[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 101 (Tuesday, June 14, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2931-S2935]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 CELEBRATING THE 245TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CREATION OF THE FLAG OF THE 
   UNITED STATES AND EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

  Mr. BRAUN. Mr. President, this is one of the more enjoyable things of 
being a Senator, especially when I have some friends in from Southern 
Indiana up in the Gallery to see what we do here.
  I rise today to offer a resolution expressing support for the Pledge 
of Allegiance as an expression of patriotism and honoring the 245th 
anniversary of the introduction of our United States flag.
  Today we celebrate Flag Day, which was first established over 100 
years ago by President Woodrow Wilson. As we pause to recognize all 
that our flag represents, let us also honor those who have sacrificed 
everything to defend it.
  In 2002, Senator Tom Daschle raised a similar resolution with 
unanimous support from the Senate. It passed on the floor uneventfully. 
Today, I ask this body to reaffirm our support for the Pledge of 
Allegiance.
  I also rise to honor a fellow Hoosier who knew the innate value of 
the Pledge of Allegiance to civic education. In 1969, Red Skelton, the 
American entertainer who was well-known for the program ``The Red 
Skelton Hour,'' wrote a speech on the importance of the pledge. 
Reflecting on his time in Vincennes, IN, he spoke about the values 
instilled by one of his high school teachers.
  After the performance of the speech, CBS received 200,000 requests 
for copies. The speech would go on to be sold as a single by Columbia 
Records and performed at the White House for President Nixon. I think 
it would honor Mr. Skelton's memory and the importance of the Pledge of 
Allegiance if it were recited today on the Senate floor in the words of 
Mr. Red Skelton. I have done this 2 prior years too. This should never 
get old for anyone here or the American public in general.

       When I was a small boy in Vincennes, [Indiana,] I heard, I 
     think, one of the most outstanding speeches I ever heard in 
     my life. I think it compares with the Sermon on the Mount, 
     Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and Socrates' Speech to the 
     Students.
       We had just finished reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, and 
     he [Mr. Lasswell, the Principal of Vincennes High School] 
     called us all together, and he says, ``Uh, boys and girls, I 
     have been listening to you recite the Pledge of Allegiance 
     all semester, and it seems that it has become monotonous to 
     you. Or, could it be, you do not understand the meaning of

[[Page S2932]]

     each word? If I may, I would like to recite the pledge, and 
     give you a definition of each word:
       I--Me, an individual; a committee of one.
       Pledge--Dedicate all of my worldly good to give without 
     self-pity.
       Allegiance--My love and my devotion.
       To the Flag--Our standard. ``Old Glory''; a symbol of 
     courage. And wherever she waves, there is respect, because 
     your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts ``Freedom is 
     everybody's job.''
       Of the United--That means we have all come together.
       States--Individual communities that have united into 48 
     great states

  Remember the time when they didn't.

       Forty-eight individual communities with pride and dignity 
     and purpose; all divided by imaginary boundaries, yet united 
     to a common cause, and that's love of country--
       Of America.
       And to the Republic--a Republic: A sovereign state in which 
     power is invested into the representatives chosen by the 
     people to govern; [us] and the government is the people; and 
     it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to 
     the people.
       For which it Stands.
       One Nation--Meaning ``so blessed by God.''

  [Under God]

       Indivisible--Incapable of being divided.
       With Liberty--Which is freedom; the right of power for one 
     to live his own life without fears, threats, or any sort of 
     retaliation.
       And Justice--The principle and qualities of dealing fairly 
     with others.
       For All--For All. That means, boys and girls, it's as much 
     your country as it is mine.

  Afterward, Mr. Lasswell asked the students to recite the Pledge of 
Allegiance together, with newfound appreciation for the words.

       I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of 
     America, and to the Republic, for which it stands; one 
     nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

  Mr. Skelton concluded his speech by saying:

       Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our 
     country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of 
     Allegiance: ``Under God.'' Wouldn't it be a pity if someone 
     said, ``That is a prayer''--and that it be eliminated from 
     our schools, too?

