[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 57 (Thursday, March 31, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1875-S1886]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, FOREIGN OPERATIONS,
AND RELATED PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2022--
Motion to Proceed--Resumed
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will resume consideration of the motion to proceed to H.R. 4373,
which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Motion to proceed to H.R. 4373, a bill making
appropriations for the Department of State, foreign
operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2022, and for other purposes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alaska.
rabbi mendy greenberg
Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, thank you for allowing me to open the
Senate with you. It was a true honor to have Rabbi Mendy Greenberg, who
is doing amazing work in Palmer, AK, open the Senate with his very
powerful and meaningful prayer and very appropriate prayer for what is
happening in the world.
I just want to say a little bit about our incredible Jewish community
in Alaska. Rabbi Greenberg's parents are actually up in the Gallery
watching--his father, Rabbi Greenberg and his incredible wife, Esti.
I just want to say what they do for our--community--communities
throughout Alaska--is so powerful, so meaningful, and touches so many
lives way beyond the Jewish community of Alaska--way beyond that
community. I love the phrase referring to our wonderful Jewish
community of Alaska, the ``frozen chosen,'' because it is a little cold
in our State, as most Americans know.
But here is the thing about this community: They are incredible in
terms of
[[Page S1876]]
bringing all Alaskans together. We have this annual event called the
Jewish Gala that has hundreds and hundreds of Alaskans of all faiths
who participate in this every year. It is one of my favorite things to
do as an Alaskan, to come and celebrate not just the Jewish community,
but the spirit of togetherness, the spirit of faith, and the spirit of
taking care of one another. That is what this incredible community
does, led by both Rabbi Greenbergs, who we saw the younger today give
this very powerful prayer.
I want to thank him and his parents for being here today. It is not
always easy to get to DC from Alaska--a couple of thousand miles at
least. To our Jewish community back home, to the Greenbergs for all
they have done, I just want to, on the Senate floor here, offer my
deepest thanks for the example they set for the entire State of Alaska.
It is great having them here, and what they do for our State is really
powerful, really important.
Thank you, Madam President, for allowing me to participate in the
opening and the prayer this morning.
I yield the floor.
Recognition of the Majority Leader
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.
H.R. 4373
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first on COVID negotiations, yesterday,
I met with a group of my colleagues--Senators Murray, Coons, Romney,
Blunt, Burr, and Graham--for another round of talks as we work toward a
bipartisan COVID agreement. We spoke throughout the day; we talked late
into the night; our staffs are continuing talks this morning.
The gap has been narrowed greatly, and we are intent on working with
Republicans to cross the finish line because this is vital for our
country if, God forbid, a new variant arises in the future, and that is
all too likely. We would like considerably more money than our
Republican colleagues, but we need to reach 60 votes to get something
passed through the Senate, and so we are going to push as hard as we
can.
When it comes to replenishing COVID response funding, we simply can't
afford to kick the can down the road. The White House has been more
than clear and more than transparent about the fact that public funds
for COVID are at risk of running out. We all know that a possible
future variant can quickly undo much of the progress we have made
against the virus, so it makes no sense whatsoever to hold off on COVID
funding that we know is very much needed right now. The more we wait,
the bigger the problem will be later, God forbid a variant hits.
The bottom line is this: Both sides should work to complete COVID
funding soon because that will mean more vaccines, more therapeutics,
and more testing so we can keep schools and communities open. We can
stay ``back to normal,'' which we are doing right now. Woe is us if a
future variant extends its nasty tentacles across the country, and we
don't have the resources in place to respond. Woe is us. So, again, I
am pleading with my Republican colleagues: Join us. We want more than
you do, but we have to get something done. We have to get something
done.
We will keep working to arrive at a deal in good faith, and we hope--
hope, hope, hope--our Republican colleagues ultimately join us in
supporting a robust enough package to deal with this problem.
As I said, we are making good progress. We are getting closer and
closer, but the sooner we get this deal done, the better for the
country.
Business Before the Senate
Madam President, on cost cutting, it has been a productive few days
here on the Senate floor as we pass legislation that will help reduce
costs, relieve supply chains, and build on the incredible economic
growth we have seen under President Biden.
I am glad to announce that the Senate is on track to pass bipartisan
legislation by Senators Klobuchar and Thune to reform unfair shipping
practices that are clogging up our ports, diminishing American exports,
hurting our farmers, and ultimately hurting consumers. It hurts both
ways when shipping costs go way up, as they have. The exports we send
over--a lot of it agricultural goods--the imports that come back--a lot
of it consumer goods--all are higher priced, and Americans pay that
higher price.
So the bipartisan shipping bill is exactly the sort of thing the
Senate should focus on because when there is a logjam at the Port of
Los Angeles, it hurts farmers and small businesses in Minnesota, North
Dakota, and across the country, and it hurts consumers in every corner
of the country, from Portland, ME, to San Diego, from Seattle to Miami,
New York, and everywhere in between.
So I am glad we are making progress to getting this legislation done.
The sooner the better, again.
The legislation, of course, is not the only step we have taken this
week to strengthen supply chains to help lower costs throughout the
economy. Earlier this week, the Senate passed a strongly bipartisan
jobs and competitiveness bill in the works for over a year, which will
help increase our domestic manufacturing, help address the critical
chip shortage, and grow our economy by investing in American
innovation.
Yesterday, the House passed a motion requesting a conference
committee, and the Senate will soon do the same. We are on track to
initiating a conference, hopefully, before the end of this work period.
Off the floor, committees held numerous hearings zeroing in on the
many dimensions of our lowering cost agenda. To name just a few
examples, the Banking Committee held a hearing on Monday on the growing
burden of medical debt, a problem that is facing so many Americans.
The Small Business Committee also held a hearing yesterday exploring
the supply chain crisis and its implications for smaller businesses,
including struggling restaurants.
And, today, the Banking Committee is on the matter of seniors who
struggle with affordable housing.
These are just a few examples of how, both off the floor and on,
Democrats are continuing our focus on legislation that will lower
costs, help American families, and solve the deep and difficult
challenges that everyday Americans face to make ends meet. And we are
going to keep pushing in the months ahead to translate these ideas into
legislation we can consider here in the Chamber, as we are doing with
shipping right now.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Recognition of the Minority Leader
The Republican leader is recognized.
Border Security
Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, well, the Biden administration is on
track for another record-shattering year on our southern border--in all
the wrong ways.
The Department of Homeland Security is reportedly preparing for up to
18,000 attempted border crossings per day--18,000 per day.
President Biden's border crisis is a symptom of the modern Democratic
Party's inability to support any remotely reasonable policy of border
enforcement.
Now, thus far, the Biden administration has kept the chaos at least
somewhat in check by leaning on emergency authorities that are specific
to the COVID pandemic. To be clear, even with these title 42
authorities in place, our border has still been in crisis. Last month
was the worst February in more than 20 years. We just saw the worst 12-
month period for illegal crossings since at least--listen to this--
1960. This is with title 42 in place. Just imagine if President Biden
kills it.
But the open-borders far left doesn't like title 42. So now,
according to public reports, the Biden administration is preparing to
cave to the radicals, end title 42, and effectively throw our borders
completely wide open.
Ending title 42 without any real border security plan in place would
spark a humanitarian and security crisis like we have never seen
before. But it is pretty obvious the far left doesn't care. Open
borders are their objective.
So at the same time Washington Democrats are pushing for more Federal
spending on the pandemic, they
[[Page S1877]]
want to declare the pandemic is finished at our southern border. This
doesn't add up.
Throwing the floodgates open for an historic spring and summer of
illegal immigration would be an unforced error of historic proportions.
It would be right up there with the administration's $2 trillion in
inflationary spending and their botched retreat from Afghanistan.
But this goes deeper than just title 42 and COVID. The fundamental
point is this: Today's Democrats need the pretext of the pandemic to
justify having national borders at all. The left feels they need the
pretext of COVID to have any--any--border enforcement whatsoever.
This is absolutely mind-boggling.
Republicans and the American people reject this false choice between
permanent COVID versus open borders. We can't only be a sovereign
nation during pandemics. Americans deserve secure borders all the time.
Functional open borders have pervaded the Biden agenda at literally
every level. The President chose a Supreme Court nominee, Judge
Jackson, who has displayed a major streak of judicial activism on this
very subject, illegal immigration.
