date
stringlengths 10
10
| speaker
stringlengths 3
62
| chamber
stringclasses 4
values | reference
stringlengths 3
31
| source
stringclasses 3
values | party
stringclasses 12
values | content
stringlengths 16
83.3k
| dog_whistle
stringclasses 397
values | ingroup
stringclasses 17
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
05/17/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-17-pt1-PgS2550 | nan | nan | 2022, AS ``NATIONAL PUBLIC WORKS WEEK''
Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Carper, Mrs. Capito, Mr.
Cramer, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Padilla, and Ms. Duckworth) submitted the
following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:
S. Res. 641
Whereas public works infrastructure, facilities, and
services are of vital importance to the health, safety, and
well-being of the people of the United States;
Whereas public works infrastructure, facilities, and
services could not be provided without the dedicated efforts
of public works professionals who represent Federal, State,
and local governments and private sector organizations
throughout the United States;
Whereas public works professionals design, build, operate,
and maintain the transportation systems, water
infrastructure, sewage and refuse disposal systems, public
buildings, sanitation and waste management systems, and other
structures and facilities that are vital to the people and
communities of the United States;
Whereas public works professionals have played, and will
continue to play, a key role in helping the United States
recover from the COVID-19 pandemic; and
Whereas understanding the role that public infrastructure
plays in protecting the environment, improving public health
and safety, contributing to economic vitality, and enhancing
the quality of life of every community of the United States
is in the interest of the people of the United States: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) designates the week of May 15 through May 21, 2022, as
``National Public Works Week'';
(2) recognizes and celebrates the important contributions
that public works professionals make every day to improve--
(A) the public infrastructure of the United States; and
(B) the communities that public works professionals serve;
and
(3) urges individuals and communities throughout the United
States to join with representatives of the Federal Government
and the American Public Works Association in activities and
ceremonies that are designed--
(A) to pay tribute to the public works professionals of the
United States; and
(B) to recognize the substantial contributions that public
works professionals make to the United States.
| the Fed | antisemitic |
05/18/2022 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-05-18-pt1-PgH5104-6 | nan | nan | 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.
| XX | transphobic |
05/18/2022 | Mr. TAKANO | House | CREC-2022-05-18-pt1-PgH5110 | nan | nan | Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (S. 4089) to restore entitlement to educational assistance under
Veterans Rapid Retraining Program in cases of a closure of an
educational institution or a disapproval of a program of education, and
for other purposes. | entitlement | racist |
05/18/2022 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-05-18-pt1-PgH5135 | nan | nan | The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:
Adoption of the resolution, if ordered;
The motion to recommit on H.R. 6531;
Passage of H.R. 6531, if ordered;
Passage of S. 2938; and
Motions to suspend the rules with respect to the following:
H. Res. 1125 | XX | transphobic |
05/18/2022 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-05-18-pt1-PgH5137 | nan | nan | 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. 6531) to provide an increased allocation of funding under certain
programs for assistance in areas of persistent poverty, and for other
purposes, offered by the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell), on
which the yeas and nays were ordered.
The Clerk will redesignate the motion.
The Clerk redesignated the motion. | XX | transphobic |
05/17/2022 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-05-17-pt1-PgS2540-2 | nan | nan | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, I rise today in recognition of Asian
Pacific American Heritage Month. This annual recognition offers the
opportunity to celebrate the unique impact the Asian American and
Pacific Islander community has made and continues to make in the United
States.
On this heritage month, we reflect on the incredible achievements of
this minority community and honor the unique combination of traditions
and cultures that create the rich tapestry of the Asian American
Pacific Islander diaspora and experience. We also use this time to
educate ourselves on the nuances of the AAPI identity and better
understand the challenges this community faces.
In 1977, then-Representative Frank Horton of New York introduced a
resolution to designate the first 10 days in May as AAPI Heritage Week.
The month of May was appropriate because of two key anniversaries that
occurred in that month. On May 7, 1843, the first Japanese immigrants
came to the United States.
On May 10, 1869, the first transcontinental railroad was completed,
largely due to the backbreaking work of Chinese laborers, some of whom
lost their lives in the construction.
Congress did not enact Representative Horton's initial resolution.
The following year, however, with the persistent help of then-
Representative Norman Mineta, Congress enacted a new resolution to
designate the 7-day period beginning on May 4 as Asian American Pacific
Islander Heritage Week. In 1992, Congress authorized the entire month
of May as AAPI Heritage Month, which we now celebrate.
The presence and influence of the AAPI community in the United States
has been growing steadily since the 19th century. The 1870 census
classified approximately 63,000 individuals as Asian. By 1960, when the
census allowed respondents to select their race, that number grew to
980,000. As of 2019, there are 22.4 million AAPI individuals in
America, 475,000 of whom call Maryland home.
It is important to remember that the AAPI community is not a
homogenous group. It is an incredibly diverse community, made up of a
wide array of cultures spanning many countries and territories, which
includes over 50 ethnicities, over 100 languages, and multiple
religions. Each subset draws from a unique set of traditions, and we
cannot assume they have one shared, uniform experience. We know that
the AAPI community makes up about 7 percent of our total population,
and this rich and diverse community has an outsized impact on every
pillar of our society. We cannot forget the many barriers to success
this community has overcome to reach such heights, which makes this
community's successes all the more impressive.
To understand the profound influence the AAPI community has, we need
not look further than Capitol Hill. This year, we mourned the passing
of my good friend and former colleague, Norman Mineta. A passionate
defender of justice, talented strategist, and exemplary patriot,
Representative Mineta dedicated his life to service as a mayor,
Congressman, and Cabinet member. In 1941, the U.S. Government interned
his family along with hundreds of thousands of other Japanese
Americans. Perhaps both in spite of and because of that experience,
Representative Mineta pursued a career as a public servant. During his
tenure as a legislator, he cofounded and chaired the Congressional
Asian Pacific American Caucus.
He led the charge on the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which directed
the Federal Government to issue a formal apology to and compensate the
survivors of Japanese internment. He inspired generations of Asian
Americans to get involved in politics. We miss him, but his legacy will
live on for years to come.
As chairman of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Committee, I am in awe of the resilience and determination we have seen
from AAPI small business owners over the past 2 years. In Maryland
alone, there are 13,375 AAPI-owned businesses, many of which include
restaurants and eateries. In fact, if you use cuisine predominance as a
barometer of cultural impact, the Asian American influence is
unparalleled.
In 2021, the New York Times published a list of the 50 most exciting
restaurants in the United States. Seventeen of the top 50 restaurants,
or 34 percent, incorporate AAPI food or have an AAPI head chef, more
than any other foreign cuisine. Through food, AAPI culture has become
inextricably linked to the American identity. In my home city of
Baltimore, a group of volunteers known as the China Collective
organizes a pop-up market named the Charm City Market. I have watched
as the event has grown in both attendance and footprint over the years,
celebrating the AAPI community's diverse food and entrepreneurship
landscape. Each year, I look forward to the market's ever-growing
celebration and empowerment of AAPI small business owners and
entrepreneurs.
Asian American Pacific Islanders also played a massive role in our
COVID-19 response, oftentimes finding themselves on the front lines as
essential workers. Despite facing racial bias and prejudice largely
attributed to Donald Trump's deliberately inflammatory use of the term
``China Virus,'' the AAPI community remained a steadfast lifeline for
Americans in need. At Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Erika Rono,
an emergency room nurse who came to the U.S. from the Philippines in
2014, continues to work every day through the harrowing realities of a
hospital overrun by COVID-19 patients. Over the past 2 years, she has
toiled day and night, putting her own life at risk, to save
Baltimoreans. We cannot thank her and her colleagues enough for their
bravery.
Despite the vital role the AAPI community plays in the U.S., they
still endure racism and discrimination. I am broken-hearted to see an
unprecedented increase in hate crimes against the AAPI community in
recent years. According to a study by the Center for the Study of Hate
and Extremism at California State University in San Bernardino, there
was a 44-percent increase in anti-Asian American hate crimes across 16
of the largest cities in the United States. In 2021, 81 percent of
Asian Americans who participated in a report by Pew Research stated
that violence against them was increasing.
One in 4 AAPI small business owners has experienced vandalism or
threats to their business at least once between 2020 and 2021, and one
in five Asian Americans worries daily about potential racial threats
and attacks. On top of this fear of retaliation, there is also concern
in the community, as with everyone else, about contracting the virus.
We must continue to do all that we can to preserve, protect, and
support the AAPI community. Last year, Congress enacted and President
Biden signed into law S. 937, the ``COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act,'' which
formally condemns anti-Asian violence and creates pathways for the
expedited reporting and prosecution of such abhorrent events at the
Federal, State, and local levels. There is no place for hate in our
society.
Today, as I think about my late, great colleague Norm Mineta and all
the Asian Americans who make America what it is today, I re-emphasize
my gratitude for the AAPI community and reaffirm my commitment to
eliminating systemic barriers to its success.
| Baltimore | racist |
06/21/2022 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgS3021 | nan | nan | Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here today to visit with my
colleagues about a group that we refer to as pharmacy benefit managers,
but around Washington, the shorthand for that term is PBMs.
Many Americans may not know about PBMs. They are very obscure in the
whole pharmaceutical business. Yet the PBM market is nearly $500
billion, and they are powerful in our pharmaceutical drug supply chain.
It is our duty in Congress to understand, first, how PBMs operate;
second, hold them accountable; and, third, work to lower prescription
drug costs for the taxpayers and for the consumers.
In 2018, I pressed the Federal Trade Commission to investigate PBMs.
I saw the ongoing consolidation in the pharmaceutical supply chain and
its impact on drug prices, driving those prices up. But I didn't wait
for the FTC to act.
I have pursued, one, bipartisan legislation; two, held hearings; and,
three, conducted oversight. Most recently, Senator Cantwell and I have
introduced the PBM Transparency Act. This bill prohibits PBMs from
engaging in spread pricing. This is a situation where PBMs charge an
insurer more than they charge the pharmacy and then they pocket the
difference. Iowans call that gaming the system.
Another practice we prohibit in our bill: clawbacks. In Medicare Part
D, these are sometimes called retroactive direct and indirect
remuneration fees--or DIR, for short.
Iowa pharmacists have told me clawbacks are costing patients more in
higher copays and also costing the local pharmacy. This practice is
putting rural and independent pharmacists out of business. In addition,
our bill will incentivize fair and transparent PBM practices,
benefiting consumers and taxpayers.
The bill has the support of community pharmacists, manufacturers, and
patient advocacy organizations. Not surprisingly, this industry we call
PBMs oppose the Cantwell-Grassley bill. They say my bill is ``anti-
competitive'' and, in their words, an ``expansion of power at the
FTC.'' They also claim that their industry is already well-regulated.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
My bill establishes transparency and accountability. So good news:
Tomorrow, the Commerce Committee will mark up the PBM Transparency Act.
I don't happen to sit on this very important Commerce Committee, but I
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Finally, I have never given up on passing the bipartisan Wyden-
Grassley bill, known as the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act.
Despite the Democrats having the majority for 18 months, we have not
passed a prescription drug bill. So we still have high prescription
drug prices.
By now, I would assume they would be interested in advancing a
bipartisan prescription drug bill. They can get 60-plus votes, save the
taxpayers $95 billion and seniors, who are consumers, $72 billion--
rather than a partisan effort that doesn't have 60 votes here in the
U.S. Senate.
I want my colleagues to know I will work with anyone who wants to
pass the bipartisan Wyden-Grassley bill.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum. | the Fed | antisemitic |
05/18/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-18-pt1-PgS2581-3 | nan | nan | The following bills were read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 5754. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
improve the ability of veterans to electronically submit
complaints about the delivery of health care services by the
Department of Veterans Affairs; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
H.R. 6376. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
extend eligibility for a certain work-study allowance paid by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to certain individuals who
pursue programs of rehabilitation, education, or training on
at least a half-time basis, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
H.R. 6604. An act to amend title 38, United States Code, to
improve the method by which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
determines the effects of a closure or disapproval of an
educational institution on individuals who do not transfer
credits from such institution; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
H.R. 6868. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of
2002 to provide for financial assistance to fund certain
cybersecurity and infrastructure security education and
training programs and initiatives, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 6871. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of
2002 to provide for certain acquisition authorities for the
Under Secretary of Management of the Department of Homeland
Security, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
H.R. 6873. An act to amend the Homeland Security Act of
2002 to establish the Office for Bombing Prevention to
address terrorist explosive threats, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
H.R. 7153. An act to direct the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to submit to Congress a plan to modernize the
information technology systems of the Veterans Benefits
Administration, and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
H.R. 7309. An act to reauthorize the Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act; to the Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions.
H.R. 7375. An act to direct the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to update the payment system of the Department of
Veterans Affairs to allow for electronic fund transfer of
educational assistance, administered by the Secretary, to a
foreign institution of higher education; to the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
| terrorist | Islamophobic |
05/18/2022 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2022-05-18-pt1-PgS2588-2 | nan | nan | By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell,
Mr. Carper, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Schatz, Mr.
Warnock, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr.
Whitehouse):
S. 4255. A bill to authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices
within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice,
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic
terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to
prevent domestic terrorism; to the Committee on the Judiciary. | terrorism | Islamophobic |
05/25/2022 | Mr. REED | Senate | CREC-2022-05-25-pt1-PgS2702 | nan | nan | Mr. REED. Mr. President, I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote
No. 200, the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 857, Evelyn Padin,
of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New
Jersey. Had I been present, I would have voted yea.
I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote No. 201, the confirmation
of Executive Calendar No. 915, Charlotte N. Sweeney, of Colorado, to be
U.S. District Judge for the District of Colorado. Had I been present, I
would have voted yea.
I was unavoidably absent for rollcall vote No. 202, the motion to
invoke cloture on Executive Calendar No. 806, Sandra L. Thompson, of
Maryland, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Had I
been present, I would have voted yea.
| the Fed | antisemitic |
05/25/2022 | Mr. PAUL | Senate | CREC-2022-05-25-pt1-PgS2703-2 | nan | nan | Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, I opposed the confirmation of Bridget Brink
to be U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine because of her support for the
expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. Ambassador
Brink believes in expanding NATO to any country who would like to join,
including Ukraine.
An important part of diplomacy is understanding your adversary. When
I questioned Ambassador Brink about the eastern expansion of NATO,
however, she expressed her belief that Russian President Vladimir Putin
merely uses the NATO question as a pretext for actions he would take
anyway. I strongly disagree. We must evaluate our leaders' actions, as
well as the actions of our adversaries, on the world stage.
Putin is an aggressor and must be condemned, but we cannot allow our
revulsion for his invasions to blind us to the fact that our
adversaries react to the actions of the West. For years, Putin stated
that any attempt to expand NATO to Russia's borders would be perceived
as a direct threat. Fifteen years ago, Putin asked, ``Against whom is
this expansion intended?'' Yet, a year later in 2008, NATO promised
that Ukraine and Georgia would one day join the alliance. Russia's
invasions of Georgia and Ukraine are not a coincidence, but I left my
meeting with Ambassador Brink believing that she is not willing to
reflect upon the actions of the West and how they would be viewed by
Russian eyes.
Putin has no justification for embarking on a war and invading
another country. I fully support the Ukrainians in their fight against
Russia. Russia's brutal use of its military to achieve its objectives
is unacceptable. But we must understand the reasons why he chose to
invade in the first place.
When the Cold War ended, the United States had the benefit of the
wisdom of foreign policy officials who took Russia seriously. George
Kennan warned that NATO expansion would ignite a new cold war. Henry
Kissinger proposed a peaceful coexistence in which Ukraine pursued a
policy of neutrality, with one foot in the West and one foot in the
East. Jack Matlock, our Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to
1991, called the current crisis ``predictable'' and, in 1997, warned
Congress that he believed that NATO expansion ``could well encourage a
chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat to
this nation since the Soviet Union collapsed.''
Those wise voices are either gone or retired. Had we listened to
their warnings, today's crisis might have been averted. But the State
Department is now filled with officials who refuse to listen to
adversaries or consider how our actions may make peace more difficult
to obtain.
Although I opposed the confirmation of Bridget Brink to be Ambassador
to Ukraine, I wish her luck in representing the United States and
finding a path to a peaceful end to the conflict.
| coincidence | antisemitic |
05/25/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-25-pt1-PgS2706-7 | nan | nan | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as
indicated:
EC-4210. A communication from the Associate Director of
the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Nevada; Clark County Department
of Environment and Sustainability'' (FRL No. 9527-01-R9)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May
18, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-4211. A communication from the Associate Director of
the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Redesignation of the
Indiana Portion of the Chicago-Naperville Area to Attainment
of the 2008 Ozone Standard, NOx RACT Waiver, and Serious Plan
Elements'' (FRL No. 9567-01-R5) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on May 18, 2022; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-4212. A communication from the Associate Director of
the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Redesignation of the
Illinois Portion of the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-
Wisconsin Area to Attainment of the 2008 Ozone Standard''
(FRL No. 9604-02-R5) received in the Office of the President
of the Senate on May 18, 2022; to the Committee on
Environment and Public Works.
EC-4213. A communication from the Associate Director of
the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: General Provisions; Technical Correction''
((RIN2060-AU67) (RIN2060-AU66) (FRL No. 7523-03-OAR) (FRL No.
9751-01-OAR)) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on May 18, 2022; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
EC-4214. A communication from the Director for Legislative
Affairs, Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office
of the President, transmitting, pursuant to law, a rule
entitled ``National Environmental Policy Act Implementing
Regulations Revisions'' (RIN0331-AA05) received in the office
of the President of the Senate on May 17, 2022; to the
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
EC-4215. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for
Legislation, Department of Health and Human Services,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Medicare
National Coverage Determinations for Fiscal Year 2021''; to
the Committee on Finance.
EC-4216. A communication from the Senior Bureau Official,
Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled ``Visa
Inadmissibility Determination for Russian National Roman
Abramovich''; to the Committees on Foreign Relations; and the
Judiciary.
EC-4217. A communication from the Senior Bureau Official,
Bureau of Legislative Affairs, Department of State,
transmitting, pursuant to law, a report relative to the
designation of Basque Fatherland and Liberty (and other
aliases) as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (OSS-2022-0407);
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
EC-4218. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 24-403, ``Comprehensive Policing and
Justice Reform Temporary Amendment Act of 2022''; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-4219. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 24-410, ``Reopen Washington DC Alcoholic
Beverage Regulation Amendment Act of 2022''; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-4220. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 24-391, ``Advisory Neighborhood Commission
Redistricting Deadline Extension Temporary Amendment Act of
2022''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-4221. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 24-392, ``Ban on Non-Compete Agreements
Applicability Temporary Amendment Act of 2022''; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-4222. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 24-393, ``Urban Forest Preservation Stop
Work Order Authority Temporary Amendment Act of 2022''; to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-4223. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 24-394, ``State Board of Education
Membership Eligibility Temporary Amendment Act of 2022''; to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-4224. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 24-395, ``Community Service Graduation
Requirement Waiver Regulation Temporary Amendment Act of
2022''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-4225. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 24-401, ``Law Enforcement Career
Opportunities for District Residents Expansion Temporary
Amendment Act of 2022''; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-4226. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 24-402, ``Medical Cannabis Temporary
Amendment Act of 2022''; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-4227. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 24-404, ``Direct Cash Assistance Pilot
Program Temporary Amendment Act of 2022''; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-4228. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 24-405, ``Local Business Enterprise
Clarification Temporary Amendment Act of 2022''; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-4229. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 24-406, ``Lead Service Line Planning Task
Force Interagency Plan Temporary Amendment Act of 2022''; to
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-4230. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 24-407, ``Rent Notice and Rent Increase
Clarification Temporary Amendment Act of 2022''; to the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-4231. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 24-408, ``Criminal Code Reform Commission
Executive Director Salary Establishment Temporary Amendment
Act of 2022''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-4232. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 24-409, ``Hotel Enhanced Cleaning and
Notice of Service Disruption Temporary Amendment Act of
2022''; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
EC-4233. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 24-389, ``Selective Service Federal
Benefits Awareness Amendment Act of 2022''; to the Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-4234. A communication from the Chairman of the Council
of the District of Columbia, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report on D.C. Act 24-390, ``Alice R. Washington Day
Designation Act of 2022''; to the Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs.
EC-4235. A communication from the Senior Counsel of Legal
Policy, Office of the Attorney General, Department of
Justice, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustment for
2022'' (Docket No. OLP 172) received in the Office of the
President of the Senate on May 18, 2022; to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
EC-4236. A communication from the Regulation Development
Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management,
Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Fiduciary Bond''
(RIN2900-AR11) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on May 18, 2022; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
EC-4237. A communication from the Regulation Development
Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management,
Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) Program: Name Change''
(RIN2900-AR04) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on May 18, 2022; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
EC-4238. A communication from the Regulation Development
Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management,
Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Inclusion of the Space
Force as Part of the Armed Forces'' (RIN2900-AR46) received
in the Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2022;
to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
EC-4239. A communication from the Regulation Development
Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management,
Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Threshold for Reporting
VA Debts to Consumer Reporting Agencies'' (RIN2900-AR20)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May
18, 2022; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
EC-4240. A communication from the Regulation Development
Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management,
Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Informed Consent and
Advance Directives'' (RIN2900-AQ97) received in the Office of
the President of the Senate on May 18, 2022; to the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs.
EC-4241. A communication from the Regulation Development
Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management,
Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Extension of the
Presumptive Period for Compensation for Gulf War Veterans''
(RIN2900-AR22) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on May 18, 2022; to the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs.
EC-4242. A communication from the Regulation Development
Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management,
Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Presumptive Service
Connection for Rare Respiratory Cancers Due to Exposure to
Fine Particulate Matter'' (RIN2900-AR44) received in the
Office of the President of the Senate on May 18, 2022; to the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
EC-4243. A communication from the Regulation Development
Coordinator, Office of Regulation Policy and Management,
Department of Veterans Affairs, transmitting, pursuant to
law, the report of a rule entitled ``Staff Sergeant Parker
Gordon Fox Suicide Prevention Grant Program'' (RIN2900-AR16)
received in the Office of the President of the Senate on May
18, 2022; to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
| Chicago | racist |
05/25/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-25-pt1-PgS2709 | nan | nan | By Mr. KAINE (for himself, Mr. Marshall, Ms. Hassan, and Mr. Cassidy):
S. 4302. A bill to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to
require prompt reports of marketing status by holders of approved
applications for biological products, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. | the Fed | antisemitic |
05/26/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-26-pt1-PgS2723-3 | nan | nan | South Dakota
Mr. President, this past weekend, I headed to Murdo, SD, the small
town of around 500 people where I grew up.
Needless to say, any trip to Murdo brings back a lot of memories.
First and foremost are those memories of my parents Pat and Harold
Thune and of growing up with my three brothers and sister.
We were lucky kids to have my parents. My mom was a wonderful,
loving, eternally optimistic mother who spent most of my growing up
years as our school librarian. She was responsible for making sure that
we Thune kids got some culture, whether we wanted it or not. She was
the one who made sure we got an introduction to music and learned how
to play the piano. With her encouragement, I even joined the swing
choir--although I will spare you, Mr. President, from any recitals.
In the summer, she would make us come inside for an hour every day to
read. I didn't always want to come inside on those beautiful summer
days. At the time, I would have much preferred to keep shooting hoops
with the basket my dad had attached to a pole in our backyard. But
today I am grateful for every minute that she made us spend with books.
My dad, he was our hero--a division I basketball player, a World War
II combat pilot. He was a teacher at my high school. And a coach. And
the athletic director. Oh, and also the bus driver.
So between him and my mom as the librarian, we Thune kids were
practically never away from our parents' watchful eyes. I am so
grateful to have had my dad's coaching in sports and in life. My dad
taught us, as players, to play as a team. He didn't like ball hogs or
people who were in the game for the personal glory. He believed your
job as a member of a team was to make the people around you better. If
somebody else was in a better position to take the shot, you always
made the extra pass. You didn't try to pad your own statistics. You
played for the good of the team.
It is an attitude I have tried to carry with me throughout my life.
My parents gave us Thune kids a strong set of values and an inheritance
of faith. In good times and bad, faith was their anchor and the Holy
Scriptures, their roadmap. And I am grateful that they taught us who to
turn to in times of trouble.
Mr. President, being in Murdo reminded me of my parents, as it always
does. It also made me reflect on just how lucky I was to grow up in a
small town--and small-town South Dakota in particular. It is true that
growing up in a small town meant that my parents had heard all about
any of the Thune kids' misdemeanors before we even made it home.
But even with that little drawback, small-town life was wonderful. In
Murdo, you know everyone, and everyone knows you. And that gave us a
sense of community and belonging that we carry to this day. Growing up
in Murdo also taught us just how much we are all connected.
Mr. President, South Dakotans are independent people, but we also
rely on
our neighbors when the going gets tough. And the going can get tough.
But, in Murdo, we knew that if a roof collapsed under the weight of
snow or a windstorm came through and wiped out a barn or we lost a
friend or family member, the whole community would rally around to
help.
Small-town life has a beautiful simplicity. On summer nights, my dad
would take us to get ice cream cones, and then we would drive down to
the White River. We would roll down the windows and feel the breeze and
watch the sun drop below the horizon--no staring at iPhones or checking
likes on social media.
Those were idyllic evenings. Moments like those kept us connected to
what really mattered: our family, our community, the land. Mr.
President, the values I saw reflected growing up in Murdo are reflected
in towns all across our State. In Murdo, I learned the character of
South Dakotans, the work ethic, the commitment to freedom coupled with
the belief in personal responsibility and the sense of responsibility
to the broader community.
Agriculture, of course, is the lifeblood of South Dakota, and it is a
hard way of life. It is backbreaking work in all weathers, always with
the risk that all your work can be wiped out in moments by a storm.
Anyone who grows up on a farm or ranch knows that everybody has to
pull their weight or the farm or ranch just don't survive. And I think
that grounding in agriculture has helped give South Dakotans their
reputation for having a strong work ethic and a commitment to getting
the job done.
And I am not kidding about that reputation. As a Senator, I have
traveled to a number of places around the world, and I regularly meet
people--often military members--who talk about the work ethic of the
South Dakotans they know. I am pretty sure it is that work ethic and
sense of personal responsibility that is responsible for the fact that
South Dakota has always punched above its weight when it comes to
military service, as well as the patriotism that runs strongly through
the South Dakota character.
South Dakotans cherish their freedoms, and they also believe that
with freedom comes responsibility. And they have a deep appreciation
for the Founders' vision that has allowed us to enjoy such freedom and
for the sacrifices that have been required to secure it. With that
comes an expectation that each generation has to do its part to pay
freedom's price and protect all that we have been given.
The South Dakota values I learned growing up helped shape my
political philosophy: my belief that government should be limited and
that it is best when it is closest to the people; and that if a matter
can be handled at the State or local level, it should be; that the
legacy of the past is something to be cherished and preserved while
leaving, at the same time, room for change and adaptation when needed;
that freedom is a sacred gift, one that must be defended, and that with
freedom comes responsibility; and, finally, that while government is
necessary, government is not where we should look for salvation.
Mr. President, the legacy of growing up in South Dakota is a precious
one. We didn't have much money, but we were very rich in the things
that mattered. And I am deeply grateful for those years in Murdo, for
the teachers and coaches and others in the community who invested in
me, and for everyone who continues to make it feel like home and for
the privilege of living in the Mount Rushmore State.
It is my very great honor to represent the people of South Dakota in
the U.S. Senate.
I yield the floor. | personal responsibility | racist |
05/26/2022 | Mr. GRAHAM | Senate | CREC-2022-05-26-pt1-PgS2726-4 | nan | nan | Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, before we leave Washington, I want to make
a few comments about the war in Ukraine.
Our allies in Ukraine are fighting like tigers against a Russian
invasion that is without foundation, that is illegal under
international law and is one of the most brutal acts of war in the 21st
century--maybe in any century.
I just want to let the Ukrainian people know that the American people
are with you in your struggle for freedom.
There have been some comments made by folks whom I respect talking
about the need to end this war, where Ukraine has to recognize certain
parts of their territory as actually Russian territory. I cannot
disagree more. Any effort to impose upon Ukraine a ceasefire that leads
to a peace agreement where they have to give territory to Russia is not
ending a war; it will be starting new wars.
Have we learned nothing from the last century? Appeasing Putin in
Ukraine makes him want more, not less. We found that to be true in the
1930s with Hitler in Germany.
So this idea that Ukraine needs to come to the table and give up
Ukrainian land to Putin makes zero sense to me. All the people who have
been fighting in Ukraine would have died in vain. And that line of
reasoning I reject completely.
Here is the state of play: Due to the commitment of the Ukrainian
people to fight for their freedom and their homeland, Russia has just
been delivered a mighty blow. Their army is in decline. They just
changed their laws so that the limitation on service from 18 to 40 now
has been lifted. There was a 63-year-old retired general fighter pilot
shot down in Ukraine, a Russian general. All I can say is that the
Ukrainians have met their end of the bargain.
This body, expressing the will of the American people, passed a $40
billion aid package. That is a lot of money, but you either pay now or
later when it comes to Putin. I am convinced, along with most of my
colleagues here, that if Putin is successful in Ukraine, he only goes
further; he never stops. His words, not mine--he wants to reconstruct
the Soviet Union, the Russian Empire, whatever you would like to call
it. There are other nations in his crosshairs.
So the battle in Ukraine will stabilize Europe if it is done right.
If the battle in Ukraine ends where Putin feels like he got away with
mass war crimes and was able to get territory by force of arms, he will
not stop. China will, surely as I am speaking, have a green light to go
into Taiwan.
So those who argue that we need to end this war by giving Ukrainian
territory to Putin, you are starting another war in Asia, most likely.
You are going to create a larger appetite for Putin, and I think you
have lost the lessons of the last century.
We have much to understand about the nature of this war. We have
Russian diplomats resigning in protest. We have people at concerts
shouting some pretty vulgar things about the war. You have a Russian
military that is under siege in terms of manning. The more weapons we
provide to the Ukrainians, the more lethal they become on the
battlefield, the more likely this war ends on favorable terms.
So I just want to remind the American people as we go into this
holiday, remember those who sacrificed for our freedom. There is a hot
war in Europe.
It is 2022. Did anybody really believe after the fall of the Berlin
Wall that we would be having a war with Russia in Europe trying to take
over a sovereign country called Ukraine? Well, that is where we are,
and I guess one thing to learn about mankind is that the calendar may
change, but there is a dark side of mankind--powerful people trying to
push the less powerful around; people trying to take things through
force of arms rather than the rule of law.
So I want the Ukrainian people to know that I am with you. I think
most Americans are with you. We don't want you to entice Putin to go
beyond Ukraine by surrendering your territory. We stand with you. Not 1
inch of Ukrainian territory should be given to Putin because he chose
force of arms. The rule of law versus the rule of guns is at stake. I
am hoping that we will send you more lethal weapons, not less, that we
will increase your capability to inflict pain on the Russian military.
I do believe that people in Russia are beginning to understand that,
with Putin, they have a very limited future; that if you continue to
support Putin, the world will isolate you further; that we are not
going to forgive and forget the war crimes.
NATO is getting bigger. Finland and Sweden have applied to NATO. I
have talked to our friends in Turkey. I hope we can resolve that.
So it would be wonderful in the next coming weeks here that the
Senate, in fast fashion, could include two more members of NATO; that
everything Putin wanted has backfired; that the Ukrainian nation still
stands; that NATO is bigger not smaller; that war crimes investigations
move forward, they don't stall.
In the International Criminal Court, Mr. Khan is doing a good job of
gathering evidence against Russian atrocities committed by Russian
military leaders and Russian forces, all under the control of Putin,
and I just encourage that effort to go further. Ukrainian courts have
convicted a Russian soldier of murder, a war crime.
So what I would like to see is the Western world, the democratic
world, reinforce our commitment to Ukraine, not talk about having to
give Putin territory to end this war, because that is not the way to
end the war; that is a way to expand the war.
If we can end this through diplomatic means, great, but what should
be off the table is rewarding Putin for this invasion. What should be
on the table is a commitment to Ukraine. As long as they are willing to
fight, as long as they are willing to fight for their freedom and die
for their territory, we should help them, because Putin won't stop with
Ukraine if he is successful.
The blood and treasure that we have spent since 9/11 has been tough
for our country, but not one American soldier is on the ground in
Ukraine. They are not asking for soldiers; they are only asking for the
ability to defend themselves--economic assistance, military assistance.
I do not want to let the pressure off Putin. Senator Risch and
Senator Menendez--the chairman, Senator Menendez, of the Foreign
Relations
Committee--are considering marking up legislation urging the Biden
administration to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. So
let's keep the pressure on Putin. Let's let the Russian people know
that, as long as Putin is your leader, you will be isolated from the
international community, your economy can't grow, and there are going
to be more and more young Russians killed in this folly.
I would urge the Russian people to change course here. Pick a new
leader. The world will embrace Russia. Russia is a land of many
talented people, with a long rich history.
I am hoping and praying that the freedom-loving world will not make
the mistakes in 2022 that we made in 1932, that we made in 1937 and
1938 where we thought the way to end the war was to appease a brutal
dictator. That is not the way to end a war; that is the way to continue
wars and make them bigger.
So, as for me, I will do everything in my power to help the Ukrainian
people as a Member of the U.S. Senate. I will do everything in my power
to hold Putin accountable. I will do everything in my power, working
with my Democratic and Republican colleagues, to isolate Putin's
Russia.
This is a difficult time for the world. If he fails in Ukraine, if
the Russian people rise up and change course, the world will be a lot
better off. If he succeeds, God help us all because the worst is yet to
come.
No problem here at home gets better by turning our back on Ukraine
and not holding Putin accountable. Whatever problems we have at the
border, with inflation, gas prices, all the domestic violence here at
home, none of those problems get better if Putin wins in Ukraine.
Here is the good news for the American people: The Ukrainian people
are not asking for our young men and women to fight and die in Ukraine;
they are only asking for our help. They need arms. They need weapons.
They need economic assistance. If we will continue to show our
resolve--the Western world--Putin will lose and the people of Ukraine
will win. Now is not the time to put on the table capitulation.
So to everybody, I hope you have a safe Memorial Day. I look forward
to coming back after the break to see if we can find a pathway forward
on commonsense gun reforms. Between now and then, let's keep the people
of Ukraine in our prayers.
I suggest the absence of a quorum. | terrorism | Islamophobic |
05/26/2022 | Ms. CANTWELL | Senate | CREC-2022-05-26-pt1-PgS2727 | nan | nan | Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about
developments this week in trying to fight to make sure that American
consumers aren't paying artificially more for gas to fill up their cars
and trucks and take a vacation for the holiday than they should be
paying.
This is an important issue for everybody in the United States but
particularly my constituents, who all throughout the State of
Washington are paying--well, Seattle, definitely over $5, and many
other parts of the State over $5. And if you are not paying more than
$5 a gallon, you are paying very close to $5 a gallon. So it is
important that Members of Congress do their job in oversight and
policing of these markets to make sure that there is transparency; that
is, a bright light to make sure that no one is taking advantage during
this tight supply and artificially driving up that price for their
benefit.
That is why we introduced the Transportation Fuel Market Transparency
Act that asked the Federal Trade Commission to expand on authority
Congress already gave to them to police transportation petroleum
markets and make sure that the trading that is done on indexes that
have very little oversight--very little oversight--that those indexes
have a brighter light shined on them so that we make sure consumers
aren't being gouged because of the kinds of practices that happen.
Well, lo and behold, just this Tuesday, the Federal Government and
the Department of Justice and the CFTC--the Commodities Futures Trading
Commission--basically gave a statement on the largest settlement in
history, a civil monetary penalty and disgorgement exceeding $1.1
billion on Glencore, one of the largest commodity trading firms.
It is a major participant in the global, physical oil and oil
derivatives market, and for more than a decade, it engaged in a wide-
ranging scheme to manipulate oil markets--schemes to defraud other
market participants by manipulating the information going to financial
markets, schemes that created artificially high benchmarks so that
Glencore's derivatives and physical positions would settle or price at
levels more favorable to the company.
(Ms. CORTEZ MASTO assumed the Chair.)
These were some of the same practices that are were uncovered during
the Enron scheme. I know the Presiding Officer knows because she comes
from the State of Nevada, and two of the areas most hard hit by the
electricity crisis were the State of Washington and the State of
Nevada. Why? Because people wanted us to continue to pay on fraudulent
electricity pricing.
That is why we fought, along with the Presiding Officer's predecessor
and others, to make sure that electricity markets were properly policed
for any kind of manipulative practices.
I am very proud that we authored legislation after that scandal that
really has given the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the tools it
needed on electricity and natural gas.
They, to this date, since 2007, have used that authority to police
electricity and natural gas and have had over a $1 billion of fines and
settlements against companies and their bad practices.
These are the same sort of practices that we are uncovering now in
the commodities market and on oil market manipulation.
I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like to
pretend that this issue doesn't exist. I ask them, go home and face
your constituents and tell them you voted to do nothing--nothing--to
bring more transparency into the gas markets that are affecting them
today and see what their reaction is. I guarantee you they are paying
too much at the pump, and they want to know that we are properly
policing these markets.
They get the dilemma that we are in, particularly given Russia and
Ukraine. They get the issues of a changing economy coming out of COVID.
But they are madder than heck when they read about some company that
has been doing this practice for decades and basically making money off
of the back of their hard earnings.
Consumers could pay as much as $1,000 more for gas this year. They
want to know why. This company raked in over $320 million in improper
gains. And while some of the record settlement involved penalties for
bribes and kickbacks in foreign countries, the company agreed to pay
$485 million in settlements for criminal and civil investigations for
various fuel oil prices.
Various fuel oil products that were manipulated and impacted included
Los Angeles and their Bunker Fuel Oil, New York Harbor Low Sulfur Fuel
Oil, New York Harbor High Sulfur Fuel, and U.S. Gulf Coast High Sulfur
Fuel Oil.
I am not sure how much consumers ended up getting fleeced, but it is
clear that at least hundreds of millions of dollars impacted these
markets.
And as the Presiding Officer knows, because she has been the chief
law enforcement for her State, if you don't have a policeman on the
beat policing these markets, more of these fraudulent activities will
exist.
After the derivative crisis, I also made sure that anti-manipulation
authority went to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. When we
called recently to ask about their use of this authority, they told us
they had put fines and penalties against companies at over $4.5
billion. That was before Tuesday's announcement of clear oil market
manipulation.
Some of my colleagues, as we push this transparency bill through the
Commerce Committee, said: Why, if they caught some people on Tuesday,
do we need to mark something up on Wednesday? Well, the issue is that
we were talking about the futures market. As I just read, these
companies are very adept at manipulating the futures market and the
physical market to get their best gain. We are asking our colleagues to
vote for transparency in the physical market of indexes traded after
the product is refined.