  Just as those students that day, Mr. Red Skelton included, 
recommitted to the meaning of the words of the Pledge of Allegiance, I 
call upon the U.S. Senate to recommit to these words as well.
  There are times today that the words of the Pledge of Allegiance are 
tossed around without care. Other times, they are altered to remove 
what today is deemed offensive or antiquated. But Americans should not 
misuse or abuse our Pledge of Allegiance. The Pledge of Allegiance is 
meant to remind Americans of our guiding principles and inspire 
adherence to those ideas which make our country great: equality under 
the law, recognized rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. This is why today, on National Flag Day, I am requesting 
unanimous consent from my colleagues that my resolution expressing 
support for the Pledge of Allegiance is passed.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of S. Res. 671, submitted earlier today; further, I ask 
unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be 
agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The resolution (S. Res. 671) was agreed to.
  The preamble was agreed to.
  (The resolution, with its preamble, is printed in today's Record 
under ``Submitted Resolutions.'')
  Mr. BRAUN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BRAUN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 3967

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, as we know, the Senate is currently 
considering the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our PACT 
Act. This bipartisan legislation is the most comprehensive toxic 
exposure bill ever considered for veterans.
  Passing toxic exposure legislation has been a priority for Senator 
Tester, the chairman of the committee, and for me, the ranking member, 
and we wanted to do it this Congress, and we are close to accomplishing 
that.
  Last Congress, we were able to deliver landmark mental health 
legislation for veterans, and this Congress, we were committed to 
passing long-lasting solutions that will reform the VA's process by 
which veterans who were exposed to burn pits and Agent Orange receive 
their benefits and healthcare.
  About a month ago, Senator Tester and I announced a bipartisan 
agreement and introduced the historic Heath Robinson PACT Act. Part of 
the agreement between the chairman and me was that two amendments would 
be considered for this legislation.
  I offered an amendment to strike the creation of a fund which would 
classify over $116 billion in discretionary costs associated with the 
bill as entitlement spending. I believe that this untested and unique 
way of classifying spending lessens congressional oversight at a time 
of massive debt and deficits, and it sets a bad precedent.
  Senator Lee has an amendment requiring the Secretary to use science 
when evaluating presumptions established in the bill. That amendment 
has been filed.
  Senator Ernst has an amendment requiring the Secretary to certify 
that with the resources and authorities provided through this bill, 
there won't be a negative consequence for veterans in the system.
  There are at least three amendments proposing to offset the cost of 
the bill or at least a portion thereof with spending reductions 
elsewhere.
  I am hopeful that in the days ahead, before final passage of this 
bill, we will let our colleagues be heard through an amendment process, 
pass or fail.
  I have also hoped that the two amendments that I expected to be able 
to offer would be made in order. That hasn't been the case to date, and 
therefore I ask unanimous consent that it be made in order for the 
following amendments to be made pending to the substitute amendment No. 
5051 by their sponsors or their designees: One, the Ernst amendment, 
Secretary of VA certification, No. 5072; two, the Lee amendment to 
modify the authority to create presumptions, No. 5048; the Johnson 
amendment to pay for COVID money, amendment No. 5055; the Paul 
amendment, to pay for this legislation from USAID, No. 5060; the 
Blackburn community care amendment, No. 5075; my amendment, the 
community care amendment, No. 5064; my amendment to strike section 805, 
No. 5063; the Marshall amendment on collective bargaining, No. 5071; 
the Murkowski amendment on appraisals for housing loans, No. 5069; and 
the Inhofe amendment concerning Camp Lejeune, No. 5094. I further ask 
that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation 
with the Republican leader, the Senate vote in relation to these 
amendments in the order listed; further, that upon disposition of the 
amendments listed, all postcloture time on the substitute amendment No. 
5051 be expired and the remaining pending amendments be withdrawn, with 
the exception of the substitute amendment No. 5051, as amended, if 
amended, and that the Senate vote on adoption of the substitute 
amendment, as amended, if amended; and finally, that upon disposition 
of amendment No. 5051, as amended, if amended, the cloture motion with 
respect to the underlying bill, H.R. 3967, be withdrawn, the bill, as 
amended, if amended, be read a third time, and the Senate vote on 
passage of the bill, as amended, if amended, with 60 affirmative votes 
required for passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Reserving the right to object, we are here on the cusp of 
doing something that really tells the fighting men and women who serve 
in our military all around the world that we have got your back.
  We are here because of what I would say is a great working 
relationship between the ranking member, Senator Moran, and myself. As 
I said in the VA Committee earlier, that relationship is going to 
continue regardless, and the reason is because, in this place, there is 
something that is missing, and it is called trust. And I trust Senator 
Moran. We have been through this for the last year and a half and even 
longer.