In 2019, the judge sided with the leftwing activists and overlooked
plain statutory language that gave DHS ``sole and unreviewable
discretion'' over the speedy removal of illegal immigrants. Judge
Jackson literally just brushed aside the plain text of the law to reach
the policy outcome she wanted, and she went even further. She issued a
nationwide injunction--a nationwide injunction--to impose her radical
policy view on our entire country.
This was a blatant case of judicial activism. The ruling read like it
belonged on the opinion pages of the Washington Post. Even the very
liberal DC Circuit completely disagreed and overturned Judge Jackson,
with an Obama appointee writing the opinion.
It should not be this hard for an administration to understand that a
nation actually needs borders.
I strongly urge the President to keep title 42 in place and quickly
produce an actual strategy to do his job and secure our border.
The Economy
Madam President, on another matter, the American people know our
country is hurting. One national survey just found that only 22 percent
say our country is headed in the right direction. Seven in ten
Americans just told another poll that our Nation's economy is ``in poor
shape.''
The worst inflation in 40 years is fleecing American consumers from
the gas pump to the grocery store. American workers are earning raises,
but prices are climbing faster than their pay.
The Biden administration has tried to pass the buck for this mess.
They have tried to blame everything but their own radical policies.
They have claimed that a year of runaway inflation was actually--listen
to this--``Putin's price hike,'' because of a war in Europe that is
barely a month old. They have claimed the problem is evil profiteering
CEOs, because, apparently, the private sector was not seeking profits
back when the Republicans had the economy humming with low inflation
just a few years ago.
American families aren't buying the spin for one second. When asked
by another poll what they think is the main reason for rising gas
prices--listen to this--Americans' top answer was ``the Biden
administration's economic policies.''
An outright majority of the country agrees the President has made
inflation worse, but the administration isn't changing course. They are
actually doubling down.
The Biden administration began the week by proposing a budget that
would skyrocket domestic discretionary spending on liberal wish-list
items and smack the country with the biggest tax hike in American
history.
Just last night, Democrats tried to ram through another radical
nominee who would only have compounded the economic pain. President
Biden's choice of David Weil for a senior post at the Department of
Labor was a naked attempt to achieve through bureaucracy what the far-
left cannot achieve through legislation. This nominee is famous in
Washington for hostility to small business. He has received tens of
thousands of dollars from Big Labor to do their bidding. He openly
sought to end both the franchise system and the gig economy as we know
them.
Fortunately--fortunately--last night, a bipartisan majority of
Senators rallied together. We saved the President and the Democratic
leader from digging themselves into an even deeper hole with this
nominee.
Also overnight, we learned President Biden is going to try to slap
another bandaid on gas prices by draining more oil out of the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve. The reserve is supposed to exist for giant
unforeseen crises, such as a war between great powers. It is not there
so that anti-energy politicians whose policies have raised gas prices
can try to hide that from the public.
It is also worth remembering that back in 2020, as oil prices were
cratering, Republicans tried to seize the opportunity to rebuild the
Strategic Reserve. It would have been a win-win-win to help stabilize
our energy industry in the early days of the crisis, gotten American
taxpayers an incredible deal with oil at bargain-basement prices, and
enhanced our readiness going forward.
But you know what happened. Senate Democrats blocked it. They said
buying oil at rock-bottom prices and building up our reserve would have
been--listen to this--``a bailout for Big Oil.'' So the Democratic
leader bragged about killing that proposal.
You can't make this stuff up.
Our colleagues misunderstand basic economics and basic national
security every chance they get. Taxing, spending, radical nominations,
and gimmicky half-measures--the American people already blame the
Democrats for the fix we are in, and, every week, our colleagues seek
new ways to prove them right.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, this morning, I am going to announce my
decision on Judge Jackson's nomination to the Supreme Court. I will
oppose her, and I will vote no.
My decision is based upon her record of judicial activism, flawed
sentencing methodology regarding child pornography cases, and a belief
Judge Jackson will not be deterred by the plain meaning of the law when
it comes to liberal causes.
I find Judge Jackson to be a person of exceptionally good character,
respected by her peers, and someone who has worked hard to achieve her
current position. However, her record is overwhelming in its lack of a
steady judicial philosophy and a tendency to achieve outcomes in spite
of what the law requires or commonsense would dictate.
After a thorough review of Judge Jackson's record and information
gained at the hearing from an evasive witness, I now know why Judge
Jackson was the favorite of the radical left, and I will vote no.
In the area of child pornography, there has been an explosion in this
country of child pornography on the internet. In 2021, groups that
follow sexual abuse of children on the internet reported 29.3 million
reports of individuals accessing information regarding child
pornography on the internet. It has gone from 100,000 in 2003 to 29.3
million in 2021.
It is estimated that there is 85 million images and videos and other
files involving sexually exploited children on the internet.
Now, why is this important?
This is the venue of choice for the child pornographer. It is not the
mail. As you can see, the internet is where these people go. In a
matter of minutes, they can download hundreds, if not thousands, of
images and videos of the most disgusting abuse of children; and my goal
is to deter that, not discount it.
Judge Jackson's sentencing methodology, in my view, misses the mark.
I don't doubt that, personally, she is offended by the behavior that we
are all
[[Page S1878]]
talking about, but as a judge, she has an opportunity to deter the
behavior of going on the internet and downloading images of exploited
children. Every time she has that opportunity, she refuses to exercise
it.
Now, why is Judge Jackson's sentencing so different?
In possession cases, she gives 29.2 months, and the average
nationally is 68 months. In the distribution of child pornography, her
sentence is 71.9 months, and the minimum is 60 months. That is what you
have to give. The average nationally, they tell me, is 135 months. The
length of sentence for the possession of child pornography imposed by
Judge Jackson is 57 percent less than the national average. In the area
of distribution, it is 40 percent less than the national average.
Why?
Under the sentencing guidelines, judges, if they choose, can enhance
the sentence based on the fact that the perpetrator used the internet.
Now, why do we want that as a sentencing enhancement?
We want to deter the use of the internet when it comes to child
pornography because there are already 85 million images and videos of
children being abused, and that is the venue of choice. So, instead of
deterring that behavior, Judge Jackson routinely says that she will not
hold that against a perpetrator.
I think that is a mistake. She basically said: It is so easy, in a
matter of minutes, to push a button and download a bunch of files. That
seems, to me, to be an unfair way to sentence somebody.
She also takes off the table a sentence enhancement for the number or
the volume of child pornography being possessed or distributed.
I think that is absolutely backward. I think what we should be doing
is that every time you mash the button and download an image of a child
being exploited, your time in jail should go up. That should be held
against you. Accessing the internet should be deterred, not ignored.
What I have to say is that the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children released a report on the 2020 data. There has been a
35-percent increase in child sex abuse material in a single year, 29.3
million reports last year of people accessing child pornography on the
internet, and at least 85 million images and files on the internet.
When it comes time to sentence these people, Judge Jackson will not
impose additional punishment on the fact of the volume involved and the
fact they are using the internet, the venue of choice.
The more you download, the more you go to jail, is my view. I am
going to work with Senator Hawley to correct these practices. I think
she is making a terrible mistake by not enhancing sentences based on
the volume because every click of the computer is destroying a life. We
should be deterring the use of the internet when it comes to child
pornography. Judge Jackson chooses not to. When it comes to the volume,
that should be held against you. The more you abuse children, the more
in your possession, the more you distribute, the longer you go to jail.
The reason her numbers are so low is due to that sentencing
methodology. I think, if we don't fix this, we are making the problem
worse. I think her approach to this issue is absolutely wrong; it loses
all deterrence. I will be watching like a hawk future nominees who are
in the sentencing business to see if they follow this model.
The model Judge Jackson has created is one wherein the more you do,
it doesn't matter. The fact that you use the internet where all the
child pornography lies is not held against you, and I believe it should
be. Every click, every download means you go to jail longer in the
world that I want to create.
The other area of concern is Guantanamo Bay. Remember this? This is
9/11.
Guantanamo Bay has been a place to house enemy combatants captured in
the war on terror. Judge Jackson was a public defender, I think, for
four or five GTMO detainees, and that is a noble thing. I have no
problem with somebody--a public defender anywhere in the country--
defending very unpopular people, and people at GTMO deserve
representation.
