt the public, talking filibuster. The talking filibuster would reassert the fundamental principle of legislative conduct: the Senate Code, adopted by the original Senate. Under that code, the Senate listened to every Senator's perspective, and then it took a vote on the issue, be it a bill or be it an amendment. That was the Senate Code. The original rules provided that every Senator had the right to speak twice to a question. It was rule No. 4 in the original rules. It is in our rules today. But the spirit of that code--listening to each Senator and then voting, with the majority winning, not losing--that part is gone. Now, it is the minority that can exercise a triple veto, a veto absolutely exactly the opposite of what the Founders said to us. They said: Don't do it. And we have done it in triplicate form, paralyzing this place and accentuating the temptation of yielding to partisanship rather than problem-solving. Jefferson did say that this rule, this code of listening to every Senator and voting, should not be abused. In fact, he said this in his manual for rules in 1801: No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. It worked for the Founders. They exercised some self-control, so much so that they didn't need the rule that they had to close debate. They just simply listened to everyone with mutual respect and then said: OK. Let's take a vote. You want to see that in action today? Watch the committee process on a bill with amendments. There is no one filibustering, speaking forever. There is no one requiring a supermajority to close debate in committee. They operate--we operate--in committee, much like the original Senate, and it works pretty well, but we have completely lost that discipline when it comes to debate here on our floor. So the early Senate had a rule for the previous question motion, to close debate or accelerate the closure of debate. And when they rewrote the rule book--and Aaron Burr was in charge of it--in 1806, they dropped the rule because they never used it, didn't feel they ever needed it. Well, we need to reclaim that vision, and our rules have gotten so crazy, so out of whack, that we encourage partisanship and paralysis rather than problem-solving. Let's fix that. So let's have the talking filibuster. The talking filibuster says, Yes, you can speak on the issue. We will listen to everyone. You can speak twice. But then we vote, and the majority wins--not a supermajority required. The minority doesn't win over the majority. The majority wins. That was the Senate. That was the design of our Constitution that we have the responsibility to restore because we took an oath to the Constitution. So let's restore it. And that talking filibuster encourages bipartisan problem-solving. The minority, be it the Democratic or Republican, that wants to slow things down for leverage, they can. So they have significant leverage, but, on the other hand, they have an incentive to negotiate because they are not sure how long they can maintain continuous debate. And that is the heart of the talking filibuster: maintaining continuous debate. If there is a break in debate, you go to the vote. Meanwhile, the majority has an incentive to compromise because they know the minority can tie this place up on a single bill for week after week, and they can't afford to have that much time taken over a single bill. So the talking filibuster restores an incentive for compromise and bipartisan problem-solving and, in the end, restores the vision that the majority makes the decision, not the minority. In the end, it gives the minority a voice, it gives the minority massive leverage, but it takes away their veto. That is the right way to legislate in a democracy. As I noted before, fixing the Senate is probably the best immediate tool we have for repairing the damage from the Supreme Court across the grounds. But we also have to consider every possible remedy to restore the Court itself, to restore a Court that calls the balls and strikes on the Constitution, defendingits core principles, and recognizes it is not there to legislate--not to legislate on the left side, not to legislate on the right side. They are there to defend the Constitution. Well, reforming the Court won't be easily done. But President Biden did convene a Commission to explore the option, and that Commission has produced a lengthy, lengthy report. This is part of it: The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, December of last year. I encourage all my colleagues to read this and consider the ideas in it. In this 300-page report, the Commission does review the history of how the Court has been in different phases, and its size has changed all the time because that is not established in the Constitution. It has been as few as 5, and it has been more than 10. There was not nine locked in like it is now. And, certainly, one of the ideas they review is adjustment to the size of the Court. Many people have said that is something to look at to balance what has happened with the Court, with the stolen Supreme Court seat and a decision by several Justices to be a legislature rather than a court. Well, that is one idea. Another is implementing term limits or a mandatory retirement age because, when the Constitution was first written, people weren't living the long lives they have today, and they didn't stay in the Court forever. In 1787, the Founders wrote that Justices would hold their seats during good behavior. Now, I am not sure that every Justice across these grounds has been engaged in good behavior when they are choosing to legislate rather than to rule on the defense of the Constitution, but there is no easy way to remove them from the Court for misbehavior. But one possibility is for the Court members to rotate out with term limits of some kind. That is one possibility. In much of our history, Justices only served an average of 15 years on the Court. The average is now 26 and getting longer. And, did you know, America is the only constitutional democracy that gives lifetime presence on the Court, that doesn't have either a term limit or a mandatory retirement age? This report, this Commission, has other ideas in it: rotating membership on the Court with judges selected from the circuit court. You know, the original Supreme Court, they served as circuit court writers. They went out and made decisions across this country. They didn't just sit in a room in the capital. So there is some precedent for that idea. And others point out that there is the power to restrict the Court's jurisdiction. There are pros and cons for these various ideas, and our commitment needs to be to examine them. The American public is open to examining them. Earlier this week, the FOX News poll reported that 66 percent of the folks in their poll support an 18-year term for Justices, and 71 percent support a mandatory retirement age. So the American people are open to trying to fix the challenge with the Court. We have to be open to fixing it, and we need to look at every option and idea very carefully to ensure that the highest Court in our land fulfills the vision for it in our Constitution. And the vision in our Constitution was not that it would be an unelected super-legislature. Colleagues, this is a perilous moment for our Republic. It is a moment when the will of the people is being overrun by an extreme agenda of a Court legislating from the Bench, imposing their narrow and precedent-destroying will on all Americans. We have to restore the ability of this Senate to operate as a legislature that can be a counterbalance to what the Court does, and we must thoughtfully consider every proposal for reforming the Court directly. We can and we must act before it is too late. We can't stand by and watch the continuous disintegration of our Republic. Our oath to the Constitution demands that we protect these institutions and repair them when they go off track. And when we do, the next July 4, we can all join together and celebrate the restoration of our paralyzed and partisan Senate into an actual legislative body. We can celebrate the restoration of Americans' rights that are being continuously stripped away across the grounds by the Supreme Court. We can have a renewed belief and confidence in the integrity of all of our institutions and our democratic form of governance. That would be a moment justifying a massive celebration next July 4. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | null | 4,769 |
formal | MAGA | null | white supremacist | Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, on July 4, we celebrated the founding of our Nation, as we do every year. But when I woke up on this July 4, I had a strange thought, a thought I never had before, the question of, What kind of country are we celebrating? I have always had immense pride in the founding vision of our Nation, in that vision of equality, of opportunity for all, of freedom of religion, of equal justice under the law, of equal representation, and, most importantly, of government of, by, and for the people. Our journey as a nation over nearly 250 years has been a difficult journey of moving toward full implementation of this vision. That is an inspiring journey--a journey I have been proud to witness, a journey I have been proud to be a part of. But just days before this year's July 4 celebration, we saw the conclusion of the Supreme Court's latest judicial term--a term over which the Court displayed a far different vision for America: one with devastating repercussions that will reverberate in the lives of countless Americans for decades to come. For years now--actually, for decades, we have watched a steady, relentless effort by rightwing extremists to rig the courts so they can transform America and American society as we have known it. Their big goal is corporations over people and their second goal is to implement conservative cultural policy over individual freedom and liberty. Now, with this Court's recent decisions, we are left with an inescapable conclusion: The extremists have succeeded. The Court is now operating as an unelected super-legislature with a MAGA political agenda. Their decisions this term read like planks out of the Republican Party platform. Here is what the MAGA Court's vision is for our Nation. It is a vision that obliterates the right to privacy, giving an overbearing Federal Government the power to be in the medical exam room making reproductive health decisions for American women, when the only people who should be in the exam room, under an ``of and by the people'' Republic is the woman, her doctor, and whomever else she chooses to invite--her partner, her friend, or her religious adviser. This Court's vision is a vision that embraces never-ending gun violence, stripping Congress and the States ofthe ability to make commonsense gun safety laws. It is a vision of a nation where public schools can impose religion on their students. So much for freedom of religion and separation of church and State. It is a vision of a nation where wrongfully incarcerated Americans don't have the right to prove their innocence and can't find justice if their Miranda rights were violated. So much for the principle of equal justice under law, the very principle carved into stone above the doors of the Supreme Court. In fact, if you go out this door and out the front steps, you can see those words while standing here on the steps of the Senate. This Court's vision is of a nation where the Court strips the Federal Government of its legally enacted power to regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane pollution that is destroying our Nation and our planet. It is a vision where the powerful corrupt the integrity of our elections with gerrymandering and dark money and measures to prevent targeted groups of Americans from voting. This vision is a vision for a government by and for the powerful, not by and for the people. This vision in which the Supreme Court becomes a superlegislature for a MAGA agenda infuriates me. It infuriates me because I believe in government by and for the people, not by and for the powerful. It infuriates me because I know the pain that these decisions will inflict on millions of Americans--the pain of a woman forced by a State government to carry a fetus to term that was conceived through rape or incest or the pain of any woman, for that matter, who simply is unprepared to be pregnant or become a parent; the pain of every single person who will have to mourn the death of a loved one lost to an ever-growing epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings like we saw in Uvalde and in Highland Park and in countless other communities with more than one mass shooting per day; the pain of the citizens blocked from the ballot box, effectively denied their most fundamental right as Americans because of voter suppression schemes enacted in many States over this past year; the pain of students in our public schools pressured to participate in religious acts in conflict with their own beliefs; the pain of rural Americans, ranchers, and farmers whose farms and ranches will be lost to fire and drought because the Court says the Federal Government cannot regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane causing climate chaos. And I am infuriated because I know more Supreme Court decisions like these are coming from the six MAGA Justices on the Court. They want to cement their vision of America through superlegislative powers rather than calling the balls and strikes defending the Constitution, which is their job. They have announced that next term they are going to hear a case on the fringe doctrine known as the independent State legislature doctrine. It has been considered an extremist idea, which says only State legislatures have the power to make decisions about Federal elections and how to appoint electors. State courts would have no power to ensure checks and balances or decide which decisions about elections violate a State constitution or ignore the will of the voters, nor could State Governors veto such legislative decisions. And that is just the start. Justice Thomas himself said in his concurring opinion that, based on the reasoning in Dobbs, he wants the Court to consider a whole host of other rights that have been secured and protected by previous Courts, including the possibility of striking down the right to intimacy and marriage for same-sex couples and the right to contraception. Make no mistake, this is not some sudden occurrence. It is exactly what the Federalist Society has been working toward for decades. Before joining the Court in 1972, Lewis Powell wrote about the need to rebuild the power of industrial elites and fight back ``from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians'' against progressive changes in society. In outlining a plan for rebuilding the power of Big Business, he declared that, with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for achieving that goal. That is exactly why, as majority leader in 2017, Senator McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat from one President so another President could fill it. He stole it in 2016, and he filled it in 2017 with MAGA Justice Neil Gorsuch. It is why, in 2018, Leader McConnell completely ignored credible accounts of sexual assault and rushed through a confirmation without giving Senators access to the nominee's full records and bypassing committee quorum rules to fill another seat with MAGA Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And it is why, when a seat opened up in another election year, 2020, just weeks before the voters would vote, Leader McConnell completely reversed his argument that he had used to justify the theft of a Supreme Court seat in 2016, and he rammed through the nomination of MAGA Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The Republican Party has won one popular vote for President in the last 30 years but has appointed two-thirds of the sitting Justices, who now see it as their job to become a super-legislature for a cultural agenda and corporate power. In one of his columns, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post described the resulting unelected, unaccountable majority of Supreme Court Justices as a ``junta''--a word used to describe authoritarian leaders who rule through edicts rather than through legislative determination or deliberation on constitutional principles. It is hard to argue with Eugene Robinson's characterization. In spite of what the vast majority of Americans want--the protection of a woman's right to full reproductive healthcare and more gun safety, not less, and free and fair elections--the Court's MAGA majority has chosen to rule by Supreme Court edict to inflict their narrow preferences for society on hundreds of millions of Americans. And they are not just using the regular process for considering cases. Over the past 5 years, we have seen a monumental shift in the Court's use of emergency orders--the so-called shadow docket--to enact sweeping decisions on the American people. These cases don't get the full process we are familiar with--formal briefings, formal hearings, lengthy deliberations, and opinion writings--because it is argued that the applicant would suffer ``irreparable harm'' if their request were not immediately granted. The shadow docket decisions, by the way, are usually unsigned and unexplained. In the past, they have essentially involved death penalty cases--cases of literal life and death--of pretty much extreme importance to the applicant because, if someone is executed before their case is heard, they do suffer ``irreparable harm''--the standard. Then, about 5 years ago, we started to see a big shift in the emergency cases being taken up and in the substances of them as well. We have seen the shadow docket used to stop the Federal Government from implementing a vaccine and testing mandate on businesses to protect public health in the middle of an unprecedented global health crisis that has killed more than a million Americans. We have seen it used to uphold a Texas law banning abortion after 6 weeks. We have seen it used when a lower court blocked Alabama's congressional map because it violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black voters. The Court said: You have got to draw a new map that is fair. The Supreme Court stepped in with their shadow docket and said: No. Alabama can use this faulty map that dilutes the power of Black Americans. In this situation, the Court didn't stop the infliction of harm; they inflicted the harm on Black Americans, who want fair maps, who deserve fair maps for voting in our democracy. That gerrymandered map is now in place to disenfranchise Black voters in this November's election because of the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket. It is hard to see how any of these cases met the test for the shadow docket. The state of abuse of the shadow docket has gotten so bad and so blatant that even Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Court, joined a dissent in a case reinstating a Trump administration Clean Water Act regulation limiting Federal protections for streams and wetlands. This dissentstated that the majority's decision ``renders the court's emergency docket,'' meaning the shadow docket, ``not for emergencies at all . . . . The docket becomes only another place for merits determinations--except made without full briefing and argument.'' When the Supreme Court's Chief Justice says the shadow docket is being abused, you know it is true. This MAGA Court is so determined to impose their legislative priorities and values on our country that they have abandoned one of the core principles of American jurisprudence, going back to even before there was a United States of America, and that is that the Court only rules when there is an actual dispute or controversy in question. In their eagerness to cripple the Federal Government's ability to fight fossil carbon pollution, the MAGA Justices weighed in on a regulation that had never been enforced--a regulation that had been withdrawn by President Trump and a regulation which President Biden had indicated was never going to be reinstated. Even the utilities that would have been regulated didn't want the Supreme Court to decide this case. This out-of-control MAGA Supreme Court super-legislature wanted to legislate--and legislate they did--violating a core principle that the Court does not address moot cases. Moot cases are cases where there is nothing still in dispute, and this certainly was the case that this case was as dead or as moot as it could be because nobody could be impacted by a rule that doesn't exist. Why did the Court take up this case? Well, we may not be able to specify the exact reasoning by each Justice, but the effect is clear. By taking up this case, the Court furthered the MAGA policy agenda. Their ruling handcuffed Federal authorities' ability to pursue future limitations on pollutions from fossil fuels like carbon dioxide and fossil methane. This is to the enormous benefit of the fossil fuel billionaires who funded the massive dark money campaigns that supported these Justices' confirmations. That situation of their breaking precedent to benefit the fossil billionaires, who had just funded their confirmation campaigns, reeks of corruption. When generations ahead of us look back at this moment, I have no doubt--especially when they look at this year, 2022, and what the Court did in a single year--they will look back with a sense of profound disbelief--disbelief--like that disbelief that we experience when we look back on cases like Dred Scott, which dehumanized Black Americans and legitimized slavery, or Plessy v. Ferguson, which locked in 60 years of vicious discrimination and racial terrorism under a separate but equal philosophy. The disbelief that future generations will have will be directed at Dobbs--a decision this year in which the Court obliterated privacy and put an overbearing government in charge of women's reproductive health. They will have the disbelief that, in Kennedy v. Bremerton--decided this year--the Court destroyed freedom of religion in our public schools; the disbelief that, in West Virginia v. EPA--a decision this year--the Court violated centuries of precedent to rule on a regulation that is no longer on books, with the effect--perhaps the goal--of limiting the future regulation of greenhouse gas pollution; the disbelief in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen--decided this year--that the Court ruled that a State legislature can't require folks to have a good reason to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Let me be clear. This activist, extremist MAGA Court faces a legitimacy crisis, and a legitimacy crisis for the Court is a crisis for our democratic Republic. Part of that illegitimacy is Justices of the Supreme Court selectively using a doctrine of so-called originalism to justify their politically inspired decisions. The doctrine of originalism is based on a reasonable argument, one on which you and I would say makes sense: a goal of understanding what the Founders meant when they wrote what they wrote in our Constitution more than two centuries ago. But if that effort is applied selectively, it simply becomes a measure to justify, after the fact, where the Justices want it to come out. They use it when it works, and they abandon it when it doesn't. For example, the Founders wrote the Second Amendment to ensure that members of well-regulated militias had access to their rifles, but the so-called originalists on the Court cast originalism aside, declaring that the Founders wrote that clause to ensure that nonmilitia members had the right to bring assault rifles--that didn't exist in 1787--onto subways, which didn't exist in 1787. That is bogus originalism in its purist form. Consider this: Corporations, as we know them today, did not exist in 1787. Yet the so-called originalists on the Court insist that the Founders' vision of the First Amendment, to protect freedom of speech, gives corporations speech rights even though the word ``corporation'' doesn't appear in the Constitution--a point that they use when they want to take an originalist argument: that the Founders had to have it be something written in the Constitution and be something they discussed and something they considered and something they envisioned. None of those are true. Not a one of them is true in this case. The MAGA Court also claims that a corporation is a person, which no Founder would ever have argued. They didn't even know what a ``corporation'' was because they didn't exist in this form that we have now. The MAGA Court goes on to claim that the members comprising the corporate personhood--those are the stockholders of a corporation--have absolutely no right to know how that corporation that they are part of spends their money. This is absurdity stacked on the fallacy that a corporation is a person. I have yet to see and yet to hear any plausible explanation as to how the MAGA Justices can be confident that the Founders intended for billionaire CEOs to hijack the accumulated wealth of their stockholders without their stockholders' knowledge or permission or opportunity to know what is being said and to use that money as speech and to spend it on secretly funded campaigns, including campaigns to confirm Supreme Court Justices. The problem we face, colleagues, isn't just a MAGA-majority Court enacting terrible policy rather than defending the balls and strikes against the Constitution. The problem is greater if the highest Court in the land loses its legitimacy, the law itself loses its legitimacy. If the American people see the Supreme Court Justices making clear that the law has no meaning other than their political preferences, then the law is not the foundation for our society that it is supposed to be. We have seen with deadly results on January 6, 2021, the consequences to our policies, to our politics, and to our society when the rule of law is replaced by violence and power as the organizing principle for society. The Court is essential in a society based on the rule of law, and it is essential to have a Court that honors the law rather than trying to write the law. This MAGA majority and its desire, and operation as a super-legislature--unelected, lifetime appointments--is a dire threat to our Republic. Here in Congress, we must not only shine a light--a spotlight--on the threat; we must stop the runaway MAGA Court from corrupting the rule of law and try to restore the legitimate role of the Court as a panel defending our Constitution. Some will say there is no way to restore the Court and that any strategy for restoring the Court will simply compound the problems we are now facing, and I agree that there is no simple way to restore the legitimacy of the Court. Back in 2017, when then-Majority Leader McConnell was striving to complete the theft of the Supreme Court seat taken from the administration of Barack Obama, I took to this floor for 15\1/2\ hours with one simple message: Don't do it. Don't do it because, if you do, you will damage the legitimacy of the Court and there will be no simple path, no easy remedy to restore the Court's legitimacy. But Leader McConnell, he doused the Supreme Court with gasoline on that day, and he set it on fire. He did the damage. I stood here for 15\1/2\ hours and said don't do it. You know, we take an oath of office to a Constitution. That involves defending the Court, not delegitimizing the Court, not stealing Supreme Courtseats. It was the first time in the history of the United States of America that this Senate failed to debate and vote on a nominee. But here we are; the damage is done. What do we do now? When an arsonist sets fire to your house, you don't let it burn because you are worried about water damage. You have to strive to put out that fire, regardless of how difficult the task. So I say to you today, we cannot accept the defeatist attitude that fails to confront the forces destroying our Republic. There are two things we must do. Mission one, we have to reform the ability of this broken Senate to serve as a legislature because, if it serves effectively as a legislature, it can serve as a counterweight to decisions of a corrupted Court. The second thing we have to do is put all options on the table and debate them for directly reforming the Court, recognizing that we are left with difficult choices on how to do that. But we have to step up. It is necessary to save our Republic. So let's take each of these missions in turn. The first is to restore the Senate. Our goal: Restore the Senate as a legislative body to serve as a counterweight to the corruption of a MAGA-majority Court. There are three massive problems currently afflicting the Senate's ability to serve as a functioning legislative body. First, we spend virtually all of our time on nominations, so much time that it keeps us from doing much legislating, even though we have a massively complex society and a lot of possibilities for making it work better. When George Washington was assembling his first administration, he had to appoint and the Senate had to confirm four Cabinet positions: Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General--four positions. Today, the Senate is responsible for confirming over 1,200 Presidential appointments to executive branch positions and commissions. Now, in the past, both parties worked to exercise the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities in a manner that minimized the amount of Senate time required. Most were done by unanimous consent late at night, when practically anyone was here because most nominations are not ones to which anyone has an objection. In the entire decade of the 1960s, there was one vote required to close debate on a nominee--one, in an entire 10 years. But, last decade, that number went to 545. Now, it is like every nomination. Virtually every nomination we have to file to close debate and vote to close debate before we can vote on the nominee. And do you know what? The way it works, you can also require 30 hours of debate after the vote to close debate succeeds. So the rules, which were designed for exceptional situations where there is a significant objection, are now used as partisan obstruction. Democrats are in the minority. They want to tie up the Republicans. So they have little time to legislate. Republicans are in the minority. They want to tie up the Democrats. So they have little time to legislate. They want each other to fail, partly because they disagree and partly because they know if the other side succeeds in making something work, the voters might reward them at the ballot box. We have to massively streamline this nomination process. We have to--100 Senators--work together, not do what is best for us when we are in the majority and oppose it when we are in the minority, or vice versa. We all have a responsibility to completely streamline that process so we can return to being a legislature. The second big problem for the Senate is that the rules provide a complicated, time-consuming process for debating and voting on whether to debate a bill. It involves a motion to proceed or requirement to close debate on the motion to proceed and whose nomination is up to 30 hours of additional of debate--all on the question of whether to debate. You have 100 capable people sent here by their constituents in their various States to solve problems for America, not to spend a week debating whether to debate a single bill. That could be a week spent debating the amendments that could make the bill better, a week spent considering individual pieces of the bills so the public knows where we stand and there is public accountability. But, instead, we have partisan paralysis. A completely dysfunctional Senate, that is what we have. We have to change the rules to stop this completely meritless waste of the time and efforts of 100 Senators. It is an easy solution: 1 hour spent debating whether to debate a bill, and then a simple majority vote, either we go to the bill or we don't; easy solution. One hour makes much more sense than 1 week. The third big problem this Senate Chamber faces is a secret silent filibuster. Under the Senate rule--and by the way, the term ``filibuster'' is really inappropriate because this involves no speaking of any kind. Under the Senate rule, 41 Senators can, operating as a block, veto the opportunity for the Senate to debate a bill, veto the opportunity for the Senate to consider an amendment, and veto the ability, after amendments have been considered, to have a final vote on the bill. It is the triple veto: three opportunities for the minority to blockade the majority from being able to consider legislation to address the issues facing America. And both parties have attempted to use it when they are in the minority. We have to restore the ability to actually debate. It is exactly what the Founders feared. When I lay out that 41 can block and veto these 3 steps of the process, it means to reverse it--that 60 out of 100, a supermajority, has to agree to go forward through each of those three steps. The Founders warned us: Never allow the minority to make the decisions by requiring a supermajority. Don't to it. That is why James Madison said that, with a supermajority, when ``the general good might require new laws . . . the principle of free government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.'' It is why Alexander Hamilton warned that a supermajority requirement would result in ``tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.'' He also warned that ``the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed''--the principle of supermajority--``is a history impotence, perplexity, and disorder.'' Now, you may wonder if the Founders had simply read about someone somewhere requiring a supermajority for legislature and said it didn't work very well and thought, We had better warn Americans not to do this. No, they were writing from their direct experience because, as they were drafting and debating our 1787 Constitution, they were actually in the middle of living through the impotence and incompetence of the Confederation Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded our 1787 Constitution, the Congress had to have a supermajority on every provision; meaning, the position of the minority could prevail over the position of the majority. The result was paralysis on the most fundamental issues they faced. They failed to raise the funds to pay the pensions of the veterans who spilled their blood in the Revolutionary War that created this Nation. They failed to raise the funds to put down Shays' Rebellion. Well, today, we have not one stage of veto, like they faced in the Confederation Congress, we have the triple veto power under the current secret, silent filibuster, and we are seeing the same impotence, the same paralysis, the same partisanship that it drives. The triple veto power of the minority is destroying the Senate to address challenges facing America, and there are a lot of them. We have got the climate crisis that is literally setting our country on fire. Right now, at this very moment, around 40 million Americans across the Plains and the Mississippi Valley are dealing with alerts for dangerous and intense heat, while firefighters are confronting 89 large fires across 12 States. And as of last week, four times as much acreage has burned this year as last year at this moment. And it is not just America, of course. Across the Atlantic, Europe is going through a recordbreaking heat wave, reaching temperatures some of thoseplaces have never seen and causing wildfires to burn in France and Spain and Italy and Greece. Congress should be immersed in considering bills to address the climate crisis that is damaging communities across our country, and not just through fires but through rising sea levels and rising erosion, through pine beetle infestations and mosquito infestations, through stronger hurricanes and stronger tornadoes, and, certainly, through the power of multiyear droughts. But we are not because the triple veto of the silent, secret filibuster afflicting this body is blocking us from doing so. We have a housing crisis. Out-of-control rents and prices make it impossible for millions of Americans to afford a decent home to rent or buy. And colleagues have one idea after another about how we should address it, but because we are paralyzed and our process is taken up, our time is taken up with nominations and debating whether to debate and we have the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster, they can't move forward. And we aren't debating, discussing, and hopefully passing measures that can make a difference. And Americans are outraged by the prices they pay on drugs, which are so much higher than any other developed country. Eighty percent of Americans say: Do something about it. And I think the other 20 percent don't realize how much we are getting ripped off. And Americans know we should get the best price because we invest the most in the research and development that creates these drugs, not the worst price, and they are absolutely right. And we would have passed legislation by now to get the best prices in the developed world, but we are blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. And now States are passing laws to block targeted groups of Americans from voting. We can fix that by passing S. 1, the For the People Act, or its reincarnation, the Freedom to Vote Act, but we can't because it was blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. Let me be absolutely clear. The single most effective way we can counterbalance an out-of-control Court with a MAGA agenda is to have a functioning Senate. That is the most immediate remedy available to us to respond to this terrible affliction undermining our Republic. If the Court says there is no problem with gerrymandered districts, where politicians choose their constituents instead of Americans choosing their leaders, as they did in the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, well, a reformed, restored Senate could pass legislation to require nonpartisan commissions to draw legislative districts. At least we could have a robust debate over it, maybe pass a few amendments modifying it in different forms--or perhaps find some other solution--if we had a functioning legislative process. If the Court says there is no limit to dark money from corporations and billionaires who flood and drown out the voices of ordinary Americans and campaigns, as they did in the 2010 Citizens United decision, a reformed, restored Senate could pass the DISCLOSE Act to shine a light on every dollar and where it is coming from in American campaigns. If the Court says that anyone who wants to be able to carry a concealed weapon should be able to like they did in their New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, a restored, functioning Senate could pass stronger gun safety laws that most Americans support, like ending the background check loophole--when guns are bought and sold by unlicensed parties online or at gun shows--or by outlawing the kinds of large magazines that carry 30 or more bullets that are often used in mass shootings. And when the Court went to abnormally great lengths to decide in last month's West Virginia v. EPA that the Agency can't regulate fossil carbon or fossil methane emissions, a functioning Senate would be able to step up and create the programs designed to speed up the transition to renewable energy, which would have the added benefit of ending our addiction to oil and dropping the prices at the pump, and it would keep money out of the hands of dictators in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. But the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster has blocked us from doing so. The remedy is not to eliminate the filibuster. The remedy is to reform it. The right reform is to adopt the public, talking filibuster. The talking filibuster would reassert the fundamental principle of legislative conduct: the Senate Code, adopted by the original Senate. Under that code, the Senate listened to every Senator's perspective, and then it took a vote on the issue, be it a bill or be it an amendment. That was the Senate Code. The original rules provided that every Senator had the right to speak twice to a question. It was rule No. 4 in the original rules. It is in our rules today. But the spirit of that code--listening to each Senator and then voting, with the majority winning, not losing--that part is gone. Now, it is the minority that can exercise a triple veto, a veto absolutely exactly the opposite of what the Founders said to us. They said: Don't do it. And we have done it in triplicate form, paralyzing this place and accentuating the temptation of yielding to partisanship rather than problem-solving. Jefferson did say that this rule, this code of listening to every Senator and voting, should not be abused. In fact, he said this in his manual for rules in 1801: No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. It worked for the Founders. They exercised some self-control, so much so that they didn't need the rule that they had to close debate. They just simply listened to everyone with mutual respect and then said: OK. Let's take a vote. You want to see that in action today? Watch the committee process on a bill with amendments. There is no one filibustering, speaking forever. There is no one requiring a supermajority to close debate in committee. They operate--we operate--in committee, much like the original Senate, and it works pretty well, but we have completely lost that discipline when it comes to debate here on our floor. So the early Senate had a rule for the previous question motion, to close debate or accelerate the closure of debate. And when they rewrote the rule book--and Aaron Burr was in charge of it--in 1806, they dropped the rule because they never used it, didn't feel they ever needed it. Well, we need to reclaim that vision, and our rules have gotten so crazy, so out of whack, that we encourage partisanship and paralysis rather than problem-solving. Let's fix that. So let's have the talking filibuster. The talking filibuster says, Yes, you can speak on the issue. We will listen to everyone. You can speak twice. But then we vote, and the majority wins--not a supermajority required. The minority doesn't win over the majority. The majority wins. That was the Senate. That was the design of our Constitution that we have the responsibility to restore because we took an oath to the Constitution. So let's restore it. And that talking filibuster encourages bipartisan problem-solving. The minority, be it the Democratic or Republican, that wants to slow things down for leverage, they can. So they have significant leverage, but, on the other hand, they have an incentive to negotiate because they are not sure how long they can maintain continuous debate. And that is the heart of the talking filibuster: maintaining continuous debate. If there is a break in debate, you go to the vote. Meanwhile, the majority has an incentive to compromise because they know the minority can tie this place up on a single bill for week after week, and they can't afford to have that much time taken over a single bill. So the talking filibuster restores an incentive for compromise and bipartisan problem-solving and, in the end, restores the vision that the majority makes the decision, not the minority. In the end, it gives the minority a voice, it gives the minority massive leverage, but it takes away their veto. That is the right way to legislate in a democracy. As I noted before, fixing the Senate is probably the best immediate tool we have for repairing the damage from the Supreme Court across the grounds. But we also have to consider every possible remedy to restore the Court itself, to restore a Court that calls the balls and strikes on the Constitution, defendingits core principles, and recognizes it is not there to legislate--not to legislate on the left side, not to legislate on the right side. They are there to defend the Constitution. Well, reforming the Court won't be easily done. But President Biden did convene a Commission to explore the option, and that Commission has produced a lengthy, lengthy report. This is part of it: The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, December of last year. I encourage all my colleagues to read this and consider the ideas in it. In this 300-page report, the Commission does review the history of how the Court has been in different phases, and its size has changed all the time because that is not established in the Constitution. It has been as few as 5, and it has been more than 10. There was not nine locked in like it is now. And, certainly, one of the ideas they review is adjustment to the size of the Court. Many people have said that is something to look at to balance what has happened with the Court, with the stolen Supreme Court seat and a decision by several Justices to be a legislature rather than a court. Well, that is one idea. Another is implementing term limits or a mandatory retirement age because, when the Constitution was first written, people weren't living the long lives they have today, and they didn't stay in the Court forever. In 1787, the Founders wrote that Justices would hold their seats during good behavior. Now, I am not sure that every Justice across these grounds has been engaged in good behavior when they are choosing to legislate rather than to rule on the defense of the Constitution, but there is no easy way to remove them from the Court for misbehavior. But one possibility is for the Court members to rotate out with term limits of some kind. That is one possibility. In much of our history, Justices only served an average of 15 years on the Court. The average is now 26 and getting longer. And, did you know, America is the only constitutional democracy that gives lifetime presence on the Court, that doesn't have either a term limit or a mandatory retirement age? This report, this Commission, has other ideas in it: rotating membership on the Court with judges selected from the circuit court. You know, the original Supreme Court, they served as circuit court writers. They went out and made decisions across this country. They didn't just sit in a room in the capital. So there is some precedent for that idea. And others point out that there is the power to restrict the Court's jurisdiction. There are pros and cons for these various ideas, and our commitment needs to be to examine them. The American public is open to examining them. Earlier this week, the FOX News poll reported that 66 percent of the folks in their poll support an 18-year term for Justices, and 71 percent support a mandatory retirement age. So the American people are open to trying to fix the challenge with the Court. We have to be open to fixing it, and we need to look at every option and idea very carefully to ensure that the highest Court in our land fulfills the vision for it in our Constitution. And the vision in our Constitution was not that it would be an unelected super-legislature. Colleagues, this is a perilous moment for our Republic. It is a moment when the will of the people is being overrun by an extreme agenda of a Court legislating from the Bench, imposing their narrow and precedent-destroying will on all Americans. We have to restore the ability of this Senate to operate as a legislature that can be a counterbalance to what the Court does, and we must thoughtfully consider every proposal for reforming the Court directly. We can and we must act before it is too late. We can't stand by and watch the continuous disintegration of our Republic. Our oath to the Constitution demands that we protect these institutions and repair them when they go off track. And when we do, the next July 4, we can all join together and celebrate the restoration of our paralyzed and partisan Senate into an actual legislative body. We can celebrate the restoration of Americans' rights that are being continuously stripped away across the grounds by the Supreme Court. We can have a renewed belief and confidence in the integrity of all of our institutions and our democratic form of governance. That would be a moment justifying a massive celebration next July 4. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | null | 4,770 |