We know that there is a world oil price. We know that it is refined.
But what we can't figure out is, after it is refined, why--particularly
on the West Coast--is it at exorbitant rates, well over the national
average and paying well over what we think market fundamentals
determine?
We saw, at a hearing that we had before the Commerce Committee,
energy experts testify that some of these fundamentals do not make
sense; that something else is going on in the market. So why turn down
the opportunity for us, as a Federal Government, to get more
transparency in these energy markets? Why would anybody want to say
that more transparency over these indexes is not a good idea?
Well, some of our colleagues--I am not sure, because they offered no
substantive amendments to the legislation before us. In fact, those
that were, what I would say, some improvements around the edges to the
bill, we actually accepted in committee. The rest of the amendments
offered were all about the issues and discussions of more supply, which
were out of the jurisdiction of our committee, and I encouraged my
colleagues to take them up on the Senate floor.
So no substantive changes were offered to this legislation. Nobody
objected on the basis of the idea that transparency is a bad idea. And
yet people are holding on to an idea that they don't want to answer
about this issue of manipulation.
Trust me, I was shocked when I was elected to the U.S. Senate, before
I was even sworn in, to find out that we were in an energy crisis; that
somehow the price of electricity had gone from some of the cheapest in
the United States to the most exorbitant price ever, 3,000 times the
rate. I thought this couldn't possibly be a scheme. This couldn't
possibly be something perpetrated because, obviously, we would catch
that. Obviously, we have a policeman on the beat. Well, it turned out
that the California market, what is called the ISO, really wasn't
catching it, and there really was manipulation by Enron.
Enron manipulated the supply of electricity by cooking up various
schemes to move supply out of California to create artificial shortages
and then drive up the price of electricity. They had traders who lied
on the phone to people buying long-term contracts, telling them: Buy
the long-term contract because the price is going up. And an analyst
saying to a trader, and the trader replying back: That is not true. And
the analyst saying: Tell them anyway. That is the kind of thing that we
need to police.
So I was shocked to find that one of my first tasks being a U.S.
Senator was going to be to spend 2 years policing electricity just so
my State and the State of Nevada would not pay on fraudulent contracts
for more than a decade.
I guarantee you, not only would the lights in Vegas have gone out,
but much of the Washington economy would have been affected.
This is so important now because these high gas prices are affecting
every sector of transportation. It is affecting our airline economy. It
is affecting our trucking economy. I have heard from our railroads on
the diesel engine prices. It is affecting every part of our economy
while we have to pay more.
And even if it is 50 cents--as one of the witnesses testified, it may
be as much as 50 cents a gallon that is artificially being put onto the
consumers--why would you not want to know the answer and simply give
the Federal Trade Commission the authority to make sure that these
markets are properly policed for unfair and deceptive practices?
I know my colleague who is presiding knows because we have even had
suggestions from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that the
practice is so bad among energy traders that we should consider
legislation to ban energy traders who continue to perpetrate these
schemes. That is right, they go from one company to another company.
They know how the schemes work. They think it is just the price of
doing business. Even if they get caught, they will just pay the fine,
like Glencore is paying now.
If you think about it, this $1.1 billion is one of the largest oil
market manipulation cases ever. People probably aren't hearing about it
this week because of other stories that are in the news. But trust me,
this kind of behavior needs to be rooted out.
So, Madam President, I hope that when my colleagues return, I hope
that they will spend the recess asking their constituents whether they
think there needs to be more transparency in oil markets. I will be
very surprised if they don't say that something is going on, and we
want to know what it is. That is because consumers have felt for a long
time a disconnection between market fundamentals of supply and demand.
And, yes, there have been some changes in supply as it relates to
what we are facing on an international basis. My constituents
understand that. But we have always been an isolated market in the
Pacific Northwest for refineries in my State, most of the supply coming
from Alaska. And yet we pay the highest prices in the Nation. So our
constituents want to know why.
My colleagues, Senator Wyden, Senator Feinstein, and I have
prosecuted these issues. We have asked for more information and
transparency. In both instances, when we were successful with
electricity and natural gas, we did find behavior that needed to be
rooted out. And here, we have proof now in this Glencore case that
there is manipulation in oil markets. We are simply asking that, just
don't leave it to the futures market, because if you want to give law
enforcement, the Department of Justice, our attorneys general, others,
the tools to root out bad behavior--even if it is 5 cents a gallon, it
is worth fighting for. Even if it is a few cents more to uncover and
drive down the cost, it is worth it to our constituents, who are paying
exorbitant prices.
Let's make sure everybody understands in a tight supply, it is a lot
easier to do manipulation, and that is why we need to get this done
now.
I wish that the authority that we had given to the Federal Trade
Commission on this issue in 2007 would have been used, but the point
is, you actually have to have people and the information to prosecute
these cases.
My colleagues at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission built such
a unit. That unit, as I said, has been successful in monitoring
electricity and natural gas. I hope that they will emulate what the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has done.
I am proud that the CFTC and our Attorney General, Merrick Garland,
made this announcement on Tuesday of this unbelievable manipulation, of
bribery, of schemes, of all of the work that goes behind the scenes for
people to make billions of dollars of profits when we and our consumers
are being gouged with extra prices.
Let's find the answers. Let's do something as basic as passing a law
about transparency on a product--petroleum--that is so critical to our
economy.
I yield the floor.
| the Fed | antisemitic |
05/26/2022 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2022-05-26-pt1-PgS2732-2 | nan | nan | Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, it is Thursday, and it is the time of
the week that I like to celebrate an amazing person or people in my
State who are doing something great for Alaska, great for America,
great for the world. It is someone I like to refer to as our Alaskan of
the Week--or Alaskans of the Week, plural.
So we are doubling up this week because we have two Alaskans that we
are going to be commemorating. And I want to acknowledge it has been a
couple of rough weeks for America--we all know that--for reasons that
are quite obvious. Some tempers here in the Senate have been flaring a
little bit. So I wanted to end the week on what is really an
incredible, uplifting story, an epic story. It is a bit complicated, so
you have to pay attention if you are wanting to hear about just a
remarkable course of events in Alaska.
And it is a particularly poignant story as we head into Memorial Day
weekend, a time when we honor those who have made the ultimate
sacrifice. And I am going to tell, as I mentioned, a very special
Memorial Day story--a
complicated one, but one for the history books.
This story has twists and turns, dark spots, highlights, and
literally a Hollywood ending, one that involves a hero who gave his
life for America, what we are celebrating on Monday, but whose heroism
and service was only recently acknowledged and even only recently
remembered.
So, first, I am going to begin the story about a young man who made
the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation, an Alaskan native, an indigenous
man from Unalaska--Private George Fox.
Now, Private George Fox is not our Alaskan of the Week, but the whole
story that I am going to tell revolves around Private George Fox, who
was killed in action fighting Nazis in World War II in Italy in 1944
and, since 1949, was buried on the island of Unalaska--that is out on
the Aleutian island chain in Alaska, the islands way out that go out
towards Japan. But he was buried in an unmarked grave and essentially
forgotten--no record of military service, no awards for heroism,
nothing, forgotten by literally almost everybody but one person, for
nearly 80 years.
I am also going to talk about two very special people who are our
Alaskans of the Week; that is Mike Livingston and Gertrude Svarny, who
worked over the years to make sure that Private George Fox's
exceptional service is finally going to be officially recognized. And
that will happen Monday, on Memorial Day on the island of Unalaska in
the Aleutian Island chains back home in Alaska in a ceremony that will
take place on Monday.
So, as you can tell, this is actually a story of three people: one of
them a young soldier killed in action for our country in World War II;
one of them a still-living 90-year-old woman, a childhood friend of the
young soldier, one of our Alaskans of the Week, Gertrude; another, a
man on a mission, a detective with a public servant's heart.
It is a story of the invasion of the United States by the Japanese.
Many Americans don't know that Japan invaded parts of Alaska. It is a
story of racism, discrimination, service, honor, heroism. It is the
story of how two people worked to keep history alive and to honor
another who was forgotten for his heroism fighting and dying for our
country.
It is an epic of Alaska--an epic of Alaska--fitting to be
memorialized here on the U.S. Senate floor, and, more importantly,
memorialized Monday when we honor our veterans and those who died in
the service of our country.
So, it is a little complicated, but bear with me. Let me start this
remarkable story in a remarkable place.
This is Unalaska on the Aleutian Island chain. So if you are looking
at a map of Alaska, the Aleutian Islands go way out west, actually the
Aleutian Islands cross the international date line, way further west
than Hawaii. The Aleutian Island chain of Unalaska is a beautiful
island about 800 miles southwest of Anchorage in the Bering Sea. It is
home to walruses and sea lions; tens of millions of birds migrate
through the area.
Right now, it is the largest fishing port in the country, and it is
home to an incredible group of patriotic people, the Unangan native
people, living in an area steeped in fascinating and sometimes very
tragic history.
So here is a short version of that history. First, when Alaska was a
colonial possession of Russia, Russian fur seekers decimated the
Aleuts, the native populations on these islands, through warfare,
disease, even slavery.
Then, 75 years after the United States purchased Alaska from Russia,
during World War II, Japan actually bombed Unalaska, June 3 and 4,
almost 80 years ago today.
Then the Japanese invaded and occupied nearby islands on Alaska's
Aleutian Island chain. Many Americans don't know that history.
The United States--Alaska--was actually occupied by our enemy,
Imperial Japan. Eventually, American forces had to drive out the
Japanese in a brutal campaign on the Aleutian Islands area. About 1,500
American servicemembers were killed in those battles, 600 missing, and
almost 3,500 wounded in action.
So that is some of the history of Unalaska and the Aleutian Islands
chain during World War II.
So, George Fox--at about the same time the Japanese were literally
bombing his hometown of Unalaska in 1942, George Fox had volunteered as
a patriotic young American Alaska Native to fight for his country and
was sent to the other side of the world--Europe, North Africa.
Now, we don't know a lot about Private Fox's service, but because of
the work of Mike Livingston, our other Alaskan of the Week, who is
alive and doing great, we do have some basic information.
Here is some of what we know about Private George Fox. He was born
January 20, 1920, in Unalaska--again, the Aleutian island that we are
taking about on the Aleutian Islands chain. When he was 22 years old,
like so many patriotic Alaska Natives, he signed up to serve his
country in World War II.
By the way, it should be noted and cannot be overstated that
throughout history, even though so many Alaska Natives were
discriminated against--and still are in some ways--Alaska Natives,
certainly in Unalaska but all throughout the whole State, have served
at higher rates in the military than any other ethnic group in the
country--incredible patriotic service.
So Private George Fox from Unalaska goes to war for his country in
World War II. At the same time, his hometown is being bombed by the
Japanese. He was assigned to Company G in the 179th Infantry Regiment
of the 45th Infantry Division. His unit was first sent to fight the
Axis Powers in North Africa, then to Italy, where he landed in Italy on
Anzio Beach--a very famous battle--to fight the Germans in the famous
Battle of Anzio, where roughly 7,000 Allied servicemembers were killed
in action.
He survived that and fought his way heroically toward Rome, fighting
the Nazis the whole way. Unfortunately, on June 1, 1944, a Nazi bomb
exploded near him, and he was killed in action as a young American
serving his country--killed in Italy.
He is the only known Alaska Unangan from his region to be killed in
action during World War II.
So about 5 years later, after the war, his remains were removed from
Italy and returned to Unalaska in 1949. We now know there was a small
funeral at the Russian Orthodox church, where his ashes were buried
next to his mom, but his grave was unmarked--unmarked--and it stayed
unmarked for decades.
Now, that is what we know about Private Fox's military service, not
much else. Why? Because there was a fire where all his military records
were in the lower 48, and his service records were destroyed. So,
frankly, his record in the military was essentially forgotten--
forgotten.
Now, I think--you can't prove this, but the fact that he was Alaska
Native--that there was probably some discrimination here, like, ``Hey,
whatever, he is Alaska Native. We are not that worried.'' And so nobody
in authority kept his memory alive, his service alive. It was all
forgotten, that he was even a soldier.
So his memory and his service and his heroism--because these are
serious battles in World War II--all faded almost completely to
nothing, if it wasn't for our heroic Alaskans of the Week that we are
recognizing today.
So enter our first Alaskan of the Week, Mike Livingston, also a
Native Alaskan, Unangan, and he was determined to remember this vague
memory of this guy he had heard about, Private George Fox.
Here is a little bit of Mike's story, which is another great story.
He was born in Cold Bay, AK, which is another island in the Aleutian
Islands chain. He moved to Unalaska, the town we are talking about, in
1978, as a college student to learn the art of building traditional
kayaks from the Native elders in the community, and he began to work as
a public safety officer.
From then until 2003, when he retired, he was an emergency medical
technician, a firefighter, a dive rescue specialist, a police officer,
a detective in various places throughout Alaska, much of it in
Anchorage at the Anchorage Police Department, and he is currently a
captain with the Alaska State Defense Force.
Along the way--now, this guy is really impressive, what Mike did. He
received a master's degree in anthropology and a doctorate in
education,
all of which he uses as a specialist in his job, also at the Aleutian
Pribilof Island Association, and he uses his education and skills also
as a detective and fuels his passion for helping people help solve
mysteries, particularly in his interest of genealogy and family trees
that involve stories that are untold mysteries. A tree nut--a family
tree nut--he calls himself, as do his group of friends who dig deep to
solve puzzles, the kind of which involve people, historic places,
lapses in historic knowledge that have faded into history, which is
exactly what happened to Private George Fox.
Around 2005, Mike Livingston, our Alaskan of the Week, and his
friends started to take on that mission. What happened to Private
George Fox? They had heard about him--a fellow Alaska Native who they
knew from stories was killed in action fighting somewhere in World War
II--but they needed more information. Where was he buried? Nobody
seemed to know. Why was he not listed as killed in action in service in
World War II?
In the U.S. military, when a servicemember is killed in action, the
survivors get benefits, and they are entitled to receive full military
honors at funerals.
And in Mike's culture and in Private Fox's culture--the Unangan
culture--when a warrior died protecting their village, statues were
carved, songs were written and sung. It has always been a huge honor in
the Native culture to be a fallen warrior, but Private George Fox got
none of this from America, from his Federal Government, and even from
the amazing Alaska Native people.
Mike Livingston, the detective with a servant's heart, wanted to
right this wrong. He wanted to do it for Private Fox, for his
community, for his people, for his State, for his country. So he got to
work on this mystery. He began to dig deeper.
He called every Federal Agency he could think of to try to get more
information about this mysterious Alaska Native whose memory had faded,
whose heroism wasn't recognized. But Mike ran into brick wall after
brick wall calling Federal Agencies. He was able to get a few tidbits,
like the basic information mentioned above, and he also discovered that
George Fox's remains were returned to Unalaska in 1949, but nothing
else--little else.
The mystery of where those remains were--in a grave, an unmarked
grave; where Private George Fox was buried--it haunted Mike Livingston.
As he said, ``When you compare some of what occurred during World War
II, or shortly after World War II, people who were white were highly
honored,'' he recently told a reporter, particularly if they were
killed in action during the war--but not so for so many Alaska Natives.
Eventually, Mike heard that another resident on the island--now we
are back on Unalaska--had a piece of the puzzle, a woman who happened
to be related to Mike through marriage.
Enter our second Alaskan of the Week, 91-year-old artist Gertrude
Svarny. Let me spend a few minutes talking about her incredible
patriotic story.
Gertrude was born in 1930 on Unalaska, the island out in the Aleutian
Islands chain, the island bombed by the Japanese. She was also Alaska
Native.
Her family lived next to the Fox family. George Fox was about 8 years
older than she was. George and Gertrude's older brother were good
friends. So Gertrude remembers George. She said the whole island loved
him. He was kind, funny, full of life, and obviously brave.
As I mentioned, in 1942, George Fox left to go fight World War II for
our great Nation, right at the time George and Gertrude's village,
Unalaska, was bombed by the Japanese.
And here is another story most Americans don't know about. After that
happened, the U.S. Government took the Alaska Native people on the
Aleutian Islands chain and put them into internment camps--not White
people, only Alaska Native people.
The treatment of these great patriotic American citizens in these
camps is a dark spot in American history that, as I mentioned, not many
Americans are aware of. Camps were basically abandoned buildings. The
conditions were awful--crowded, unheated, unsanitary. Many died in the
camps as a result of these horrendous conditions.
Three years later, when the war was finally over, the people of
Unalaska--the Native people of Unalaska--were allowed to go home to
their community after being in these internment camps, but their homes
were ransacked and burned. Many of their villages on the island were
destroyed, another dark spot in our country's history.
Remember, these were our citizens, our country, and the Native
people, if they weren't at home, many of them were fighting overseas in
the Pacific and in Europe, like Private George Fox.
So Gertrude comes home from the internment camp. She is at Unalaska
now, and she marries another patriot named Sam Svarny, her husband, who
was in the Army, originally from Chicago, and he was stationed in
Unalaska. Another patriot in this story, Sam served in World War II and
later served in Vietnam.
Gertrude became an artist--a renowned artist in Alaska. She is
actually very famous for her work that she makes out of traditional
materials, and she is in collections all over the world.
And even though her childhood was marked by the wrongs inflicted on
her family and her by her own country, she and her husband have
remained fiercely patriotic. Even interment hasn't dissuaded the
patriotism of the Alaska Native people. And one of the ways Gertrude
displayed this patriotism, which still burns in her to this day--
remember, she is 91 years old--was that every Memorial Day, they put
flags on the grave sites on the island of Unalaska to those who served
in the military.
Gertrude and her husband Sam always remembered when she was a young
girl the small service that she had attended, a funeral service in
1949, of the young, spritely teenager George Fox, a friend of
Gertrude's who died fighting the Nazis more than 5,000 miles away from
Alaska in Italy.
The service was in the winter, she remembers. It was very cold. After
the service, the small procession walked in the frigid winds to the
cemetery where George Fox's mother was buried.
So, every year, this patriotic Alaska Native woman, for decades, has
quietly visited the unmarked grave of Private George Fox to place a
flag on this unmarked grave to remember his service, and that is the
only living memory of what this young patriotic Alaska Native soldier
did for his country.
When her husband Sam passed away in 2014, Gertrude continued this
tradition even to this day, as I mentioned, at 91 years old. What a
patriot.
So here is how it all comes together. When our detective, another
Alaskan of the Week, Mike Livingston, finally learned that his own
relative through marriage, Gertrude, actually knew where Private Fox
was buried, he got to work. The mystery was coming together. He felt
like he had enough information to make the official case to the U.S.
Government to finally get Private George Fox, this American hero,
recognized.
He wrote up an affidavit. Gertrude signed it, stating how she had
been putting a flag on the unmarked grave site for decades. But still,
request after request was ignored by the U.S. Government.
So what did they do, Mike and Gertrude? Well, to all Americans and
Alaskans watching this, here is what they did. They called their U.S.
Senator.
This was now in 2020, at the height of COVID. When my office heard
about this, my former head of casework, Rachel Bylsma, got immediately
onto the case. We all said that this is so important to make sure
Private George Fox got the honor and recognition he deserved. So we
worked together.
And I am proud to say, he is going to be getting that recognition.
Here is what is going to happen on Unalaska in the Aleutian Island
chain this Monday, 2022 Memorial Day for America: The top military
officials in my State, so many members of Private George Fox's family,
so many members of the community, myself, and my team are going to
gather in Unalaska, and we are going to gather to honor a warrior, a
hero, an Unangan Alaskan, an American, on Memorial Day.
Gertrude will be there, and Mike will be there, our two Alaskans of
the Week. Hundreds of people will be there. There will be a procession
from the
Russian Orthodox church to the cemetery, and we have now a beautiful 4-
foot-high gravestone to be unveiled.
Taps will float from a bugle. There will be a 21-gun salute from the
4th Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division. And on Memorial Day in
Unalaska, in the Bering Sea, the man who fought and died in World War
II as a hero for his country in North Africa, in Italy on Anzio Beach,
this American hero who has been forgotten will be recognized because of
the work of so many but, in particular, the relentless work of our
Alaskans of the Week Mike Livingston and Gertrude Svarny.
Private George Fox's service and sacrifice and heroism will finally
be recognized on Memorial Day by our Government, and we will have a
gravestone befitting of his incredible patriotic service.
On that gravestone, which I have seen--it is beautiful--at the bottom
there will be engraved three words. These words came from George Fox to
his family in his last letter that he wrote from Anzio Beach in a
heroic battle a world away from Alaska when he was fighting to save the
soul of the world from tyranny. There are three words in that letter--
that are now on a gravestone--that meant so much then and, I would
argue, mean so much now for our country to this very day. The three
words on that headstone are ``Wish all love.'' ``Wish all love.'' The
last words of a patriotic Alaska Native, sent home from Italy to his
family, who on Memorial Day will finally be recognized due to the
heroic, relentless hard work of our two Alaskans of the Week, Mike and
Gertrude. Thank you for all you are doing, all you have done for your
community, for your State, and for your country.
Thank you to George Fox's family and to Private George Fox for his
incredible service.
I look forward to seeing you all in Unalaska in a few days. It is
going to be a great ceremony. Congratulations on being our Alaskans of
the Week as we head into Memorial Day weekend.
I yield the floor. | Hollywood | antisemitic |
05/26/2022 | Mr. SULLIVAN | Senate | CREC-2022-05-26-pt1-PgS2732-2 | nan | nan | Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, it is Thursday, and it is the time of
the week that I like to celebrate an amazing person or people in my
State who are doing something great for Alaska, great for America,
great for the world. It is someone I like to refer to as our Alaskan of
the Week--or Alaskans of the Week, plural.
So we are doubling up this week because we have two Alaskans that we
are going to be commemorating. And I want to acknowledge it has been a
couple of rough weeks for America--we all know that--for reasons that
are quite obvious. Some tempers here in the Senate have been flaring a
little bit. So I wanted to end the week on what is really an
incredible, uplifting story, an epic story. It is a bit complicated, so
you have to pay attention if you are wanting to hear about just a
remarkable course of events in Alaska.
And it is a particularly poignant story as we head into Memorial Day
weekend, a time when we honor those who have made the ultimate
sacrifice. And I am going to tell, as I mentioned, a very special
Memorial Day story--a
complicated one, but one for the history books.
This story has twists and turns, dark spots, highlights, and
literally a Hollywood ending, one that involves a hero who gave his
life for America, what we are celebrating on Monday, but whose heroism
and service was only recently acknowledged and even only recently
remembered.
So, first, I am going to begin the story about a young man who made
the ultimate sacrifice for our Nation, an Alaskan native, an indigenous
man from Unalaska--Private George Fox.
Now, Private George Fox is not our Alaskan of the Week, but the whole
story that I am going to tell revolves around Private George Fox, who
was killed in action fighting Nazis in World War II in Italy in 1944
and, since 1949, was buried on the island of Unalaska--that is out on
the Aleutian island chain in Alaska, the islands way out that go out
towards Japan. But he was buried in an unmarked grave and essentially
forgotten--no record of military service, no awards for heroism,
nothing, forgotten by literally almost everybody but one person, for
nearly 80 years.
I am also going to talk about two very special people who are our
Alaskans of the Week; that is Mike Livingston and Gertrude Svarny, who
worked over the years to make sure that Private George Fox's
exceptional service is finally going to be officially recognized. And
that will happen Monday, on Memorial Day on the island of Unalaska in
the Aleutian Island chains back home in Alaska in a ceremony that will
take place on Monday.
So, as you can tell, this is actually a story of three people: one of
them a young soldier killed in action for our country in World War II;
one of them a still-living 90-year-old woman, a childhood friend of the
young soldier, one of our Alaskans of the Week, Gertrude; another, a
man on a mission, a detective with a public servant's heart.
It is a story of the invasion of the United States by the Japanese.
Many Americans don't know that Japan invaded parts of Alaska. It is a
story of racism, discrimination, service, honor, heroism. It is the
story of how two people worked to keep history alive and to honor
another who was forgotten for his heroism fighting and dying for our
country.
It is an epic of Alaska--an epic of Alaska--fitting to be
memorialized here on the U.S. Senate floor, and, more importantly,
memorialized Monday when we honor our veterans and those who died in
the service of our country.
So, it is a little complicated, but bear with me. Let me start this
remarkable story in a remarkable place.
This is Unalaska on the Aleutian Island chain. So if you are looking
at a map of Alaska, the Aleutian Islands go way out west, actually the
Aleutian Islands cross the international date line, way further west
than Hawaii. The Aleutian Island chain of Unalaska is a beautiful
island about 800 miles southwest of Anchorage in the Bering Sea. It is
home to walruses and sea lions; tens of millions of birds migrate
through the area.
Right now, it is the largest fishing port in the country, and it is
home to an incredible group of patriotic people, the Unangan native
people, living in an area steeped in fascinating and sometimes very
tragic history.
So here is a short version of that history. First, when Alaska was a
colonial possession of Russia, Russian fur seekers decimated the
Aleuts, the native populations on these islands, through warfare,
disease, even slavery.
Then, 75 years after the United States purchased Alaska from Russia,
during World War II, Japan actually bombed Unalaska, June 3 and 4,
almost 80 years ago today.
Then the Japanese invaded and occupied nearby islands on Alaska's
Aleutian Island chain. Many Americans don't know that history.
The United States--Alaska--was actually occupied by our enemy,
Imperial Japan. Eventually, American forces had to drive out the
Japanese in a brutal campaign on the Aleutian Islands area. About 1,500
American servicemembers were killed in those battles, 600 missing, and
almost 3,500 wounded in action.
So that is some of the history of Unalaska and the Aleutian Islands
chain during World War II.
So, George Fox--at about the same time the Japanese were literally
bombing his hometown of Unalaska in 1942, George Fox had volunteered as
a patriotic young American Alaska Native to fight for his country and
was sent to the other side of the world--Europe, North Africa.
Now, we don't know a lot about Private Fox's service, but because of
the work of Mike Livingston, our other Alaskan of the Week, who is
alive and doing great, we do have some basic information.
Here is some of what we know about Private George Fox. He was born
January 20, 1920, in Unalaska--again, the Aleutian island that we are
taking about on the Aleutian Islands chain. When he was 22 years old,
like so many patriotic Alaska Natives, he signed up to serve his
country in World War II.
By the way, it should be noted and cannot be overstated that
throughout history, even though so many Alaska Natives were
discriminated against--and still are in some ways--Alaska Natives,
certainly in Unalaska but all throughout the whole State, have served
at higher rates in the military than any other ethnic group in the
country--incredible patriotic service.
So Private George Fox from Unalaska goes to war for his country in
World War II. At the same time, his hometown is being bombed by the
Japanese. He was assigned to Company G in the 179th Infantry Regiment
of the 45th Infantry Division. His unit was first sent to fight the
Axis Powers in North Africa, then to Italy, where he landed in Italy on
Anzio Beach--a very famous battle--to fight the Germans in the famous
Battle of Anzio, where roughly 7,000 Allied servicemembers were killed
in action.
He survived that and fought his way heroically toward Rome, fighting
the Nazis the whole way. Unfortunately, on June 1, 1944, a Nazi bomb
exploded near him, and he was killed in action as a young American
serving his country--killed in Italy.
He is the only known Alaska Unangan from his region to be killed in
action during World War II.
So about 5 years later, after the war, his remains were removed from
Italy and returned to Unalaska in 1949. We now know there was a small
funeral at the Russian Orthodox church, where his ashes were buried
next to his mom, but his grave was unmarked--unmarked--and it stayed
unmarked for decades.
Now, that is what we know about Private Fox's military service, not
much else. Why? Because there was a fire where all his military records
were in the lower 48, and his service records were destroyed. So,
frankly, his record in the military was essentially forgotten--
forgotten.
Now, I think--you can't prove this, but the fact that he was Alaska
Native--that there was probably some discrimination here, like, ``Hey,
whatever, he is Alaska Native. We are not that worried.'' And so nobody
in authority kept his memory alive, his service alive. It was all
forgotten, that he was even a soldier.
So his memory and his service and his heroism--because these are
serious battles in World War II--all faded almost completely to
nothing, if it wasn't for our heroic Alaskans of the Week that we are
recognizing today.
So enter our first Alaskan of the Week, Mike Livingston, also a
Native Alaskan, Unangan, and he was determined to remember this vague
memory of this guy he had heard about, Private George Fox.
Here is a little bit of Mike's story, which is another great story.
He was born in Cold Bay, AK, which is another island in the Aleutian
Islands chain. He moved to Unalaska, the town we are talking about, in
1978, as a college student to learn the art of building traditional
kayaks from the Native elders in the community, and he began to work as
a public safety officer.
From then until 2003, when he retired, he was an emergency medical
technician, a firefighter, a dive rescue specialist, a police officer,
a detective in various places throughout Alaska, much of it in
Anchorage at the Anchorage Police Department, and he is currently a
captain with the Alaska State Defense Force.
Along the way--now, this guy is really impressive, what Mike did. He
received a master's degree in anthropology and a doctorate in
education,
all of which he uses as a specialist in his job, also at the Aleutian
Pribilof Island Association, and he uses his education and skills also
as a detective and fuels his passion for helping people help solve
mysteries, particularly in his interest of genealogy and family trees
that involve stories that are untold mysteries. A tree nut--a family
tree nut--he calls himself, as do his group of friends who dig deep to
solve puzzles, the kind of which involve people, historic places,
lapses in historic knowledge that have faded into history, which is
exactly what happened to Private George Fox.
Around 2005, Mike Livingston, our Alaskan of the Week, and his
friends started to take on that mission. What happened to Private
George Fox? They had heard about him--a fellow Alaska Native who they
knew from stories was killed in action fighting somewhere in World War
II--but they needed more information. Where was he buried? Nobody
seemed to know. Why was he not listed as killed in action in service in
World War II?
In the U.S. military, when a servicemember is killed in action, the
survivors get benefits, and they are entitled to receive full military
honors at funerals.
And in Mike's culture and in Private Fox's culture--the Unangan
culture--when a warrior died protecting their village, statues were
carved, songs were written and sung. It has always been a huge honor in
the Native culture to be a fallen warrior, but Private George Fox got
none of this from America, from his Federal Government, and even from
the amazing Alaska Native people.
Mike Livingston, the detective with a servant's heart, wanted to
right this wrong. He wanted to do it for Private Fox, for his
community, for his people, for his State, for his country. So he got to
work on this mystery. He began to dig deeper.
He called every Federal Agency he could think of to try to get more
information about this mysterious Alaska Native whose memory had faded,
whose heroism wasn't recognized. But Mike ran into brick wall after
brick wall calling Federal Agencies. He was able to get a few tidbits,
like the basic information mentioned above, and he also discovered that
George Fox's remains were returned to Unalaska in 1949, but nothing
else--little else.
The mystery of where those remains were--in a grave, an unmarked
grave; where Private George Fox was buried--it haunted Mike Livingston.
As he said, ``When you compare some of what occurred during World War
II, or shortly after World War II, people who were white were highly
honored,'' he recently told a reporter, particularly if they were
killed in action during the war--but not so for so many Alaska Natives.
Eventually, Mike heard that another resident on the island--now we
are back on Unalaska--had a piece of the puzzle, a woman who happened
to be related to Mike through marriage.
Enter our second Alaskan of the Week, 91-year-old artist Gertrude
Svarny. Let me spend a few minutes talking about her incredible
patriotic story.
Gertrude was born in 1930 on Unalaska, the island out in the Aleutian
Islands chain, the island bombed by the Japanese. She was also Alaska
Native.
Her family lived next to the Fox family. George Fox was about 8 years
older than she was. George and Gertrude's older brother were good
friends. So Gertrude remembers George. She said the whole island loved
him. He was kind, funny, full of life, and obviously brave.
As I mentioned, in 1942, George Fox left to go fight World War II for
our great Nation, right at the time George and Gertrude's village,
Unalaska, was bombed by the Japanese.
And here is another story most Americans don't know about. After that
happened, the U.S. Government took the Alaska Native people on the
Aleutian Islands chain and put them into internment camps--not White
people, only Alaska Native people.
The treatment of these great patriotic American citizens in these
camps is a dark spot in American history that, as I mentioned, not many
Americans are aware of. Camps were basically abandoned buildings. The
conditions were awful--crowded, unheated, unsanitary. Many died in the
camps as a result of these horrendous conditions.
Three years later, when the war was finally over, the people of
Unalaska--the Native people of Unalaska--were allowed to go home to
their community after being in these internment camps, but their homes
were ransacked and burned. Many of their villages on the island were
destroyed, another dark spot in our country's history.
Remember, these were our citizens, our country, and the Native
people, if they weren't at home, many of them were fighting overseas in
the Pacific and in Europe, like Private George Fox.
So Gertrude comes home from the internment camp. She is at Unalaska
now, and she marries another patriot named Sam Svarny, her husband, who
was in the Army, originally from Chicago, and he was stationed in
Unalaska. Another patriot in this story, Sam served in World War II and
later served in Vietnam.
Gertrude became an artist--a renowned artist in Alaska. She is
actually very famous for her work that she makes out of traditional
materials, and she is in collections all over the world.
And even though her childhood was marked by the wrongs inflicted on
her family and her by her own country, she and her husband have
remained fiercely patriotic. Even interment hasn't dissuaded the
patriotism of the Alaska Native people. And one of the ways Gertrude
displayed this patriotism, which still burns in her to this day--
remember, she is 91 years old--was that every Memorial Day, they put
flags on the grave sites on the island of Unalaska to those who served
in the military.
Gertrude and her husband Sam always remembered when she was a young
girl the small service that she had attended, a funeral service in
1949, of the young, spritely teenager George Fox, a friend of
Gertrude's who died fighting the Nazis more than 5,000 miles away from
Alaska in Italy.
The service was in the winter, she remembers. It was very cold. After
the service, the small procession walked in the frigid winds to the
cemetery where George Fox's mother was buried.
So, every year, this patriotic Alaska Native woman, for decades, has
quietly visited the unmarked grave of Private George Fox to place a
flag on this unmarked grave to remember his service, and that is the
only living memory of what this young patriotic Alaska Native soldier
did for his country.
When her husband Sam passed away in 2014, Gertrude continued this
tradition even to this day, as I mentioned, at 91 years old. What a
patriot.
So here is how it all comes together. When our detective, another
Alaskan of the Week, Mike Livingston, finally learned that his own
relative through marriage, Gertrude, actually knew where Private Fox
was buried, he got to work. The mystery was coming together. He felt
like he had enough information to make the official case to the U.S.
Government to finally get Private George Fox, this American hero,
recognized.
He wrote up an affidavit. Gertrude signed it, stating how she had
been putting a flag on the unmarked grave site for decades. But still,
request after request was ignored by the U.S. Government.
So what did they do, Mike and Gertrude? Well, to all Americans and
Alaskans watching this, here is what they did. They called their U.S.
Senator.
This was now in 2020, at the height of COVID. When my office heard
about this, my former head of casework, Rachel Bylsma, got immediately
onto the case. We all said that this is so important to make sure
Private George Fox got the honor and recognition he deserved. So we
worked together.
And I am proud to say, he is going to be getting that recognition.
Here is what is going to happen on Unalaska in the Aleutian Island
chain this Monday, 2022 Memorial Day for America: The top military
officials in my State, so many members of Private George Fox's family,
so many members of the community, myself, and my team are going to
gather in Unalaska, and we are going to gather to honor a warrior, a
hero, an Unangan Alaskan, an American, on Memorial Day.
Gertrude will be there, and Mike will be there, our two Alaskans of
the Week. Hundreds of people will be there. There will be a procession
from the
Russian Orthodox church to the cemetery, and we have now a beautiful 4-
foot-high gravestone to be unveiled.
Taps will float from a bugle. There will be a 21-gun salute from the
4th Brigade of the 25th Infantry Division. And on Memorial Day in
Unalaska, in the Bering Sea, the man who fought and died in World War
II as a hero for his country in North Africa, in Italy on Anzio Beach,
this American hero who has been forgotten will be recognized because of
the work of so many but, in particular, the relentless work of our
Alaskans of the Week Mike Livingston and Gertrude Svarny.
Private George Fox's service and sacrifice and heroism will finally
be recognized on Memorial Day by our Government, and we will have a
gravestone befitting of his incredible patriotic service.
On that gravestone, which I have seen--it is beautiful--at the bottom
there will be engraved three words. These words came from George Fox to
his family in his last letter that he wrote from Anzio Beach in a
heroic battle a world away from Alaska when he was fighting to save the
soul of the world from tyranny. There are three words in that letter--
that are now on a gravestone--that meant so much then and, I would
argue, mean so much now for our country to this very day. The three
words on that headstone are ``Wish all love.'' ``Wish all love.'' The
last words of a patriotic Alaska Native, sent home from Italy to his
family, who on Memorial Day will finally be recognized due to the
heroic, relentless hard work of our two Alaskans of the Week, Mike and
Gertrude. Thank you for all you are doing, all you have done for your
community, for your State, and for your country.
Thank you to George Fox's family and to Private George Fox for his
incredible service.
I look forward to seeing you all in Unalaska in a few days. It is
going to be a great ceremony. Congratulations on being our Alaskans of
the Week as we head into Memorial Day weekend.
I yield the floor. | Chicago | racist |
05/26/2022 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-05-26-pt1-PgS2732 | nan | nan | Mr. CARDIN. Madam President, another mass shooting, another
elementary school; 19 children, ages 7 through 10, gunned down; two
adults killed. They were in our schools--an elementary school, a place
that parents send their children expecting it to be a safe zone where
they can learn and interact with other children and be safe from things
like being attacked and shot. An elementary school we are talking
about, the anguish of the families who have lost their children or lost
their loved ones.
Children who witnessed this will be traumatized for life, scarred by
what happened in Texas.
And then last week, we saw in Buffalo 10 people gunned down while
shopping in a grocery store, very much racially motivated by a White
supremacist. This is happening throughout our country.
We have had gun violence in Baltimore. A few years ago, we had gun
violence at Great Mills High School in Maryland. We are seeing this
happen over and over and over again.
| Baltimore | racist |
05/26/2022 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2022-05-26-pt1-PgS2740-2 | nan | nan | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this coming Monday is Memorial Day, the
day we set aside to honor the more than 1.1 million Americans who have
given their lives in military service to our Nation.
It is a solemn day of remembrance and has a special resonance in my
state. One of America's first Memorial Day ceremonies occurred in
Illinois. It was April 1866--barely a year after the end of America's
terrible Civil War.