What I found during this representation is that her amicus briefs in
the defense of GTMO detainees accused President Bush and his team of
being war criminals. That is not defending somebody charged or held as
an enemy combatant as being part of the enemy force. That is an
accusation against your own government that, I think, buys into the
language of the left.
You can vigorously defend anyone captured as an enemy combatant or
who is potentially charged with a crime against terrorism. That is a
noble thing. Yet, when you use the language that was in her brief--and
she said: ``Well, I really don't remember that''--I have a hard time
believing that you put your name on a brief that calls the President of
the United States and his team war criminals. That is not about
defending somebody; that is an activist approach to the war on terror.
It goes further. In her legal briefs, she wanted to deny the United
States the ability to hold GTMO detainees under the law of war
indefinitely. There are about 37 or 38 GTMO detainees still being held
who have never been charged. We know, through the intel and the
evidence, that they are hardened killers committed to the jihadist
cause. Under the law of war, once their habeas petition has been
reviewed by the Federal courts--where the courts agree with the
government that the person is, in fact, an enemy combatant--under the
law of war, there is no requirement to release him, but Judge Jackson
took the position as an advocate that we could not hold them
indefinitely, creating a dilemma whereby you have to charge them with a
crime or let them go.
I don't consider these people criminals as much as warriors in the
cause to destroy our way of life. If you choose to charge them with a
crime, fine; but you don't have to make that choice. The reason that
there are 30-plus still in detention is we have chosen--Republicans and
Democrats--to hold these people off the battlefield. If we had accepted
Judge Jackson's legal reasoning, that tool would not have been
available to us as a nation, and it would have compromised our ability
to defend ourselves.
I think that approach was the most extreme view of representation in
this area, and I think it shows a lack of understanding of the war in
which we are in. We are not fighting criminals. These are not wayward
goat herders. These are people committed to the jihadist cause and
would kill us all if they could.
Before I leave GTMO, 31 percent of the people who have been detained
since the beginning of the war have gone back to the fight--I will
introduce that at the hearing next week--and some of the senior
leadership of the current Taliban government were GTMO detainees who
have now not only gone back to the fight but have actually gone back to
serve in the Taliban government that is reining oppression on the
Taliban people.
So, to those who think this is a crime we are fighting, you are
wrong. It is a war for the survival of good against evil.
Immigration--in case you haven't noticed, this country is being
invaded by illegal immigrants. Right after taking office, President
Biden rolled back virtually every policy of President Trump's regarding
asylum and deportation. He basically destroyed the regime created by
President Trump that gave us the lowest number of illegal crossings in
this country in 30 or 40 years at the end of 2020. Now, every week, we
are setting new records.
Why?
The policies that existed during the Trump administration worked.
They are being reversed by President Biden, and we are being
overwhelmed, and the worst is yet to come. If the Biden
administration--the CDC--does away with the ability to deport illegal
immigrants under title 42 of the public health law, presenting a threat
to COVID, then you will see the numbers go up even further. There will
be thousands--18,000 to 20,000 people a day--coming across our border
from countries with low vaccination rates. So, when it comes to illegal
immigration, policy matters.
When Judge Jackson was a district court judge, there was a case
brought by Make the Road New York, et al., v. McAleenan, who was the
Acting DHS
[[Page S1879]]
Secretary under President Trump. The group Make the Road New York was
an Arabella activist group. This is kind of a holding company, for lack
of a better word--an umbrella group--funded by George Soros and a bunch
of other liberal billionaires. This group in that chain, in receiving
money from these folks, filed a lawsuit, arguing against the Trump
decision to deport, under expedited immigration authority, people who
have been here 2 years or less. In changing the Obama policy and
actually fully implementing the authority given to the DHS Secretary,
they decided to go the full 2 years. Anybody here 2 years and under in
the category in question could be deported with expedited procedure--
meaning, it was a quick turnaround.
This was the authority given by the Congress to the DHS Director.
Obama didn't use that authority fully. Trump decided to do it. Make the
Road New York, et al.--a bunch of liberal groups--sued the Trump policy
change. Judge Jackson was the judge, and she overruled the Trump
decision. The statute in question says that the Secretary has the
``sole and unreviewable discretion'' to use expedited deportation for
people here 2 years or less. The statute could not have been written
any clearer.
If you are looking for what an activist judge is all about, this is
the case, exhibit A.
The law was written in the most clear terms, saying the decision of
the Secretary's is unreviewable and solely in their hands when it comes
to using expedited removal procedures for people here 2 years or less.
She ruled against the Trump administration. She basically said this was
arbitrary and capricious; it reeked of bad faith; and it ``[showed]
contempt for the authority that the Constitution's Framers have vested
in the judicial branch.''
That contempt she is talking about was a congressional act. The
congressional act was designed to tell judges that the DHS Secretary
has discretion in this area, solely and unreviewable. She found that
concept offensive. Instead of following the plain letter of the law,
she did legal gymnastics to find against the Trump administration.
When she says the statute ``[created] contempt for the authority that
the Constitution's Framers have vested in the judicial branch,'' what
she is saying is, I will be damned if I am going to be limited by a
congressional act that tells me I can't do what I want to do.
The plaintiff in that case was from the radical left. She ruled for
them in spite of the plain meaning of the statute, and she was
overturned by the DC Circuit court.
The court said--and this is a fairly liberal court:
There could hardly be a more definitive expression of
Congressional intent to leave the decision about the scope of
expedited removal, within statutory bounds, to the
Secretary's independent judgment. The ``forceful phrase `sole
and unreviewable discretion' '' by its exceptional terms,
heralds Congress's judgment to commit the decision
exclusively to agency discretion.
She ignored the plain meaning of the statute, the language of the
statute, to get a result she wanted, and the DC District Court of
Appeals said that there could hardly be a more defended expression of
congressional intent.
That is judicial activism on steroids, and it makes managing our
immigration problem even worse when you have activist judges who ignore
the law and take discretion away, given by Congress to the executive
branch, because they don't like the outcome. That is, in fact, the
premier definition of judicial activism. I find, in her judging a
desire to get an outcome and no matter what she has to do to get that
outcome, she will pursue it. This is a case where you couldn't have
written a statute more clearly, and she did. She just went around it,
got the results she wanted, and got slapped down on appeal.
Now, she is the first African-American female slated to go to the
Supreme Court. She, however, is not the first African-American female
who had potential to be on the Supreme Court.
Janice Rogers Brown was nominated by President Bush 43 to be on the
DC Circuit Court of Appeals--one of the premier appellate courts--like
Judge Jackson was nominated to. She is from Alabama. She was the
daughter and granddaughter of sharecroppers, growing up in Alabama
during the Jim Crow era. She moved to California as a teenager, and she
wound up serving on the California Supreme Court. She was a single
mother raising children.
In June 2005, she was confirmed to the DC court in a 56-to-43 vote.
That was after the Gang of 14 broke a filibuster by my Democratic
colleagues against her and others. She was nominated in 2003, and her
nomination was stalled for 2 years.
Here is what Senator Schumer said:
Judge Brown was the least worthy pick this president has
made for the appellate court, and that's based on her record.
Senator Durbin in 2005:
One of the [President's] most ideological and extreme
judicial nominees.
In 2005:
If the President sends us a nominee who, like Janice Rogers
Brown, believes that the New Deal was the triumph of a
``socialist revolution,'' there will be a fight.
Here is what then-Senator Biden said about Janice Rogers Brown. Not
only did he filibuster her, he said: ``I can assure you that would be a
very, very difficult fight, and she probably would be filibustered'' if
she were nominated to the Supreme Court.
So, to my Democratic colleagues, as you celebrate Judge Jackson's
potential ascension to the Court, as those of us on the committee who
asked penetrating, relevant questions of Judge Jackson's judicial
philosophy, how she sentenced people and why--you know, the liberal
media that is completely in the tank on issues like this sat on the
sidelines and watched you, my Democratic colleagues, stop the ascension
of an African-American conservative nominee by President Bush. When it
came to her potential of being on the Supreme Court, you threatened to
filibuster her. You considered her ideology unacceptable and too
conservative.