formal | public school | null | racist | Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, on July 4, we celebrated the founding of our Nation, as we do every year. But when I woke up on this July 4, I had a strange thought, a thought I never had before, the question of, What kind of country are we celebrating? I have always had immense pride in the founding vision of our Nation, in that vision of equality, of opportunity for all, of freedom of religion, of equal justice under the law, of equal representation, and, most importantly, of government of, by, and for the people. Our journey as a nation over nearly 250 years has been a difficult journey of moving toward full implementation of this vision. That is an inspiring journey--a journey I have been proud to witness, a journey I have been proud to be a part of. But just days before this year's July 4 celebration, we saw the conclusion of the Supreme Court's latest judicial term--a term over which the Court displayed a far different vision for America: one with devastating repercussions that will reverberate in the lives of countless Americans for decades to come. For years now--actually, for decades, we have watched a steady, relentless effort by rightwing extremists to rig the courts so they can transform America and American society as we have known it. Their big goal is corporations over people and their second goal is to implement conservative cultural policy over individual freedom and liberty. Now, with this Court's recent decisions, we are left with an inescapable conclusion: The extremists have succeeded. The Court is now operating as an unelected super-legislature with a MAGA political agenda. Their decisions this term read like planks out of the Republican Party platform. Here is what the MAGA Court's vision is for our Nation. It is a vision that obliterates the right to privacy, giving an overbearing Federal Government the power to be in the medical exam room making reproductive health decisions for American women, when the only people who should be in the exam room, under an ``of and by the people'' Republic is the woman, her doctor, and whomever else she chooses to invite--her partner, her friend, or her religious adviser. This Court's vision is a vision that embraces never-ending gun violence, stripping Congress and the States ofthe ability to make commonsense gun safety laws. It is a vision of a nation where public schools can impose religion on their students. So much for freedom of religion and separation of church and State. It is a vision of a nation where wrongfully incarcerated Americans don't have the right to prove their innocence and can't find justice if their Miranda rights were violated. So much for the principle of equal justice under law, the very principle carved into stone above the doors of the Supreme Court. In fact, if you go out this door and out the front steps, you can see those words while standing here on the steps of the Senate. This Court's vision is of a nation where the Court strips the Federal Government of its legally enacted power to regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane pollution that is destroying our Nation and our planet. It is a vision where the powerful corrupt the integrity of our elections with gerrymandering and dark money and measures to prevent targeted groups of Americans from voting. This vision is a vision for a government by and for the powerful, not by and for the people. This vision in which the Supreme Court becomes a superlegislature for a MAGA agenda infuriates me. It infuriates me because I believe in government by and for the people, not by and for the powerful. It infuriates me because I know the pain that these decisions will inflict on millions of Americans--the pain of a woman forced by a State government to carry a fetus to term that was conceived through rape or incest or the pain of any woman, for that matter, who simply is unprepared to be pregnant or become a parent; the pain of every single person who will have to mourn the death of a loved one lost to an ever-growing epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings like we saw in Uvalde and in Highland Park and in countless other communities with more than one mass shooting per day; the pain of the citizens blocked from the ballot box, effectively denied their most fundamental right as Americans because of voter suppression schemes enacted in many States over this past year; the pain of students in our public schools pressured to participate in religious acts in conflict with their own beliefs; the pain of rural Americans, ranchers, and farmers whose farms and ranches will be lost to fire and drought because the Court says the Federal Government cannot regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane causing climate chaos. And I am infuriated because I know more Supreme Court decisions like these are coming from the six MAGA Justices on the Court. They want to cement their vision of America through superlegislative powers rather than calling the balls and strikes defending the Constitution, which is their job. They have announced that next term they are going to hear a case on the fringe doctrine known as the independent State legislature doctrine. It has been considered an extremist idea, which says only State legislatures have the power to make decisions about Federal elections and how to appoint electors. State courts would have no power to ensure checks and balances or decide which decisions about elections violate a State constitution or ignore the will of the voters, nor could State Governors veto such legislative decisions. And that is just the start. Justice Thomas himself said in his concurring opinion that, based on the reasoning in Dobbs, he wants the Court to consider a whole host of other rights that have been secured and protected by previous Courts, including the possibility of striking down the right to intimacy and marriage for same-sex couples and the right to contraception. Make no mistake, this is not some sudden occurrence. It is exactly what the Federalist Society has been working toward for decades. Before joining the Court in 1972, Lewis Powell wrote about the need to rebuild the power of industrial elites and fight back ``from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians'' against progressive changes in society. In outlining a plan for rebuilding the power of Big Business, he declared that, with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for achieving that goal. That is exactly why, as majority leader in 2017, Senator McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat from one President so another President could fill it. He stole it in 2016, and he filled it in 2017 with MAGA Justice Neil Gorsuch. It is why, in 2018, Leader McConnell completely ignored credible accounts of sexual assault and rushed through a confirmation without giving Senators access to the nominee's full records and bypassing committee quorum rules to fill another seat with MAGA Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And it is why, when a seat opened up in another election year, 2020, just weeks before the voters would vote, Leader McConnell completely reversed his argument that he had used to justify the theft of a Supreme Court seat in 2016, and he rammed through the nomination of MAGA Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The Republican Party has won one popular vote for President in the last 30 years but has appointed two-thirds of the sitting Justices, who now see it as their job to become a super-legislature for a cultural agenda and corporate power. In one of his columns, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post described the resulting unelected, unaccountable majority of Supreme Court Justices as a ``junta''--a word used to describe authoritarian leaders who rule through edicts rather than through legislative determination or deliberation on constitutional principles. It is hard to argue with Eugene Robinson's characterization. In spite of what the vast majority of Americans want--the protection of a woman's right to full reproductive healthcare and more gun safety, not less, and free and fair elections--the Court's MAGA majority has chosen to rule by Supreme Court edict to inflict their narrow preferences for society on hundreds of millions of Americans. And they are not just using the regular process for considering cases. Over the past 5 years, we have seen a monumental shift in the Court's use of emergency orders--the so-called shadow docket--to enact sweeping decisions on the American people. These cases don't get the full process we are familiar with--formal briefings, formal hearings, lengthy deliberations, and opinion writings--because it is argued that the applicant would suffer ``irreparable harm'' if their request were not immediately granted. The shadow docket decisions, by the way, are usually unsigned and unexplained. In the past, they have essentially involved death penalty cases--cases of literal life and death--of pretty much extreme importance to the applicant because, if someone is executed before their case is heard, they do suffer ``irreparable harm''--the standard. Then, about 5 years ago, we started to see a big shift in the emergency cases being taken up and in the substances of them as well. We have seen the shadow docket used to stop the Federal Government from implementing a vaccine and testing mandate on businesses to protect public health in the middle of an unprecedented global health crisis that has killed more than a million Americans. We have seen it used to uphold a Texas law banning abortion after 6 weeks. We have seen it used when a lower court blocked Alabama's congressional map because it violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black voters. The Court said: You have got to draw a new map that is fair. The Supreme Court stepped in with their shadow docket and said: No. Alabama can use this faulty map that dilutes the power of Black Americans. In this situation, the Court didn't stop the infliction of harm; they inflicted the harm on Black Americans, who want fair maps, who deserve fair maps for voting in our democracy. That gerrymandered map is now in place to disenfranchise Black voters in this November's election because of the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket. It is hard to see how any of these cases met the test for the shadow docket. The state of abuse of the shadow docket has gotten so bad and so blatant that even Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Court, joined a dissent in a case reinstating a Trump administration Clean Water Act regulation limiting Federal protections for streams and wetlands. This dissentstated that the majority's decision ``renders the court's emergency docket,'' meaning the shadow docket, ``not for emergencies at all . . . . The docket becomes only another place for merits determinations--except made without full briefing and argument.'' When the Supreme Court's Chief Justice says the shadow docket is being abused, you know it is true. This MAGA Court is so determined to impose their legislative priorities and values on our country that they have abandoned one of the core principles of American jurisprudence, going back to even before there was a United States of America, and that is that the Court only rules when there is an actual dispute or controversy in question. In their eagerness to cripple the Federal Government's ability to fight fossil carbon pollution, the MAGA Justices weighed in on a regulation that had never been enforced--a regulation that had been withdrawn by President Trump and a regulation which President Biden had indicated was never going to be reinstated. Even the utilities that would have been regulated didn't want the Supreme Court to decide this case. This out-of-control MAGA Supreme Court super-legislature wanted to legislate--and legislate they did--violating a core principle that the Court does not address moot cases. Moot cases are cases where there is nothing still in dispute, and this certainly was the case that this case was as dead or as moot as it could be because nobody could be impacted by a rule that doesn't exist. Why did the Court take up this case? Well, we may not be able to specify the exact reasoning by each Justice, but the effect is clear. By taking up this case, the Court furthered the MAGA policy agenda. Their ruling handcuffed Federal authorities' ability to pursue future limitations on pollutions from fossil fuels like carbon dioxide and fossil methane. This is to the enormous benefit of the fossil fuel billionaires who funded the massive dark money campaigns that supported these Justices' confirmations. That situation of their breaking precedent to benefit the fossil billionaires, who had just funded their confirmation campaigns, reeks of corruption. When generations ahead of us look back at this moment, I have no doubt--especially when they look at this year, 2022, and what the Court did in a single year--they will look back with a sense of profound disbelief--disbelief--like that disbelief that we experience when we look back on cases like Dred Scott, which dehumanized Black Americans and legitimized slavery, or Plessy v. Ferguson, which locked in 60 years of vicious discrimination and racial terrorism under a separate but equal philosophy. The disbelief that future generations will have will be directed at Dobbs--a decision this year in which the Court obliterated privacy and put an overbearing government in charge of women's reproductive health. They will have the disbelief that, in Kennedy v. Bremerton--decided this year--the Court destroyed freedom of religion in our public schools; the disbelief that, in West Virginia v. EPA--a decision this year--the Court violated centuries of precedent to rule on a regulation that is no longer on books, with the effect--perhaps the goal--of limiting the future regulation of greenhouse gas pollution; the disbelief in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen--decided this year--that the Court ruled that a State legislature can't require folks to have a good reason to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Let me be clear. This activist, extremist MAGA Court faces a legitimacy crisis, and a legitimacy crisis for the Court is a crisis for our democratic Republic. Part of that illegitimacy is Justices of the Supreme Court selectively using a doctrine of so-called originalism to justify their politically inspired decisions. The doctrine of originalism is based on a reasonable argument, one on which you and I would say makes sense: a goal of understanding what the Founders meant when they wrote what they wrote in our Constitution more than two centuries ago. But if that effort is applied selectively, it simply becomes a measure to justify, after the fact, where the Justices want it to come out. They use it when it works, and they abandon it when it doesn't. For example, the Founders wrote the Second Amendment to ensure that members of well-regulated militias had access to their rifles, but the so-called originalists on the Court cast originalism aside, declaring that the Founders wrote that clause to ensure that nonmilitia members had the right to bring assault rifles--that didn't exist in 1787--onto subways, which didn't exist in 1787. That is bogus originalism in its purist form. Consider this: Corporations, as we know them today, did not exist in 1787. Yet the so-called originalists on the Court insist that the Founders' vision of the First Amendment, to protect freedom of speech, gives corporations speech rights even though the word ``corporation'' doesn't appear in the Constitution--a point that they use when they want to take an originalist argument: that the Founders had to have it be something written in the Constitution and be something they discussed and something they considered and something they envisioned. None of those are true. Not a one of them is true in this case. The MAGA Court also claims that a corporation is a person, which no Founder would ever have argued. They didn't even know what a ``corporation'' was because they didn't exist in this form that we have now. The MAGA Court goes on to claim that the members comprising the corporate personhood--those are the stockholders of a corporation--have absolutely no right to know how that corporation that they are part of spends their money. This is absurdity stacked on the fallacy that a corporation is a person. I have yet to see and yet to hear any plausible explanation as to how the MAGA Justices can be confident that the Founders intended for billionaire CEOs to hijack the accumulated wealth of their stockholders without their stockholders' knowledge or permission or opportunity to know what is being said and to use that money as speech and to spend it on secretly funded campaigns, including campaigns to confirm Supreme Court Justices. The problem we face, colleagues, isn't just a MAGA-majority Court enacting terrible policy rather than defending the balls and strikes against the Constitution. The problem is greater if the highest Court in the land loses its legitimacy, the law itself loses its legitimacy. If the American people see the Supreme Court Justices making clear that the law has no meaning other than their political preferences, then the law is not the foundation for our society that it is supposed to be. We have seen with deadly results on January 6, 2021, the consequences to our policies, to our politics, and to our society when the rule of law is replaced by violence and power as the organizing principle for society. The Court is essential in a society based on the rule of law, and it is essential to have a Court that honors the law rather than trying to write the law. This MAGA majority and its desire, and operation as a super-legislature--unelected, lifetime appointments--is a dire threat to our Republic. Here in Congress, we must not only shine a light--a spotlight--on the threat; we must stop the runaway MAGA Court from corrupting the rule of law and try to restore the legitimate role of the Court as a panel defending our Constitution. Some will say there is no way to restore the Court and that any strategy for restoring the Court will simply compound the problems we are now facing, and I agree that there is no simple way to restore the legitimacy of the Court. Back in 2017, when then-Majority Leader McConnell was striving to complete the theft of the Supreme Court seat taken from the administration of Barack Obama, I took to this floor for 15\1/2\ hours with one simple message: Don't do it. Don't do it because, if you do, you will damage the legitimacy of the Court and there will be no simple path, no easy remedy to restore the Court's legitimacy. But Leader McConnell, he doused the Supreme Court with gasoline on that day, and he set it on fire. He did the damage. I stood here for 15\1/2\ hours and said don't do it. You know, we take an oath of office to a Constitution. That involves defending the Court, not delegitimizing the Court, not stealing Supreme Courtseats. It was the first time in the history of the United States of America that this Senate failed to debate and vote on a nominee. But here we are; the damage is done. What do we do now? When an arsonist sets fire to your house, you don't let it burn because you are worried about water damage. You have to strive to put out that fire, regardless of how difficult the task. So I say to you today, we cannot accept the defeatist attitude that fails to confront the forces destroying our Republic. There are two things we must do. Mission one, we have to reform the ability of this broken Senate to serve as a legislature because, if it serves effectively as a legislature, it can serve as a counterweight to decisions of a corrupted Court. The second thing we have to do is put all options on the table and debate them for directly reforming the Court, recognizing that we are left with difficult choices on how to do that. But we have to step up. It is necessary to save our Republic. So let's take each of these missions in turn. The first is to restore the Senate. Our goal: Restore the Senate as a legislative body to serve as a counterweight to the corruption of a MAGA-majority Court. There are three massive problems currently afflicting the Senate's ability to serve as a functioning legislative body. First, we spend virtually all of our time on nominations, so much time that it keeps us from doing much legislating, even though we have a massively complex society and a lot of possibilities for making it work better. When George Washington was assembling his first administration, he had to appoint and the Senate had to confirm four Cabinet positions: Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General--four positions. Today, the Senate is responsible for confirming over 1,200 Presidential appointments to executive branch positions and commissions. Now, in the past, both parties worked to exercise the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities in a manner that minimized the amount of Senate time required. Most were done by unanimous consent late at night, when practically anyone was here because most nominations are not ones to which anyone has an objection. In the entire decade of the 1960s, there was one vote required to close debate on a nominee--one, in an entire 10 years. But, last decade, that number went to 545. Now, it is like every nomination. Virtually every nomination we have to file to close debate and vote to close debate before we can vote on the nominee. And do you know what? The way it works, you can also require 30 hours of debate after the vote to close debate succeeds. So the rules, which were designed for exceptional situations where there is a significant objection, are now used as partisan obstruction. Democrats are in the minority. They want to tie up the Republicans. So they have little time to legislate. Republicans are in the minority. They want to tie up the Democrats. So they have little time to legislate. They want each other to fail, partly because they disagree and partly because they know if the other side succeeds in making something work, the voters might reward them at the ballot box. We have to massively streamline this nomination process. We have to--100 Senators--work together, not do what is best for us when we are in the majority and oppose it when we are in the minority, or vice versa. We all have a responsibility to completely streamline that process so we can return to being a legislature. The second big problem for the Senate is that the rules provide a complicated, time-consuming process for debating and voting on whether to debate a bill. It involves a motion to proceed or requirement to close debate on the motion to proceed and whose nomination is up to 30 hours of additional of debate--all on the question of whether to debate. You have 100 capable people sent here by their constituents in their various States to solve problems for America, not to spend a week debating whether to debate a single bill. That could be a week spent debating the amendments that could make the bill better, a week spent considering individual pieces of the bills so the public knows where we stand and there is public accountability. But, instead, we have partisan paralysis. A completely dysfunctional Senate, that is what we have. We have to change the rules to stop this completely meritless waste of the time and efforts of 100 Senators. It is an easy solution: 1 hour spent debating whether to debate a bill, and then a simple majority vote, either we go to the bill or we don't; easy solution. One hour makes much more sense than 1 week. The third big problem this Senate Chamber faces is a secret silent filibuster. Under the Senate rule--and by the way, the term ``filibuster'' is really inappropriate because this involves no speaking of any kind. Under the Senate rule, 41 Senators can, operating as a block, veto the opportunity for the Senate to debate a bill, veto the opportunity for the Senate to consider an amendment, and veto the ability, after amendments have been considered, to have a final vote on the bill. It is the triple veto: three opportunities for the minority to blockade the majority from being able to consider legislation to address the issues facing America. And both parties have attempted to use it when they are in the minority. We have to restore the ability to actually debate. It is exactly what the Founders feared. When I lay out that 41 can block and veto these 3 steps of the process, it means to reverse it--that 60 out of 100, a supermajority, has to agree to go forward through each of those three steps. The Founders warned us: Never allow the minority to make the decisions by requiring a supermajority. Don't to it. That is why James Madison said that, with a supermajority, when ``the general good might require new laws . . . the principle of free government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.'' It is why Alexander Hamilton warned that a supermajority requirement would result in ``tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.'' He also warned that ``the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed''--the principle of supermajority--``is a history impotence, perplexity, and disorder.'' Now, you may wonder if the Founders had simply read about someone somewhere requiring a supermajority for legislature and said it didn't work very well and thought, We had better warn Americans not to do this. No, they were writing from their direct experience because, as they were drafting and debating our 1787 Constitution, they were actually in the middle of living through the impotence and incompetence of the Confederation Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded our 1787 Constitution, the Congress had to have a supermajority on every provision; meaning, the position of the minority could prevail over the position of the majority. The result was paralysis on the most fundamental issues they faced. They failed to raise the funds to pay the pensions of the veterans who spilled their blood in the Revolutionary War that created this Nation. They failed to raise the funds to put down Shays' Rebellion. Well, today, we have not one stage of veto, like they faced in the Confederation Congress, we have the triple veto power under the current secret, silent filibuster, and we are seeing the same impotence, the same paralysis, the same partisanship that it drives. The triple veto power of the minority is destroying the Senate to address challenges facing America, and there are a lot of them. We have got the climate crisis that is literally setting our country on fire. Right now, at this very moment, around 40 million Americans across the Plains and the Mississippi Valley are dealing with alerts for dangerous and intense heat, while firefighters are confronting 89 large fires across 12 States. And as of last week, four times as much acreage has burned this year as last year at this moment. And it is not just America, of course. Across the Atlantic, Europe is going through a recordbreaking heat wave, reaching temperatures some of thoseplaces have never seen and causing wildfires to burn in France and Spain and Italy and Greece. Congress should be immersed in considering bills to address the climate crisis that is damaging communities across our country, and not just through fires but through rising sea levels and rising erosion, through pine beetle infestations and mosquito infestations, through stronger hurricanes and stronger tornadoes, and, certainly, through the power of multiyear droughts. But we are not because the triple veto of the silent, secret filibuster afflicting this body is blocking us from doing so. We have a housing crisis. Out-of-control rents and prices make it impossible for millions of Americans to afford a decent home to rent or buy. And colleagues have one idea after another about how we should address it, but because we are paralyzed and our process is taken up, our time is taken up with nominations and debating whether to debate and we have the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster, they can't move forward. And we aren't debating, discussing, and hopefully passing measures that can make a difference. And Americans are outraged by the prices they pay on drugs, which are so much higher than any other developed country. Eighty percent of Americans say: Do something about it. And I think the other 20 percent don't realize how much we are getting ripped off. And Americans know we should get the best price because we invest the most in the research and development that creates these drugs, not the worst price, and they are absolutely right. And we would have passed legislation by now to get the best prices in the developed world, but we are blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. And now States are passing laws to block targeted groups of Americans from voting. We can fix that by passing S. 1, the For the People Act, or its reincarnation, the Freedom to Vote Act, but we can't because it was blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. Let me be absolutely clear. The single most effective way we can counterbalance an out-of-control Court with a MAGA agenda is to have a functioning Senate. That is the most immediate remedy available to us to respond to this terrible affliction undermining our Republic. If the Court says there is no problem with gerrymandered districts, where politicians choose their constituents instead of Americans choosing their leaders, as they did in the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, well, a reformed, restored Senate could pass legislation to require nonpartisan commissions to draw legislative districts. At least we could have a robust debate over it, maybe pass a few amendments modifying it in different forms--or perhaps find some other solution--if we had a functioning legislative process. If the Court says there is no limit to dark money from corporations and billionaires who flood and drown out the voices of ordinary Americans and campaigns, as they did in the 2010 Citizens United decision, a reformed, restored Senate could pass the DISCLOSE Act to shine a light on every dollar and where it is coming from in American campaigns. If the Court says that anyone who wants to be able to carry a concealed weapon should be able to like they did in their New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, a restored, functioning Senate could pass stronger gun safety laws that most Americans support, like ending the background check loophole--when guns are bought and sold by unlicensed parties online or at gun shows--or by outlawing the kinds of large magazines that carry 30 or more bullets that are often used in mass shootings. And when the Court went to abnormally great lengths to decide in last month's West Virginia v. EPA that the Agency can't regulate fossil carbon or fossil methane emissions, a functioning Senate would be able to step up and create the programs designed to speed up the transition to renewable energy, which would have the added benefit of ending our addiction to oil and dropping the prices at the pump, and it would keep money out of the hands of dictators in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. But the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster has blocked us from doing so. The remedy is not to eliminate the filibuster. The remedy is to reform it. The right reform is to adopt the public, talking filibuster. The talking filibuster would reassert the fundamental principle of legislative conduct: the Senate Code, adopted by the original Senate. Under that code, the Senate listened to every Senator's perspective, and then it took a vote on the issue, be it a bill or be it an amendment. That was the Senate Code. The original rules provided that every Senator had the right to speak twice to a question. It was rule No. 4 in the original rules. It is in our rules today. But the spirit of that code--listening to each Senator and then voting, with the majority winning, not losing--that part is gone. Now, it is the minority that can exercise a triple veto, a veto absolutely exactly the opposite of what the Founders said to us. They said: Don't do it. And we have done it in triplicate form, paralyzing this place and accentuating the temptation of yielding to partisanship rather than problem-solving. Jefferson did say that this rule, this code of listening to every Senator and voting, should not be abused. In fact, he said this in his manual for rules in 1801: No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. It worked for the Founders. They exercised some self-control, so much so that they didn't need the rule that they had to close debate. They just simply listened to everyone with mutual respect and then said: OK. Let's take a vote. You want to see that in action today? Watch the committee process on a bill with amendments. There is no one filibustering, speaking forever. There is no one requiring a supermajority to close debate in committee. They operate--we operate--in committee, much like the original Senate, and it works pretty well, but we have completely lost that discipline when it comes to debate here on our floor. So the early Senate had a rule for the previous question motion, to close debate or accelerate the closure of debate. And when they rewrote the rule book--and Aaron Burr was in charge of it--in 1806, they dropped the rule because they never used it, didn't feel they ever needed it. Well, we need to reclaim that vision, and our rules have gotten so crazy, so out of whack, that we encourage partisanship and paralysis rather than problem-solving. Let's fix that. So let's have the talking filibuster. The talking filibuster says, Yes, you can speak on the issue. We will listen to everyone. You can speak twice. But then we vote, and the majority wins--not a supermajority required. The minority doesn't win over the majority. The majority wins. That was the Senate. That was the design of our Constitution that we have the responsibility to restore because we took an oath to the Constitution. So let's restore it. And that talking filibuster encourages bipartisan problem-solving. The minority, be it the Democratic or Republican, that wants to slow things down for leverage, they can. So they have significant leverage, but, on the other hand, they have an incentive to negotiate because they are not sure how long they can maintain continuous debate. And that is the heart of the talking filibuster: maintaining continuous debate. If there is a break in debate, you go to the vote. Meanwhile, the majority has an incentive to compromise because they know the minority can tie this place up on a single bill for week after week, and they can't afford to have that much time taken over a single bill. So the talking filibuster restores an incentive for compromise and bipartisan problem-solving and, in the end, restores the vision that the majority makes the decision, not the minority. In the end, it gives the minority a voice, it gives the minority massive leverage, but it takes away their veto. That is the right way to legislate in a democracy. As I noted before, fixing the Senate is probably the best immediate tool we have for repairing the damage from the Supreme Court across the grounds. But we also have to consider every possible remedy to restore the Court itself, to restore a Court that calls the balls and strikes on the Constitution, defendingits core principles, and recognizes it is not there to legislate--not to legislate on the left side, not to legislate on the right side. They are there to defend the Constitution. Well, reforming the Court won't be easily done. But President Biden did convene a Commission to explore the option, and that Commission has produced a lengthy, lengthy report. This is part of it: The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, December of last year. I encourage all my colleagues to read this and consider the ideas in it. In this 300-page report, the Commission does review the history of how the Court has been in different phases, and its size has changed all the time because that is not established in the Constitution. It has been as few as 5, and it has been more than 10. There was not nine locked in like it is now. And, certainly, one of the ideas they review is adjustment to the size of the Court. Many people have said that is something to look at to balance what has happened with the Court, with the stolen Supreme Court seat and a decision by several Justices to be a legislature rather than a court. Well, that is one idea. Another is implementing term limits or a mandatory retirement age because, when the Constitution was first written, people weren't living the long lives they have today, and they didn't stay in the Court forever. In 1787, the Founders wrote that Justices would hold their seats during good behavior. Now, I am not sure that every Justice across these grounds has been engaged in good behavior when they are choosing to legislate rather than to rule on the defense of the Constitution, but there is no easy way to remove them from the Court for misbehavior. But one possibility is for the Court members to rotate out with term limits of some kind. That is one possibility. In much of our history, Justices only served an average of 15 years on the Court. The average is now 26 and getting longer. And, did you know, America is the only constitutional democracy that gives lifetime presence on the Court, that doesn't have either a term limit or a mandatory retirement age? This report, this Commission, has other ideas in it: rotating membership on the Court with judges selected from the circuit court. You know, the original Supreme Court, they served as circuit court writers. They went out and made decisions across this country. They didn't just sit in a room in the capital. So there is some precedent for that idea. And others point out that there is the power to restrict the Court's jurisdiction. There are pros and cons for these various ideas, and our commitment needs to be to examine them. The American public is open to examining them. Earlier this week, the FOX News poll reported that 66 percent of the folks in their poll support an 18-year term for Justices, and 71 percent support a mandatory retirement age. So the American people are open to trying to fix the challenge with the Court. We have to be open to fixing it, and we need to look at every option and idea very carefully to ensure that the highest Court in our land fulfills the vision for it in our Constitution. And the vision in our Constitution was not that it would be an unelected super-legislature. Colleagues, this is a perilous moment for our Republic. It is a moment when the will of the people is being overrun by an extreme agenda of a Court legislating from the Bench, imposing their narrow and precedent-destroying will on all Americans. We have to restore the ability of this Senate to operate as a legislature that can be a counterbalance to what the Court does, and we must thoughtfully consider every proposal for reforming the Court directly. We can and we must act before it is too late. We can't stand by and watch the continuous disintegration of our Republic. Our oath to the Constitution demands that we protect these institutions and repair them when they go off track. And when we do, the next July 4, we can all join together and celebrate the restoration of our paralyzed and partisan Senate into an actual legislative body. We can celebrate the restoration of Americans' rights that are being continuously stripped away across the grounds by the Supreme Court. We can have a renewed belief and confidence in the integrity of all of our institutions and our democratic form of governance. That would be a moment justifying a massive celebration next July 4. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | null | 4,771 |
formal | public schools | null | racist | Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, on July 4, we celebrated the founding of our Nation, as we do every year. But when I woke up on this July 4, I had a strange thought, a thought I never had before, the question of, What kind of country are we celebrating? I have always had immense pride in the founding vision of our Nation, in that vision of equality, of opportunity for all, of freedom of religion, of equal justice under the law, of equal representation, and, most importantly, of government of, by, and for the people. Our journey as a nation over nearly 250 years has been a difficult journey of moving toward full implementation of this vision. That is an inspiring journey--a journey I have been proud to witness, a journey I have been proud to be a part of. But just days before this year's July 4 celebration, we saw the conclusion of the Supreme Court's latest judicial term--a term over which the Court displayed a far different vision for America: one with devastating repercussions that will reverberate in the lives of countless Americans for decades to come. For years now--actually, for decades, we have watched a steady, relentless effort by rightwing extremists to rig the courts so they can transform America and American society as we have known it. Their big goal is corporations over people and their second goal is to implement conservative cultural policy over individual freedom and liberty. Now, with this Court's recent decisions, we are left with an inescapable conclusion: The extremists have succeeded. The Court is now operating as an unelected super-legislature with a MAGA political agenda. Their decisions this term read like planks out of the Republican Party platform. Here is what the MAGA Court's vision is for our Nation. It is a vision that obliterates the right to privacy, giving an overbearing Federal Government the power to be in the medical exam room making reproductive health decisions for American women, when the only people who should be in the exam room, under an ``of and by the people'' Republic is the woman, her doctor, and whomever else she chooses to invite--her partner, her friend, or her religious adviser. This Court's vision is a vision that embraces never-ending gun violence, stripping Congress and the States ofthe ability to make commonsense gun safety laws. It is a vision of a nation where public schools can impose religion on their students. So much for freedom of religion and separation of church and State. It is a vision of a nation where wrongfully incarcerated Americans don't have the right to prove their innocence and can't find justice if their Miranda rights were violated. So much for the principle of equal justice under law, the very principle carved into stone above the doors of the Supreme Court. In fact, if you go out this door and out the front steps, you can see those words while standing here on the steps of the Senate. This Court's vision is of a nation where the Court strips the Federal Government of its legally enacted power to regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane pollution that is destroying our Nation and our planet. It is a vision where the powerful corrupt the integrity of our elections with gerrymandering and dark money and measures to prevent targeted groups of Americans from voting. This vision is a vision for a government by and for the powerful, not by and for the people. This vision in which the Supreme Court becomes a superlegislature for a MAGA agenda infuriates me. It infuriates me because I believe in government by and for the people, not by and for the powerful. It infuriates me because I know the pain that these decisions will inflict on millions of Americans--the pain of a woman forced by a State government to carry a fetus to term that was conceived through rape or incest or the pain of any woman, for that matter, who simply is unprepared to be pregnant or become a parent; the pain of every single person who will have to mourn the death of a loved one lost to an ever-growing epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings like we saw in Uvalde and in Highland Park and in countless other communities with more than one mass shooting per day; the pain of the citizens blocked from the ballot box, effectively denied their most fundamental right as Americans because of voter suppression schemes enacted in many States over this past year; the pain of students in our public schools pressured to participate in religious acts in conflict with their own beliefs; the pain of rural Americans, ranchers, and farmers whose farms and ranches will be lost to fire and drought because the Court says the Federal Government cannot regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane causing climate chaos. And I am infuriated because I know more Supreme Court decisions like these are coming from the six MAGA Justices on the Court. They want to cement their vision of America through superlegislative powers rather than calling the balls and strikes defending the Constitution, which is their job. They have announced that next term they are going to hear a case on the fringe doctrine known as the independent State legislature doctrine. It has been considered an extremist idea, which says only State legislatures have the power to make decisions about Federal elections and how to appoint electors. State courts would have no power to ensure checks and balances or decide which decisions about elections violate a State constitution or ignore the will of the voters, nor could State Governors veto such legislative decisions. And that is just the start. Justice Thomas himself said in his concurring opinion that, based on the reasoning in Dobbs, he wants the Court to consider a whole host of other rights that have been secured and protected by previous Courts, including the possibility of striking down the right to intimacy and marriage for same-sex couples and the right to contraception. Make no mistake, this is not some sudden occurrence. It is exactly what the Federalist Society has been working toward for decades. Before joining the Court in 1972, Lewis Powell wrote about the need to rebuild the power of industrial elites and fight back ``from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians'' against progressive changes in society. In outlining a plan for rebuilding the power of Big Business, he declared that, with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for achieving that goal. That is exactly why, as majority leader in 2017, Senator McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat from one President so another President could fill it. He stole it in 2016, and he filled it in 2017 with MAGA Justice Neil Gorsuch. It is why, in 2018, Leader McConnell completely ignored credible accounts of sexual assault and rushed through a confirmation without giving Senators access to the nominee's full records and bypassing committee quorum rules to fill another seat with MAGA Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And it is why, when a seat opened up in another election year, 2020, just weeks before the voters would vote, Leader McConnell completely reversed his argument that he had used to justify the theft of a Supreme Court seat in 2016, and he rammed through the nomination of MAGA Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The Republican Party has won one popular vote for President in the last 30 years but has appointed two-thirds of the sitting Justices, who now see it as their job to become a super-legislature for a cultural agenda and corporate power. In one of his columns, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post described the resulting unelected, unaccountable majority of Supreme Court Justices as a ``junta''--a word used to describe authoritarian leaders who rule through edicts rather than through legislative determination or deliberation on constitutional principles. It is hard to argue with Eugene Robinson's characterization. In spite of what the vast majority of Americans want--the protection of a woman's right to full reproductive healthcare and more gun safety, not less, and free and fair elections--the Court's MAGA majority has chosen to rule by Supreme Court edict to inflict their narrow preferences for society on hundreds of millions of Americans. And they are not just using the regular process for considering cases. Over the past 5 years, we have seen a monumental shift in the Court's use of emergency orders--the so-called shadow docket--to enact sweeping decisions on the American people. These cases don't get the full process we are familiar with--formal briefings, formal hearings, lengthy deliberations, and opinion writings--because it is argued that the applicant would suffer ``irreparable harm'' if their request were not immediately granted. The shadow docket decisions, by the way, are usually unsigned and unexplained. In the past, they have essentially involved death penalty cases--cases of literal life and death--of pretty much extreme importance to the applicant because, if someone is executed before their case is heard, they do suffer ``irreparable harm''--the standard. Then, about 5 years ago, we started to see a big shift in the emergency cases being taken up and in the substances of them as well. We have seen the shadow docket used to stop the Federal Government from implementing a vaccine and testing mandate on businesses to protect public health in the middle of an unprecedented global health crisis that has killed more than a million Americans. We have seen it used to uphold a Texas law banning abortion after 6 weeks. We have seen it used when a lower court blocked Alabama's congressional map because it violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black voters. The Court said: You have got to draw a new map that is fair. The Supreme Court stepped in with their shadow docket and said: No. Alabama can use this faulty map that dilutes the power of Black Americans. In this situation, the Court didn't stop the infliction of harm; they inflicted the harm on Black Americans, who want fair maps, who deserve fair maps for voting in our democracy. That gerrymandered map is now in place to disenfranchise Black voters in this November's election because of the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket. It is hard to see how any of these cases met the test for the shadow docket. The state of abuse of the shadow docket has gotten so bad and so blatant that even Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Court, joined a dissent in a case reinstating a Trump administration Clean Water Act regulation limiting Federal protections for streams and wetlands. This dissentstated