Three returning veterans from that great conflict were waiting for
services to begin at a church in Carbondale when they saw a young woman
with two infants approach a small, unmarked grave in the church
cemetery, place flowers on the grave, and kneel in prayer. The
veterans, deeply moved, collected wildflowers and placed them at all of
the veterans' graves in the churchyard. They then arranged to host a
parade of veterans to honor the war dead resting in the town's
cemetery.
More than 200 veterans showed up for that parade--one of America's
first Memorial Day parades. Among the marchers was General John Logan,
a Civil War hero and proud son of Illinois. The following year, General
Logan was appointed the commander in chief of the Grand Army of the
Republic. One of his first acts as commander in chief was to call for a
national day of remembrance to honor the soldiers who sacrificed their
lives so that America could receive a ``new birth of freedom.''
In the Army's General Order No. 11--the ``Memorial Day Order''--
General Logan wrote of his hope that the day of remembrance would be
``kept up from year to year, [as long as] a survivor of the war remains
to honor the memory of his departed comrades.''
On this Memorial Day, more than a century and a half later, we
remember all of the American patriots who have fallen in battles--from
Antietam, to the Argonne Forest, to Afghanistan. General Logan called
their deaths ``the cost of a free and undivided republic.''
In these fractious times, when our Nation sometimes feels, again,
like a house divided, may we remember the price those fallen heroes
paid to preserve our Union. And may we also remember the duty we each
bear to preserve the priceless gift for which they gave their lives--
this Nation, free and undivided.
On a related note, I want to take a moment to wish a belated happy
birthday to an American hero who returned from war. Sgt. Victor Butler
is that last surviving Tuskegee Airman in his home State of Rhode
Island and one of the last of that legendary Band of Brothers in our
Nation. Last Saturday, May 21, Mr. Butler celebrated his 100th
birthday.
When he was a young man, he and the other members of the Tuskegee
Airmen helped to save the world from the tyranny of fascism--and he
helped to loosen the grip of racism on America. In the weeks before his
100th birthday, Mr. Butler told family and friends all he wanted for
his centennial celebration was a card. He didn't want folks to make a
fuss or go to any great expense.
One of his nieces posted his wish on social media--and word spread.
He thought he might receive a few cards. At last count, Mr. Butler had
received more than 40,000 cards and video greetings from people in
every State in the Union and as far away as Japan, South Korea, and
Germany.
Last Saturday, on his birthday, his hometown held a parade in his
honor. And he received a signed football and a jersey with the number
``100'' on the back, hand-delivered by the owner of his favorite
football team, the New England Patriots--a well-deserved tribute to a
real-life hero.
Like the tradition of Memorial Day, the Tuskegee Airmen have a
special connection to my State. The first airfield where they trained--
before Tuskegee--was Chanute Field in Rantoul, IL, near Champaign. The
spot where that airfield stood is marked proudly today with signs that
read ``Birthplace of the Tuskegee Airmen.'' And in 2016, Illinois
renamed a stretch of Interstate 57 on the South Side of Chicago as the
Tuskegee Airmen Memorial Trail. It is a fitting tribute, given how many
Tuskegee Airman had roots in the Chicago area.
African-Americans have fought and died for America's freedom since
Crispus Attucks became the first American to fall in our War for
Independence.
As the first African-American aviators ever to serve in the U.S. Army
Air Corps, the Tuskegee Airman occupy a special chapter in our Nation's
history. They fought in World War II, at a time when the U.S. Armed
Forces were still segregated, and our Nation was still riven with
racially discriminatory laws and attitudes. Their original mission was
to serve as escort pilots for other American flyers, to protect them
from enemy fire. The Tuskegee Airmen also flew bombing missions
themselves.
Officially, they were known as the 99th Pursuit Squadron and the
332nd Fighter Group. But the pilots whose flights they protected gave
them a nickname. They called them the Red Tails, or the Red-Tailed
Angels, due to the distinctive color on their aircraft
wings. Their leader was the legendary Captain Benjamin O. Davis, Jr.,
who would go on to become the first African-American brigadier general
in the U.S. Air Force. His father, Benjamin O. Davis, Sr., was the
first Black brigadier general in the U.S. Army.
There were a total of 932 Tuskegee Airmen pilots, and another 10,000
Tuskegee Airmen--and women--who served as mechanics, radio operators,
and other essential support positions. They conducted more than 700
bomber escort missions--and they never lost a single lost a single
aircraft--not one. They were the only fighter group in World War II
with a perfect record of protecting bombers.
White U.S. military pilots were permitted to fly no more than 52
missions during World War II. Some Tuskegee Airman flew as many as 100
missions. Sixty-six Tuskegee Airmen died in combat. Thirty-three were
held as prisoners of war.
In March 2007, the Tuskegee Airmen as a group were awarded the
Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor Congress can bestow. The
ceremony was held in the Rotunda of the Capitol. I will never forget
the sight of 300 Tuskegee Airman dressed in red sports jackets,
saluting the American flag in that hallowed space. Some were in
wheelchairs. But when the National Anthem played, they all rose to
their feet and stood straight and proud.
Just before the Congressional Gold Medal ceremony, I had the
privilege of hosting several Tuskegee Airmen with Illinois roots in my
office. Then-Senator Obama stopped by to pay his respects. It was a
historic and humbling moment.
I met Lt. Colonel George Sherman, who grew up in Moline and joined
the Army Air Corps in 1944 at the age of 18. He had to take the
physical twice; he was rejected the first time because of his buck
teeth, but he didn't give up. He ended up serving 22 years in the Air
Force.
First Lieutenant Shelby Westbook was born in Arkansas and lost both
of his parents when he was just 12. He flew 60 missions over 12
countries in Europe. After the war, he wanted to attend engineering
school. The first school he applied to rejected him because it didn't
accept Black students. He moved to Chicago, earned a degree, and worked
as an electrical engineer for decades.
First Lieutenant Robert Martin famously claimed to have flown ``63
and a half missions.'' On his 64th combat mission, he was shot down
over Yugoslavia. He was hidden by antifascist partisans until he could
return to his unit. After the war, he worked as an electrical engineer
for the city of Chicago for nearly 40 years.
Flight Officer John Lyle--``Captain Jack'' to his friends--grew up on
Chicago's South Side. He flew 26 combat missions. After the war, he
earned a college degree but couldn't find work in his field so, for a
time, he washed windows of downtown skyscrapers. Eventually, he owned
his own insurance agency, a fish and chicken restaurant, and a tree-
trimming service.
Lt. Bev Dunjill flew more than 100 combat missions between World War
II and the Korean war. He later worked for the Illinois Department of
Human Rights.
All of those heroes are gone now. But their valor and impact are not
forgotten. The Tuskegee Airmen and the all-Black Montfort Point Marines
were among nearly 1 million Black Americans who served in World War II.
Most saw the war as a battle on two fronts--one against fascism
overseas and the other against racially discriminatory laws and
attitudes in America.
Their goal, they said, was ``the Double V,'' victory for democracy
overseas and at home. The change at home did not come easily, but it
did come. Three years after World War II ended, President Truman
ordered an end to segregation in the U.S. Armed Forces. And the service
and sacrifice of the Tuskegee Airmen and other Black veterans and
leaders helped set the stage for the civil rights movement of the
1950s, 60s, and 70s.
Today, as the last surviving Tuskegee Airman near their 100th
birthdays and we lose hundreds of World War II veterans each day, we
are painfully aware that the democracy and unity they paid such a high
price for is under threat, both overseas and at home. The peace of
Europe and democracy itself is under fire from Russia in Ukraine. And
our sense of security and national unity seems to be fraying at home.
Violence--especially gun violence--threatens us all, even our children.
Our progress against division and discrimination often feels shaky.
We are pitted against each other by those who believe that conflict and
anger is good for their political interests or their profit sheets. But
it doesn't have to be this way.
As we prepare to remember and honor those who gave their lives for
our freedom, let us resolve to do our part, in our time, to keep our
Nation free and undivided.
| single | homophobic |
05/26/2022 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2022-05-26-pt1-PgS2740-2 | nan | nan | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this coming Monday is Memorial Day, the
day we set aside to honor the more than 1.1 million Americans who have
given their lives in military service to our Nation.
It is a solemn day of remembrance and has a special resonance in my
state. One of America's first Memorial Day ceremonies occurred in
Illinois. It was April 1866--barely a year after the end of America's
terrible Civil War.
Three returning veterans from that great conflict were waiting for
services to begin at a church in Carbondale when they saw a young woman
with two infants approach a small, unmarked grave in the church
cemetery, place flowers on the grave, and kneel in prayer. The
veterans, deeply moved, collected wildflowers and placed them at all of
the veterans' graves in the churchyard. They then arranged to host a
parade of veterans to honor the war dead resting in the town's
cemetery.
More than 200 veterans showed up for that parade--one of America's
first Memorial Day parades. Among the marchers was General John Logan,
a Civil War hero and proud son of Illinois. The following year, General
Logan was appointed the commander in chief of the Grand Army of the
Republic. One of his first acts as commander in chief was to call for a
national day of remembrance to honor the soldiers who sacrificed their
lives so that America could receive a ``new birth of freedom.''
In the Army's General Order No. 11--the ``Memorial Day Order''--
General Logan wrote of his hope that the day of remembrance would be
``kept up from year to year, [as long as] a survivor of the war remains
to honor the memory of his departed comrades.''
On this Memorial Day, more than a century and a half later, we
remember all of the American patriots who have fallen in battles--from
Antietam, to the Argonne Forest, to Afghanistan. General Logan called
their deaths ``the cost of a free and undivided republic.''
In these fractious times, when our Nation sometimes feels, again,
like a house divided, may we remember the price those fallen heroes
paid to preserve our Union. And may we also remember the duty we each
bear to preserve the priceless gift for which they gave their lives--
this Nation, free and undivided.
On a related note, I want to take a moment to wish a belated happy
birthday to an American hero who returned from war. Sgt. Victor Butler
is that last surviving Tuskegee Airman in his home State of Rhode
Island and one of the last of that legendary Band of Brothers in our
Nation. Last Saturday, May 21, Mr. Butler celebrated his 100th
birthday.
When he was a young man, he and the other members of the Tuskegee
Airmen helped to save the world from the tyranny of fascism--and he
helped to loosen the grip of racism on America. In the weeks before his
100th birthday, Mr. Butler told family and friends all he wanted for
his centennial celebration was a card. He didn't want folks to make a
fuss or go to any great expense.
One of his nieces posted his wish on social media--and word spread.
He thought he might receive a few cards. At last count, Mr. Butler had
received more than 40,000 cards and video greetings from people in
every State in the Union and as far away as Japan, South Korea, and
Germany.
Last Saturday, on his birthday, his hometown held a parade in his
honor. And he received a signed football and a jersey with the number
``100'' on the back, hand-delivered by the owner of his favorite
football team, the New England Patriots--a well-deserved tribute to a
real-life hero.
Like the tradition of Memorial Day, the Tuskegee Airmen have a
special connection to my State. The first airfield where they trained--
before Tuskegee--was Chanute Field in Rantoul, IL, near Champaign. The
spot where that airfield stood is marked proudly today with signs that
read ``Birthplace of the Tuskegee Airmen.'' And in 2016, Illinois
renamed a stretch of Interstate 57 on the South Side of Chicago as the
Tuskegee Airmen Memorial Trail. It is a fitting tribute, given how many
Tuskegee Airman had roots in the Chicago area.
African-Americans have fought and died for America's freedom since
Crispus Attucks became the first American to fall in our War for
Independence.
As the first African-American aviators ever to serve in the U.S. Army
Air Corps, the Tuskegee Airman occupy a special chapter in our Nation's
history. They fought in World War II, at a time when the U.S. Armed
Forces were still segregated, and our Nation was still riven with
racially discriminatory laws and attitudes. Their original mission was
to serve as escort pilots for other American flyers, to protect them
from enemy fire. The Tuskegee Airmen also flew bombing missions
themselves.
Officially, they were known as the 99th Pursuit Squadron and the
332nd Fighter Group. But the pilots whose flights they protected gave
them a nickname. They called them the Red Tails, or the Red-Tailed
Angels, due to the distinctive color on their aircraft
wings. Their leader was the legendary Captain Benjamin O. Davis, Jr.,
who would go on to become the first African-American brigadier general
in the U.S. Air Force. His father, Benjamin O. Davis, Sr., was the
first Black brigadier general in the U.S. Army.
There were a total of 932 Tuskegee Airmen pilots, and another 10,000
Tuskegee Airmen--and women--who served as mechanics, radio operators,
and other essential support positions. They conducted more than 700
bomber escort missions--and they never lost a single lost a single
aircraft--not one. They were the only fighter group in World War II
with a perfect record of protecting bombers.
White U.S. military pilots were permitted to fly no more than 52
missions during World War II. Some Tuskegee Airman flew as many as 100
missions. Sixty-six Tuskegee Airmen died in combat. Thirty-three were
held as prisoners of war.
In March 2007, the Tuskegee Airmen as a group were awarded the
Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor Congress can bestow. The
ceremony was held in the Rotunda of the Capitol. I will never forget
the sight of 300 Tuskegee Airman dressed in red sports jackets,
saluting the American flag in that hallowed space. Some were in
wheelchairs. But when the National Anthem played, they all rose to
their feet and stood straight and proud.
Just before the Congressional Gold Medal ceremony, I had the
privilege of hosting several Tuskegee Airmen with Illinois roots in my
office. Then-Senator Obama stopped by to pay his respects. It was a
historic and humbling moment.
I met Lt. Colonel George Sherman, who grew up in Moline and joined
the Army Air Corps in 1944 at the age of 18. He had to take the
physical twice; he was rejected the first time because of his buck
teeth, but he didn't give up. He ended up serving 22 years in the Air
Force.
First Lieutenant Shelby Westbook was born in Arkansas and lost both
of his parents when he was just 12. He flew 60 missions over 12
countries in Europe. After the war, he wanted to attend engineering
school. The first school he applied to rejected him because it didn't
accept Black students. He moved to Chicago, earned a degree, and worked
as an electrical engineer for decades.
First Lieutenant Robert Martin famously claimed to have flown ``63
and a half missions.'' On his 64th combat mission, he was shot down
over Yugoslavia. He was hidden by antifascist partisans until he could
return to his unit. After the war, he worked as an electrical engineer
for the city of Chicago for nearly 40 years.
Flight Officer John Lyle--``Captain Jack'' to his friends--grew up on
Chicago's South Side. He flew 26 combat missions. After the war, he
earned a college degree but couldn't find work in his field so, for a
time, he washed windows of downtown skyscrapers. Eventually, he owned
his own insurance agency, a fish and chicken restaurant, and a tree-
trimming service.
Lt. Bev Dunjill flew more than 100 combat missions between World War
II and the Korean war. He later worked for the Illinois Department of
Human Rights.
All of those heroes are gone now. But their valor and impact are not
forgotten. The Tuskegee Airmen and the all-Black Montfort Point Marines
were among nearly 1 million Black Americans who served in World War II.
Most saw the war as a battle on two fronts--one against fascism
overseas and the other against racially discriminatory laws and
attitudes in America.
Their goal, they said, was ``the Double V,'' victory for democracy
overseas and at home. The change at home did not come easily, but it
did come. Three years after World War II ended, President Truman
ordered an end to segregation in the U.S. Armed Forces. And the service
and sacrifice of the Tuskegee Airmen and other Black veterans and
leaders helped set the stage for the civil rights movement of the
1950s, 60s, and 70s.
Today, as the last surviving Tuskegee Airman near their 100th
birthdays and we lose hundreds of World War II veterans each day, we
are painfully aware that the democracy and unity they paid such a high
price for is under threat, both overseas and at home. The peace of
Europe and democracy itself is under fire from Russia in Ukraine. And
our sense of security and national unity seems to be fraying at home.
Violence--especially gun violence--threatens us all, even our children.
Our progress against division and discrimination often feels shaky.
We are pitted against each other by those who believe that conflict and
anger is good for their political interests or their profit sheets. But
it doesn't have to be this way.
As we prepare to remember and honor those who gave their lives for
our freedom, let us resolve to do our part, in our time, to keep our
Nation free and undivided.
| Chicago | racist |
05/26/2022 | Mr. DURBIN | Senate | CREC-2022-05-26-pt1-PgS2740-2 | nan | nan | Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, this coming Monday is Memorial Day, the
day we set aside to honor the more than 1.1 million Americans who have
given their lives in military service to our Nation.
It is a solemn day of remembrance and has a special resonance in my
state. One of America's first Memorial Day ceremonies occurred in
Illinois. It was April 1866--barely a year after the end of America's
terrible Civil War.
Three returning veterans from that great conflict were waiting for
services to begin at a church in Carbondale when they saw a young woman
with two infants approach a small, unmarked grave in the church
cemetery, place flowers on the grave, and kneel in prayer. The
veterans, deeply moved, collected wildflowers and placed them at all of
the veterans' graves in the churchyard. They then arranged to host a
parade of veterans to honor the war dead resting in the town's
cemetery.
More than 200 veterans showed up for that parade--one of America's
first Memorial Day parades. Among the marchers was General John Logan,
a Civil War hero and proud son of Illinois. The following year, General
Logan was appointed the commander in chief of the Grand Army of the
Republic. One of his first acts as commander in chief was to call for a
national day of remembrance to honor the soldiers who sacrificed their
lives so that America could receive a ``new birth of freedom.''
In the Army's General Order No. 11--the ``Memorial Day Order''--
General Logan wrote of his hope that the day of remembrance would be
``kept up from year to year, [as long as] a survivor of the war remains
to honor the memory of his departed comrades.''
On this Memorial Day, more than a century and a half later, we
remember all of the American patriots who have fallen in battles--from
Antietam, to the Argonne Forest, to Afghanistan. General Logan called
their deaths ``the cost of a free and undivided republic.''
In these fractious times, when our Nation sometimes feels, again,
like a house divided, may we remember the price those fallen heroes
paid to preserve our Union. And may we also remember the duty we each
bear to preserve the priceless gift for which they gave their lives--
this Nation, free and undivided.
On a related note, I want to take a moment to wish a belated happy
birthday to an American hero who returned from war. Sgt. Victor Butler
is that last surviving Tuskegee Airman in his home State of Rhode
Island and one of the last of that legendary Band of Brothers in our
Nation. Last Saturday, May 21, Mr. Butler celebrated his 100th
birthday.
When he was a young man, he and the other members of the Tuskegee
Airmen helped to save the world from the tyranny of fascism--and he
helped to loosen the grip of racism on America. In the weeks before his
100th birthday, Mr. Butler told family and friends all he wanted for
his centennial celebration was a card. He didn't want folks to make a
fuss or go to any great expense.
One of his nieces posted his wish on social media--and word spread.
He thought he might receive a few cards. At last count, Mr. Butler had
received more than 40,000 cards and video greetings from people in
every State in the Union and as far away as Japan, South Korea, and
Germany.
Last Saturday, on his birthday, his hometown held a parade in his
honor. And he received a signed football and a jersey with the number
``100'' on the back, hand-delivered by the owner of his favorite
football team, the New England Patriots--a well-deserved tribute to a
real-life hero.
Like the tradition of Memorial Day, the Tuskegee Airmen have a
special connection to my State. The first airfield where they trained--
before Tuskegee--was Chanute Field in Rantoul, IL, near Champaign. The
spot where that airfield stood is marked proudly today with signs that
read ``Birthplace of the Tuskegee Airmen.'' And in 2016, Illinois
renamed a stretch of Interstate 57 on the South Side of Chicago as the
Tuskegee Airmen Memorial Trail. It is a fitting tribute, given how many
Tuskegee Airman had roots in the Chicago area.
African-Americans have fought and died for America's freedom since
Crispus Attucks became the first American to fall in our War for
Independence.
As the first African-American aviators ever to serve in the U.S. Army
Air Corps, the Tuskegee Airman occupy a special chapter in our Nation's
history. They fought in World War II, at a time when the U.S. Armed
Forces were still segregated, and our Nation was still riven with
racially discriminatory laws and attitudes. Their original mission was
to serve as escort pilots for other American flyers, to protect them
from enemy fire. The Tuskegee Airmen also flew bombing missions
themselves.
Officially, they were known as the 99th Pursuit Squadron and the
332nd Fighter Group. But the pilots whose flights they protected gave
them a nickname. They called them the Red Tails, or the Red-Tailed
Angels, due to the distinctive color on their aircraft
wings. Their leader was the legendary Captain Benjamin O. Davis, Jr.,
who would go on to become the first African-American brigadier general
in the U.S. Air Force. His father, Benjamin O. Davis, Sr., was the
first Black brigadier general in the U.S. Army.
There were a total of 932 Tuskegee Airmen pilots, and another 10,000
Tuskegee Airmen--and women--who served as mechanics, radio operators,
and other essential support positions. They conducted more than 700
bomber escort missions--and they never lost a single lost a single
aircraft--not one. They were the only fighter group in World War II
with a perfect record of protecting bombers.
White U.S. military pilots were permitted to fly no more than 52
missions during World War II. Some Tuskegee Airman flew as many as 100
missions. Sixty-six Tuskegee Airmen died in combat. Thirty-three were
held as prisoners of war.
In March 2007, the Tuskegee Airmen as a group were awarded the
Congressional Gold Medal, the highest honor Congress can bestow. The
ceremony was held in the Rotunda of the Capitol. I will never forget
the sight of 300 Tuskegee Airman dressed in red sports jackets,
saluting the American flag in that hallowed space. Some were in
wheelchairs. But when the National Anthem played, they all rose to
their feet and stood straight and proud.
Just before the Congressional Gold Medal ceremony, I had the
privilege of hosting several Tuskegee Airmen with Illinois roots in my
office. Then-Senator Obama stopped by to pay his respects. It was a
historic and humbling moment.
I met Lt. Colonel George Sherman, who grew up in Moline and joined
the Army Air Corps in 1944 at the age of 18. He had to take the
physical twice; he was rejected the first time because of his buck
teeth, but he didn't give up. He ended up serving 22 years in the Air
Force.
First Lieutenant Shelby Westbook was born in Arkansas and lost both
of his parents when he was just 12. He flew 60 missions over 12
countries in Europe. After the war, he wanted to attend engineering
school. The first school he applied to rejected him because it didn't
accept Black students. He moved to Chicago, earned a degree, and worked
as an electrical engineer for decades.
First Lieutenant Robert Martin famously claimed to have flown ``63
and a half missions.'' On his 64th combat mission, he was shot down
over Yugoslavia. He was hidden by antifascist partisans until he could
return to his unit. After the war, he worked as an electrical engineer
for the city of Chicago for nearly 40 years.
Flight Officer John Lyle--``Captain Jack'' to his friends--grew up on
Chicago's South Side. He flew 26 combat missions. After the war, he
earned a college degree but couldn't find work in his field so, for a
time, he washed windows of downtown skyscrapers. Eventually, he owned
his own insurance agency, a fish and chicken restaurant, and a tree-
trimming service.
Lt. Bev Dunjill flew more than 100 combat missions between World War
II and the Korean war. He later worked for the Illinois Department of
Human Rights.
All of those heroes are gone now. But their valor and impact are not
forgotten. The Tuskegee Airmen and the all-Black Montfort Point Marines
were among nearly 1 million Black Americans who served in World War II.
Most saw the war as a battle on two fronts--one against fascism
overseas and the other against racially discriminatory laws and
attitudes in America.
Their goal, they said, was ``the Double V,'' victory for democracy
overseas and at home. The change at home did not come easily, but it
did come. Three years after World War II ended, President Truman
ordered an end to segregation in the U.S. Armed Forces. And the service
and sacrifice of the Tuskegee Airmen and other Black veterans and
leaders helped set the stage for the civil rights movement of the
1950s, 60s, and 70s.
Today, as the last surviving Tuskegee Airman near their 100th
birthdays and we lose hundreds of World War II veterans each day, we
are painfully aware that the democracy and unity they paid such a high
price for is under threat, both overseas and at home. The peace of
Europe and democracy itself is under fire from Russia in Ukraine. And
our sense of security and national unity seems to be fraying at home.
Violence--especially gun violence--threatens us all, even our children.
Our progress against division and discrimination often feels shaky.
We are pitted against each other by those who believe that conflict and
anger is good for their political interests or their profit sheets. But
it doesn't have to be this way.
As we prepare to remember and honor those who gave their lives for
our freedom, let us resolve to do our part, in our time, to keep our
Nation free and undivided.
| buck | racist |
05/26/2022 | Mr. GRASSLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-05-26-pt1-PgS2741-3 | nan | nan | Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 1988, President Ronald Reagan first
recognized May as National Foster Care Month.
Each year since then, the month of May has been recognized as a time
to bring awareness to youth in foster care.
I thank my colleagues for once again unanimously passing a resolution
to recognize the experiences of youth and families in the foster care
system and celebrate those who work to improve their lives.
Organizations in Iowa and around the country tirelessly serve kids
and families in foster care and the foster parents who open their homes
to kids in need.
I salute these organizations and individuals for their year-round
efforts to support the kids most in need.
In 2020, there were over 400,000 kids in foster care, including over
4,000 kids in Iowa.
During the pandemic, there was a drop in reports of child abuse, as
well as entries into foster care and exits from foster care.
There were the fewest adoptions from foster care since 2016 with
8,000 fewer children being adopted compared to the previous year.
However, Iowa deserves recognition for being one of only nine States
to increase adoptions from foster care during 2020.
Permanency for youth in foster care is so important, and I am glad
that Iowa continued to make this a priority during the pandemic.
Older youth in foster care and adults who experienced foster care as
a child can speak to what worked for them and what didn't work.
These young adults should always have a seat at the table.
When I founded the Senate Caucus on Foster Youth in 2009, the special
focus was to hear directly from youth themselves.
Over and over again, I have heard the same thing from kids in foster
care: They want a mom and dad. They want a family and a place to call
home.
All children, no matter their circumstances, deserve a permanent,
loving home and consistent, caring adults in their lives.
We know that just having one caring and consistent adult can
meaningfully improve the lives of kids in the long-term.
For some kids, this can be a biological parent who receives the
support they need to safely care for their child.
For others, a foster parent, mentor or court-appointed special
advocate can be that adult.
My resolution marks May 31 as a particular day to recognize and show
appreciation for foster parents.
Congress has worked to expand access to prevention services in the
hopes of keeping families out of foster care in the first place.
But in addition to this, it is crucial for foster parents to get the
support they need to continue serving kids in their communities.
In Iowa, almost every county has a shortage of trained foster parents
who are able to provide a temporary home for kids.
Without volunteer foster parents, kids who cannot remain safely at
home end up sleeping in hotels and in the offices of social workers.
Moving forward, Congress must continue to work to find better
solutions and secure better outcomes for youth in foster care.
It is clear that there is no one answer for kids in foster care. Some
can be reunified with their families; others are best cared for by
adoptive parents or a kinship caregiver.
But the goal should always be the same: to protect kids from neglect
and abuse and provide them with love and support.
I thank my colleagues for unanimously passing my resolution honoring
May as National Foster Care Month once again and look forward to
continuing to work on this issue.
| Reagan | white supremacist |
05/26/2022 | Ms. DUCKWORTH | Senate | CREC-2022-05-26-pt1-PgS2749 | nan | nan | Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to
the remarkable life of Retired Colonel James A. Smith, Jr., a 31 year
veteran of the Illinois Army National Guard who passed away on May 11,
2022.
Colonel Smith started his career in 1977 as an enlisted soldier,
commissioning in 1982 through the Illinois Army National Guard's
Officer Candidate School. He served in various staff and leadership
positions throughout his career in the Illinois National Guard.
In 2003, Colonel Smith was appointed as the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Personnel (G-1). In this role, he played an integral role in preparing
Illinois Army National Guard units for deployment to Iraq and then
Afghanistan. In 2008, before his retirement, he was appointed as the
Illinois Army National Guard chief of staff before being appointed the
Illinois Department of Military Affairs chief of staff that same year.
As the IDMA chief of staff, Colonel Smith supported multiple Illinois
National Guard deployments, the Illinois National Guard's response to
floods, hurricanes, and wildfires, the 2012 NATO Summit in Chicago, and
most recently, the Illinois National Guard's COVID-19 response, as well
as law enforcement support missions.
Colonel Smith was proud of being an infantry officer, a devout
Catholic, and an unwavering Cardinals fan. He was a strong advocate for
Lincoln's Challenge Academy and its cadets, the Illinois Military
Family Relief Fund, the Illinois State Military Museum, the National
Guard Association of Illinois, and, most of all, the soldiers and
airmen of the Illinois National Guard and their families.
Colonel Jim Smith's voice will not be heard again in the Illinois
National Guard's buildings or training areas, but his spirit will
remain within this organization for many generations to come. He leaves
behind his wife Nilsa and their son Sam. May his legacy of service and
kind spirit serve as an inspiration to us all.
| Chicago | racist |
05/26/2022 | Ms. ROSEN | Senate | CREC-2022-05-26-pt1-PgS2750-2 | nan | nan | Ms. ROSEN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a
beloved member of the Las Vegas community, Angie Ruvo, who passed away
this month at the age of 98. Recognized as Las Vegas' first celebrity
chef, Angie, along with her husband Lou, her sister Maria, brother-in-
law Al, and son Larry, established the Venetian Pizzeria in downtown
Las Vegas in 1955--the first pizza restaurant in Las Vegas. Later known
as the Venetian Ristorante and Pizzeria, the famed restaurant hosted a
wide array of clientele, ranging from celebrities such as Frank
Sinatra--a customer so loyal he enlisted a bellman to pick up dinner
for him from there every night--to tourists who traveled from across
the country and all over the world to experience the warmth and comfort
of Angie's cooking.
Born in Niagara Falls, Angie became the matriarch of the Las Vegas
restaurant scene almost as soon as she came to Nevada, but her
remarkable legacy in the Silver State goes beyond her business and
culinary achievements. When her late husband Lou was diagnosed with
Alzheimer's, Angie embraced the role of devoted caregiver. Sharing her
own experience and advice with other caregivers became a significant
role for Angie, and she frequently reminded other caregivers of the
importance of self-care. In 2009, Larry Ruvo and his wife Camille
opened the Cleveland Clinic Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health in his
father's memory. In honor of her 94th birthday, Larry and Camille
created the Angie Ruvo Endowed Caregiving Chair, which provides
financial support to caregiving research at the Lou Ruvo Center.
In addition to being a champion for caregivers, Angie dedicated her
life to charitable work in her community and was honored by various
organizations over the years, including receiving the Augustus
Society's Justinian Award, presented to notable Nevada Italian
Americans. A woman praised and recognized by Senators and celebrities
alike--and for whom Nevada Governors issued official proclamations--
Angie lived a life of philanthropy, generosity, and dedication. Her
passing marks an immeasurable loss to her family, our community, and
the Nation. May her memory be a blessing.
| Cleveland | racist |
05/26/2022 | Mr. TESTER | Senate | CREC-2022-05-26-pt1-PgS2750-3 | nan | nan | Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would like to share a few words
today to honor an outstanding Montana educator who is retiring at the
end of this school year.
Kirk Miller has dedicated his career to bettering the lives of the
next generation of Montanans. Over the years, Kirk served as a teacher,
a principal, and a superintendent before being appointed to the Montana
Board of Public Education where he later served as chair. I first got
to know Kirk Miller when I was a State senator, and he was the
superintendent of schools in Havre, MT. I found him to be somebody who
was dedicated above all to the kids' education, somebody who knew the
value of public education and always did his best to make sure our kids
got an education that would allow them to compete in the worldwide
economy. As Bozeman schools superintendent, Kirk played a key role in
improving infrastructure for students for years to come. He championed
numerous successful initiatives that supported that strengthened public
education in the region and serve as a template for other communities
to follow.
At the end of this year, Kirk will be retiring from his most recent
position as executive director of the School Administrators of Montana,
where he has worked tirelessly to support administrators and educators
across the State. Those who have been lucky enough to work with Kirk
recognize that he has a knack for connecting with people, even those
who have different views than his own. And his passion for public
education shines through in everything he does.
Under Kirk's leadership, the School Administrators of Montana
established the Leaders Professional Learning Program, or SAM LPLP, a
mentorship program that brings administrators from across the State
together to receive student-focused, solution-based professional
development training. The SAM LPLP has served more than 500
administrators to date. As a former public school teacher I commend
Kirk for his steadfast commitment to improving our school system from
the top down.
In addition to his work, Kirk has a lot to be proud of--in
particular, the wonderful family he has built with his wife of 42
years, Nan.
A lifelong educator and a dear friend to many, Kirk has shown through
his
kindness and work ethic that he is truly dedicated to bettering the
lives of the next generation of Montanans.
Thank you for your service, Kirk; our Montana schools are better
because of you.
| based | white supremacist |
05/26/2022 | Mr. TESTER | Senate | CREC-2022-05-26-pt1-PgS2750-3 | nan | nan | Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I would like to share a few words
today to honor an outstanding Montana educator who is retiring at the
end of this school year.
Kirk Miller has dedicated his career to bettering the lives of the
next generation of Montanans. Over the years, Kirk served as a teacher,
a principal, and a superintendent before being appointed to the Montana
Board of Public Education where he later served as chair. I first got
to know Kirk Miller when I was a State senator, and he was the
superintendent of schools in Havre, MT. I found him to be somebody who
was dedicated above all to the kids' education, somebody who knew the
value of public education and always did his best to make sure our kids
got an education that would allow them to compete in the worldwide
economy. As Bozeman schools superintendent, Kirk played a key role in
improving infrastructure for students for years to come. He championed
numerous successful initiatives that supported that strengthened public
education in the region and serve as a template for other communities
to follow.
At the end of this year, Kirk will be retiring from his most recent
position as executive director of the School Administrators of Montana,
where he has worked tirelessly to support administrators and educators
across the State. Those who have been lucky enough to work with Kirk
recognize that he has a knack for connecting with people, even those
who have different views than his own. And his passion for public
education shines through in everything he does.
Under Kirk's leadership, the School Administrators of Montana
established the Leaders Professional Learning Program, or SAM LPLP, a
mentorship program that brings administrators from across the State
together to receive student-focused, solution-based professional
development training. The SAM LPLP has served more than 500
administrators to date. As a former public school teacher I commend
Kirk for his steadfast commitment to improving our school system from
the top down.
In addition to his work, Kirk has a lot to be proud of--in
particular, the wonderful family he has built with his wife of 42
years, Nan.
A lifelong educator and a dear friend to many, Kirk has shown through
his
kindness and work ethic that he is truly dedicated to bettering the
lives of the next generation of Montanans.
Thank you for your service, Kirk; our Montana schools are better
because of you.
| public school | racist |
05/26/2022 | Mr. MORAN | Senate | CREC-2022-05-26-pt1-PgS2750 | nan | nan | Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, today, I would like to congratulate
the Benedictine Ravens on a wonderful 2022 season and their NAIA
National Championship victory.
Winning a national championship is no easy feat. It takes years of
dedication, and this championship is the result of that dedication. You
have made your school, as well as our entire State, proud. This
national championship is particularly special as it is the first ever
for the Benedictine Women's Lacrosse team and the first for the college
since 1967.
I know many of you came here to play lacrosse, but along the way, I
hope you have made lifelong friends, learned valuable lessons about
hard work and determination, and given back to this community.
What makes this victory even more special is the adversity these
women had to overcome. Senior Natalie Wechter, the reigning NAIA
National Player of the Year, injured her knee in the semifinals.
Despite this setback, through persistence and grit, the Ravens edged
out their opponents by a score of 9-8.
Winning a national championship is also a full team effort. I would
like to recognize a few outstanding members of the team: Ms. Wechter,
as well as Clare Ryan, Aiden McEnerney, Erica Odell, and Rianna
England, who received All-American honors. Additionally, Ms. Odell was
named the tournament MVP.
It is also worth mentioning that this was head coach Clare Hanson's
first year in the position. I congratulate all on these
accomplishments.
Winning this tournament is one of those things small colleges
remember and discuss for decades. It is a shared win that the whole
Benedictine and Atchison community gets to appreciate and take pride
in.
I commend you and the entire team for your hard work and dedication.
Congratulations to the 2022 NAIA women's lacrosse champion
Ravens.
| Aiden | transphobic |
05/26/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-26-pt1-PgS2755-2 | nan | nan | 3, 2022, AS ``NATIONAL GUN VIOLENCE AWARENESS DAY'' AND JUNE 2022 AS
``NATIONAL GUN VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH''
Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Duckworth, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr.
Blumenthal, Mr. Booker, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Reed, Mr. Cardin,
Mr. Casey, Mr. Markey, Mr. Lujan, and Ms. Baldwin) submitted the
following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary:
S. Res. 651
Whereas, each year in the United States, more than--
(1) 38,500 individuals are killed and 85,000 individuals
are wounded by gunfire;
(2) 15,000 individuals are killed in homicides involving
guns;
(3) 23,000 individuals die by suicide using a gun; and
(4) 490 individuals are killed in unintentional shootings;
Whereas, since 1968, more people have died from guns in the
United States than have died on the battlefields of all the
wars in the history of the United States;
Whereas 2021 was one of the deadliest years on record for
the United States, with an estimated 20,700 people killed in
gun homicides or nonsuicide-related shootings, a 6 percent
increase over 2020;
Whereas unintentional shooting deaths by children recently
increased by nearly \1/3\, comparing incidents in March to
December of 2020 to the same months in 2019;
Whereas, by 1 count, in 2021 in the United States, there
were 693 mass shooting incidents in which at least 4 people
were killed or wounded by gunfire;
Whereas, since 2010, 65,000 veterans of the Armed Forces
have died by suicide in the United States, with the
overwhelming majority of such deaths being the result of a
firearm;
Whereas, every year in the United States, more than 3,500
children and teens are killed by gun violence and 15,000
children and teens are shot and wounded;
Whereas approximately 8,500 people in the United States
under the age of 25 die because of gun violence annually,
including Hadiya Pendleton, who, in 2013, was killed at 15
years of age in Chicago, Illinois, while standing in a park;
Whereas, on June 3, 2022, to recognize the 25th birthday of
Hadiya Pendleton (born June 2, 1997), people across the
United States will recognize National Gun Violence Awareness
Day and wear orange in tribute to--
(1) Hadiya Pendleton and other victims of gun violence; and
(2) the loved ones of those victims; and
Whereas June 2022 is an appropriate month to designate as
``National Gun Violence Awareness Month'': Now, therefore, be
it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) supports--
(A) the designation of June 2022 as ``National Gun Violence
Awareness Month'' and the goals and ideals of that month; and
(B) the designation of June 3, 2022, as ``National Gun
Violence Awareness Day'', in remembrance of the victims of
gun violence; and
(2) calls on the people of the United States to--
(A) promote greater awareness of gun violence and gun
safety;
(B) wear orange, the color that hunters wear to show that
they are not targets, on National Gun Violence Awareness Day;
(C) concentrate heightened attention on gun violence during
the summer months, when gun violence typically increases; and
(D) bring community members and leaders together to discuss
ways to make communities safer.
| Chicago | racist |
05/26/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-26-pt1-PgS2756 | nan | nan | Mr. BROWN (for himself, Ms. Smith, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Merkley, Mr.