[[Page S2933]]

  When you were chairman of the committee, many of the bills that are 
in this package, you oversaw their passage out of committee.
  But because negotiations continue and because I still believe, even 
though this process is very broken--we both know that--I still believe 
that we are going to be able to come to something that both of us can 
agree on with amendments through our leadership--by the way, we would 
agree on something anyway--but through our leadership. That is why I am 
objecting to your motion.
  I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I would conclude by encouraging the 
chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs to use his 
substantial level of influence with the leaders that he described as 
necessary to approve the consideration of these amendments.
  He speaks of the word ``trust,'' and I have great trust in his 
ability to accomplish the desired outcome that I have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, may I ask the ranking member of the 
Veterans' Affairs Committee a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Through the Presiding Officer, you are allowed 
to do that.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, are you asking me to throw my weight 
around?
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, may I make an inquiry of the Senator from 
Montana through the Chair?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes, you may.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, if I answered the question, Mr. Chairman, 
would that be considered derogatory?
  Perhaps it is a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I think in Montana, it is considered a 
compliment.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here for the 15th time in my 
series of ``Scheme'' speeches to call attention to the rightwing 
donors' long-planned scheme to capture and control our Supreme Court.
  What I will talk about today is that scheme's donor-funded doctrine 
factory and a case in which the ``Court that dark money built'' could 
weaponize dangerous, concocted doctrines to power up polluters and 
threaten the basic function of government.
  Before I get into this, let me say that I detest and condemn violence 
or threatened violence against members of the Court, and I object even 
to protesters making a racket in Justices' neighborhoods. There is a 
lot to be angry about, but the solution is through democracy and laws, 
not violence and noise. The capture of the Court by secret and special 
interests is deadly serious under our laws, and we have to respond 
seriously under our laws. Neighborhood noise and violent threats don't 
help.
  Let's remember that all three Trump Supreme Court Justices were 
actually chosen and then campaigned for by a dark money donor 
apparatus. Remember, the whole point of the scheme is to capture the 
Court so it will deliver big wins for the big rightwing donors, no 
matter how unpopular or radical those wins are. Remember that the donor 
elite behind the scheme spent hundreds of millions of dollars on an 
apparatus to capture the courts. It plotted for decades to seize this 
power and set up a system to get its hand-picked, extremist nominees 
onto the Bench. It instructs those Justices with coordinated flotillas 
of amicus briefs so the Justices know how they are supposed to rule. It 
is quite an operation.
  But none of that works--none of that works if judges are following 
the law as it is. Existing legal precedents are a problem for the 
scheme. So, to accomplish its mission, a radical deconstruction of our 
American laws, the big donor elite need to destroy decades of legal 
precedent.
  We got a preview in the looming effort, shown by the Alito leaked 
draft opinion, to destroy precedent protecting women's right to decide 
about abortion and relocate that right from women to State 
legislatures. That is just the scheme's opening act, a sop to one 
segment of its social issues base. The scheme is out to deconstruct 
American law and destroy established precedent across many areas of the 
law.
  Now, if you are out to deconstruct American law and replace it with 
what the big donors want, you need some intellectual weaponry. You 
don't just need Justices who will do what you ask, you need legal 
theories. You need to give the Justices you put on the Court the 
intellectual artillery--the demolition theories--that will help them 
destroy the precedents and deconstruct our legal system.
  So that is a problem.
  But when you are spending more than half a billion dollars on such a 
scheme, you can find solutions. And sure enough, rightwing donor 
interests found solutions. It took time, but the whole scheme took 
time. It took a lot of money, but the whole scheme took a lot of money. 
It took patience and planning, but what a payoff when you succeed.
  And now it is payday.
  The first thing you do is erect an array of legal think tanks, phony 
institutes, the hothouses in which the deconstruction theories are 
grown; the factories, if you will, where doctrines are crafted, 
reverse-engineered from the results the big donors want so that 
willing, complicit Justices have the ideological weaponry for 
deconstruction of the law.
  These think tanks do a couple of things. First, they nurture 
rightwing legal scholars to formulate bogus legal doctrines. They pay 
them comfortable salaries. They grant them nice titles. They cover 
their trips to conferences and symposia with fellow hothouse scholars. 
The whole thing apes regular academia, but this academia-resembling 
performance has a very different mission: It has deliverables.
  Second, they systematically cheerlead for their new legal doctrines. 
They create an echo chamber of approval for their cultivated fringe 
ideas. Once the hothouse conjures a fringe idea, the hothouse bounces 
it among other so-called scholars and through other anonymously funded 
affiliate groups and through law school debate clubs and conservative 
conferences--also funded by secretive donors--and into flotillas of 
scripted amicus curiae briefs and ultimately, the prize, into legal 
opinions. They create a legitimization process, and of course they 
concoct or retool the desirable theories.
  The legal theories are actually pretty easy to come up with. You 
reverse-engineer. You start with what big donor interests want and then 
work backward. And what lots of big donors want--especially fossil 
fuel companies--is to weaken and disable government regulation.