So if you are a conservative nominee of color, a woman, it is OK to
use your ideology against you. If you question the ideology and the
judging ability of a liberal African-American nominee, you are a
racist. Those days are over for me. So I have very little respect for
what is going on in modern America when it comes to judging.
Miguel Estrada was nominated by President Bush 43--a highly qualified
man, Hispanic--to be on the Court, and he fell victim to the wholesale
filibuster of Bush nominees in the 2003 era. He didn't make it through
the Gang of 8. Judge Janice Rogers Brown got on the Court--2 years
delayed, and when she was being considered to go on the Court, Joe
Biden, Senator Joe Biden, said she will be filibustered very, very
likely.
So we live in a world where, if you are a person of color, a woman,
and you are conservative, everything is fair game. If you are a person
of color and liberal, how dare anybody question or use the same
standard against you that was used against the other nominees? I don't
accept that.
Finally, about the hearing itself, to the liberal media, comparing
this hearing to Judge Kavanaugh's is an absolute offense. Nobody on the
Republican side held information back, accusing Judge Brown of doing
something that was either made up, not credible. Nobody questioned her
high school annual. Nobody took a bunch of garbage and made it seem
like the nominee had been Bill Cosby in his teenage years. Crazy stuff.
Offensive stuff.
What we did ask Judge Jackson is, Why do you sentence the people the
way you do? Explain the reasoning in the cases involving child
pornography. We went after her judicial philosophy, and it had to be
contentious because the judge seldom would answer a question. But to
me, if you are going to be nominated to the Supreme Court for a
lifetime appointment, you should expect to be asked hard questions. You
should not expect to have your life destroyed. And if you don't see a
difference between the two hearings, then you are blinded by your
desire to get an outcome.
Here is where we are in 2022: The only person qualified to go to the
Supreme Court as an African-American woman is a liberal. You can be
equally qualified as a conservative, but you need not apply because
your ideology disqualifies you. That is not exactly the advancement I
was hoping we would have in America in 2022.
So, Judge Jackson, I will vote no.
I find her sentencing methodology to reinforce and take deterrence of
the most heinous offenses off the table.
[[Page S1880]]
The statements she made during the sentencing hearings showed a tilted
sense of compassion. I am sure she doesn't like the behavior and feels
sorry for the kids, but every time she had a chance to increase
punishment for the volume of material in the hands of the perpetrators,
she chose not to do that, and I think she should. Going to the
internet, to her, and downloading a bunch of files was too easy to
enhance punishment? Well, it is just too easy to destroy lives.
So when it comes to immigration, it is the most egregious case I have
ever seen, quite frankly, of a judge ignoring the plain meaning of the
law to get a result they wanted. When it comes to the War on Terror, I
think the position she wanted our country to take would make us less
safe. The language of the left in her briefs of calling Bush a war
criminal says more about the politics than it does the merit of the
argument.
So now, I know why Judge Jackson was the preferred pick of the
radical left. Now, I know why they went after Michelle Childs, somebody
I could have supported--even though she had been liberal--a highly
qualified, sensible, commonsense person. Now, I know. Now, I understand
better. And that is why I am voting no.
To my Democratic colleagues, I will work with you when I can, but
this is a bridge too far.
Thank you.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the presentation
by my colleague and friend, Senator Graham of South Carolina. I wanted
to come to the floor to make it clear that he didn't tell you the whole
story. In fact, in some ways, he didn't even get close.
Who is this judge, Ketanji Brown Jackson? How could she even be
considered for the Supreme Court if she is the preferred pick of the
radical left? Well, let's take a look at her background: an
extraordinary story of a daughter of two public school teachers; the
daughter of a father who decided he was going to go to law school,
basically stopped working full time. Her mother supported the family.
She was a little girl at the time. She remembers it well because there
would be law books stacked on the kitchen table. She would come in as a
little girl and bring her coloring books to sit next to her daddy while
he was studying for law school. He went on to become a lawyer. Family
members were policemen. One of her uncles turned out to be the chief of
police in Miami. She grew up in a very ambitious, determined, orderly
family, and she certainly had respect for her family ties to law
enforcement.
She was on the debate team in high school. One of the trips took her
from Florida up to the campus of Harvard University. She was dazzled,
believed that this just might be the answer to her dreams.
She came back to her high school and sat down with her high school
counselor, who said to this young Black woman: Honey, you are shooting
too high. I don't want your heart to be broken. Think about other
schools. Don't think about that Harvard University school.
Luckily, she ignored that advice, applied, and was accepted.
She told the story before the hearing about being on the campus at
Cambridge, not sure that it was the right decision, looking around,
seeing a much different world than the one she grew up in, a much
different group of people than she was used to socializing with. She
must have shown it in her face because as she was walking across the
campus one day, an African-American woman saw her, looked at her, and
said: Persevere. Persevere.
Just that simple word captured everything for her, and she did. She
persevered and completed her education at Harvard and went on to
Harvard Law School. She was an outstanding student at the law school,
so much so that she became a clerk to the Federal district court. She
did such a good job, she was promoted to become a Federal circuit court
clerk and then--the ultimate prize for any graduating law student in
America--clerk to a Justice of the Supreme Court--Ketanji Brown
Jackson--and what an irony that she worked for Justice Stephen Breyer,
whose retirement has created the vacancy which she seeks.
Along the way, she staffed the Sentencing Commission. She worked in
the Public Defender's Office. She became a Federal district court
judge, cleared by this committee, the Judiciary Committee. This was her
fourth time before the committee. Each time she appeared, there was
bipartisan support, including the Senator who just spoke against her.
Then, ultimately, the opportunity of a lifetime to fill a vacancy on
the Supreme Court.
For the hearing itself, first, I want to commend my Republican
colleague Chuck Grassley. As chairman of the committee, a Democrat
couldn't be any luckier than to have sitting in the chair next to you
Chuck Grassley. He is a gentleman. He is a strong, faithful Republican,
but he is a gentleman. We were determined to make this hearing for this
judicial nomination to the Supreme Court different than some that had
gone before.
I want to commend the Republicans on the committee. There are 11 of
them. The majority of those Republicans asked tough, probing questions,
as they should. They never got personal. They never raised their
voices. They were respectful throughout, the majority of them. I am
sorry to say that in a few instances, there were exceptions on that
side of the aisle. But I think the hearing, by and large, was a good
hearing despite a few differences, which I will note in a minute.
At the end of the day, you could not help but leave that hearing and
think you had just seen, you had just witnessed a moment in history--
not just the first African American to aspire to serve on the Supreme
Court but also a pillar of strength during her hearing. They threw it
at her in every direction.
I can't tell you how many people have come up to me everywhere I have
gone since that hearing and said the same thing: How did you sit
through that? How could you put up with that?
And I thought, and I said to them: Think about her sitting in front
of her husband and her daughters and some of the things that were said
about her, things said again this morning on the Senate floor. She came
out a pillar of strength, grace and dignity under pressure.
I looked up at that table several times and thought, Judge, if you
stood up at this moment and said ``Enough. I am taking my family, and
we are out of here,'' I would understand. But she never did. She never
wavered. She was solid as a rock, and that is why it is my honor to
support her and believe that she is going to make history.
Some of the things they said were outrageous. This case they want to
make about her sentencing guidelines when it comes to sex crimes
involving children and child pornography--what did she say about it?
She said they were horrible and despicable crimes. But she didn't just
say it before the committee when she was under assault. Listen to what
she said in one of her cases, United States v. Hillie, a case involving
sexual misconduct toward children. The true nature of these offenses,
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson said, lies in how they affected the
children who you tormented for nearly a decade when you lived on and
off with their mother. That is a substantial portion of their
childhood. These two children carried a burden no child should have to
shoulder--the burden of protecting themselves from a man charged with
their care but who instead exploited them.
Then she went on to say:
This family has been torn apart--
she said to the defendant--
by your criminal actions. You saw it on the faces of those
women. You heard it in their voices. And the impact of your
acts on those very real victims who are still struggling to
recover to this day makes your crimes among the most serious
criminal offenses that this Court has ever sentenced.
Does that sound like she is soft on crime? Does that sound like she
didn't remember she is a mother of daughters who cared for the impact
those criminals had on the children and the family? Not in any way
whatsoever.
