[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 157 (Wednesday, September 28, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5126-S5135]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AFFORDABLE INSULIN NOW ACT--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
Ukraine
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, it has been a little more than 7 months
since Russia launched its illegal invasion of Ukraine, and the
destruction that has followed is unbelievable. We have all had a chance
to bear witness to the brutal reality of Russia's invasion as Ukrainian
forces have recaptured territories like the city of Izyum.
Soon after the city was liberated, Ukrainian forces discovered mass
graves filled with hundreds of bodies, including children. Some of the
bodies had their hands tied behind their backs and their skulls
crushed, and many showed signs of torture. The images that have emerged
from Izyum prove what we have suspected for some time: The mountain of
evidence of Russian war crimes is sky high.
These photos illustrate what the Ukrainians are finding in recaptured
territory. They are sending out people to redig mass graves to find out
just what happened to members of their family and neighbors and their
friends.
The same thing is illustrated by this photo as well. In the shadow of
this beautiful church, they are finding mass graves left behind by the
Russians.
Today, I had the honor of presiding over a hearing of the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, focusing on the role we must play in the
United States in holding Putin and his thugs accountable for these
heinous war crimes. The message was clear: Our Nation must continue the
legacy we began with the Nuremburg trials by ensuring that Russian war
criminals are brought to justice. And a critical step in doing that is
to make sure that the perpetrators of these atrocities find no safe
haven anywhere in the world, let alone in the United States.
That is why I have introduced the Justice for Victims of War Crimes
Act with the ranking Republican Member, Senator Grassley. It closes a
shameful loophole in American law that has allowed war criminals to
escape justice. Our legislation updates the War Crimes Act so foreign
war criminals who try to flee to America can be prosecuted, even years
after their crimes were committed. It is only a starting point, but I
hope we can build on it to finally enact the law in this country
prohibiting crimes against humanity. This is an opportunity to send a
clear signal to war criminals, like those in Russia today who
systemically attack civilians, that America is going to hold you
accountable for your crimes.
Immigration
Madam President, on a related topic, at our brightest moments,
America has not only held war criminals and tyrants accountable; we
have also provided refuge to their victims. Many of us in Congress can
attest to that fact.
In fact, it is exactly how my family arrived in this country. Back in
1911, my grandmother left Lithuania in search of freedom. She boarded a
ship carrying two things in her arms: a bag with her Catholic prayer
book, published a year before the Czars outlawed its printing in
Lithuania, and her 2-year-old daughter, my mother, Ona.
The moment my grandmother stepped foot on American soil, her life
changed. From that moment on, she
[[Page S5127]]
and my mother were protected by an incredible shield: the U.S.
Constitution, along with the rights and protections it guarantees.
But for Lithuanians, securing those same rights has not been so easy.
The country struggled under Soviet occupation for nearly 50 years. Even
after the Lithuanian people proclaimed their independence in 1990,
their liberty wasn't guaranteed. In January 1991, 9 months after
Lithuania held its first free elections, Soviet tanks rolled into
Vilnius in a ruthless, last-ditch effort to crush the country's new
democracy. Thirteen Lithuanian martyrs were killed that day.
I would like to think it was the sacrifice of those 13 Lithuanians,
and millions who also suffered under communism, that inspired the
current Governor of Florida to establish a new holiday earlier this
year. It was entitled Victims of Communism Day. In his own words,
Governor DeSantis created this holiday with the goal of ``honoring the
people that have fallen victim to communist regimes.'' In announcing
this holiday, he asserted that ``Florida will stand for truth and
remain as a beachhead for freedom.''
That is an admirable aspiration, but, sadly, it is one that the
Governor of Florida has failed to live up to because, when it comes to
standing up to ruthless dictators of our time, like Venezuela's Nicolas
Maduro, Governor DeSantis and his allies are nowhere to be found.
Instead of offering safe harbor to victims of Maduro's regime, these
very same Governors have chosen to abandon and abuse their families.
This is no way to honor the victims of communism and political
repression. It is a cowardly failure of leadership that violates our
Nation's basic values.
When news first broke that Governors Abbott of Texas and DeSantis of
Florida were using refugee families fleeing desperate conditions in
Venezuela as political pawns, I couldn't help but wonder: What if it
were my own family?
The families fleeing Venezuela are seeking refuge from the same
menace that the victims of communists faced decades ago: political
persecution and state-sanctioned violence. Under Nicolas Maduro,
Venezuela has been a failed criminal state awash in human misery. It is
so dangerous that the State Department warns Americans to avoid
traveling to that country, and the people of Venezuela suffer every day
under rampant corruption, human rights violations, hunger, and criminal
mismanagement. I saw it for myself when I visited Venezuela a few years
ago, just before Maduro's latest sham election.
Since then, things have grown worse. Hospitals are devoid of basic
medical supplies, kids and parents are too hungry to go to school or
work, and Maduro's barbaric regime is being propped up by some of the
most repressive powers of the world, like Russia and Cuba.
A recent United Nations report found that Maduro and his cronies have
been systemically repressing Venezuelans and gruesomely torturing their
political opponents. These horrors have driven nearly 7 million
Venezuelans to leave that country in desperation and fear. To put that
in perspective, that is more than the number of Syrian refugees and
nearly equal to the number of Ukrainian refugees fleeing active war in
those countries.
Despite what some Republicans have claimed, families fleeing
Venezuela are not ``illegals'' or ``invaders.'' They are victims of the
same ruthless tactics that once defined the Soviet Union. Instead of
helping these families, Governor DeSantis and Governor Abbott declare
holidays and have chosen to exploit their fear and confusion.
I met with a few of the families who were unwittingly placed on
migrant buses to Chicago by Governor Abbott of Texas a few weeks ago.
One of the people I met was named Carlos. He and his wife and two
little girls were sitting at a table, and we were able to talk to them
for about a half hour and ask questions.
Carlos was a hard worker in Venezuela, but the country's political
and economic crisis was so severe that his job couldn't keep food on
the table. His family was on the brink of starvation.