that the majority's decision ``renders the court's emergency docket,'' meaning the shadow docket, ``not for emergencies at all . . . . The docket becomes only another place for merits determinations--except made without full briefing and argument.'' When the Supreme Court's Chief Justice says the shadow docket is being abused, you know it is true. This MAGA Court is so determined to impose their legislative priorities and values on our country that they have abandoned one of the core principles of American jurisprudence, going back to even before there was a United States of America, and that is that the Court only rules when there is an actual dispute or controversy in question. In their eagerness to cripple the Federal Government's ability to fight fossil carbon pollution, the MAGA Justices weighed in on a regulation that had never been enforced--a regulation that had been withdrawn by President Trump and a regulation which President Biden had indicated was never going to be reinstated. Even the utilities that would have been regulated didn't want the Supreme Court to decide this case. This out-of-control MAGA Supreme Court super-legislature wanted to legislate--and legislate they did--violating a core principle that the Court does not address moot cases. Moot cases are cases where there is nothing still in dispute, and this certainly was the case that this case was as dead or as moot as it could be because nobody could be impacted by a rule that doesn't exist. Why did the Court take up this case? Well, we may not be able to specify the exact reasoning by each Justice, but the effect is clear. By taking up this case, the Court furthered the MAGA policy agenda. Their ruling handcuffed Federal authorities' ability to pursue future limitations on pollutions from fossil fuels like carbon dioxide and fossil methane. This is to the enormous benefit of the fossil fuel billionaires who funded the massive dark money campaigns that supported these Justices' confirmations. That situation of their breaking precedent to benefit the fossil billionaires, who had just funded their confirmation campaigns, reeks of corruption. When generations ahead of us look back at this moment, I have no doubt--especially when they look at this year, 2022, and what the Court did in a single year--they will look back with a sense of profound disbelief--disbelief--like that disbelief that we experience when we look back on cases like Dred Scott, which dehumanized Black Americans and legitimized slavery, or Plessy v. Ferguson, which locked in 60 years of vicious discrimination and racial terrorism under a separate but equal philosophy. The disbelief that future generations will have will be directed at Dobbs--a decision this year in which the Court obliterated privacy and put an overbearing government in charge of women's reproductive health. They will have the disbelief that, in Kennedy v. Bremerton--decided this year--the Court destroyed freedom of religion in our public schools; the disbelief that, in West Virginia v. EPA--a decision this year--the Court violated centuries of precedent to rule on a regulation that is no longer on books, with the effect--perhaps the goal--of limiting the future regulation of greenhouse gas pollution; the disbelief in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen--decided this year--that the Court ruled that a State legislature can't require folks to have a good reason to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Let me be clear. This activist, extremist MAGA Court faces a legitimacy crisis, and a legitimacy crisis for the Court is a crisis for our democratic Republic. Part of that illegitimacy is Justices of the Supreme Court selectively using a doctrine of so-called originalism to justify their politically inspired decisions. The doctrine of originalism is based on a reasonable argument, one on which you and I would say makes sense: a goal of understanding what the Founders meant when they wrote what they wrote in our Constitution more than two centuries ago. But if that effort is applied selectively, it simply becomes a measure to justify, after the fact, where the Justices want it to come out. They use it when it works, and they abandon it when it doesn't. For example, the Founders wrote the Second Amendment to ensure that members of well-regulated militias had access to their rifles, but the so-called originalists on the Court cast originalism aside, declaring that the Founders wrote that clause to ensure that nonmilitia members had the right to bring assault rifles--that didn't exist in 1787--onto subways, which didn't exist in 1787. That is bogus originalism in its purist form. Consider this: Corporations, as we know them today, did not exist in 1787. Yet the so-called originalists on the Court insist that the Founders' vision of the First Amendment, to protect freedom of speech, gives corporations speech rights even though the word ``corporation'' doesn't appear in the Constitution--a point that they use when they want to take an originalist argument: that the Founders had to have it be something written in the Constitution and be something they discussed and something they considered and something they envisioned. None of those are true. Not a one of them is true in this case. The MAGA Court also claims that a corporation is a person, which no Founder would ever have argued. They didn't even know what a ``corporation'' was because they didn't exist in this form that we have now. The MAGA Court goes on to claim that the members comprising the corporate personhood--those are the stockholders of a corporation--have absolutely no right to know how that corporation that they are part of spends their money. This is absurdity stacked on the fallacy that a corporation is a person. I have yet to see and yet to hear any plausible explanation as to how the MAGA Justices can be confident that the Founders intended for billionaire CEOs to hijack the accumulated wealth of their stockholders without their stockholders' knowledge or permission or opportunity to know what is being said and to use that money as speech and to spend it on secretly funded campaigns, including campaigns to confirm Supreme Court Justices. The problem we face, colleagues, isn't just a MAGA-majority Court enacting terrible policy rather than defending the balls and strikes against the Constitution. The problem is greater if the highest Court in the land loses its legitimacy, the law itself loses its legitimacy. If the American people see the Supreme Court Justices making clear that the law has no meaning other than their political preferences, then the law is not the foundation for our society that it is supposed to be. We have seen with deadly results on January 6, 2021, the consequences to our policies, to our politics, and to our society when the rule of law is replaced by violence and power as the organizing principle for society. The Court is essential in a society based on the rule of law, and it is essential to have a Court that honors the law rather than trying to write the law. This MAGA majority and its desire, and operation as a super-legislature--unelected, lifetime appointments--is a dire threat to our Republic. Here in Congress, we must not only shine a light--a spotlight--on the threat; we must stop the runaway MAGA Court from corrupting the rule of law and try to restore the legitimate role of the Court as a panel defending our Constitution. Some will say there is no way to restore the Court and that any strategy for restoring the Court will simply compound the problems we are now facing, and I agree that there is no simple way to restore the legitimacy of the Court. Back in 2017, when then-Majority Leader McConnell was striving to complete the theft of the Supreme Court seat taken from the administration of Barack Obama, I took to this floor for 15\1/2\ hours with one simple message: Don't do it. Don't do it because, if you do, you will damage the legitimacy of the Court and there will be no simple path, no easy remedy to restore the Court's legitimacy. But Leader McConnell, he doused the Supreme Court with gasoline on that day, and he set it on fire. He did the damage. I stood here for 15\1/2\ hours and said don't do it. You know, we take an oath of office to a Constitution. That involves defending the Court, not delegitimizing the Court, not stealing Supreme Courtseats. It was the first time in the history of the United States of America that this Senate failed to debate and vote on a nominee. But here we are; the damage is done. What do we do now? When an arsonist sets fire to your house, you don't let it burn because you are worried about water damage. You have to strive to put out that fire, regardless of how difficult the task. So I say to you today, we cannot accept the defeatist attitude that fails to confront the forces destroying our Republic. There are two things we must do. Mission one, we have to reform the ability of this broken Senate to serve as a legislature because, if it serves effectively as a legislature, it can serve as a counterweight to decisions of a corrupted Court. The second thing we have to do is put all options on the table and debate them for directly reforming the Court, recognizing that we are left with difficult choices on how to do that. But we have to step up. It is necessary to save our Republic. So let's take each of these missions in turn. The first is to restore the Senate. Our goal: Restore the Senate as a legislative body to serve as a counterweight to the corruption of a MAGA-majority Court. There are three massive problems currently afflicting the Senate's ability to serve as a functioning legislative body. First, we spend virtually all of our time on nominations, so much time that it keeps us from doing much legislating, even though we have a massively complex society and a lot of possibilities for making it work better. When George Washington was assembling his first administration, he had to appoint and the Senate had to confirm four Cabinet positions: Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General--four positions. Today, the Senate is responsible for confirming over 1,200 Presidential appointments to executive branch positions and commissions. Now, in the past, both parties worked to exercise the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities in a manner that minimized the amount of Senate time required. Most were done by unanimous consent late at night, when practically anyone was here because most nominations are not ones to which anyone has an objection. In the entire decade of the 1960s, there was one vote required to close debate on a nominee--one, in an entire 10 years. But, last decade, that number went to 545. Now, it is like every nomination. Virtually every nomination we have to file to close debate and vote to close debate before we can vote on the nominee. And do you know what? The way it works, you can also require 30 hours of debate after the vote to close debate succeeds. So the rules, which were designed for exceptional situations where there is a significant objection, are now used as partisan obstruction. Democrats are in the minority. They want to tie up the Republicans. So they have little time to legislate. Republicans are in the minority. They want to tie up the Democrats. So they have little time to legislate. They want each other to fail, partly because they disagree and partly because they know if the other side succeeds in making something work, the voters might reward them at the ballot box. We have to massively streamline this nomination process. We have to--100 Senators--work together, not do what is best for us when we are in the majority and oppose it when we are in the minority, or vice versa. We all have a responsibility to completely streamline that process so we can return to being a legislature. The second big problem for the Senate is that the rules provide a complicated, time-consuming process for debating and voting on whether to debate a bill. It involves a motion to proceed or requirement to close debate on the motion to proceed and whose nomination is up to 30 hours of additional of debate--all on the question of whether to debate. You have 100 capable people sent here by their constituents in their various States to solve problems for America, not to spend a week debating whether to debate a single bill. That could be a week spent debating the amendments that could make the bill better, a week spent considering individual pieces of the bills so the public knows where we stand and there is public accountability. But, instead, we have partisan paralysis. A completely dysfunctional Senate, that is what we have. We have to change the rules to stop this completely meritless waste of the time and efforts of 100 Senators. It is an easy solution: 1 hour spent debating whether to debate a bill, and then a simple majority vote, either we go to the bill or we don't; easy solution. One hour makes much more sense than 1 week. The third big problem this Senate Chamber faces is a secret silent filibuster. Under the Senate rule--and by the way, the term ``filibuster'' is really inappropriate because this involves no speaking of any kind. Under the Senate rule, 41 Senators can, operating as a block, veto the opportunity for the Senate to debate a bill, veto the opportunity for the Senate to consider an amendment, and veto the ability, after amendments have been considered, to have a final vote on the bill. It is the triple veto: three opportunities for the minority to blockade the majority from being able to consider legislation to address the issues facing America. And both parties have attempted to use it when they are in the minority. We have to restore the ability to actually debate. It is exactly what the Founders feared. When I lay out that 41 can block and veto these 3 steps of the process, it means to reverse it--that 60 out of 100, a supermajority, has to agree to go forward through each of those three steps. The Founders warned us: Never allow the minority to make the decisions by requiring a supermajority. Don't to it. That is why James Madison said that, with a supermajority, when ``the general good might require new laws . . . the principle of free government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.'' It is why Alexander Hamilton warned that a supermajority requirement would result in ``tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.'' He also warned that ``the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed''--the principle of supermajority--``is a history impotence, perplexity, and disorder.'' Now, you may wonder if the Founders had simply read about someone somewhere requiring a supermajority for legislature and said it didn't work very well and thought, We had better warn Americans not to do this. No, they were writing from their direct experience because, as they were drafting and debating our 1787 Constitution, they were actually in the middle of living through the impotence and incompetence of the Confederation Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded our 1787 Constitution, the Congress had to have a supermajority on every provision; meaning, the position of the minority could prevail over the position of the majority. The result was paralysis on the most fundamental issues they faced. They failed to raise the funds to pay the pensions of the veterans who spilled their blood in the Revolutionary War that created this Nation. They failed to raise the funds to put down Shays' Rebellion. Well, today, we have not one stage of veto, like they faced in the Confederation Congress, we have the triple veto power under the current secret, silent filibuster, and we are seeing the same impotence, the same paralysis, the same partisanship that it drives. The triple veto power of the minority is destroying the Senate to address challenges facing America, and there are a lot of them. We have got the climate crisis that is literally setting our country on fire. Right now, at this very moment, around 40 million Americans across the Plains and the Mississippi Valley are dealing with alerts for dangerous and intense heat, while firefighters are confronting 89 large fires across 12 States. And as of last week, four times as much acreage has burned this year as last year at this moment. And it is not just America, of course. Across the Atlantic, Europe is going through a recordbreaking heat wave, reaching temperatures some of thoseplaces have never seen and causing wildfires to burn in France and Spain and Italy and Greece. Congress should be immersed in considering bills to address the climate crisis that is damaging communities across our country, and not just through fires but through rising sea levels and rising erosion, through pine beetle infestations and mosquito infestations, through stronger hurricanes and stronger tornadoes, and, certainly, through the power of multiyear droughts. But we are not because the triple veto of the silent, secret filibuster afflicting this body is blocking us from doing so. We have a housing crisis. Out-of-control rents and prices make it impossible for millions of Americans to afford a decent home to rent or buy. And colleagues have one idea after another about how we should address it, but because we are paralyzed and our process is taken up, our time is taken up with nominations and debating whether to debate and we have the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster, they can't move forward. And we aren't debating, discussing, and hopefully passing measures that can make a difference. And Americans are outraged by the prices they pay on drugs, which are so much higher than any other developed country. Eighty percent of Americans say: Do something about it. And I think the other 20 percent don't realize how much we are getting ripped off. And Americans know we should get the best price because we invest the most in the research and development that creates these drugs, not the worst price, and they are absolutely right. And we would have passed legislation by now to get the best prices in the developed world, but we are blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. And now States are passing laws to block targeted groups of Americans from voting. We can fix that by passing S. 1, the For the People Act, or its reincarnation, the Freedom to Vote Act, but we can't because it was blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. Let me be absolutely clear. The single most effective way we can counterbalance an out-of-control Court with a MAGA agenda is to have a functioning Senate. That is the most immediate remedy available to us to respond to this terrible affliction undermining our Republic. If the Court says there is no problem with gerrymandered districts, where politicians choose their constituents instead of Americans choosing their leaders, as they did in the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, well, a reformed, restored Senate could pass legislation to require nonpartisan commissions to draw legislative districts. At least we could have a robust debate over it, maybe pass a few amendments modifying it in different forms--or perhaps find some other solution--if we had a functioning legislative process. If the Court says there is no limit to dark money from corporations and billionaires who flood and drown out the voices of ordinary Americans and campaigns, as they did in the 2010 Citizens United decision, a reformed, restored Senate could pass the DISCLOSE Act to shine a light on every dollar and where it is coming from in American campaigns. If the Court says that anyone who wants to be able to carry a concealed weapon should be able to like they did in their New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, a restored, functioning Senate could pass stronger gun safety laws that most Americans support, like ending the background check loophole--when guns are bought and sold by unlicensed parties online or at gun shows--or by outlawing the kinds of large magazines that carry 30 or more bullets that are often used in mass shootings. And when the Court went to abnormally great lengths to decide in last month's West Virginia v. EPA that the Agency can't regulate fossil carbon or fossil methane emissions, a functioning Senate would be able to step up and create the programs designed to speed up the transition to renewable energy, which would have the added benefit of ending our addiction to oil and dropping the prices at the pump, and it would keep money out of the hands of dictators in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. But the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster has blocked us from doing so. The remedy is not to eliminate the filibuster. The remedy is to reform it. The right reform is to adopt the public, talking filibuster. The talking filibuster would reassert the fundamental principle of legislative conduct: the Senate Code, adopted by the original Senate. Under that code, the Senate listened to every Senator's perspective, and then it took a vote on the issue, be it a bill or be it an amendment. That was the Senate Code. The original rules provided that every Senator had the right to speak twice to a question. It was rule No. 4 in the original rules. It is in our rules today. But the spirit of that code--listening to each Senator and then voting, with the majority winning, not losing--that part is gone. Now, it is the minority that can exercise a triple veto, a veto absolutely exactly the opposite of what the Founders said to us. They said: Don't do it. And we have done it in triplicate form, paralyzing this place and accentuating the temptation of yielding to partisanship rather than problem-solving. Jefferson did say that this rule, this code of listening to every Senator and voting, should not be abused. In fact, he said this in his manual for rules in 1801: No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. It worked for the Founders. They exercised some self-control, so much so that they didn't need the rule that they had to close debate. They just simply listened to everyone with mutual respect and then said: OK. Let's take a vote. You want to see that in action today? Watch the committee process on a bill with amendments. There is no one filibustering, speaking forever. There is no one requiring a supermajority to close debate in committee. They operate--we operate--in committee, much like the original Senate, and it works pretty well, but we have completely lost that discipline when it comes to debate here on our floor. So the early Senate had a rule for the previous question motion, to close debate or accelerate the closure of debate. And when they rewrote the rule book--and Aaron Burr was in charge of it--in 1806, they dropped the rule because they never used it, didn't feel they ever needed it. Well, we need to reclaim that vision, and our rules have gotten so crazy, so out of whack, that we encourage partisanship and paralysis rather than problem-solving. Let's fix that. So let's have the talking filibuster. The talking filibuster says, Yes, you can speak on the issue. We will listen to everyone. You can speak twice. But then we vote, and the majority wins--not a supermajority required. The minority doesn't win over the majority. The majority wins. That was the Senate. That was the design of our Constitution that we have the responsibility to restore because we took an oath to the Constitution. So let's restore it. And that talking filibuster encourages bipartisan problem-solving. The minority, be it the Democratic or Republican, that wants to slow things down for leverage, they can. So they have significant leverage, but, on the other hand, they have an incentive to negotiate because they are not sure how long they can maintain continuous debate. And that is the heart of the talking filibuster: maintaining continuous debate. If there is a break in debate, you go to the vote. Meanwhile, the majority has an incentive to compromise because they know the minority can tie this place up on a single bill for week after week, and they can't afford to have that much time taken over a single bill. So the talking filibuster restores an incentive for compromise and bipartisan problem-solving and, in the end, restores the vision that the majority makes the decision, not the minority. In the end, it gives the minority a voice, it gives the minority massive leverage, but it takes away their veto. That is the right way to legislate in a democracy. As I noted before, fixing the Senate is probably the best immediate tool we have for repairing the damage from the Supreme Court across the grounds. But we also have to consider every possible remedy to restore the Court itself, to restore a Court that calls the balls and strikes on the Constitution, defendingits core principles, and recognizes it is not there to legislate--not to legislate on the left side, not to legislate on the right side. They are there to defend the Constitution. Well, reforming the Court won't be easily done. But President Biden did convene a Commission to explore the option, and that Commission has produced a lengthy, lengthy report. This is part of it: The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, December of last year. I encourage all my colleagues to read this and consider the ideas in it. In this 300-page report, the Commission does review the history of how the Court has been in different phases, and its size has changed all the time because that is not established in the Constitution. It has been as few as 5, and it has been more than 10. There was not nine locked in like it is now. And, certainly, one of the ideas they review is adjustment to the size of the Court. Many people have said that is something to look at to balance what has happened with the Court, with the stolen Supreme Court seat and a decision by several Justices to be a legislature rather than a court. Well, that is one idea. Another is implementing term limits or a mandatory retirement age because, when the Constitution was first written, people weren't living the long lives they have today, and they didn't stay in the Court forever. In 1787, the Founders wrote that Justices would hold their seats during good behavior. Now, I am not sure that every Justice across these grounds has been engaged in good behavior when they are choosing to legislate rather than to rule on the defense of the Constitution, but there is no easy way to remove them from the Court for misbehavior. But one possibility is for the Court members to rotate out with term limits of some kind. That is one possibility. In much of our history, Justices only served an average of 15 years on the Court. The average is now 26 and getting longer. And, did you know, America is the only constitutional democracy that gives lifetime presence on the Court, that doesn't have either a term limit or a mandatory retirement age? This report, this Commission, has other ideas in it: rotating membership on the Court with judges selected from the circuit court. You know, the original Supreme Court, they served as circuit court writers. They went out and made decisions across this country. They didn't just sit in a room in the capital. So there is some precedent for that idea. And others point out that there is the power to restrict the Court's jurisdiction. There are pros and cons for these various ideas, and our commitment needs to be to examine them. The American public is open to examining them. Earlier this week, the FOX News poll reported that 66 percent of the folks in their poll support an 18-year term for Justices, and 71 percent support a mandatory retirement age. So the American people are open to trying to fix the challenge with the Court. We have to be open to fixing it, and we need to look at every option and idea very carefully to ensure that the highest Court in our land fulfills the vision for it in our Constitution. And the vision in our Constitution was not that it would be an unelected super-legislature. Colleagues, this is a perilous moment for our Republic. It is a moment when the will of the people is being overrun by an extreme agenda of a Court legislating from the Bench, imposing their narrow and precedent-destroying will on all Americans. We have to restore the ability of this Senate to operate as a legislature that can be a counterbalance to what the Court does, and we must thoughtfully consider every proposal for reforming the Court directly. We can and we must act before it is too late. We can't stand by and watch the continuous disintegration of our Republic. Our oath to the Constitution demands that we protect these institutions and repair them when they go off track. And when we do, the next July 4, we can all join together and celebrate the restoration of our paralyzed and partisan Senate into an actual legislative body. We can celebrate the restoration of Americans' rights that are being continuously stripped away across the grounds by the Supreme Court. We can have a renewed belief and confidence in the integrity of all of our institutions and our democratic form of governance. That would be a moment justifying a massive celebration next July 4. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | null | 4,772 |
formal | freedom of religion | null | homophobic | Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, on July 4, we celebrated the founding of our Nation, as we do every year. But when I woke up on this July 4, I had a strange thought, a thought I never had before, the question of, What kind of country are we celebrating? I have always had immense pride in the founding vision of our Nation, in that vision of equality, of opportunity for all, of freedom of religion, of equal justice under the law, of equal representation, and, most importantly, of government of, by, and for the people. Our journey as a nation over nearly 250 years has been a difficult journey of moving toward full implementation of this vision. That is an inspiring journey--a journey I have been proud to witness, a journey I have been proud to be a part of. But just days before this year's July 4 celebration, we saw the conclusion of the Supreme Court's latest judicial term--a term over which the Court displayed a far different vision for America: one with devastating repercussions that will reverberate in the lives of countless Americans for decades to come. For years now--actually, for decades, we have watched a steady, relentless effort by rightwing extremists to rig the courts so they can transform America and American society as we have known it. Their big goal is corporations over people and their second goal is to implement conservative cultural policy over individual freedom and liberty. Now, with this Court's recent decisions, we are left with an inescapable conclusion: The extremists have succeeded. The Court is now operating as an unelected super-legislature with a MAGA political agenda. Their decisions this term read like planks out of the Republican Party platform. Here is what the MAGA Court's vision is for our Nation. It is a vision that obliterates the right to privacy, giving an overbearing Federal Government the power to be in the medical exam room making reproductive health decisions for American women, when the only people who should be in the exam room, under an ``of and by the people'' Republic is the woman, her doctor, and whomever else she chooses to invite--her partner, her friend, or her religious adviser. This Court's vision is a vision that embraces never-ending gun violence, stripping Congress and the States ofthe ability to make commonsense gun safety laws. It is a vision of a nation where public schools can impose religion on their students. So much for freedom of religion and separation of church and State. It is a vision of a nation where wrongfully incarcerated Americans don't have the right to prove their innocence and can't find justice if their Miranda rights were violated. So much for the principle of equal justice under law, the very principle carved into stone above the doors of the Supreme Court. In fact, if you go out this door and out the front steps, you can see those words while standing here on the steps of the Senate. This Court's vision is of a nation where the Court strips the Federal Government of its legally enacted power to regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane pollution that is destroying our Nation and our planet. It is a vision where the powerful corrupt the integrity of our elections with gerrymandering and dark money and measures to prevent targeted groups of Americans from voting. This vision is a vision for a government by and for the powerful, not by and for the people. This vision in which the Supreme Court becomes a superlegislature for a MAGA agenda infuriates me. It infuriates me because I believe in government by and for the people, not by and for the powerful. It infuriates me because I know the pain that these decisions will inflict on millions of Americans--the pain of a woman forced by a State government to carry a fetus to term that was conceived through rape or incest or the pain of any woman, for that matter, who simply is unprepared to be pregnant or become a parent; the pain of every single person who will have to mourn the death of a loved one lost to an ever-growing epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings like we saw in Uvalde and in Highland Park and in countless other communities with more than one mass shooting per day; the pain of the citizens blocked from the ballot box, effectively denied their most fundamental right as Americans because of voter suppression schemes enacted in many States over this past year; the pain of students in our public schools pressured to participate in religious acts in conflict with their own beliefs; the pain of rural Americans, ranchers, and farmers whose farms and ranches will be lost to fire and drought because the Court says the Federal Government cannot regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane causing climate chaos. And I am infuriated because I know more Supreme Court decisions like these are coming from the six MAGA Justices on the Court. They want to cement their vision of America through superlegislative powers rather than calling the balls and strikes defending the Constitution, which is their job. They have announced that next term they are going to hear a case on the fringe doctrine known as the independent State legislature doctrine. It has been considered an extremist idea, which says only State legislatures have the power to make decisions about Federal elections and how to appoint electors. State courts would have no power to ensure checks and balances or decide which decisions about elections violate a State constitution or ignore the will of the voters, nor could State Governors veto such legislative decisions. And that is just the start. Justice Thomas himself said in his concurring opinion that, based on the reasoning in Dobbs, he wants the Court to consider a whole host of other rights that have been secured and protected by previous Courts, including the possibility of striking down the right to intimacy and marriage for same-sex couples and the right to contraception. Make no mistake, this is not some sudden occurrence. It is exactly what the Federalist Society has been working toward for decades. Before joining the Court in 1972, Lewis Powell wrote about the need to rebuild the power of industrial elites and fight back ``from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians'' against progressive changes in society. In outlining a plan for rebuilding the power of Big Business, he declared that, with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for achieving that goal. That is exactly why, as majority leader in 2017, Senator McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat from one President so another President could fill it. He stole it in 2016, and he filled it in 2017 with MAGA Justice Neil Gorsuch. It is why, in 2018, Leader McConnell completely ignored credible accounts of sexual assault and rushed through a confirmation without giving Senators access to the nominee's full records and bypassing committee quorum rules to fill another seat with MAGA Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And it is why, when a seat opened up in another election year, 2020, just weeks before the voters would vote, Leader McConnell completely reversed his argument that he had used to justify the theft of a Supreme Court seat in 2016, and he rammed through the nomination of MAGA Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The Republican Party has won one popular vote for President in the last 30 years but has appointed two-thirds of the sitting Justices, who now see it as their job to become a super-legislature for a cultural agenda and corporate power. In one of his columns, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post described the resulting unelected, unaccountable majority of Supreme Court Justices as a ``junta''--a word used to describe authoritarian leaders who rule through edicts rather than through legislative determination or deliberation on constitutional principles. It is hard to argue with Eugene Robinson's characterization. In spite of what the vast majority of Americans want--the protection of a woman's right to full reproductive healthcare and more gun safety, not less, and free and fair elections--the Court's MAGA majority has chosen to rule by Supreme Court edict to inflict their narrow preferences for society on hundreds of millions of Americans. And they are not just using the regular process for considering cases. Over the past 5 years, we have seen a monumental shift in the Court's use of emergency orders--the so-called shadow docket--to enact sweeping decisions on the American people. These cases don't get the full process we are familiar with--formal briefings, formal hearings, lengthy deliberations, and opinion writings--because it is argued that the applicant would suffer ``irreparable harm'' if their request were not immediately granted. The shadow docket decisions, by the way, are usually unsigned and unexplained. In the past, they have essentially involved death penalty cases--cases of literal life and death--of pretty much extreme importance to the applicant because, if someone is executed before their case is heard, they do suffer ``irreparable harm''--the standard. Then, about 5 years ago, we started to see a big shift in the emergency cases being taken up and in the substances of them as well. We have seen the shadow docket used to stop the Federal Government from implementing a vaccine and testing mandate on businesses to protect public health in the middle of an unprecedented global health crisis that has killed more than a million Americans. We have seen it used to uphold a Texas law banning abortion after 6 weeks. We have seen it used when a lower court blocked Alabama's congressional map because it violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black voters. The Court said: You have got to draw a new map that is fair. The Supreme Court stepped in with their shadow docket and said: No. Alabama can use this faulty map that dilutes the power of Black Americans. In this situation, the Court didn't stop the infliction of harm; they inflicted the harm on Black Americans, who want fair maps, who deserve fair maps for voting in our democracy. That gerrymandered map is now in place to disenfranchise Black voters in this November's election because of the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket. It is hard to see how any of these cases met the test for the shadow docket. The state of abuse of the shadow docket has gotten so bad and so blatant that even Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Court, joined a dissent in a case reinstating a Trump administration Clean Water Act regulation limiting Federal protections for streams and wetlands. This dissentstated that the majority's decision ``renders the court's emergency docket,'' meaning the shadow docket, ``not for emergencies at all . . . . The docket becomes only another place for merits determinations--except made without full briefing and argument.'' When the Supreme Court's Chief Justice says the shadow docket is being abused, you know it is true. This MAGA Court is so determined to impose their legislative priorities and values on our country that they have abandoned one of the core principles of American jurisprudence, going back to even before there was a United States of America, and that is that the Court only rules when there is an actual dispute or controversy in question. In their eagerness to cripple the Federal Government's ability to fight fossil carbon pollution, the MAGA Justices weighed in on a regulation that had never been enforced--a regulation that had been withdrawn by President Trump and a regulation which President Biden had indicated was never going to be reinstated. Even the utilities that would have been regulated didn't want the Supreme Court to decide this case. This out-of-control MAGA Supreme Court super-legislature wanted to legislate--and legislate they did--violating a core principle that the Court does not address moot cases. Moot cases are cases where there is nothing still in dispute, and this certainly was the case that this case was as dead or as moot as it could be because nobody could be impacted by a rule that doesn't exist. Why did the Court take up this case? Well, we may not be able to specify the exact reasoning by each Justice, but the effect is clear. By taking up this case, the Court furthered the MAGA policy agenda. Their ruling handcuffed Federal authorities' ability to pursue future limitations on pollutions from fossil fuels like carbon dioxide and fossil methane. This is to the enormous benefit of the fossil fuel billionaires who funded the massive dark money campaigns that supported these Justices' confirmations. That situation of their breaking precedent to benefit the fossil billionaires, who had just funded their confirmation campaigns, reeks of corruption. When generations ahead of us look back at this moment, I have no doubt--especially when they look at this year, 2022, and what the Court did in a single year--they will look back with a sense of profound disbelief--disbelief--like that disbelief that we experience when we look back on cases like Dred Scott, which dehumanized Black Americans and legitimized slavery, or Plessy v. Ferguson, which locked in 60 years of vicious discrimination and racial terrorism under a separate but equal philosophy. The disbelief that future generations will have will be directed at Dobbs--a decision this year in which the Court obliterated privacy and put an overbearing government in charge of women's reproductive health. They will have the disbelief that, in Kennedy v. Bremerton--decided this year--the Court destroyed freedom of religion in our public schools; the disbelief that, in West Virginia v. EPA--a decision this year--the Court violated centuries of precedent to rule on a regulation that is no longer on books, with the effect--perhaps the goal--of limiting the future regulation of greenhouse gas pollution; the disbelief in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen--decided this year--that the Court ruled that a State legislature can't require folks to have a good reason to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Let me be clear. This activist, extremist MAGA Court faces a legitimacy crisis, and a legitimacy crisis for the Court is a crisis for our democratic Republic. Part of that illegitimacy is Justices of the Supreme Court selectively using a doctrine of so-called originalism to justify their politically inspired decisions. The doctrine of originalism is based on a reasonable argument, one on which you and I would say makes sense: a goal of understanding what the Founders meant when they wrote what they wrote in our Constitution more than two centuries ago. But if that effort is applied selectively, it simply becomes a measure to justify, after the fact, where the Justices want it to come out. They use it when it works, and they abandon it when it doesn't. For example, the Founders wrote the Second Amendment to ensure that members of well-regulated militias had access to their rifles, but the so-called originalists on the Court cast originalism aside, declaring that the Founders wrote that clause to ensure that nonmilitia members had the right to bring assault rifles--that didn't exist in 1787--onto subways, which didn't exist in 1787. That is bogus originalism in its purist form. Consider this: Corporations, as we know them today, did not exist in 1787. Yet the so-called originalists on the Court insist that the Founders' vision of the First Amendment, to protect freedom of speech, gives corporations speech rights even though the word ``corporation'' doesn't appear in the Constitution--a point that they use when they want to take an originalist argument: that the Founders had to have it be something written in the Constitution and be something they discussed and something they considered and something they envisioned. None of those are true. Not a one of them is true in this case. The MAGA Court also claims that a corporation is a person, which no Founder would ever have argued. They didn't even know what a ``corporation'' was because they didn't exist in this form that we have now. The MAGA Court goes on to claim that the members comprising the corporate personhood--those are the stockholders of a corporation--have absolutely no right to know how that corporation that they are part of spends their money. This is absurdity stacked on the fallacy that a corporation is a person. I have yet to see and yet to hear any plausible explanation as to how the MAGA Justices can be confident that the Founders intended for billionaire CEOs to hijack the accumulated wealth of their stockholders without their stockholders' knowledge or permission or opportunity to know what is being said and to use that money as speech and to spend it on secretly funded campaigns, including campaigns to confirm Supreme Court Justices. The problem we face, colleagues, isn't just a MAGA-majority Court enacting terrible policy rather than defending the balls and strikes against the Constitution. The problem is greater if the highest Court in the land loses its legitimacy, the law itself loses its legitimacy. If the American people see the Supreme Court Justices making clear that the law has no meaning other than their political preferences, then the law is not the foundation for our society that it is supposed to be. We have seen with deadly results on January 6, 2021, the consequences to our policies, to our politics, and to our society when the rule of law is replaced by violence and power as the organizing principle for society. The Court is essential in a society based on the rule of law, and it is essential to have a Court that honors the law rather than trying to write the law. This MAGA majority and its desire, and operation as a super-legislature--unelected, lifetime appointments--is a dire threat to our Republic. Here in Congress, we must not only shine a light--a spotlight--on the threat; we must stop the runaway MAGA Court from corrupting the rule of law and try to restore the legitimate role of the Court as a panel defending our Constitution. Some will say there is no way to restore the Court and that any strategy for restoring the Court will simply compound the problems we are now facing, and I agree that there is no simple way to restore the legitimacy of the Court. Back in 2017, when then-Majority Leader McConnell was striving to complete the theft of the Supreme Court seat taken from the administration of Barack Obama, I took to this floor for 15\1/2\ hours with one simple message: Don't do it. Don't do it because, if you do, you will damage the legitimacy of the Court and there will be no simple path, no easy remedy to restore the Court's legitimacy. But Leader McConnell, he doused the Supreme Court with gasoline on that day, and he set it on fire. He did the damage. I stood here for 15\1/2\ hours and said don't do it. You know, we take an oath of office to a Constitution. That involves defending the Court, not delegitimizing the Court, not stealing Supreme Courtseats. It was the first time in the history of the United States of America that this Senate failed to debate and vote on a nominee. But here we are; the damage is done. What do we do now? When an arsonist sets fire to your house, you don't let it burn because you are worried about water damage. You have to strive to put out that fire, regardless of how difficult the task. So I say to you today, we cannot accept the defeatist attitude that fails to confront the forces destroying our Republic. There are two things we must do. Mission one, we have to reform the ability of this broken Senate to serve as a legislature because, if it serves effectively as a legislature, it can serve as a counterweight to decisions of a corrupted Court. The second thing we have to do is put all options on the table and debate them for directly reforming the Court, recognizing that we are left with difficult choices on how to do that. But we have to step up. It is necessary to save our Republic. So let's take each of these missions in turn. The first is to restore the Senate. Our goal: Restore the Senate as a legislative body to serve as a counterweight to the corruption of a MAGA-majority Court. There are three massive problems currently