You would draw a much different conclusion if you just listened to
the arguments being made recently here on the floor, and it would be an
unfair conclusion.
The bottom line, as far as I am concerned, is this: What they have
left out in the presentation is critical to the very truth of their
allegations. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is in the mainstream of
sentencing when it comes to these cases. Seventy to eighty percent
[[Page S1881]]
of Federal judges divert from the guidelines as she has in some cases.
And, let me add, her accusers have been voting for Federal judges
proposed by President Trump right and left who do exactly the same
thing she does.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a New York Times article of March 25, 2022, entitled ``Jackson's
Critics Backed Judges With Like Rulings.''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, Mar. 24, 2022]
Jackson's Critics Backed Judges With Like Rulings
(By Linda Qiu)
Washington.--Several Republican senators repeatedly and
misleadingly suggested during this week's Supreme Court
confirmation hearings that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson had
given uncommonly lenient sentences to felons convicted of
child sex abuse crimes.
But all of the Republican critics had previously voted to
confirm judges who had given out prison terms below
prosecutor recommendations, the very bar they accused Judge
Jackson of failing to clear.
Just 30 percent of offenders who possessed or shared images
of child sex abuse received a sentence within the range
suggested by nonbinding federal guidelines in the 2019 fiscal
year, and 59 percent received a sentence below the guideline
range. And in general, it is not uncommon for judges to
impose shorter sentences than what prosecutors have
recommended.
``I listed these seven cases in which you had discretion
and you did not follow the prosecutor's recommendation or the
sentencing guidelines,'' Senator Josh Hawley, Republican of
Missouri, said at Judge Jackson's hearing on Tuesday. ``I'm
questioning how you used your discretion in these cases.''
Mr. Hawley's point was echoed by three of his Republican
colleagues: Senators Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Tom
Cotton of Arkansas and Ted Cruz of Texas. Mr. Cruz said the
sentences imposed by Judge Jackson in cases involving images
of child sex abuse were 47.2 percent less than the
prosecutor's recommendations on average.
``You always were under the recommendation of the
prosecutor,'' Mr. Graham told the judge on Wednesday. ``I
think you're doing it wrong, and every judge who does what
you're doing is making it easier for the children to be
exploited.''
But Mr. Hawley, Mr. Graham, Mr. Cotton and Mr. Cruz all
voted to confirm judges nominated by President Donald J.
Trump to appeals courts even though those nominees had given
out sentences lighter than prosecutor recommendations in
cases involving images of child sex abuse. Mr. Graham had
also voted to confirm Judge Jackson to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2021 in spite
of the sentencing decisions she had made as a district judge.
In 2017, Judge Ralph R. Erickson was confirmed by a 95-to-l
vote to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit,
with Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cruz and Mr. Graham voting in the
affirmative. (Mr. Hawley was not yet a senator.) While
serving as a district court judge in North Dakota, Judge
Erickson imposed sentences shorter than the prosecutor's
recommendations in nine cases involving child sex abuse
imagery from 2009 to 2017, averaging 19 percent lower.
In the case with the greatest discrepancy--in which a 68-
year-old man pleaded guilty to possessing and transporting
such illicit materials--prosecutors asked for 151 months and
Judge Erickson imposed a 96-month sentence.
Judge Amy J. St. Eve was confirmed by a 91-to-0 vote in
2018 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
While serving as a district court judge in Illinois, Judge
St. Eve imposed lighter sentences than prosecutor
recommendations in two such cases. In United States v.
Conrad, she sentenced a man who transported images of child
sexual abuse to 198 months, 45 percent less than the
prosecutor's recommendation of 360 months.
All four Republican senators voted to confirm Judge Joseph
F. Bianco to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
in 2019. Previously, as a district court judge in New York,
Judge Bianco sentenced three defendants to prison terms
shorter than what prosecutors had sought.
At a 2013 hearing for a 25-year-old defendant who possessed
and distributed illicit materials, Judge Bianco stated that
the court had ``discretion'' to impose such sentences and
spoke of ``mitigating circumstances''--an echo of what Judge
Jackson repeatedly told the senators during this week's
hearings. The defendant received a 60-month prison term,
while prosecutors had asked for ``a sentence above the 60
months.''
``The guidelines here are just way disproportionate under
the facts of this case, and I don't view them as particularly
helpful in this case.'' Judge Bianco said at the time. ``I
disagree with the government that this case is sort of in the
heartland of normal cases. There are a number of mitigating
factors in this case that I believe are compelling.''
Most recently, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Cruz and Mr. Hawley voted to
confirm Judge Andrew L. Brasher to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 11th Circuit in 2020. (Mr. Graham was not present for
the vote.) As a district court judge in Alabama, Judge
Brasher had sentenced a defendant to 84 months in prison,
below the prosecutor recommendation of 170 months.
In a 2019 hearing before he issued the sentence, Judge
Brasher noted that ``one of the things that I'm required by
law to evaluate and consider with respect to'' the defendant
``is disparities between offenders who are similarly
situated.''
That, too, was similar to an explanation that Judge Jackson
gave for her sentencing decisions.
``Judges all over the country are grappling with how to
apply this guideline under these circumstances,'' she told
Mr. Hawley on Wednesday. ``The judge is not just evaluating
what the government says in these cases. In every criminal
case, a judge has to take into account all sorts of
factors.''
Mr. DURBIN. It tells a story, and the story is very clear. We have a
situation in this country where we have not upgraded the child
pornography and sexual misconduct statutes in years. Across the board,
70 to 80 percent of sentences by Federal judges take the same position
as Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. These so-called deviations from the
guidelines have become commonplace. As I said, the overwhelming
majority of Federal judges are doing this.
Well, is there a problem? There is. But the problem is that we have
not upgraded the statute. We bear responsibility for this. The decision
was made before the Supreme Court that these guidelines would not be
mandatory. It was a decision joined by Antonin Scalia--the originalist,
the conservative. It put the burden back on Congress, and we have not
picked up that responsibility.
So you say to yourself: Well, if she were so soft on crime, it surely
would have shown up in other places. Well, let me tell you what
happened. The American Bar Association did a review of her career as a
prosecutor, as a defender, on the bench. They interviewed 250
individuals--judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers, other counsel who
worked with her.
And I asked, pointblank, Judge Ann Williams, who led this
investigation by the ABA: Did you hear from anyone who said she was
soft on crime; that she somehow was not in the norm when it came to
sentencing?
None. Not one. Two hundred fifty people interviewed, and not one came
up with it.
All we have heard against her has come out of the mouths of three or
four people on the committee, and that is it because there is no record
for it.
Well, how did the American Bar Association grade her when it was all
said and done? Unanimously ``well qualified.'' Unanimously ``well
qualified.'' It doesn't sound like the same person just described, does
it, because it isn't. What you have heard on the floor here is a
mischaracterization of her record, and I am sorry to say it is unfair.
And I wish it hadn't been part of the record today.
What about Guantanamo? Well, I have some serious differences with the
Senator from South Carolina about Guantanamo. Hundreds of detainees
have been sent to Guantanamo since the War on Terror began. Many of
them should have been there, but hundreds and hundreds of them have
been released by Presidents, Republican and Democratic. We are now down
to 39 detainees. We are spending over $10 million for each one of them
each year at Guantanamo Bay.
And when it comes to the resolution of who was responsible for 9/11,
the families have come and testified before us. They have waited over
20 years, and they still don't have an answer. They understand that the
approach at Guantanamo Bay is not leading to justice, and it is not
answering the basic factual questions.
So what is her situation? Why would she dare to call the Republican
President of the United States a war criminal? What was she thinking?
Well, it sounds like a terrible charge until you read the facts.
The facts were she presented a brief, and the brief referred to a
body of law known as the Alien Tort Statute. And the person she was
representing in this brief was arguing that he was tortured and
mistreated at Guantanamo Bay. So he filed a claim under the Alien Tort
Statute. When you do that, you sue the President of the United States
and the Secretary of Defense. They were the named defendants. That
included President Bush.
[[Page S1882]]
What the Senator from South Carolina failed to disclose was that, as
that case was winding its way through, the administration changed, and
if there was an allegation of a war crime against President Bush, it
was the same allegation that was made when the administration changed
and the name of the defendant changed to Barack Obama.