So on May 15, Carlos and his wife, along with those two beautiful
little girls, decided to literally flee for their lives. They embarked
on a 5-month journey, much of it on foot, to the Texas-Mexico border.
It was a nightmare of violence, theft, and exploitation. Carlos told me
that, at one point, he thought he would die, while spending 9 nights in
a Panamanian jungle. By the time they were rescued by a local military
force, all of their money was gone, their cell phones had been stolen,
and they were penniless.
But they pressed on and eventually made it to America. They filed
their claim for asylum. We are honored that they were brought to
Chicago, though the circumstances were not good.
To me, Carlos is living proof that we have more work to do in ridding
the world of violent repression and totalitarianism. These evils didn't
suddenly disappear with the fall of the Soviet Union.
I actually share the Florida Governor's belief that America has the
responsibility to stand in contrast to dictators like Maduro and Putin
by actually defending truth and freedom. But that responsibility is far
bigger than declaring a holiday, because it is one thing to speak out
against the evils of communism or voice opposition to Maduro, but talk
is cheap. The real test for our values begins when the victims of
tyrants like Maduro arrive at our doorstep in search of freedom. I am
sad to say that Governor Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott have literally
failed that test. To add insult to injury, these Governors not only
refused to help these families fleeing Venezuela; they wasted
taxpayers' dollars on a political stunt that only made the problem
worse and made us, as a nation, look weak and, to some of the world,
look cruel.
Here is the reality. The most powerful way to stand up against
dictators like Maduro is by honoring America's legacy as a beacon of
freedom. That means coming to the aid of families like Carlos's--
families who are applying for asylum the right way and seeking a fair
shot in America, like our own families once did.
In fact, we need workers. We have 11 million unfilled jobs in this
Nation and 5 million unemployed Americans. Let's put young, able-bodied
people like Carlos to work in jobs that Americans don't want. Let's get
them on the books and give them their fair shot so they can finally
enjoy the security and safety for their families that was denied to
them in their home countries. They will contribute to a better America.
Time and again, immigrants have shown us that they rise to the
occasion, work harder than most, and achieve things unimaginable. They
can do it again, and they will. Let's prove that America was and is
better than the cold, iron fist of authoritarianism.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Nominations of Michelle Kwan and Mari Carmen Aponte
Mr. KAINE. Madam President, I was scheduled to come to the floor
today to offer live UCs to bring up two Biden nominees--very important
nominees--to assume diplomatic posts in the Western Hemisphere.
Senator Scott of Florida was scheduled to be here to oppose my UCs
and have a dialogue. The hurricane in Florida has pulled him away, and
so he is unable to be here. I am left with the case where there is an
objection, but the objector can't come for a reason that I understand.
Senator Scott's team has indicated that he will likely be here
tomorrow, and we might be able to repeat this tomorrow.
What I thought I would do, having the floor, is say a little bit
about these two countries and these two nominees because I hope Senator
Scott might watch this or his staff might give him the transcript
because I think, if he does, he will see that they are both highly
qualified individuals. I want to talk about both, but I will not make
the motion at the end of my comments with respect to unanimous consent.
I would say that both Michelle Kwan, who was nominated by President
Biden to be our Ambassador to Belize, and Mari Carmen Aponte, who was
nominated to be our Ambassador to Panama, are both highly qualified
individuals, as I will describe.
But the countries are really important. Belize has not had an
ambassador confirmed for more than 5 years. Panama has not had a
confirmed ambassador for more than 4 years. And, sort
[[Page S5128]]
of, the theme for both of these is, Why punish good behavior? These are
great allies of the United States, both Belize and Panama. They are
both doing some really important work with us right now, and they
deserve to have confirmed ambassadors.
If we won't confirm an ambassador for more than 4 years or more than
5 years, it has a way of sending a message to these countries like:
Wow, we say you are great allies, but we clearly don't value you enough
to have a confirmed ambassador.
Let me talk about Michelle Kwan, the nominee to be our Ambassador in
Belize.
Belize is a critical partner in the Caribbean and Central America.
This is a region of significant distress and instability. But Belize
has been a bright spot in both relative stability and also closeness to
the United States. As I mentioned, no U.S. ambassador has been
confirmed there for more than 5 years. It is a stable democracy in a
region facing significant threats from organized crime, irregular
migration, human trafficking, as well as democratic backsliding in the
region.
We worked hard to deepen our relationship with Prime Minister
Briceno, and bilateral cooperation between the nations are increasing.
Our ability to engage with Belize at this most senior level is crucial
right now.
In particular with Belize, there is something fairly unique about
this country. In this hemisphere that is very important to the United
States, it is also of growing importance to China. We see Beijing
active all over the Americas, often outstripping our efforts to pay
attention to these countries.
Belize has been willing to be a stalwart partner of Taiwan. There are
only 11 nations in the world that recognize Taiwan, and China is going
after each one of them, putting pressure on them to strip away their
recognition of Taiwan.
The United States is encouraging nations that have recognized Taiwan
to continue to do so, but very few are able to hold out against the
Chinese onslaught. Belize has been willing to do this. This is good
behavior. We asked them to do it, and they have.
By leaving this position vacant, even as Beijing aggressively builds
more and more momentum in the region, it is nothing less than
diplomatic malpractice. Having a sitting U.S. ambassador there is of
utmost importance.
Now, how about Michelle Kwan?
Exceptionally qualified to take on this challenge. She has had an
incredibly distinguished career in public service and diplomacy and
especially sports.
She is the most decorated figure skater in U.S. history, having won
43 championships, including 5 world championships, 9 national titles,
and 2 Olympic medals.
Michelle became the first-ever U.S. Public Diplomacy Envoy in 2006,
16 years ago. For the following decade and a half, under Presidents and
Secretaries of State of both parties, she has traveled extensively on
behalf of the State Department all around the world to engage youth and
especially young girls on social and educational issues.
She would be an extraordinary champion for the United States with
this close neighbor, and her global profile will say to Belize: Hey, we
value you because we are sending an accomplished and well-known
athlete, inspiration, and diplomat to be our representative there.