Blumenthal, Mr. Markey, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Schatz, Mr. King, Mr. Carper,
Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Casey, Ms. Warren, Mr.
Durbin, Ms. Duckworth, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Baldwin, Mr.
Sanders, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Rosen, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr.
Padilla, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Booker, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Coons, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Warnock, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Warner, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Cardin, Mr.
Hickenlooper, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Wyden, Mr.
Lujan, Mr. Van Hollen, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Peters, Mr. Bennet,
Mr. Tester, Mr. Ossoff, and Mr. Schumer) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Res. 652
Whereas individuals who are lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and queer (referred to in this preamble as
``LGBTQ'') include individuals from--
(1) all States, territories, and the District of Columbia;
and
(2) all faiths, races, national origins, socioeconomic
statuses, disability statuses, education levels, and
political beliefs;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States have made,
and continue to make, vital contributions to the United
States and to the world in every aspect, including in the
fields of education, law, health, business, science,
research, economic development, architecture, fashion,
sports, government, music, film, politics, technology,
literature, and civil rights;
Whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has compounded the systemic
inequality that LGBTQ individuals face in the healthcare,
employment, and housing systems in the United States, which
has led to a disparate impact on LGBTQ individuals;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States served on
the front lines during the COVID-19 pandemic as doctors,
nurses, medical professionals, law enforcement officers,
firefighters, and first responders in all States,
territories, and the District of Columbia;
Whereas the persistent failure of Federal and State
officials to collect full and accurate data on sexual
orientation and gender identity causes tremendous harm to
LGBTQ individuals in the United States, who remain largely
invisible to the government entities entrusted with ensuring
their health, safety, and well-being;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States serve, and
have served, in the United States Army, Coast Guard, Navy,
Air Force, and Marines honorably and with distinction and
bravery;
Whereas a decades-long Federal policy, known as the
``Lavender Scare'', threatened and intimidated Federal public
servants from employment due to their sexual orientation by
alleging LGBTQ individuals posed a threat to national
security, preventing many more from entering the workforce;
Whereas an estimated number of more than 100,000 brave
service members were discharged from the Armed Forces of the
United States between the beginning of World War II and 2011
because of their sexual orientation, including the discharge
of more than 13,000 service members under the ``Don't Ask,
Don't Tell'' policy in place between 1994 and 2011;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States serve, and
have served, in positions in the Federal Government and State
and local governments, including as members of Congress,
Cabinet Secretaries, Governors, mayors, and city council
members;
Whereas the demonstrators who protested on June 28, 1969,
following a law enforcement raid of the Stonewall Inn, an
LGBTQ club in New York City, are pioneers of the LGBTQ
movement for equality;
Whereas, throughout much of the history of the United
States, same-sex relationships were criminalized in many
States, and many LGBTQ individuals in the United States were
forced to hide their LGBTQ identities while living in secrecy
and fear;
Whereas, on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United
States ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015),
that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry
and acknowledged that ``[n]o union is more profound than
marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love,
fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family'';
Whereas efforts to overturn nearly 50 years of legal
precedent, established through Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113
(1973), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992),
which has affirmed the constitutional right to terminate a
pregnancy, could potentially undermine and erode other
constitutional rights also grounded in privacy, including the
right of same-sex couples to marry and even the right to
engage in consensual same-sex relationships without risking
criminal prosecution;
Whereas Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (referred to in
this preamble as ``AIDS'') has disproportionately impacted
LGBTQ individuals in the United States, due in part to a lack
of funding and research devoted to finding effective
treatments for AIDS and the Human Immunodeficiency Virus
(referred to in this preamble as ``HIV'') during the early
stages of the HIV and AIDS epidemic;
Whereas gay and bisexual men and transgender women of color
have a higher risk of contracting HIV;
Whereas the LGBTQ community maintains its unwavering
commitment to ending the HIV and AIDS epidemic;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States face
disparities in employment, healthcare, education, housing,
and many other areas central to the pursuit of happiness in
the United States;
Whereas 28 States have no explicit ban on discrimination
based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the
workplace, housing, or public accommodations, and 34 States
have no explicit ban on discrimination against LGBTQ
individuals in education;
Whereas LGBTQ youth are at increased risk of--
(1) suicide;
(2) homelessness;
(3) becoming victims of bullying, violence, or human
trafficking; and
(4) developing mental health conditions, including anxiety
and depression;
Whereas only 13 States and the District of Columbia have
explicit policies in place to protect foster youth from
discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender
identity;
Whereas LGBTQ youth of color are overrepresented in child
welfare and juvenile justice systems;
Whereas the LGBTQ community has faced discrimination,
inequality, and violence throughout the history of the United
States;
Whereas State legislatures across the country have
introduced and passed harmful legislation specifically
targeting LGBTQ youth, particularly transgender youth, and
their ability to obtain access to healthcare, participate in
athletic activities, and learn about race, gender, and
sexuality in schools;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States, in
particular transgender individuals, face a disproportionately
high risk of becoming victims of violent hate crimes;
Whereas members of the LGBTQ community have been targeted
in acts of mass violence, including--
(1) the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida, on
June 12, 2016, where 49 people were killed and 53 people were
wounded; and
(2) the arson attack at the UpStairs Lounge in New Orleans,
Louisiana, on June 24, 1973, where 32 people died;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States face
persecution, violence, and death in many parts of the world,
including State-sponsored violence;
Whereas, in the several years preceding 2019, hundreds of
LGBTQ individuals around the world were arrested and, in some
cases, tortured or even executed because of their actual or
perceived sexual orientation or gender identity in countries
and territories such as Chechnya, Egypt, Indonesia, and
Tanzania;
Whereas, in May 2019, Taiwan became the first place in Asia
to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples;
Whereas, since June 2019, Ecuador, Northern Ireland, and
Costa Rica have extended marriage rights to same-sex couples,
the most recent country-wide extensions of those rights in
the world;
Whereas the LGBTQ community holds Pride festivals and
marches in some of the most dangerous places in the world,
despite threats of violence and arrest;
Whereas, in 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Matthew
Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
(division E of Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2835) into law to
protect all individuals in the United States from crimes
motivated by their actual or perceived sexual orientation or
gender identity;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States have fought
for equal treatment, dignity, and respect;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States have
achieved significant milestones, ensuring that future
generations of LGBTQ individuals in the United States will
enjoy a more equal and just society;
Whereas, despite being marginalized throughout the history
of the United States, LGBTQ individuals in the United States
continue to celebrate their identities, love, and
contributions to the United States in various expressions of
Pride;
Whereas Pride is a celebration of visibility in spite of
marginalization, and the LGBTQ community will continue to
observe this significant cultural practice even though
physical Pride celebrations may be compromised in June 2022
due to the health and safety needs of all individuals
involved;
Whereas, in June 2020, the Supreme Court of the United
States affirmed that existing civil rights laws prohibit
employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
and gender identity, a landmark victory for the LGBTQ
community; and
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States remain
determined to pursue full equality, respect, and inclusion
for all individuals regardless of sexual orientation or
gender identity: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) supports the rights, freedoms, and equal treatment of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (referred to
in this resolution as ``LGBTQ'') individuals in the United
States and around the world;
(2) acknowledges that LGBTQ rights are human rights that
are to be protected by the laws of the United States and
numerous international treaties and conventions;
(3) supports efforts to ensure the equal treatment of all
individuals in the United States, regardless of sexual
orientation and gender identity;
(4) supports efforts to ensure that the United States
remains a beacon of hope for the equal treatment of
individuals around the world, including LGBTQ individuals;
and
(5) encourages the celebration of June as ``LGBTQ Pride
Month'' in order to provide a lasting opportunity for all
individuals in the United States--
(A) to learn about the discrimination and inequality that
the LGBTQ community endured and continues to endure; and
(B) to celebrate the contributions of the LGBTQ community
throughout the history of the United States.
| based | white supremacist |
05/26/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-26-pt1-PgS2756 | nan | nan | Mr. BROWN (for himself, Ms. Smith, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Merkley, Mr.
Blumenthal, Mr. Markey, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Schatz, Mr. King, Mr. Carper,
Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Casey, Ms. Warren, Mr.
Durbin, Ms. Duckworth, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Baldwin, Mr.
Sanders, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Rosen, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr.
Padilla, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Booker, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Coons, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Warnock, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Warner, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Cardin, Mr.
Hickenlooper, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Wyden, Mr.
Lujan, Mr. Van Hollen, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Peters, Mr. Bennet,
Mr. Tester, Mr. Ossoff, and Mr. Schumer) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Res. 652
Whereas individuals who are lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and queer (referred to in this preamble as
``LGBTQ'') include individuals from--
(1) all States, territories, and the District of Columbia;
and
(2) all faiths, races, national origins, socioeconomic
statuses, disability statuses, education levels, and
political beliefs;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States have made,
and continue to make, vital contributions to the United
States and to the world in every aspect, including in the
fields of education, law, health, business, science,
research, economic development, architecture, fashion,
sports, government, music, film, politics, technology,
literature, and civil rights;
Whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has compounded the systemic
inequality that LGBTQ individuals face in the healthcare,
employment, and housing systems in the United States, which
has led to a disparate impact on LGBTQ individuals;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States served on
the front lines during the COVID-19 pandemic as doctors,
nurses, medical professionals, law enforcement officers,
firefighters, and first responders in all States,
territories, and the District of Columbia;
Whereas the persistent failure of Federal and State
officials to collect full and accurate data on sexual
orientation and gender identity causes tremendous harm to
LGBTQ individuals in the United States, who remain largely
invisible to the government entities entrusted with ensuring
their health, safety, and well-being;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States serve, and
have served, in the United States Army, Coast Guard, Navy,
Air Force, and Marines honorably and with distinction and
bravery;
Whereas a decades-long Federal policy, known as the
``Lavender Scare'', threatened and intimidated Federal public
servants from employment due to their sexual orientation by
alleging LGBTQ individuals posed a threat to national
security, preventing many more from entering the workforce;
Whereas an estimated number of more than 100,000 brave
service members were discharged from the Armed Forces of the
United States between the beginning of World War II and 2011
because of their sexual orientation, including the discharge
of more than 13,000 service members under the ``Don't Ask,
Don't Tell'' policy in place between 1994 and 2011;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States serve, and
have served, in positions in the Federal Government and State
and local governments, including as members of Congress,
Cabinet Secretaries, Governors, mayors, and city council
members;
Whereas the demonstrators who protested on June 28, 1969,
following a law enforcement raid of the Stonewall Inn, an
LGBTQ club in New York City, are pioneers of the LGBTQ
movement for equality;
Whereas, throughout much of the history of the United
States, same-sex relationships were criminalized in many
States, and many LGBTQ individuals in the United States were
forced to hide their LGBTQ identities while living in secrecy
and fear;
Whereas, on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United
States ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015),
that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry
and acknowledged that ``[n]o union is more profound than
marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love,
fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family'';
Whereas efforts to overturn nearly 50 years of legal
precedent, established through Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113
(1973), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992),
which has affirmed the constitutional right to terminate a
pregnancy, could potentially undermine and erode other
constitutional rights also grounded in privacy, including the
right of same-sex couples to marry and even the right to
engage in consensual same-sex relationships without risking
criminal prosecution;
Whereas Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (referred to in
this preamble as ``AIDS'') has disproportionately impacted
LGBTQ individuals in the United States, due in part to a lack
of funding and research devoted to finding effective
treatments for AIDS and the Human Immunodeficiency Virus
(referred to in this preamble as ``HIV'') during the early
stages of the HIV and AIDS epidemic;
Whereas gay and bisexual men and transgender women of color
have a higher risk of contracting HIV;
Whereas the LGBTQ community maintains its unwavering
commitment to ending the HIV and AIDS epidemic;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States face
disparities in employment, healthcare, education, housing,
and many other areas central to the pursuit of happiness in
the United States;
Whereas 28 States have no explicit ban on discrimination
based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the
workplace, housing, or public accommodations, and 34 States
have no explicit ban on discrimination against LGBTQ
individuals in education;
Whereas LGBTQ youth are at increased risk of--
(1) suicide;
(2) homelessness;
(3) becoming victims of bullying, violence, or human
trafficking; and
(4) developing mental health conditions, including anxiety
and depression;
Whereas only 13 States and the District of Columbia have
explicit policies in place to protect foster youth from
discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender
identity;
Whereas LGBTQ youth of color are overrepresented in child
welfare and juvenile justice systems;
Whereas the LGBTQ community has faced discrimination,
inequality, and violence throughout the history of the United
States;
Whereas State legislatures across the country have
introduced and passed harmful legislation specifically
targeting LGBTQ youth, particularly transgender youth, and
their ability to obtain access to healthcare, participate in
athletic activities, and learn about race, gender, and
sexuality in schools;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States, in
particular transgender individuals, face a disproportionately
high risk of becoming victims of violent hate crimes;
Whereas members of the LGBTQ community have been targeted
in acts of mass violence, including--
(1) the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida, on
June 12, 2016, where 49 people were killed and 53 people were
wounded; and
(2) the arson attack at the UpStairs Lounge in New Orleans,
Louisiana, on June 24, 1973, where 32 people died;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States face
persecution, violence, and death in many parts of the world,
including State-sponsored violence;
Whereas, in the several years preceding 2019, hundreds of
LGBTQ individuals around the world were arrested and, in some
cases, tortured or even executed because of their actual or
perceived sexual orientation or gender identity in countries
and territories such as Chechnya, Egypt, Indonesia, and
Tanzania;
Whereas, in May 2019, Taiwan became the first place in Asia
to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples;
Whereas, since June 2019, Ecuador, Northern Ireland, and
Costa Rica have extended marriage rights to same-sex couples,
the most recent country-wide extensions of those rights in
the world;
Whereas the LGBTQ community holds Pride festivals and
marches in some of the most dangerous places in the world,
despite threats of violence and arrest;
Whereas, in 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Matthew
Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
(division E of Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2835) into law to
protect all individuals in the United States from crimes
motivated by their actual or perceived sexual orientation or
gender identity;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States have fought
for equal treatment, dignity, and respect;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States have
achieved significant milestones, ensuring that future
generations of LGBTQ individuals in the United States will
enjoy a more equal and just society;
Whereas, despite being marginalized throughout the history
of the United States, LGBTQ individuals in the United States
continue to celebrate their identities, love, and
contributions to the United States in various expressions of
Pride;
Whereas Pride is a celebration of visibility in spite of
marginalization, and the LGBTQ community will continue to
observe this significant cultural practice even though
physical Pride celebrations may be compromised in June 2022
due to the health and safety needs of all individuals
involved;
Whereas, in June 2020, the Supreme Court of the United
States affirmed that existing civil rights laws prohibit
employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
and gender identity, a landmark victory for the LGBTQ
community; and
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States remain
determined to pursue full equality, respect, and inclusion
for all individuals regardless of sexual orientation or
gender identity: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) supports the rights, freedoms, and equal treatment of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (referred to
in this resolution as ``LGBTQ'') individuals in the United
States and around the world;
(2) acknowledges that LGBTQ rights are human rights that
are to be protected by the laws of the United States and
numerous international treaties and conventions;
(3) supports efforts to ensure the equal treatment of all
individuals in the United States, regardless of sexual
orientation and gender identity;
(4) supports efforts to ensure that the United States
remains a beacon of hope for the equal treatment of
individuals around the world, including LGBTQ individuals;
and
(5) encourages the celebration of June as ``LGBTQ Pride
Month'' in order to provide a lasting opportunity for all
individuals in the United States--
(A) to learn about the discrimination and inequality that
the LGBTQ community endured and continues to endure; and
(B) to celebrate the contributions of the LGBTQ community
throughout the history of the United States.
| the Fed | antisemitic |
05/26/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-26-pt1-PgS2756 | nan | nan | Mr. BROWN (for himself, Ms. Smith, Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Merkley, Mr.
Blumenthal, Mr. Markey, Ms. Hassan, Mr. Schatz, Mr. King, Mr. Carper,
Ms. Cantwell, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Whitehouse, Mr. Casey, Ms. Warren, Mr.
Durbin, Ms. Duckworth, Mrs. Gillibrand, Ms. Hirono, Ms. Baldwin, Mr.
Sanders, Mr. Kaine, Ms. Rosen, Ms. Cortez Masto, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr.
Padilla, Mr. Manchin, Mr. Booker, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Coons, Mr. Reed, Mr.
Warnock, Ms. Stabenow, Mr. Warner, Mr. Heinrich, Mr. Cardin, Mr.
Hickenlooper, Mr. Menendez, Mrs. Shaheen, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Wyden, Mr.
Lujan, Mr. Van Hollen, Mrs. Murray, Ms. Sinema, Mr. Peters, Mr. Bennet,
Mr. Tester, Mr. Ossoff, and Mr. Schumer) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary:
S. Res. 652
Whereas individuals who are lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and queer (referred to in this preamble as
``LGBTQ'') include individuals from--
(1) all States, territories, and the District of Columbia;
and
(2) all faiths, races, national origins, socioeconomic
statuses, disability statuses, education levels, and
political beliefs;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States have made,
and continue to make, vital contributions to the United
States and to the world in every aspect, including in the
fields of education, law, health, business, science,
research, economic development, architecture, fashion,
sports, government, music, film, politics, technology,
literature, and civil rights;
Whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has compounded the systemic
inequality that LGBTQ individuals face in the healthcare,
employment, and housing systems in the United States, which
has led to a disparate impact on LGBTQ individuals;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States served on
the front lines during the COVID-19 pandemic as doctors,
nurses, medical professionals, law enforcement officers,
firefighters, and first responders in all States,
territories, and the District of Columbia;
Whereas the persistent failure of Federal and State
officials to collect full and accurate data on sexual
orientation and gender identity causes tremendous harm to
LGBTQ individuals in the United States, who remain largely
invisible to the government entities entrusted with ensuring
their health, safety, and well-being;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States serve, and
have served, in the United States Army, Coast Guard, Navy,
Air Force, and Marines honorably and with distinction and
bravery;
Whereas a decades-long Federal policy, known as the
``Lavender Scare'', threatened and intimidated Federal public
servants from employment due to their sexual orientation by
alleging LGBTQ individuals posed a threat to national
security, preventing many more from entering the workforce;
Whereas an estimated number of more than 100,000 brave
service members were discharged from the Armed Forces of the
United States between the beginning of World War II and 2011
because of their sexual orientation, including the discharge
of more than 13,000 service members under the ``Don't Ask,
Don't Tell'' policy in place between 1994 and 2011;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States serve, and
have served, in positions in the Federal Government and State
and local governments, including as members of Congress,
Cabinet Secretaries, Governors, mayors, and city council
members;
Whereas the demonstrators who protested on June 28, 1969,
following a law enforcement raid of the Stonewall Inn, an
LGBTQ club in New York City, are pioneers of the LGBTQ
movement for equality;
Whereas, throughout much of the history of the United
States, same-sex relationships were criminalized in many
States, and many LGBTQ individuals in the United States were
forced to hide their LGBTQ identities while living in secrecy
and fear;
Whereas, on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United
States ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015),
that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry
and acknowledged that ``[n]o union is more profound than
marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love,
fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family'';
Whereas efforts to overturn nearly 50 years of legal
precedent, established through Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113
(1973), and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992),
which has affirmed the constitutional right to terminate a
pregnancy, could potentially undermine and erode other
constitutional rights also grounded in privacy, including the
right of same-sex couples to marry and even the right to
engage in consensual same-sex relationships without risking
criminal prosecution;
Whereas Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (referred to in
this preamble as ``AIDS'') has disproportionately impacted
LGBTQ individuals in the United States, due in part to a lack
of funding and research devoted to finding effective
treatments for AIDS and the Human Immunodeficiency Virus
(referred to in this preamble as ``HIV'') during the early
stages of the HIV and AIDS epidemic;
Whereas gay and bisexual men and transgender women of color
have a higher risk of contracting HIV;
Whereas the LGBTQ community maintains its unwavering
commitment to ending the HIV and AIDS epidemic;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States face
disparities in employment, healthcare, education, housing,
and many other areas central to the pursuit of happiness in
the United States;
Whereas 28 States have no explicit ban on discrimination
based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the
workplace, housing, or public accommodations, and 34 States
have no explicit ban on discrimination against LGBTQ
individuals in education;
Whereas LGBTQ youth are at increased risk of--
(1) suicide;
(2) homelessness;
(3) becoming victims of bullying, violence, or human
trafficking; and
(4) developing mental health conditions, including anxiety
and depression;
Whereas only 13 States and the District of Columbia have
explicit policies in place to protect foster youth from
discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender
identity;
Whereas LGBTQ youth of color are overrepresented in child
welfare and juvenile justice systems;
Whereas the LGBTQ community has faced discrimination,
inequality, and violence throughout the history of the United
States;
Whereas State legislatures across the country have
introduced and passed harmful legislation specifically
targeting LGBTQ youth, particularly transgender youth, and
their ability to obtain access to healthcare, participate in
athletic activities, and learn about race, gender, and
sexuality in schools;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States, in
particular transgender individuals, face a disproportionately
high risk of becoming victims of violent hate crimes;
Whereas members of the LGBTQ community have been targeted
in acts of mass violence, including--
(1) the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, Florida, on
June 12, 2016, where 49 people were killed and 53 people were
wounded; and
(2) the arson attack at the UpStairs Lounge in New Orleans,
Louisiana, on June 24, 1973, where 32 people died;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States face
persecution, violence, and death in many parts of the world,
including State-sponsored violence;
Whereas, in the several years preceding 2019, hundreds of
LGBTQ individuals around the world were arrested and, in some
cases, tortured or even executed because of their actual or
perceived sexual orientation or gender identity in countries
and territories such as Chechnya, Egypt, Indonesia, and
Tanzania;
Whereas, in May 2019, Taiwan became the first place in Asia
to extend marriage rights to same-sex couples;
Whereas, since June 2019, Ecuador, Northern Ireland, and
Costa Rica have extended marriage rights to same-sex couples,
the most recent country-wide extensions of those rights in
the world;
Whereas the LGBTQ community holds Pride festivals and
marches in some of the most dangerous places in the world,
despite threats of violence and arrest;
Whereas, in 2009, President Barack Obama signed the Matthew
Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
(division E of Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2835) into law to
protect all individuals in the United States from crimes
motivated by their actual or perceived sexual orientation or
gender identity;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States have fought
for equal treatment, dignity, and respect;
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States have
achieved significant milestones, ensuring that future
generations of LGBTQ individuals in the United States will
enjoy a more equal and just society;
Whereas, despite being marginalized throughout the history
of the United States, LGBTQ individuals in the United States
continue to celebrate their identities, love, and
contributions to the United States in various expressions of
Pride;
Whereas Pride is a celebration of visibility in spite of
marginalization, and the LGBTQ community will continue to
observe this significant cultural practice even though
physical Pride celebrations may be compromised in June 2022
due to the health and safety needs of all individuals
involved;
Whereas, in June 2020, the Supreme Court of the United
States affirmed that existing civil rights laws prohibit
employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
and gender identity, a landmark victory for the LGBTQ
community; and
Whereas LGBTQ individuals in the United States remain
determined to pursue full equality, respect, and inclusion
for all individuals regardless of sexual orientation or
gender identity: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) supports the rights, freedoms, and equal treatment of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (referred to
in this resolution as ``LGBTQ'') individuals in the United
States and around the world;
(2) acknowledges that LGBTQ rights are human rights that
are to be protected by the laws of the United States and
numerous international treaties and conventions;
(3) supports efforts to ensure the equal treatment of all
individuals in the United States, regardless of sexual
orientation and gender identity;
(4) supports efforts to ensure that the United States
remains a beacon of hope for the equal treatment of
individuals around the world, including LGBTQ individuals;
and
(5) encourages the celebration of June as ``LGBTQ Pride
Month'' in order to provide a lasting opportunity for all
individuals in the United States--
(A) to learn about the discrimination and inequality that
the LGBTQ community endured and continues to endure; and
(B) to celebrate the contributions of the LGBTQ community
throughout the history of the United States.
| welfare | racist |
05/25/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-25-pt1-PgS2695-2 | nan | nan | Nomination of Todd M. Harper
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support Todd Harper's
nomination. He came out of my and Senator Smith's and the Presiding
Officer Senator Ossoff's committee to be Chairman of the National
Credit Union Administration.
Mr. Harper is an experienced regulator. He has the background,
knowledge, and leadership experience to safeguard the credit union
system, a very important component of our financial system, and to
protect millions of credit union members.
We know that credit unions, more than Wall Street banks, really look
out for the little guy and regular people and people who are, you know,
mostly solidly middle class or aspiring to the middle class.
A career public servant with midwestern roots, Todd Harper
understands the vital role that credit unions play in local
communities, especially rural and underserved communities.
Being the first openly gay leader of any Federal financial regulatory
Agency, the first NCUA career staff member to serve on the NCUA Board,
he brings a vitally important perspective. We know that prior to this
President taking over and my becoming chair of the Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs Committee, we know most of the Federal regulators
look like me and walk like Wall Street. Those days are behind us.
Another reason for Todd Harper's nomination to NCUA.
Throughout his career as an NCUA Board member and Chair, he has
worked with both parties. He has worked for advocates and industry to
strengthen credit unions to fight for consumers. In 2019, the Senate
confirmed Mr. Harper by voice vote to the three-member NCUA Board. In
2021, President Biden designated him as Chair.
As Chair of the NCUA, he has worked with his fellow Board members to
advance bipartisan efforts on important issues facing credit unions and
their members, like digital assets and emergency capital investment.
Prior to serving on the Board, he was Director of the Office of
Public and Congressional Affairs. He was Chief Policy Advisor to former
Chairs Deborah Matz and Rick Metsger.
Mr. Harper previously served as a staffer in the House of
Representatives, as staff director for the Subcommittee on Capital
Markets.
If confirmed, he will continue to work collaboratively. It is what we
ask him to do, to represent all taxpayers to ensure that our credit
union system is safe, sound, and works for all its members.
Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support the nomination of
Todd Harper.
I yield the floor.
| safeguard | transphobic |
05/25/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-25-pt1-PgS2695-2 | nan | nan | Nomination of Todd M. Harper
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support Todd Harper's
nomination. He came out of my and Senator Smith's and the Presiding
Officer Senator Ossoff's committee to be Chairman of the National
Credit Union Administration.
Mr. Harper is an experienced regulator. He has the background,
knowledge, and leadership experience to safeguard the credit union
system, a very important component of our financial system, and to
protect millions of credit union members.
We know that credit unions, more than Wall Street banks, really look
out for the little guy and regular people and people who are, you know,
mostly solidly middle class or aspiring to the middle class.
A career public servant with midwestern roots, Todd Harper
understands the vital role that credit unions play in local
communities, especially rural and underserved communities.
Being the first openly gay leader of any Federal financial regulatory
Agency, the first NCUA career staff member to serve on the NCUA Board,
he brings a vitally important perspective. We know that prior to this
President taking over and my becoming chair of the Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs Committee, we know most of the Federal regulators
look like me and walk like Wall Street. Those days are behind us.
Another reason for Todd Harper's nomination to NCUA.
Throughout his career as an NCUA Board member and Chair, he has
worked with both parties. He has worked for advocates and industry to
strengthen credit unions to fight for consumers. In 2019, the Senate
confirmed Mr. Harper by voice vote to the three-member NCUA Board. In
2021, President Biden designated him as Chair.
As Chair of the NCUA, he has worked with his fellow Board members to
advance bipartisan efforts on important issues facing credit unions and
their members, like digital assets and emergency capital investment.
Prior to serving on the Board, he was Director of the Office of
Public and Congressional Affairs. He was Chief Policy Advisor to former
Chairs Deborah Matz and Rick Metsger.
Mr. Harper previously served as a staffer in the House of
Representatives, as staff director for the Subcommittee on Capital
Markets.
If confirmed, he will continue to work collaboratively. It is what we
ask him to do, to represent all taxpayers to ensure that our credit
union system is safe, sound, and works for all its members.
Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support the nomination of
Todd Harper.
I yield the floor.
| middle class | racist |
05/25/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-25-pt1-PgS2695-2 | nan | nan | Nomination of Todd M. Harper
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support Todd Harper's
nomination. He came out of my and Senator Smith's and the Presiding
Officer Senator Ossoff's committee to be Chairman of the National
Credit Union Administration.
Mr. Harper is an experienced regulator. He has the background,
knowledge, and leadership experience to safeguard the credit union
system, a very important component of our financial system, and to
protect millions of credit union members.
We know that credit unions, more than Wall Street banks, really look
out for the little guy and regular people and people who are, you know,
mostly solidly middle class or aspiring to the middle class.
A career public servant with midwestern roots, Todd Harper
understands the vital role that credit unions play in local
communities, especially rural and underserved communities.
Being the first openly gay leader of any Federal financial regulatory
Agency, the first NCUA career staff member to serve on the NCUA Board,
he brings a vitally important perspective. We know that prior to this
President taking over and my becoming chair of the Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs Committee, we know most of the Federal regulators
look like me and walk like Wall Street. Those days are behind us.
Another reason for Todd Harper's nomination to NCUA.
Throughout his career as an NCUA Board member and Chair, he has
worked with both parties. He has worked for advocates and industry to
strengthen credit unions to fight for consumers. In 2019, the Senate
confirmed Mr. Harper by voice vote to the three-member NCUA Board. In
2021, President Biden designated him as Chair.
As Chair of the NCUA, he has worked with his fellow Board members to
advance bipartisan efforts on important issues facing credit unions and
their members, like digital assets and emergency capital investment.
Prior to serving on the Board, he was Director of the Office of
Public and Congressional Affairs. He was Chief Policy Advisor to former
Chairs Deborah Matz and Rick Metsger.
Mr. Harper previously served as a staffer in the House of
Representatives, as staff director for the Subcommittee on Capital
Markets.
If confirmed, he will continue to work collaboratively. It is what we
ask him to do, to represent all taxpayers to ensure that our credit
union system is safe, sound, and works for all its members.
Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support the nomination of
Todd Harper.
I yield the floor.
| the Fed | antisemitic |
05/25/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-25-pt1-PgS2694 | nan | nan | Robb Elementary School Shooting
Madam President, I can't leave the floor of the Senate today without
talking about the heartbreaking shooting that took place at Robb
Elementary School in Texas yesterday.
Nineteen children, two teachers at an elementary school. These were
kids who were excited for summer, playdates with their friends--
murdered by weapons of war.
This carnage is happening right here in America in fourth grade
classrooms.
My heart breaks for the family and loved ones of these kids and their
teachers, not to mention the kids and educators who will carry the
trauma of that day with them for the rest of their lives.
But I am also furious. A lot of people have characterized this
tragedy as ``unthinkable.'' But at this point, this kind of tragedy is
not unthinkable. Parents in Washington State and everywhere else in
America think about this all the time. They think about it every day
when they drop off their kids at school. How can you not? They thought
about it after the shooting in Buffalo at a grocery store 10 days
earlier. They think about it every time there is another mass shooting,
which is far, far too often--3,865 times since the Sandy Hook school
shooting 10 years ago, to be exact.
What is unthinkable is that every time this happens, nothing changes.
Every time, Republicans stand in the way of meaningful action. That is
not just unthinkable; it is unacceptable.
But we don't have to live like this. This is a solvable problem.
Republicans need to have the courage, the decency, the basic concern
for the lives of our kids to work with Democrats on commonsense gun
safety reforms.
They need to decide should school be a place where our kids and
teachers feel safe, where they can talk about homework and class
projects, where they can be kids and laugh about whatever happened
during lunch or art class? Or will they continue to be a place where
school shooter drills are as routine as recess or algebra for our kids?
I want my colleagues to consider that.
What message are you sending to parents and kids, to teachers and
students if you won't even allow a debate on commonsense measures like
universal background checks?
I have heard Republican lawmakers talk about the need to have police
officers at every school. I wish it were that simple, but we know it is
not.
We saw yesterday that having an armed officer onsite at schools will
not solve this crisis, despite the best efforts of law enforcement.
Some Republicans have suggested arming teachers. Are you kidding? Can
you hear yourself? Teachers did not sign up to be soldiers, and guns
have no place in our classroom.
Some Republicans will say: Well, this is a mental health issue. So
let me be clear: America is facing a mental health and substance use
disorder crisis. It is serious. It requires urgency, and I am actively
working on bipartisan legislation to expand access to prevention and
treatment and recovery services.
But I want to make this plain: The majority of people with mental
illness do not commit violence against others.
Treating gun violence as a mental health issue rather than a gun
issue will never get us to the root cause of these horrific shootings.
If we want to get at the heart of really stopping gun violence, I beg
my colleagues to pull their heads out of the sand and finally start
talking about what can really address this crisis of gun violence:
commonsense gun safety legislation--and there is no getting around it--
universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.
Now, I am ready to work with any Republican to make any kind of
meaningful progress here. States like mine have made good progress on
gun safety measures to keep our communities safe, but we cannot count
on a patchwork of laws where one State requires background checks and
another one right next door does not. We need Federal action. We need
to get something done.
To my constituents in Washington State and the American people, I
know and understand it can be disheartening to parents around the
country to see the continued Republican obstruction on gun safety in
Congress. Change is not easy, but let me be clear: Doing nothing and
letting this continue to happen is the most extreme option on the
table.
I have come to the floor of the Senate countless times to call for
action to keep our kids and our families safe from gun violence, just
to have Republicans block our efforts again and again. It is
frustrating. It is infuriating. But I will keep pushing for gun safety
laws that the majority of Americans do support because we cannot give
up. That is what the NRA and other extremists want us to do. The vast
majority of Americans have made clear, they want an end to gun
violence.
And I refuse to let Republicans get away with this yet again, to
dance around the real issue, to distract us with conversations about
arming teachers or tripwires outside elementary schools. Enough.
Enough.
We need to force Republicans to bear witness to the tragic
consequences of their inaction. We need people and families across the
country to do the same. No one gets to look away. No one gets to change
the subject. I promise all of the students and parents, grandparents,
teachers, everyone in Washington State that despite the obstruction and
silence from my Republican colleagues, I will not stay quiet and I will
keep pushing for change and I really hope the American people will do
the same.
Using our voices and our votes, we can change things. We can hold
Republicans accountable, and we can make progress to end gun violence.
I yield the floor. | extremists | Islamophobic |
05/18/2022 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2022-05-18-pt1-PgS2588-2 | nan | nan | By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell,
Mr. Carper, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Schatz, Mr.
Warnock, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr.
Whitehouse):
S. 4255. A bill to authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices
within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice,
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic
terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to
prevent domestic terrorism; to the Committee on the Judiciary. | terrorist | Islamophobic |
05/24/2022 | The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore | Senate | CREC-2022-05-24-pt1-PgS2637-7 | nan | nan | The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of
the following nomination, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of Dara
Lindenbaum, of Virginia, to be a Member of the Federal Election
Commission for a term expiring April 30, 2027. | the Fed | antisemitic |
05/24/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-24-pt1-PgS2638-3 | nan | nan | Election Laws
Mr. President, now on an entirely different matter, 5 months ago,
Democrats in the media were saying the sky was falling because of some
States' mainstream voting laws. Georgia passed a voting law that was
more open
than the rules on the books in blue States like New York and Delaware.
Texas passed a law that switched off some one-time COVID exceptions,
like keeping polls open in the middle of the night.
These mainstream laws brought a torrent--a torrent--of hysteria from
the far left, from corporate America, Hollywood, and the corporate
media rushed to condemn laws they hadn't even read. It was almost
completely untethered from reality. One poll a few months back found
that less than half of 1 percent of Americans said voting laws were the
country's most important problem. More Americans actually believe
current voting laws are too lax than believe they are too restrictive.
But the far left bubble became fixated--fixated--on this nonissue.
The manufactured outrage just kept coming. At the peak of the
crescendo a few months back, 48 of 50 Senate Democrats voted to break
this institution--to break this institution--to ram through a 3-year-
old voting takeover bill on a partisan basis. That is how close we
came.
Now, fortunately, a bipartisan majority saved the Senate as an
institution, and now, we are seeing the hard evidence that, as we all
knew, the hysteria was never based on fact to begin with.
Georgia's primary election day is today. But we already know a lot,
thanks to early voting figures.
And here was a Washington Post headline a few days ago, ``Voting is
surging in Georgia despite controversial new election law.''
The story goes on:
[R]ecord-breaking turnout is undercutting predictions that
the Georgia Election Integrity Act . . . would lead to a
falloff in voting. By the end of Friday, the final day of
early in-person voting, nearly 800,000 Georgians had cast
ballots--more than three times--three times the number in
2018, and--
Listen to this--
higher even than in 2020, a presidential year.
Turnout is up despite the fact that fewer Georgians are availing
themselves of the State's no-excuse mail-in voting. Georgians are
getting back to in-person voting, a return to prepandemic norms, and
doing so in huge, huge numbers.
The reporter quoted one 70-year-old Black voter who was stunned by
the easiness of the voting process after all the disinformation that
had been thrown around.
Here is what she said:
I had heard that they were going to try to deter us in any
way possible . . . [so] [t]o go in there and vote as easily
as I did . . . I was really thrown back.
Shame--shame--on the Democrats who pushed the Big Lie that a grand
scheme was afoot to prevent millions of Americans from voting. It was
never true. It was just to push their preexisting policy agenda. The
fake hysteria was just a pretext to push a sweeping national takeover
of election laws that Democrats had already had on the shelf for a
number of years.
Now the rhetoric is proving false right before our eyes. These
commonsense Republican laws appear to be achieving just what the
American people want. The American people want to make it easier to
vote and harder to cheat.
This whole episode proves exactly why our democracy still needs its
cooling saucer. This is exactly the reason why the U.S. Senate exists,
so that one party cannot lose its head to a short-term fever and upend
massive Federal laws on a partisan basis under false pretexts.
Thank goodness--thank goodness--a bipartisan majority stopped
Democrats from destroying the Senate over this fake issue a few months
back.
I suggest the absence of a quorum. | based | white supremacist |
05/24/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-24-pt1-PgS2638-3 | nan | nan | Election Laws
Mr. President, now on an entirely different matter, 5 months ago,
Democrats in the media were saying the sky was falling because of some
States' mainstream voting laws. Georgia passed a voting law that was
more open
than the rules on the books in blue States like New York and Delaware.