afflicting the Senate's ability to serve as a functioning legislative body. First, we spend virtually all of our time on nominations, so much time that it keeps us from doing much legislating, even though we have a massively complex society and a lot of possibilities for making it work better. When George Washington was assembling his first administration, he had to appoint and the Senate had to confirm four Cabinet positions: Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General--four positions. Today, the Senate is responsible for confirming over 1,200 Presidential appointments to executive branch positions and commissions. Now, in the past, both parties worked to exercise the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities in a manner that minimized the amount of Senate time required. Most were done by unanimous consent late at night, when practically anyone was here because most nominations are not ones to which anyone has an objection. In the entire decade of the 1960s, there was one vote required to close debate on a nominee--one, in an entire 10 years. But, last decade, that number went to 545. Now, it is like every nomination. Virtually every nomination we have to file to close debate and vote to close debate before we can vote on the nominee. And do you know what? The way it works, you can also require 30 hours of debate after the vote to close debate succeeds. So the rules, which were designed for exceptional situations where there is a significant objection, are now used as partisan obstruction. Democrats are in the minority. They want to tie up the Republicans. So they have little time to legislate. Republicans are in the minority. They want to tie up the Democrats. So they have little time to legislate. They want each other to fail, partly because they disagree and partly because they know if the other side succeeds in making something work, the voters might reward them at the ballot box. We have to massively streamline this nomination process. We have to--100 Senators--work together, not do what is best for us when we are in the majority and oppose it when we are in the minority, or vice versa. We all have a responsibility to completely streamline that process so we can return to being a legislature. The second big problem for the Senate is that the rules provide a complicated, time-consuming process for debating and voting on whether to debate a bill. It involves a motion to proceed or requirement to close debate on the motion to proceed and whose nomination is up to 30 hours of additional of debate--all on the question of whether to debate. You have 100 capable people sent here by their constituents in their various States to solve problems for America, not to spend a week debating whether to debate a single bill. That could be a week spent debating the amendments that could make the bill better, a week spent considering individual pieces of the bills so the public knows where we stand and there is public accountability. But, instead, we have partisan paralysis. A completely dysfunctional Senate, that is what we have. We have to change the rules to stop this completely meritless waste of the time and efforts of 100 Senators. It is an easy solution: 1 hour spent debating whether to debate a bill, and then a simple majority vote, either we go to the bill or we don't; easy solution. One hour makes much more sense than 1 week. The third big problem this Senate Chamber faces is a secret silent filibuster. Under the Senate rule--and by the way, the term ``filibuster'' is really inappropriate because this involves no speaking of any kind. Under the Senate rule, 41 Senators can, operating as a block, veto the opportunity for the Senate to debate a bill, veto the opportunity for the Senate to consider an amendment, and veto the ability, after amendments have been considered, to have a final vote on the bill. It is the triple veto: three opportunities for the minority to blockade the majority from being able to consider legislation to address the issues facing America. And both parties have attempted to use it when they are in the minority. We have to restore the ability to actually debate. It is exactly what the Founders feared. When I lay out that 41 can block and veto these 3 steps of the process, it means to reverse it--that 60 out of 100, a supermajority, has to agree to go forward through each of those three steps. The Founders warned us: Never allow the minority to make the decisions by requiring a supermajority. Don't to it. That is why James Madison said that, with a supermajority, when ``the general good might require new laws . . . the principle of free government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.'' It is why Alexander Hamilton warned that a supermajority requirement would result in ``tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.'' He also warned that ``the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed''--the principle of supermajority--``is a history impotence, perplexity, and disorder.'' Now, you may wonder if the Founders had simply read about someone somewhere requiring a supermajority for legislature and said it didn't work very well and thought, We had better warn Americans not to do this. No, they were writing from their direct experience because, as they were drafting and debating our 1787 Constitution, they were actually in the middle of living through the impotence and incompetence of the Confederation Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded our 1787 Constitution, the Congress had to have a supermajority on every provision; meaning, the position of the minority could prevail over the position of the majority. The result was paralysis on the most fundamental issues they faced. They failed to raise the funds to pay the pensions of the veterans who spilled their blood in the Revolutionary War that created this Nation. They failed to raise the funds to put down Shays' Rebellion. Well, today, we have not one stage of veto, like they faced in the Confederation Congress, we have the triple veto power under the current secret, silent filibuster, and we are seeing the same impotence, the same paralysis, the same partisanship that it drives. The triple veto power of the minority is destroying the Senate to address challenges facing America, and there are a lot of them. We have got the climate crisis that is literally setting our country on fire. Right now, at this very moment, around 40 million Americans across the Plains and the Mississippi Valley are dealing with alerts for dangerous and intense heat, while firefighters are confronting 89 large fires across 12 States. And as of last week, four times as much acreage has burned this year as last year at this moment. And it is not just America, of course. Across the Atlantic, Europe is going through a recordbreaking heat wave, reaching temperatures some of thoseplaces have never seen and causing wildfires to burn in France and Spain and Italy and Greece. Congress should be immersed in considering bills to address the climate crisis that is damaging communities across our country, and not just through fires but through rising sea levels and rising erosion, through pine beetle infestations and mosquito infestations, through stronger hurricanes and stronger tornadoes, and, certainly, through the power of multiyear droughts. But we are not because the triple veto of the silent, secret filibuster afflicting this body is blocking us from doing so. We have a housing crisis. Out-of-control rents and prices make it impossible for millions of Americans to afford a decent home to rent or buy. And colleagues have one idea after another about how we should address it, but because we are paralyzed and our process is taken up, our time is taken up with nominations and debating whether to debate and we have the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster, they can't move forward. And we aren't debating, discussing, and hopefully passing measures that can make a difference. And Americans are outraged by the prices they pay on drugs, which are so much higher than any other developed country. Eighty percent of Americans say: Do something about it. And I think the other 20 percent don't realize how much we are getting ripped off. And Americans know we should get the best price because we invest the most in the research and development that creates these drugs, not the worst price, and they are absolutely right. And we would have passed legislation by now to get the best prices in the developed world, but we are blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. And now States are passing laws to block targeted groups of Americans from voting. We can fix that by passing S. 1, the For the People Act, or its reincarnation, the Freedom to Vote Act, but we can't because it was blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. Let me be absolutely clear. The single most effective way we can counterbalance an out-of-control Court with a MAGA agenda is to have a functioning Senate. That is the most immediate remedy available to us to respond to this terrible affliction undermining our Republic. If the Court says there is no problem with gerrymandered districts, where politicians choose their constituents instead of Americans choosing their leaders, as they did in the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, well, a reformed, restored Senate could pass legislation to require nonpartisan commissions to draw legislative districts. At least we could have a robust debate over it, maybe pass a few amendments modifying it in different forms--or perhaps find some other solution--if we had a functioning legislative process. If the Court says there is no limit to dark money from corporations and billionaires who flood and drown out the voices of ordinary Americans and campaigns, as they did in the 2010 Citizens United decision, a reformed, restored Senate could pass the DISCLOSE Act to shine a light on every dollar and where it is coming from in American campaigns. If the Court says that anyone who wants to be able to carry a concealed weapon should be able to like they did in their New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, a restored, functioning Senate could pass stronger gun safety laws that most Americans support, like ending the background check loophole--when guns are bought and sold by unlicensed parties online or at gun shows--or by outlawing the kinds of large magazines that carry 30 or more bullets that are often used in mass shootings. And when the Court went to abnormally great lengths to decide in last month's West Virginia v. EPA that the Agency can't regulate fossil carbon or fossil methane emissions, a functioning Senate would be able to step up and create the programs designed to speed up the transition to renewable energy, which would have the added benefit of ending our addiction to oil and dropping the prices at the pump, and it would keep money out of the hands of dictators in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. But the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster has blocked us from doing so. The remedy is not to eliminate the filibuster. The remedy is to reform it. The right reform is to adopt the public, talking filibuster. The talking filibuster would reassert the fundamental principle of legislative conduct: the Senate Code, adopted by the original Senate. Under that code, the Senate listened to every Senator's perspective, and then it took a vote on the issue, be it a bill or be it an amendment. That was the Senate Code. The original rules provided that every Senator had the right to speak twice to a question. It was rule No. 4 in the original rules. It is in our rules today. But the spirit of that code--listening to each Senator and then voting, with the majority winning, not losing--that part is gone. Now, it is the minority that can exercise a triple veto, a veto absolutely exactly the opposite of what the Founders said to us. They said: Don't do it. And we have done it in triplicate form, paralyzing this place and accentuating the temptation of yielding to partisanship rather than problem-solving. Jefferson did say that this rule, this code of listening to every Senator and voting, should not be abused. In fact, he said this in his manual for rules in 1801: No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. It worked for the Founders. They exercised some self-control, so much so that they didn't need the rule that they had to close debate. They just simply listened to everyone with mutual respect and then said: OK. Let's take a vote. You want to see that in action today? Watch the committee process on a bill with amendments. There is no one filibustering, speaking forever. There is no one requiring a supermajority to close debate in committee. They operate--we operate--in committee, much like the original Senate, and it works pretty well, but we have completely lost that discipline when it comes to debate here on our floor. So the early Senate had a rule for the previous question motion, to close debate or accelerate the closure of debate. And when they rewrote the rule book--and Aaron Burr was in charge of it--in 1806, they dropped the rule because they never used it, didn't feel they ever needed it. Well, we need to reclaim that vision, and our rules have gotten so crazy, so out of whack, that we encourage partisanship and paralysis rather than problem-solving. Let's fix that. So let's have the talking filibuster. The talking filibuster says, Yes, you can speak on the issue. We will listen to everyone. You can speak twice. But then we vote, and the majority wins--not a supermajority required. The minority doesn't win over the majority. The majority wins. That was the Senate. That was the design of our Constitution that we have the responsibility to restore because we took an oath to the Constitution. So let's restore it. And that talking filibuster encourages bipartisan problem-solving. The minority, be it the Democratic or Republican, that wants to slow things down for leverage, they can. So they have significant leverage, but, on the other hand, they have an incentive to negotiate because they are not sure how long they can maintain continuous debate. And that is the heart of the talking filibuster: maintaining continuous debate. If there is a break in debate, you go to the vote. Meanwhile, the majority has an incentive to compromise because they know the minority can tie this place up on a single bill for week after week, and they can't afford to have that much time taken over a single bill. So the talking filibuster restores an incentive for compromise and bipartisan problem-solving and, in the end, restores the vision that the majority makes the decision, not the minority. In the end, it gives the minority a voice, it gives the minority massive leverage, but it takes away their veto. That is the right way to legislate in a democracy. As I noted before, fixing the Senate is probably the best immediate tool we have for repairing the damage from the Supreme Court across the grounds. But we also have to consider every possible remedy to restore the Court itself, to restore a Court that calls the balls and strikes on the Constitution, defendingits core principles, and recognizes it is not there to legislate--not to legislate on the left side, not to legislate on the right side. They are there to defend the Constitution. Well, reforming the Court won't be easily done. But President Biden did convene a Commission to explore the option, and that Commission has produced a lengthy, lengthy report. This is part of it: The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, December of last year. I encourage all my colleagues to read this and consider the ideas in it. In this 300-page report, the Commission does review the history of how the Court has been in different phases, and its size has changed all the time because that is not established in the Constitution. It has been as few as 5, and it has been more than 10. There was not nine locked in like it is now. And, certainly, one of the ideas they review is adjustment to the size of the Court. Many people have said that is something to look at to balance what has happened with the Court, with the stolen Supreme Court seat and a decision by several Justices to be a legislature rather than a court. Well, that is one idea. Another is implementing term limits or a mandatory retirement age because, when the Constitution was first written, people weren't living the long lives they have today, and they didn't stay in the Court forever. In 1787, the Founders wrote that Justices would hold their seats during good behavior. Now, I am not sure that every Justice across these grounds has been engaged in good behavior when they are choosing to legislate rather than to rule on the defense of the Constitution, but there is no easy way to remove them from the Court for misbehavior. But one possibility is for the Court members to rotate out with term limits of some kind. That is one possibility. In much of our history, Justices only served an average of 15 years on the Court. The average is now 26 and getting longer. And, did you know, America is the only constitutional democracy that gives lifetime presence on the Court, that doesn't have either a term limit or a mandatory retirement age? This report, this Commission, has other ideas in it: rotating membership on the Court with judges selected from the circuit court. You know, the original Supreme Court, they served as circuit court writers. They went out and made decisions across this country. They didn't just sit in a room in the capital. So there is some precedent for that idea. And others point out that there is the power to restrict the Court's jurisdiction. There are pros and cons for these various ideas, and our commitment needs to be to examine them. The American public is open to examining them. Earlier this week, the FOX News poll reported that 66 percent of the folks in their poll support an 18-year term for Justices, and 71 percent support a mandatory retirement age. So the American people are open to trying to fix the challenge with the Court. We have to be open to fixing it, and we need to look at every option and idea very carefully to ensure that the highest Court in our land fulfills the vision for it in our Constitution. And the vision in our Constitution was not that it would be an unelected super-legislature. Colleagues, this is a perilous moment for our Republic. It is a moment when the will of the people is being overrun by an extreme agenda of a Court legislating from the Bench, imposing their narrow and precedent-destroying will on all Americans. We have to restore the ability of this Senate to operate as a legislature that can be a counterbalance to what the Court does, and we must thoughtfully consider every proposal for reforming the Court directly. We can and we must act before it is too late. We can't stand by and watch the continuous disintegration of our Republic. Our oath to the Constitution demands that we protect these institutions and repair them when they go off track. And when we do, the next July 4, we can all join together and celebrate the restoration of our paralyzed and partisan Senate into an actual legislative body. We can celebrate the restoration of Americans' rights that are being continuously stripped away across the grounds by the Supreme Court. We can have a renewed belief and confidence in the integrity of all of our institutions and our democratic form of governance. That would be a moment justifying a massive celebration next July 4. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | null | 4,773 |
formal | right to know | null | anti-GMO | Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, on July 4, we celebrated the founding of our Nation, as we do every year. But when I woke up on this July 4, I had a strange thought, a thought I never had before, the question of, What kind of country are we celebrating? I have always had immense pride in the founding vision of our Nation, in that vision of equality, of opportunity for all, of freedom of religion, of equal justice under the law, of equal representation, and, most importantly, of government of, by, and for the people. Our journey as a nation over nearly 250 years has been a difficult journey of moving toward full implementation of this vision. That is an inspiring journey--a journey I have been proud to witness, a journey I have been proud to be a part of. But just days before this year's July 4 celebration, we saw the conclusion of the Supreme Court's latest judicial term--a term over which the Court displayed a far different vision for America: one with devastating repercussions that will reverberate in the lives of countless Americans for decades to come. For years now--actually, for decades, we have watched a steady, relentless effort by rightwing extremists to rig the courts so they can transform America and American society as we have known it. Their big goal is corporations over people and their second goal is to implement conservative cultural policy over individual freedom and liberty. Now, with this Court's recent decisions, we are left with an inescapable conclusion: The extremists have succeeded. The Court is now operating as an unelected super-legislature with a MAGA political agenda. Their decisions this term read like planks out of the Republican Party platform. Here is what the MAGA Court's vision is for our Nation. It is a vision that obliterates the right to privacy, giving an overbearing Federal Government the power to be in the medical exam room making reproductive health decisions for American women, when the only people who should be in the exam room, under an ``of and by the people'' Republic is the woman, her doctor, and whomever else she chooses to invite--her partner, her friend, or her religious adviser. This Court's vision is a vision that embraces never-ending gun violence, stripping Congress and the States ofthe ability to make commonsense gun safety laws. It is a vision of a nation where public schools can impose religion on their students. So much for freedom of religion and separation of church and State. It is a vision of a nation where wrongfully incarcerated Americans don't have the right to prove their innocence and can't find justice if their Miranda rights were violated. So much for the principle of equal justice under law, the very principle carved into stone above the doors of the Supreme Court. In fact, if you go out this door and out the front steps, you can see those words while standing here on the steps of the Senate. This Court's vision is of a nation where the Court strips the Federal Government of its legally enacted power to regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane pollution that is destroying our Nation and our planet. It is a vision where the powerful corrupt the integrity of our elections with gerrymandering and dark money and measures to prevent targeted groups of Americans from voting. This vision is a vision for a government by and for the powerful, not by and for the people. This vision in which the Supreme Court becomes a superlegislature for a MAGA agenda infuriates me. It infuriates me because I believe in government by and for the people, not by and for the powerful. It infuriates me because I know the pain that these decisions will inflict on millions of Americans--the pain of a woman forced by a State government to carry a fetus to term that was conceived through rape or incest or the pain of any woman, for that matter, who simply is unprepared to be pregnant or become a parent; the pain of every single person who will have to mourn the death of a loved one lost to an ever-growing epidemic of gun violence and mass shootings like we saw in Uvalde and in Highland Park and in countless other communities with more than one mass shooting per day; the pain of the citizens blocked from the ballot box, effectively denied their most fundamental right as Americans because of voter suppression schemes enacted in many States over this past year; the pain of students in our public schools pressured to participate in religious acts in conflict with their own beliefs; the pain of rural Americans, ranchers, and farmers whose farms and ranches will be lost to fire and drought because the Court says the Federal Government cannot regulate fossil carbon and fossil methane causing climate chaos. And I am infuriated because I know more Supreme Court decisions like these are coming from the six MAGA Justices on the Court. They want to cement their vision of America through superlegislative powers rather than calling the balls and strikes defending the Constitution, which is their job. They have announced that next term they are going to hear a case on the fringe doctrine known as the independent State legislature doctrine. It has been considered an extremist idea, which says only State legislatures have the power to make decisions about Federal elections and how to appoint electors. State courts would have no power to ensure checks and balances or decide which decisions about elections violate a State constitution or ignore the will of the voters, nor could State Governors veto such legislative decisions. And that is just the start. Justice Thomas himself said in his concurring opinion that, based on the reasoning in Dobbs, he wants the Court to consider a whole host of other rights that have been secured and protected by previous Courts, including the possibility of striking down the right to intimacy and marriage for same-sex couples and the right to contraception. Make no mistake, this is not some sudden occurrence. It is exactly what the Federalist Society has been working toward for decades. Before joining the Court in 1972, Lewis Powell wrote about the need to rebuild the power of industrial elites and fight back ``from the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians'' against progressive changes in society. In outlining a plan for rebuilding the power of Big Business, he declared that, with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for achieving that goal. That is exactly why, as majority leader in 2017, Senator McConnell stole a Supreme Court seat from one President so another President could fill it. He stole it in 2016, and he filled it in 2017 with MAGA Justice Neil Gorsuch. It is why, in 2018, Leader McConnell completely ignored credible accounts of sexual assault and rushed through a confirmation without giving Senators access to the nominee's full records and bypassing committee quorum rules to fill another seat with MAGA Justice Brett Kavanaugh. And it is why, when a seat opened up in another election year, 2020, just weeks before the voters would vote, Leader McConnell completely reversed his argument that he had used to justify the theft of a Supreme Court seat in 2016, and he rammed through the nomination of MAGA Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The Republican Party has won one popular vote for President in the last 30 years but has appointed two-thirds of the sitting Justices, who now see it as their job to become a super-legislature for a cultural agenda and corporate power. In one of his columns, Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post described the resulting unelected, unaccountable majority of Supreme Court Justices as a ``junta''--a word used to describe authoritarian leaders who rule through edicts rather than through legislative determination or deliberation on constitutional principles. It is hard to argue with Eugene Robinson's characterization. In spite of what the vast majority of Americans want--the protection of a woman's right to full reproductive healthcare and more gun safety, not less, and free and fair elections--the Court's MAGA majority has chosen to rule by Supreme Court edict to inflict their narrow preferences for society on hundreds of millions of Americans. And they are not just using the regular process for considering cases. Over the past 5 years, we have seen a monumental shift in the Court's use of emergency orders--the so-called shadow docket--to enact sweeping decisions on the American people. These cases don't get the full process we are familiar with--formal briefings, formal hearings, lengthy deliberations, and opinion writings--because it is argued that the applicant would suffer ``irreparable harm'' if their request were not immediately granted. The shadow docket decisions, by the way, are usually unsigned and unexplained. In the past, they have essentially involved death penalty cases--cases of literal life and death--of pretty much extreme importance to the applicant because, if someone is executed before their case is heard, they do suffer ``irreparable harm''--the standard. Then, about 5 years ago, we started to see a big shift in the emergency cases being taken up and in the substances of them as well. We have seen the shadow docket used to stop the Federal Government from implementing a vaccine and testing mandate on businesses to protect public health in the middle of an unprecedented global health crisis that has killed more than a million Americans. We have seen it used to uphold a Texas law banning abortion after 6 weeks. We have seen it used when a lower court blocked Alabama's congressional map because it violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black voters. The Court said: You have got to draw a new map that is fair. The Supreme Court stepped in with their shadow docket and said: No. Alabama can use this faulty map that dilutes the power of Black Americans. In this situation, the Court didn't stop the infliction of harm; they inflicted the harm on Black Americans, who want fair maps, who deserve fair maps for voting in our democracy. That gerrymandered map is now in place to disenfranchise Black voters in this November's election because of the Supreme Court's use of the shadow docket. It is hard to see how any of these cases met the test for the shadow docket. The state of abuse of the shadow docket has gotten so bad and so blatant that even Justice Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Court, joined a dissent in a case reinstating a Trump administration Clean Water Act regulation limiting Federal protections for streams and wetlands. This dissentstated that the majority's decision ``renders the court's emergency docket,'' meaning the shadow docket, ``not for emergencies at all . . . . The docket becomes only another place for merits determinations--except made without full briefing and argument.'' When the Supreme Court's Chief Justice says the shadow docket is being abused, you know it is true. This MAGA Court is so determined to impose their legislative priorities and values on our country that they have abandoned one of the core principles of American jurisprudence, going back to even before there was a United States of America, and that is that the Court only rules when there is an actual dispute or controversy in question. In their eagerness to cripple the Federal Government's ability to fight fossil carbon pollution, the MAGA Justices weighed in on a regulation that had never been enforced--a regulation that had been withdrawn by President Trump and a regulation which President Biden had indicated was never going to be reinstated. Even the utilities that would have been regulated didn't want the Supreme Court to decide this case. This out-of-control MAGA Supreme Court super-legislature wanted to legislate--and legislate they did--violating a core principle that the Court does not address moot cases. Moot cases are cases where there is nothing still in dispute, and this certainly was the case that this case was as dead or as moot as it could be because nobody could be impacted by a rule that doesn't exist. Why did the Court take up this case? Well, we may not be able to specify the exact reasoning by each Justice, but the effect is clear. By taking up this case, the Court furthered the MAGA policy agenda. Their ruling handcuffed Federal authorities' ability to pursue future limitations on pollutions from fossil fuels like carbon dioxide and fossil methane. This is to the enormous benefit of the fossil fuel billionaires who funded the massive dark money campaigns that supported these Justices' confirmations. That situation of their breaking precedent to benefit the fossil billionaires, who had just funded their confirmation campaigns, reeks of corruption. When generations ahead of us look back at this moment, I have no doubt--especially when they look at this year, 2022, and what the Court did in a single year--they will look back with a sense of profound disbelief--disbelief--like that disbelief that we experience when we look back on cases like Dred Scott, which dehumanized Black Americans and legitimized slavery, or Plessy v. Ferguson, which locked in 60 years of vicious discrimination and racial terrorism under a separate but equal philosophy. The disbelief that future generations will have will be directed at Dobbs--a decision this year in which the Court obliterated privacy and put an overbearing government in charge of women's reproductive health. They will have the disbelief that, in Kennedy v. Bremerton--decided this year--the Court destroyed freedom of religion in our public schools; the disbelief that, in West Virginia v. EPA--a decision this year--the Court violated centuries of precedent to rule on a regulation that is no longer on books, with the effect--perhaps the goal--of limiting the future regulation of greenhouse gas pollution; the disbelief in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen--decided this year--that the Court ruled that a State legislature can't require folks to have a good reason to carry a concealed weapon in public spaces. Let me be clear. This activist, extremist MAGA Court faces a legitimacy crisis, and a legitimacy crisis for the Court is a crisis for our democratic Republic. Part of that illegitimacy is Justices of the Supreme Court selectively using a doctrine of so-called originalism to justify their politically inspired decisions. The doctrine of originalism is based on a reasonable argument, one on which you and I would say makes sense: a goal of understanding what the Founders meant when they wrote what they wrote in our Constitution more than two centuries ago. But if that effort is applied selectively, it simply becomes a measure to justify, after the fact, where the Justices want it to come out. They use it when it works, and they abandon it when it doesn't. For example, the Founders wrote the Second Amendment to ensure that members of well-regulated militias had access to their rifles, but the so-called originalists on the Court cast originalism aside, declaring that the Founders wrote that clause to ensure that nonmilitia members had the right to bring assault rifles--that didn't exist in 1787--onto subways, which didn't exist in 1787. That is bogus originalism in its purist form. Consider this: Corporations, as we know them today, did not exist in 1787. Yet the so-called originalists on the Court insist that the Founders' vision of the First Amendment, to protect freedom of speech, gives corporations speech rights even though the word ``corporation'' doesn't appear in the Constitution--a point that they use when they want to take an originalist argument: that the Founders had to have it be something written in the Constitution and be something they discussed and something they considered and something they envisioned. None of those are true. Not a one of them is true in this case. The MAGA Court also claims that a corporation is a person, which no Founder would ever have argued. They didn't even know what a ``corporation'' was because they didn't exist in this form that we have now. The MAGA Court goes on to claim that the members comprising the corporate personhood--those are the stockholders of a corporation--have absolutely no right to know how that corporation that they are part of spends their money. This is absurdity stacked on the fallacy that a corporation is a person. I have yet to see and yet to hear any plausible explanation as to how the MAGA Justices can be confident that the Founders intended for billionaire CEOs to hijack the accumulated wealth of their stockholders without their stockholders' knowledge or permission or opportunity to know what is being said and to use that money as speech and to spend it on secretly funded campaigns, including campaigns to confirm Supreme Court Justices. The problem we face, colleagues, isn't just a MAGA-majority Court enacting terrible policy rather than defending the balls and strikes against the Constitution. The problem is greater if the highest Court in the land loses its legitimacy, the law itself loses its legitimacy. If the American people see the Supreme Court Justices making clear that the law has no meaning other than their political preferences, then the law is not the foundation for our society that it is supposed to be. We have seen with deadly results on January 6, 2021, the consequences to our policies, to our politics, and to our society when the rule of law is replaced by violence and power as the organizing principle for society. The Court is essential in a society based on the rule of law, and it is essential to have a Court that honors the law rather than trying to write the law. This MAGA majority and its desire, and operation as a super-legislature--unelected, lifetime appointments--is a dire threat to our Republic. Here in Congress, we must not only shine a light--a spotlight--on the threat; we must stop the runaway MAGA Court from corrupting the rule of law and try to restore the legitimate role of the Court as a panel defending our Constitution. Some will say there is no way to restore the Court and that any strategy for restoring the Court will simply compound the problems we are now facing, and I agree that there is no simple way to restore the legitimacy of the Court. Back in 2017, when then-Majority Leader McConnell was striving to complete the theft of the Supreme Court seat taken from the administration of Barack Obama, I took to this floor for 15\1/2\ hours with one simple message: Don't do it. Don't do it because, if you do, you will damage the legitimacy of the Court and there will be no simple path, no easy remedy to restore the Court's legitimacy. But Leader McConnell, he doused the Supreme Court with gasoline on that day, and he set it on fire. He did the damage. I stood here for 15\1/2\ hours and said don't do it. You know, we take an oath of office to a Constitution. That involves defending the Court, not delegitimizing the Court, not stealing Supreme Courtseats. It was the first time in the history of the United States of America that this Senate failed to debate and vote on a nominee. But here we are; the damage is done. What do we do now? When an arsonist sets fire to your house, you don't let it burn because you are worried about water damage. You have to strive to put out that fire, regardless of how difficult the task. So I say to you today, we cannot accept the defeatist attitude that fails to confront the forces destroying our Republic. There are two things we must do. Mission one, we have to reform the ability of this broken Senate to serve as a legislature because, if it serves effectively as a legislature, it can serve as a counterweight to decisions of a corrupted Court. The second thing we have to do is put all options on the table and debate them for directly reforming the Court, recognizing that we are left with difficult choices on how to do that. But we have to step up. It is necessary to save our Republic. So let's take each of these missions in turn. The first is to restore the Senate. Our goal: Restore the Senate as a legislative body to serve as a counterweight to the corruption of a MAGA-majority Court. There are three massive problems currently afflicting the Senate's ability to serve as a functioning legislative body. First, we spend virtually all of our time on nominations, so much time that it keeps us from doing much legislating, even though we have a massively complex society and a lot of possibilities for making it work better. When George Washington was assembling his first administration, he had to appoint and the Senate had to confirm four Cabinet positions: Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of State, and Attorney General--four positions. Today, the Senate is responsible for confirming over 1,200 Presidential appointments to executive branch positions and commissions. Now, in the past, both parties worked to exercise the Senate's advice and consent responsibilities in a manner that minimized the amount of Senate time required. Most were done by unanimous consent late at night, when practically anyone was here because most nominations are not ones to which anyone has an objection. In the entire decade of the 1960s, there was one vote required to close debate on a nominee--one, in an entire 10 years. But, last decade, that number went to 545. Now, it is like every nomination. Virtually every nomination we have to file to close debate and vote to close debate before we can vote on the nominee. And do you know what? The way it works, you can also require 30 hours of debate after the vote to close debate succeeds. So the rules, which were designed for exceptional situations where there is a significant objection, are now used as partisan obstruction. Democrats are in the minority. They want to tie up the Republicans. So they have little time to legislate. Republicans are in the minority. They want to tie up the Democrats. So they have little time to legislate. They want each other to fail, partly because they disagree and partly because they know if the other side succeeds in making something work, the voters might reward them at the ballot box. We have to massively streamline this nomination process. We have to--100 Senators--work together, not do what is best for us when we are in the majority and oppose it when we are in the minority, or vice versa. We all have a responsibility to completely streamline that process so we can return to being a legislature. The second big problem for the Senate is that the rules provide a complicated, time-consuming process for debating and voting on whether to debate a bill. It involves a motion to proceed or requirement to close debate on the motion to proceed and whose nomination is up to 30 hours of additional of debate--all on the question of whether to debate. You have 100 capable people sent here by their constituents in their various States to solve problems for America, not to spend a week debating whether to debate a single bill. That could be a week spent debating the amendments that could make the bill better, a week spent considering individual pieces of the bills so the public knows where we stand and there is public accountability. But, instead, we have partisan paralysis. A completely dysfunctional Senate, that is what we have. We have to change the rules to stop this completely meritless waste of the time and efforts of 100 Senators. It is an easy solution: 1 hour spent debating whether to debate a bill, and then a simple majority vote, either we go to the bill or we don't; easy solution. One hour makes much more sense than 1 week. The third big problem this Senate Chamber faces is a secret silent filibuster. Under the Senate rule--and by the way, the term ``filibuster'' is really inappropriate because this involves no speaking of any kind. Under the Senate rule, 41 Senators can, operating as a block, veto the opportunity for the Senate to debate a bill, veto the opportunity for the Senate to consider an amendment, and veto the ability, after amendments have been considered, to have a final vote on the bill. It is the triple veto: three opportunities for the minority to blockade the majority from being able to consider legislation to address the issues facing America. And both parties have attempted to use it when they are in the minority. We have to restore the ability to actually debate. It is exactly what the Founders feared. When I lay out that 41 can block and veto these 3 steps of the process, it means to reverse it--that 60 out of 100, a supermajority, has to agree to go forward through each of those three steps. The Founders warned us: Never allow the minority to make the decisions by requiring a supermajority. Don't to it. That is why James Madison said that, with a supermajority, when ``the general good might require new laws . . . the principle of free government would be reversed. It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.'' It is why Alexander Hamilton warned that a supermajority requirement would result in ``tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.'' He also warned that ``the history of every political establishment in which this principle has prevailed''--the principle of supermajority--``is a history impotence, perplexity, and disorder.'' Now, you may wonder if the Founders had simply read about someone somewhere requiring a supermajority for legislature and said it didn't work very well and thought, We had better warn Americans not to do this. No, they were writing from their direct experience because, as they were drafting and debating our 1787 Constitution, they were actually in the middle of living through the impotence and incompetence of the Confederation Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, which preceded our 1787 Constitution, the Congress had to have a supermajority on every provision; meaning, the position of the minority could prevail over the position of the majority. The result was paralysis on the most fundamental issues they faced. They failed to raise the funds to pay the pensions of the veterans who spilled their blood in the Revolutionary War that created this Nation. They failed to raise the funds to put down Shays' Rebellion. Well, today, we have not one stage of veto, like they faced in the Confederation Congress, we have the triple veto power under the current secret, silent filibuster, and we are seeing the same impotence, the same paralysis, the same partisanship that it drives. The triple veto power of the minority is destroying the Senate to address challenges facing America, and there are a lot of them. We have got the climate crisis that is literally setting our country on fire. Right now, at this very moment, around 40 million Americans across the Plains and the Mississippi Valley are dealing with alerts for dangerous and intense heat, while firefighters are confronting 89 large fires across 12 States. And as of last week, four times as much acreage has burned this year as last year at this moment. And it is not just America, of course. Across the Atlantic, Europe is going through a recordbreaking heat wave, reaching temperatures some of thoseplaces have never seen and causing wildfires to burn in France and Spain and Italy and Greece. Congress should be immersed in considering bills to address the climate crisis that is damaging communities across our country, and not just through fires but through rising sea levels and rising erosion, through pine beetle infestations and mosquito infestations, through stronger hurricanes and stronger tornadoes, and, certainly, through the power of multiyear droughts. But we are not because the triple veto of the silent, secret filibuster afflicting this body is blocking us from doing so. We have a housing crisis. Out-of-control rents and prices make it impossible for millions of Americans to afford a decent home to rent or buy. And colleagues have one idea after another about how we should address it, but because we are paralyzed and our process is taken up, our time is taken up with nominations and debating whether to debate and we have the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster, they can't move forward. And we aren't debating, discussing, and hopefully passing measures that can make a difference. And Americans are outraged by the prices they pay on drugs, which are so much higher than any other developed country. Eighty percent of Americans say: Do something about it. And I think the other 20 percent don't realize how much we are getting ripped off. And Americans know we should get the best price because we invest the most in the research and development that creates these drugs, not the worst price, and they are absolutely right. And we would have passed legislation by now to get the best prices in the developed world, but we are blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. And now States are passing laws to block targeted groups of Americans from voting. We can fix that by passing S. 1, the For the People Act, or its reincarnation, the Freedom to Vote Act, but we can't because it was blocked by the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster. Let me be absolutely clear. The single most effective way we can counterbalance an out-of-control Court with a MAGA agenda is to have a functioning Senate. That is the most immediate remedy available to us to respond to this terrible affliction undermining our Republic. If the Court says there is no problem with gerrymandered districts, where politicians choose their constituents instead of Americans choosing their leaders, as they did in the 2019 Rucho v. Common Cause decision, well, a reformed, restored Senate could pass legislation to require nonpartisan commissions to draw legislative districts. At least we could have a robust debate over it, maybe pass a few amendments modifying it in different forms--or perhaps find some other