And so I was going to ask today that she be confirmed by unanimous
consent, and I will return, hopefully, to successfully see her advanced
by the Senate into this position.
Now let me talk about Mari Carmen Aponte, who is President Biden's
nominee to be Ambassador to Panama.
First on Panama, Panama is one of our strongest partners in the
Americas. It is a critical ally on a wide range of U.S. priorities.
And, Madam President, you and I remember when we had major problems
with Panama--major problems. It has been a success story of turning an
adversary into a great ally and even partner, and yet Panama has now
been without a U.S. ambassador for more than 4 years.
My friends across the aisle frequently cite migration as a top
foreign policy concern. They have a point.
The Venezuelan refugee crisis is now the second largest displacement
in the world. The size and scope of this crisis and the humanitarian
impact on the region and the Venezuelan people is worsening by the day.
I agree. This issue needs much more attention.
Panama is on the frontline of this crisis. Their border with
Colombia--the Darien Gap on that border is the primary route by which
people migrate from South America, especially Venezuela, north. They
have a crucial role to play in any cohesive regional response.
Panama is also critical to narcotics interdiction efforts and in
promoting democratic values that are increasingly under threat in the
region.
They are also the subject of intense Chinese investment in the Panama
Canal. China has a new Embassy built right on the canal.
We are not competing in a vacuum here. We are competing in a highly
competitive world, where China is making more investments than we are,
and yet Panama still desires to have a very close relationship with the
United States.
And there is more.
Recently, Panama, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and Ecuador
noticed democratic backsliding in the Americas and announced the
formation of something called the Alliance for Democracy and
Development. They want to band together, four democratic nations, and
be proudly pro-democracy in a region where we see too much backsliding.
They can punch above their weight. They can do work not only within
their own nations but be an influence throughout the region--indeed,
throughout the world. This is something that the United States has
celebrated and recognized.
So, again, why punish bad behavior? If they are doing these things to
help us with migration, if they are stepping forward to be pro-
democracy in a region that is backsliding, why wouldn't we want a
confirmed U.S. ambassador?
Let me tell you about Mari Carmen Aponte. She is a Puerto Rican
native. She previously served with distinction as an ambassador to El
Salvador during the Obama administration. She was confirmed in this
body with bipartisan support. She has been the Acting Assistant
Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere.
It is hard to imagine a more qualified nominee. She will have impact
from the moment she hits the ground. She was nominated for this role in
October of 2021. Her Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing was in
May, and she has been pending consideration by the entire Senate since
June.
Let's get a proven ambassador in the field and put her to work in a
nation that is critical to the United States in the region.
Finally, I will just note, Panama is the home of the Panama Canal. It
is the world's second largest free-trade zone. It has a sophisticated
logistics and financial operations hub. It attracts billions in direct
foreign investment, and we need to be there, again, to counter the
significant Chinese interest in this country.
So, again, I had planned to make a motion on behalf of Mari Carmen
Aponte. In deference to my colleague from Florida and the challenge
there, I will not, but his team has committed to me that they will pay
attention to my description of both the importance of these nations and
the qualifications of these nominees.
I will return in the hopes that we may soon be able to act as the
Senate and forward these highly qualified nominees to the field where
they can do their work as representatives of the United States.
I yield the floor.
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. MARSHALL. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum
call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The junior Senator from Kansas.
Unanimous Consent Request--S.J. Res. 63
Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, I rise today in order to ask for
unanimous consent to pass S.J. Res. 63, a resolution to terminate the
COVID-19 national emergency declaration. It has been more than 2\1/2\
years since the national emergency concerning the novel
[[Page S5129]]
coronavirus disease outbreak was declared, and it has been extended now
twice already by President Biden since the initial proclamation, most
recently in February of this year.
It is this declaration, coupled with other additional emergency
powers currently invoked by the President, which this administration is
using to supersize government in order to continue their reckless,
inflationary spending spree and enact their radical, partisan agenda.
In fact, the White House uses these emergencies to justify their
inflationary, out-of-control spending, their unconstitutional vaccine
and mask mandates, and to forgive student loans.
This is not the first time I have come to the floor to terminate this
emergency declaration. In fact, in March, I brought an identical
resolution to this floor under the expedited procedures contained in
the National Emergencies Act that passed this body by a vote of 48 to
47. At that time, the status of the virus in this Nation had greatly
improved since the dark, early days of the pandemic. Everyone ages 12
and over was eligible for a booster shot if they wanted further
inoculation. More than 550 million shots had been administered in the
United States, with 215 million people being fully vaccinated. Two oral
anti-virals had been made available for certain patients, and
monoclonal antibody treatments were available for those at high risk of
becoming seriously ill.
Fast-forward to today, 6 months later, and the status of our immunity
and ability to fight the virus in the United States has improved
further still. More than 660 million doses have been administered, and
225 million people are fully vaccinated--nearly 70 percent of the
population. If you include natural immunity, immunity gained through
natural infection, the CDC stated just last month that approximately 95
percent of Americans over the age of 16 have some acquired level of
immunity. Everyone ages 12 and older can receive Omicron-specific
boosters, and we have a growing roster of anti-viral drugs and
monoclonal antibodies that are helping vulnerable populations avoid
life-threatening infections.
Now, this is not the time to ignore the individuals still struggling
with COVID or those who are tragically dying with the virus, but it
does demonstrate that we have made major advances in our fight against
COVID-19 and entered a less dire, more endemic phase. In fact, even
President Biden recently acknowledged during a ``60 Minutes'' interview
that the ``pandemic is over.''
Of course, the President's handlers immediately walked back this
claim to argue that the pandemic is, in fact, not over. But why? Why
would the Federal officials calling the shots in the executive branch
not want to declare this pandemic over? Because it is the fearmongering
and the robust authorities provided by the emergency declaration that
allow this administration to justify infringing upon your rights and
validates their continued expansion of inflationary government spending
and social programs.