Texas passed a law that switched off some one-time COVID exceptions,
like keeping polls open in the middle of the night.
These mainstream laws brought a torrent--a torrent--of hysteria from
the far left, from corporate America, Hollywood, and the corporate
media rushed to condemn laws they hadn't even read. It was almost
completely untethered from reality. One poll a few months back found
that less than half of 1 percent of Americans said voting laws were the
country's most important problem. More Americans actually believe
current voting laws are too lax than believe they are too restrictive.
But the far left bubble became fixated--fixated--on this nonissue.
The manufactured outrage just kept coming. At the peak of the
crescendo a few months back, 48 of 50 Senate Democrats voted to break
this institution--to break this institution--to ram through a 3-year-
old voting takeover bill on a partisan basis. That is how close we
came.
Now, fortunately, a bipartisan majority saved the Senate as an
institution, and now, we are seeing the hard evidence that, as we all
knew, the hysteria was never based on fact to begin with.
Georgia's primary election day is today. But we already know a lot,
thanks to early voting figures.
And here was a Washington Post headline a few days ago, ``Voting is
surging in Georgia despite controversial new election law.''
The story goes on:
[R]ecord-breaking turnout is undercutting predictions that
the Georgia Election Integrity Act . . . would lead to a
falloff in voting. By the end of Friday, the final day of
early in-person voting, nearly 800,000 Georgians had cast
ballots--more than three times--three times the number in
2018, and--
Listen to this--
higher even than in 2020, a presidential year.
Turnout is up despite the fact that fewer Georgians are availing
themselves of the State's no-excuse mail-in voting. Georgians are
getting back to in-person voting, a return to prepandemic norms, and
doing so in huge, huge numbers.
The reporter quoted one 70-year-old Black voter who was stunned by
the easiness of the voting process after all the disinformation that
had been thrown around.
Here is what she said:
I had heard that they were going to try to deter us in any
way possible . . . [so] [t]o go in there and vote as easily
as I did . . . I was really thrown back.
Shame--shame--on the Democrats who pushed the Big Lie that a grand
scheme was afoot to prevent millions of Americans from voting. It was
never true. It was just to push their preexisting policy agenda. The
fake hysteria was just a pretext to push a sweeping national takeover
of election laws that Democrats had already had on the shelf for a
number of years.
Now the rhetoric is proving false right before our eyes. These
commonsense Republican laws appear to be achieving just what the
American people want. The American people want to make it easier to
vote and harder to cheat.
This whole episode proves exactly why our democracy still needs its
cooling saucer. This is exactly the reason why the U.S. Senate exists,
so that one party cannot lose its head to a short-term fever and upend
massive Federal laws on a partisan basis under false pretexts.
Thank goodness--thank goodness--a bipartisan majority stopped
Democrats from destroying the Senate over this fake issue a few months
back.
I suggest the absence of a quorum. | blue | antisemitic |
05/24/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-24-pt1-PgS2638-3 | nan | nan | Election Laws
Mr. President, now on an entirely different matter, 5 months ago,
Democrats in the media were saying the sky was falling because of some
States' mainstream voting laws. Georgia passed a voting law that was
more open
than the rules on the books in blue States like New York and Delaware.
Texas passed a law that switched off some one-time COVID exceptions,
like keeping polls open in the middle of the night.
These mainstream laws brought a torrent--a torrent--of hysteria from
the far left, from corporate America, Hollywood, and the corporate
media rushed to condemn laws they hadn't even read. It was almost
completely untethered from reality. One poll a few months back found
that less than half of 1 percent of Americans said voting laws were the
country's most important problem. More Americans actually believe
current voting laws are too lax than believe they are too restrictive.
But the far left bubble became fixated--fixated--on this nonissue.
The manufactured outrage just kept coming. At the peak of the
crescendo a few months back, 48 of 50 Senate Democrats voted to break
this institution--to break this institution--to ram through a 3-year-
old voting takeover bill on a partisan basis. That is how close we
came.
Now, fortunately, a bipartisan majority saved the Senate as an
institution, and now, we are seeing the hard evidence that, as we all
knew, the hysteria was never based on fact to begin with.
Georgia's primary election day is today. But we already know a lot,
thanks to early voting figures.
And here was a Washington Post headline a few days ago, ``Voting is
surging in Georgia despite controversial new election law.''
The story goes on:
[R]ecord-breaking turnout is undercutting predictions that
the Georgia Election Integrity Act . . . would lead to a
falloff in voting. By the end of Friday, the final day of
early in-person voting, nearly 800,000 Georgians had cast
ballots--more than three times--three times the number in
2018, and--
Listen to this--
higher even than in 2020, a presidential year.
Turnout is up despite the fact that fewer Georgians are availing
themselves of the State's no-excuse mail-in voting. Georgians are
getting back to in-person voting, a return to prepandemic norms, and
doing so in huge, huge numbers.
The reporter quoted one 70-year-old Black voter who was stunned by
the easiness of the voting process after all the disinformation that
had been thrown around.
Here is what she said:
I had heard that they were going to try to deter us in any
way possible . . . [so] [t]o go in there and vote as easily
as I did . . . I was really thrown back.
Shame--shame--on the Democrats who pushed the Big Lie that a grand
scheme was afoot to prevent millions of Americans from voting. It was
never true. It was just to push their preexisting policy agenda. The
fake hysteria was just a pretext to push a sweeping national takeover
of election laws that Democrats had already had on the shelf for a
number of years.
Now the rhetoric is proving false right before our eyes. These
commonsense Republican laws appear to be achieving just what the
American people want. The American people want to make it easier to
vote and harder to cheat.
This whole episode proves exactly why our democracy still needs its
cooling saucer. This is exactly the reason why the U.S. Senate exists,
so that one party cannot lose its head to a short-term fever and upend
massive Federal laws on a partisan basis under false pretexts.
Thank goodness--thank goodness--a bipartisan majority stopped
Democrats from destroying the Senate over this fake issue a few months
back.
I suggest the absence of a quorum. | Hollywood | antisemitic |
05/24/2022 | Mr. McCONNELL | Senate | CREC-2022-05-24-pt1-PgS2659-8 | nan | nan | Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the Country Music Highway cuts
through seven counties in eastern Kentucky that have produced some of
the finest singers in American history, from Loretta Lynn, to Chris
Stapleton, to Ricky Skaggs. Now, this formidable list of world-famous
Kentucky country artists has a new member: Noah Thompson. Today, I ask
my colleagues to join me in honoring Noah for becoming the first
Kentuckian to win ``American Idol.''
A few months ago, few people--even in Noah's hometown of Louisa--had
ever heard America's best new vocalist perform. Noah was working as a
construction worker at Addiction Recovery Care, had never sung
publicly, and hadn't even been musically trained. When Noah's best
friend Arthur signed
him up for ``American Idol,'' the singer worried about making it past
auditions, never imagining he would earn the ``golden ticket'' to
Hollywood, let alone become a finalist.
But Arthur believed Noah had a special talent, and, after several
arduous rounds, he emerged victorious after receiving the most votes
out of 16 million cast by fans all across the country. In the process,
he brought the ``American Idol'' camera crew back to Louisa to film a
hometown video with community leaders, his family, and thousands of
fans. He shined a light on eastern Kentucky, sharing the special
culture and history that makes the region such a hotbed for musical
talent.
Throughout the contest, Noah radiated humility and warmth. Labeled
the ``king of `aw shucks' '' by one of the judges, he entered every
round of competition with the best of Kentucky's attitude and spirit.
Even when Noah caught COVID-19 and had to isolate in his hotel room, he
performed cheerfully and continued to win viewers' hearts.
I am proud of Noah for winning this contest and jumping headfirst
into what I can only imagine will be a successful musical career. And I
am proud of Louisa, KY, for producing such a fine young gentleman to
represent the Commonwealth on the national stage. On behalf of the
Senate, I share our congratulations with Noah and wish him the best as
he pursues his dreams as a recording artist.
| Hollywood | antisemitic |
05/24/2022 | Mr. BARRASSO | Senate | CREC-2022-05-24-pt1-PgS2660 | nan | nan | Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I rise today to celebrate the
retirement of Cyndy Novotny, principal of St. Anthony's Tri-Parish
Catholic School in Casper, WY.
This summer, Cyndy Novotny marks her 17th and final year as principal
at St. Anthony's School. The present St. Anthony's School building
stands as a testament to her 45-year career in education. St. Anthony's
Catholic School was dedicated on September 27, 1927, in the belief that
education is one of the most important ways that the Catholic Church
fulfills its commitment to God.
St. Anthony's School is dedicated to achieving academic excellence in
a faith-filled community. Guided by strong religious and educational
leadership, Casper students from preschool through eighth grade can
learn to live enriched lives committed to Christian service.
Cyndy was instrumental in the design and fundraising for this
classic, state-of-the-art building. The school is able to meet
students' educational needs while keeping them connected to their
faith. Her skills in fundraising also supported student tuition, making
Christian education accessible for many families.
Cyndy grew up in the Chicago area, receiving her bachelor of science
in elementary education from Illinois State University in 1977. After
moving to Casper, she taught at several schools, including first grade
at Southridge Elementary for 7 years and second grade at Sagewood
Elementary for another 7 years. While continuing to teach, she earned
her master's degree in teaching from Grand Canyon University in 2001.
Cyndy was a leading light in the development of the groundbreaking
innovative Woods Learning Center in Casper. Cyndy taught at Woods for
14 years before accepting the principal position at St. Anthony's Tri-
Parish Catholic School.
Cyndy is an accomplished academician, educator, and public servant.
She worked to enhance educational curriculum and administration as a
speaker at the National School Board Annual Convention and
International Reading Association Annual Conference. Cyndy is also a
dedicated wife, mother, and grandmother. While teaching, she met her
husband, Scott Novotny, a now-retired teacher from Natrona County High
School. Together, they have three children, Mick Novotny with wife Dr.
Ruma Novotny, Caitlin Dixon with husband Brian Dixon, and Connor
Novotny. Cyndy and Scott also have five grandchildren: Ashwin, Colter,
Aubrey, Austin, and Jackson.
Cyndy's community involvement is extensive, having been awarded the
Natrona County School District Significant Educator three times and the
Ellbogen Meritorious Education Award She was nominated for Disney
Teacher of the Year and was twice nominated for the Presidential Awards
for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching.
Children across Wyoming and the Nation benefited from her involvement
with the National Education Association, National Center of Innovation
Conference, Wyoming Reading Association, and Casper Reading
Association.
Cyndy's accomplishments and contributions will continue to enrich the
education of future generations of students. The community thanks Cyndy
for her public service. We recognize her invaluable contribution to the
St. Anthony's Tri-Parish Catholic School, Natrona County School
District No. 1, and the development of educational curriculum across
Wyoming. Cyndy is a pillar of the Casper community.
Cyndy's dedication to her faith is evident through her service as a
eucharistic minister, Music Minister, and a member of the Parish
Council at St. Patrick's Catholic Church. She exemplifies Christian
values and the Code of the West, living each day with courage and
taking pride in her work. Cyndy's joy in her work touched the lives of
hundreds of children, including my own.
It is with great pleasure that I recognize this outstanding member of
our Wyoming community. My wife Bobbi joins me in extending our best
wishes to Cyndy Novotny upon her retirement.
| Chicago | racist |
05/24/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-24-pt1-PgS2662-5 | nan | nan | The following bills were read the first and the second times by
unanimous consent, and referred as indicated:
H.R. 1215. An act to establish an office within the Federal
Trade Commission and an outside advisory group to prevent
fraud targeting seniors and to direct the Commission to
include additional information in an annual report to
Congress on fraud targeting seniors, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
H.R. 1620. An act to reauthorize the Violence Against Women
Act of 1994, and for other purposes; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
H.R. 3005. An act to direct the Joint Committee on the
Library to replace the bust of Roger Brooke Taney in the Old
Supreme Court Chamber of the United States Capitol with a
bust of Thurgood Marshall to be obtained by the Joint
Committee on the Library and to remove certain statues from
areas of the United States Capitol which are accessible to
the public, to remove all statues of individuals who
voluntarily served the Confederate States of America from
display in the United States Capitol, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
| the Fed | antisemitic |
05/24/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-24-pt1-PgS2662-7 | nan | nan | The following communications were laid before the Senate, together
with accompanying papers, reports, and documents, and were referred as
indicated:
EC-4204. A communication from the Associate Director of
the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Cocamidopropylamine oxide; Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance'' (FRL
No. 8959-01-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of
the Senate on May 18, 2022; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-4205. A communication from the Associate Director of
the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Flonicamid; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No. 9738-
01-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on May 18, 2022; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-4206. A communication from the Associate Director of
the Regulatory Management Division, Environmental Protection
Agency, transmitting, pursuant to law, the report of a rule
entitled ``Fluopicolide; Pesticide Tolerances'' (FRL No.
9622-01-OCSPP) received in the Office of the President of the
Senate on May 18, 2022; to the Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
EC-4207. A communication from the Chair and President of
the Export-Import Bank, transmitting, pursuant to law, a
report relative to a transaction involving U.S. exports to
the Netherlands; to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and
Urban Affairs.
EC-4208. A communication from the Senior Congressional
Liaison, Legislative Affairs, Bureau of Consumer Financial
Protection, transmitting, pursuant to law, a report entitled
``Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Annual Report''; to the
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
EC-4209. A communication from the Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of Homeland Security,
transmitting seventeen (17) legislative proposals relative to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP); to the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs.
| the Fed | antisemitic |
05/24/2022 | Mr. TESTER | Senate | CREC-2022-05-24-pt1-PgS2662 | nan | nan | Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I would like to share a few words
today to honor an outstanding Montana educator who is retiring at the
end of this school year.
Kirk Miller has dedicated his career to bettering the lives of the
next generation of Montanans. Over the years, Kirk served as a teacher,
a principal, and a superintendent before being appointed to the Montana
Board of Public Education where he later served as chair. As Bozeman
schools superintendent, Kirk played a key role in improving
infrastructure for students for years to come. He championed numerous
successful initiatives that strengthened public education in the region
and served as a template for other communities to follow.
At the end of this year, Kirk will be retiring from his most recent
position as executive director of the School Administrators of Montana,
where he has worked tirelessly to support administrators and educators
across the State. Those who have been lucky enough to work with Kirk
recognize that he has a knack for connecting with people, even those
who have different views than his own. And his passion for public
education shines through in everything he does.
Under Kirk's leadership, the School Administrators of Montana
established the Leaders Professional Learning Program, or SAM LPLP, a
mentorship program that brings administrators from across the State
together to receive student-focused, solution-based professional
development training. The SAM LPLP has served more than 500
administrators to date.
As a former public school teacher I commend Kirk for his steadfast
commitment to improving our school system from the top down. In
addition to his work, Kirk has a lot to be proud of--in particular, the
wonderful family he has built with his wife of 42 years, Nan. A
lifelong educator and a dear friend to many, Kirk has shown through his
kindness and work ethic that he is truly dedicated to bettering the
lives of the next generation of Montanans. Thank you for your service,
Kirk; our Montana schools are better because of you.
| based | white supremacist |
05/24/2022 | Mr. TESTER | Senate | CREC-2022-05-24-pt1-PgS2662 | nan | nan | Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I would like to share a few words
today to honor an outstanding Montana educator who is retiring at the
end of this school year.
Kirk Miller has dedicated his career to bettering the lives of the
next generation of Montanans. Over the years, Kirk served as a teacher,
a principal, and a superintendent before being appointed to the Montana
Board of Public Education where he later served as chair. As Bozeman
schools superintendent, Kirk played a key role in improving
infrastructure for students for years to come. He championed numerous
successful initiatives that strengthened public education in the region
and served as a template for other communities to follow.
At the end of this year, Kirk will be retiring from his most recent
position as executive director of the School Administrators of Montana,
where he has worked tirelessly to support administrators and educators
across the State. Those who have been lucky enough to work with Kirk
recognize that he has a knack for connecting with people, even those
who have different views than his own. And his passion for public
education shines through in everything he does.
Under Kirk's leadership, the School Administrators of Montana
established the Leaders Professional Learning Program, or SAM LPLP, a
mentorship program that brings administrators from across the State
together to receive student-focused, solution-based professional
development training. The SAM LPLP has served more than 500
administrators to date.
As a former public school teacher I commend Kirk for his steadfast
commitment to improving our school system from the top down. In
addition to his work, Kirk has a lot to be proud of--in particular, the
wonderful family he has built with his wife of 42 years, Nan. A
lifelong educator and a dear friend to many, Kirk has shown through his
kindness and work ethic that he is truly dedicated to bettering the
lives of the next generation of Montanans. Thank you for your service,
Kirk; our Montana schools are better because of you.
| public school | racist |
05/18/2022 | The RECORDER | Senate | CREC-2022-05-18-pt1-PgS2588-2 | nan | nan | By Mr. DURBIN (for himself, Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Brown, Ms. Cantwell,
Mr. Carper, Ms. Duckworth, Ms. Klobuchar, Mr. Schatz, Mr.
Warnock, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Blumenthal, Mrs. Feinstein, and Mr.
Whitehouse):
S. 4255. A bill to authorize dedicated domestic terrorism offices
within the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice,
and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to analyze and monitor domestic
terrorist activity and require the Federal Government to take steps to
prevent domestic terrorism; to the Committee on the Judiciary. | the Fed | antisemitic |
05/24/2022 | Mr. BLUMENTHAL | Senate | CREC-2022-05-24-pt1-PgS2669-4 | nan | nan | Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, we are nearing the end of the
session, when we will go back to our homes for the evening, but when
the families of 18 children and 4 great educators go home tonight,
their homes will never be the same again.
There are no words in a place filled with words during today and
every day in this place when we are in session. There are no words
today to capture the heartbreak, the gut-wrenching grief and pain that
those families will feel and that I remember feeling almost 10 years
ago when we stood in the space just outside the firehouse in Sandy
Hook, as parents learned that their 20 children would not be coming
home that night.
The same bottomless grief is hitting the families in Texas, in
Uvalde, where they have lost children. And there are no words also to
capture the deep, abiding pain that will last forever. That pain will
be with them--a hole in their hearts, a place at their tables, a room
in their houses that never will be filled again, and hugs that they
will never feel, cheeks that will never be kissed.
This Nation, like their families, is torn apart by violence--
needless, senseless gun violence--every day in America. And the mystery
is why the greatest Nation on Earth continues to tolerate it. It is no
longer surprising or stunning. It is no longer unfathomable or
unforeseeable.
It is incomprehensible that this great Nation is blocked by Members
of this body from taking action that can forestall and prevent it. Why,
the outrage that we feel, the grief that pervades America on these
occasions has not caused action. And this body has been complicit by
its inaction. In fact, it isn't this body. It is Members of this body,
principally on the other side of the aisle. Let's be blunt. I will
never forget hearing from that gallery those words: ``Shame. Shame on
you,'' when we failed to adopt commonsense measures--a background check
proposal, even though we had 55 votes. I can still hear those words.
``Shame.''
And had we acted, who knows what tragedy could have been averted? We
don't know and we can't tell and we never will be able to fathom
whether
specific measures would have prevented specific tragedy. Charleston or
San Bernardino, Pulse or Las Vegas, Parkland or Santa Fe, or Pittsburgh
or El Paso or Dayton or Boulder or Indianapolis or Oxford or Buffalo or
Uvalde--we will never know because the false reason to object is this
measure wouldn't have prevented that shooting.
But that is not the way to approach gun violence reform, because we
know there is no panacea; there is no single measure. What we know is
that stopping gun violence requires that we act with these measures and
that commonsense, sensible steps can prevent a senseless, needless
violence.
There is no panacea, but there are actions we can take. We are not
without agency.
Now, we need to be very blunt and recognize that opposition to these
measures is bankrolled and emboldened and enabled by the gun lobby's
dark money, by its threats and intimidation, by its encouragement.
And until my colleagues have the courage to stand up to that gun
lobby, they will continue in its thrall and its grip, and they will
continue to be complicit.
And some on our side, some who have demonstrated the courage to stand
up and speak out, have shown that we have the power to take action.
We lack facts about the shooter and about the killing, all the
circumstances in Uvalde, but we know enough to say that those families
and that community will be torn apart. It will never be the same. They
will never be whole again because they have lost something precious,
and there will always be that hole in their hearts.
Already some of our Republican colleagues are saying we are
politicizing the issue, but they are the ones who, for decades, have
tied themselves to the NRA's fanatical devotion to unrestricted,
unyielding firearms ownership for political purposes at the expense of
real lives.
Tying themselves to firearms ownership is unnecessary for law-abiding
citizens to own firearms. There are commonsense actions we can take to
separate dangerous killers from firearms that are absolutely consistent
with the Second Amendment, as judged by the Supreme Court, and
absolutely consistent with gun ownership by law-abiding people.
We know these actions won't save everyone, but there can be no doubt
that each of them will save some lives: expanding background checks and
closing glaring loopholes in our background check system; getting
untraceable ghost guns and military-style assault weapons off our
streets; protecting domestic violence survivors from gun violence;
keeping guns out of the hands of domestic terrorists and violent
extremists and individuals who are dangerous to themselves or others,
red flag statutes; preventing kids from accidentally and
unintentionally shooting themselves with unsecured firearms, Ethan's
Law for safe storage; investing in community violence intervention
programs--we know they work in Hartford, New Haven, all around the
State of Connecticut; reducing the number of firearm suicides--more
than half of all gun deaths are suicides; red flag statutes, separating
firearms from people who are dangerous to themselves as well as others.
We need to do all these things and more. We need to do them right now
because every day that passes without action means more of the same.
Not surprising, not stunning--more of the same.
Those measures are written, they are fully drafted, vetted for their
constitutionality. My subcommittee on the Constitution has had hearings
on them, many of them: S. 529, the Background Check Expansion Act; S.
591, the Background Check Completion Act; S. 1558, the Untraceable
Firearms Act to stop ghost guns; S. 736, the Assault Weapons Ban; S.
527, the Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act; S.
2169, the Lori Jackson-Nicolette Elias Domestic Violence Survivor
Protection Act, a hearing just last week on it; S. 2090, the Disarm
Hate Act; S. 4278, the Age 21 Act; S. 190, Ethan's Law; S. 2982, the
Child Suicide Prevention and Lethal Means Safety Act; S. 1819, the
Extreme Risk Protection Order Act--the red flag statutes.
Let us do one of them. Let us vote to make one of them law. That is
our job: to vote. It is how we change this gut-wrenching, heartbreaking
status quo, and it is how voters know where each of us stand when push
comes to shove.
So we have no words, but words will mean nothing without action. We
have created a political movement. It is a movement that is growing as
young people say: Enough is enough, as the hand wringing and the tears
are translated into action at the grassroots level, action by State
legislatures. Almost 20 states now have red flag statutes in the wake
of Parkland. And as communities and States show that they will no
longer tolerate the hypocrisy of thoughts and prayers without action,
all of us who have advocated for years--indeed, for decades--that this
body must act, we cannot lose courage or heart. We cannot lose the
hope, and we must match our thoughts and prayers with real action.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum. | extremists | Islamophobic |
05/24/2022 | Mr. BLUMENTHAL | Senate | CREC-2022-05-24-pt1-PgS2669-4 | nan | nan | Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, we are nearing the end of the
session, when we will go back to our homes for the evening, but when
the families of 18 children and 4 great educators go home tonight,
their homes will never be the same again.
There are no words in a place filled with words during today and
every day in this place when we are in session. There are no words
today to capture the heartbreak, the gut-wrenching grief and pain that
those families will feel and that I remember feeling almost 10 years
ago when we stood in the space just outside the firehouse in Sandy
Hook, as parents learned that their 20 children would not be coming
home that night.
The same bottomless grief is hitting the families in Texas, in
Uvalde, where they have lost children. And there are no words also to
capture the deep, abiding pain that will last forever. That pain will
be with them--a hole in their hearts, a place at their tables, a room
in their houses that never will be filled again, and hugs that they
will never feel, cheeks that will never be kissed.
This Nation, like their families, is torn apart by violence--
needless, senseless gun violence--every day in America. And the mystery
is why the greatest Nation on Earth continues to tolerate it. It is no
longer surprising or stunning. It is no longer unfathomable or
unforeseeable.
It is incomprehensible that this great Nation is blocked by Members
of this body from taking action that can forestall and prevent it. Why,
the outrage that we feel, the grief that pervades America on these
occasions has not caused action. And this body has been complicit by
its inaction. In fact, it isn't this body. It is Members of this body,
principally on the other side of the aisle. Let's be blunt. I will
never forget hearing from that gallery those words: ``Shame. Shame on
you,'' when we failed to adopt commonsense measures--a background check
proposal, even though we had 55 votes. I can still hear those words.
``Shame.''
And had we acted, who knows what tragedy could have been averted? We
don't know and we can't tell and we never will be able to fathom
whether
specific measures would have prevented specific tragedy. Charleston or
San Bernardino, Pulse or Las Vegas, Parkland or Santa Fe, or Pittsburgh
or El Paso or Dayton or Boulder or Indianapolis or Oxford or Buffalo or
Uvalde--we will never know because the false reason to object is this
measure wouldn't have prevented that shooting.
But that is not the way to approach gun violence reform, because we
know there is no panacea; there is no single measure. What we know is
that stopping gun violence requires that we act with these measures and
that commonsense, sensible steps can prevent a senseless, needless
violence.
There is no panacea, but there are actions we can take. We are not
without agency.
Now, we need to be very blunt and recognize that opposition to these
measures is bankrolled and emboldened and enabled by the gun lobby's
dark money, by its threats and intimidation, by its encouragement.
And until my colleagues have the courage to stand up to that gun
lobby, they will continue in its thrall and its grip, and they will
continue to be complicit.
And some on our side, some who have demonstrated the courage to stand
up and speak out, have shown that we have the power to take action.
We lack facts about the shooter and about the killing, all the
circumstances in Uvalde, but we know enough to say that those families
and that community will be torn apart. It will never be the same. They
will never be whole again because they have lost something precious,
and there will always be that hole in their hearts.
Already some of our Republican colleagues are saying we are
politicizing the issue, but they are the ones who, for decades, have
tied themselves to the NRA's fanatical devotion to unrestricted,
unyielding firearms ownership for political purposes at the expense of
real lives.
Tying themselves to firearms ownership is unnecessary for law-abiding
citizens to own firearms. There are commonsense actions we can take to
separate dangerous killers from firearms that are absolutely consistent
with the Second Amendment, as judged by the Supreme Court, and
absolutely consistent with gun ownership by law-abiding people.
We know these actions won't save everyone, but there can be no doubt
that each of them will save some lives: expanding background checks and
closing glaring loopholes in our background check system; getting
untraceable ghost guns and military-style assault weapons off our
streets; protecting domestic violence survivors from gun violence;
keeping guns out of the hands of domestic terrorists and violent
extremists and individuals who are dangerous to themselves or others,
red flag statutes; preventing kids from accidentally and
unintentionally shooting themselves with unsecured firearms, Ethan's
Law for safe storage; investing in community violence intervention
programs--we know they work in Hartford, New Haven, all around the
State of Connecticut; reducing the number of firearm suicides--more
than half of all gun deaths are suicides; red flag statutes, separating
firearms from people who are dangerous to themselves as well as others.
We need to do all these things and more. We need to do them right now
because every day that passes without action means more of the same.
Not surprising, not stunning--more of the same.
Those measures are written, they are fully drafted, vetted for their
constitutionality. My subcommittee on the Constitution has had hearings
on them, many of them: S. 529, the Background Check Expansion Act; S.
591, the Background Check Completion Act; S. 1558, the Untraceable
Firearms Act to stop ghost guns; S. 736, the Assault Weapons Ban; S.
527, the Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act; S.
2169, the Lori Jackson-Nicolette Elias Domestic Violence Survivor
Protection Act, a hearing just last week on it; S. 2090, the Disarm
Hate Act; S. 4278, the Age 21 Act; S. 190, Ethan's Law; S. 2982, the
Child Suicide Prevention and Lethal Means Safety Act; S. 1819, the
Extreme Risk Protection Order Act--the red flag statutes.
Let us do one of them. Let us vote to make one of them law. That is
our job: to vote. It is how we change this gut-wrenching, heartbreaking
status quo, and it is how voters know where each of us stand when push
comes to shove.
So we have no words, but words will mean nothing without action. We
have created a political movement. It is a movement that is growing as
young people say: Enough is enough, as the hand wringing and the tears
are translated into action at the grassroots level, action by State
legislatures. Almost 20 states now have red flag statutes in the wake
of Parkland. And as communities and States show that they will no
longer tolerate the hypocrisy of thoughts and prayers without action,
all of us who have advocated for years--indeed, for decades--that this
body must act, we cannot lose courage or heart. We cannot lose the
hope, and we must match our thoughts and prayers with real action.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum. | single | homophobic |
05/25/2022 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-05-25-pt1-PgS2675-9 | nan | nan | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, there is a plague--a plague--upon this
Nation, a plague of gun violence that has taken over this country. Two
weeks ago, that plague claimed the lives of 10 Black Americans who were
massacred in broad daylight while shopping at a grocery store in
Buffalo. They were Black, and they were in a grocery store. That is the
reason they were shot by an 18-year-old with an AR-15.
And then, yesterday, just 10 days after Buffalo, that plague struck
again in Uvalde, TX, where 19--19--innocent children and 2 teachers
were gunned down at Robb Elementary in the middle of the school day,
just before the start of summer when these kids were looking forward to
having such a wonderful time with their family and friends.
Gone. They are gone.
The shooter crashed his truck near the school, overpowered the police
already at the scene, and reportedly began shooting inside a fourth
grade classroom. Nineteen kids, two teachers, forever gone in the blink
of an eye.
America's gun epidemic is unmatched by any of our peer nations in the
world. No American is safe from it, and the American people are sick
and tired of it. But we also have a problem--a big problem--here in the
U.S. Senate--a big problem in the U.S. Senate. The problem in the
Senate is simple: Too many Members on the other side of the aisle are
disconnected from the suffering of the American people. Too many
Members on that side care more about the NRA than they do about
families who grieve victims of gun violence.
As I said, the American people are sick and tired of mass shootings.
They are sick and tired about active shooter alerts. They are sick and
tired of children--children: 9-year-olds, 10-year-
olds, 11-year-olds--being shot, gunned down in their schools.
When I read the news of yesterday's shooting, I ached for the
families and then thought: What if it was one of my children? I
imagined what I would feel if this happened to one of them. The mere
thought--just thinking about it--was a gut punch in my stomach. The
fear sent ripples down my spine.
To my Republican colleagues: Imagine if it happened to you. Imagine
if this was your kid or your grandkid. How would you feel? Could you
ever forgive yourself for not supporting a simple law that would make
these mass shootings less likely?
Please, please, please--damn it--put yourself in the shoes of these
parents for once. Maybe that thought, putting yourself in the shoes of
these parents instead of in the arms of the NRA, might let you wriggle
free from the viselike grip of the NRA, might free you to act on even a
simple measure for the sake of these children--these 9-year-olds, these
10-year-olds, these 11-year-olds, these beautiful children. Please--
damn it--think if it were your child or grandchild.
Now, Madam President, it wasn't always this way in Congress. Nearly
30 years ago, I was proud to be the author of the Brady Bill and a
leader of the assault weapons bans. These were major legislative
accomplishments, and they worked because they were good, commonsense
laws, and they passed because both sides of the aisle worked together.
And because they became law, tens of thousands--hundreds of thousands,
perhaps--of lives were saved: children, elderly people, people of
color, you name it, people now walking the streets who might have been
dead had we not passed these laws. But today the NRA has made it all
but impossible for even the bare minimum to move forward in Congress,
and the other side is all too ready to bow in obeisance to the NRA, in
service of their whims.
Madam President, these types of shootings used to be rare--so rare,
in fact, that each occurrence stood apart as a singular event. But now
these shootings happen so frequently that the Nation can barely keep
up, barely mourn the 10 people shot in the grocery store in Buffalo
before being rocked to our collective core by the slaughter of 19
elementary schoolchildren in the predominantly Latino community of
Uvalde, TX.
These shootings happen everywhere: movie theaters, churches,
synagogues, concerts, nightclubs, grocery stores, college campuses,
high schools, elementary schools--elementary schools, with beautiful
children getting ready to move out into the prime of life.
Honestly, I thought Sandy Hook 10 years ago would be the breaking
point. I thought that that would be the tragedy that forced Republicans
to examine their conscience and think: Oh, God, we can't allow
schoolchildren to be slaughtered.
Well, I was wrong. The slaughter of 20 elementary schoolchildren in
Sandy Hook didn't move them. We heard about their thoughts and their
prayers--but no action. Then came Aurora. And the Navy Yard. Then,
after Charleston, I thought: Maybe this--maybe this is the moment. Nine
Americans shot in a church during Bible study? This has to move the
Republicans here in the Senate.
Nope. It didn't. They gave a few more thoughts, a few more prayers,
no real effort to solve the problem.
So, Madam President, it continued on and on and on: San Bernardino;
Orlando; Las Vegas; Sutherland Springs; Marjory Stoneman Douglas High
School; Thousand Oaks; the Pittsburgh synagogue; Santa Fe, TX; the El
Paso Walmart; Dayton; Virginia Beach; Boulder; Buffalo; and now Uvalde.
When will it end? We must act to have it end, not thoughts and
prayers--action.
After the shootings in El Paso and Dayton 3 years ago, the Republican
leader promised that red flag laws and background checks would be front
and center in a Senate debate. He was then majority leader, but then
the Republicans did nothing. They ensured there was no debate, just as
they wanted. They don't want to debate this issue. Indeed, all we hear
from Republicans are thoughts, prayers. And now there is a new phrase.
Now some of my Republican colleagues want to ``lift up'' the community.
That sounds heartening, but it does absolutely nothing--nothing--to
prevent the next family from having to grieve their loss, and it won't
do a single damn thing to prevent another life from being taken. It
won't do a single damn thing to prevent another child from being shot
at school--a 9-year-old, a 10-year-old, an 11-year-old--beautiful
children.
Madam President, you may have noticed that when they aren't offering
thoughts and prayers to distract from their inaction, many of my
Republican colleagues focus on the motives of the shooters instead of
focusing on the obvious common denominator. They talk about the real
villain being mental illness and say nothing of the fact that we are a
nation suffocated by firearms. Rates of mental illness are more or less
the same across the developed world. The United States is not an
outlier on mental illness, but we are an outlier in the sheer number of
guns available in this country. That is why we have so many shootings
and other Western countries don't. If mental illness were the simple
cause, you would see mass shootings happening all over the developed
world, but you don't.
What you do see here in America are enough guns to give every man,
woman, and child in this Nation a firearm and still have nearly 70
million guns left over. What you do see is that it is far too easy for
people to access weapons in this country and then to use them to
slaughter people, to slaughter children by the dozens--by the dozens.
Again, America doesn't stand out when it comes to the rate of mental
illness, but we are unique among the world's developed nations in that
today, the leading cause of death among children is no longer a car
accident; it is no longer illness or malnourishment. The leading cause
of death among children is a firearm. The leading cause of death of
children--do you hear that, my Republican colleagues?--is a firearm.
Clearly, many of these shooters had different motives, but at the end
of the day, does the motive really matter to the family with an empty
seat at their dinner table? Children who lost parents don't just care
whether the shooter was mentally ill; they care that the shooter had
ready access to a gun. Spouses who lost their partners don't just care
that the shooter had a grudge or an agenda or a grievance; they care
that the shooter had ready access to a gun. Americans who lost friends
and coworkers and parishioners, who lost fellow worshippers don't just
care whether the shooter wrote a manifesto; they care that the shooter
had ready access to a gun. They care that their loved ones had been
taken from them by someone who had access to a gun--taken from them
while some Members of this body refuse to do what it takes to prevent
those losses, refuse to focus on the denominator to every single one of
these shootings, refuse to even do the bare minimum as they bow in
obeisance to the wretched NRA.
What do we do about it? If the slaughter of schoolchildren can't
convince the Republicans to buck the NRA, what can we do? There are
some who want this body to quickly vote on sensible gun safety
legislation--legislation supported by the vast majority of Americans,
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. They want to see this
body vote quickly so the American people can know which side each
Senator is on--which side each Senator is on.
I am sympathetic to that, and I believe that accountability votes are
important. But, sadly, this isn't a case of the American people not
knowing where their Senators stand. They know. They know because my
Republican colleagues are perfectly clear on this issue, crystal clear.
Republicans don't pretend that they support sensible gun safety
legislation. They don't pretend to be moved by the fact that 90 percent
of Americans, regardless of party, support something as common sense as
background checks, that the vast majority of gun owners support the
background checks bill. They don't pretend that they want to keep guns
out of the hands of those who might use weapons to shoot concertgoers
or movie watchers or worshippers or shoppers or children. They don't
pretend at all.
Just listen to them when they show up in obeisance to the NRA at the
NRA's convention in Houston--the same State as Uvalde--on Friday. They
will offer their thoughts and prayers. They will say they want to lift
up the community. And then they will go back to their smoke-filled
rooms and ensure the NRA and gun manufacturers that nothing will
change, that they have the NRA's back.
No, Madam President, no, this isn't a case of Republicans hiding
their position. They proudly tell the American people which side they
are on, and America is much worse off for it. And if nothing does
change, we are condemned to find ourselves right here once again very,
very soon.
As I was reading the reports of the tragedy in Texas, I saw that
Amanda Gorman, the young woman who mesmerized the Nation at President
Biden's inauguration, tweeted:
The truth is, one nation under guns.
``One nation under guns.'' That is simply heartbreaking--
heartbreaking--to think that this is the legacy that older generations
are leaving behind for young Americans: ``one nation under guns.''
It doesn't have to be that way. Our parents don't need to drop their
kids off at school and wonder if their kid will be next. That is in the
thoughts of millions of moms and dads right now. Our citizens don't
have to endure the fear of getting groceries while constantly keeping
an eye behind their backs. Again, millions of Americans are worried
about that right now.
Americans can make a choice. Americans can reject the Republican
``guns at all cost'' doctrine, obeisance to the NRA, not even voting
for the most simple, sensitive, positive, and popular gun legislation.
Americans can cast their vote in November for Senators or Members of
Congress who reflect how he or she stands with guns, with this issue--
this issue--at the top of the voters' lists.
In the meantime, my Republican colleagues can work with us now. I
know this is a slim prospect--very slim, all too slim. We have been
burned so many times before. But this is so important, and I have such
a firm belief--taught to me by my late father, who passed away in
November--that if you do the right thing and persist, justice will
eventually prevail. But you have to keep persisting, and we will.