  Government regulators stop all sorts of harmful corporate practices: 
pollution of our air, water, and climate; dangerous factory floor 
working conditions; crooked schemes that cheat investors; snake oil 
medications that don't cure disease; unsafe products; insurance 
policies that don't pay. The list is long. Demolishing that protective 
network of regulations protecting America's health, safety, and 
financial well-being is a scheme priority, and the destruction begins 
by pejoratively naming the Agencies whose work protects us the 
``administrative state.''
  There are many of these doctrine-growing hothouses. Two examples are 
the Cato Institute, originally founded by the Koch brothers, and the C. 
Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George 
Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School, of course. Both of these 
groups are funded to pump out and legitimize anti-regulatory fringe 
theories and talking points.
  Think of them as factories for ideological artillery designed for the 
demolition of Federal Agencies' authority, particularly over polluters.
  What do they manufacture? Well, the concocted doctrines fall into a 
few buckets. There is the so-called unitary executive theory, cooked up 
to argue

[[Page S2934]]

that safeguards set in place by Congress to protect Federal Agencies 
against political interference are unconstitutional.
  Now, if you are a big donor and you paid big bucks to get your man in 
the White House, you want political interference by your guy in 
regulatory decisions.
  Congress built safeguards against that for a very good reason. But a 
captured Court could disable Congress's ability to defend the Agencies 
that Congress itself created. This unitary executive legal theory was 
the pet theory of the Reagan administration. It was thoroughly debunked 
by serious scholars and rejected initially even by the Supreme Court. 
But the rightwing Court-capture apparatus has persistently kept this 
theory a Federalist Society cornerstone and diligently packed the Court 
with new Justices more amenable to this nonsense.
  Other concocted doctrines also target Agencies. The so-called 
nondelegation doctrine is so radical and meritless that the Supreme 
Court dismissed it a century ago, except for rare cases that no longer 
exist where Congress might give Agencies power with no direction 
whatsoever.
  This nondelegation idea has been retooled in the doctrine factories 
to target Agency regulation generally. Under this doctrine as retooled, 
the power is removed from Congress and given to unelected courts to 
decide how questions should be assigned by Congress to Federal 
Agencies. This gives big, regulated industries a big weapon to attack 
the Federal Government's ability to regulate problems that they cause, 
at a minimum allowing industries to tie public protection regulations 
up in years, even decades, of litigation.
  Federalist Society Justices on the Court long clamored for the 
nondelegation doctrine, and as new Federalist Society Justices get 
added to the Court, it becomes more probable. Certainly the dark money 
front groups that provide instruction and encouragement to the 
Federalist Society Justices--they are in full clamor, using amicus 
curiae briefs to signal their wishes to the captured Court.
  On now to yet another hothouse-grown doctrine, the major questions 
doctrine, which provides a similar weapons platform to assault public 
safety regulations. Where the nondelegation doctrine would require 
Congress to set more specific regulatory standards for Agencies to 
police, the major questions doctrine would let the unelected Court 
determine that some questions are just too big to regulate--too big to 
regulate at all.
  Again, at a minimum, that lets big industries snarl Agency 
protections up in litigation. At worst, it forces Congress into 
detailed, complex questions that Congress already determined--already 
determined--should better be handled by expert Agencies.
  Perhaps I should mention here how hard the Federalist Society 
Justices have worked to create avenues of corporate political 
influence, including anonymous, unlimited, corporate political 
spending, allowing corporate interests to blockade action in Congress; 
but while it is relevant here, that is a longer story for another day.
  All of these concocted doctrines share the premise that Congress may 
not deploy Agency regulation against certain problems and that the 
power to grant Agencies authority to regulate in certain areas is, 
instead, to be decided by unelected courts--in present circumstances, 
decided by a captured Supreme Court with Members installed by big 
special interest money.
  What could possibly go wrong?
  All of these concocted doctrines overlook the robust oversight of 
Federal Agencies by the people's Representatives in Congress and by 