To argue that this was a personal charge against the President of the
United States as a war criminal is a gross exaggeration and unfair on
its face. The named defendants were required under the Alien Tort
Statute for the allegations that were made. That wasn't her decision;
that was the decision of Congress to write the specifics of the Alien
Tort Statute.
The third point I want to make is immigration. Yes, we have
challenges in immigration. I think we all know it. But to blame her and
say that she is somehow responsible for the invasion--you saw the crowd
of people coming across the border--is really unfair.
What happened was there was a lawsuit filed challenging a Trump
decision on policy, and she was asked to rule on it. And she ruled in
one direction. The appeal was taken, and she was reversed at the
circuit court.
Now, according to the Senator who just made the presentation,
evidence she is in the pocket of the radical left when it comes to
immigration, evidence that George Soros somehow is controlling her
decisions, is preposterous. The fact of the matter is, if you look at
almost 600 decisions handed down by Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, you
will find a small, small percentage that were actually reversed.
And if you are looking for a second case to build the theory that she
is on the radical left, I don't even think you found the first one. She
has a balanced approach. She has ruled for and against Democratic and
Republican Presidents. She has shown the kind of balance we expect on
the Supreme Court.
I would say this notion that somehow Joe Biden has chosen someone who
is radical is a shame. She is not. She is as solid as they come, and
her testimony and her appearance before the committee proved that over
and over again.
I also want to say I have nothing against the South Carolina judge
who was in the finals but wasn't chosen by the President. In fact,
President Biden has asked that she be promoted from the Federal
district court to the Federal circuit court, and I would like to get
that done as quickly as we can. I think Judge Childs is well deserving
of that opportunity. She certainly is a good jurist.
But the choice by President Biden was clear, and it was the right
choice. These charges that somehow she is soft on crime because she is
an African-American woman and she was a public defender belie the
actually record of this woman.
We should all be judged on our records. This notion that we are asked
to identify ourselves by labels--we know that story, the 100 of us who
sit on this side of the Capitol in the Senate Chamber. We are attached
to labels which we embrace and some we don't embrace, but most people
who are fair will say: I am not going to judge you by your label; I am
going to judge you by your record.
If you judge Ketanji Brown Jackson by her record--written opinions,
the fact that this was the fourth time she appeared before the
Judiciary Committee and had been approved the three previous times,
serving on the Sentencing Commission and so many other things--you know
that it is an outstanding and stellar record, but you know it almost
has to be. If you want to be the first, you have to be the best. She is
the best.
Despite some of the things that have been thrown at her today and in
other places, the American people came out of that hearing and felt
better and stronger about her nomination than before the hearing began.
It is evidence of the strengths that she brings to this nomination and
the value that she will bring to the Supreme Court.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted
to speak for up to 10 minutes, Senator Murphy for up to 12 minutes, and
Senator Grassley for up to 10 minutes prior to the scheduled vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
2023 Farm Bill
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, it has now been more than 3 years since the
2018 farm bill, and it is time to start thinking about the next one.
The House Agriculture Committee has already begun holding hearings on
the 2023 farm bill, and I am hoping that the Senate Agriculture
Committee will begin holding hearings soon as well.
Agriculture is the lifeblood of our economy in South Dakota, and
advocating for farmers and ranchers is one of my top priorities here in
the Senate. I am fortunate enough to be a longtime member of the Senate
Agriculture Committee, which gives me an important platform from which
to address the needs of South Dakota ag producers.
During my time in Congress, I have worked on four farm bills, and I
am particularly proud of the nearly 20 measures I was able to get
included in the 2018 farm bill. Among other things, I authored
provisions to improve the Agriculture Risk Coverage Program, improve
the accuracy of the U.S. Drought Monitor, and include soil health as a
research priority at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
I was also able to secure a number of improvements of the
Conservation Reserve Program, including a provision to increase the CRP
acreage cap, increased flexibility for acres enrolled in CRP, and cost
sharing for fencing and water distribution practices on CRP-enrolled
acres.
I also secured approval for a new, short-term alternative to CRP--the
Soil Health and Income Protection Program--to provide an option for
farmers who don't want to take their land out of production for the 10
to 15 years required under the Conservation Reserve Program.
And I was able to secure important provisions to increase the
approval rate of Livestock Indemnity Program applications for death
losses due to weather-related diseases.
I would never have been able to get all this done without the input
of South Dakota farmers and ranchers. These provisions were a direct
result of extensive conversations with South Dakota ag producers that
provided insight into the challenges that they were facing and what
improvements could be made to make things easier in this demanding way
of life.
As I look to the 2023 farm bill, I will once again be relying on
South Dakota farmers and ranchers to lend their firsthand knowledge to
this effort. In fact, last Friday, I held the first of a series of
roundtables I am planning to hold to hear from South Dakota
agricultural producers. Friday's roundtable focused on the commodity
and crop insurance titles of the farm bill, and I was grateful to be
able to hear from representatives of the South Dakota Farm Bureau;
South Dakota corn, soybean, and wheat producers; as well as crop
insurance industry representatives.
I will be holding additional roundtables to cover other farm bill
priorities, including livestock, conservation, and forestry issues.
And, of course, I will continue to rely on the many informal
conversations I have with South Dakota ag producers as I travel around
the State.
There is nothing worse than having ``experts'' in Washington come in
and dictate to the real-world experts: the farmers and ranchers who
spend every day producing the food that feeds our Nation. And my goal
is always to make sure that any farm legislation is directly informed
by farmers and ranchers in South Dakota and around the country. I
already have a list of issues that I am looking to see addressed in the
next farm bill, and I plan to refine that list over the coming months
in my conversations with South Dakota ag producers.
One thing that emerged clearly from Friday's roundtable is the
importance of the farm safety net and the critical role of crop
insurance and commodity programs. Agriculture Risk Coverage and Price
Loss Coverage payments, which help offset losses when prices for
agricultural products drop, are not always proving sufficient,
particularly with our current high inflation, which has sent the price
of inputs like fertilizer soaring.
As I mentioned earlier, I was able to secure improvements to the
Agriculture Risk Coverage Program in the
[[Page S1883]]
2018 farm bill, and I plan to seek further commodity title program
improvements in the 2023 farm bill.
I also want to secure further improvements to the Conservation
Reserve Program. From my conversations with South Dakota ag producers,
it is clear that we need to make changes to ensure that CRP continues
to be an effective option for producers and landowners. In fact, last
week, I introduced the Conservation Reserve Program Improvement Act,
which I will work to get included in the 2023 farm bill.
Among other things, my legislation would make CRP grazing a more
attractive option by providing cost-share payments for all CRP
practices for the establishment of grazing infrastructure, including
fencing and water distribution. And it would increase the annual
payment limit for CRP, which hasn't been changed since 1985, to help
account for inflation and the increase that we have seen in land
values. This would expand the enrollment options available to
landowners to ensure the program effectively serves farmers and
ranchers, as well as conservation goals.
The Conservation Program Improvement Act is the first of multiple
bills I plan to introduce in the runup to the 2023 farm bill to address
the concerns of farmers and ranchers.
The one issue I have been working on extensively over the past year
is the challenges facing livestock producers, particularly cattle
producers. I will work to make sure the farm bill will provide
resources to help them face these challenges.
The life of a farmer and rancher is a challenging one. The work often
starts long before the Sun rises and concludes long after the Sun has
set. The labor can be backbreaking, not to mention the deep uncertainty
that goes along with this existence. There are few other industries so
subject to the whims of the weather, which can wipe out an entire crop
or herd in a very short period of time.
I am profoundly grateful for all those who have chosen and continued
this way of life, often for generations. The food we eat every day
depends upon their work, and our country would not long survive without
them. I am proud to have the honor of representing South Dakota's
farmers and ranchers here in the Senate, and I will continue to work
every day to ensure that their needs are addressed. I look forward to
ensuring that the 2023 farm bill reflects the priorities of South
Dakota farmers and ranchers and farmers and ranchers around our great
country.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act
Mr. GRASSLEY. Today, I come to the Senate floor to discuss the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. This has been
introduced in the House and now introduced in the Senate by this
Senator and by my colleague and friend, Senator Feinstein.