For that reason alone, we must pursue action and even ask Republicans
again to join us--maybe, maybe, maybe. Unlikely. We have been burned in
the past. But their hearts might see what is happening and join us and
do the right thing. They know it is the right thing. They can work with
us to craft legislation that would prevent needless loss of life. It is
their choice.
As majority leader, I haven't been shy about putting bipartisan
legislation on the floor for a vote, but bipartisan means both parties
must engage in crafting a bill, like what happened in the House and
Senate 30 years ago with the Brady law and the assault weapons ban.
Democrats have been trying to work hard with Republicans--Senator
Murphy, Senator Manchin--on legislation that will eventually pass and
become law. The other side has refused. There are so many options
available to us, so many ideas. We just need some brave Republicans to
stand before history and yell ``stop,'' to think, if it was your child,
your grandchild, how you would feel. Would that move you to do
something--something--about this plague of guns?
Like my colleague Senator Murphy, I refuse to believe that we cannot
find a path forward. Make no mistake about it, if we can't find a good,
strong bill that has bipartisan support, we will continue to pursue
this issue on our own. We have no choice. It is too important. Lives
are at stake.
I accept the fact that most of my Republican colleagues are not
willing to do what it takes to prevent this needless loss of life. The
NRA will have a hold on them. That is just a reality, unfortunately.
But it is unacceptable to the American people to think that there are
not 10 of my Republican colleagues, just 10--1 out of 5 over here--who
would be ready to work to pass something that would reduce this plague
of gun violence.
It is unacceptable that there are not 10 Members of the Republican
caucus willing to save lives, find a way to do it. Yet that is where we
are. That is where we are. Another week, another American community
devastated by a mass shooting. All of us thinking of these 9- and 10-
and 11-year-old children just shot, gone. Another American community,
Uvalde, which will never recover, like the other communities before it.
Will it be yet--Uvalde--another example of Republicans unwilling to do
what it takes to keep Americans safe?
I yield the floor. | single | homophobic |
05/25/2022 | Mr. SCHUMER | Senate | CREC-2022-05-25-pt1-PgS2675-9 | nan | nan | Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, there is a plague--a plague--upon this
Nation, a plague of gun violence that has taken over this country. Two
weeks ago, that plague claimed the lives of 10 Black Americans who were
massacred in broad daylight while shopping at a grocery store in
Buffalo. They were Black, and they were in a grocery store. That is the
reason they were shot by an 18-year-old with an AR-15.
And then, yesterday, just 10 days after Buffalo, that plague struck
again in Uvalde, TX, where 19--19--innocent children and 2 teachers
were gunned down at Robb Elementary in the middle of the school day,
just before the start of summer when these kids were looking forward to
having such a wonderful time with their family and friends.
Gone. They are gone.
The shooter crashed his truck near the school, overpowered the police
already at the scene, and reportedly began shooting inside a fourth
grade classroom. Nineteen kids, two teachers, forever gone in the blink
of an eye.
America's gun epidemic is unmatched by any of our peer nations in the
world. No American is safe from it, and the American people are sick
and tired of it. But we also have a problem--a big problem--here in the
U.S. Senate--a big problem in the U.S. Senate. The problem in the
Senate is simple: Too many Members on the other side of the aisle are
disconnected from the suffering of the American people. Too many
Members on that side care more about the NRA than they do about
families who grieve victims of gun violence.
As I said, the American people are sick and tired of mass shootings.
They are sick and tired about active shooter alerts. They are sick and
tired of children--children: 9-year-olds, 10-year-
olds, 11-year-olds--being shot, gunned down in their schools.
When I read the news of yesterday's shooting, I ached for the
families and then thought: What if it was one of my children? I
imagined what I would feel if this happened to one of them. The mere
thought--just thinking about it--was a gut punch in my stomach. The
fear sent ripples down my spine.
To my Republican colleagues: Imagine if it happened to you. Imagine
if this was your kid or your grandkid. How would you feel? Could you
ever forgive yourself for not supporting a simple law that would make
these mass shootings less likely?
Please, please, please--damn it--put yourself in the shoes of these
parents for once. Maybe that thought, putting yourself in the shoes of
these parents instead of in the arms of the NRA, might let you wriggle
free from the viselike grip of the NRA, might free you to act on even a
simple measure for the sake of these children--these 9-year-olds, these
10-year-olds, these 11-year-olds, these beautiful children. Please--
damn it--think if it were your child or grandchild.
Now, Madam President, it wasn't always this way in Congress. Nearly
30 years ago, I was proud to be the author of the Brady Bill and a
leader of the assault weapons bans. These were major legislative
accomplishments, and they worked because they were good, commonsense
laws, and they passed because both sides of the aisle worked together.
And because they became law, tens of thousands--hundreds of thousands,
perhaps--of lives were saved: children, elderly people, people of
color, you name it, people now walking the streets who might have been
dead had we not passed these laws. But today the NRA has made it all
but impossible for even the bare minimum to move forward in Congress,
and the other side is all too ready to bow in obeisance to the NRA, in
service of their whims.
Madam President, these types of shootings used to be rare--so rare,
in fact, that each occurrence stood apart as a singular event. But now
these shootings happen so frequently that the Nation can barely keep
up, barely mourn the 10 people shot in the grocery store in Buffalo
before being rocked to our collective core by the slaughter of 19
elementary schoolchildren in the predominantly Latino community of
Uvalde, TX.
These shootings happen everywhere: movie theaters, churches,
synagogues, concerts, nightclubs, grocery stores, college campuses,
high schools, elementary schools--elementary schools, with beautiful
children getting ready to move out into the prime of life.
Honestly, I thought Sandy Hook 10 years ago would be the breaking
point. I thought that that would be the tragedy that forced Republicans
to examine their conscience and think: Oh, God, we can't allow
schoolchildren to be slaughtered.
Well, I was wrong. The slaughter of 20 elementary schoolchildren in
Sandy Hook didn't move them. We heard about their thoughts and their
prayers--but no action. Then came Aurora. And the Navy Yard. Then,
after Charleston, I thought: Maybe this--maybe this is the moment. Nine
Americans shot in a church during Bible study? This has to move the
Republicans here in the Senate.
Nope. It didn't. They gave a few more thoughts, a few more prayers,
no real effort to solve the problem.
So, Madam President, it continued on and on and on: San Bernardino;
Orlando; Las Vegas; Sutherland Springs; Marjory Stoneman Douglas High
School; Thousand Oaks; the Pittsburgh synagogue; Santa Fe, TX; the El
Paso Walmart; Dayton; Virginia Beach; Boulder; Buffalo; and now Uvalde.
When will it end? We must act to have it end, not thoughts and
prayers--action.
After the shootings in El Paso and Dayton 3 years ago, the Republican
leader promised that red flag laws and background checks would be front
and center in a Senate debate. He was then majority leader, but then
the Republicans did nothing. They ensured there was no debate, just as
they wanted. They don't want to debate this issue. Indeed, all we hear
from Republicans are thoughts, prayers. And now there is a new phrase.
Now some of my Republican colleagues want to ``lift up'' the community.
That sounds heartening, but it does absolutely nothing--nothing--to
prevent the next family from having to grieve their loss, and it won't
do a single damn thing to prevent another life from being taken. It
won't do a single damn thing to prevent another child from being shot
at school--a 9-year-old, a 10-year-old, an 11-year-old--beautiful
children.
Madam President, you may have noticed that when they aren't offering
thoughts and prayers to distract from their inaction, many of my
Republican colleagues focus on the motives of the shooters instead of
focusing on the obvious common denominator. They talk about the real
villain being mental illness and say nothing of the fact that we are a
nation suffocated by firearms. Rates of mental illness are more or less
the same across the developed world. The United States is not an
outlier on mental illness, but we are an outlier in the sheer number of
guns available in this country. That is why we have so many shootings
and other Western countries don't. If mental illness were the simple
cause, you would see mass shootings happening all over the developed
world, but you don't.
What you do see here in America are enough guns to give every man,
woman, and child in this Nation a firearm and still have nearly 70
million guns left over. What you do see is that it is far too easy for
people to access weapons in this country and then to use them to
slaughter people, to slaughter children by the dozens--by the dozens.
Again, America doesn't stand out when it comes to the rate of mental
illness, but we are unique among the world's developed nations in that
today, the leading cause of death among children is no longer a car
accident; it is no longer illness or malnourishment. The leading cause
of death among children is a firearm. The leading cause of death of
children--do you hear that, my Republican colleagues?--is a firearm.
Clearly, many of these shooters had different motives, but at the end
of the day, does the motive really matter to the family with an empty
seat at their dinner table? Children who lost parents don't just care
whether the shooter was mentally ill; they care that the shooter had
ready access to a gun. Spouses who lost their partners don't just care
that the shooter had a grudge or an agenda or a grievance; they care
that the shooter had ready access to a gun. Americans who lost friends
and coworkers and parishioners, who lost fellow worshippers don't just
care whether the shooter wrote a manifesto; they care that the shooter
had ready access to a gun. They care that their loved ones had been
taken from them by someone who had access to a gun--taken from them
while some Members of this body refuse to do what it takes to prevent
those losses, refuse to focus on the denominator to every single one of
these shootings, refuse to even do the bare minimum as they bow in
obeisance to the wretched NRA.
What do we do about it? If the slaughter of schoolchildren can't
convince the Republicans to buck the NRA, what can we do? There are
some who want this body to quickly vote on sensible gun safety
legislation--legislation supported by the vast majority of Americans,
Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. They want to see this
body vote quickly so the American people can know which side each
Senator is on--which side each Senator is on.
I am sympathetic to that, and I believe that accountability votes are
important. But, sadly, this isn't a case of the American people not
knowing where their Senators stand. They know. They know because my
Republican colleagues are perfectly clear on this issue, crystal clear.
Republicans don't pretend that they support sensible gun safety
legislation. They don't pretend to be moved by the fact that 90 percent
of Americans, regardless of party, support something as common sense as
background checks, that the vast majority of gun owners support the
background checks bill. They don't pretend that they want to keep guns
out of the hands of those who might use weapons to shoot concertgoers
or movie watchers or worshippers or shoppers or children. They don't
pretend at all.
Just listen to them when they show up in obeisance to the NRA at the
NRA's convention in Houston--the same State as Uvalde--on Friday. They
will offer their thoughts and prayers. They will say they want to lift
up the community. And then they will go back to their smoke-filled
rooms and ensure the NRA and gun manufacturers that nothing will
change, that they have the NRA's back.
No, Madam President, no, this isn't a case of Republicans hiding
their position. They proudly tell the American people which side they
are on, and America is much worse off for it. And if nothing does
change, we are condemned to find ourselves right here once again very,
very soon.
As I was reading the reports of the tragedy in Texas, I saw that
Amanda Gorman, the young woman who mesmerized the Nation at President
Biden's inauguration, tweeted:
The truth is, one nation under guns.
``One nation under guns.'' That is simply heartbreaking--
heartbreaking--to think that this is the legacy that older generations
are leaving behind for young Americans: ``one nation under guns.''
It doesn't have to be that way. Our parents don't need to drop their
kids off at school and wonder if their kid will be next. That is in the
thoughts of millions of moms and dads right now. Our citizens don't
have to endure the fear of getting groceries while constantly keeping
an eye behind their backs. Again, millions of Americans are worried
about that right now.
Americans can make a choice. Americans can reject the Republican
``guns at all cost'' doctrine, obeisance to the NRA, not even voting
for the most simple, sensitive, positive, and popular gun legislation.
Americans can cast their vote in November for Senators or Members of
Congress who reflect how he or she stands with guns, with this issue--
this issue--at the top of the voters' lists.
In the meantime, my Republican colleagues can work with us now. I
know this is a slim prospect--very slim, all too slim. We have been
burned so many times before. But this is so important, and I have such
a firm belief--taught to me by my late father, who passed away in
November--that if you do the right thing and persist, justice will
eventually prevail. But you have to keep persisting, and we will.
For that reason alone, we must pursue action and even ask Republicans
again to join us--maybe, maybe, maybe. Unlikely. We have been burned in
the past. But their hearts might see what is happening and join us and
do the right thing. They know it is the right thing. They can work with
us to craft legislation that would prevent needless loss of life. It is
their choice.
As majority leader, I haven't been shy about putting bipartisan
legislation on the floor for a vote, but bipartisan means both parties
must engage in crafting a bill, like what happened in the House and
Senate 30 years ago with the Brady law and the assault weapons ban.
Democrats have been trying to work hard with Republicans--Senator
Murphy, Senator Manchin--on legislation that will eventually pass and
become law. The other side has refused. There are so many options
available to us, so many ideas. We just need some brave Republicans to
stand before history and yell ``stop,'' to think, if it was your child,
your grandchild, how you would feel. Would that move you to do
something--something--about this plague of guns?
Like my colleague Senator Murphy, I refuse to believe that we cannot
find a path forward. Make no mistake about it, if we can't find a good,
strong bill that has bipartisan support, we will continue to pursue
this issue on our own. We have no choice. It is too important. Lives
are at stake.
I accept the fact that most of my Republican colleagues are not
willing to do what it takes to prevent this needless loss of life. The
NRA will have a hold on them. That is just a reality, unfortunately.
But it is unacceptable to the American people to think that there are
not 10 of my Republican colleagues, just 10--1 out of 5 over here--who
would be ready to work to pass something that would reduce this plague
of gun violence.
It is unacceptable that there are not 10 Members of the Republican
caucus willing to save lives, find a way to do it. Yet that is where we
are. That is where we are. Another week, another American community
devastated by a mass shooting. All of us thinking of these 9- and 10-
and 11-year-old children just shot, gone. Another American community,
Uvalde, which will never recover, like the other communities before it.
Will it be yet--Uvalde--another example of Republicans unwilling to do
what it takes to keep Americans safe?
I yield the floor. | buck | racist |
05/25/2022 | The PRESIDING OFFICER | Senate | CREC-2022-05-25-pt1-PgS2678-2 | nan | nan | The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the following
nomination, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read the nomination of Sandra L. Thompson, of
Maryland, to be Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency for a
term of five years. | the Fed | antisemitic |
05/25/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-25-pt1-PgS2692 | nan | nan | Robb Elementary School Shooting
Madam President, I cannot imagine what it was like last night in
Texas in the homes of the 19 or 20 children who lost their lives in
that Robb Elementary School gun massacre. Those are the longest,
loneliest nights of your life as a parent when you have lost a child.
And for each of them, it came as a stunning shock: a child sent off to
school, nearing the end of the school year, probably happily
anticipating summer camp, a visit with relatives, a family vacation,
whose life was taken away in an instant.
The freedom and joy of youth was ripped from every single one of
those 19 children, and 2 of the heroic teachers who sought to protect
them when they were murdered in cold blood by this gunman.
Today, instead of thinking about vacation and summer, the parents are
sadly making funeral arrangements for their babies. Others are sitting
down with their children and trying to explain why their playmates are
not at school.
It is not even June, and this year alone there have been more than
200 mass shootings in the United States. My colleague Chris Murphy of
Connecticut said last night there had been more mass shootings than
days in this last year.
Now families across America are stepping forward to offer their
condolences, to donate to the families who lost these precious,
precious children, and to demand that this Senate act to prevent
something--do something to prevent the appalling acts of mass murder
that we see way too often.
The Members of the Senate have to make a choice: Will we listen to
the American people in their overwhelming numbers calling on us to set
politics aside and stop the killing of children and other innocent
Americans or will we cower in front of the gun industry?
The lives of countless children, and I might add, grandchildren,
depend on our answer to that question.
It was 21 years ago--hard to imagine--but 21 years ago this September
when we lived through 9/11.
That morning, I was in this building, down the hall at a meeting at 9
in the morning called by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. We had
just heard that a plane had crashed into a skyscraper in New York, and
we didn't know much more. We quickly turned on the television to see
another plane crash into an adjoining building. It was obvious that
something horrible had happened. And it wasn't long after that that we
looked out the window and looked west down the Mall to see black smoke
billowing in. We learned it came from the Pentagon, where another plane
had crashed into that building.
That was a day none of us will ever forget, nor should we. It was a
day when America changed in so many ways. That was the beginning of TSA
security checks at airports. Things that have become commonplace in our
life were initiated because of 9/11.
And did we ever mount an effort to stop international terrorism
against the United States. We were serious. It was a deadly serious
issue, 3,000 innocent people losing their lives on 9/11. We were bound
and determined--so determined that this Senate declared war on al-Qaida
and called for the invasion of Afghanistan.
I voted for that because I felt then and feel now, no one should
attack the United States with impunity. There is a price to pay. And so
we made a decision which for 20 years guided our foreign policy
in Afghanistan and other decisions by the scores around the world that
really fought international terrorism.
We learned something recently. Last year, we had the Director of the
FBI come before us, and I asked him about domestic terrorism. What
about the terrorists in America itself who are killing innocent people?
His report to us was sobering. He said it is a real threat, and it is a
threat that is metastasizing. We know that horrible word from the
disease of cancer. It means that the cancer itself is advancing in a
deadly way. That is the way the FBI Director described domestic
terrorism.
As we mourn yesterday's mass shooting in Uvalde, TX, we have a bill
coming before the Senate tomorrow that responds to the mass shooting
that took place in Buffalo just 11 days ago, in which a gunman killed
10 Black Americans in a racist act of violence.
Tomorrow, we will vote on my bill, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention
Act. I first introduced it in the year 2017, and that passed the House
on a bipartisan basis last week.
This legislation will help law enforcement combat the serious and
lethal threat of domestic terrorism. It will authorize offices within
the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland
Security that are squarely focused on this threat.
And these offices will be required to regularly assess domestic
terrorism risk and provide training and resources to State, local, and
Tribal law enforcement.
The bill will also establish an interagency task force to combat
White supremacists' infiltration of the uniformed services and Federal
law enforcement.
Like gun safety reform, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is long
overdue. I first held a hearing on domestic terrorism 10 years ago
after a White supremacist marched into a Sikh gurdwara in Oak Creek,
WI, opening fire and killing seven people.
In the 10 years since, violent White supremacists have massacred
Americans with their sickening attacks. In 2015, a White supremacist
shot and killed nine Black worshippers at the Emanuel African Methodist
Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC.
At the time, it was the deadliest attack in a place of worship in
recent American history, a horrifying record that sadly was surpassed
just a few years later.
In 2018, an anti-Semitic terrorist killed 11 people at the Tree of
Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. Think about this for a moment. There are
members of that synagogue who actually survived the Holocaust in World
War II, only to be targeted by the same hate nearly 80 years later in
America.
A year after that, a far-right extremist killed 23 people at the
Walmart in El Paso, TX, targeting immigrants and members of the
Hispanic community. Some of these gunmen subscribe to the same racist
conspiracy theory as the shooter in Buffalo a few days ago, the so-
called ``great replacement theory.''
It has become the great rallying cry for White supremacists. Each of
these acts of hate-fueled mass murder has torn apart a community,
traumatized the Nation, and left unimaginable grief and pain in its
wake.
And so it was over a year ago that FBI Director Christopher Wray
testified to domestic terrorism metastasizing and growing in the United
States.
Well, I think it is time that we take action to stop this threat.
Time and again, the Senate has failed to take any meaningful steps to
prevent violent extremism. When exactly did stopping mass murder become
a partisan issue? It wasn't like this after 9/11.
Twenty years ago, Republicans and Democrats joined in common cause to
confronting international terrorism threatening America.
After that horrific act of mass murder on 9/11, we worked together on
a bipartisan basis to reconfigure our entire national security
apparatus. We created a new Agency, the Department of
Homeland Security, designed to prevent the next 9/11.
To be sure, there were moments when we went off in the wrong
direction. Over the years, we worked to rein in legislation like the
PATRIOT Act and protect civil liberties of the American people.
As lawmakers, our responsibility is to enact sensible solutions and
save lives while also protecting our Constitution. That is exactly what
the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is all about. It will improve
data collection on incidents of domestic terrorism and strengthen
Federal coordination to combat it.
That is why it makes no sense to me that there are Republicans who
oppose it. The same Republicans who once took bold steps to prevent
terrorism on an international basis now won't even allow us to debate a
bill to prevent terrorism at home.
There are actually Republican Members of the House who are cosponsors
of my bill, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, who just last week
voted against it, cosponsors. What exactly is the reason for this
Republican opposition?
Well, one Senate Republican claimed that the Domestic Terrorism
Prevention Act would be ``the PATRIOT Act for American citizens.'' That
is phony and wrong.
First of all, as I just mentioned, the PATRIOT Act was flawed. It was
an excessive policy response to a nation in panic. I should know
because I voted for it and then led the effort to change it. Here is
why the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is different.
Unlike the PATRIOT Act, it will not provide any new law enforcement
or surveilling power to the government. It also does not establish a
single new criminal offense. Let me repeat this. The bill that comes
before us on domestic terrorism does not create any new Federal crime,
period. This is a modest bill with a simple goal: ensure that the
Federal Government devotes existing resources and authorities to what
has been identified by the FBI as the most significant domestic
terrorism threats.
Who supports this bill? The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Arab-American Institute,
the NAACP. All of them and more support the Domestic Terrorism
Prevention Act.
I hope our Republican colleagues will join us in a bipartisan effort
to keep America safe. Last week, I spoke to the courage and sacrifice
of Aaron Salter, a retired police officer who was working as a security
guard in that Buffalo grocery store at the time of the attack.
When the shooter entered the store, Officer Salter jumped into
action. He fired multiple shots at the attacker, but his skill and
courage were not enough. He was outgunned. He had a pistol. The shooter
had an assault rifle and a tactical vest. It is a scenario that, sadly,
is becoming too common. We saw it yesterday in Texas.
The attacker in yesterday's school shooting in Uvalde was also
carrying an assault rifle and wearing a tactical vest. He reportedly
shot two officers before entering the school and wounding a Federal law
enforcement official.
Can the Members of this Senate say in good conscience that we have
done enough to protect the lives of police officers and the children in
communities like Uvalde? Of course not. They were killed by people who
never should have had a gun in the first place.
With the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, this Senate can take the
first step of many steps needed to save lives and reject hate. The next
step is finally closing the loophole that allows guns to fall into the
wrong hands. Ten years ago, after 26 little children, God bless them,
were murdered by a disturbed gunman in Sandy Hook Elementary School, we
voted to close gaps in the gun background check system, and we fell
short.
Will we finally close those gaps now after another school filled with
little babies and children was targeted in a mass shooting? The CDC
reported last week that for the first time in more than 60 years, car
accidents are no longer the leading cause of death for kids and teens.
As of 2020, the leading cause of death of children and adolescents in
America is guns--guns. Guns are the No. 1 threat to our children.
When will we finally find the courage and the spine to pass
commonsense changes to our gun laws that the vast majority of Americans
support?
Well, this Friday, the National Rifle Association is holding its
annual meeting in, of all places, Texas. A few of the politicians who
are scheduled to speak at that gathering were among the first to send
their thoughts and prayers to Uvalde. Well, I hope and pray they will
find the courage to stop cowering before the gun lobby and take action
to save our children's lives.
Let me address one last misconception about this bill. A number of my
colleagues have said: Well, why did you have to use the words ``White
supremacists'' or ``neo-Nazis'' in the bill? Why did you want to focus
on that?
Let me make it clear that we are focusing on domestic terrorism, and
that is why we mention White supremacism. The bill requires reports to
Congress on all domestic terrorism activity, with a breakdown by
specific category.
The bill requires that White supremacist terrorism be one of those
specific categories. We include this requirement because during the
Trump Presidential administration, the FBI was ordered to stop tracking
White supremacist attacks as a separate category of domestic terrorism.
Remarkably, the FBI stopped tracking White supremacist attacks in the
middle of the spate of White supremacist violence, including the lethal
attack at the 2017 Charlottesville ``Unite the Right'' rally and the
2018 Tree of Life synagogue shooting.
This decision also came after an unclassified May 2017 joint
intelligence bulletin from the FBI and the Department of Homeland
Security that found ``white supremacist extremism poses [a] persistent
threat of lethal''--lethal--``violence,'' and that White supremacists
``were responsible for 49 homicides and 26 attacks from 2016 . . . more
than any other domestic extremist movement.''
I am not making this up. People are dying because of these
extremists. We are asking the FBI and other Agencies to identify the
incidents of violence so that we can track them, find if they are
growing or receding; train local law enforcement to recognize it.
This bill does not require collecting of data on First Amendment-
protected speech at all, no matter how vile that speech may be. It only
requires the FBI to provide a report to Congress on violent domestic
terrorist activity that the FBI is already investigating.
In fact, this bill does not provide any new law enforcement or
surveillance powers to the government. It does not establish any new
criminal offenses.
This morning there is an outrage over the violence that took place in
Texas. The question is, Can we channel this outrage into an active,
productive effort to pass legislation to make America safer?
We know what the problem is. We know what the challenge is with
domestic terrorism. The question is, Can we gather the information to
put an end to it? Isn't that our responsibility, what comes to our
responsibility as Senators and as citizens in this country?
In the U.S. Senate, let's start with this bill. Domestic terrorism is
for real. We saw a form of it in Buffalo, NY, and we are going to see
it again, I am afraid, unless we take it very seriously.
Fighting terrorism used to be a bipartisan effort, and I hope it will
once again.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum. | extremism | Islamophobic |
05/25/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-25-pt1-PgS2692 | nan | nan | Robb Elementary School Shooting
Madam President, I cannot imagine what it was like last night in
Texas in the homes of the 19 or 20 children who lost their lives in
that Robb Elementary School gun massacre. Those are the longest,
loneliest nights of your life as a parent when you have lost a child.
And for each of them, it came as a stunning shock: a child sent off to
school, nearing the end of the school year, probably happily
anticipating summer camp, a visit with relatives, a family vacation,
whose life was taken away in an instant.
The freedom and joy of youth was ripped from every single one of
those 19 children, and 2 of the heroic teachers who sought to protect
them when they were murdered in cold blood by this gunman.
Today, instead of thinking about vacation and summer, the parents are
sadly making funeral arrangements for their babies. Others are sitting
down with their children and trying to explain why their playmates are
not at school.
It is not even June, and this year alone there have been more than
200 mass shootings in the United States. My colleague Chris Murphy of
Connecticut said last night there had been more mass shootings than
days in this last year.
Now families across America are stepping forward to offer their
condolences, to donate to the families who lost these precious,
precious children, and to demand that this Senate act to prevent
something--do something to prevent the appalling acts of mass murder
that we see way too often.
The Members of the Senate have to make a choice: Will we listen to
the American people in their overwhelming numbers calling on us to set
politics aside and stop the killing of children and other innocent
Americans or will we cower in front of the gun industry?
The lives of countless children, and I might add, grandchildren,
depend on our answer to that question.
It was 21 years ago--hard to imagine--but 21 years ago this September
when we lived through 9/11.
That morning, I was in this building, down the hall at a meeting at 9
in the morning called by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. We had
just heard that a plane had crashed into a skyscraper in New York, and
we didn't know much more. We quickly turned on the television to see
another plane crash into an adjoining building. It was obvious that
something horrible had happened. And it wasn't long after that that we
looked out the window and looked west down the Mall to see black smoke
billowing in. We learned it came from the Pentagon, where another plane
had crashed into that building.
That was a day none of us will ever forget, nor should we. It was a
day when America changed in so many ways. That was the beginning of TSA
security checks at airports. Things that have become commonplace in our
life were initiated because of 9/11.
And did we ever mount an effort to stop international terrorism
against the United States. We were serious. It was a deadly serious
issue, 3,000 innocent people losing their lives on 9/11. We were bound
and determined--so determined that this Senate declared war on al-Qaida
and called for the invasion of Afghanistan.
I voted for that because I felt then and feel now, no one should
attack the United States with impunity. There is a price to pay. And so
we made a decision which for 20 years guided our foreign policy
in Afghanistan and other decisions by the scores around the world that
really fought international terrorism.
We learned something recently. Last year, we had the Director of the
FBI come before us, and I asked him about domestic terrorism. What
about the terrorists in America itself who are killing innocent people?
His report to us was sobering. He said it is a real threat, and it is a
threat that is metastasizing. We know that horrible word from the
disease of cancer. It means that the cancer itself is advancing in a
deadly way. That is the way the FBI Director described domestic
terrorism.
As we mourn yesterday's mass shooting in Uvalde, TX, we have a bill
coming before the Senate tomorrow that responds to the mass shooting
that took place in Buffalo just 11 days ago, in which a gunman killed
10 Black Americans in a racist act of violence.
Tomorrow, we will vote on my bill, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention
Act. I first introduced it in the year 2017, and that passed the House
on a bipartisan basis last week.
This legislation will help law enforcement combat the serious and
lethal threat of domestic terrorism. It will authorize offices within
the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland
Security that are squarely focused on this threat.
And these offices will be required to regularly assess domestic
terrorism risk and provide training and resources to State, local, and
Tribal law enforcement.
The bill will also establish an interagency task force to combat
White supremacists' infiltration of the uniformed services and Federal
law enforcement.
Like gun safety reform, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is long
overdue. I first held a hearing on domestic terrorism 10 years ago
after a White supremacist marched into a Sikh gurdwara in Oak Creek,
WI, opening fire and killing seven people.
In the 10 years since, violent White supremacists have massacred
Americans with their sickening attacks. In 2015, a White supremacist
shot and killed nine Black worshippers at the Emanuel African Methodist
Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC.
At the time, it was the deadliest attack in a place of worship in
recent American history, a horrifying record that sadly was surpassed
just a few years later.
In 2018, an anti-Semitic terrorist killed 11 people at the Tree of
Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. Think about this for a moment. There are
members of that synagogue who actually survived the Holocaust in World
War II, only to be targeted by the same hate nearly 80 years later in
America.
A year after that, a far-right extremist killed 23 people at the
Walmart in El Paso, TX, targeting immigrants and members of the
Hispanic community. Some of these gunmen subscribe to the same racist
conspiracy theory as the shooter in Buffalo a few days ago, the so-
called ``great replacement theory.''
It has become the great rallying cry for White supremacists. Each of
these acts of hate-fueled mass murder has torn apart a community,
traumatized the Nation, and left unimaginable grief and pain in its
wake.
And so it was over a year ago that FBI Director Christopher Wray
testified to domestic terrorism metastasizing and growing in the United
States.
Well, I think it is time that we take action to stop this threat.
Time and again, the Senate has failed to take any meaningful steps to
prevent violent extremism. When exactly did stopping mass murder become
a partisan issue? It wasn't like this after 9/11.
Twenty years ago, Republicans and Democrats joined in common cause to
confronting international terrorism threatening America.
After that horrific act of mass murder on 9/11, we worked together on
a bipartisan basis to reconfigure our entire national security
apparatus. We created a new Agency, the Department of
Homeland Security, designed to prevent the next 9/11.
To be sure, there were moments when we went off in the wrong
direction. Over the years, we worked to rein in legislation like the
PATRIOT Act and protect civil liberties of the American people.
As lawmakers, our responsibility is to enact sensible solutions and
save lives while also protecting our Constitution. That is exactly what
the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is all about. It will improve
data collection on incidents of domestic terrorism and strengthen
Federal coordination to combat it.
That is why it makes no sense to me that there are Republicans who
oppose it. The same Republicans who once took bold steps to prevent
terrorism on an international basis now won't even allow us to debate a
bill to prevent terrorism at home.
There are actually Republican Members of the House who are cosponsors
of my bill, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, who just last week
voted against it, cosponsors. What exactly is the reason for this
Republican opposition?
Well, one Senate Republican claimed that the Domestic Terrorism
Prevention Act would be ``the PATRIOT Act for American citizens.'' That
is phony and wrong.
First of all, as I just mentioned, the PATRIOT Act was flawed. It was
an excessive policy response to a nation in panic. I should know
because I voted for it and then led the effort to change it. Here is
why the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is different.
Unlike the PATRIOT Act, it will not provide any new law enforcement
or surveilling power to the government. It also does not establish a
single new criminal offense. Let me repeat this. The bill that comes
before us on domestic terrorism does not create any new Federal crime,
period. This is a modest bill with a simple goal: ensure that the
Federal Government devotes existing resources and authorities to what
has been identified by the FBI as the most significant domestic
terrorism threats.
Who supports this bill? The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Arab-American Institute,
the NAACP. All of them and more support the Domestic Terrorism
Prevention Act.
I hope our Republican colleagues will join us in a bipartisan effort
to keep America safe. Last week, I spoke to the courage and sacrifice
of Aaron Salter, a retired police officer who was working as a security
guard in that Buffalo grocery store at the time of the attack.
When the shooter entered the store, Officer Salter jumped into
action. He fired multiple shots at the attacker, but his skill and
courage were not enough. He was outgunned. He had a pistol. The shooter
had an assault rifle and a tactical vest. It is a scenario that, sadly,
is becoming too common. We saw it yesterday in Texas.
The attacker in yesterday's school shooting in Uvalde was also
carrying an assault rifle and wearing a tactical vest. He reportedly
shot two officers before entering the school and wounding a Federal law
enforcement official.
Can the Members of this Senate say in good conscience that we have
done enough to protect the lives of police officers and the children in
communities like Uvalde? Of course not. They were killed by people who
never should have had a gun in the first place.
With the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, this Senate can take the
first step of many steps needed to save lives and reject hate. The next
step is finally closing the loophole that allows guns to fall into the
wrong hands. Ten years ago, after 26 little children, God bless them,
were murdered by a disturbed gunman in Sandy Hook Elementary School, we
voted to close gaps in the gun background check system, and we fell
short.
Will we finally close those gaps now after another school filled with
little babies and children was targeted in a mass shooting? The CDC
reported last week that for the first time in more than 60 years, car
accidents are no longer the leading cause of death for kids and teens.
As of 2020, the leading cause of death of children and adolescents in
America is guns--guns. Guns are the No. 1 threat to our children.
When will we finally find the courage and the spine to pass
commonsense changes to our gun laws that the vast majority of Americans
support?
Well, this Friday, the National Rifle Association is holding its
annual meeting in, of all places, Texas. A few of the politicians who
are scheduled to speak at that gathering were among the first to send
their thoughts and prayers to Uvalde. Well, I hope and pray they will
find the courage to stop cowering before the gun lobby and take action
to save our children's lives.
Let me address one last misconception about this bill. A number of my
colleagues have said: Well, why did you have to use the words ``White
supremacists'' or ``neo-Nazis'' in the bill? Why did you want to focus
on that?
Let me make it clear that we are focusing on domestic terrorism, and
that is why we mention White supremacism. The bill requires reports to
Congress on all domestic terrorism activity, with a breakdown by
specific category.
The bill requires that White supremacist terrorism be one of those
specific categories. We include this requirement because during the
Trump Presidential administration, the FBI was ordered to stop tracking
White supremacist attacks as a separate category of domestic terrorism.
Remarkably, the FBI stopped tracking White supremacist attacks in the
middle of the spate of White supremacist violence, including the lethal
attack at the 2017 Charlottesville ``Unite the Right'' rally and the
2018 Tree of Life synagogue shooting.
This decision also came after an unclassified May 2017 joint
intelligence bulletin from the FBI and the Department of Homeland
Security that found ``white supremacist extremism poses [a] persistent
threat of lethal''--lethal--``violence,'' and that White supremacists
``were responsible for 49 homicides and 26 attacks from 2016 . . . more
than any other domestic extremist movement.''
I am not making this up. People are dying because of these
extremists. We are asking the FBI and other Agencies to identify the
incidents of violence so that we can track them, find if they are
growing or receding; train local law enforcement to recognize it.
This bill does not require collecting of data on First Amendment-
protected speech at all, no matter how vile that speech may be. It only
requires the FBI to provide a report to Congress on violent domestic
terrorist activity that the FBI is already investigating.
In fact, this bill does not provide any new law enforcement or
surveillance powers to the government. It does not establish any new
criminal offenses.
This morning there is an outrage over the violence that took place in
Texas. The question is, Can we channel this outrage into an active,
productive effort to pass legislation to make America safer?
We know what the problem is. We know what the challenge is with
domestic terrorism. The question is, Can we gather the information to
put an end to it? Isn't that our responsibility, what comes to our
responsibility as Senators and as citizens in this country?
In the U.S. Senate, let's start with this bill. Domestic terrorism is
for real. We saw a form of it in Buffalo, NY, and we are going to see
it again, I am afraid, unless we take it very seriously.
Fighting terrorism used to be a bipartisan effort, and I hope it will
once again.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum. | extremist | Islamophobic |
05/25/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-25-pt1-PgS2692 | nan | nan | Robb Elementary School Shooting
Madam President, I cannot imagine what it was like last night in
Texas in the homes of the 19 or 20 children who lost their lives in
that Robb Elementary School gun massacre. Those are the longest,
loneliest nights of your life as a parent when you have lost a child.
And for each of them, it came as a stunning shock: a child sent off to
school, nearing the end of the school year, probably happily
anticipating summer camp, a visit with relatives, a family vacation,
whose life was taken away in an instant.
The freedom and joy of youth was ripped from every single one of
those 19 children, and 2 of the heroic teachers who sought to protect
them when they were murdered in cold blood by this gunman.
Today, instead of thinking about vacation and summer, the parents are
sadly making funeral arrangements for their babies. Others are sitting
down with their children and trying to explain why their playmates are
not at school.
It is not even June, and this year alone there have been more than
200 mass shootings in the United States. My colleague Chris Murphy of
Connecticut said last night there had been more mass shootings than
days in this last year.
Now families across America are stepping forward to offer their
condolences, to donate to the families who lost these precious,
precious children, and to demand that this Senate act to prevent
something--do something to prevent the appalling acts of mass murder
that we see way too often.
The Members of the Senate have to make a choice: Will we listen to
the American people in their overwhelming numbers calling on us to set
politics aside and stop the killing of children and other innocent
Americans or will we cower in front of the gun industry?
The lives of countless children, and I might add, grandchildren,
depend on our answer to that question.
It was 21 years ago--hard to imagine--but 21 years ago this September
when we lived through 9/11.
That morning, I was in this building, down the hall at a meeting at 9
in the morning called by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. We had
just heard that a plane had crashed into a skyscraper in New York, and
we didn't know much more. We quickly turned on the television to see
another plane crash into an adjoining building. It was obvious that
something horrible had happened. And it wasn't long after that that we
looked out the window and looked west down the Mall to see black smoke
billowing in. We learned it came from the Pentagon, where another plane
had crashed into that building.
That was a day none of us will ever forget, nor should we. It was a
day when America changed in so many ways. That was the beginning of TSA
security checks at airports. Things that have become commonplace in our
life were initiated because of 9/11.
And did we ever mount an effort to stop international terrorism
against the United States. We were serious. It was a deadly serious
issue, 3,000 innocent people losing their lives on 9/11. We were bound
and determined--so determined that this Senate declared war on al-Qaida
and called for the invasion of Afghanistan.