It was this government-imposed state of emergency that justified
their continued lockdowns of small businesses and schools. It was this
government-imposed state of emergency that justified their vaccine and
mask mandates that continue to this day in too many instances. It was
this government-imposed state of emergency that justified President
Biden's and congressional Democrats' inflationary spending binge,
starting with the $1.19 trillion American Rescue Plan last year and
their curiously and inappropriately named Inflation Reduction Act this
summer. Most recently, it was the national emergency declaration that
allowed the President to extend the payment pause and cancel up to
$10,000 in outstanding federally held student loan balances and $20,000
for Pell Grant recipients.
This rallying cry of the far left that the President is pandering to
will cost the Federal Government $420 billion--$420 billion--according
to the Congressional Budget Office. The Wall Street Journal called the
move ``an unprecedented act of peacetime fiscal recklessness.'' And
every American knows this is inflationary.
This is exactly the problem. The Biden administration is keeping
Americans under the strain of the national emergency declaration as if
we are not living in a time of peace, as if we are living in a time of
war that requires the full force of the Federal Government--rights and
fiscal responsibility be damned--in order to respond to this crisis.
In order to rein in this massive expansion of government, to slow
down inflation, and restore Americans' fundamental rights, we must take
the important step of terminating the COVID-19 national emergency
declaration. I encourage all my colleagues to join me in supporting
doing so.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on
Finance be discharged from further consideration of S.J. Res. 63 and
that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask
that the joint resolution be read a third time and passed and that the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object, Madam President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I just went over to our colleague from
Kansas and told him that I would much rather be on the floor this
afternoon working in a bipartisan way on something like this, and I
hope that can be part of Senate proceedings in the future.
Here is what I think is important for the public to know about this
proposal. It is that in the real world, the Marshall proposal is a
prescription for less flexibility and more redtape in American
healthcare. I want to be very specific.
Every Member of this body understands that America has a serious
shortage of nurses and healthcare providers. Every single time we go
home--I am sure this is the case for our colleague from Kansas, who is
a physician. He hears from physicians and providers. Every time we are
home, we hear from healthcare providers. I see the Presiding Officer of
the Senate has been a very strong advocate for healthcare improvement
for patients and providers. Every time we are home, we hear about the
need for more healthcare providers.
Right now, there are requirements in Medicare for a lengthy process
that must be completed before it is possible to hire healthcare
providers to serve Medicare patients. If the Marshall proposal goes
into effect as written, Health and Human Services could not waive this
complicated process to take care of patients. So that would leave our
country short of healthcare providers when there is an acute, even more
serious need for them.
I am just going to close with this because we are all hoping to be
home over the next week or so. When I am home, I always do these open-
to-all townhall meetings. I go to every one of my counties every year.
I have had more than 1,020 of them--open to all, ask whatever you want.
I have never had a constituent at home, an Oregonian, say: Ron, what we
need is more complicated processes and redtape in American healthcare.
Usually, they are talking to us about waiving things.
For those reasons, Madam President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The junior Senator from Kansas.
Mr. MARSHALL. I certainly appreciate the chairman's comments and his
sincere commitment. We certainly share some of the same goals.
Practicing medicine in rural Kansas for 25 years, we have been faced
with physician shortages for decades, with nursing shortages for
decades, and we both agree that is a problem. But the difference is, I
don't think that the government is the solution to the problem; I think
that the government has created the problem, that physicians and nurses
are so tired of dealing with all the redtape, all the continuing burden
that the ACA has put on us.
I am so proud of the doctors and nurses. When this country called for
them in an emergency, we--including myself--volunteered, rushing to the
frontlines of the emergency rooms to take care of patients. Now this
Congress is going to reward them with a pay cut, by the way.
[[Page S5130]]
But this is not the solution to the doctor shortages or the nurse
shortages. The solution is to respect the profession, to remove some of
the redtape. Allow us to be doctors and nurses. Don't make us be tied
down with issues like prior authorization, which I know your committee
is seriously considering as well. We appreciate your work on that as
well.
Certainly, I do have people who come to my townhalls--and, like you,
we have been to 100 counties in the past 2 years. We have five left to
go. And what people ask me is: Why do our kids in the Head Start
Programs still need to wear a mask? Do they do any good? Why are there
still vaccine mandates out there? Why is this government continuing
inflationary spending?
It is my feeling that this emergency declaration allows the President
and the White House to expand those powers to take our constitutional
rights away from us.
You know, again, I have encouraged people to take the vaccine and do
all the right things. But I still think it is time to end the
emergency. Give us our God-given constitutional rights back. I think we
should support ending this declaration of emergency.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 4984
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, the United States is in the midst of the
deadliest drug epidemic in our Nation's history, caused by the most
lethal drugs ever created.
More than 108,000 Americans died last year from drugs--more than
108,000--which is almost double the number of Americans killed in the
entire Vietnam war. That is the worst slaughter of American citizens by
drug dealers and traffickers on record.
The biggest killers, by far, were lab-made opioids, most notably
fentanyl, which are cheap to produce and easy to mix with other street
drugs. These lethal cocktails have devastated countless families and
communities across our Nation. Too many parents have come home to a
dead child who has mistakenly taken a prescription pill or a so-called
party drug that might have been laced with fentanyl. Indeed, almost no
one dies of a fentanyl overdose thinking he took fentanyl. It is laced
into other drugs.
That is why, repeatedly, over the past 2 years, I and many of my
colleagues have offered a measure to keep it illegal to traffic new
variants of fentanyl, but, each time, a Democrat has blocked that
measure. Later today, they will do so again.
Perhaps we can at least agree on one thing: We should have no
tolerance for people who willingly trick addicted drug users or other
innocent persons into taking deadly fentanyl by telling them it is
really something else. This happens every day with heartbreaking
consequences across the country.
For example, just 2 weeks ago, a drug trafficker was sentenced to
life in prison for his role in distributing fentanyl to unsuspecting
users in Minnesota. Eleven people died. They thought they were buying
illicit Adderall. When he heard about the deaths, the dealer asked his
Chinese suppliers for a discount on his next shipment.