solution--if we had a functioning legislative process. If the Court says there is no limit to dark money from corporations and billionaires who flood and drown out the voices of ordinary Americans and campaigns, as they did in the 2010 Citizens United decision, a reformed, restored Senate could pass the DISCLOSE Act to shine a light on every dollar and where it is coming from in American campaigns. If the Court says that anyone who wants to be able to carry a concealed weapon should be able to like they did in their New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, a restored, functioning Senate could pass stronger gun safety laws that most Americans support, like ending the background check loophole--when guns are bought and sold by unlicensed parties online or at gun shows--or by outlawing the kinds of large magazines that carry 30 or more bullets that are often used in mass shootings. And when the Court went to abnormally great lengths to decide in last month's West Virginia v. EPA that the Agency can't regulate fossil carbon or fossil methane emissions, a functioning Senate would be able to step up and create the programs designed to speed up the transition to renewable energy, which would have the added benefit of ending our addiction to oil and dropping the prices at the pump, and it would keep money out of the hands of dictators in Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. But the triple veto of the secret, silent filibuster has blocked us from doing so. The remedy is not to eliminate the filibuster. The remedy is to reform it. The right reform is to adopt the public, talking filibuster. The talking filibuster would reassert the fundamental principle of legislative conduct: the Senate Code, adopted by the original Senate. Under that code, the Senate listened to every Senator's perspective, and then it took a vote on the issue, be it a bill or be it an amendment. That was the Senate Code. The original rules provided that every Senator had the right to speak twice to a question. It was rule No. 4 in the original rules. It is in our rules today. But the spirit of that code--listening to each Senator and then voting, with the majority winning, not losing--that part is gone. Now, it is the minority that can exercise a triple veto, a veto absolutely exactly the opposite of what the Founders said to us. They said: Don't do it. And we have done it in triplicate form, paralyzing this place and accentuating the temptation of yielding to partisanship rather than problem-solving. Jefferson did say that this rule, this code of listening to every Senator and voting, should not be abused. In fact, he said this in his manual for rules in 1801: No one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. It worked for the Founders. They exercised some self-control, so much so that they didn't need the rule that they had to close debate. They just simply listened to everyone with mutual respect and then said: OK. Let's take a vote. You want to see that in action today? Watch the committee process on a bill with amendments. There is no one filibustering, speaking forever. There is no one requiring a supermajority to close debate in committee. They operate--we operate--in committee, much like the original Senate, and it works pretty well, but we have completely lost that discipline when it comes to debate here on our floor. So the early Senate had a rule for the previous question motion, to close debate or accelerate the closure of debate. And when they rewrote the rule book--and Aaron Burr was in charge of it--in 1806, they dropped the rule because they never used it, didn't feel they ever needed it. Well, we need to reclaim that vision, and our rules have gotten so crazy, so out of whack, that we encourage partisanship and paralysis rather than problem-solving. Let's fix that. So let's have the talking filibuster. The talking filibuster says, Yes, you can speak on the issue. We will listen to everyone. You can speak twice. But then we vote, and the majority wins--not a supermajority required. The minority doesn't win over the majority. The majority wins. That was the Senate. That was the design of our Constitution that we have the responsibility to restore because we took an oath to the Constitution. So let's restore it. And that talking filibuster encourages bipartisan problem-solving. The minority, be it the Democratic or Republican, that wants to slow things down for leverage, they can. So they have significant leverage, but, on the other hand, they have an incentive to negotiate because they are not sure how long they can maintain continuous debate. And that is the heart of the talking filibuster: maintaining continuous debate. If there is a break in debate, you go to the vote. Meanwhile, the majority has an incentive to compromise because they know the minority can tie this place up on a single bill for week after week, and they can't afford to have that much time taken over a single bill. So the talking filibuster restores an incentive for compromise and bipartisan problem-solving and, in the end, restores the vision that the majority makes the decision, not the minority. In the end, it gives the minority a voice, it gives the minority massive leverage, but it takes away their veto. That is the right way to legislate in a democracy. As I noted before, fixing the Senate is probably the best immediate tool we have for repairing the damage from the Supreme Court across the grounds. But we also have to consider every possible remedy to restore the Court itself, to restore a Court that calls the balls and strikes on the Constitution, defendingits core principles, and recognizes it is not there to legislate--not to legislate on the left side, not to legislate on the right side. They are there to defend the Constitution. Well, reforming the Court won't be easily done. But President Biden did convene a Commission to explore the option, and that Commission has produced a lengthy, lengthy report. This is part of it: The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, December of last year. I encourage all my colleagues to read this and consider the ideas in it. In this 300-page report, the Commission does review the history of how the Court has been in different phases, and its size has changed all the time because that is not established in the Constitution. It has been as few as 5, and it has been more than 10. There was not nine locked in like it is now. And, certainly, one of the ideas they review is adjustment to the size of the Court. Many people have said that is something to look at to balance what has happened with the Court, with the stolen Supreme Court seat and a decision by several Justices to be a legislature rather than a court. Well, that is one idea. Another is implementing term limits or a mandatory retirement age because, when the Constitution was first written, people weren't living the long lives they have today, and they didn't stay in the Court forever. In 1787, the Founders wrote that Justices would hold their seats during good behavior. Now, I am not sure that every Justice across these grounds has been engaged in good behavior when they are choosing to legislate rather than to rule on the defense of the Constitution, but there is no easy way to remove them from the Court for misbehavior. But one possibility is for the Court members to rotate out with term limits of some kind. That is one possibility. In much of our history, Justices only served an average of 15 years on the Court. The average is now 26 and getting longer. And, did you know, America is the only constitutional democracy that gives lifetime presence on the Court, that doesn't have either a term limit or a mandatory retirement age? This report, this Commission, has other ideas in it: rotating membership on the Court with judges selected from the circuit court. You know, the original Supreme Court, they served as circuit court writers. They went out and made decisions across this country. They didn't just sit in a room in the capital. So there is some precedent for that idea. And others point out that there is the power to restrict the Court's jurisdiction. There are pros and cons for these various ideas, and our commitment needs to be to examine them. The American public is open to examining them. Earlier this week, the FOX News poll reported that 66 percent of the folks in their poll support an 18-year term for Justices, and 71 percent support a mandatory retirement age. So the American people are open to trying to fix the challenge with the Court. We have to be open to fixing it, and we need to look at every option and idea very carefully to ensure that the highest Court in our land fulfills the vision for it in our Constitution. And the vision in our Constitution was not that it would be an unelected super-legislature. Colleagues, this is a perilous moment for our Republic. It is a moment when the will of the people is being overrun by an extreme agenda of a Court legislating from the Bench, imposing their narrow and precedent-destroying will on all Americans. We have to restore the ability of this Senate to operate as a legislature that can be a counterbalance to what the Court does, and we must thoughtfully consider every proposal for reforming the Court directly. We can and we must act before it is too late. We can't stand by and watch the continuous disintegration of our Republic. Our oath to the Constitution demands that we protect these institutions and repair them when they go off track. And when we do, the next July 4, we can all join together and celebrate the restoration of our paralyzed and partisan Senate into an actual legislative body. We can celebrate the restoration of Americans' rights that are being continuously stripped away across the grounds by the Supreme Court. We can have a renewed belief and confidence in the integrity of all of our institutions and our democratic form of governance. That would be a moment justifying a massive celebration next July 4. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | null | 4,774 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | At 11:28 a.m., a message from the House of Representatives, delivered by Mrs. Alli, one of its reading clerks, announced that the House has passed the following bill, without amendment: S. 144. An act to authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services, acting through the Director of the Indian Health Service, to acquire private land to facilitate access to the Desert Sage Youth Wellness Center in Hemet, California, and for other purposes. The message also announced that the House has passed the following bills, in which it requests the concurrence of the Senate: H.R. 1286. An act to establish the Southern Campaign of the Revolution National Heritage Corridor, and for other purposes. H.R. 2024. An act to establish the Southern Maryland National Heritage Area, and for other purposes. H.R. 3222. An act to establish the Alabama Black Belt National Heritage Area, and for other purposes. H.R. 4404. An act to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Kissimmee River in the State of Florida as a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes. H.R. 6337. An act to require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to develop long-distance bike trails on Federal land, and for other purposes. H.R. 7002. An act to authorize the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, Missouri, to be illuminated by blue and yellow lights in support of Ukraine. H.R. 7025. An act to prohibit the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service from funding entities that commit, fund, or support gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, and for other purposes. H.R. 7693. An act to amend title 54, United States Code, to reauthorize the National Park Foundation. H.R. 8404. An act to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3539-2 | null | 4,775 |
formal | blue | null | antisemitic | The following bills were read the first and the second times by unanimous consent, and referred as indicated: H.R. 1286. An act to establish the Southern Campaign of the Revolution National Heritage Corridor, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. H.R. 2024. An act to establish the Southern Maryland National Heritage Area, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. H.R. 3222. An act to establish the Alabama Black Belt National Heritage Area, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. H.R. 4404. An act to amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to designate segments of the Kissimmee River in the State of Florida as a component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. H.R. 6337. An act to require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to develop long-distance bike trails on Federal land, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. H.R. 7002. An act to authorize the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, Missouri, to be illuminated by blue and yellow lights in support of Ukraine; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. H.R. 7025. An act to prohibit the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service from funding entities that commit, fund, or support gross violations of internationally recognized human rights, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3539-3 | null | 4,776 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as indicated: EC-4612. A communication from the Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``TRICARE Coverage and Reimbursement of Certain Services Resulting from Temporary Program Changes in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic'' ((RIN0720-AB81) (RIN0720-AB82) (RIN0720-AB83)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 29, 2022; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4613. A communication from the Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``TRICARE Coverage and Reimbursement of Certain Services Resulting from Temporary Program Changes in Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic; Correction'' ((RIN0720-AB81) (RIN0720-AB82) (RIN0720-AB83)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 29, 2022; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4614. A communication from the Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation'' (RIN0790-AL20) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 29, 2022; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4615. A communication from the Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation'' (RIN0790-AK99) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 29, 2022; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4616. A communication from the Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary, Department of Defense, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Maximizing the Use of American-Made Goods, Products, and Materials (DFARS Case 2019-D045)'' (RIN0750- AK85) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 29, 2022; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4617. A communication from the Secretary of Energy, transmitting a legislative proposal to reduce the frequency of a required Report to Congress by the Department of Energy regarding excess contaminated facilities; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4618. A communication from the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), transmitting, a report relative to annual reporting requirements on defense manpower for fiscal years 2021 and 2022; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4619. A communication from the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment), transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Explosives Safety Board 2021 Report to Congress''; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4620. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs), transmitting additional legislative proposals relative to the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023''; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4621. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs), transmitting additional legislative proposals relative to the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023''; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4622. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs), transmitting additional legislative proposals relative to the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023''; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4623. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs), transmitting additional legislative proposals relative to the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023''; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4624. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs), transmitting additional legislative proposals relative to the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023''; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4625. A communication from the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense (Legislative Affairs), transmitting additional legislative proposals relative to the ``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023''; to the Committee on Armed Services. EC-4626. A communication from the Senior Congressional Liaison, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Prohibition on Inclusion of Adverse Information in Consumer Reporting in Cases of Human Trafficking (Regulation V)'' (RIN3170-AB12) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on June 24, 2022; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4627. A communication from the Senior Congressional Liaison, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Debt Collection Practices (Regulation F); Pay-to-Pay Fees'' (12 CFR Part 1006) received during the adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 1, 2022; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4628. A communication from the Senior Congressional Liaison, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fair Credit Reporting; Permissible Purposes for Furnishing, Using, and Obtaining Consumer Reports'' (12 CFR Part 1022) received during the adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 1, 2022; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4629. A communication from the Senior Congressional Liaison, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Streamlining management and Occupancy Reviews for Section 8 Housing Assistance Programs'' (RIN2502-AJ22) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July, 2022; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4630. A communication from the Senior Congressional Liaison, Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``The Fair Credit Reporting Act's Limited Preemption of State Laws'' (12 CFR Part 1022) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 7, 2022; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4631. A communication from the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Sustainment), transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Defense Production Act Fund Annual Report For Fiscal Year 2021''; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. EC-4632. A communication from the Deputy Chief, National Forest System, Department of Agriculture, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the final maps and perimeter boundary descriptions for the enclosed Wild and Scenic Rivers; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. EC-4633. A communication from the National Listing Coordinator of the Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Endangered and Threatened Species; Removal of Johnson's Seagrass From the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species Including the Corresponding Designated Critical Habitat'' (RIN0648-XR119) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 1, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4634. A communication from the Director of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``NUREG-2159, Rev. 1, `Acceptable Standard Format and Content for the Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan Required for Special Nuclear Material of Moderate Strategic Significance' '' (RIN3150) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 11, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4635. A communication from the Director of Congressional Affairs, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Management Directive (MD) 12.3, NRC Personnel Security Program'' received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 19, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4636. A communication from the Secretary of Energy, transmitting a legislative proposal to revise the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008, as amended; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4637. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Implementing Statutory Addition of Certain Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) to the Toxics Release Inventory Beginning with Reporting Years 2021 and 2022'' ((RIN2070-AL04) (FRL No. 9427-01-OCSPP)) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4638. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Vermont: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program Revisions, Codification, and Incorporation by Reference'' (FRL No. 9581-02-R1) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4639. A communication from the Associate Director of the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Delaware: Final Approval of State Underground Storage Tank Program Revisions, Codification, and Incorporation by Reference'' (FRL No. 9625-02-R3) received during adjournment of the Senate in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 15, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. EC-4640. A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Guidance Regarding the Changes Made by the American Rescue Plan Act to the Election of Alternative Minimum Funding Standards for Community Newspaper Plans under Section 430(m)'' (Notice 2022-31) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 11, 2022; to the Committee on Finance. EC-4641. A communication from the Chief of the Publications and Regulations Branch, Department of the Treasury, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule entitled ``Applicability of section 432(b) (7) following a merger involving a multiemployer defined benefit plan that has received special financial assistance'' (Rev. Rul. 2022- 13) received in the Office of the President of the Senate on July 19, 2022; to the Committee on Finance. EC-4642. A communication from the Secretary of Energy, transmitting a legislative proposal that would amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States; to the Committee on Finance. EC-4643. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Unified Payment for Medicare-Covered Post-Acute Care: Analysis and Development of the Prototype Unified PAC Prospective Payment System Called for in the IMPACT ACT''; to the Committee on Finance. EC-4644. A communication from the Principal Deputy Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a data snapshot entitled ``Part D Plans Generally Include Drugs Commonly Used by Dual Eligibles: 2022''; to the Committee on Finance. EC-4645. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Non- Emergency Medical Transportation in Medicaid, 2018-2020''; to the Committee on Finance. EC-4646. A communication from the Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, transmitting, pursuant to law, the Administration's 2022 Annual Report of the Supplemental Security Income Program; to the Committee on Finance. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3539-5 | null | 4,777 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 5141. Mr. SCOTT of Florida submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5135 proposed by Mr. Schumer to the bill H.R. 4346, making appropriations for Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: Beginning on page 41, strike line 19 and all that follows through line 7 on page 47, and insert the following: ``(C) Required agreement.-- ``(i) In general.--On or before the date on which the Secretary awards Federal financial assistance to a covered entity under this section, the covered entity shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary specifying that, beginning on the date of the award and continuing in perpetuity, the covered entity-- ``(I) may not engage in any transaction involving any expansion of semiconductor manufacturing capacity in the People's Republic of China or any other foreign country of concern; ``(II) may not cooperate with the government of the People's Republic of China; and ``(III) will immediately withdraw all operations in the People's Republic of China in the event of an invasion of Taiwan by the People's Republic of China. ``(ii) Study.--Before the date on which the Secretary awards Federal financial assistance to a covered entity under this section, the Secretary shall-- ``(I) conduct an ROI analysis of the proposed assistance that shows that the assistance will result in a net positive financial return for taxpayers, such that the forecasted revenue collections by the Treasury generated as a direct result of the assistance exceed the amount of the proposed assistance by the date that is 10 years after the date of the award of the assistance; ``(II) certify to Congress that the analysis required under subclause (I) has been conducted; ``(III) certify to Congress that the Secretary has determined that the covered entity will be able to repay any Federal financial assistance in the event that the covered entity breaches the required agreement with the Secretary under clause (i) and the Secretary recovers the Federal financial assistance under subparagraph (E)(iii); and ``(IV) make the analysis required under subclause (I) publicly available. ``(iii) Affiliated group.--For the purpose of applying the requirements in an agreement required under clause (i), a covered entity shall include the covered entity receiving financial assistance under this section, as well as any member of the covered entity's affiliated group under section 1504(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, without regard to section 1504(b)(3) of such Code. ``(iv) Analysis.-- ``(I) In general.--On the date that is 10 years after the date on which the Secretary awards Federal financial assistance under this section to a covered entity, the Secretary shall conduct an analysis to determine whether the revenue collections by the Treasury generated as a direct result of the Federal financial assistance exceeded the amount of the Federal financial assistance. ``(II) Recovery.--If the Secretary makes a negative determination under subclause (I), the Secretary shall recover from the covered entity the difference between the amount of the Federal financial assistance granted to the covered entity under this section and the revenue collections by the Treasury generated as a direct result of the Federal financial assistance. ``(D) Notification requirements.--During the applicable term of the agreement of a covered entity required under subparagraph (C)(i), the covered entity shall notify the Secretary of any planned transaction of the covered entity involving any expansion of semiconductor manufacturing capacity in the People's Republic of China or any other foreign country of concern. ``(E) Violation of agreement.-- ``(i) Notification to covered entities.--Not later than 90 days after the date of receipt of a notification described in subparagraph (D) from a covered entity, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, shall-- ``(I) determine whether the transaction described in the notification would be a violation of the agreement of the covered entity required under subparagraph (C)(i); and ``(II) notify the covered entity of the Secretary's decision under subclause (I). ``(ii) Opportunity to remedy.--Upon a notification under clause (i)(II) that a planned transaction of a covered entity is a violation of the agreement of the covered entity required under subparagraph (C)(i), the Secretary shall-- ``(I) immediately request from the covered entity tangible proof that the planned transaction has ceased or been abandoned; and ``(II) provide the covered entity 45 days to produce and provide to the Secretary the tangible proof described in subclause (I). ``(iii) Failure by the covered entity to cease or remedy the activity.--Subject to clause (iv), if a covered entity fails to remedy a violation as set forth under clause (ii), the Secretary shall recover the full amount of the Federal financial assistance provided to the covered entity under this section. ``(F) Submission of records.-- ``(i) In general.--The Secretary may request from a covered entity records and other necessary information to review the compliance of the covered entity with the agreement required under subparagraph (C)(i). ``(ii) Eligibility.--In order to be eligible for Federal financial assistance under this section, a covered entity shall agree to provide records and other necessary information requested by the Secretary under clause (i). ``(G) Public availability of agreements.--The Secretary shall make publicly available any agreement entered into between a covered entity and the Secretary under subparagraph (C)(i). | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3578 | null | 4,778 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 117-133) The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following messagefrom the President of the United States; which was read and, together with the accompanying papers, referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs and ordered to be printed:To The Congress of the United States: Section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)) provides for the automatic termination of a national emergency unless, within 90 days prior to the anniversary date of its declaration, the President publishes in the Federal Register and transmits to the Congress a notice stating that the emergency is to continue in effect beyond the anniversary date. In accordance with this provision, I have sent to the Federal Register for publication the enclosed notice stating that the national emergency with respect to significant transnational criminal organizations that was declared in Executive Order 13581 of July 24, 2011, under which additional steps were taken in Executive Order 13863 of March 15, 2019, is to continue in effect beyond July 24, 2022. The activities of significant transnational criminal organizations have reached such scope and gravity that they threaten the stability of international political and economic systems. Such organizations are becoming increasingly sophisticated and dangerous to the United States; they are increasingly entrenched in the operations of foreign governments and the international financial system, thereby weakening democratic institutions, degrading the rule of law, and undermining economic markets. These organizations facilitate and aggravate violent civil conflicts and increasingly facilitate the activities of other dangerous persons. Significant transnational criminal organizations continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. Therefore, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency with respect to significant transnational criminal organizations declared in Executive Order 13581. Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House, July 21, 2022. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-07-21-pt1-PgH6940-2 | null | 4,779 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. LEE. Mr. President, for months now, American babies have endured an unprecedented and prolonged formula shortage. Some doctors have called this the worst crisis of their careers. It has become so widespread that nearly everyone knows someone who has been personally affected. Desperate parents have scoured online marketplaces. They reached out to family and friends for help. They paid exorbitant markups just to feed their babies. In some worst-case scenarios, some have even resorted to dangerous homemade formulas. In the U.S.A., no parent should be left to wonder how they are going to feed their newborn baby. After months of work and bipartisan collaboration with my colleagues in the House and the Senate, I rise to pass needed reforms that will finally provide relief to hungry babies. Today, we can take action to alleviate a crisis largely of the Federal Government's own creation. Poor governance has crippled our domestic formula market. Tariffs and regulations have prevented safe foreign formulas from entering the United States, even while we are experiencing this acute shortage at home. Currently, the government imposes a 17.5-percent minimum tariff on formula imports. This tariff has stifled competition. But it doesn't have to be that way. We can lift these substantial tariffs on the importation of baby formulas and reduce the costs borne by retailers to provide access to safe, affordable formula. Doing so will expand the severely limited formula options for American consumers. This modified version of the Formula Act does just that by waiving these tariffs through the end of this year. While passing my bill won't provide immediate relief, our work is far from complete. I am committed to doing everything I can not only to provide this relief now but also to make the necessary permanent reforms to our system to ensure that a crisis like this never arises again. We still have work to do, and we must further our efforts by allowing WIC recipients to buy whatever brand of formula might be available. We must make meaningful reforms to how the FDA regulates the formula industry. Passing this bill today is the first step. In the meantime, I am actively working on expanding the list of products to receive temporary relief from tariffs. While this is an important first step, it is certainly not the last. This crisis is such that American babies cannot wait any longer than they already have. We have a moral obligation to these infants to say that we did everything we possibly could to fight for them. Passing the Formula Act will be an incredible win for families and hungry babies everywhere. It will make meaningful headway that is so desperately needed today. By suspending the tariff on formula imports, we are providing cheaper access to individual consumers and to retailers alike. This relief has been long overdue and long overdue especially for Utahns, who have the largest families, the most children per capita, and the highest birth rate. I am grateful for the countless hours of behind-the-scenes work and successful negotiations with my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, in the House and in the Senate, which have resulted in a win for our most vulnerable Americans--babies. I look forward to continuing this important work with them. Passing my Formula Act today is a victory for families and for babies everywhere. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 8351. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2022-07-21-pt1-PgS3593 | null | 4,780 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, for the past 6 months, I have been pleased to work with a bipartisan working group of about a dozen Senators for potential reforms of the Electoral Count Act and some related matters. I particularly want to thank our leaders of that bipartisan group, Senators Collins and Manchin, for organizing the group, keeping us focused on getting results, and leading to a process that has resulted in a positive outcome. This week, we are unveiling our proposed legislation. Our legislation, the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 will reform and modernize the badly outdated 1887 ECA. In 1887, the Electoral Count Act was passed. It is in bad need of reform. On July 18, 2022, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial authored by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State Jim Baker, who had previously served as Chief of Staff for President Reagan. In this editorial they wrote: We stand on opposite sides of the partisan divide, but we believe it is better to search for solutions together than to remain divided. This is particularly true of a vexing problem that could wreak havoc during the 2024 presidential election: the inadequacy of the Electoral Count Act of 1887. The act is an antiquated, muddled and potentially unconstitutional law that allows uncertainty during a critical step in the peaceful transfer of power. . . . Weaknesses in the law started to become apparent after the 2000 election. The editorial continues: In 2021, the ambiguities of that law helped lead to the violent assault on the U.S. Capitol as efforts were being made to toss out several states' slates of electoral votes. Fortunately, those efforts failed, and the rightful winners took office. But the threat of confusion remains. Left unclosed, loopholes in the act could allow a repeat of the same destructive path that occurred in 2021. The Washington Post has written several editorials on this subject as well. The June 19, 2022, editorial in the Post entitled ``Fix the electoral count law now, before Trump tries to exploit it again'' reviewed the recent House committee hearings on the January 6 insurrection. The editorial wrote: The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack heard damning testimony detailing how President Donald Trump and a coterie of partisan lawyers advanced a dangerous argument: that the vice president has the legal authority to overturn a presidential election when Congress meets to count electoral college votes. Trump official after Trump official testified that they knew it was wrong. John Eastman, a lawyer who advocated for the theory, acknowledged as much in front of Mr. Trump on January 4, according to testimony from Greg Jacob, who was Vice President Mike Pence's general counsel. But Mr. Trump and his allies nevertheless waged a relentless public campaign to pressure Mr. Pence to betray the Nation's democracy. Belief in this antidemocratic nonsense spurred the January 6 mob, which infamously chanted, ``Hang Mike Pence.'' The Post editorial continued: Americans went most of their history without having to worry seriously about arcane electoral college procedures. Even in closely fought, acrimonious presidential elections, losing candidates accepted their defeats with grace rather than seeking the vulnerabilities in the law to exploit. The country no longer has that luxury. Congress should have no higher priority than fixing the electoral college process. The recommendations that are coming out of this bipartisan group would do just that--fix the Electoral Count Act. I want to thank the work of the American Law Institute, which convened a bipartisan working group to consider possible ECA reforms. In particular, I want to thank cochairs Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith for their contributions to our efforts. I also want to thank the staff at Protect Democracy for their suggestions and work here. Our legislation aims to ensure that Congress can accurately and correctly tally the electoral votes cast by the States, which should be consistent with each State's popular vote for President and Vice President of the United States. Our legislation clarifies some of the ambiguities in terms of the appropriate State and Federal roles in selecting the next President and Vice President of the United States as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. In our constitutional system, election law, like many other areas of law, involves shared powers between the Federal Government on the one hand and State and local governments on the other. Article I, section 4 of the Constitution provides: The Times, Places, and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof. That clause of the Constitution continues by concluding: But the Congress may at any time [by law] make or alter such Regulations. We have the power here, and that is what the Electoral Count Act is about. Article II, section 1 of the Constitution provides: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. The Constitution also provides: The Congress may determine the Time of choosing of the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1804, sets out a framework for Congress to tally and count the electoral votes from the States. Congress later passed the Electoral Count Act, the ECA, in 1887, in the aftermath of a contested Hayes-Tilden Presidential election of 1876 in which States sent competing slates of electors to Congress. Our legislation takes several key steps to modernize the ECA and reduce the opportunity for constitutional mischief when it comes to Congress properly counting the electoral votes of the States. First, the legislation helps to make it easier for Congress to identify a single, conclusive slate of electors from each State. The legislation requires each State's Governor as responsible for submitting the certificate of ascertainment identifying that State's electors. A State may designate another individual besides the Governor to carry out this function, such as the Secretary of State, if such an individual is named before the election day itself. Again, the State executive official reporting their electoral votes to Congress must do such ``under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment enacted prior to election day.'' Our legislation, therefore, seeks to avoid circumstances in which a State attempts to change the rules after election day due to political pressure that may arise if a particular favored candidate loses the election. Congress could not accept a slate of electors from an official not authorized to do so by State law enacted prior to election day. Our legislation provides that States following these rules will have their appointments of electors treated as conclusive by Congress subject to any subsequent State or Federal judicial relief granted prior to the date of the meeting of electors. Our legislation states that the determination of the Federal courts shall be conclusive on questions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Second, the legislation modernizes the ``failed election'' language in the ECA to specify that a State could modify its period of voting on election day only as necessitated by ``extraordinaryand catastrophic'' events ``as provided under the laws of the State enacted prior to [the election day].'' This provision makes it clear, if a State legislature tries to override the popular vote in their State, that that would not be allowed. Third, the legislation provides for the expedited judicial review of certain claims relating to a State's certificate identifying its electors. We have limited this special judicial review in our legislation to only be available to the aggrieved Presidential candidates. This special procedure allows for challenges made under Federal law and the U.S. Constitution to be resolved more efficiently by using a special three-judge panel with a direct and timely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Fourth, the legislation makes clear that the Vice President has a purely ministerial role in the joint session of Congress to count the States' electoral votes. In particular, our legislation states that the Vice President does not have the power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate disputes over electors. That specifically includes objections over the proper list of electors, the validity of electors, or the votes of the electors. President Trump pressured the Vice President to use this illegal method in order to overturn the 2020 election results. Ultimately, this effort was rejected by Vice President Pence, in his capacity as President of the Senate, as he presided over the January 6, 2021, joint session. Fifth, our legislation increases the threshold needed to lodge an objection to electors from one Senator and one Representative to one-fifth of the duly chosen and sworn Members of both the House and the Senate. Similarly, article I, section 5 of the Constitution provides ``the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal.'' This will reduce the risk and likelihood of frivolous objections being lodged, which requires a lengthy debate and vote in the separate Houses. The House has to vote separately; the Senate has to vote separately; and it takes a lot of time. For example, on January 6, 2021, the Senate voted to reject, by a vote of 6 to 93, the objection against the electors of Arizona and voted 7 to 92 on the objections raised as to the electors from Pennsylvania. Sixth, our legislation clarifies that, if electors are not lawfully appointed or if an objection is sustained by Congress rejecting electors as not lawfully appointed, those electors would not be included in the denominator for determining the majority of the whole number of electors appointed. That means we can reach a decision on the day that we count the votes. The main focus of our work over the past 6 months has been on this sorely needed reform in the ECA, but our working group came up with a number of bipartisan reforms on some other matters related to elections. The Presidential Transition Improvement Act would help promote the orderly transfer of power between Presidential administrations. As we saw in 2020, the failure of a timely ascertainment of the winner by the Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration and the uncooperative attitude of the Trump administration led to a delay in providing transition resources to the incoming Biden administration. This legislation provides clearer guidelines for eligible candidates for President and Vice President to receive Federal resources to support their transitions, including allowing more than one candidate to receive these resources during the time period when the outcome of an election is in reasonable doubt. The Postal Service Election Improvement Act seeks to improve the handling of mail-in ballots by the U.S. Postal Service and provides guidance and best practices to the States to improve their mail-in ballot processes if State law allows. The Election Assistance Commission Reauthorization Act would reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission for 5 years. The EAC administers grants to States and develops nonbinding guidance and best practices for election officials in various areas, including cyber security, election audits, and voting accessibility. What this legislation does not include is any substantive provision to strengthen voting rights in this country, which is desperately needed, and I am sorely disappointed by that omission. Our Nation has a long history of bipartisan work on voting rights issues. I repeatedly raised voting rights issues with our larger group as well as with our smaller subgroup on voting practices. Let me take a moment to remind my colleagues of our voting rights history. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was approved by a broad bipartisan vote of 328 to 74 in the House and by a vote of 79 to 18 in the Senate, and Congress had a long bipartisan track record of clarifying its intent in response to restrictive Supreme Court decisions--that is, until recently. In 1982, Congress amended section 2 of the Voting Rights Act after the Mobile v. Bolden decision in which the Supreme Court interpreted section 2 as prohibiting only purposeful discrimination. That was very restrictive, making the Voting Rights Act much less effective. Congress responded to that decision by clarifying that section 2 explicitly bans any voting practice that had a discriminatory result irrespective of whether the practice was enacted or operated for a discriminatory purpose. The 1982 amendments--these are the amendments that corrected the Supreme Court's restricted decision--passed the House by a vote of 389 to 24 and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 8. They were signed into law by President Reagan, a bipartisan action. Over 20 years later, Congress acted to address two Supreme Court rulings to clarify congressional intent regarding section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This reauthorization passed 390 to 33 in the House and 98 to 0 in the Senate. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush--again, a bipartisan action. So, after the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 and after Brnovich in 2021, Congress should have acted to clarify the intent of the Voting Rights Act, but it didn't, and now we are faced today with totally unnecessary partisan gridlock on voting rights. We saw this gridlock play out this January when the Senate refused to even take up and debate the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. Let me mention one section of the VRA in particular. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act protects against discriminatory voting laws. It prohibits any jurisdiction from implementing a ``voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure . . . in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right . . . to vote on account of race,'' color, or language minority status. For nearly 40 years, case law has interpreted section 2 to combat racial discrimination without partisan favor. Prior to the Brnovich case, the Supreme Court and several circuit courts had adopted a standard to ensure the effective implementation of these provisions consistent with the text and purpose of the Act as amended in 1982. The Brnovich decision deviated from congressional intent behind section 2. The Court adopted an unduly narrow reading of section 2 and went beyond the statutory interpretation by courts for decades by outlining five new guideposts. The decision is not tethered to the statutory text and is inconsistent with the statute's purpose and historical usage. It wasn't the first time the Court narrowed our law, but in previous efforts, we came together, Democrats and Republicans, to make sure that the Voting Rights Act was effective. So I am disappointed that we could not make progress in our working group to address the needed fix to section 2. We should have also looked at the issue of the right of private action. Since the Voting Rights Act's enactment in 1965, Congress has intended that voters be able to sue directly to enforce the Voting Rights Act rather than depend entirely upon the U.S. Department of Justice, which has finite resources to protect voting rights. I want to thank my colleague Senator Murkowski for consistently raising this issue. The Voting Rights Act's private right of action is settled law as Congress has repeatedly noted in its Voting Rights Act's amendments. Even though the private right of action is clear and settled law, our group should have removed any ambiguity about its intent by proposing language making it more explicit the statute's existing right for private action. Justas we resolved ambiguities in the ECA and its potential misinterpretation, we should have done the same with this critical right of private action under the Voting Rights Act--a missed opportunity. As a recent report from the Brennan Center points out, State legislatures have been working to make it harder to vote after the 2020 elections, even after witnessing record turnout during the pandemic. The Brennan Center wrote that in 2022: [S]tate lawmakers, who spent 2021 passing laws that made it harder to vote, have focused more intently on election interference, passing nine laws that could lead to tampering with how elections are run and how results are determined. Election interference laws do two primary things. They open the door to partisan interference in elections, or they threaten the people and processes that make elections work. In many cases, these efforts are being justified as measures to combat baseless claims of widespread voter fraud and a stolen 2020 election. The Brennan Center noted that in many of these same State legislatures, lawmakers have continued to introduce or enact laws that restrict access to the vote. Legislation is categorized as restrictive if it would make it harder for eligible Americans to register, stay on the rolls, and/or to vote as compared to existing State law. Free and fair elections are fundamental to who we are as a nation. For this reason, I strongly support the bipartisan working group's proposal to reform and modernize the ECA. As we saw in the 2020 elections, different interpretations of the Electoral Count Act can lead down a dangerous path to another January 6-style insurrection, when former President Donald Trump and his enablers attempted to overturn a free and fair election won by President Joe Biden. Congress's work will not be complete when we pass this bipartisan proposal. We still must take up and pass voting rights legislation in order to safeguard the right to vote, which should be a right guaranteed to all Americans, regardless of their race, wealth, or social status. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-21-pt1-PgS3600-2 | null | 4,781 |