This bill is a product of bipartisan work and much collaboration. I
also want to thank Senators Cornyn and Klobuchar, who are true leaders
in this area and also introduced their trafficking legislation this
week. I look forward to continuing to work with those two Senators, as
well, on this issue.
Many Americans tend to view human slavery as a thing of the past. We
read about it in our history books and collectively cringe at the
concept of such injustice. Unfortunately, however, the reality is that
human slavery is alive and well, even today, in the form of sex and
labor trafficking. According to the State Department's annual
Trafficking in Persons Report, human trafficking is a $150 billion
business worldwide. Through deception, through threats, through
violence, the perpetrators of these crimes will do whatever--whatever--
it takes to turn a profit at their victims' expense.
With the introduction of this bill, we are acting as a voice for
those human trafficking victims in the United States who cannot speak
for themselves. To combat this crime within our borders, we have
addressed the scourge on multiple fronts. The bill we have championed
would extend several key victims' services programs that were
established under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. It would
promote screening of human trafficking victims, enhance training for
Federal investigators, and start a pilot program for young people at
high risk of being trafficked.
Our bill also includes the Survivor's Bill of Rights, a bill I
developed with survivors and an advocate named Amanda Nguyen, which
encourages States to ensure that survivors have, at minimum, the rights
guaranteed to survivors under Federal law.
Fighting for victims has been one of my top priorities as chairman
and now ranking member of Senate Judiciary. I consider it a privilege
to shape the law to ensure that trafficking victims receive necessary
services. I also take pride in helping law enforcement and prosecutors
hold the perpetrators accountable for these selfish acts.
Lastly, this bill has the support of the National District Attorneys
Association, Rights4Girls, Shared Hope International, Covenant House,
the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the Rape, Abuse
& Incest National Network, and the National Center on Sexual
Exploitation. I am grateful for all of these groups and the important
work that they do.
This bipartisan bill is a strong start, and, of course, the work
doesn't stop with a single piece of legislation. I look forward to
marking this bill up in the Judiciary Committee and getting it signed
into law.
Prescription Drug Costs
Mr. President, on another relatively short matter, as well, something
I come to the floor frequently to speak about and something I waited
throughout last year to see if the Democrats' approach to prescription
drugs was going to become law--and it doesn't look to me like that
route is going to be successful.
So I continually bring up another piece of legislation that I am
working on with Senator Wyden. It is a bill that says very clearly that
this Senator--and I think I speak for many, many Senators--that we want
lower prescription drugs now. I said that in the Finance Committee
hearing 2 weeks ago, and I say it again: I want lower prescription
drugs now.
What are we waiting for? We have a bipartisan prescription drug
package called Wyden-Grassley that will save seniors $72 billion and
the taxpayers $95 billion.
Senator Wyden said during the Finance Committee's most recent drug
pricing hearing that ``there is no question that the committee came''
forward--I am going to start this quote over again:
There is no question that the committee came together in
the last Congress and came up with a number of constructive
bipartisan reforms. Period. Full stop.
Why aren't we then advancing this bipartisan bill? What is the
majority waiting for?
One of my colleagues on the other side tweeted this:
POTUS has the authority to lower drug prices all on his
own--he should use it.
The Congressional Progressive Caucus is calling for this same thing,
as well.
And then in the Washington Post, I read this headline:
Advocates seek other pathways to lower drug prices.
Far-left groups are pushing President Biden to bypass Congress and
exert executive authority. Is that some sort of statement that we are
giving up on the legislative path? Why would we, in Congress, not move
ahead? It is not like all options for legislation have been exhausted.
The majority has spent 15 months attempting to pass their partisan
prescription drug bill. It has gone nowhere. It doesn't have 60 votes.
But that is not the only option. Has the Democratic majority given up
on lowering prescription drug prices and is counting on doing it only
by Executive order? Are they saying they have to do it in a way where
only Democrats get credit or not do anything at all? Do Democrats
really want to help seniors or would they rather have a campaign issue?
The longer we wait, patients and taxpayers are going to continue to
pay those high prices, and for some families, that is a suffering
position to be in.
Let's work to advance a bipartisan prescription drug bill that can
pass with 60-plus votes. We can do it today. It is already negotiated
and ready to go. I will work with anyone who wants to pass the
bipartisan Wyden-Grassley bill. Just give me a call.
[[Page S1884]]
I said something about last year, that you had to sit around and wait
for the Democrats to get something done on a totally partisan basis. I
don't say that they didn't work hard to get a bill passed that would
have reduced prescription drug prices.
But I just didn't sit around all of 2021. In the past 15 months, I
want to give you some of the things that I have been doing to try to
sell a bipartisan bill. I spoke with President Biden's White House
staff--although I did have a short conversation with President Biden
himself. I met with Speaker Pelosi. I met with Leader McCarthy. I had a
phone call with HHS Secretary Becerra. I met with the 10 Democrats who
were wise to this issue that you can't pass a bipartisan prescription
drug bill.
These 10 House Democrats wrote to the Speaker, way last summer,
wanting a bipartisan prescription drug pricing bill. I met with not all
10 of them, but I will bet I met with at least 5 of them, and they were
receptive to doing what I am doing. It doesn't mean they were receptive
to doing it exactly the way I wanted to do it, but they were receptive
to working in a bipartisan way.
Then I met with the Republican and Democrat group that is called the
Problem Solvers Caucus Healthcare Working Group.
Peter Welch, a Democrat from Vermont, has been on top of this issue
for years and years. I had breakfast with him.
I met with Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers because she is the top
Republican in the House dealing with this issue.
I met with Senators Sinema and Carper and other rank-and-file Members
of Congress.
While Democrats talk about lowering drug costs, they haven't made any
progress. The only bipartisan progress that has been made on drug
pricing has been under Republican leadership. If Republicans take
control of the Senate next Congress, Republicans will be lowering
prescription drug prices. We shouldn't have to wait another 8, 9
months. And who knows who will control the next Congress in the first
place. We don't have to wait a whole year. Let's lower prescription
drug prices today.
I yield the floor.
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Grassley
in introducing the Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection
Reauthorization Act of 2022.
Human trafficking and modern slavery are abhorrent crimes that are a
scourge on our country and the world. In 2022, there are an estimated
40 million victims of human trafficking and modern slavery worldwide.
These crimes generate approximately $150,000,000,000 of revenue
annually.
Perpetrators of human trafficking prey on vulnerable and marginalized
communities, which disproportionally impacts women and girls, migrants,
people of color, and LGBT individuals.
According to Polaris--the anti-human trafficking organization that
runs the National Human Trafficking Hotline--in 2021, the hotline was
contacted directly over 13,000 times by victims and survivors of human
trafficking in the United States. In the last 2 years, since the
beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the hotline has had a 60 percent
increase in total contacts.
There is also evidence that labor trafficking in the agricultural
industry may have increased during the pandemic. In June 2021, Polaris
released a report finding that, ``[a]mong reported labor trafficking
victims, there was more than a 70 percent increase in those who held
H2-A visas.''
This is unconscionable, and more must be done to combat human
trafficking. That is why Senator Grassley and I have introduced the
Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act of
2022.
This bill builds on the pillars of anti-human trafficking policy--
prevention, protection, prosecution, and partnership--in order to
protect victims and rid the world of this heinous crime.
This bill aims to prevent human trafficking by requiring enhanced
anti-human trafficking education and training for all Federal
departments and agencies.
It would also require all Federal contractors to certify that they do
not engage in the trafficking of persons and that no human trafficking
occurred in that contractor's supply chain. The bill also encourages
large private corporations to make the same types of certifications.
I am particularly proud of how this bill advances the goal of
protecting victims and survivors of human trafficking. This bill not
only reauthorizes existing grant programs, but it also creates a new
grant for education and employment training for survivors of human
trafficking.
The bill establishes a pilot program that provides services--such as
education and employment programs, housing, and substance use disorder
treatment--for youth who face a heightened risk of trafficking.
And to continue learning how to best support victims and survivors of
trafficking, the bill calls for a study on the accessibility of mental
health and substance use disorder services for survivors.
This bill also enhances the Federal Government's ability to prosecute
human traffickers.
Importantly, it bars government officials investigating human
trafficking cases from engaging in sexual contact with victims during
the course of the investigation. And it further provides protection
from retaliation and intimidation and creates a new penalty for
obstructing human trafficking investigations.