That same week, another drug dealer was arrested just minutes from
the Capitol Building, where we stand--in Silver Spring, MD--for killing
a child with a fentanyl pill, which he said was Percocet. He was hiding
the fentanyl-laced, fake Percocet pills inside small bags of marijuana.
Last week, a few minutes in the other direction, a trafficker was
tried in Northern Virginia for distributing cocaine laced with fentanyl
at a party. Six partygoers overdosed. One died.
These cases happen every day. Drug addicts are especially lulled into
a false sense of safety by fake prescription pills, believing them to
be medicine for which they have some past experience. That is why fake
prescription drugs are on the rise. Federal law enforcement encountered
as many fake prescription pills in 2021 as in the previous 2 years
combined.
If Democrats refuse to help Republicans keep all fentanyl variants
off the streets, hopefully, we can at least agree on keeping deceptive
fentanyl traffickers behind bars. My bill would establish that any drug
trafficker who knowingly misrepresents fentanyl as though it is
something else would be subject to 20 years in prison. If the criminal
has a prior felony criminal record or if its misrepresentation kills
someone, then the criminal would be subject to life in prison or would
even be eligible for the death penalty. There can simply be no leniency
for people who trick unsuspecting users into taking deadly fentanyl.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to
the immediate consideration of S. 4984, which is at the desk. I further
ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that
the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, in reserving the right to object, I
worried this morning that the Senator from Arkansas was going to offer
this unanimous consent request on the floor of the Senate this
afternoon. I was a little bit surprised. I wasn't aware of this bill.
We have been members of the same committee, the Judiciary Committee,
for 21 months, and the Senator from Arkansas has not raised the bill
during that period of time. But it is his right to come to the floor
today and ask that it be considered. I would like to tell you why I am
going to object to this.
If you serve in Congress for any period of time, you become a student
of the terrible drug problems of America. I recall a period of time in
the House of Representatives when we had crack cocaine appear in the
United States for the first time. It scared us because it was cheap; it
was deadly; addictive; and for the women who were pregnant who had
taken it, it did harm to the babies they were carrying. So we decided
to make sure that we were going to do the right thing in our War on
Drugs.
What we said was--listen closely--the penalty for crack cocaine would
be 100 times the penalty for the use of ordinary cocaine--100 times.
The penalty for using cocaine in general was already serious. One
hundred times, we said, for the War on Drugs. I voted for it. I
thought, finally, a message will come from the Congress that, if you
touch crack cocaine, you are going to be in for it. We expected that
fewer people would do it because of the fear of that criminal
sentencing and that the price of crack cocaine would go up because the
demand was limited.
Guess what happened--exactly the opposite, exactly the opposite.
More and more people used crack cocaine, and the price on the street
went down to dirt level. The result was we started filling our prisons
in a way that we had never seen before in the history of the United
States: 500 percent of the prison population of just 20 or 30 years ago
increased in that period of time.
We learned the hard way that getting tough wasn't always the smart
way to deal with drug addiction. We thought about it, and we changed
the law several times. I have been party to changing it. I voted for
the original version, and it failed. We had to do better.
Then something happened that was dramatic--opioids. Out of nowhere
came opioids, and what used to be a problem of drug addiction and death
in the inner cities of America became a problem of drug addiction and
death in the suburbs of America, in the farm towns of America--all over
America. Interestingly enough, America started looking at our drug laws
and our drug addiction and saying: What are we doing wrong here? What
is wrong with this situation?
As a consequence, a lot of attitudes changed. People got away from
the old ``just say no'' routine and started asking serious questions:
How do we deal with drug addiction? How do we stop this addiction? It
is not easy to stop it, but God knows we need to. So we have seen a
transformation with the arrival of opioids.
Now, the Senator from Arkansas is correct. People are lacing these
opioids with fentanyl, and fentanyl is deadly; there is no question
about it. We should take it seriously, and we do. As a matter of fact,
each judge, when imposing a sentence for crimes already involving
fentanyl, is pretty serious about it. I just heard the Senator from
Arkansas describe a situation in which someone in Minnesota got life in
prison for the sale of a fentanyl product. So it is clear that it is
not being ignored, nor should it be.
[[Page S5131]]
Intentionally selling fentanyl is already a crime all over the United
States. Representing that fentanyl is something else is exactly the
kind of aggravated factor a judge takes into account in the sentencing.
I don't believe this bill is a serious effort to deal with the problem
in light of what we know today.
Let's start with the fact that it creates a new Federal death penalty
offense.
Well, I have to tell you that I have watched a lifetime--a political
lifetime--of death penalty cases and have seen the result. I have my
serious doubts that that is the best way for America to go. I think the
gentleman from Arkansas realizes it. I am the lead sponsor, along with
20 others, of the Federal Death Penalty Prohibition Act--to repeal it
once and for all. So I am concerned about any legislation that imposes
the death penalty.
It also creates mandatory minimum sentences that don't allow judges
to consider the individual circumstances in a case.
That is straight out of the failed doctrine of the War on Drugs--a
mandatory minimum. Tie the judge's hands. Put people in jail, and
basically say there will be unlimited amounts of time that they will
spend there. People were getting 20- and 30-year sentences for the sale
of narcotics like crack cocaine, and we soon realized that it didn't
make sense over the long haul. It was 20 years for a single drug sale,
which goes up to mandatory life in prison if a defendant has any prior
felony conviction, no matter if it has zero relationship to drugs or is
based on a defendant's immigration status.
I don't believe that is the right way to go. It wasn't with the War
on Drugs. We learned the hard way. I want to get tough on the drug
sales, and I am sure the Senator from Arkansas feels the same way. We
approach it differently. I have the experience of trying to take the
hard position on this issue and of seeing that it failed when it came
to crack cocaine.
For that reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The junior Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, what we heard is a lot of the same
excuses that the Democrats have made for years about being soft on
crime and their claims about mass incarceration or systemic racism or
what have you.