courts, tasked by Congress, with applying the Administrative Procedure 
Act. If an Agency were to go rogue, Congress can immediately intervene. 
Congress can reverse the decision of the Agency. Congress can change 
the underlying law the Agency enforces. Congress can redirect, defund, 
or even eliminate the errant Agency. Moreover, if Agencies don't follow 
the law as Congress directed or if the Agencies behave illogically or 
unfairly or don't give evidence proper consideration, there are avenues 
of legal relief in court.
  But the donors behind the scheme don't want relief from improper or 
misguided Agency action. They want relief from lawful, legitimate, and 
correct Agency action. This is a power grab by regulated interests 
using the Court, and they can do it because of the scheme. It is not a 
bug that these doctrines threaten harm to an array of basic government 
functions; it is their purpose.
  Let's go back to what the rightwing, corporate-funded propaganda 
machine likes to deride as the ``administrative state''--their little 
code word. What has really gone on in these Agencies? I will tell you 
what has gone on.
  Over nonstop quarreling by big special interests, regulatory Agencies 
made life better. They made drinking water safer. They cleaned up 
smokestacks. They put airbags in cars and required better seatbelts. 
They protected us from contaminated food. They made medication safer 
and more effective--no more snake oil mysteries. They made financial 
markets safer places for retirement funds and college savings plans to 
grow. They made it harder for stockjobbers to sucker innocent 
investors. They required insurance policies to actually pay when an 
insured risk occurs. They put an end to people dying from disasters 
like boiler explosions that used to be a regular thing. Americans live 
longer; highways are no longer carnage; products are safer; markets are 
stronger; and the American economy is more robust. So, whenever you 
hear the phrase ``administrative state,'' it should ring in your head a 
little alarm bell that special interest mischief is afoot, which brings 
me to the ruling expected from the Supreme Court in a case called West 
Virginia v. EPA.
  The fossil fuel interests behind the case are challenging the Federal 
Government's power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing 
coal-fired power plants. Put simply, they want to make it harder to 
fight climate change. I can't think of a more important protection for 
the American people than a livable planet, and I can't think of a 
Member of Congress who has done more work to achieve those protections 
than the Presiding Officer, but the fossil fuel industry is desperate 
to continue to pollute for free.
  The first thing to know about this case is that there is no case. The 
Constitution requires ``a case or controversy''--that is the language 
in the Constitution: ``a case or controversy'' before the Court can 
intervene--and, here, there is no case because there is no Agency rule 
to challenge. The Trump administration's rule, which was a sop to 
polluters, was thrown out--gone. The Obama-era rule is not being 
pursued--gone. Biden's EPA has announced that it is formulating a new, 
different rule that it has not yet produced. It is not out. There is no 
rule in place right now.
  That does not seem to bother the scheme's new donor-selected 
majority. A few Republican States, bolstered and probably directed by 
an armada of rightwing, dark-money front groups, sued to challenge the 
EPA's authority, and the captured Court jumped right in.
  Think about that for a moment.
  With no actual rule to review, the Court is, apparently, going to 
decide this case based on what the Biden administration might do or 
issue some general observations about the EPA. Where I come from, there 
is a name for that. It is called an advisory opinion, and our Supreme 
Court is forbidden to do that under our Constitution.

  This is actually a big deal at the heart of the separation of powers, 
but the Federalist Society Justices, packed onto the Court with fossil 
fuel dark money, are on a mission to deconstruct the administrative 
state. So why let the Constitution get in the way? Just throw out more 
precedent about case or controversy. What is one more smashed precedent 
in the captured Court's cascade of precedent demolition? The donors 
don't care. They are not finicky. They want results.
  Fossil fuel is the political 800-pound gorilla in this country. The 
industry spent decades blocking climate action in Congress. It lurked 
behind this web of climate denial front groups that sowed false doubt 
about climate science. It was their job to mischaracterize the science. 
It is behind what watchdog group Influence Map calls the biggest 
climate-obstructing trade organization in Washington--the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce. Boom.