formal | single | null | homophobic | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, for the past 6 months, I have been pleased to work with a bipartisan working group of about a dozen Senators for potential reforms of the Electoral Count Act and some related matters. I particularly want to thank our leaders of that bipartisan group, Senators Collins and Manchin, for organizing the group, keeping us focused on getting results, and leading to a process that has resulted in a positive outcome. This week, we are unveiling our proposed legislation. Our legislation, the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 will reform and modernize the badly outdated 1887 ECA. In 1887, the Electoral Count Act was passed. It is in bad need of reform. On July 18, 2022, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial authored by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State Jim Baker, who had previously served as Chief of Staff for President Reagan. In this editorial they wrote: We stand on opposite sides of the partisan divide, but we believe it is better to search for solutions together than to remain divided. This is particularly true of a vexing problem that could wreak havoc during the 2024 presidential election: the inadequacy of the Electoral Count Act of 1887. The act is an antiquated, muddled and potentially unconstitutional law that allows uncertainty during a critical step in the peaceful transfer of power. . . . Weaknesses in the law started to become apparent after the 2000 election. The editorial continues: In 2021, the ambiguities of that law helped lead to the violent assault on the U.S. Capitol as efforts were being made to toss out several states' slates of electoral votes. Fortunately, those efforts failed, and the rightful winners took office. But the threat of confusion remains. Left unclosed, loopholes in the act could allow a repeat of the same destructive path that occurred in 2021. The Washington Post has written several editorials on this subject as well. The June 19, 2022, editorial in the Post entitled ``Fix the electoral count law now, before Trump tries to exploit it again'' reviewed the recent House committee hearings on the January 6 insurrection. The editorial wrote: The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack heard damning testimony detailing how President Donald Trump and a coterie of partisan lawyers advanced a dangerous argument: that the vice president has the legal authority to overturn a presidential election when Congress meets to count electoral college votes. Trump official after Trump official testified that they knew it was wrong. John Eastman, a lawyer who advocated for the theory, acknowledged as much in front of Mr. Trump on January 4, according to testimony from Greg Jacob, who was Vice President Mike Pence's general counsel. But Mr. Trump and his allies nevertheless waged a relentless public campaign to pressure Mr. Pence to betray the Nation's democracy. Belief in this antidemocratic nonsense spurred the January 6 mob, which infamously chanted, ``Hang Mike Pence.'' The Post editorial continued: Americans went most of their history without having to worry seriously about arcane electoral college procedures. Even in closely fought, acrimonious presidential elections, losing candidates accepted their defeats with grace rather than seeking the vulnerabilities in the law to exploit. The country no longer has that luxury. Congress should have no higher priority than fixing the electoral college process. The recommendations that are coming out of this bipartisan group would do just that--fix the Electoral Count Act. I want to thank the work of the American Law Institute, which convened a bipartisan working group to consider possible ECA reforms. In particular, I want to thank cochairs Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith for their contributions to our efforts. I also want to thank the staff at Protect Democracy for their suggestions and work here. Our legislation aims to ensure that Congress can accurately and correctly tally the electoral votes cast by the States, which should be consistent with each State's popular vote for President and Vice President of the United States. Our legislation clarifies some of the ambiguities in terms of the appropriate State and Federal roles in selecting the next President and Vice President of the United States as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. In our constitutional system, election law, like many other areas of law, involves shared powers between the Federal Government on the one hand and State and local governments on the other. Article I, section 4 of the Constitution provides: The Times, Places, and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof. That clause of the Constitution continues by concluding: But the Congress may at any time [by law] make or alter such Regulations. We have the power here, and that is what the Electoral Count Act is about. Article II, section 1 of the Constitution provides: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. The Constitution also provides: The Congress may determine the Time of choosing of the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1804, sets out a framework for Congress to tally and count the electoral votes from the States. Congress later passed the Electoral Count Act, the ECA, in 1887, in the aftermath of a contested Hayes-Tilden Presidential election of 1876 in which States sent competing slates of electors to Congress. Our legislation takes several key steps to modernize the ECA and reduce the opportunity for constitutional mischief when it comes to Congress properly counting the electoral votes of the States. First, the legislation helps to make it easier for Congress to identify a single, conclusive slate of electors from each State. The legislation requires each State's Governor as responsible for submitting the certificate of ascertainment identifying that State's electors. A State may designate another individual besides the Governor to carry out this function, such as the Secretary of State, if such an individual is named before the election day itself. Again, the State executive official reporting their electoral votes to Congress must do such ``under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment enacted prior to election day.'' Our legislation, therefore, seeks to avoid circumstances in which a State attempts to change the rules after election day due to political pressure that may arise if a particular favored candidate loses the election. Congress could not accept a slate of electors from an official not authorized to do so by State law enacted prior to election day. Our legislation provides that States following these rules will have their appointments of electors treated as conclusive by Congress subject to any subsequent State or Federal judicial relief granted prior to the date of the meeting of electors. Our legislation states that the determination of the Federal courts shall be conclusive on questions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Second, the legislation modernizes the ``failed election'' language in the ECA to specify that a State could modify its period of voting on election day only as necessitated by ``extraordinaryand catastrophic'' events ``as provided under the laws of the State enacted prior to [the election day].'' This provision makes it clear, if a State legislature tries to override the popular vote in their State, that that would not be allowed. Third, the legislation provides for the expedited judicial review of certain claims relating to a State's certificate identifying its electors. We have limited this special judicial review in our legislation to only be available to the aggrieved Presidential candidates. This special procedure allows for challenges made under Federal law and the U.S. Constitution to be resolved more efficiently by using a special three-judge panel with a direct and timely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Fourth, the legislation makes clear that the Vice President has a purely ministerial role in the joint session of Congress to count the States' electoral votes. In particular, our legislation states that the Vice President does not have the power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate disputes over electors. That specifically includes objections over the proper list of electors, the validity of electors, or the votes of the electors. President Trump pressured the Vice President to use this illegal method in order to overturn the 2020 election results. Ultimately, this effort was rejected by Vice President Pence, in his capacity as President of the Senate, as he presided over the January 6, 2021, joint session. Fifth, our legislation increases the threshold needed to lodge an objection to electors from one Senator and one Representative to one-fifth of the duly chosen and sworn Members of both the House and the Senate. Similarly, article I, section 5 of the Constitution provides ``the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal.'' This will reduce the risk and likelihood of frivolous objections being lodged, which requires a lengthy debate and vote in the separate Houses. The House has to vote separately; the Senate has to vote separately; and it takes a lot of time. For example, on January 6, 2021, the Senate voted to reject, by a vote of 6 to 93, the objection against the electors of Arizona and voted 7 to 92 on the objections raised as to the electors from Pennsylvania. Sixth, our legislation clarifies that, if electors are not lawfully appointed or if an objection is sustained by Congress rejecting electors as not lawfully appointed, those electors would not be included in the denominator for determining the majority of the whole number of electors appointed. That means we can reach a decision on the day that we count the votes. The main focus of our work over the past 6 months has been on this sorely needed reform in the ECA, but our working group came up with a number of bipartisan reforms on some other matters related to elections. The Presidential Transition Improvement Act would help promote the orderly transfer of power between Presidential administrations. As we saw in 2020, the failure of a timely ascertainment of the winner by the Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration and the uncooperative attitude of the Trump administration led to a delay in providing transition resources to the incoming Biden administration. This legislation provides clearer guidelines for eligible candidates for President and Vice President to receive Federal resources to support their transitions, including allowing more than one candidate to receive these resources during the time period when the outcome of an election is in reasonable doubt. The Postal Service Election Improvement Act seeks to improve the handling of mail-in ballots by the U.S. Postal Service and provides guidance and best practices to the States to improve their mail-in ballot processes if State law allows. The Election Assistance Commission Reauthorization Act would reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission for 5 years. The EAC administers grants to States and develops nonbinding guidance and best practices for election officials in various areas, including cyber security, election audits, and voting accessibility. What this legislation does not include is any substantive provision to strengthen voting rights in this country, which is desperately needed, and I am sorely disappointed by that omission. Our Nation has a long history of bipartisan work on voting rights issues. I repeatedly raised voting rights issues with our larger group as well as with our smaller subgroup on voting practices. Let me take a moment to remind my colleagues of our voting rights history. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was approved by a broad bipartisan vote of 328 to 74 in the House and by a vote of 79 to 18 in the Senate, and Congress had a long bipartisan track record of clarifying its intent in response to restrictive Supreme Court decisions--that is, until recently. In 1982, Congress amended section 2 of the Voting Rights Act after the Mobile v. Bolden decision in which the Supreme Court interpreted section 2 as prohibiting only purposeful discrimination. That was very restrictive, making the Voting Rights Act much less effective. Congress responded to that decision by clarifying that section 2 explicitly bans any voting practice that had a discriminatory result irrespective of whether the practice was enacted or operated for a discriminatory purpose. The 1982 amendments--these are the amendments that corrected the Supreme Court's restricted decision--passed the House by a vote of 389 to 24 and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 8. They were signed into law by President Reagan, a bipartisan action. Over 20 years later, Congress acted to address two Supreme Court rulings to clarify congressional intent regarding section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This reauthorization passed 390 to 33 in the House and 98 to 0 in the Senate. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush--again, a bipartisan action. So, after the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 and after Brnovich in 2021, Congress should have acted to clarify the intent of the Voting Rights Act, but it didn't, and now we are faced today with totally unnecessary partisan gridlock on voting rights. We saw this gridlock play out this January when the Senate refused to even take up and debate the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. Let me mention one section of the VRA in particular. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act protects against discriminatory voting laws. It prohibits any jurisdiction from implementing a ``voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure . . . in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right . . . to vote on account of race,'' color, or language minority status. For nearly 40 years, case law has interpreted section 2 to combat racial discrimination without partisan favor. Prior to the Brnovich case, the Supreme Court and several circuit courts had adopted a standard to ensure the effective implementation of these provisions consistent with the text and purpose of the Act as amended in 1982. The Brnovich decision deviated from congressional intent behind section 2. The Court adopted an unduly narrow reading of section 2 and went beyond the statutory interpretation by courts for decades by outlining five new guideposts. The decision is not tethered to the statutory text and is inconsistent with the statute's purpose and historical usage. It wasn't the first time the Court narrowed our law, but in previous efforts, we came together, Democrats and Republicans, to make sure that the Voting Rights Act was effective. So I am disappointed that we could not make progress in our working group to address the needed fix to section 2. We should have also looked at the issue of the right of private action. Since the Voting Rights Act's enactment in 1965, Congress has intended that voters be able to sue directly to enforce the Voting Rights Act rather than depend entirely upon the U.S. Department of Justice, which has finite resources to protect voting rights. I want to thank my colleague Senator Murkowski for consistently raising this issue. The Voting Rights Act's private right of action is settled law as Congress has repeatedly noted in its Voting Rights Act's amendments. Even though the private right of action is clear and settled law, our group should have removed any ambiguity about its intent by proposing language making it more explicit the statute's existing right for private action. Justas we resolved ambiguities in the ECA and its potential misinterpretation, we should have done the same with this critical right of private action under the Voting Rights Act--a missed opportunity. As a recent report from the Brennan Center points out, State legislatures have been working to make it harder to vote after the 2020 elections, even after witnessing record turnout during the pandemic. The Brennan Center wrote that in 2022: [S]tate lawmakers, who spent 2021 passing laws that made it harder to vote, have focused more intently on election interference, passing nine laws that could lead to tampering with how elections are run and how results are determined. Election interference laws do two primary things. They open the door to partisan interference in elections, or they threaten the people and processes that make elections work. In many cases, these efforts are being justified as measures to combat baseless claims of widespread voter fraud and a stolen 2020 election. The Brennan Center noted that in many of these same State legislatures, lawmakers have continued to introduce or enact laws that restrict access to the vote. Legislation is categorized as restrictive if it would make it harder for eligible Americans to register, stay on the rolls, and/or to vote as compared to existing State law. Free and fair elections are fundamental to who we are as a nation. For this reason, I strongly support the bipartisan working group's proposal to reform and modernize the ECA. As we saw in the 2020 elections, different interpretations of the Electoral Count Act can lead down a dangerous path to another January 6-style insurrection, when former President Donald Trump and his enablers attempted to overturn a free and fair election won by President Joe Biden. Congress's work will not be complete when we pass this bipartisan proposal. We still must take up and pass voting rights legislation in order to safeguard the right to vote, which should be a right guaranteed to all Americans, regardless of their race, wealth, or social status. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-21-pt1-PgS3600-2 | null | 4,782 |
formal | Reagan | null | white supremacist | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, for the past 6 months, I have been pleased to work with a bipartisan working group of about a dozen Senators for potential reforms of the Electoral Count Act and some related matters. I particularly want to thank our leaders of that bipartisan group, Senators Collins and Manchin, for organizing the group, keeping us focused on getting results, and leading to a process that has resulted in a positive outcome. This week, we are unveiling our proposed legislation. Our legislation, the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 will reform and modernize the badly outdated 1887 ECA. In 1887, the Electoral Count Act was passed. It is in bad need of reform. On July 18, 2022, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial authored by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State Jim Baker, who had previously served as Chief of Staff for President Reagan. In this editorial they wrote: We stand on opposite sides of the partisan divide, but we believe it is better to search for solutions together than to remain divided. This is particularly true of a vexing problem that could wreak havoc during the 2024 presidential election: the inadequacy of the Electoral Count Act of 1887. The act is an antiquated, muddled and potentially unconstitutional law that allows uncertainty during a critical step in the peaceful transfer of power. . . . Weaknesses in the law started to become apparent after the 2000 election. The editorial continues: In 2021, the ambiguities of that law helped lead to the violent assault on the U.S. Capitol as efforts were being made to toss out several states' slates of electoral votes. Fortunately, those efforts failed, and the rightful winners took office. But the threat of confusion remains. Left unclosed, loopholes in the act could allow a repeat of the same destructive path that occurred in 2021. The Washington Post has written several editorials on this subject as well. The June 19, 2022, editorial in the Post entitled ``Fix the electoral count law now, before Trump tries to exploit it again'' reviewed the recent House committee hearings on the January 6 insurrection. The editorial wrote: The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack heard damning testimony detailing how President Donald Trump and a coterie of partisan lawyers advanced a dangerous argument: that the vice president has the legal authority to overturn a presidential election when Congress meets to count electoral college votes. Trump official after Trump official testified that they knew it was wrong. John Eastman, a lawyer who advocated for the theory, acknowledged as much in front of Mr. Trump on January 4, according to testimony from Greg Jacob, who was Vice President Mike Pence's general counsel. But Mr. Trump and his allies nevertheless waged a relentless public campaign to pressure Mr. Pence to betray the Nation's democracy. Belief in this antidemocratic nonsense spurred the January 6 mob, which infamously chanted, ``Hang Mike Pence.'' The Post editorial continued: Americans went most of their history without having to worry seriously about arcane electoral college procedures. Even in closely fought, acrimonious presidential elections, losing candidates accepted their defeats with grace rather than seeking the vulnerabilities in the law to exploit. The country no longer has that luxury. Congress should have no higher priority than fixing the electoral college process. The recommendations that are coming out of this bipartisan group would do just that--fix the Electoral Count Act. I want to thank the work of the American Law Institute, which convened a bipartisan working group to consider possible ECA reforms. In particular, I want to thank cochairs Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith for their contributions to our efforts. I also want to thank the staff at Protect Democracy for their suggestions and work here. Our legislation aims to ensure that Congress can accurately and correctly tally the electoral votes cast by the States, which should be consistent with each State's popular vote for President and Vice President of the United States. Our legislation clarifies some of the ambiguities in terms of the appropriate State and Federal roles in selecting the next President and Vice President of the United States as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. In our constitutional system, election law, like many other areas of law, involves shared powers between the Federal Government on the one hand and State and local governments on the other. Article I, section 4 of the Constitution provides: The Times, Places, and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof. That clause of the Constitution continues by concluding: But the Congress may at any time [by law] make or alter such Regulations. We have the power here, and that is what the Electoral Count Act is about. Article II, section 1 of the Constitution provides: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. The Constitution also provides: The Congress may determine the Time of choosing of the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1804, sets out a framework for Congress to tally and count the electoral votes from the States. Congress later passed the Electoral Count Act, the ECA, in 1887, in the aftermath of a contested Hayes-Tilden Presidential election of 1876 in which States sent competing slates of electors to Congress. Our legislation takes several key steps to modernize the ECA and reduce the opportunity for constitutional mischief when it comes to Congress properly counting the electoral votes of the States. First, the legislation helps to make it easier for Congress to identify a single, conclusive slate of electors from each State. The legislation requires each State's Governor as responsible for submitting the certificate of ascertainment identifying that State's electors. A State may designate another individual besides the Governor to carry out this function, such as the Secretary of State, if such an individual is named before the election day itself. Again, the State executive official reporting their electoral votes to Congress must do such ``under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment enacted prior to election day.'' Our legislation, therefore, seeks to avoid circumstances in which a State attempts to change the rules after election day due to political pressure that may arise if a particular favored candidate loses the election. Congress could not accept a slate of electors from an official not authorized to do so by State law enacted prior to election day. Our legislation provides that States following these rules will have their appointments of electors treated as conclusive by Congress subject to any subsequent State or Federal judicial relief granted prior to the date of the meeting of electors. Our legislation states that the determination of the Federal courts shall be conclusive on questions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Second, the legislation modernizes the ``failed election'' language in the ECA to specify that a State could modify its period of voting on election day only as necessitated by ``extraordinaryand catastrophic'' events ``as provided under the laws of the State enacted prior to [the election day].'' This provision makes it clear, if a State legislature tries to override the popular vote in their State, that that would not be allowed. Third, the legislation provides for the expedited judicial review of certain claims relating to a State's certificate identifying its electors. We have limited this special judicial review in our legislation to only be available to the aggrieved Presidential candidates. This special procedure allows for challenges made under Federal law and the U.S. Constitution to be resolved more efficiently by using a special three-judge panel with a direct and timely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Fourth, the legislation makes clear that the Vice President has a purely ministerial role in the joint session of Congress to count the States' electoral votes. In particular, our legislation states that the Vice President does not have the power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate disputes over electors. That specifically includes objections over the proper list of electors, the validity of electors, or the votes of the electors. President Trump pressured the Vice President to use this illegal method in order to overturn the 2020 election results. Ultimately, this effort was rejected by Vice President Pence, in his capacity as President of the Senate, as he presided over the January 6, 2021, joint session. Fifth, our legislation increases the threshold needed to lodge an objection to electors from one Senator and one Representative to one-fifth of the duly chosen and sworn Members of both the House and the Senate. Similarly, article I, section 5 of the Constitution provides ``the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal.'' This will reduce the risk and likelihood of frivolous objections being lodged, which requires a lengthy debate and vote in the separate Houses. The House has to vote separately; the Senate has to vote separately; and it takes a lot of time. For example, on January 6, 2021, the Senate voted to reject, by a vote of 6 to 93, the objection against the electors of Arizona and voted 7 to 92 on the objections raised as to the electors from Pennsylvania. Sixth, our legislation clarifies that, if electors are not lawfully appointed or if an objection is sustained by Congress rejecting electors as not lawfully appointed, those electors would not be included in the denominator for determining the majority of the whole number of electors appointed. That means we can reach a decision on the day that we count the votes. The main focus of our work over the past 6 months has been on this sorely needed reform in the ECA, but our working group came up with a number of bipartisan reforms on some other matters related to elections. The Presidential Transition Improvement Act would help promote the orderly transfer of power between Presidential administrations. As we saw in 2020, the failure of a timely ascertainment of the winner by the Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration and the uncooperative attitude of the Trump administration led to a delay in providing transition resources to the incoming Biden administration. This legislation provides clearer guidelines for eligible candidates for President and Vice President to receive Federal resources to support their transitions, including allowing more than one candidate to receive these resources during the time period when the outcome of an election is in reasonable doubt. The Postal Service Election Improvement Act seeks to improve the handling of mail-in ballots by the U.S. Postal Service and provides guidance and best practices to the States to improve their mail-in ballot processes if State law allows. The Election Assistance Commission Reauthorization Act would reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission for 5 years. The EAC administers grants to States and develops nonbinding guidance and best practices for election officials in various areas, including cyber security, election audits, and voting accessibility. What this legislation does not include is any substantive provision to strengthen voting rights in this country, which is desperately needed, and I am sorely disappointed by that omission. Our Nation has a long history of bipartisan work on voting rights issues. I repeatedly raised voting rights issues with our larger group as well as with our smaller subgroup on voting practices. Let me take a moment to remind my colleagues of our voting rights history. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was approved by a broad bipartisan vote of 328 to 74 in the House and by a vote of 79 to 18 in the Senate, and Congress had a long bipartisan track record of clarifying its intent in response to restrictive Supreme Court decisions--that is, until recently. In 1982, Congress amended section 2 of the Voting Rights Act after the Mobile v. Bolden decision in which the Supreme Court interpreted section 2 as prohibiting only purposeful discrimination. That was very restrictive, making the Voting Rights Act much less effective. Congress responded to that decision by clarifying that section 2 explicitly bans any voting practice that had a discriminatory result irrespective of whether the practice was enacted or operated for a discriminatory purpose. The 1982 amendments--these are the amendments that corrected the Supreme Court's restricted decision--passed the House by a vote of 389 to 24 and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 8. They were signed into law by President Reagan, a bipartisan action. Over 20 years later, Congress acted to address two Supreme Court rulings to clarify congressional intent regarding section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This reauthorization passed 390 to 33 in the House and 98 to 0 in the Senate. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush--again, a bipartisan action. So, after the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 and after Brnovich in 2021, Congress should have acted to clarify the intent of the Voting Rights Act, but it didn't, and now we are faced today with totally unnecessary partisan gridlock on voting rights. We saw this gridlock play out this January when the Senate refused to even take up and debate the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. Let me mention one section of the VRA in particular. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act protects against discriminatory voting laws. It prohibits any jurisdiction from implementing a ``voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure . . . in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right . . . to vote on account of race,'' color, or language minority status. For nearly 40 years, case law has interpreted section 2 to combat racial discrimination without partisan favor. Prior to the Brnovich case, the Supreme Court and several circuit courts had adopted a standard to ensure the effective implementation of these provisions consistent with the text and purpose of the Act as amended in 1982. The Brnovich decision deviated from congressional intent behind section 2. The Court adopted an unduly narrow reading of section 2 and went beyond the statutory interpretation by courts for decades by outlining five new guideposts. The decision is not tethered to the statutory text and is inconsistent with the statute's purpose and historical usage. It wasn't the first time the Court narrowed our law, but in previous efforts, we came together, Democrats and Republicans, to make sure that the Voting Rights Act was effective. So I am disappointed that we could not make progress in our working group to address the needed fix to section 2. We should have also looked at the issue of the right of private action. Since the Voting Rights Act's enactment in 1965, Congress has intended that voters be able to sue directly to enforce the Voting Rights Act rather than depend entirely upon the U.S. Department of Justice, which has finite resources to protect voting rights. I want to thank my colleague Senator Murkowski for consistently raising this issue. The Voting Rights Act's private right of action is settled law as Congress has repeatedly noted in its Voting Rights Act's amendments. Even though the private right of action is clear and settled law, our group should have removed any ambiguity about its intent by proposing language making it more explicit the statute's existing right for private action. Justas we resolved ambiguities in the ECA and its potential misinterpretation, we should have done the same with this critical right of private action under the Voting Rights Act--a missed opportunity. As a recent report from the Brennan Center points out, State legislatures have been working to make it harder to vote after the 2020 elections, even after witnessing record turnout during the pandemic. The Brennan Center wrote that in 2022: [S]tate lawmakers, who spent 2021 passing laws that made it harder to vote, have focused more intently on election interference, passing nine laws that could lead to tampering with how elections are run and how results are determined. Election interference laws do two primary things. They open the door to partisan interference in elections, or they threaten the people and processes that make elections work. In many cases, these efforts are being justified as measures to combat baseless claims of widespread voter fraud and a stolen 2020 election. The Brennan Center noted that in many of these same State legislatures, lawmakers have continued to introduce or enact laws that restrict access to the vote. Legislation is categorized as restrictive if it would make it harder for eligible Americans to register, stay on the rolls, and/or to vote as compared to existing State law. Free and fair elections are fundamental to who we are as a nation. For this reason, I strongly support the bipartisan working group's proposal to reform and modernize the ECA. As we saw in the 2020 elections, different interpretations of the Electoral Count Act can lead down a dangerous path to another January 6-style insurrection, when former President Donald Trump and his enablers attempted to overturn a free and fair election won by President Joe Biden. Congress's work will not be complete when we pass this bipartisan proposal. We still must take up and pass voting rights legislation in order to safeguard the right to vote, which should be a right guaranteed to all Americans, regardless of their race, wealth, or social status. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-21-pt1-PgS3600-2 | null | 4,783 |
formal | safeguard | null | transphobic | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, for the past 6 months, I have been pleased to work with a bipartisan working group of about a dozen Senators for potential reforms of the Electoral Count Act and some related matters. I particularly want to thank our leaders of that bipartisan group, Senators Collins and Manchin, for organizing the group, keeping us focused on getting results, and leading to a process that has resulted in a positive outcome. This week, we are unveiling our proposed legislation. Our legislation, the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 will reform and modernize the badly outdated 1887 ECA. In 1887, the Electoral Count Act was passed. It is in bad need of reform. On July 18, 2022, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial authored by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State Jim Baker, who had previously served as Chief of Staff for President Reagan. In this editorial they wrote: We stand on opposite sides of the partisan divide, but we believe it is better to search for solutions together than to remain divided. This is particularly true of a vexing problem that could wreak havoc during the 2024 presidential election: the inadequacy of the Electoral Count Act of 1887. The act is an antiquated, muddled and potentially unconstitutional law that allows uncertainty during a critical step in the peaceful transfer of power. . . . Weaknesses in the law started to become apparent after the 2000 election. The editorial continues: In 2021, the ambiguities of that law helped lead to the violent assault on the U.S. Capitol as efforts were being made to toss out several states' slates of electoral votes. Fortunately, those efforts failed, and the rightful winners took office. But the threat of confusion remains. Left unclosed, loopholes in the act could allow a repeat of the same destructive path that occurred in 2021. The Washington Post has written several editorials on this subject as well. The June 19, 2022, editorial in the Post entitled ``Fix the electoral count law now, before Trump tries to exploit it again'' reviewed the recent House committee hearings on the January 6 insurrection. The editorial wrote: The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack heard damning testimony detailing how President Donald Trump and a coterie of partisan lawyers advanced a dangerous argument: that the vice president has the legal authority to overturn a presidential election when Congress meets to count electoral college votes. Trump official after Trump official testified that they knew it was wrong. John Eastman, a lawyer who advocated for the theory, acknowledged as much in front of Mr. Trump on January 4, according to testimony from Greg Jacob, who was Vice President Mike Pence's general counsel. But Mr. Trump and his allies nevertheless waged a relentless public campaign to pressure Mr. Pence to betray the Nation's democracy. Belief in this antidemocratic nonsense spurred the January 6 mob, which infamously chanted, ``Hang Mike Pence.'' The Post editorial continued: Americans went most of their history without having to worry seriously about arcane electoral college procedures. Even in closely fought, acrimonious presidential elections, losing candidates accepted their defeats with grace rather than seeking the vulnerabilities in the law to exploit. The country no longer has that luxury. Congress should have no higher priority than fixing the electoral college process. The recommendations that are coming out of this bipartisan group would do just that--fix the Electoral Count Act. I want to thank the work of the American Law Institute, which convened a bipartisan working group to consider possible ECA reforms. In particular, I want to thank cochairs Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith for their contributions to our efforts. I also want to thank the staff at Protect Democracy for their suggestions and work here. Our legislation aims to ensure that Congress can accurately and correctly tally the electoral votes cast by the States, which should be consistent with each State's popular vote for President and Vice President of the United States. Our legislation clarifies some of the ambiguities in terms of the appropriate State and Federal roles in selecting the next President and Vice President of the United States as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. In our constitutional system, election law, like many other areas of law, involves shared powers between the Federal Government on the one hand and State and local governments on the other. Article I, section 4 of the Constitution provides: The Times, Places, and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof. That clause of the Constitution continues by concluding: But the Congress may at any time [by law] make or alter such Regulations. We have the power here, and that is what the Electoral Count Act is about. Article II, section 1 of the Constitution provides: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. The Constitution also provides: The Congress may determine the Time of choosing of the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1804, sets out a framework for Congress to tally and count the electoral votes from the States. Congress later passed the Electoral Count Act, the ECA, in 1887, in the aftermath of a contested Hayes-Tilden Presidential election of 1876 in which States sent competing slates of electors to Congress. Our legislation takes several key steps to modernize the ECA and reduce the opportunity for constitutional mischief when it comes to Congress properly counting the electoral votes of the States. First, the legislation helps to make it easier for Congress to identify a single, conclusive slate of electors from each State. The legislation requires each State's Governor as responsible for submitting the certificate of ascertainment identifying that State's electors. A State may designate another individual besides the Governor to carry out this function, such as the Secretary of State, if such an individual is named before the election day itself. Again, the State executive official reporting their electoral votes to Congress must do such ``under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment enacted prior to election day.'' Our legislation, therefore, seeks to avoid circumstances in which a State attempts to change the rules after election day due to political pressure that may arise if a particular favored candidate loses the election. Congress could not accept a slate of electors from an official not authorized to do so by State law enacted prior to election day. Our legislation provides that States following these rules will have their appointments of electors treated as conclusive by Congress subject to any subsequent State or Federal judicial relief granted prior to the date of the meeting of electors. Our legislation states that the determination of the Federal courts shall be conclusive on questions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Second, the legislation modernizes the ``failed election'' language in the ECA to specify that a State could modify its period of voting on election day only as necessitated by ``extraordinaryand catastrophic'' events ``as provided under the laws of the State enacted prior to [the election day].'' This provision makes it clear, if a State legislature tries to override the popular vote in their State, that that would not be allowed. Third, the legislation provides for the expedited judicial review of certain claims relating to a State's certificate identifying its electors. We have limited this special judicial review in our legislation to only be available to the aggrieved Presidential candidates. This special procedure allows for challenges made under Federal law and the U.S. Constitution to be resolved more efficiently by using a special three-judge panel with a direct and timely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Fourth, the legislation makes clear that the Vice President has a purely ministerial role in the joint session of Congress to count the States' electoral votes. In particular, our legislation states that the Vice President does not have the power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate disputes over electors. That specifically includes objections over the proper list of electors, the validity of electors, or the votes of the electors. President Trump pressured the Vice President to use this illegal method in order to overturn the 2020 election results. Ultimately, this effort was rejected by Vice President Pence, in his capacity as President of the Senate, as he presided over the January 6, 2021, joint session. Fifth, our legislation increases the threshold needed to lodge an objection to electors from one Senator and one Representative to one-fifth of the duly chosen and sworn Members of both the House and the Senate. Similarly, article I, section 5 of the Constitution provides ``the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal.'' This will reduce the risk and likelihood of frivolous objections being lodged, which requires a lengthy debate and vote in the separate Houses. The House has to vote separately; the Senate has to vote separately; and it takes a lot of time. For example, on January 6, 2021, the Senate voted to reject, by a vote of 6 to 93, the objection against the electors of Arizona and voted 7 to 92 on the objections raised as to the electors from Pennsylvania. Sixth, our legislation clarifies that, if electors are not lawfully appointed or if an objection is sustained by Congress rejecting electors as not lawfully appointed, those electors would not be included in the denominator for determining the majority of the whole number of electors appointed. That means we can reach a decision on the day that we count the votes. The main focus of our work over the past 6 months has been on this sorely needed reform in the ECA, but our working group came up with a number of bipartisan reforms on some other matters related to elections. The Presidential Transition Improvement Act would help promote the orderly transfer of power between Presidential administrations. As we saw in 2020, the failure of a timely ascertainment of the winner by the Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration and the uncooperative attitude of the Trump administration led to a delay in providing transition resources to the incoming Biden administration. This legislation provides clearer guidelines for eligible candidates for President and Vice President to receive Federal resources to support their transitions, including allowing more than one candidate to receive these resources during the time period when the outcome of an election is in reasonable doubt. The Postal Service Election Improvement Act seeks to improve the handling of mail-in ballots by the U.S. Postal Service and provides guidance and best practices to the States to improve their mail-in ballot processes if State law allows. The Election Assistance Commission Reauthorization Act would reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission for 5 years. The EAC administers grants to States and develops nonbinding guidance and best practices for election officials in various areas, including cyber security, election audits, and voting accessibility. What this legislation does not include is any substantive provision to strengthen voting rights in this country, which is desperately needed, and I am sorely disappointed by that omission. Our Nation has a long history of bipartisan work on voting rights issues. I repeatedly raised voting rights issues with our larger group as well as with our smaller subgroup on voting practices. Let me take a moment to remind my colleagues of our voting rights history. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was approved by a broad bipartisan vote of 328 to 74 in the House and by a vote of 79 to 18 in the Senate, and Congress had a long bipartisan track record of clarifying its intent in response to restrictive Supreme Court decisions--that is, until recently. In 1982, Congress amended section 2 of the Voting Rights Act after the Mobile v. Bolden decision in which the Supreme Court interpreted section 2 as prohibiting only purposeful discrimination. That was very restrictive, making the Voting Rights Act much less effective. Congress responded to that decision by clarifying that section 2 explicitly bans any voting practice that had a discriminatory result irrespective of whether the practice was enacted or operated for a discriminatory purpose. The 1982 amendments--these are the amendments that corrected the Supreme Court's restricted decision--passed the House by a vote of 389 to 24 and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 8. They were signed into law by President Reagan, a bipartisan action. Over 20 years later, Congress acted to address two Supreme Court rulings to clarify congressional intent regarding section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This reauthorization passed 390 to 33 in the House and 98 to 0 in the Senate. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush--again, a bipartisan action. So, after the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 and after Brnovich in 2021, Congress should have acted to clarify the intent of the Voting Rights Act, but it didn't, and now we are faced today with totally unnecessary partisan gridlock on voting rights. We saw this gridlock play out this January when the Senate refused to even take up and debate the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. Let me mention one section of the VRA in particular. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act protects against discriminatory voting laws. It prohibits any jurisdiction from implementing a ``voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure . . . in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right . . . to vote on account of race,'' color, or language minority status. For nearly 40 years, case law has interpreted section 2 to combat racial discrimination without partisan favor. Prior to the Brnovich case, the Supreme Court and several circuit courts had adopted a standard to ensure the effective implementation of these provisions consistent with the text and purpose of the Act as amended in 1982. The Brnovich decision deviated from congressional intent behind section 2. The Court adopted an unduly narrow reading of section 2 and went beyond the statutory interpretation by courts for decades by outlining five new guideposts. The decision is not tethered to the statutory text and is inconsistent with the statute's purpose and historical usage. It wasn't the first time the Court narrowed our law, but in previous efforts, we came together, Democrats and Republicans, to make sure that the Voting Rights Act was effective. So I am disappointed that we could not make progress in our working group to address the needed fix to section 2. We should have also looked at the issue of the right of private action. Since the Voting Rights Act's enactment in 1965, Congress has intended that voters be able to sue directly to enforce the Voting Rights Act rather than depend entirely upon the U.S. Department of Justice, which has finite resources to protect voting rights. I want to thank my colleague Senator Murkowski for consistently raising this issue. The Voting Rights Act's private right of action is settled law as Congress has repeatedly noted in its Voting Rights Act's amendments. Even though the private right of action is clear and settled law, our group should have removed any ambiguity about its intent by proposing language making it more explicit the statute's existing right for private action. Justas we resolved ambiguities in the ECA and its potential misinterpretation, we should have done the same with this critical right of private action under the Voting Rights Act--a missed opportunity. As a recent report from the Brennan Center points out, State legislatures have been working to make it harder to vote after the 2020 elections, even after witnessing record turnout during the pandemic. The Brennan Center wrote that in 2022: [S]tate lawmakers, who spent 2021 passing laws that made it harder to vote, have focused more intently on election interference, passing nine laws that could lead to tampering with how elections are run and how results are determined. Election interference laws do two primary things. They open the door to partisan interference in elections, or they threaten the people and processes that make elections work. In many cases, these efforts are being justified as measures to combat baseless claims of widespread voter fraud and a stolen 2020 election. The Brennan Center noted that in many of these same State legislatures, lawmakers have continued to introduce or enact laws that restrict access to the vote. Legislation is categorized as restrictive if it would make it harder for eligible Americans to register, stay on the rolls, and/or to vote as compared to existing State law. Free and fair elections are fundamental to who we are as a nation. For this reason, I strongly support the bipartisan working group's proposal to reform and modernize the ECA. As we saw in the 2020 elections, different interpretations of the Electoral Count Act can lead down a dangerous path to another January 6-style insurrection, when former President Donald Trump and his enablers attempted to overturn a free and fair election won by President Joe Biden. Congress's work will not be complete when we pass this bipartisan proposal. We still must take up and pass voting rights legislation in order to safeguard the right to vote, which should be a right guaranteed to all Americans, regardless of their race, wealth, or social status. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-21-pt1-PgS3600-2 | null | 4,784 |
formal | voter fraud | null | racist | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, for the past 6 months, I have been pleased to work with a bipartisan working group of about a dozen Senators for potential reforms of the Electoral Count Act and some related matters. I particularly want to thank our leaders of that bipartisan group, Senators Collins and Manchin, for organizing the group, keeping us focused on getting results, and leading to a process that has resulted in a positive outcome. This week, we are unveiling our proposed legislation. Our legislation, the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 will reform and modernize the badly outdated 1887 ECA. In 1887, the Electoral Count Act was passed. It is in bad need of reform. On July 18, 2022, the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial authored by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State Jim Baker, who had previously served as Chief of Staff for President Reagan. In this editorial they wrote: We stand on opposite sides of the partisan divide, but we believe it is better to search for solutions together than to remain divided. This is particularly true of a vexing problem that could wreak havoc during the 2024 presidential election: the inadequacy of the Electoral Count Act of 1887. The act is an antiquated, muddled and potentially unconstitutional law that allows uncertainty during a critical step in the peaceful transfer of power. . . . Weaknesses in the law started to become apparent after the 2000 election. The editorial continues: In 2021, the ambiguities of that law helped lead to the violent assault on the U.S. Capitol as efforts were being made to toss out several states' slates of electoral votes. Fortunately, those efforts failed, and the rightful winners took office. But the threat of confusion remains. Left unclosed, loopholes in the act could allow a repeat of the same destructive path that occurred in 2021. The Washington Post has written several editorials on this subject as well. The June 19, 2022, editorial in the Post entitled ``Fix the electoral count law now, before Trump tries to exploit it again'' reviewed the recent House committee hearings on the January 6 insurrection. The editorial wrote: The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack heard damning testimony detailing how President Donald Trump and a coterie of partisan lawyers advanced a dangerous argument: that the vice president has the legal authority to overturn a presidential election when Congress meets to count electoral college votes. Trump official after Trump official testified that they knew it was wrong. John Eastman, a lawyer who advocated for the theory, acknowledged as much in front of Mr. Trump on January 4, according to testimony from Greg Jacob, who was Vice President Mike Pence's general counsel. But Mr. Trump and his allies nevertheless waged a relentless public campaign to pressure Mr. Pence to betray the Nation's democracy. Belief in this antidemocratic nonsense spurred the January 6 mob, which infamously chanted, ``Hang Mike Pence.'' The Post editorial continued: Americans went most of their history without having to worry seriously about arcane electoral college procedures. Even in closely fought, acrimonious presidential elections, losing candidates accepted their defeats with grace rather than seeking the vulnerabilities in the law to exploit. The country no longer has that luxury. Congress should have no higher priority than fixing the electoral college process. The recommendations that are coming out of this bipartisan group would do just that--fix the Electoral Count Act. I want to thank the work of the American Law Institute, which convened a bipartisan working group to consider possible ECA reforms. In particular, I want to thank cochairs Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith for their contributions to our efforts. I also want to thank the staff at Protect Democracy for their suggestions and work here. Our legislation aims to ensure that Congress can accurately and correctly tally the electoral votes cast by the States, which should be consistent with each State's popular vote for President and Vice President of the United States. Our legislation clarifies some of the ambiguities in terms of the appropriate State and Federal roles in selecting the next President and Vice President of the United States as set forth in the U.S. Constitution. In our constitutional system, election law, like many other areas of law, involves shared powers between the Federal Government on the one hand and State and local governments on the other. Article I, section 4 of the Constitution provides: The Times, Places, and Manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof. That clause of the Constitution continues by concluding: But the Congress may at any time [by law] make or alter such Regulations. We have the power here, and that is what the Electoral Count Act is about. Article II, section 1 of the Constitution provides: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. The Constitution also provides: The Congress may determine the Time of choosing of the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States. The 12th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1804, sets out a framework for Congress to tally and count the electoral votes from the States. Congress later passed the Electoral Count Act, the ECA, in 1887, in the aftermath of a contested Hayes-Tilden Presidential election of 1876 in which States sent competing slates of electors to Congress. Our legislation takes several key steps to modernize the ECA and reduce the opportunity for constitutional mischief when it comes to Congress properly counting the electoral votes of the States. First, the legislation helps to make it easier for Congress to identify a single, conclusive slate of electors from each State. The legislation requires each State's Governor as responsible for submitting the certificate of ascertainment identifying that State's electors. A State may designate another individual besides the Governor to carry out this function, such as the Secretary of State, if such an individual is named before the election day itself. Again, the State executive official reporting their electoral votes to Congress must do such ``under and in pursuance of the laws of such State providing for such ascertainment enacted prior to election day.'' Our legislation, therefore, seeks to avoid circumstances in which a State attempts to change the rules after election day due to political pressure that may arise if a particular favored candidate loses the election. Congress could not accept a slate of electors from an official not authorized to do so by State law enacted prior to election day. Our legislation provides that States following these rules will have their appointments of electors treated as conclusive by Congress subject to any subsequent State or Federal judicial relief granted prior to the date of the meeting of electors. Our legislation states that the determination of the Federal courts shall be conclusive on questions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. Second, the legislation modernizes the ``failed election'' language in the ECA to specify that a State could modify its period of voting on election day only as necessitated by ``extraordinaryand catastrophic'' events ``as provided under the laws of the State enacted prior to [the election day].'' This provision makes it clear, if a State legislature tries to override the popular vote in their State, that that would not be allowed. Third, the legislation provides for the expedited judicial review of certain claims relating to a State's certificate identifying its electors. We have limited this special judicial review in our legislation to only be available to the aggrieved Presidential candidates. This special procedure allows for challenges made under Federal law and the U.S. Constitution to be resolved more efficiently by using a special three-judge panel with a direct and timely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Fourth, the legislation makes clear that the Vice President has a purely ministerial role in the joint session of Congress to count the States' electoral votes. In particular, our legislation states that the Vice President does not have the power to solely determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate disputes over electors. That specifically includes objections over the proper list of electors, the validity of electors, or the votes of the electors. President Trump pressured the Vice President to use this illegal method in order to overturn the 2020 election results. Ultimately, this effort was rejected by Vice President Pence, in his capacity as President of the Senate, as he presided over the January 6, 2021, joint session. Fifth, our legislation increases the threshold needed to lodge an objection to electors from one Senator and one Representative to one-fifth of the duly chosen and sworn Members of both the House and the Senate. Similarly, article I, section 5 of the Constitution provides ``the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal.'' This will reduce the risk and likelihood of frivolous objections being lodged, which requires a lengthy debate and vote in the separate Houses. The House has to vote separately; the Senate has to vote separately; and it takes a lot of time. For example, on January 6, 2021, the Senate voted to reject, by a vote of 6 to 93, the objection against the electors of Arizona and voted 7 to 92 on the objections raised as to the electors from Pennsylvania. Sixth, our legislation clarifies that, if electors are not lawfully appointed or if an objection is sustained by Congress rejecting electors as not lawfully appointed, those electors would not be included in the denominator for determining the majority of the whole number of electors appointed. That means we can reach a decision on the day that we count the votes. The main focus of our work over the past 6 months has been on this sorely needed reform in the ECA, but our working group came up with a number of bipartisan reforms on some other matters related to elections. The Presidential Transition Improvement Act would help promote the orderly transfer of power between Presidential administrations. As we saw in 2020, the failure of a timely ascertainment of the winner by the Administrator of the U.S. General Services Administration and the uncooperative attitude of the Trump administration led to a delay in providing transition resources to the incoming Biden administration. This legislation provides clearer guidelines for eligible candidates for President and Vice President to receive Federal resources to support their transitions, including allowing more than one candidate to receive these resources during the time period when the outcome of an election is in reasonable doubt. The Postal Service Election Improvement Act seeks to improve the handling of mail-in ballots by the U.S. Postal Service and provides guidance and best practices to the States to improve their mail-in ballot processes if State law allows. The Election Assistance Commission Reauthorization Act would reauthorize the Election Assistance Commission for 5 years. The EAC administers grants to States and develops nonbinding guidance and best practices for election officials in various areas, including cyber security, election audits, and voting accessibility. What this legislation does not include is any substantive provision to strengthen voting rights in this country, which is desperately needed, and I am sorely disappointed by that omission. Our Nation has a long history of bipartisan work on voting rights issues. I repeatedly raised voting rights issues with our larger group as well as with our smaller subgroup on voting practices. Let me take a moment to remind my colleagues of our voting rights history. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was approved by a broad bipartisan vote of 328 to 74 in the House and by a vote of 79 to 18 in the Senate, and Congress had a long bipartisan track record of clarifying its intent in response to restrictive Supreme Court decisions--that is, until recently. In 1982, Congress amended section 2 of the Voting Rights Act after the Mobile v. Bolden decision in which the Supreme Court interpreted section 2 as prohibiting only purposeful discrimination. That was very restrictive, making the Voting Rights Act much less effective. Congress responded to that decision by clarifying that section 2 explicitly bans any voting practice that had a discriminatory result irrespective of whether the practice was enacted or operated for a discriminatory purpose. The 1982 amendments--these are the amendments that corrected the Supreme Court's restricted decision--passed the House by a vote of 389 to 24 and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 8. They were signed into law by President Reagan, a bipartisan action. Over 20 years later, Congress acted to address two Supreme Court rulings to clarify congressional intent regarding section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. This reauthorization passed 390 to 33 in the House and 98 to 0 in the Senate. It was signed into law by President George W. Bush--again, a bipartisan action. So, after the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 and after Brnovich in 2021, Congress should have acted to clarify the intent of the Voting Rights Act, but it didn't, and now we are faced today with totally unnecessary partisan gridlock on voting rights. We saw this gridlock play out this January when the Senate refused to even take up and debate the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. Let me mention one section of the VRA in particular. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act protects against discriminatory voting laws. It prohibits any jurisdiction from implementing a ``voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure . . . in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right . . . to vote on account of race,'' color, or language minority status. For nearly 40 years, case law has interpreted section 2 to combat racial discrimination without partisan favor. Prior to the Brnovich case, the Supreme Court and several circuit courts had adopted a standard to ensure the effective implementation of these provisions consistent with the text and purpose of the Act as amended in 1982. The Brnovich decision deviated from congressional intent behind section 2. The Court adopted an unduly narrow reading of section 2 and went beyond the statutory interpretation by courts for decades by outlining five new guideposts. The decision is not tethered to the statutory text and is inconsistent with the statute's purpose and historical usage. It wasn't the first time the Court narrowed our law, but in previous efforts, we came together, Democrats and Republicans, to make sure that the Voting Rights Act was effective. So I am disappointed that we could not make progress in our working group to address the needed fix to section 2. We should have also looked at the issue of the right of private action. Since the Voting Rights Act's enactment in 1965, Congress has intended that voters be able to sue directly to enforce the Voting Rights Act rather than depend entirely upon the U.S. Department of Justice, which has finite resources to protect voting rights. I want to thank my colleague Senator Murkowski for consistently raising this issue. The Voting Rights Act's private right of action is settled law as Congress has repeatedly noted in its Voting Rights Act's amendments. Even though the private right of action is clear and settled law, our group should have removed any ambiguity about its intent by proposing language making it more explicit the statute's existing right for private action. Justas we resolved ambiguities in the ECA and its potential misinterpretation, we should have done the same with this critical right of private action under the Voting Rights Act--a missed opportunity. As a recent report from the Brennan Center points out, State legislatures have been working to make it harder to vote after the 2020 elections, even after witnessing record turnout during the pandemic. The Brennan Center wrote that in 2022: [S]tate lawmakers, who spent 2021 passing laws that made it harder to vote, have focused more intently on election interference, passing nine laws that could lead to tampering with how elections are run and how results are determined. Election interference laws do two primary things. They open the door to partisan interference in elections, or they threaten the people and processes that make elections work. In many cases, these efforts are being justified as measures to combat baseless claims of widespread voter fraud and a stolen 2020 election. The Brennan Center noted that in many of these same State legislatures, lawmakers have continued to introduce or enact laws that restrict access to the vote. Legislation is categorized as restrictive if it would make it harder for eligible Americans to register, stay on the rolls, and/or to vote as compared to existing State law. Free and fair elections are fundamental to who we are as a nation. For this reason, I strongly support the bipartisan working group's proposal to reform and modernize the ECA. As we saw in the 2020 elections, different interpretations of the Electoral Count Act can lead down a dangerous path to another January 6-style insurrection, when former President Donald Trump and his enablers attempted to overturn a free and fair election won by President Joe Biden. Congress's work will not be complete when we pass this bipartisan proposal. We still must take up and pass voting rights legislation in order to safeguard the right to vote, which should be a right guaranteed to all Americans, regardless of their race, wealth, or social status. I yield the floor. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-21-pt1-PgS3600-2 | null | 4,785 |
formal | Federal Reserve | null | antisemitic | Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, on July 11, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 243, Executive Calendar No. 599, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Ashish S. Vazirani, of Maryland, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with his nomination to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense. Mr. President, on July 12, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 244, Executive Calendar No. 599, the confirmation of the nomination of Ashish S. Vazirani, of Maryland, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to confirm his nomination to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense. Mr. President, on July 12, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 245, Executive Calendar No. 1037, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Steven M. Dettelbach to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with his nomination to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Mr. President, on July 12, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 246, Executive Calendar No. 1037, the confirmation of the nomination of Steven M. Dettelbach to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to confirm his nomination to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Mr. President, on July 12, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 247, Executive Calendar No. 975, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the unexpired term of fourteen years from February 1, 2018, due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with his nomination to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the unexpired term of fourteen years from February 1, 2018. Mr. President, on July 13, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 248, Executive Calendar No. 975, the confirmation of the nomination of Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the unexpired term of fourteen years from February 1, 2018, due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to confirm his nomination to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the unexpired term of fourteen years from February 1, 2018. Mr. President, on July 13, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 249, Executive Calendar No. 976, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of four years due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with his nomination to be Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of four years. Mr. President, on July 13, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 250, Executive Calendar No. 976, the confirmation of the nomination of Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of four years due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to confirm his nomination to be Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of four years. Mr. President, on July 13, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 251, Executive Calendar No. 676, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Owen Edward Herrnstadt, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with his nomination to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Mr. President, on July 13, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 252, Executive Calendar No. 676, the confirmation of the nomination of Owen Edward Herrnstadt, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to confirm his nomination to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Mr. President, on July 13, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 253, Executive Calendar No. 908, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Kate Elizabeth Heinzelman, of New York, to be General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with her nomination as General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. President, on July 14, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 254, Executive Calendar No. 908, the confirmation of the nomination of Kate Elizabeth Heinzelman, of New York, to be General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to confirm her nomination to be General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. President, on July 14, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 255, Executive Calendar No. 968, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Julianna Michelle Childs, of South Carolina, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with her nomination to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BLUMENTHAL | Senate | CREC-2022-07-21-pt1-PgS3604-5 | null | 4,786 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, on July 11, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 243, Executive Calendar No. 599, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Ashish S. Vazirani, of Maryland, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with his nomination to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense. Mr. President, on July 12, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 244, Executive Calendar No. 599, the confirmation of the nomination of Ashish S. Vazirani, of Maryland, to be a Deputy Under Secretary of Defense due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to confirm his nomination to be Deputy Under Secretary of Defense. Mr. President, on July 12, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 245, Executive Calendar No. 1037, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Steven M. Dettelbach to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with his nomination to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Mr. President, on July 12, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 246, Executive Calendar No. 1037, the confirmation of the nomination of Steven M. Dettelbach to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to confirm his nomination to be Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Mr. President, on July 12, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 247, Executive Calendar No. 975, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the unexpired term of fourteen years from February 1, 2018, due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with his nomination to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the unexpired term of fourteen years from February 1, 2018. Mr. President, on July 13, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 248, Executive Calendar No. 975, the confirmation of the nomination of Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the unexpired term of fourteen years from February 1, 2018, due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to confirm his nomination to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the unexpired term of fourteen years from February 1, 2018. Mr. President, on July 13, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 249, Executive Calendar No. 976, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of four years due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with his nomination to be Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of four years. Mr. President, on July 13, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 250, Executive Calendar No. 976, the confirmation of the nomination of Michael S. Barr, of Michigan, to be Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of four years due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to confirm his nomination to be Vice Chairman for Supervision of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for a term of four years. Mr. President, on July 13, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 251, Executive Calendar No. 676, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Owen Edward Herrnstadt, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with his nomination to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Mr. President, on July 13, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 252, Executive Calendar No. 676, the confirmation of the nomination of Owen Edward Herrnstadt, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to confirm his nomination to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. Mr. President, on July 13, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 253, Executive Calendar No. 908, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Kate Elizabeth Heinzelman, of New York, to be General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with her nomination as General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. President, on July 14, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 254, Executive Calendar No. 908, the confirmation of the nomination of Kate Elizabeth Heinzelman, of New York, to be General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to confirm her nomination to be General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. President, on July 14, 2022, I was absent for rollcall vote No. 255, Executive Calendar No. 968, the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Julianna Michelle Childs, of South Carolina, to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit due to testing positive for COVID-19. Had I been present, I would have voted yes to proceed with her nomination to be United States Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BLUMENTHAL | Senate | CREC-2022-07-21-pt1-PgS3604-5 | null | 4,787 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | At the request of Mr. Whitehouse, the name of the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema) was added as a cosponsor of S. 443, a bill to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, Super PACs and other entities, and for other purposes. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-21-pt1-PgS3612-2 | null | 4,788 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | Under clause 3 of rule XII, petitions and papers were laid on the clerk's desk and referred as follows: PT-130. The SPEAKER presented a petition of Mariel Klien and Ashley Wyatt, citizens of Durham, North Carolina, relative to asking the Federal Government to consider the enclosed packet of Resolutions passed by State, County, and Local Municipalities pursuant to the cause of supporting broad forgiveness of federal student loan debt; to the Committee on Education and Labor. PT-131. Also, a petition of Board of Supervisors, County of San Francisco, California, relative to Resolution No. 148-22, requesting State and Federal governments to fulfill their obligations to local school districts for special education funding; to the Committee on Education and Labor. PT-132. Also, a petition of Board of Supervisors, County of San Francisco, California, relative to Resolution No. 126-22, urging the Biden Administration to close dating partner loophole through Executive Action; to the Committee on the Judiciary. PT-133. Also, a petition of State Representative Mark Baisley, Denver, Colorado, relative to a letter regarding the nature of the vote for Colorado State House Resolution 22- 1004; jointly to the Committees on House Administration and the Judiciary. PT-134. Also, a petition of House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, relative to House Resolution 764, expressing the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico firm support to congressional bill H. R. 7409, known as the ``Territorial Relief Under Sustainable Transitions for Puerto Rico Act of 2022'' (Trust for Puerto Rico Act of 2022), introduced by Congressman Ritchie Torres, that would amend the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) in order to facilitate the termination of the Financial Oversight Board after the certification of a balanced Budget for two consecutive fiscal years; jointly to the Committees on Natural Resources and the Judiciary. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-07-22-pt1-PgH7073-5 | null | 4,789 |
formal | Chicago | null | racist | Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a highly regarded business leader, mentor, and community leader from Flint, MI: Mr. Willie Eldrage Artis, founder and owner of Genesee Packaging, who passed away on June 2, 2022, at the age of 88. Mr. Artis made an immeasurable impact as a partner to the automotive industry, on the Flint community, and the State of Michigan over the past 40 years. It is a privilege and a sorrow both to recognize him here today and celebrate his lifework and many achievements. Born in 1934, Willie spent the first 18 years of his life living with his parents in Memphis, TN, amid the height of the South's Jim Crow Era. Though difficult, these years instilled in Willie an unfailing work ethic and the ability to stand up for himself and his rights, even in the most difficult of circumstances. After leaving for Chicago, Willie began working on the manufacturing floor of the Triangle Container Corrugated Company, learning the ins-and-outs of the packaging business from the ground up. He brought this knowledge with him when he moved to Flint in 1964 and began working for Flint Boxmakers. In just 2 years, he was promoted to manufacturing manager. In 1979, Willie and a fellow colleague of color took advantage of the recently issued minority business programs administered by General Motors to leverage their years of expertise and open Genesee Packaging. Since its formation, Genesee Packaging has been a place of opportunity for the community to gain employment and increased access to economic achievement for customers and employees alike. His energetic service to the Flint community and State of Michigan included his membership with the Michigan Minority Business Development Council, Genesys Health Systems, the Flint Public Library, and the Flint Business and Development Council. In 1989, he was appointed to serve on Governor James Blanchard's entrepreneurial business commission, was inducted into the Junior Achievement Business Hall of Fame in 2001, and in 2005 received special recognition from Governor Jennifer Granholm for his many contributions to the State of Michigan. Additional recognition for his work in minority business development and civil rights came from then President Bill Clinton, the U.S. Senate, the Michigan House of Representatives, the State of Michigan, and the city of Flint. In October of 2019, Willie published his memoir in a book titled ``From Jim Crow to CEO: The Willie E. Artis Story,'' where he shared his lessons from life and business as one of America's most honored industrialists. His story embodies that of the American dream, rising up from poverty through determination and hard work, embracing entrepreneurship and becoming a sought-after partner by top corporations and even the White House during the Obama administration. I cannot understate the impact that Mr. Artis has had on the city of Flint and State of Michigan. A pillar of strength and leadership throughout the community and the embodiment of generosity to those who knew him personally, Willie will no doubt be missed, but his legacy will endure. I ask you to join me--and Willie's beloved wife Veronica, their children, and their grandchildren--in recognizing and celebrating his life and numerous accomplishments. I hope that each of us can find some comfort in the precious moments and memories that were shared with him. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. PETERS | Senate | CREC-2022-07-25-pt1-PgS3638 | null | 4,790 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | SA 5181. Mr. COTTON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5135 proposed by Mr. Schumer to the bill H.R. 4346, making appropriations for Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: Beginning on page 41, strike line 17 and all that follows through line 5 on page 84, and insert the following: ``(ii) includes semiconductor fabrication, assembly, testing, packaging, research and development, and any additional process identified by the Secretary. ``(C) Required agreement.-- ``(i) In general.--On or before the date on which the Secretary awards Federal financial assistance to a covered entity under this section, the covered entity shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary specifying that, during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the award, the covered entity may not engage in any transaction, as defined in the agreement, involving the expansion of semiconductor manufacturing capacity in the People's Republic of China or any other foreign country of concern. ``(ii) Affiliated group.--For the purpose of applying the requirements in an agreement required under clause (i), a covered entity shall include the covered entity receiving financial assistance under this section, as well as any member of the covered entity's affiliated group under section 1504(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, without regard to section 1504(b)(3) of such Code. ``(D) Notification requirements.--During the applicable term of the agreement of a covered entity required under subparagraph (C)(i), the covered entity shall notify the Secretary of any planned transactions of the covered entity involving the expansion of semiconductor manufacturing capacity in the People's Republic of China or any other foreign country of concern. ``(E) Violation of agreement.-- ``(i) Notification to covered entities.--Not later than 90 days after the date of receipt of a notification described in subparagraph (D) from a covered entity, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, shall-- ``(I) determine whether the transaction described in the notification would be a violation of the agreement of the covered entity required under subparagraph (C)(i); and ``(II) notify the covered entity of the Secretary's decision under subclause (I). ``(ii) Opportunity to remedy.--Upon a notification under clause (i)(II) that a planned transaction of a covered entity is a violation of the agreement of the covered entity required under subparagraph (C)(i), the Secretary shall-- ``(I) immediately request from the covered entity tangible proof that the planned transaction has ceased or been abandoned; and ``(II) provide the covered entity 45 days to produce and provide to the Secretary the tangible proof described in subclause (I). ``(iii) Failure by the covered entity to cease or remedy the activity.--If a covered entity fails to remedy a violation as set forth under clause (ii), the Secretary shall recover the full amount of the Federal financial assistance provided to the covered entity under this section. ``(F) Submission of records.-- ``(i) In general.--The Secretary may request from a covered entity records and other necessary information to review the compliance of the covered entity with the agreement required under subparagraph (C)(i). ``(ii) Eligibility.--In order to be eligible for Federal financial assistance under this section, a covered entity shall agree to provide records and other necessary information requested by the Secretary under clause (i). ``(G) Confidentiality of records.-- ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), any information derived from records or necessary information disclosed by a covered entity to the Secretary under this section-- ``(I) shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552(b)(3) of title 5, United States Code; and ``(II) shall not be made public. ``(ii) Exceptions.--Clause (i) shall not prevent the disclosure of any of the following by the Secretary: ``(I) Information relevant to any administrative or judicial action or proceeding. ``(II) Information that a covered entity has consented to be disclosed to third parties. ``(III) Information necessary to fulfill the requirement of the congressional notification under subparagraph (H). ``(H) Congressional notification.--Not later than 60 days after the date on which the Secretary finds a violation by a covered entity of an agreement required under subparagraph (C)(i), and after providing the covered entity with an opportunity to provide information in response to that finding, the Secretary shall provide to the appropriate Committees of Congress-- ``(i) a notification of the violation; ``(ii) a brief description of how the Secretary determined the covered entity to be in violation; and ``(iii) a summary of any actions or planned actions by the Secretary in response to the violation. ``(I) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue regulations implementing this paragraph.''; and (6) by adding at the end the following: ``(d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, in carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary should allocate funds in a manner that-- ``(1) strengthens the security and resilience of the semiconductor supply chain, including by mitigating gaps and vulnerabilities; ``(2) provides a supply of secure semiconductors relevant for national security; ``(3) strengthens the leadership of the United States in semiconductor technology; ``(4) grows the economy of the United States and supports job creation in the United States; ``(5) bolsters the semiconductor and skilled technical workforces in the United States; ``(6) promotes the inclusion of economically disadvantaged individuals and small businesses; and ``(7) improves the resiliency of the semiconductor supply chains of critical manufacturing industries. ``(e) Additional Assistance for Mature Technology Nodes.-- ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish within the program established under subsection (a) an additional program that provides Federal financial assistance to covered entities to incentivize investment in facilities and equipment in the United States for the fabrication, assembly, testing, or packaging of semiconductors at mature technology nodes. ``(2) Eligibility and requirements.--In order for an entity to qualify to receive Federal financial assistance under this subsection, the covered entity shall agree to-- ``(A) submit an application under subsection (a)(2)(A); ``(B) meet the eligibility requirements under subsection (a)(2)(B); ``(C)(i) provide equipment or materials for the fabrication, assembly, testing, or packaging of semiconductors at mature technology nodes in the United States; or ``(ii) fabricate, assemble using packaging, or test semiconductors at mature technology nodes in the United States; ``(D) commit to using any Federal financial assistance received under this section to increase the production of semiconductors at mature technology nodes; and ``(E) be subject to the considerations described in subsection (a)(2)(C). ``(3) Procedures.--In granting Federal financial assistance to covered entities under this subsection, the Secretary may use the procedures established under subsection (a). ``(4) Considerations.--In addition to the considerations described in subsection (a)(2)(C), in granting Federal financial assistance under this subsection, the Secretary may consider whether a covered entity produces or supplies equipment or materials used in the fabrication, assembly, testing, or packaging of semiconductors at mature technology nodes that are necessary to support a critical manufacturing industry. ``(5) Priority.--In awarding Federal financial assistance to covered entities under this subsection, the Secretary shall give priority to covered entities that support the resiliency of semiconductor supply chains for critical manufacturing industries in the United States. ``(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this subsection $2,000,000,000, which shall remain available until expended. ``(f) Construction Projects.