I would point out that almost no one--almost no one--is in Federal
prison for mere drug possession. It is a myth that there are low-level,
nonviolent offenders in prison because they are addicted to drugs.
Where we are is at a 21-year low in the number of Federal inmates we
have. Do you know where we are not at? A 21-year low in drug deaths--
the highest on record every single year, year after year. Almost twice
as many have died as in the Vietnam war. Almost 24 times as many have
died as in the entire Iraq war. Almost 35 times as many have died as on
9/11. Yet the Democrats repeatedly refuse to crack down on deceptive
fentanyl dealers.
As I have mentioned, I have also offered bills in the past that would
permanently add fentanyl to the Controlled Substances Act scheduling.
The Democrats refuse to do so. They will do it temporarily from time to
time, but they want a trade. They want to get a trade for something.
They want to either reduce sentences or let prisoners out. This is
whether they are Democratic Senators or Democratic Governors in places
like Illinois, in their eliminating the bail system, or whether they
are Democratic mayors or Democratic prosecuting attorneys in places
like Chicago. As a result, we have a crimewave and a drug epidemic all
across America.
Let me just reiterate. The bill I just offered, which the Senator
from Illinois blocked, would simply say that you cannot sell another
drug and not acknowledge that fentanyl is in it; that you cannot
misrepresent what you are selling.
It is not just opioids. It is not just heroin. It is even marijuana.
It is pills that are passed off as mere prescription drugs, like in
some of the examples I gave--Adderall, OxyContin, Percocet--that people
all across the America are dying from.
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 621
Madam President, let's take another angle on this problem. Almost all
of these drugs come from Mexico. Almost all of the drugs in America
today come from Mexico. Almost all come from a handful of vicious,
depraved cartels in Mexico--cartels that have taken on the powers of a
quasi-state, cartels that the Mexican Government either cannot or will
not crack down on. So let's look at it from that perspective. It is
past time that we bring the full weight of the U.S. Government to bear
on these cartels and to destroy them for what they are unleashing on
our streets.
Imagine if ISIS or al-Qaida set up shop across our border and was
responsible for more than a hundred thousand American deaths every
single year. What would we do? What would you do?
I know what we wouldn't do. We wouldn't hesitate to act, and that is
exactly what we should do with these Mexican cartels.
Unfortunately, President Biden has done the opposite. Since the day
he took office, he has flung open our borders, created a border crisis,
and made it easier than ever to smuggle massive amounts of illegal
drugs into the United States.
Already this year, the Border Patrol has found over 12,000 pounds of
fentanyl being smuggled over our borders--12,000 pounds. You may not be
able to put that in perspective. Let me put it in perspective for you:
It is enough to kill every man, woman, and child in America many, many
times over.
That doesn't even include any fentanyl brought in by the hundreds of
thousands of illegal aliens whom the DHS calls got-aways.
President Biden could declare fentanyl-peddling cartels to be
terrorist organizations, but he has refused to do so. So the bill that
I am about to bring up would give him additional tools, short of
labeling these cartels ``terrorists.''
My bill would create a new designation called a significant
transnational criminal organization, and it would enable the Federal
Government to impose many of the same sanctions and use many of the
same tools against cartels that it already does against terrorist
organizations like al-Qaida and ISIS. Those would include barring
cartel members and their immediate families from entering the United
States, freezing assets belonging to the cartels to hit their wallets
and to keep them from profiting off of death and destruction, and
enabling civil and criminal penalties for anyone who provides material
assistance or resources to the cartels.
The Democrats are going to block a bill later today that would keep
new fentanyl variants illegal. They just blocked another bill that
would target drug traffickers who trick people into taking the fentanyl
that kills them. I hope at least Democratic Senators would be willing
to say that we should give the Biden administration more tools to use
against the Mexican cartels, some of the worst and most depraved
criminals on Earth.
Therefore, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of
my bill, S. 621, the Significant Transnational Criminal Organization
Designation Act, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate
consideration; further, that the bill be considered read a third time
and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid
upon the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. The Senator from Arkansas' views on immigration are well-
known. He has been consistent in opposing immigration, but it is
interesting to me that people like him who oppose immigration always,
at the end, seem to go after the same people: mothers and children.
We saw it with the cages the kids were kept in. We saw it when kids
were forcibly removed from their parents at the border during the Trump
years. We have seen it time and again, and now we see it with the
Governor of Florida and the Governor of Texas putting mothers and
children on buses and busing them hundreds of miles away from where
they were picked up, whether there is any contact there or not. Mothers
and children are always a
[[Page S5132]]
focal point of anti-immigration rhetoric, and, once again, this bill
does that.
I agree completely when it comes to stopping transnational criminal
organizations, but to focus the bill on innocent spouses and children,
including minor children, and make them the target of the bill seems to
me going beyond any reasonable law enforcement.
There is a narrow exception in the bill that allows a spouse or child
to be admitted to the United States if they can somehow convince the
consular officer that they did not know or could not reasonably have
known of their spouse's or parent's membership in a criminal
organization. But there is no exception for battered spouses or
children who are often victims of these organizations themselves. And
the bill gives what appears to be unreviewable discretion to these
consular officers to decide whether an innocent spouse or child has
renounced the organization.
These transnational criminal organizations must be sanctioned and
stopped, but this is not the way to do it, going after mothers and
children.
I want to make a point, since the Senator concluded after my last
statement that I am somehow soft on crime. Can I go through a short
list here of bills that I voted for to get tough on crime?
Let's take a look at this bill, the American Rescue Plan. That
American Rescue Plan passed in the U.S. Senate and provided billions--
billions--of dollars to State and local communities for police and
crime protection--more money for police and crime protection from this
Senate to those communities. I voted for it. The Senator from Arkansas
voted against it.
Then the Congress passed the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
In that bill was a $430 million investment in our ports of entry,
helping DHS to screen vehicles for fentanyl. You see, these drugs come
through ports of entry. This idea of a backpack full of drugs being
hiked over the border by someone in the middle of the night, that is
not where the bulk of these drugs come from. They come through the
ports of entry. So we put a $430 million investment to make those ports
of entry even stronger and tougher.