[[Page S2935]]

It maintains its own trade group hitmen, like the American Petroleum 
Institute. It funnels secret money by the tens of millions into 
Republican super-PACs and other secret, partisan political spending 
fronts in a not-so-hostile takeover of the Republican Party, and it 
wrote some of the biggest checks to pay for the scheme, funneled 
through dark-money conduits like DonorsTrust and the Judicial Crisis 
Network.
  When I say we now have the Court that dark money built, it is 
probably more accurate to say that we now have the Court that dark 
fossil fuel money built. So watch out for the six-Justice supermajority 
that is poised to rule in this no case ``case.''
  It is no surprise that the amici--the amicus curiae, the so-called 
friends of the Court--gathered in this case read like a who's who of 
fossil fuel polluter front groups. The Competitive Enterprise 
Institute, for instance, produces hothouse attacks on the EPA's 
authority, and is funded by ExxonMobil, Murray Energy, the American 
Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, 
and the Koch brothers' political groups. Fossil fuel front groups, as 
amici and litigants, sing a harmonious chorus of ``unitary executive'' 
and ``nondelegation'' and ``major question''--all concocted doctrines 
targeting the administrative state they so resent.
  Back before the takeover, here is what the Court said in a case 
called Mistretta.
  The Court said this:

       In our increasingly complex society, replete with ever 
     changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot 
     do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad 
     general directives.

  That is the language of the Court:

       In our increasingly complex society, replete with ever 
     changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot 
     do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad 
     general directives.

  That is the precedent of the Court. That is the law of the land, and 
it is the law that special interests sent these Justices to the Court 
to deconstruct. So get ready.
  To be continued.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Peters). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                       Remembering Julie Beckett

  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the incredible life 
and legacy of Julie Beckett, a champion for individuals who experience 
disabilities and for their families.
  In 1978, Julie's daughter Katie was born, and 4 months later, Katie 
contracted a brain infection that left her paralyzed and on a 
ventilator. After 2 years of living in a hospital, Katie's family had 
reached the limit on their health insurance policy and applied for 
support through Medicaid but were told that Medicaid would not cover 
at-home care.
  Julie and her husband, Mark, knew they did not want their daughter 
growing up in a hospital, especially when she could receive the care 
that she needed at home while also being with her loved ones.
  Faced with uncertainty and with Federal officials who would not make 
an exception, Julie reached out to her Congressman. Julie noted that 
making this exception for her daughter would not only be good for her 
family but also that keeping her at home rather than at a hospital 
would cost the government far less money.
  Julie's advocacy worked. Because she made the choice to speak up and 
share her story, Congress passed and President Reagan signed into law 
an exception to Medicaid rules that enabled Julie's family and many 
others to care for their loved ones at home.
  Julie's work has had a profound impact on not just her own family but 
countless others, including my own. My son Ben experiences severe 
physical disabilities, and because of Julie's advocacy, he could grow 
up at home and with family. And because he was able to live at home, 
Ben had the opportunity to go to school, to learn, and make friends in 
our community.
  The terrible reality is that before Julie, many children grew up in 
hospitals or in institutionalized care, instead of surrounded by the 
love and care of their families, siblings, and neighbors.
  But my family's story is not unique. In the decades since, what is 
now known as the Katie Beckett waiver has changed hundreds of thousands 
of lives. More than half a million children have received these waivers 
and have been able to live, grow, and thrive at home.
  Julie's story is an example of how one person can make a true 
difference in our democracy. And even after her successful work in 
securing this significant exception for Medicaid, Julie kept fighting 
for children who experienced disabilities. She helped lead a charge to 
expand coverage and fought against attempts to repeal the Affordable 
Care Act. And critically, she worked with families throughout the 
country to show them how they could be advocates as well.
  Julie passed away last month, but her legacy will live on in the 
lives that she has changed and the advocacy that she helped to inspire. 
I am profoundly grateful for her work, and I join with people across 
the country in committing to carrying on her legacy of fighting to 
fully include people with disabilities in every facet of American life.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.


                           Order of Procedure

  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to 
be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the 
Republican leader, and notwithstanding rule XXII, it be in order for 
Senator Paul or his designee to make a motion to proceed to Calendar 
No. 397, S. Con. Res. 41 on Wednesday, June 15, 2022; further, if the 
motion to proceed is agreed to, the Senate resume consideration of 
Calendar No. 388, H.R. 3967, postcloture, and that upon disposition of 
the Calendar No. 388, H.R. 3967, the Senate resume consideration of 
Calendar No. 397, S. Con. Res. 41.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Unanimous Consent--Executive Calendar

  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 
notwithstanding rule XXII, at a time to be determined by the majority 
leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed 
to executive session to consider Calendar No. 925, Alan M. Leventhal, 
to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of Denmark; that there be 10 minutes 
for debate equally divided in the usual form on the nomination; that 
upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the 
nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the 
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that 
any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that 
the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that 
the Senate resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________