Finally, the bill will facilitate partnerships by creating a new
grant program that encourages collaboration between State child welfare
and juvenile justice agencies. This is important because youth involved
in the juvenile justice and child welfare system face a heightened risk
of human trafficking.
Additionally, the bill promotes coordination at the Federal level by
encouraging enhanced communication and data sharing between State and
Federal agencies and across the branches of government.
This bill will strengthen our government's response to human
trafficking as well as the services that we provide to victims and
survivors.
I am hopeful that we will be able to pass this bipartisan bill this
Congress. I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this
important, comprehensive legislation to protect trafficking victims.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
U.S. Supreme Court
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, the process of confirming a Supreme Court
Justice is supposed to be lengthy, thoughtful, rigorous. I am grateful
to the Presiding Officer and Chairman Durbin for doing it right with
Judge Brown Jackson.
Judge Jackson has answered hours of questions about her judicial
philosophy, why she made certain decisions, why she represented certain
clients, how her background has shaped her world view. Nearly every
detail of her professional and personal life has been and will continue
to be interrogated publicly as she goes through the final stages of
this process.
But a strange thing is going to happen when Judge Jackson finally
takes her seat on the Supreme Court. She will, after all of this review
and scrutiny, become effectively immune from ethics standards.
Why is that? Because every Federal judge--circuit judges, district
judges, court of international trade judges, court of Federal claims
judges, bankruptcy judges, magistrate judges--every Federal judge is
bound by a code of ethics in order to safeguard the judiciary's
neutrality and transparency--all Federal judges, except for nine: the
Supreme Court.
It is not because the Supreme Court is so highly regarded by the
American people. In fact, the opposite is true.
Trust in the institution's reputation is in rapid decline right now.
According to a recent C-SPAN poll, only 30 percent--about 37 percent,
actually--of likely voters believe that the Supreme Court acts in a
``serious and constitutionally sound manner.''
In a democracy that prides itself on a fair and independent
judiciary, that is unacceptable. It is worrying, but it is not
surprising. Recent revelations surrounding Justice Thomas and his
wife's involvement in the events of January 6 have finally brought
attention that
[[Page S1885]]
those standards we try to uphold during the confirmation process
quickly disappear upon confirmation.
Now, this isn't some new phenomenon. We have seen Justices--both
liberal and conservative--promote political fundraisers, speak at
partisan events, fail to recuse themselves from cases with pretty clear
conflicts of interest. And if the past is prologue--the recent incident
that has gained a lot of attention regarding Justice Thomas's family--
it won't be the last.
Now, I first introduced a bill that would require the Supreme Court
to adopt a code of ethics 10 years ago. And I have reintroduced a
version of that bill in every Congress since.
The majority of Americans agrees with me: There is absolutely no
reason why the Supreme Court shouldn't be subject to a code of conduct
just like every other Federal judge.
But the Court disagrees. John Roberts said in 2011 when he was asked
about this:
The Court has no reason to adopt a code of conduct as its definitive
source of ethical guidance.
Well, it has a reason now. And to be clear, I am not talking about a
code of conduct that is written by Congress. Instead, my legislation
would require the Judicial Conference to create a binding code of
conduct that applies to all Federal judges and Justices, including
those on the Supreme Court.
It is a simple step that would improve transparency, enforce
accountability, and restore some lost faith in the institution. And,
frankly, because of that diminishing faith, it is in the Court's
interest to do everything possible to try to help rebuild public
confidence.
During Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation process, Justice Kagan put it
best. She said:
The Court's strength as an institution of American
governance depends on people believing [it has] a certain
kind of legitimacy, on people believing it is not simply an
extension of politics, that its decision-making has a kind of
integrity to it.
If people don't believe that, they have no reason to accept what the
Court does. Justice Kagan said it well.
And right now, that belief is teetering dangerously close to the
edge. The spouse of a Supreme Court Justice was involved in an effort
to organize a coup and overthrow of a democratically elected President
of the United States. That is extraordinary. That is not normal. It
should not be treated as just another flavor of legitimate political
action, and the fact that there is no clear binding code of conduct
that addresses this kind of behavior and no clear standards of recusal
for Supreme Court Justices that the American people can see and trust
is just unacceptable.
I think that my Democratic and Republican colleagues can agree on
this, the American people deserve to know that our Supreme Court
Justices are being held to the highest standards whether they be
Justices appointed by Democratic Presidents or Justices appointed by
Republican Presidents. It is not enough for us to just trust the Court
any longer to self-enforce a secret internal code of ethics.
The highest Court in the land cannot be exempt from the standards
that we hold every other Federal judge to. I am glad that this piece of
legislation has gained additional cosponsors just over the course of
the last week. I hope that it eventually becomes a bipartisan piece of
legislation, and I would urge my colleagues to join me in holding the
Court to account.
Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar
Mr. President, finally, I know votes are pending, but I am also
coming to the floor to request, as I will in a moment, unanimous
consent for the nomination and approval of Javier Ramirez to be
Director of the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
I would guess that not a lot of my colleagues know much about the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, and that is because we
normally don't have to have a debate over the confirmation of its
Director on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
The Agency is an independent one that has been in place since 1947.
Its mission is to preserve and promote labor management peace and
cooperation by providing mediation and conflict resolution services to
industry, government agencies, and communities. The FMCS has 10
regional offices, more than 60 field offices. Its headquarters are here
in Washington, DC.
It does the basic blocking and tackling of keeping our economy
running. It is charged with trying to avoid conflict between labor and
management so that we don't have strikes, so that we don't have work
stoppages, so that our economy runs as smoothly as possible. It is a
pretty noncontroversial Agency, and the individual who has been
selected to run it is equally noncontroversial. He is a career public
servant.
Javier Ramirez began at the FMCS in 2005. He is currently the
director of Agency initiatives there. To me, this would be a no-
brainer, that we could come together and decide as a body that we are
going to make sure that we have someone running an Agency that is
pretty vital to the smooth flow of our economy and the mediation of
disputes between labor and management.
And so I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No.
665, Javier Ramirez, of Illinois, to be Federal Mediation and
Conciliation Director; that the Senate vote on the nomination without
intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be
considered made and laid upon the table; that any statements related to
the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). Is there objection?
The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BRAUN. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. President, Senator Murphy indicates there should be no
discussion, really, because this is such a slam dunk. I am coming up to
talk about it.
We do not do regular order. Our job is to be there for advice and
consent on any nominee. We have tried to shortcut the process, not only
on nominations, but even things as important as our budgets. We don't
do anything anymore with discussion that gets out maybe the rest of the
story.
I believe that on any of these, rather than proceeding to the floor,
you ought to at least have a discussion in committee. That didn't
happen. There was a vote, but not a discussion.
And when you look at this noncontroversial nominee, I think there are
at least some things to think about. Harry Katz, a professor at the
Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations, said Mr.
Ramirez could be open to expanding the range of disputes that the
Agency will consider.
So kind of hinting at some political enterprise that you would be
doing more than just interpreting. He is not alone. Wilma Liebman, a
former NLRB chair under President Obama, has told media that Mr.
Ramirez should be ``open to creative expansion of what the mediators
do.''
We need public servants who are going to strictly interpret the law,
and this looks like if we don't at least have a recorded vote, it could
slip through when it is not maybe as uncontroversial as Senator Murphy
might indicate.
I have reservations about the nominee, mostly about the process, very
indicative of the way that things work here in general, not only for
nominations, but critical policy. I think that has got to change.
Therefore, I do object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. MURPHY. I know colleagues are eager to get this vote going, but
20 seconds in response.
This place is grinding to a halt. And it is absolutely extraordinary
the number of noncontroversial nominees who are now required to move
through full votes, cloture motions on the floor. U.S. Attorneys who
never, ever had to come before this floor for votes and debate now do.
This is an exercise in fundamentally breaking the Senate. This place
only works with UC. We cannot run every single nominee through regular
order or we would be here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
I am grateful for my colleague's comments. I hope that we will be
able to confirm Mr. Ramirez. But this is the kind of work that the
Senate used to be able to do through UC, and it is unfortunate that we
continue to have this breakdown in process.
[[Page S1886]]
I yield the floor.
____________________