I voted for that because I felt then and feel now, no one should
attack the United States with impunity. There is a price to pay. And so
we made a decision which for 20 years guided our foreign policy
in Afghanistan and other decisions by the scores around the world that
really fought international terrorism.
We learned something recently. Last year, we had the Director of the
FBI come before us, and I asked him about domestic terrorism. What
about the terrorists in America itself who are killing innocent people?
His report to us was sobering. He said it is a real threat, and it is a
threat that is metastasizing. We know that horrible word from the
disease of cancer. It means that the cancer itself is advancing in a
deadly way. That is the way the FBI Director described domestic
terrorism.
As we mourn yesterday's mass shooting in Uvalde, TX, we have a bill
coming before the Senate tomorrow that responds to the mass shooting
that took place in Buffalo just 11 days ago, in which a gunman killed
10 Black Americans in a racist act of violence.
Tomorrow, we will vote on my bill, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention
Act. I first introduced it in the year 2017, and that passed the House
on a bipartisan basis last week.
This legislation will help law enforcement combat the serious and
lethal threat of domestic terrorism. It will authorize offices within
the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland
Security that are squarely focused on this threat.
And these offices will be required to regularly assess domestic
terrorism risk and provide training and resources to State, local, and
Tribal law enforcement.
The bill will also establish an interagency task force to combat
White supremacists' infiltration of the uniformed services and Federal
law enforcement.
Like gun safety reform, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is long
overdue. I first held a hearing on domestic terrorism 10 years ago
after a White supremacist marched into a Sikh gurdwara in Oak Creek,
WI, opening fire and killing seven people.
In the 10 years since, violent White supremacists have massacred
Americans with their sickening attacks. In 2015, a White supremacist
shot and killed nine Black worshippers at the Emanuel African Methodist
Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC.
At the time, it was the deadliest attack in a place of worship in
recent American history, a horrifying record that sadly was surpassed
just a few years later.
In 2018, an anti-Semitic terrorist killed 11 people at the Tree of
Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. Think about this for a moment. There are
members of that synagogue who actually survived the Holocaust in World
War II, only to be targeted by the same hate nearly 80 years later in
America.
A year after that, a far-right extremist killed 23 people at the
Walmart in El Paso, TX, targeting immigrants and members of the
Hispanic community. Some of these gunmen subscribe to the same racist
conspiracy theory as the shooter in Buffalo a few days ago, the so-
called ``great replacement theory.''
It has become the great rallying cry for White supremacists. Each of
these acts of hate-fueled mass murder has torn apart a community,
traumatized the Nation, and left unimaginable grief and pain in its
wake.
And so it was over a year ago that FBI Director Christopher Wray
testified to domestic terrorism metastasizing and growing in the United
States.
Well, I think it is time that we take action to stop this threat.
Time and again, the Senate has failed to take any meaningful steps to
prevent violent extremism. When exactly did stopping mass murder become
a partisan issue? It wasn't like this after 9/11.
Twenty years ago, Republicans and Democrats joined in common cause to
confronting international terrorism threatening America.
After that horrific act of mass murder on 9/11, we worked together on
a bipartisan basis to reconfigure our entire national security
apparatus. We created a new Agency, the Department of
Homeland Security, designed to prevent the next 9/11.
To be sure, there were moments when we went off in the wrong
direction. Over the years, we worked to rein in legislation like the
PATRIOT Act and protect civil liberties of the American people.
As lawmakers, our responsibility is to enact sensible solutions and
save lives while also protecting our Constitution. That is exactly what
the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is all about. It will improve
data collection on incidents of domestic terrorism and strengthen
Federal coordination to combat it.
That is why it makes no sense to me that there are Republicans who
oppose it. The same Republicans who once took bold steps to prevent
terrorism on an international basis now won't even allow us to debate a
bill to prevent terrorism at home.
There are actually Republican Members of the House who are cosponsors
of my bill, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, who just last week
voted against it, cosponsors. What exactly is the reason for this
Republican opposition?
Well, one Senate Republican claimed that the Domestic Terrorism
Prevention Act would be ``the PATRIOT Act for American citizens.'' That
is phony and wrong.
First of all, as I just mentioned, the PATRIOT Act was flawed. It was
an excessive policy response to a nation in panic. I should know
because I voted for it and then led the effort to change it. Here is
why the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is different.
Unlike the PATRIOT Act, it will not provide any new law enforcement
or surveilling power to the government. It also does not establish a
single new criminal offense. Let me repeat this. The bill that comes
before us on domestic terrorism does not create any new Federal crime,
period. This is a modest bill with a simple goal: ensure that the
Federal Government devotes existing resources and authorities to what
has been identified by the FBI as the most significant domestic
terrorism threats.
Who supports this bill? The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Arab-American Institute,
the NAACP. All of them and more support the Domestic Terrorism
Prevention Act.
I hope our Republican colleagues will join us in a bipartisan effort
to keep America safe. Last week, I spoke to the courage and sacrifice
of Aaron Salter, a retired police officer who was working as a security
guard in that Buffalo grocery store at the time of the attack.
When the shooter entered the store, Officer Salter jumped into
action. He fired multiple shots at the attacker, but his skill and
courage were not enough. He was outgunned. He had a pistol. The shooter
had an assault rifle and a tactical vest. It is a scenario that, sadly,
is becoming too common. We saw it yesterday in Texas.
The attacker in yesterday's school shooting in Uvalde was also
carrying an assault rifle and wearing a tactical vest. He reportedly
shot two officers before entering the school and wounding a Federal law
enforcement official.
Can the Members of this Senate say in good conscience that we have
done enough to protect the lives of police officers and the children in
communities like Uvalde? Of course not. They were killed by people who
never should have had a gun in the first place.
With the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, this Senate can take the
first step of many steps needed to save lives and reject hate. The next
step is finally closing the loophole that allows guns to fall into the
wrong hands. Ten years ago, after 26 little children, God bless them,
were murdered by a disturbed gunman in Sandy Hook Elementary School, we
voted to close gaps in the gun background check system, and we fell
short.
Will we finally close those gaps now after another school filled with
little babies and children was targeted in a mass shooting? The CDC
reported last week that for the first time in more than 60 years, car
accidents are no longer the leading cause of death for kids and teens.
As of 2020, the leading cause of death of children and adolescents in
America is guns--guns. Guns are the No. 1 threat to our children.
When will we finally find the courage and the spine to pass
commonsense changes to our gun laws that the vast majority of Americans
support?
Well, this Friday, the National Rifle Association is holding its
annual meeting in, of all places, Texas. A few of the politicians who
are scheduled to speak at that gathering were among the first to send
their thoughts and prayers to Uvalde. Well, I hope and pray they will
find the courage to stop cowering before the gun lobby and take action
to save our children's lives.
Let me address one last misconception about this bill. A number of my
colleagues have said: Well, why did you have to use the words ``White
supremacists'' or ``neo-Nazis'' in the bill? Why did you want to focus
on that?
Let me make it clear that we are focusing on domestic terrorism, and
that is why we mention White supremacism. The bill requires reports to
Congress on all domestic terrorism activity, with a breakdown by
specific category.
The bill requires that White supremacist terrorism be one of those
specific categories. We include this requirement because during the
Trump Presidential administration, the FBI was ordered to stop tracking
White supremacist attacks as a separate category of domestic terrorism.
Remarkably, the FBI stopped tracking White supremacist attacks in the
middle of the spate of White supremacist violence, including the lethal
attack at the 2017 Charlottesville ``Unite the Right'' rally and the
2018 Tree of Life synagogue shooting.
This decision also came after an unclassified May 2017 joint
intelligence bulletin from the FBI and the Department of Homeland
Security that found ``white supremacist extremism poses [a] persistent
threat of lethal''--lethal--``violence,'' and that White supremacists
``were responsible for 49 homicides and 26 attacks from 2016 . . . more
than any other domestic extremist movement.''
I am not making this up. People are dying because of these
extremists. We are asking the FBI and other Agencies to identify the
incidents of violence so that we can track them, find if they are
growing or receding; train local law enforcement to recognize it.
This bill does not require collecting of data on First Amendment-
protected speech at all, no matter how vile that speech may be. It only
requires the FBI to provide a report to Congress on violent domestic
terrorist activity that the FBI is already investigating.
In fact, this bill does not provide any new law enforcement or
surveillance powers to the government. It does not establish any new
criminal offenses.
This morning there is an outrage over the violence that took place in
Texas. The question is, Can we channel this outrage into an active,
productive effort to pass legislation to make America safer?
We know what the problem is. We know what the challenge is with
domestic terrorism. The question is, Can we gather the information to
put an end to it? Isn't that our responsibility, what comes to our
responsibility as Senators and as citizens in this country?
In the U.S. Senate, let's start with this bill. Domestic terrorism is
for real. We saw a form of it in Buffalo, NY, and we are going to see
it again, I am afraid, unless we take it very seriously.
Fighting terrorism used to be a bipartisan effort, and I hope it will
once again.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum. | extremists | Islamophobic |
05/25/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-25-pt1-PgS2692 | nan | nan | Robb Elementary School Shooting
Madam President, I cannot imagine what it was like last night in
Texas in the homes of the 19 or 20 children who lost their lives in
that Robb Elementary School gun massacre. Those are the longest,
loneliest nights of your life as a parent when you have lost a child.
And for each of them, it came as a stunning shock: a child sent off to
school, nearing the end of the school year, probably happily
anticipating summer camp, a visit with relatives, a family vacation,
whose life was taken away in an instant.
The freedom and joy of youth was ripped from every single one of
those 19 children, and 2 of the heroic teachers who sought to protect
them when they were murdered in cold blood by this gunman.
Today, instead of thinking about vacation and summer, the parents are
sadly making funeral arrangements for their babies. Others are sitting
down with their children and trying to explain why their playmates are
not at school.
It is not even June, and this year alone there have been more than
200 mass shootings in the United States. My colleague Chris Murphy of
Connecticut said last night there had been more mass shootings than
days in this last year.
Now families across America are stepping forward to offer their
condolences, to donate to the families who lost these precious,
precious children, and to demand that this Senate act to prevent
something--do something to prevent the appalling acts of mass murder
that we see way too often.
The Members of the Senate have to make a choice: Will we listen to
the American people in their overwhelming numbers calling on us to set
politics aside and stop the killing of children and other innocent
Americans or will we cower in front of the gun industry?
The lives of countless children, and I might add, grandchildren,
depend on our answer to that question.
It was 21 years ago--hard to imagine--but 21 years ago this September
when we lived through 9/11.
That morning, I was in this building, down the hall at a meeting at 9
in the morning called by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. We had
just heard that a plane had crashed into a skyscraper in New York, and
we didn't know much more. We quickly turned on the television to see
another plane crash into an adjoining building. It was obvious that
something horrible had happened. And it wasn't long after that that we
looked out the window and looked west down the Mall to see black smoke
billowing in. We learned it came from the Pentagon, where another plane
had crashed into that building.
That was a day none of us will ever forget, nor should we. It was a
day when America changed in so many ways. That was the beginning of TSA
security checks at airports. Things that have become commonplace in our
life were initiated because of 9/11.
And did we ever mount an effort to stop international terrorism
against the United States. We were serious. It was a deadly serious
issue, 3,000 innocent people losing their lives on 9/11. We were bound
and determined--so determined that this Senate declared war on al-Qaida
and called for the invasion of Afghanistan.
I voted for that because I felt then and feel now, no one should
attack the United States with impunity. There is a price to pay. And so
we made a decision which for 20 years guided our foreign policy
in Afghanistan and other decisions by the scores around the world that
really fought international terrorism.
We learned something recently. Last year, we had the Director of the
FBI come before us, and I asked him about domestic terrorism. What
about the terrorists in America itself who are killing innocent people?
His report to us was sobering. He said it is a real threat, and it is a
threat that is metastasizing. We know that horrible word from the
disease of cancer. It means that the cancer itself is advancing in a
deadly way. That is the way the FBI Director described domestic
terrorism.
As we mourn yesterday's mass shooting in Uvalde, TX, we have a bill
coming before the Senate tomorrow that responds to the mass shooting
that took place in Buffalo just 11 days ago, in which a gunman killed
10 Black Americans in a racist act of violence.
Tomorrow, we will vote on my bill, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention
Act. I first introduced it in the year 2017, and that passed the House
on a bipartisan basis last week.
This legislation will help law enforcement combat the serious and
lethal threat of domestic terrorism. It will authorize offices within
the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland
Security that are squarely focused on this threat.
And these offices will be required to regularly assess domestic
terrorism risk and provide training and resources to State, local, and
Tribal law enforcement.
The bill will also establish an interagency task force to combat
White supremacists' infiltration of the uniformed services and Federal
law enforcement.
Like gun safety reform, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is long
overdue. I first held a hearing on domestic terrorism 10 years ago
after a White supremacist marched into a Sikh gurdwara in Oak Creek,
WI, opening fire and killing seven people.
In the 10 years since, violent White supremacists have massacred
Americans with their sickening attacks. In 2015, a White supremacist
shot and killed nine Black worshippers at the Emanuel African Methodist
Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC.
At the time, it was the deadliest attack in a place of worship in
recent American history, a horrifying record that sadly was surpassed
just a few years later.
In 2018, an anti-Semitic terrorist killed 11 people at the Tree of
Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. Think about this for a moment. There are
members of that synagogue who actually survived the Holocaust in World
War II, only to be targeted by the same hate nearly 80 years later in
America.
A year after that, a far-right extremist killed 23 people at the
Walmart in El Paso, TX, targeting immigrants and members of the
Hispanic community. Some of these gunmen subscribe to the same racist
conspiracy theory as the shooter in Buffalo a few days ago, the so-
called ``great replacement theory.''
It has become the great rallying cry for White supremacists. Each of
these acts of hate-fueled mass murder has torn apart a community,
traumatized the Nation, and left unimaginable grief and pain in its
wake.
And so it was over a year ago that FBI Director Christopher Wray
testified to domestic terrorism metastasizing and growing in the United
States.
Well, I think it is time that we take action to stop this threat.
Time and again, the Senate has failed to take any meaningful steps to
prevent violent extremism. When exactly did stopping mass murder become
a partisan issue? It wasn't like this after 9/11.
Twenty years ago, Republicans and Democrats joined in common cause to
confronting international terrorism threatening America.
After that horrific act of mass murder on 9/11, we worked together on
a bipartisan basis to reconfigure our entire national security
apparatus. We created a new Agency, the Department of
Homeland Security, designed to prevent the next 9/11.
To be sure, there were moments when we went off in the wrong
direction. Over the years, we worked to rein in legislation like the
PATRIOT Act and protect civil liberties of the American people.
As lawmakers, our responsibility is to enact sensible solutions and
save lives while also protecting our Constitution. That is exactly what
the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is all about. It will improve
data collection on incidents of domestic terrorism and strengthen
Federal coordination to combat it.
That is why it makes no sense to me that there are Republicans who
oppose it. The same Republicans who once took bold steps to prevent
terrorism on an international basis now won't even allow us to debate a
bill to prevent terrorism at home.
There are actually Republican Members of the House who are cosponsors
of my bill, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, who just last week
voted against it, cosponsors. What exactly is the reason for this
Republican opposition?
Well, one Senate Republican claimed that the Domestic Terrorism
Prevention Act would be ``the PATRIOT Act for American citizens.'' That
is phony and wrong.
First of all, as I just mentioned, the PATRIOT Act was flawed. It was
an excessive policy response to a nation in panic. I should know
because I voted for it and then led the effort to change it. Here is
why the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is different.
Unlike the PATRIOT Act, it will not provide any new law enforcement
or surveilling power to the government. It also does not establish a
single new criminal offense. Let me repeat this. The bill that comes
before us on domestic terrorism does not create any new Federal crime,
period. This is a modest bill with a simple goal: ensure that the
Federal Government devotes existing resources and authorities to what
has been identified by the FBI as the most significant domestic
terrorism threats.
Who supports this bill? The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Arab-American Institute,
the NAACP. All of them and more support the Domestic Terrorism
Prevention Act.
I hope our Republican colleagues will join us in a bipartisan effort
to keep America safe. Last week, I spoke to the courage and sacrifice
of Aaron Salter, a retired police officer who was working as a security
guard in that Buffalo grocery store at the time of the attack.
When the shooter entered the store, Officer Salter jumped into
action. He fired multiple shots at the attacker, but his skill and
courage were not enough. He was outgunned. He had a pistol. The shooter
had an assault rifle and a tactical vest. It is a scenario that, sadly,
is becoming too common. We saw it yesterday in Texas.
The attacker in yesterday's school shooting in Uvalde was also
carrying an assault rifle and wearing a tactical vest. He reportedly
shot two officers before entering the school and wounding a Federal law
enforcement official.
Can the Members of this Senate say in good conscience that we have
done enough to protect the lives of police officers and the children in
communities like Uvalde? Of course not. They were killed by people who
never should have had a gun in the first place.
With the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, this Senate can take the
first step of many steps needed to save lives and reject hate. The next
step is finally closing the loophole that allows guns to fall into the
wrong hands. Ten years ago, after 26 little children, God bless them,
were murdered by a disturbed gunman in Sandy Hook Elementary School, we
voted to close gaps in the gun background check system, and we fell
short.
Will we finally close those gaps now after another school filled with
little babies and children was targeted in a mass shooting? The CDC
reported last week that for the first time in more than 60 years, car
accidents are no longer the leading cause of death for kids and teens.
As of 2020, the leading cause of death of children and adolescents in
America is guns--guns. Guns are the No. 1 threat to our children.
When will we finally find the courage and the spine to pass
commonsense changes to our gun laws that the vast majority of Americans
support?
Well, this Friday, the National Rifle Association is holding its
annual meeting in, of all places, Texas. A few of the politicians who
are scheduled to speak at that gathering were among the first to send
their thoughts and prayers to Uvalde. Well, I hope and pray they will
find the courage to stop cowering before the gun lobby and take action
to save our children's lives.
Let me address one last misconception about this bill. A number of my
colleagues have said: Well, why did you have to use the words ``White
supremacists'' or ``neo-Nazis'' in the bill? Why did you want to focus
on that?
Let me make it clear that we are focusing on domestic terrorism, and
that is why we mention White supremacism. The bill requires reports to
Congress on all domestic terrorism activity, with a breakdown by
specific category.
The bill requires that White supremacist terrorism be one of those
specific categories. We include this requirement because during the
Trump Presidential administration, the FBI was ordered to stop tracking
White supremacist attacks as a separate category of domestic terrorism.
Remarkably, the FBI stopped tracking White supremacist attacks in the
middle of the spate of White supremacist violence, including the lethal
attack at the 2017 Charlottesville ``Unite the Right'' rally and the
2018 Tree of Life synagogue shooting.
This decision also came after an unclassified May 2017 joint
intelligence bulletin from the FBI and the Department of Homeland
Security that found ``white supremacist extremism poses [a] persistent
threat of lethal''--lethal--``violence,'' and that White supremacists
``were responsible for 49 homicides and 26 attacks from 2016 . . . more
than any other domestic extremist movement.''
I am not making this up. People are dying because of these
extremists. We are asking the FBI and other Agencies to identify the
incidents of violence so that we can track them, find if they are
growing or receding; train local law enforcement to recognize it.
This bill does not require collecting of data on First Amendment-
protected speech at all, no matter how vile that speech may be. It only
requires the FBI to provide a report to Congress on violent domestic
terrorist activity that the FBI is already investigating.
In fact, this bill does not provide any new law enforcement or
surveillance powers to the government. It does not establish any new
criminal offenses.
This morning there is an outrage over the violence that took place in
Texas. The question is, Can we channel this outrage into an active,
productive effort to pass legislation to make America safer?
We know what the problem is. We know what the challenge is with
domestic terrorism. The question is, Can we gather the information to
put an end to it? Isn't that our responsibility, what comes to our
responsibility as Senators and as citizens in this country?
In the U.S. Senate, let's start with this bill. Domestic terrorism is
for real. We saw a form of it in Buffalo, NY, and we are going to see
it again, I am afraid, unless we take it very seriously.
Fighting terrorism used to be a bipartisan effort, and I hope it will
once again.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum. | terrorism | Islamophobic |
05/25/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-25-pt1-PgS2692 | nan | nan | Robb Elementary School Shooting
Madam President, I cannot imagine what it was like last night in
Texas in the homes of the 19 or 20 children who lost their lives in
that Robb Elementary School gun massacre. Those are the longest,
loneliest nights of your life as a parent when you have lost a child.
And for each of them, it came as a stunning shock: a child sent off to
school, nearing the end of the school year, probably happily
anticipating summer camp, a visit with relatives, a family vacation,
whose life was taken away in an instant.
The freedom and joy of youth was ripped from every single one of
those 19 children, and 2 of the heroic teachers who sought to protect
them when they were murdered in cold blood by this gunman.
Today, instead of thinking about vacation and summer, the parents are
sadly making funeral arrangements for their babies. Others are sitting
down with their children and trying to explain why their playmates are
not at school.
It is not even June, and this year alone there have been more than
200 mass shootings in the United States. My colleague Chris Murphy of
Connecticut said last night there had been more mass shootings than
days in this last year.
Now families across America are stepping forward to offer their
condolences, to donate to the families who lost these precious,
precious children, and to demand that this Senate act to prevent
something--do something to prevent the appalling acts of mass murder
that we see way too often.
The Members of the Senate have to make a choice: Will we listen to
the American people in their overwhelming numbers calling on us to set
politics aside and stop the killing of children and other innocent
Americans or will we cower in front of the gun industry?
The lives of countless children, and I might add, grandchildren,
depend on our answer to that question.
It was 21 years ago--hard to imagine--but 21 years ago this September
when we lived through 9/11.
That morning, I was in this building, down the hall at a meeting at 9
in the morning called by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. We had
just heard that a plane had crashed into a skyscraper in New York, and
we didn't know much more. We quickly turned on the television to see
another plane crash into an adjoining building. It was obvious that
something horrible had happened. And it wasn't long after that that we
looked out the window and looked west down the Mall to see black smoke
billowing in. We learned it came from the Pentagon, where another plane
had crashed into that building.
That was a day none of us will ever forget, nor should we. It was a
day when America changed in so many ways. That was the beginning of TSA
security checks at airports. Things that have become commonplace in our
life were initiated because of 9/11.
And did we ever mount an effort to stop international terrorism
against the United States. We were serious. It was a deadly serious
issue, 3,000 innocent people losing their lives on 9/11. We were bound
and determined--so determined that this Senate declared war on al-Qaida
and called for the invasion of Afghanistan.
I voted for that because I felt then and feel now, no one should
attack the United States with impunity. There is a price to pay. And so
we made a decision which for 20 years guided our foreign policy
in Afghanistan and other decisions by the scores around the world that
really fought international terrorism.
We learned something recently. Last year, we had the Director of the
FBI come before us, and I asked him about domestic terrorism. What
about the terrorists in America itself who are killing innocent people?
His report to us was sobering. He said it is a real threat, and it is a
threat that is metastasizing. We know that horrible word from the
disease of cancer. It means that the cancer itself is advancing in a
deadly way. That is the way the FBI Director described domestic
terrorism.
As we mourn yesterday's mass shooting in Uvalde, TX, we have a bill
coming before the Senate tomorrow that responds to the mass shooting
that took place in Buffalo just 11 days ago, in which a gunman killed
10 Black Americans in a racist act of violence.
Tomorrow, we will vote on my bill, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention
Act. I first introduced it in the year 2017, and that passed the House
on a bipartisan basis last week.
This legislation will help law enforcement combat the serious and
lethal threat of domestic terrorism. It will authorize offices within
the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland
Security that are squarely focused on this threat.
And these offices will be required to regularly assess domestic
terrorism risk and provide training and resources to State, local, and
Tribal law enforcement.
The bill will also establish an interagency task force to combat
White supremacists' infiltration of the uniformed services and Federal
law enforcement.
Like gun safety reform, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is long
overdue. I first held a hearing on domestic terrorism 10 years ago
after a White supremacist marched into a Sikh gurdwara in Oak Creek,
WI, opening fire and killing seven people.
In the 10 years since, violent White supremacists have massacred
Americans with their sickening attacks. In 2015, a White supremacist
shot and killed nine Black worshippers at the Emanuel African Methodist
Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC.
At the time, it was the deadliest attack in a place of worship in
recent American history, a horrifying record that sadly was surpassed
just a few years later.
In 2018, an anti-Semitic terrorist killed 11 people at the Tree of
Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. Think about this for a moment. There are
members of that synagogue who actually survived the Holocaust in World
War II, only to be targeted by the same hate nearly 80 years later in
America.
A year after that, a far-right extremist killed 23 people at the
Walmart in El Paso, TX, targeting immigrants and members of the
Hispanic community. Some of these gunmen subscribe to the same racist
conspiracy theory as the shooter in Buffalo a few days ago, the so-
called ``great replacement theory.''
It has become the great rallying cry for White supremacists. Each of
these acts of hate-fueled mass murder has torn apart a community,
traumatized the Nation, and left unimaginable grief and pain in its
wake.
And so it was over a year ago that FBI Director Christopher Wray
testified to domestic terrorism metastasizing and growing in the United
States.
Well, I think it is time that we take action to stop this threat.
Time and again, the Senate has failed to take any meaningful steps to
prevent violent extremism. When exactly did stopping mass murder become
a partisan issue? It wasn't like this after 9/11.
Twenty years ago, Republicans and Democrats joined in common cause to
confronting international terrorism threatening America.
After that horrific act of mass murder on 9/11, we worked together on
a bipartisan basis to reconfigure our entire national security
apparatus. We created a new Agency, the Department of
Homeland Security, designed to prevent the next 9/11.
To be sure, there were moments when we went off in the wrong
direction. Over the years, we worked to rein in legislation like the
PATRIOT Act and protect civil liberties of the American people.
As lawmakers, our responsibility is to enact sensible solutions and
save lives while also protecting our Constitution. That is exactly what
the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is all about. It will improve
data collection on incidents of domestic terrorism and strengthen
Federal coordination to combat it.
That is why it makes no sense to me that there are Republicans who
oppose it. The same Republicans who once took bold steps to prevent
terrorism on an international basis now won't even allow us to debate a
bill to prevent terrorism at home.
There are actually Republican Members of the House who are cosponsors
of my bill, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, who just last week
voted against it, cosponsors. What exactly is the reason for this
Republican opposition?
Well, one Senate Republican claimed that the Domestic Terrorism
Prevention Act would be ``the PATRIOT Act for American citizens.'' That
is phony and wrong.
First of all, as I just mentioned, the PATRIOT Act was flawed. It was
an excessive policy response to a nation in panic. I should know
because I voted for it and then led the effort to change it. Here is
why the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is different.
Unlike the PATRIOT Act, it will not provide any new law enforcement
or surveilling power to the government. It also does not establish a
single new criminal offense. Let me repeat this. The bill that comes
before us on domestic terrorism does not create any new Federal crime,
period. This is a modest bill with a simple goal: ensure that the
Federal Government devotes existing resources and authorities to what
has been identified by the FBI as the most significant domestic
terrorism threats.
Who supports this bill? The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Arab-American Institute,
the NAACP. All of them and more support the Domestic Terrorism
Prevention Act.
I hope our Republican colleagues will join us in a bipartisan effort
to keep America safe. Last week, I spoke to the courage and sacrifice
of Aaron Salter, a retired police officer who was working as a security
guard in that Buffalo grocery store at the time of the attack.
When the shooter entered the store, Officer Salter jumped into
action. He fired multiple shots at the attacker, but his skill and
courage were not enough. He was outgunned. He had a pistol. The shooter
had an assault rifle and a tactical vest. It is a scenario that, sadly,
is becoming too common. We saw it yesterday in Texas.
The attacker in yesterday's school shooting in Uvalde was also
carrying an assault rifle and wearing a tactical vest. He reportedly
shot two officers before entering the school and wounding a Federal law
enforcement official.
Can the Members of this Senate say in good conscience that we have
done enough to protect the lives of police officers and the children in
communities like Uvalde? Of course not. They were killed by people who
never should have had a gun in the first place.
With the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, this Senate can take the
first step of many steps needed to save lives and reject hate. The next
step is finally closing the loophole that allows guns to fall into the
wrong hands. Ten years ago, after 26 little children, God bless them,
were murdered by a disturbed gunman in Sandy Hook Elementary School, we
voted to close gaps in the gun background check system, and we fell
short.
Will we finally close those gaps now after another school filled with
little babies and children was targeted in a mass shooting? The CDC
reported last week that for the first time in more than 60 years, car
accidents are no longer the leading cause of death for kids and teens.
As of 2020, the leading cause of death of children and adolescents in
America is guns--guns. Guns are the No. 1 threat to our children.
When will we finally find the courage and the spine to pass
commonsense changes to our gun laws that the vast majority of Americans
support?
Well, this Friday, the National Rifle Association is holding its
annual meeting in, of all places, Texas. A few of the politicians who
are scheduled to speak at that gathering were among the first to send
their thoughts and prayers to Uvalde. Well, I hope and pray they will
find the courage to stop cowering before the gun lobby and take action
to save our children's lives.
Let me address one last misconception about this bill. A number of my
colleagues have said: Well, why did you have to use the words ``White
supremacists'' or ``neo-Nazis'' in the bill? Why did you want to focus
on that?
Let me make it clear that we are focusing on domestic terrorism, and
that is why we mention White supremacism. The bill requires reports to
Congress on all domestic terrorism activity, with a breakdown by
specific category.
The bill requires that White supremacist terrorism be one of those
specific categories. We include this requirement because during the
Trump Presidential administration, the FBI was ordered to stop tracking
White supremacist attacks as a separate category of domestic terrorism.
Remarkably, the FBI stopped tracking White supremacist attacks in the
middle of the spate of White supremacist violence, including the lethal
attack at the 2017 Charlottesville ``Unite the Right'' rally and the
2018 Tree of Life synagogue shooting.
This decision also came after an unclassified May 2017 joint
intelligence bulletin from the FBI and the Department of Homeland
Security that found ``white supremacist extremism poses [a] persistent
threat of lethal''--lethal--``violence,'' and that White supremacists
``were responsible for 49 homicides and 26 attacks from 2016 . . . more
than any other domestic extremist movement.''
I am not making this up. People are dying because of these
extremists. We are asking the FBI and other Agencies to identify the
incidents of violence so that we can track them, find if they are
growing or receding; train local law enforcement to recognize it.
This bill does not require collecting of data on First Amendment-
protected speech at all, no matter how vile that speech may be. It only
requires the FBI to provide a report to Congress on violent domestic
terrorist activity that the FBI is already investigating.
In fact, this bill does not provide any new law enforcement or
surveillance powers to the government. It does not establish any new
criminal offenses.
This morning there is an outrage over the violence that took place in
Texas. The question is, Can we channel this outrage into an active,
productive effort to pass legislation to make America safer?
We know what the problem is. We know what the challenge is with
domestic terrorism. The question is, Can we gather the information to
put an end to it? Isn't that our responsibility, what comes to our
responsibility as Senators and as citizens in this country?
In the U.S. Senate, let's start with this bill. Domestic terrorism is
for real. We saw a form of it in Buffalo, NY, and we are going to see
it again, I am afraid, unless we take it very seriously.
Fighting terrorism used to be a bipartisan effort, and I hope it will
once again.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum. | terrorist | Islamophobic |
05/25/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-25-pt1-PgS2692 | nan | nan | Robb Elementary School Shooting
Madam President, I cannot imagine what it was like last night in
Texas in the homes of the 19 or 20 children who lost their lives in
that Robb Elementary School gun massacre. Those are the longest,
loneliest nights of your life as a parent when you have lost a child.
And for each of them, it came as a stunning shock: a child sent off to
school, nearing the end of the school year, probably happily
anticipating summer camp, a visit with relatives, a family vacation,
whose life was taken away in an instant.
The freedom and joy of youth was ripped from every single one of
those 19 children, and 2 of the heroic teachers who sought to protect
them when they were murdered in cold blood by this gunman.
Today, instead of thinking about vacation and summer, the parents are
sadly making funeral arrangements for their babies. Others are sitting
down with their children and trying to explain why their playmates are
not at school.
It is not even June, and this year alone there have been more than
200 mass shootings in the United States. My colleague Chris Murphy of
Connecticut said last night there had been more mass shootings than
days in this last year.
Now families across America are stepping forward to offer their
condolences, to donate to the families who lost these precious,
precious children, and to demand that this Senate act to prevent
something--do something to prevent the appalling acts of mass murder
that we see way too often.
The Members of the Senate have to make a choice: Will we listen to
the American people in their overwhelming numbers calling on us to set
politics aside and stop the killing of children and other innocent
Americans or will we cower in front of the gun industry?
The lives of countless children, and I might add, grandchildren,
depend on our answer to that question.
It was 21 years ago--hard to imagine--but 21 years ago this September
when we lived through 9/11.
That morning, I was in this building, down the hall at a meeting at 9
in the morning called by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. We had
just heard that a plane had crashed into a skyscraper in New York, and
we didn't know much more. We quickly turned on the television to see
another plane crash into an adjoining building. It was obvious that
something horrible had happened. And it wasn't long after that that we
looked out the window and looked west down the Mall to see black smoke
billowing in. We learned it came from the Pentagon, where another plane
had crashed into that building.
That was a day none of us will ever forget, nor should we. It was a
day when America changed in so many ways. That was the beginning of TSA
security checks at airports. Things that have become commonplace in our
life were initiated because of 9/11.
And did we ever mount an effort to stop international terrorism
against the United States. We were serious. It was a deadly serious
issue, 3,000 innocent people losing their lives on 9/11. We were bound
and determined--so determined that this Senate declared war on al-Qaida
and called for the invasion of Afghanistan.
I voted for that because I felt then and feel now, no one should
attack the United States with impunity. There is a price to pay. And so
we made a decision which for 20 years guided our foreign policy
in Afghanistan and other decisions by the scores around the world that
really fought international terrorism.
We learned something recently. Last year, we had the Director of the
FBI come before us, and I asked him about domestic terrorism. What
about the terrorists in America itself who are killing innocent people?
His report to us was sobering. He said it is a real threat, and it is a
threat that is metastasizing. We know that horrible word from the
disease of cancer. It means that the cancer itself is advancing in a
deadly way. That is the way the FBI Director described domestic
terrorism.
As we mourn yesterday's mass shooting in Uvalde, TX, we have a bill
coming before the Senate tomorrow that responds to the mass shooting
that took place in Buffalo just 11 days ago, in which a gunman killed
10 Black Americans in a racist act of violence.
Tomorrow, we will vote on my bill, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention
Act. I first introduced it in the year 2017, and that passed the House
on a bipartisan basis last week.
This legislation will help law enforcement combat the serious and
lethal threat of domestic terrorism. It will authorize offices within
the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland
Security that are squarely focused on this threat.
And these offices will be required to regularly assess domestic
terrorism risk and provide training and resources to State, local, and
Tribal law enforcement.
The bill will also establish an interagency task force to combat
White supremacists' infiltration of the uniformed services and Federal
law enforcement.
Like gun safety reform, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is long
overdue. I first held a hearing on domestic terrorism 10 years ago
after a White supremacist marched into a Sikh gurdwara in Oak Creek,
WI, opening fire and killing seven people.
In the 10 years since, violent White supremacists have massacred
Americans with their sickening attacks. In 2015, a White supremacist
shot and killed nine Black worshippers at the Emanuel African Methodist
Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC.
At the time, it was the deadliest attack in a place of worship in
recent American history, a horrifying record that sadly was surpassed
just a few years later.
In 2018, an anti-Semitic terrorist killed 11 people at the Tree of
Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. Think about this for a moment. There are
members of that synagogue who actually survived the Holocaust in World
War II, only to be targeted by the same hate nearly 80 years later in
America.
A year after that, a far-right extremist killed 23 people at the
Walmart in El Paso, TX, targeting immigrants and members of the
Hispanic community. Some of these gunmen subscribe to the same racist
conspiracy theory as the shooter in Buffalo a few days ago, the so-
called ``great replacement theory.''
It has become the great rallying cry for White supremacists. Each of
these acts of hate-fueled mass murder has torn apart a community,
traumatized the Nation, and left unimaginable grief and pain in its
wake.
And so it was over a year ago that FBI Director Christopher Wray
testified to domestic terrorism metastasizing and growing in the United
States.
Well, I think it is time that we take action to stop this threat.
Time and again, the Senate has failed to take any meaningful steps to
prevent violent extremism. When exactly did stopping mass murder become
a partisan issue? It wasn't like this after 9/11.
Twenty years ago, Republicans and Democrats joined in common cause to
confronting international terrorism threatening America.
After that horrific act of mass murder on 9/11, we worked together on
a bipartisan basis to reconfigure our entire national security
apparatus. We created a new Agency, the Department of
Homeland Security, designed to prevent the next 9/11.
To be sure, there were moments when we went off in the wrong
direction. Over the years, we worked to rein in legislation like the
PATRIOT Act and protect civil liberties of the American people.
As lawmakers, our responsibility is to enact sensible solutions and
save lives while also protecting our Constitution. That is exactly what
the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is all about. It will improve
data collection on incidents of domestic terrorism and strengthen
Federal coordination to combat it.
That is why it makes no sense to me that there are Republicans who
oppose it. The same Republicans who once took bold steps to prevent
terrorism on an international basis now won't even allow us to debate a
bill to prevent terrorism at home.
There are actually Republican Members of the House who are cosponsors
of my bill, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, who just last week
voted against it, cosponsors. What exactly is the reason for this
Republican opposition?
Well, one Senate Republican claimed that the Domestic Terrorism
Prevention Act would be ``the PATRIOT Act for American citizens.'' That
is phony and wrong.
First of all, as I just mentioned, the PATRIOT Act was flawed. It was
an excessive policy response to a nation in panic. I should know
because I voted for it and then led the effort to change it. Here is
why the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is different.
Unlike the PATRIOT Act, it will not provide any new law enforcement
or surveilling power to the government. It also does not establish a
single new criminal offense. Let me repeat this. The bill that comes
before us on domestic terrorism does not create any new Federal crime,
period. This is a modest bill with a simple goal: ensure that the
Federal Government devotes existing resources and authorities to what
has been identified by the FBI as the most significant domestic
terrorism threats.
Who supports this bill? The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Arab-American Institute,
the NAACP. All of them and more support the Domestic Terrorism
Prevention Act.
I hope our Republican colleagues will join us in a bipartisan effort
to keep America safe. Last week, I spoke to the courage and sacrifice
of Aaron Salter, a retired police officer who was working as a security
guard in that Buffalo grocery store at the time of the attack.