I agree with that completely, helping the Department of Homeland
Security to screen vehicles and stop fentanyl from coming in. I voted
for that. The Senator from Arkansas voted no. Who is soft on crime?
Then we passed the March Omnibus appropriations bill--tens of
millions of dollars in increased funding for hiring police officers and
technology upgrades at the border to detect and seize fentanyl and
other illicit cargo. I voted for that. The Senator from Arkansas voted
against it. Who is soft on crime?
And when we passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the most
serious bipartisan step Congress has taken to end gun violence in 30
years, I voted for it. The Senator from Arkansas voted against it. Who
is soft on crime?
The American people can see which party is passing legislation and
actually funds law enforcement, addresses crime and violence in a
thoughtful way. And they can see, when the bills come up on the floor,
one party gives the speeches; the other party gets the votes.
I am going to continue to vote to support the police and put an end
to this drug crisis in America in a thoughtful and sensible way.
I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The junior Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. COTTON. Madam President, I think we know who is soft on crime. It
sounds like I hit a nerve. I didn't stand up here saying I am not soft
on crime five or six times in a row. It is the Senator from Illinois
who said that, just like Senate Democrats have been saying it for the
last several months, just like their candidates all across America are
saying it.
Let's look at the first bill he mentioned, the American Rescue Plan.
You know what that is, right, the American Rescue Plan? That is their
$2 trillion wasteful spending bill from last spring that is responsible
for 13 percent inflation.
Do you know what is also included in it? A measure that would get
stimulus checks to prisoners. That is right--depraved, violent felons;
murderers and rapists and drug traffickers all across America. People
like the Boston marathon bomber got stimulus checks last year because
the Democrats believe that criminals are really, at heart, victims as
well, victims of an oppressive society and system.
If I am not mistaken, when I offered my amendment to prevent
prisoners from getting stimulus checks, I think it was the Senator from
Illinois who stood up and blocked it. I know that he voted against it.
I know that he wanted prisoners to get stimulus checks. That is what he
is talking about.
What about his objection to this bill, that it is going to target
mothers and kids, the poor mothers and children of drug kingpins, a
very common feature of American sanctions efforts--in fact, sanctions
efforts that we are doing exactly against Russian oligarchs and regime
figures, which I support, by the way. I support. No, the wives and the
children of Russian oligarchs and Mexican cartel kingpins should not
benefit from their ill-gotten gains.
But I care more about the lives of American citizens--the hundred
thousand-plus American citizens whom we lose every single year--than
anyone else in the world.
The Biden administration's policy, though, is that we will use this
tool against Russians, but we are not going to use it against Mexican
cartel members. I think that goes to show you where their priorities
are.
Again, just to recap, we tried to pass legislation that would have
imposed heightened penalties on drug traffickers who misrepresent their
drugs and say they don't contain fentanyl. The Senator from Illinois
blocked it on behalf of the Democrats.
Just now, we tried to give the Biden administration more tools to
target the cartels that are smuggling these drugs into our country,
that are killing a hundred thousand of our fellow citizens. Again, on
behalf of Senate Democrats, the Senator from Illinois blocked it.
I say, again, over 108,000 Americans were killed by drugs last year.
Yet the Democrats continue to refuse to crack down on drug traffickers
and cartel kingpins.
Some of my other colleagues are going to offer similar bills today,
just like I am going to offer, yet again, my permanent fentanyl
scheduling bill that would stop the annual Kabuki dance here of the
Democrats demanding some pro-criminal law just so we can permanently
add fentanyl to the Controlled Substance Act schedule.
Think about that. At a time when 108,000 Americans are dying every
single year--that is not an aggregate number, every single year--the
Democrats refuse to act if they don't get something in return on behalf
of criminals, if they can't reduce drug sentences for hardened
criminals, if they can't let more felons out of prison. It shows a
depraved indifference to the lives of our people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, passing legislation is difficult at any
stage in American history. It is increasingly difficult when it is a
50-50 Senate. You have to work it. You have to be willing to sit down
with someone from the other side of the aisle and find a cosponsor so
that you have a bipartisan bill.
I have seen that work. In fact, I was part of it. It was Senator
Chuck Grassley and I who put together the FIRST STEP Act, which was
part of prison reform--significant prison reform--in this country.
Who signed the FIRST STEP Act? President Donald Trump.
Soft on crime? What we did was work out something that was
bipartisan, sensible, and really makes a difference, and makes certain
that people currently serving in prison will one day be released--most
will--and not return to crime when that happens. I think that was time
well spent, but it took a bipartisan effort.
I could have come to the floor every day of the week and offered my
best idea on how to fight crime, but if you can't pass it on a
bipartisan basis in the Senate, it doesn't work.
It takes a lot of hard work and a lot of patience and compromise to
make a real change in the law. Even if you think you have the best idea
on Earth, you have to work at it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Nevada.
[[Page S5133]]
Five-Year Anniversary of Las Vegas, Nevada, Shooting
Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Madam President, 5 years ago this Saturday, my
hometown of Las Vegas endured one of the darkest days in its history.
On a beautiful autumn evening, the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival was
interrupted when a gunman showered the concert with bullets from a
high-rise hotel room. Those who were at the festival, including my
niece, at first thought the gunshots were fireworks, but they soon
realized that something much more deadly was unfolding.
Fifty-eight people lost their lives that night, and two more have
died in the years since the attack. Over 850 people were wounded, and
tens of thousands who attended the concert or helped respond to the
shooting bear the visible and invisible scars of that night.
It is hard to overstate the scale of the devastation of that night,
and it remains the worst mass shooting in modern American history. As
soon as the gunfire broke out, first responders sprang into action, as
did ordinary citizens, turning concert barriers into stretchers and
trucks and cars into makeshift ambulances. Doctors and nurses rushed to
hospitals, and thousands of people lined up all over the State to
donate blood. Individuals and businesses contributed food, blankets,
airline tickets home, or whatever survivors might need.