--Section 602 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3212) shall apply to a construction project that receives financial assistance from the Secretary under this section. ``(g) Loans and Loan Guarantees.-- ``(1) In general.--Subject to the requirements of subsection (a) and this subsection, the Secretary may make or guarantee loans to covered entities as financial assistance under this section. ``(2) Conditions.--The Secretary may select eligible projects to receive loans or loan guarantees under this subsection if the Secretary determines that-- ``(A) the covered entity-- ``(i) has a reasonable prospect of repaying the principal and interest on the loan; and ``(ii) has met such other criteria as may be established and published by the Secretary; and ``(B) the amount of the loan (when combined with amounts available to the loan recipient from other sources) will be sufficient to carry out the project. ``(3) Reasonable prospect of repayment.--The Secretary shall base a determination of whether there is a reasonable prospect of repayment of the principal and interest on a loan under paragraph (2)(A)(i) on a comprehensive evaluation of whether the covered entity has a reasonable prospect of repaying the principal and interest, including, as applicable, an evaluation of-- ``(A) the strength of the contractual terms of the project the covered entity plans to perform (if commercially reasonably available); ``(B) the forecast of noncontractual cash flows supported by market projections from reputable sources, as determined by the Secretary; ``(C) cash sweeps and other structure enhancements; ``(D) the projected financial strength of the covered entity-- ``(i) at the time of loan close; and ``(ii) throughout the loan term after the project is completed; ``(E) the financial strength of the investors and strategic partners of the covered entity, if applicable; ``(F) other financial metrics and analyses that the private lending community and nationally recognized credit rating agencies rely on, as determined appropriate by the Secretary; and ``(G) such other criteria the Secretary may determine relevant. ``(4) Rates, terms, and repayments of loans.--A loan provided under this subsection-- ``(A) shall have an interest rate that does not exceed a level that the Secretary determines appropriate, taking into account, as of the date on which the loan is made, the cost of funds to the Department of the Treasury for obligations of comparable maturity; and ``(B) shall have a term of not more than 25 years. ``(5) Additional terms.--A loan or guarantee provided under this subsection may include any other terms and conditions that the Secretary determines to be appropriate. ``(6) Responsible lender.--No loan may be guaranteed under this subsection, unless the Secretary determines that-- ``(A) the lender is responsible; and ``(B) adequate provision is made for servicing the loan on reasonable terms and protecting the financial interest of the United States. ``(7) Advanced budget authority.--New loans may not be obligated and new loan guarantees may not be committed to under this subsection, unless appropriations of budget authority to cover the costs of such loans and loan guarantees are made in advance in accordance with section 504(b) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661c(b)). ``(8) Continued oversight.--The loan agreement for a loan guaranteed under this subsection shall provide that no provision of the loan agreement may be amended of waived without the consent of the Secretary. ``(h) Oversight.--Not later than 4 years after disbursement of the first financial award under subsection (a), the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce shall audit the program under this section to assess-- ``(1) whether the eligibility requirements for covered entities receiving financial assistance under the program are met; ``(2) whether eligible entities use the financial assistance received under the program in accordance with the requirements of this section; ``(3) whether the covered entities receiving financial assistance under this program have carried out the commitments made to worker and community investment under subsection (a)(2)(B)(ii)(II) by the target date for completion set by the Secretary under subsection (a)(5)(A); ``(4) whether the required agreement entered into by covered entities and the Secretary under subsection (a)(6)(C)(i), including the notification process, has been carried out to provide covered entities sufficient guidance about a violation of the required agreement; and ``(5) whether the Secretary has provided timely Congressional notification about violations of the required agreement under subsection (a)(6)(C)(i), including the required information on how the Secretary reached a determination of whether a covered entity was in violation under subsection (a)(6)(E). ``(i) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--No funds made available under this section may be used to construct, modify, or improve a facility outside of the United States.''. (c) Advanced Microelectronics Research and Development.-- Section 9906 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (15 U.S.C. 4656) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii)-- (A) in subclause (II), by inserting ``, including for technologies based on organic and inorganic materials'' after ``components''; and (B) in subclause (V), by striking ``and supply chain integrity'' and inserting ``supply chain integrity, and workforce development''; (2) in subsection (c)-- (A) in paragraph (1)-- (i) by inserting ``and grow the domestic semiconductor workforce'' after ``prototyping of advanced semiconductor technology''; and (ii) by adding at the end the following: ``The Secretary may make financial assistance awards, including construction awards, in support of the national semiconductor technology center.''; and (B) in paragraph (2)-- (i) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and capitalize'' before ``an investment fund''; and (ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following: ``(C) To work with the Secretary of Labor, the Director of the National Science Foundation, the Secretary of Energy, the private sector, institutions of higher education, and workforce training entities to incentivize and expand geographically diverse participation in graduate, undergraduate, and community college programs relevant to microelectronics, including through-- ``(i) the development and dissemination of curricula and research training experiences; and ``(ii) the development of workforce training programs and apprenticeships in advanced microelectronic design, research, fabrication, and packaging capabilities.''; (3) in subsection (d)-- (A) by striking ``the Manufacturing USA institute'' and inserting ``a Manufacturing USA institute''; and (B) by adding at the end the following: ``The Director may make financial assistance awards, including construction awards, in support of the National Advanced Packaging Manufacturing Program.''; (4) in subsection (f)-- (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)-- (i) by striking ``a Manufacturing USA Institute'' and inserting ``not more than 3 Manufacturing USA Institutes''; (ii) by striking ``is focused on semiconductor manufacturing.'' and inserting ``are focused on semiconductor manufacturing. The Secretary of Commerce may award financial assistance to any Manufacturing USA Institute for work relating to semiconductor manufacturing.''; and (iii) by striking ``Such institute may emphasize'' and inserting ``Such institutes may emphasize''; and (5) by adding at the end the following: ``(h) Construction Projects.--Section 602 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3212) shall apply to a construction project that receives financial assistance under this section.''. (d) Additional Authorities.--Division H of title XCIX of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (15 U.S.C. 4651 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``SEC. 9909. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES. ``(a) In General.--In carrying out the responsibilities of the Department of Commerce under this division, the Secretary may-- ``(1) enter into agreements, including contracts, grants and cooperative agreements, and other transactions as may be necessary and on such terms as the Secretary considers appropriate; ``(2) make advance payments under agreements and other transactions authorized under paragraph (1) without regard to section 3324 of title 31, United States Code; ``(3) require a person or other entity to make payments to the Department of Commerce upon application and as a condition for receiving support through an award of assistance or other transaction; ``(4) procure temporary and intermittent services of experts and consultants in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; ``(5) notwithstanding section 3104 of title 5, United States Code, or the provisions of any other law relating to the appointment, number, classification, or compensation of employees, make appointments of scientific, engineering, and professional personnel, and fix the basic pay of such personnel at a rate to be determined by the Secretary at rates not in excess of the highest total annual compensation payable at the rate determined under section 104 of title 3, United States Code, except that the Secretary shall appoint not more than 25 personnel under this paragraph; ``(6) with the consent of another Federal agency, enter into an agreement with that Federal agency to use, with or without reimbursement, any service, equipment, personnel, or facility of that Federal agency; and ``(7) establish such rules, regulations, and procedures as the Secretary considers appropriate. ``(b) Requirement.--Any funds received from a payment made by a person or entity pursuant to subsection (a)(3) shall be credited to and merged with the account from which support to the person or entity was made''. (e) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for division H of title XCIX of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283) is amended by adding after the item relating to section 9908 the following:``9909. Additional authorities.''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-25-pt1-PgS3655 | null | 4,791 |
formal | the Fed | null | antisemitic | SA 5181. Mr. COTTON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5135 proposed by Mr. Schumer to the bill H.R. 4346, making appropriations for Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: Beginning on page 41, strike line 17 and all that follows through line 5 on page 84, and insert the following: ``(ii) includes semiconductor fabrication, assembly, testing, packaging, research and development, and any additional process identified by the Secretary. ``(C) Required agreement.-- ``(i) In general.--On or before the date on which the Secretary awards Federal financial assistance to a covered entity under this section, the covered entity shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary specifying that, during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the award, the covered entity may not engage in any transaction, as defined in the agreement, involving the expansion of semiconductor manufacturing capacity in the People's Republic of China or any other foreign country of concern. ``(ii) Affiliated group.--For the purpose of applying the requirements in an agreement required under clause (i), a covered entity shall include the covered entity receiving financial assistance under this section, as well as any member of the covered entity's affiliated group under section 1504(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, without regard to section 1504(b)(3) of such Code. ``(D) Notification requirements.--During the applicable term of the agreement of a covered entity required under subparagraph (C)(i), the covered entity shall notify the Secretary of any planned transactions of the covered entity involving the expansion of semiconductor manufacturing capacity in the People's Republic of China or any other foreign country of concern. ``(E) Violation of agreement.-- ``(i) Notification to covered entities.--Not later than 90 days after the date of receipt of a notification described in subparagraph (D) from a covered entity, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, shall-- ``(I) determine whether the transaction described in the notification would be a violation of the agreement of the covered entity required under subparagraph (C)(i); and ``(II) notify the covered entity of the Secretary's decision under subclause (I). ``(ii) Opportunity to remedy.--Upon a notification under clause (i)(II) that a planned transaction of a covered entity is a violation of the agreement of the covered entity required under subparagraph (C)(i), the Secretary shall-- ``(I) immediately request from the covered entity tangible proof that the planned transaction has ceased or been abandoned; and ``(II) provide the covered entity 45 days to produce and provide to the Secretary the tangible proof described in subclause (I). ``(iii) Failure by the covered entity to cease or remedy the activity.--If a covered entity fails to remedy a violation as set forth under clause (ii), the Secretary shall recover the full amount of the Federal financial assistance provided to the covered entity under this section. ``(F) Submission of records.-- ``(i) In general.--The Secretary may request from a covered entity records and other necessary information to review the compliance of the covered entity with the agreement required under subparagraph (C)(i). ``(ii) Eligibility.--In order to be eligible for Federal financial assistance under this section, a covered entity shall agree to provide records and other necessary information requested by the Secretary under clause (i). ``(G) Confidentiality of records.-- ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), any information derived from records or necessary information disclosed by a covered entity to the Secretary under this section-- ``(I) shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552(b)(3) of title 5, United States Code; and ``(II) shall not be made public. ``(ii) Exceptions.--Clause (i) shall not prevent the disclosure of any of the following by the Secretary: ``(I) Information relevant to any administrative or judicial action or proceeding. ``(II) Information that a covered entity has consented to be disclosed to third parties. ``(III) Information necessary to fulfill the requirement of the congressional notification under subparagraph (H). ``(H) Congressional notification.--Not later than 60 days after the date on which the Secretary finds a violation by a covered entity of an agreement required under subparagraph (C)(i), and after providing the covered entity with an opportunity to provide information in response to that finding, the Secretary shall provide to the appropriate Committees of Congress-- ``(i) a notification of the violation; ``(ii) a brief description of how the Secretary determined the covered entity to be in violation; and ``(iii) a summary of any actions or planned actions by the Secretary in response to the violation. ``(I) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue regulations implementing this paragraph.''; and (6) by adding at the end the following: ``(d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, in carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary should allocate funds in a manner that-- ``(1) strengthens the security and resilience of the semiconductor supply chain, including by mitigating gaps and vulnerabilities; ``(2) provides a supply of secure semiconductors relevant for national security; ``(3) strengthens the leadership of the United States in semiconductor technology; ``(4) grows the economy of the United States and supports job creation in the United States; ``(5) bolsters the semiconductor and skilled technical workforces in the United States; ``(6) promotes the inclusion of economically disadvantaged individuals and small businesses; and ``(7) improves the resiliency of the semiconductor supply chains of critical manufacturing industries. ``(e) Additional Assistance for Mature Technology Nodes.-- ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish within the program established under subsection (a) an additional program that provides Federal financial assistance to covered entities to incentivize investment in facilities and equipment in the United States for the fabrication, assembly, testing, or packaging of semiconductors at mature technology nodes. ``(2) Eligibility and requirements.--In order for an entity to qualify to receive Federal financial assistance under this subsection, the covered entity shall agree to-- ``(A) submit an application under subsection (a)(2)(A); ``(B) meet the eligibility requirements under subsection (a)(2)(B); ``(C)(i) provide equipment or materials for the fabrication, assembly, testing, or packaging of semiconductors at mature technology nodes in the United States; or ``(ii) fabricate, assemble using packaging, or test semiconductors at mature technology nodes in the United States; ``(D) commit to using any Federal financial assistance received under this section to increase the production of semiconductors at mature technology nodes; and ``(E) be subject to the considerations described in subsection (a)(2)(C). ``(3) Procedures.--In granting Federal financial assistance to covered entities under this subsection, the Secretary may use the procedures established under subsection (a). ``(4) Considerations.--In addition to the considerations described in subsection (a)(2)(C), in granting Federal financial assistance under this subsection, the Secretary may consider whether a covered entity produces or supplies equipment or materials used in the fabrication, assembly, testing, or packaging of semiconductors at mature technology nodes that are necessary to support a critical manufacturing industry. ``(5) Priority.--In awarding Federal financial assistance to covered entities under this subsection, the Secretary shall give priority to covered entities that support the resiliency of semiconductor supply chains for critical manufacturing industries in the United States. ``(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this subsection $2,000,000,000, which shall remain available until expended. ``(f) Construction Projects.--Section 602 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3212) shall apply to a construction project that receives financial assistance from the Secretary under this section. ``(g) Loans and Loan Guarantees.-- ``(1) In general.--Subject to the requirements of subsection (a) and this subsection, the Secretary may make or guarantee loans to covered entities as financial assistance under this section. ``(2) Conditions.--The Secretary may select eligible projects to receive loans or loan guarantees under this subsection if the Secretary determines that-- ``(A) the covered entity-- ``(i) has a reasonable prospect of repaying the principal and interest on the loan; and ``(ii) has met such other criteria as may be established and published by the Secretary; and ``(B) the amount of the loan (when combined with amounts available to the loan recipient from other sources) will be sufficient to carry out the project. ``(3) Reasonable prospect of repayment.--The Secretary shall base a determination of whether there is a reasonable prospect of repayment of the principal and interest on a loan under paragraph (2)(A)(i) on a comprehensive evaluation of whether the covered entity has a reasonable prospect of repaying the principal and interest, including, as applicable, an evaluation of-- ``(A) the strength of the contractual terms of the project the covered entity plans to perform (if commercially reasonably available); ``(B) the forecast of noncontractual cash flows supported by market projections from reputable sources, as determined by the Secretary; ``(C) cash sweeps and other structure enhancements; ``(D) the projected financial strength of the covered entity-- ``(i) at the time of loan close; and ``(ii) throughout the loan term after the project is completed; ``(E) the financial strength of the investors and strategic partners of the covered entity, if applicable; ``(F) other financial metrics and analyses that the private lending community and nationally recognized credit rating agencies rely on, as determined appropriate by the Secretary; and ``(G) such other criteria the Secretary may determine relevant. ``(4) Rates, terms, and repayments of loans.--A loan provided under this subsection-- ``(A) shall have an interest rate that does not exceed a level that the Secretary determines appropriate, taking into account, as of the date on which the loan is made, the cost of funds to the Department of the Treasury for obligations of comparable maturity; and ``(B) shall have a term of not more than 25 years. ``(5) Additional terms.--A loan or guarantee provided under this subsection may include any other terms and conditions that the Secretary determines to be appropriate. ``(6) Responsible lender.--No loan may be guaranteed under this subsection, unless the Secretary determines that-- ``(A) the lender is responsible; and ``(B) adequate provision is made for servicing the loan on reasonable terms and protecting the financial interest of the United States. ``(7) Advanced budget authority.--New loans may not be obligated and new loan guarantees may not be committed to under this subsection, unless appropriations of budget authority to cover the costs of such loans and loan guarantees are made in advance in accordance with section 504(b) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661c(b)). ``(8) Continued oversight.--The loan agreement for a loan guaranteed under this subsection shall provide that no provision of the loan agreement may be amended of waived without the consent of the Secretary. ``(h) Oversight.--Not later than 4 years after disbursement of the first financial award under subsection (a), the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce shall audit the program under this section to assess-- ``(1) whether the eligibility requirements for covered entities receiving financial assistance under the program are met; ``(2) whether eligible entities use the financial assistance received under the program in accordance with the requirements of this section; ``(3) whether the covered entities receiving financial assistance under this program have carried out the commitments made to worker and community investment under subsection (a)(2)(B)(ii)(II) by the target date for completion set by the Secretary under subsection (a)(5)(A); ``(4) whether the required agreement entered into by covered entities and the Secretary under subsection (a)(6)(C)(i), including the notification process, has been carried out to provide covered entities sufficient guidance about a violation of the required agreement; and ``(5) whether the Secretary has provided timely Congressional notification about violations of the required agreement under subsection (a)(6)(C)(i), including the required information on how the Secretary reached a determination of whether a covered entity was in violation under subsection (a)(6)(E). ``(i) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--No funds made available under this section may be used to construct, modify, or improve a facility outside of the United States.''. (c) Advanced Microelectronics Research and Development.-- Section 9906 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (15 U.S.C. 4656) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii)-- (A) in subclause (II), by inserting ``, including for technologies based on organic and inorganic materials'' after ``components''; and (B) in subclause (V), by striking ``and supply chain integrity'' and inserting ``supply chain integrity, and workforce development''; (2) in subsection (c)-- (A) in paragraph (1)-- (i) by inserting ``and grow the domestic semiconductor workforce'' after ``prototyping of advanced semiconductor technology''; and (ii) by adding at the end the following: ``The Secretary may make financial assistance awards, including construction awards, in support of the national semiconductor technology center.''; and (B) in paragraph (2)-- (i) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and capitalize'' before ``an investment fund''; and (ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following: ``(C) To work with the Secretary of Labor, the Director of the National Science Foundation, the Secretary of Energy, the private sector, institutions of higher education, and workforce training entities to incentivize and expand geographically diverse participation in graduate, undergraduate, and community college programs relevant to microelectronics, including through-- ``(i) the development and dissemination of curricula and research training experiences; and ``(ii) the development of workforce training programs and apprenticeships in advanced microelectronic design, research, fabrication, and packaging capabilities.''; (3) in subsection (d)-- (A) by striking ``the Manufacturing USA institute'' and inserting ``a Manufacturing USA institute''; and (B) by adding at the end the following: ``The Director may make financial assistance awards, including construction awards, in support of the National Advanced Packaging Manufacturing Program.''; (4) in subsection (f)-- (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)-- (i) by striking ``a Manufacturing USA Institute'' and inserting ``not more than 3 Manufacturing USA Institutes''; (ii) by striking ``is focused on semiconductor manufacturing.'' and inserting ``are focused on semiconductor manufacturing. The Secretary of Commerce may award financial assistance to any Manufacturing USA Institute for work relating to semiconductor manufacturing.''; and (iii) by striking ``Such institute may emphasize'' and inserting ``Such institutes may emphasize''; and (5) by adding at the end the following: ``(h) Construction Projects.--Section 602 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3212) shall apply to a construction project that receives financial assistance under this section.''. (d) Additional Authorities.--Division H of title XCIX of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (15 U.S.C. 4651 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``SEC. 9909. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES. ``(a) In General.--In carrying out the responsibilities of the Department of Commerce under this division, the Secretary may-- ``(1) enter into agreements, including contracts, grants and cooperative agreements, and other transactions as may be necessary and on such terms as the Secretary considers appropriate; ``(2) make advance payments under agreements and other transactions authorized under paragraph (1) without regard to section 3324 of title 31, United States Code; ``(3) require a person or other entity to make payments to the Department of Commerce upon application and as a condition for receiving support through an award of assistance or other transaction; ``(4) procure temporary and intermittent services of experts and consultants in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; ``(5) notwithstanding section 3104 of title 5, United States Code, or the provisions of any other law relating to the appointment, number, classification, or compensation of employees, make appointments of scientific, engineering, and professional personnel, and fix the basic pay of such personnel at a rate to be determined by the Secretary at rates not in excess of the highest total annual compensation payable at the rate determined under section 104 of title 3, United States Code, except that the Secretary shall appoint not more than 25 personnel under this paragraph; ``(6) with the consent of another Federal agency, enter into an agreement with that Federal agency to use, with or without reimbursement, any service, equipment, personnel, or facility of that Federal agency; and ``(7) establish such rules, regulations, and procedures as the Secretary considers appropriate. ``(b) Requirement.--Any funds received from a payment made by a person or entity pursuant to subsection (a)(3) shall be credited to and merged with the account from which support to the person or entity was made''. (e) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for division H of title XCIX of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283) is amended by adding after the item relating to section 9908 the following:``9909. Additional authorities.''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-25-pt1-PgS3655 | null | 4,792 |
formal | job creation | null | conservative | SA 5181. Mr. COTTON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 5135 proposed by Mr. Schumer to the bill H.R. 4346, making appropriations for Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: Beginning on page 41, strike line 17 and all that follows through line 5 on page 84, and insert the following: ``(ii) includes semiconductor fabrication, assembly, testing, packaging, research and development, and any additional process identified by the Secretary. ``(C) Required agreement.-- ``(i) In general.--On or before the date on which the Secretary awards Federal financial assistance to a covered entity under this section, the covered entity shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary specifying that, during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the award, the covered entity may not engage in any transaction, as defined in the agreement, involving the expansion of semiconductor manufacturing capacity in the People's Republic of China or any other foreign country of concern. ``(ii) Affiliated group.--For the purpose of applying the requirements in an agreement required under clause (i), a covered entity shall include the covered entity receiving financial assistance under this section, as well as any member of the covered entity's affiliated group under section 1504(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, without regard to section 1504(b)(3) of such Code. ``(D) Notification requirements.--During the applicable term of the agreement of a covered entity required under subparagraph (C)(i), the covered entity shall notify the Secretary of any planned transactions of the covered entity involving the expansion of semiconductor manufacturing capacity in the People's Republic of China or any other foreign country of concern. ``(E) Violation of agreement.-- ``(i) Notification to covered entities.--Not later than 90 days after the date of receipt of a notification described in subparagraph (D) from a covered entity, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Director of National Intelligence, shall-- ``(I) determine whether the transaction described in the notification would be a violation of the agreement of the covered entity required under subparagraph (C)(i); and ``(II) notify the covered entity of the Secretary's decision under subclause (I). ``(ii) Opportunity to remedy.--Upon a notification under clause (i)(II) that a planned transaction of a covered entity is a violation of the agreement of the covered entity required under subparagraph (C)(i), the Secretary shall-- ``(I) immediately request from the covered entity tangible proof that the planned transaction has ceased or been abandoned; and ``(II) provide the covered entity 45 days to produce and provide to the Secretary the tangible proof described in subclause (I). ``(iii) Failure by the covered entity to cease or remedy the activity.--If a covered entity fails to remedy a violation as set forth under clause (ii), the Secretary shall recover the full amount of the Federal financial assistance provided to the covered entity under this section. ``(F) Submission of records.-- ``(i) In general.--The Secretary may request from a covered entity records and other necessary information to review the compliance of the covered entity with the agreement required under subparagraph (C)(i). ``(ii) Eligibility.--In order to be eligible for Federal financial assistance under this section, a covered entity shall agree to provide records and other necessary information requested by the Secretary under clause (i). ``(G) Confidentiality of records.-- ``(i) In general.--Subject to clause (ii), any information derived from records or necessary information disclosed by a covered entity to the Secretary under this section-- ``(I) shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552(b)(3) of title 5, United States Code; and ``(II) shall not be made public. ``(ii) Exceptions.--Clause (i) shall not prevent the disclosure of any of the following by the Secretary: ``(I) Information relevant to any administrative or judicial action or proceeding. ``(II) Information that a covered entity has consented to be disclosed to third parties. ``(III) Information necessary to fulfill the requirement of the congressional notification under subparagraph (H). ``(H) Congressional notification.--Not later than 60 days after the date on which the Secretary finds a violation by a covered entity of an agreement required under subparagraph (C)(i), and after providing the covered entity with an opportunity to provide information in response to that finding, the Secretary shall provide to the appropriate Committees of Congress-- ``(i) a notification of the violation; ``(ii) a brief description of how the Secretary determined the covered entity to be in violation; and ``(iii) a summary of any actions or planned actions by the Secretary in response to the violation. ``(I) Regulations.--The Secretary may issue regulations implementing this paragraph.''; and (6) by adding at the end the following: ``(d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, in carrying out subsection (a), the Secretary should allocate funds in a manner that-- ``(1) strengthens the security and resilience of the semiconductor supply chain, including by mitigating gaps and vulnerabilities; ``(2) provides a supply of secure semiconductors relevant for national security; ``(3) strengthens the leadership of the United States in semiconductor technology; ``(4) grows the economy of the United States and supports job creation in the United States; ``(5) bolsters the semiconductor and skilled technical workforces in the United States; ``(6) promotes the inclusion of economically disadvantaged individuals and small businesses; and ``(7) improves the resiliency of the semiconductor supply chains of critical manufacturing industries. ``(e) Additional Assistance for Mature Technology Nodes.-- ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall establish within the program established under subsection (a) an additional program that provides Federal financial assistance to covered entities to incentivize investment in facilities and equipment in the United States for the fabrication, assembly, testing, or packaging of semiconductors at mature technology nodes. ``(2) Eligibility and requirements.--In order for an entity to qualify to receive Federal financial assistance under this subsection, the covered entity shall agree to-- ``(A) submit an application under subsection (a)(2)(A); ``(B) meet the eligibility requirements under subsection (a)(2)(B); ``(C)(i) provide equipment or materials for the fabrication, assembly, testing, or packaging of semiconductors at mature technology nodes in the United States; or ``(ii) fabricate, assemble using packaging, or test semiconductors at mature technology nodes in the United States; ``(D) commit to using any Federal financial assistance received under this section to increase the production of semiconductors at mature technology nodes; and ``(E) be subject to the considerations described in subsection (a)(2)(C). ``(3) Procedures.--In granting Federal financial assistance to covered entities under this subsection, the Secretary may use the procedures established under subsection (a). ``(4) Considerations.--In addition to the considerations described in subsection (a)(2)(C), in granting Federal financial assistance under this subsection, the Secretary may consider whether a covered entity produces or supplies equipment or materials used in the fabrication, assembly, testing, or packaging of semiconductors at mature technology nodes that are necessary to support a critical manufacturing industry. ``(5) Priority.--In awarding Federal financial assistance to covered entities under this subsection, the Secretary shall give priority to covered entities that support the resiliency of semiconductor supply chains for critical manufacturing industries in the United States. ``(6) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this subsection $2,000,000,000, which shall remain available until expended. ``(f) Construction Projects.--Section 602 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3212) shall apply to a construction project that receives financial assistance from the Secretary under this section. ``(g) Loans and Loan Guarantees.-- ``(1) In general.--Subject to the requirements of subsection (a) and this subsection, the Secretary may make or guarantee loans to covered entities as financial assistance under this section. ``(2) Conditions.--The Secretary may select eligible projects to receive loans or loan guarantees under this subsection if the Secretary determines that-- ``(A) the covered entity-- ``(i) has a reasonable prospect of repaying the principal and interest on the loan; and ``(ii) has met such other criteria as may be established and published by the Secretary; and ``(B) the amount of the loan (when combined with amounts available to the loan recipient from other sources) will be sufficient to carry out the project. ``(3) Reasonable prospect of repayment.--The Secretary shall base a determination of whether there is a reasonable prospect of repayment of the principal and interest on a loan under paragraph (2)(A)(i) on a comprehensive evaluation of whether the covered entity has a reasonable prospect of repaying the principal and interest, including, as applicable, an evaluation of-- ``(A) the strength of the contractual terms of the project the covered entity plans to perform (if commercially reasonably available); ``(B) the forecast of noncontractual cash flows supported by market projections from reputable sources, as determined by the Secretary; ``(C) cash sweeps and other structure enhancements; ``(D) the projected financial strength of the covered entity-- ``(i) at the time of loan close; and ``(ii) throughout the loan term after the project is completed; ``(E) the financial strength of the investors and strategic partners of the covered entity, if applicable; ``(F) other financial metrics and analyses that the private lending community and nationally recognized credit rating agencies rely on, as determined appropriate by the Secretary; and ``(G) such other criteria the Secretary may determine relevant. ``(4) Rates, terms, and repayments of loans.--A loan provided under this subsection-- ``(A) shall have an interest rate that does not exceed a level that the Secretary determines appropriate, taking into account, as of the date on which the loan is made, the cost of funds to the Department of the Treasury for obligations of comparable maturity; and ``(B) shall have a term of not more than 25 years. ``(5) Additional terms.--A loan or guarantee provided under this subsection may include any other terms and conditions that the Secretary determines to be appropriate. ``(6) Responsible lender.--No loan may be guaranteed under this subsection, unless the Secretary determines that-- ``(A) the lender is responsible; and ``(B) adequate provision is made for servicing the loan on reasonable terms and protecting the financial interest of the United States. ``(7) Advanced budget authority.--New loans may not be obligated and new loan guarantees may not be committed to under this subsection, unless appropriations of budget authority to cover the costs of such loans and loan guarantees are made in advance in accordance with section 504(b) of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661c(b)). ``(8) Continued oversight.--The loan agreement for a loan guaranteed under this subsection shall provide that no provision of the loan agreement may be amended of waived without the consent of the Secretary. ``(h) Oversight.--Not later than 4 years after disbursement of the first financial award under subsection (a), the Inspector General of the Department of Commerce shall audit the program under this section to assess-- ``(1) whether the eligibility requirements for covered entities receiving financial assistance under the program are met; ``(2) whether eligible entities use the financial assistance received under the program in accordance with the requirements of this section; ``(3) whether the covered entities receiving financial assistance under this program have carried out the commitments made to worker and community investment under subsection (a)(2)(B)(ii)(II) by the target date for completion set by the Secretary under subsection (a)(5)(A); ``(4) whether the required agreement entered into by covered entities and the Secretary under subsection (a)(6)(C)(i), including the notification process, has been carried out to provide covered entities sufficient guidance about a violation of the required agreement; and ``(5) whether the Secretary has provided timely Congressional notification about violations of the required agreement under subsection (a)(6)(C)(i), including the required information on how the Secretary reached a determination of whether a covered entity was in violation under subsection (a)(6)(E). ``(i) Prohibition on Use of Funds.--No funds made available under this section may be used to construct, modify, or improve a facility outside of the United States.''. (c) Advanced Microelectronics Research and Development.-- Section 9906 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (15 U.S.C. 4656) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)(3)(A)(ii)-- (A) in subclause (II), by inserting ``, including for technologies based on organic and inorganic materials'' after ``components''; and (B) in subclause (V), by striking ``and supply chain integrity'' and inserting ``supply chain integrity, and workforce development''; (2) in subsection (c)-- (A) in paragraph (1)-- (i) by inserting ``and grow the domestic semiconductor workforce'' after ``prototyping of advanced semiconductor technology''; and (ii) by adding at the end the following: ``The Secretary may make financial assistance awards, including construction awards, in support of the national semiconductor technology center.''; and (B) in paragraph (2)-- (i) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ``and capitalize'' before ``an investment fund''; and (ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and inserting the following: ``(C) To work with the Secretary of Labor, the Director of the National Science Foundation, the Secretary of Energy, the private sector, institutions of higher education, and workforce training entities to incentivize and expand geographically diverse participation in graduate, undergraduate, and community college programs relevant to microelectronics, including through-- ``(i) the development and dissemination of curricula and research training experiences; and ``(ii) the development of workforce training programs and apprenticeships in advanced microelectronic design, research, fabrication, and packaging capabilities.''; (3) in subsection (d)-- (A) by striking ``the Manufacturing USA institute'' and inserting ``a Manufacturing USA institute''; and (B) by adding at the end the following: ``The Director may make financial assistance awards, including construction awards, in support of the National Advanced Packaging Manufacturing Program.''; (4) in subsection (f)-- (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)-- (i) by striking ``a Manufacturing USA Institute'' and inserting ``not more than 3 Manufacturing USA Institutes''; (ii) by striking ``is focused on semiconductor manufacturing.'' and inserting ``are focused on semiconductor manufacturing. The Secretary of Commerce may award financial assistance to any Manufacturing USA Institute for work relating to semiconductor manufacturing.''; and (iii) by striking ``Such institute may emphasize'' and inserting ``Such institutes may emphasize''; and (5) by adding at the end the following: ``(h) Construction Projects.--Section 602 of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3212) shall apply to a construction project that receives financial assistance under this section.''. (d) Additional Authorities.--Division H of title XCIX of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (15 U.S.C. 4651 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: ``SEC. 9909. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITIES. ``(a) In General.--In carrying out the responsibilities of the Department of Commerce under this division, the Secretary may-- ``(1) enter into agreements, including contracts, grants and cooperative agreements, and other transactions as may be necessary and on such terms as the Secretary considers appropriate; ``(2) make advance payments under agreements and other transactions authorized under paragraph (1) without regard to section 3324 of title 31, United States Code; ``(3) require a person or other entity to make payments to the Department of Commerce upon application and as a condition for receiving support through an award of assistance or other transaction; ``(4) procure temporary and intermittent services of experts and consultants in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code; ``(5) notwithstanding section 3104 of title 5, United States Code, or the provisions of any other law relating to the appointment, number, classification, or compensation of employees, make appointments of scientific, engineering, and professional personnel, and fix the basic pay of such personnel at a rate to be determined by the Secretary at rates not in excess of the highest total annual compensation payable at the rate determined under section 104 of title 3, United States Code, except that the Secretary shall appoint not more than 25 personnel under this paragraph; ``(6) with the consent of another Federal agency, enter into an agreement with that Federal agency to use, with or without reimbursement, any service, equipment, personnel, or facility of that Federal agency; and ``(7) establish such rules, regulations, and procedures as the Secretary considers appropriate. ``(b) Requirement.--Any funds received from a payment made by a person or entity pursuant to subsection (a)(3) shall be credited to and merged with the account from which support to the person or entity was made''. (e) Conforming Amendment.--The table of contents for division H of title XCIX of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283) is amended by adding after the item relating to section 9908 the following:``9909. Additional authorities.''. | 2020-01-06 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-25-pt1-PgS3655 | null | 4,793 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Castor of Florida). Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the Chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered, or votes objected to under clause 6 of rule XX. The House will resume proceedings on postponed questions at a later time. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Castor of Florida) | House | CREC-2022-07-26-pt1-PgH7082-9 | null | 4,794 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Mr. BEYER. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3588) to coordinate Federal research and development efforts focused on modernizing mathematics in STEM education through mathematical and statistical modeling, including data-driven and computational thinking, problem, project, and performance-based learning and assessment, interdisciplinary exploration, and career connections, and for other purposes, as amended. | 2020-01-06 | Mr. BEYER | House | CREC-2022-07-26-pt1-PgH7098 | null | 4,795 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4586) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 with respect to risk-based examinations of Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations, as amended. | 2020-01-06 | Ms. WATERS | House | CREC-2022-07-26-pt1-PgH7128 | null | 4,796 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 7289) to provide for the National Academies to study and report on a Federal research agenda to advance the understanding of PFAS, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-07-26-pt1-PgH7142-2 | null | 4,797 |
formal | XX | null | transphobic | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6552) to reauthorize the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-07-26-pt1-PgH7142 | null | 4,798 |
formal | based | null | white supremacist | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the unfinished business is the vote on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3588) to coordinate Federal research and development efforts focused on modernizing mathematics in STEM education through mathematical and statistical modeling, including data-driven and computational thinking, problem, project, and performance-based learning and assessment, interdisciplinary exploration, and career connections, and for other purposes, as amended, on which the yeas and nays were ordered. | 2020-01-06 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-07-26-pt1-PgH7143 | null | 4,799 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.