When the shooter entered the store, Officer Salter jumped into
action. He fired multiple shots at the attacker, but his skill and
courage were not enough. He was outgunned. He had a pistol. The shooter
had an assault rifle and a tactical vest. It is a scenario that, sadly,
is becoming too common. We saw it yesterday in Texas.
The attacker in yesterday's school shooting in Uvalde was also
carrying an assault rifle and wearing a tactical vest. He reportedly
shot two officers before entering the school and wounding a Federal law
enforcement official.
Can the Members of this Senate say in good conscience that we have
done enough to protect the lives of police officers and the children in
communities like Uvalde? Of course not. They were killed by people who
never should have had a gun in the first place.
With the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, this Senate can take the
first step of many steps needed to save lives and reject hate. The next
step is finally closing the loophole that allows guns to fall into the
wrong hands. Ten years ago, after 26 little children, God bless them,
were murdered by a disturbed gunman in Sandy Hook Elementary School, we
voted to close gaps in the gun background check system, and we fell
short.
Will we finally close those gaps now after another school filled with
little babies and children was targeted in a mass shooting? The CDC
reported last week that for the first time in more than 60 years, car
accidents are no longer the leading cause of death for kids and teens.
As of 2020, the leading cause of death of children and adolescents in
America is guns--guns. Guns are the No. 1 threat to our children.
When will we finally find the courage and the spine to pass
commonsense changes to our gun laws that the vast majority of Americans
support?
Well, this Friday, the National Rifle Association is holding its
annual meeting in, of all places, Texas. A few of the politicians who
are scheduled to speak at that gathering were among the first to send
their thoughts and prayers to Uvalde. Well, I hope and pray they will
find the courage to stop cowering before the gun lobby and take action
to save our children's lives.
Let me address one last misconception about this bill. A number of my
colleagues have said: Well, why did you have to use the words ``White
supremacists'' or ``neo-Nazis'' in the bill? Why did you want to focus
on that?
Let me make it clear that we are focusing on domestic terrorism, and
that is why we mention White supremacism. The bill requires reports to
Congress on all domestic terrorism activity, with a breakdown by
specific category.
The bill requires that White supremacist terrorism be one of those
specific categories. We include this requirement because during the
Trump Presidential administration, the FBI was ordered to stop tracking
White supremacist attacks as a separate category of domestic terrorism.
Remarkably, the FBI stopped tracking White supremacist attacks in the
middle of the spate of White supremacist violence, including the lethal
attack at the 2017 Charlottesville ``Unite the Right'' rally and the
2018 Tree of Life synagogue shooting.
This decision also came after an unclassified May 2017 joint
intelligence bulletin from the FBI and the Department of Homeland
Security that found ``white supremacist extremism poses [a] persistent
threat of lethal''--lethal--``violence,'' and that White supremacists
``were responsible for 49 homicides and 26 attacks from 2016 . . . more
than any other domestic extremist movement.''
I am not making this up. People are dying because of these
extremists. We are asking the FBI and other Agencies to identify the
incidents of violence so that we can track them, find if they are
growing or receding; train local law enforcement to recognize it.
This bill does not require collecting of data on First Amendment-
protected speech at all, no matter how vile that speech may be. It only
requires the FBI to provide a report to Congress on violent domestic
terrorist activity that the FBI is already investigating.
In fact, this bill does not provide any new law enforcement or
surveillance powers to the government. It does not establish any new
criminal offenses.
This morning there is an outrage over the violence that took place in
Texas. The question is, Can we channel this outrage into an active,
productive effort to pass legislation to make America safer?
We know what the problem is. We know what the challenge is with
domestic terrorism. The question is, Can we gather the information to
put an end to it? Isn't that our responsibility, what comes to our
responsibility as Senators and as citizens in this country?
In the U.S. Senate, let's start with this bill. Domestic terrorism is
for real. We saw a form of it in Buffalo, NY, and we are going to see
it again, I am afraid, unless we take it very seriously.
Fighting terrorism used to be a bipartisan effort, and I hope it will
once again.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum. | terrorists | Islamophobic |
05/25/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-05-25-pt1-PgS2692 | nan | nan | Robb Elementary School Shooting
Madam President, I cannot imagine what it was like last night in
Texas in the homes of the 19 or 20 children who lost their lives in
that Robb Elementary School gun massacre. Those are the longest,
loneliest nights of your life as a parent when you have lost a child.
And for each of them, it came as a stunning shock: a child sent off to
school, nearing the end of the school year, probably happily
anticipating summer camp, a visit with relatives, a family vacation,
whose life was taken away in an instant.
The freedom and joy of youth was ripped from every single one of
those 19 children, and 2 of the heroic teachers who sought to protect
them when they were murdered in cold blood by this gunman.
Today, instead of thinking about vacation and summer, the parents are
sadly making funeral arrangements for their babies. Others are sitting
down with their children and trying to explain why their playmates are
not at school.
It is not even June, and this year alone there have been more than
200 mass shootings in the United States. My colleague Chris Murphy of
Connecticut said last night there had been more mass shootings than
days in this last year.
Now families across America are stepping forward to offer their
condolences, to donate to the families who lost these precious,
precious children, and to demand that this Senate act to prevent
something--do something to prevent the appalling acts of mass murder
that we see way too often.
The Members of the Senate have to make a choice: Will we listen to
the American people in their overwhelming numbers calling on us to set
politics aside and stop the killing of children and other innocent
Americans or will we cower in front of the gun industry?
The lives of countless children, and I might add, grandchildren,
depend on our answer to that question.
It was 21 years ago--hard to imagine--but 21 years ago this September
when we lived through 9/11.
That morning, I was in this building, down the hall at a meeting at 9
in the morning called by Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. We had
just heard that a plane had crashed into a skyscraper in New York, and
we didn't know much more. We quickly turned on the television to see
another plane crash into an adjoining building. It was obvious that
something horrible had happened. And it wasn't long after that that we
looked out the window and looked west down the Mall to see black smoke
billowing in. We learned it came from the Pentagon, where another plane
had crashed into that building.
That was a day none of us will ever forget, nor should we. It was a
day when America changed in so many ways. That was the beginning of TSA
security checks at airports. Things that have become commonplace in our
life were initiated because of 9/11.
And did we ever mount an effort to stop international terrorism
against the United States. We were serious. It was a deadly serious
issue, 3,000 innocent people losing their lives on 9/11. We were bound
and determined--so determined that this Senate declared war on al-Qaida
and called for the invasion of Afghanistan.
I voted for that because I felt then and feel now, no one should
attack the United States with impunity. There is a price to pay. And so
we made a decision which for 20 years guided our foreign policy
in Afghanistan and other decisions by the scores around the world that
really fought international terrorism.
We learned something recently. Last year, we had the Director of the
FBI come before us, and I asked him about domestic terrorism. What
about the terrorists in America itself who are killing innocent people?
His report to us was sobering. He said it is a real threat, and it is a
threat that is metastasizing. We know that horrible word from the
disease of cancer. It means that the cancer itself is advancing in a
deadly way. That is the way the FBI Director described domestic
terrorism.
As we mourn yesterday's mass shooting in Uvalde, TX, we have a bill
coming before the Senate tomorrow that responds to the mass shooting
that took place in Buffalo just 11 days ago, in which a gunman killed
10 Black Americans in a racist act of violence.
Tomorrow, we will vote on my bill, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention
Act. I first introduced it in the year 2017, and that passed the House
on a bipartisan basis last week.
This legislation will help law enforcement combat the serious and
lethal threat of domestic terrorism. It will authorize offices within
the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the Department of Homeland
Security that are squarely focused on this threat.
And these offices will be required to regularly assess domestic
terrorism risk and provide training and resources to State, local, and
Tribal law enforcement.
The bill will also establish an interagency task force to combat
White supremacists' infiltration of the uniformed services and Federal
law enforcement.
Like gun safety reform, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is long
overdue. I first held a hearing on domestic terrorism 10 years ago
after a White supremacist marched into a Sikh gurdwara in Oak Creek,
WI, opening fire and killing seven people.
In the 10 years since, violent White supremacists have massacred
Americans with their sickening attacks. In 2015, a White supremacist
shot and killed nine Black worshippers at the Emanuel African Methodist
Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC.
At the time, it was the deadliest attack in a place of worship in
recent American history, a horrifying record that sadly was surpassed
just a few years later.
In 2018, an anti-Semitic terrorist killed 11 people at the Tree of
Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. Think about this for a moment. There are
members of that synagogue who actually survived the Holocaust in World
War II, only to be targeted by the same hate nearly 80 years later in
America.
A year after that, a far-right extremist killed 23 people at the
Walmart in El Paso, TX, targeting immigrants and members of the
Hispanic community. Some of these gunmen subscribe to the same racist
conspiracy theory as the shooter in Buffalo a few days ago, the so-
called ``great replacement theory.''
It has become the great rallying cry for White supremacists. Each of
these acts of hate-fueled mass murder has torn apart a community,
traumatized the Nation, and left unimaginable grief and pain in its
wake.
And so it was over a year ago that FBI Director Christopher Wray
testified to domestic terrorism metastasizing and growing in the United
States.
Well, I think it is time that we take action to stop this threat.
Time and again, the Senate has failed to take any meaningful steps to
prevent violent extremism. When exactly did stopping mass murder become
a partisan issue? It wasn't like this after 9/11.
Twenty years ago, Republicans and Democrats joined in common cause to
confronting international terrorism threatening America.
After that horrific act of mass murder on 9/11, we worked together on
a bipartisan basis to reconfigure our entire national security
apparatus. We created a new Agency, the Department of
Homeland Security, designed to prevent the next 9/11.
To be sure, there were moments when we went off in the wrong
direction. Over the years, we worked to rein in legislation like the
PATRIOT Act and protect civil liberties of the American people.
As lawmakers, our responsibility is to enact sensible solutions and
save lives while also protecting our Constitution. That is exactly what
the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is all about. It will improve
data collection on incidents of domestic terrorism and strengthen
Federal coordination to combat it.
That is why it makes no sense to me that there are Republicans who
oppose it. The same Republicans who once took bold steps to prevent
terrorism on an international basis now won't even allow us to debate a
bill to prevent terrorism at home.
There are actually Republican Members of the House who are cosponsors
of my bill, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, who just last week
voted against it, cosponsors. What exactly is the reason for this
Republican opposition?
Well, one Senate Republican claimed that the Domestic Terrorism
Prevention Act would be ``the PATRIOT Act for American citizens.'' That
is phony and wrong.
First of all, as I just mentioned, the PATRIOT Act was flawed. It was
an excessive policy response to a nation in panic. I should know
because I voted for it and then led the effort to change it. Here is
why the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act is different.
Unlike the PATRIOT Act, it will not provide any new law enforcement
or surveilling power to the government. It also does not establish a
single new criminal offense. Let me repeat this. The bill that comes
before us on domestic terrorism does not create any new Federal crime,
period. This is a modest bill with a simple goal: ensure that the
Federal Government devotes existing resources and authorities to what
has been identified by the FBI as the most significant domestic
terrorism threats.
Who supports this bill? The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rights, Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Arab-American Institute,
the NAACP. All of them and more support the Domestic Terrorism
Prevention Act.
I hope our Republican colleagues will join us in a bipartisan effort
to keep America safe. Last week, I spoke to the courage and sacrifice
of Aaron Salter, a retired police officer who was working as a security
guard in that Buffalo grocery store at the time of the attack.
When the shooter entered the store, Officer Salter jumped into
action. He fired multiple shots at the attacker, but his skill and
courage were not enough. He was outgunned. He had a pistol. The shooter
had an assault rifle and a tactical vest. It is a scenario that, sadly,
is becoming too common. We saw it yesterday in Texas.
The attacker in yesterday's school shooting in Uvalde was also
carrying an assault rifle and wearing a tactical vest. He reportedly
shot two officers before entering the school and wounding a Federal law
enforcement official.
Can the Members of this Senate say in good conscience that we have
done enough to protect the lives of police officers and the children in
communities like Uvalde? Of course not. They were killed by people who
never should have had a gun in the first place.
With the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act, this Senate can take the
first step of many steps needed to save lives and reject hate. The next
step is finally closing the loophole that allows guns to fall into the
wrong hands. Ten years ago, after 26 little children, God bless them,
were murdered by a disturbed gunman in Sandy Hook Elementary School, we
voted to close gaps in the gun background check system, and we fell
short.
Will we finally close those gaps now after another school filled with
little babies and children was targeted in a mass shooting? The CDC
reported last week that for the first time in more than 60 years, car
accidents are no longer the leading cause of death for kids and teens.
As of 2020, the leading cause of death of children and adolescents in
America is guns--guns. Guns are the No. 1 threat to our children.
When will we finally find the courage and the spine to pass
commonsense changes to our gun laws that the vast majority of Americans
support?
Well, this Friday, the National Rifle Association is holding its
annual meeting in, of all places, Texas. A few of the politicians who
are scheduled to speak at that gathering were among the first to send
their thoughts and prayers to Uvalde. Well, I hope and pray they will
find the courage to stop cowering before the gun lobby and take action
to save our children's lives.
Let me address one last misconception about this bill. A number of my
colleagues have said: Well, why did you have to use the words ``White
supremacists'' or ``neo-Nazis'' in the bill? Why did you want to focus
on that?
Let me make it clear that we are focusing on domestic terrorism, and
that is why we mention White supremacism. The bill requires reports to
Congress on all domestic terrorism activity, with a breakdown by
specific category.
The bill requires that White supremacist terrorism be one of those
specific categories. We include this requirement because during the
Trump Presidential administration, the FBI was ordered to stop tracking
White supremacist attacks as a separate category of domestic terrorism.
Remarkably, the FBI stopped tracking White supremacist attacks in the
middle of the spate of White supremacist violence, including the lethal
attack at the 2017 Charlottesville ``Unite the Right'' rally and the
2018 Tree of Life synagogue shooting.
This decision also came after an unclassified May 2017 joint
intelligence bulletin from the FBI and the Department of Homeland
Security that found ``white supremacist extremism poses [a] persistent
threat of lethal''--lethal--``violence,'' and that White supremacists
``were responsible for 49 homicides and 26 attacks from 2016 . . . more
than any other domestic extremist movement.''
I am not making this up. People are dying because of these
extremists. We are asking the FBI and other Agencies to identify the
incidents of violence so that we can track them, find if they are
growing or receding; train local law enforcement to recognize it.
This bill does not require collecting of data on First Amendment-
protected speech at all, no matter how vile that speech may be. It only
requires the FBI to provide a report to Congress on violent domestic
terrorist activity that the FBI is already investigating.
In fact, this bill does not provide any new law enforcement or
surveillance powers to the government. It does not establish any new
criminal offenses.
This morning there is an outrage over the violence that took place in
Texas. The question is, Can we channel this outrage into an active,
productive effort to pass legislation to make America safer?
We know what the problem is. We know what the challenge is with
domestic terrorism. The question is, Can we gather the information to
put an end to it? Isn't that our responsibility, what comes to our
responsibility as Senators and as citizens in this country?
In the U.S. Senate, let's start with this bill. Domestic terrorism is
for real. We saw a form of it in Buffalo, NY, and we are going to see
it again, I am afraid, unless we take it very seriously.
Fighting terrorism used to be a bipartisan effort, and I hope it will
once again.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum. | single | homophobic |
05/24/2022 | Mr. BLUMENTHAL | Senate | CREC-2022-05-24-pt1-PgS2669-4 | nan | nan | Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, we are nearing the end of the
session, when we will go back to our homes for the evening, but when
the families of 18 children and 4 great educators go home tonight,
their homes will never be the same again.
There are no words in a place filled with words during today and
every day in this place when we are in session. There are no words
today to capture the heartbreak, the gut-wrenching grief and pain that
those families will feel and that I remember feeling almost 10 years
ago when we stood in the space just outside the firehouse in Sandy
Hook, as parents learned that their 20 children would not be coming
home that night.
The same bottomless grief is hitting the families in Texas, in
Uvalde, where they have lost children. And there are no words also to
capture the deep, abiding pain that will last forever. That pain will
be with them--a hole in their hearts, a place at their tables, a room
in their houses that never will be filled again, and hugs that they
will never feel, cheeks that will never be kissed.
This Nation, like their families, is torn apart by violence--
needless, senseless gun violence--every day in America. And the mystery
is why the greatest Nation on Earth continues to tolerate it. It is no
longer surprising or stunning. It is no longer unfathomable or
unforeseeable.
It is incomprehensible that this great Nation is blocked by Members
of this body from taking action that can forestall and prevent it. Why,
the outrage that we feel, the grief that pervades America on these
occasions has not caused action. And this body has been complicit by
its inaction. In fact, it isn't this body. It is Members of this body,
principally on the other side of the aisle. Let's be blunt. I will
never forget hearing from that gallery those words: ``Shame. Shame on
you,'' when we failed to adopt commonsense measures--a background check
proposal, even though we had 55 votes. I can still hear those words.
``Shame.''
And had we acted, who knows what tragedy could have been averted? We
don't know and we can't tell and we never will be able to fathom
whether
specific measures would have prevented specific tragedy. Charleston or
San Bernardino, Pulse or Las Vegas, Parkland or Santa Fe, or Pittsburgh
or El Paso or Dayton or Boulder or Indianapolis or Oxford or Buffalo or
Uvalde--we will never know because the false reason to object is this
measure wouldn't have prevented that shooting.
But that is not the way to approach gun violence reform, because we
know there is no panacea; there is no single measure. What we know is
that stopping gun violence requires that we act with these measures and
that commonsense, sensible steps can prevent a senseless, needless
violence.
There is no panacea, but there are actions we can take. We are not
without agency.
Now, we need to be very blunt and recognize that opposition to these
measures is bankrolled and emboldened and enabled by the gun lobby's
dark money, by its threats and intimidation, by its encouragement.
And until my colleagues have the courage to stand up to that gun
lobby, they will continue in its thrall and its grip, and they will
continue to be complicit.
And some on our side, some who have demonstrated the courage to stand
up and speak out, have shown that we have the power to take action.
We lack facts about the shooter and about the killing, all the
circumstances in Uvalde, but we know enough to say that those families
and that community will be torn apart. It will never be the same. They
will never be whole again because they have lost something precious,
and there will always be that hole in their hearts.
Already some of our Republican colleagues are saying we are
politicizing the issue, but they are the ones who, for decades, have
tied themselves to the NRA's fanatical devotion to unrestricted,
unyielding firearms ownership for political purposes at the expense of
real lives.
Tying themselves to firearms ownership is unnecessary for law-abiding
citizens to own firearms. There are commonsense actions we can take to
separate dangerous killers from firearms that are absolutely consistent
with the Second Amendment, as judged by the Supreme Court, and
absolutely consistent with gun ownership by law-abiding people.
We know these actions won't save everyone, but there can be no doubt
that each of them will save some lives: expanding background checks and
closing glaring loopholes in our background check system; getting
untraceable ghost guns and military-style assault weapons off our
streets; protecting domestic violence survivors from gun violence;
keeping guns out of the hands of domestic terrorists and violent
extremists and individuals who are dangerous to themselves or others,
red flag statutes; preventing kids from accidentally and
unintentionally shooting themselves with unsecured firearms, Ethan's
Law for safe storage; investing in community violence intervention
programs--we know they work in Hartford, New Haven, all around the
State of Connecticut; reducing the number of firearm suicides--more
than half of all gun deaths are suicides; red flag statutes, separating
firearms from people who are dangerous to themselves as well as others.
We need to do all these things and more. We need to do them right now
because every day that passes without action means more of the same.
Not surprising, not stunning--more of the same.
Those measures are written, they are fully drafted, vetted for their
constitutionality. My subcommittee on the Constitution has had hearings
on them, many of them: S. 529, the Background Check Expansion Act; S.
591, the Background Check Completion Act; S. 1558, the Untraceable
Firearms Act to stop ghost guns; S. 736, the Assault Weapons Ban; S.
527, the Protecting Domestic Violence and Stalking Victims Act; S.
2169, the Lori Jackson-Nicolette Elias Domestic Violence Survivor
Protection Act, a hearing just last week on it; S. 2090, the Disarm
Hate Act; S. 4278, the Age 21 Act; S. 190, Ethan's Law; S. 2982, the
Child Suicide Prevention and Lethal Means Safety Act; S. 1819, the
Extreme Risk Protection Order Act--the red flag statutes.
Let us do one of them. Let us vote to make one of them law. That is
our job: to vote. It is how we change this gut-wrenching, heartbreaking
status quo, and it is how voters know where each of us stand when push
comes to shove.
So we have no words, but words will mean nothing without action. We
have created a political movement. It is a movement that is growing as
young people say: Enough is enough, as the hand wringing and the tears
are translated into action at the grassroots level, action by State
legislatures. Almost 20 states now have red flag statutes in the wake
of Parkland. And as communities and States show that they will no
longer tolerate the hypocrisy of thoughts and prayers without action,
all of us who have advocated for years--indeed, for decades--that this
body must act, we cannot lose courage or heart. We cannot lose the
hope, and we must match our thoughts and prayers with real action.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum. | terrorists | Islamophobic |
06/21/2022 | Mr. PADILLA | Senate | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgS3023-2 | nan | nan | Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I would also like to take this moment to
celebrate the confirmation last month of Judge Robert Huie, now serving
in the Southern District of California.
Judge Huie is a resident of San Diego, where he has lived and worked
for nearly 20 years, but his roots in California, in fact, began
generations ago. His grandfather immigrated to San Francisco from China
in the 1930s, making his home there until joining the U.S. Army.
Judge Huie is a talented lawyer who has continually sought out
opportunities to promote justice.
He earned his undergraduate degree from Calvin College and his J.D.
from Yale Law School. His career includes 12 years of service as an
assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of California.
During that time, he investigated and prosecuted more than 600
district court cases and two dozen appeals on matters ranging from
public corruption to securities fraud, to bank robberies.
And at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Judge Huie took the
initiative to create a districtwide working group that combated
pandemic-related fraud.
Judge Huie's commitment to service, his strong work ethic, and his
insightful legal thinking will benefit the community of the Southern
District.
Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am
proud of the work that we continue to do to confirm outstanding,
effective, and diverse judges across the Federal court system. That is
especially important in places like the Southern District and Eastern
District of California--two of the busiest Federal judicial districts
in the entire country. As we confirm more nominees like Judge de Alba
and Judge Huie, we are building a Federal court system that can better
deliver on the promise of equal justice for all.
I yield the floor. | the Fed | antisemitic |
06/21/2022 | Mr. MURPHY | Senate | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgS3023-4 | nan | nan | Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, when I returned to Connecticut after the
shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo, I saw
a level of fear on the faces of the parents and children whom I spoke
to that I have never seen before. This country has lived through mass
shooting after mass shooting, rising rates of homicide, but there was
something different in the eyes of these families as they once again
had to contemplate the idea that our schools are no longer safe places,
that our supermarkets are no longer safe spaces.
But they also were contemplating the idea that Congress was so caught
up in its own politics, so addicted to backing into our own corners
that we wouldn't be able to do anything meaningful about the thing that
matters most to parents and to families in this country: the physical
safety of their children. Think about it. What matters more to you than
the physical well-being of your children? You would give away
everything--your job, your car, the roof over your head--in order to
guarantee that your children were safe from physical harm.
So the anxiety and the fear that I saw in Connecticut and that I
think many of my colleagues saw when they returned to their States was
not just for the safety of their children but also a fear about the
ability of government to rise to this moment and do something and do
something meaningful.
I believe that this week we will pass legislation that will become
the most significant piece of anti-gun violence legislation Congress
will have passed in 30 years. This is a breakthrough, and more
importantly, it is a bipartisan breakthrough. I am glad to join my
friend Senator Cornyn on the floor today to talk a little bit about the
piece of legislation that our colleagues will be able to look at
hopefully in a matter of moments and that this body will be able to
consider this week.
I want to thank Senator Cornyn, Senator Tillis, and Senator Sinema in
particular. It was a hard road to get to this compromise, but nothing
worthwhile is easy. And nobody in a compromise gets everything they
want. This bill will be too little for many; it will be too much for
others. But it isn't a box-checking exercise. This bill is not window
dressing. This bill is going to save lives. This bill is going to save
thousands of lives. It is going to be something that every single
Member of this Senate who votes for it can be proud of.
I want to tell you a little bit about it, and some of this has
already been covered by my friend Senator Cornyn. First, let me talk
about the provisions in this bill that change our Nation's firearms
laws.
First, we are going to invest in the development of crisis
intervention orders. We are going to give money out to States that they
will be able to use to implement what are commonly called red flag
laws. These are laws that allow local authorities and courts to take
weapons, firearms, temporarily away from individuals who are
threatening to hurt themselves or others.
We just saw Connecticut's red flag law be used just in the last month
or so to take weapons away from a young man who was making threats to
shoot up schools, potentially saving dozens of lives.
Under this bill, every State will be able to use significant new
Federal dollars to be able to expand their programs to try to stop
dangerous people--people contemplating mass murder or suicide--from
being able to have access to the weapons that allow them to perpetrate
that crime.
As Senator Cornyn said, we will also make those dollars eligible for
a narrow range of other court-based anti-violence interventions--
something that was very important to our Republican colleagues.
Second, this bill is going to make sure that no domestic abusers can
purchase or own a gun. We are closing the boyfriend loophole. What we
know is that in States that have taken this step already, there are 10
percent fewer intimate partner deaths. This is an incredibly important
step forward. We know this provision alone is going to save lives of so
many women who unfortunately die at the hands of a boyfriend or an ex-
boyfriend who hunts them down with a firearm.
To be consistent with State felony restoration rights, this
legislation will allow individuals to be able to get their right back
after a period of time but only for first-time offenders and only if
there are no crimes of violence in the intervening time.
This bill will provide for enhanced background checks for younger
buyers. What we know is that the profile of the modern mass shooter is
often in the 18- to 21-year-old range, and so this bill has enhanced
background checks for those individuals, including a call to the local
police department--a process that can take up to 3 days and up to 10
days if there are particular signs of concern that investigators need
to perform followup on. That enhanced background check is going to make
sure that younger buyers who are in crisis have another check
performed--perhaps a short period of time in between their decision to
buy a lethal weapon to perform a crime and their ability to get that
weapon.
This bill has new criminal statutes banning gun trafficking and straw
purchasing. This is incredibly important for our cities. We have a flow
of illegal guns coming into these cities, and yet, for decades, for
some reason, Congress has not given our Federal authorities the ability
to interrupt these gun-running rings because we have no effective ban
at a Federal level on trafficking and straw-purchasing. We will after
we pass this law.
Finally, we clarify under this bill who needs to register as a
federally licensed gun dealer. One of the individuals who sold a weapon
to a mass shooter in Odessa, TX, should have been licensed as a Federal
dealer, but he wasn't, and he sold the gun to a person who was
prohibited from buying the gun because of his mental health history,
without a background check. We will clarify in this law that
individuals like that need to register as Federal firearms dealers, and
they need to perform background checks.
As Senator Cornyn said, this bill makes a historic investment in
mental health--a historic investment in mental health. Thanks to Debbie
Stabenow and Roy Blunt, we are going to be able to expand the certified
community health center model nationally. That literally means millions
of people in this country in underserved areas who have no access to
mental health are going to be able to get it after we pass this bill.
We have significant new funding in this bill for school-based health
centers to make sure that kids are better served, especially those kids
who are in crisis.
We have help in this bill for pediatricians who are trying to do
telehealth consults with behavioral health professionals who are trying
to get more training on mental health so they can help their patients.
Finally, we make investments in school and community safety, funds to
help schools make their campuses safer places but also funds for
community-based programs that are doing good work in cities from Boston
to Hartford to Dallas interrupting cycles of violence in our
communities.
For 30 years--murder after murder, suicide after suicide, mass
shooting after mass shooting--Congress did nothing. This week, we have
a chance to break this 30-year period of silence with a bill that
changes our laws in a way that will save thousands of lives. It is a
compromise. It is a bipartisan compromise. It is a path forward to the
way that both Republicans and Democrats can work together to address
some of the most vexing, most difficult challenges this Nation faces.
We have a chance to show parents and kids and families that we take
their safety seriously and we are prepared to do not just something but
something that saves lives in order to protect them.
I yield the floor.
| based | white supremacist |
06/21/2022 | Mr. MURPHY | Senate | CREC-2022-06-21-pt1-PgS3023-4 | nan | nan | Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, when I returned to Connecticut after the
shootings in Uvalde and Buffalo, I saw
a level of fear on the faces of the parents and children whom I spoke
to that I have never seen before. This country has lived through mass
shooting after mass shooting, rising rates of homicide, but there was
something different in the eyes of these families as they once again
had to contemplate the idea that our schools are no longer safe places,
that our supermarkets are no longer safe spaces.
But they also were contemplating the idea that Congress was so caught
up in its own politics, so addicted to backing into our own corners
that we wouldn't be able to do anything meaningful about the thing that
matters most to parents and to families in this country: the physical
safety of their children. Think about it. What matters more to you than
the physical well-being of your children? You would give away
everything--your job, your car, the roof over your head--in order to
guarantee that your children were safe from physical harm.
So the anxiety and the fear that I saw in Connecticut and that I
think many of my colleagues saw when they returned to their States was
not just for the safety of their children but also a fear about the
ability of government to rise to this moment and do something and do
something meaningful.
I believe that this week we will pass legislation that will become
the most significant piece of anti-gun violence legislation Congress
will have passed in 30 years. This is a breakthrough, and more
importantly, it is a bipartisan breakthrough. I am glad to join my
friend Senator Cornyn on the floor today to talk a little bit about the
piece of legislation that our colleagues will be able to look at
hopefully in a matter of moments and that this body will be able to
consider this week.
I want to thank Senator Cornyn, Senator Tillis, and Senator Sinema in
particular. It was a hard road to get to this compromise, but nothing
worthwhile is easy. And nobody in a compromise gets everything they
want. This bill will be too little for many; it will be too much for
others. But it isn't a box-checking exercise. This bill is not window
dressing. This bill is going to save lives. This bill is going to save
thousands of lives. It is going to be something that every single
Member of this Senate who votes for it can be proud of.
I want to tell you a little bit about it, and some of this has
already been covered by my friend Senator Cornyn. First, let me talk
about the provisions in this bill that change our Nation's firearms
laws.
First, we are going to invest in the development of crisis
intervention orders. We are going to give money out to States that they
will be able to use to implement what are commonly called red flag
laws. These are laws that allow local authorities and courts to take
weapons, firearms, temporarily away from individuals who are
threatening to hurt themselves or others.
We just saw Connecticut's red flag law be used just in the last month
or so to take weapons away from a young man who was making threats to
shoot up schools, potentially saving dozens of lives.
Under this bill, every State will be able to use significant new
Federal dollars to be able to expand their programs to try to stop
dangerous people--people contemplating mass murder or suicide--from
being able to have access to the weapons that allow them to perpetrate
that crime.
As Senator Cornyn said, we will also make those dollars eligible for
a narrow range of other court-based anti-violence interventions--
something that was very important to our Republican colleagues.
Second, this bill is going to make sure that no domestic abusers can
purchase or own a gun. We are closing the boyfriend loophole. What we
know is that in States that have taken this step already, there are 10
percent fewer intimate partner deaths. This is an incredibly important
step forward. We know this provision alone is going to save lives of so
many women who unfortunately die at the hands of a boyfriend or an ex-
boyfriend who hunts them down with a firearm.
To be consistent with State felony restoration rights, this
legislation will allow individuals to be able to get their right back
after a period of time but only for first-time offenders and only if
there are no crimes of violence in the intervening time.
This bill will provide for enhanced background checks for younger
buyers. What we know is that the profile of the modern mass shooter is
often in the 18- to 21-year-old range, and so this bill has enhanced
background checks for those individuals, including a call to the local
police department--a process that can take up to 3 days and up to 10
days if there are particular signs of concern that investigators need
to perform followup on. That enhanced background check is going to make
sure that younger buyers who are in crisis have another check
performed--perhaps a short period of time in between their decision to
buy a lethal weapon to perform a crime and their ability to get that
weapon.
This bill has new criminal statutes banning gun trafficking and straw
purchasing. This is incredibly important for our cities. We have a flow
of illegal guns coming into these cities, and yet, for decades, for
some reason, Congress has not given our Federal authorities the ability
to interrupt these gun-running rings because we have no effective ban
at a Federal level on trafficking and straw-purchasing. We will after
we pass this law.
Finally, we clarify under this bill who needs to register as a
federally licensed gun dealer. One of the individuals who sold a weapon
to a mass shooter in Odessa, TX, should have been licensed as a Federal
dealer, but he wasn't, and he sold the gun to a person who was
prohibited from buying the gun because of his mental health history,
without a background check. We will clarify in this law that
individuals like that need to register as Federal firearms dealers, and
they need to perform background checks.
As Senator Cornyn said, this bill makes a historic investment in
mental health--a historic investment in mental health. Thanks to Debbie
Stabenow and Roy Blunt, we are going to be able to expand the certified
community health center model nationally. That literally means millions
of people in this country in underserved areas who have no access to
mental health are going to be able to get it after we pass this bill.
We have significant new funding in this bill for school-based health
centers to make sure that kids are better served, especially those kids
who are in crisis.
We have help in this bill for pediatricians who are trying to do
telehealth consults with behavioral health professionals who are trying
to get more training on mental health so they can help their patients.
Finally, we make investments in school and community safety, funds to
help schools make their campuses safer places but also funds for
community-based programs that are doing good work in cities from Boston
to Hartford to Dallas interrupting cycles of violence in our
communities.
For 30 years--murder after murder, suicide after suicide, mass
shooting after mass shooting--Congress did nothing. This week, we have
a chance to break this 30-year period of silence with a bill that
changes our laws in a way that will save thousands of lives. It is a
compromise. It is a bipartisan compromise. It is a path forward to the
way that both Republicans and Democrats can work together to address
some of the most vexing, most difficult challenges this Nation faces.
We have a chance to show parents and kids and families that we take
their safety seriously and we are prepared to do not just something but
something that saves lives in order to protect them.
I yield the floor.
| single | homophobic |
07/20/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3513 | nan | nan | 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
than
ever, 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. | single | homophobic |
07/20/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3513 | nan | nan | 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
than
ever, 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. | Reagan | white supremacist |
07/20/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3513 | nan | nan | 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
than
ever, 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. | safeguarding | transphobic |
07/20/2022 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | nan | nan | 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 of
the 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 dissent
stated 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
Court
seats. 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
those
places 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, defending
its 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.
| based | white supremacist |
07/20/2022 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | nan | nan | 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 of
the 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 dissent
stated 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
Court
seats. 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
those
places 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, defending
its 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.
| Dred Scott | conservative |
07/20/2022 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | nan | nan | 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 of
the 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 dissent
stated 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
Court
seats. 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
those
places 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, defending
its 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.
| the Fed | antisemitic |
07/20/2022 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | nan | nan | 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 of
the 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 dissent
stated 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
Court
seats. 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
those
places 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, defending
its 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.
| extremist | Islamophobic |
07/20/2022 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | nan | nan | 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 of
the 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 dissent
stated 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
Court
seats. 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
those
places 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, defending
its 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.
| extremists | Islamophobic |
07/20/2022 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | nan | nan | 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 of
the 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 dissent
stated 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
Court
seats. 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
those
places 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, defending
its 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.
| terrorism | Islamophobic |
07/20/2022 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | nan | nan | 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 of
the 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 dissent
stated 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
Court
seats. 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
those
places 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, defending
its 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.
| single | homophobic |
07/20/2022 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | nan | nan | 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 of
the 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 dissent
stated 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
Court
seats. 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
those
places 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, defending
its 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.
| MAGA | white supremacist |
07/20/2022 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | nan | nan | 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 of
the 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 dissent
stated 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
Court
seats. 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
those
places 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, defending
its 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.
| public school | racist |
07/20/2022 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | nan | nan | 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 of
the 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 dissent
stated 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
Court
seats. 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
those
places 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, defending
its 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.
| public schools | racist |
07/20/2022 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | nan | nan | 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 of
the 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 dissent
stated 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
Court
seats. 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
those
places 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, defending
its 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.
| freedom of religion | homophobic |
07/20/2022 | Mr. MERKLEY | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3530 | nan | nan | 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 of
the 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 dissent
stated 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
Court
seats. 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
those
places 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, defending
its 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.
| right to know | anti-GMO |
07/20/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3539-2 | nan | nan | 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.
| blue | antisemitic |
07/20/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3539-3 | nan | nan | 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.
| blue | antisemitic |
07/20/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3539-5 | nan | nan | 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.
| the Fed | antisemitic |
07/20/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3578 | nan | nan | 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). | the Fed | antisemitic |
07/21/2022 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-07-21-pt1-PgH6940-2 | nan | nan | 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 message
from 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.
| the Fed | antisemitic |
07/21/2022 | Mr. LEE | Senate | CREC-2022-07-21-pt1-PgS3593 | nan | nan | 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. | the Fed | antisemitic |
07/21/2022 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-21-pt1-PgS3600-2 | nan | nan | 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 ``extraordinary
and 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. Just
as 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. | the Fed | antisemitic |
07/21/2022 | Mr. CARDIN | Senate | CREC-2022-07-21-pt1-PgS3600-2 | nan | nan | 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 ``extraordinary
and 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. Just
as 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. | single | homophobic |
07/20/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3505-4 | nan | nan | Tucker Carlson
Mr. President, finally, on Tucker Carlson, FOX News. Last night, FOX
News 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. | MAGA | white supremacist |
07/20/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgS3504 | nan | nan | 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.
| working families | racist |
07/20/2022 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-07-20-pt1-PgH6921 | nan | nan | 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.
| based | white supremacist |
07/19/2022 | Ms. KLOBUCHAR | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3497-2 | nan | nan | 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 the
point 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.
| Chicago | racist |
07/19/2022 | The SPEAKER pro tempore | House | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgH6866 | nan | nan | 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. | XX | transphobic |
07/19/2022 | Unknown | House | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgH6883-9 | nan | nan | 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.
| the Fed | antisemitic |
07/19/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3344-2 | nan | nan | 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. | single | homophobic |
07/19/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3344-2 | nan | nan | 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. | MAGA | white supremacist |
07/19/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3344 | nan | nan | 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.
| Detroit | racist |
07/19/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3345 | nan | nan | 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. | coincidence | antisemitic |
07/19/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3345 | nan | nan | 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. | freedom of association | racist |
07/19/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3346 | nan | nan | 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.
| based | white supremacist |
07/19/2022 | Unknown | Senate | CREC-2022-07-19-pt1-PgS3346 | nan | nan | 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.
| tax cut | racist |