At the worst of times, Nevadans came together to support one another,
and they have worked to help each other ever since. Local businesses
have supported the construction of a healing garden. The commission
working on a permanent memorial continues to make progress, and this
summer it invited the public to participate in its planning. And
scholarship funds and activity groups continue their work to support
the children of victims and survivors.
And this weekend in Las Vegas, thanks to the work of the Vegas Strong
Resiliency Center, bereaved families, survivors, first responders, and
community members will light lanterns together to honor the strength,
the light, and resilience of the Las Vegas community.
The fact is, though, that trauma leaves its marks. Many of those
touched by the Route 91 attack say that the shooting created a
permanent before and after for them. It fundamentally changed their
lives. And America has seen far too many of these mass attacks, from
Orlando to San Jose, Parkland to Buffalo. More recently, of course,
this summer saw the horrific shooting in Uvalde, TX, of 19 students and
2 teachers.
In the wake of Uvalde, Route 91 survivors Geena and Marisa Marano
came to see me. They are sisters whose experiences at the festival
inspired them to work for change. They told me that knowing how
difficult it had been for them as survivors of a mass attack, they
could not imagine what children who survived Uvalde were going through,
and so they were in Washington to call, once again, for change. This
time, they succeeded.
Over the summer, Congress passed and the President signed the
Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which contains a range of commonsense
provisions to reduce gun violence in America. I can't emphasize this
accomplishment enough. People thought that passing bipartisan gun
safety legislation was impossible, but because of the work and the
dedication and advocacy of so many, including Route 91 survivors like
Marisa and Geena, we got it done.
I am especially proud that I was able to help secure enhanced
background checks for those under 21 years of age as well as additional
mental health funding that is needed in our schools. Many survivors
will be the first to say the work isn't finished yet. That was a first
step; we still have more to do. And I agree with them. They are going
to continue to push for commonsense reforms, and I will support them as
I always have. Because these shootings are just devastating for whole
communities, we have to do something. I know for many in Las Vegas and
all over Nevada--this week especially--will bring difficult reminders
of that dark day 5 years ago, but it will also bring a renewed
determination to heal, to memorialize, to honor those who were
affected, and to work toward a safer future.
Madam President, I will continue to stand with my hometown and with
those survivors not only in Nevada but across the country and to do
everything that I can to work for the same goals that they care about.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Iowa.
Prescription Drug Costs
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, as a leading advocate for lower drug
prices in the Senate, No. 1, I have hauled Big Pharma and pharmacy
benefit managers' executives before my committee of Congress; second, I
led a 2-year bipartisan investigation into insulin price-gouging; and
three, introduced bipartisan reforms to lower the cost of insulin and
many other prescription drugs. In the past few years, legislation I
have championed into law has saved the taxpayers $9.6 billion.
Right now, the Senate is not acting on bipartisan legislation to
lower drug costs. I support a bipartisan plan by Senators Collins and
Shaheen that establishes a $35 out-of-pocket cap on insulin for
patients with private insurance while also reforming PBMs, the powerful
middlemen who are behind rising drug prices. If you don't address PBM
reform, a cap on out-of-pocket costs will only result in shifting
patient costs somewhere else.
In my 2-year bipartisan insulin investigation, we found that a drug's
list price is tied to rebates and other fees that drug companies have
to pay the PBMs. The scheme encourages drugmakers to spike the list
price of the drug to offer a greater rebate. And then do you know what
happens in turn? Secure priority placement on a health plan's list of
covered medications. We have to hold PBMs accountable, then, if you
really want to lower prescription drug costs.
In 2018, I called on the Federal Trade Commission to assess
consolidation in the pharmaceutical supply chain and its impact on drug
prices, but I didn't wait for the FTC to act. I introduced the
Prescription Pricing for the People Act with Senator Cantwell, and it
was approved out of the Judiciary Committee unanimously last year.
A few months ago, the FTC agreed to conduct a study of PBM business
practices. This is very welcomed news, but the FTC needs to complete
this study and do it in a timely way. Last week, I asked FTC Chair Kahn
about when the PBM study would be completed. Chair Kahn didn't commit
to a date.
While we need more sunshine on the PBMs, we don't need to wait to
take some action. Senator Cantwell and I have introduced the PBM
Transparency Act, and it has been approved by the Commerce Committee on
a 19-to-9 vote. The bill prohibits PBMs from engaging in spread pricing
and clawbacks. Both spread pricing and clawbacks are actions that game
the system and hurt consumers.
When the majority party pursued a partisan, reckless spending-and-tax
package that they called the Inflation Reduction Act, I filed the
Grassley-Wyden Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act as an amendment
that had 10 Republican cosponsors. I did that in order to show that the
majority party could have chosen to pass drug pricing reform on a
bipartisan basis if the majority wanted to do that. The bill
establishes PBM accountability and transparency, something missing from
the Inflation Reduction Act.
So, Madam President, we have bipartisan prescription drug legislation
awaiting action. We don't have to wait until 2026 for what happened in
August in the Inflation Reduction Act to get anything done because that
doesn't take effect until 2026. This includes the bipartisan plan to
lower insulin prices and my two bills to hold PBMs accountable. That is
what we need bipartisan action on in the U.S. Senate.
I have also led out of the Judiciary Committee three bipartisan bills
to establish more competition to lower prescription drug prices. They
save taxpayers a combined $1.9 billion.
So the Senate must act on six bipartisan bills. Collectively, they
lower insulin costs, secondly hold PBMs accountable, and lastly
establish more competition to lower prescription drug prices.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Tennessee.
[[Page S5134]]
Restoring Law and Order Act
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam President, last evening, I had the opportunity
to get on the phone in a telephone townhall with citizens from Davidson
and Shelby Counties in Tennessee, and crime was the No. 1 issue that
people were talking about. And one of the points that came up several
times was, Why is it that some of our colleagues across the aisle have
stuck with this prepackaged, zero consequences crime narrative that
they are still trying to sell to the American people?
Crime is an issue. And Tennesseans aren't buying the message. I don't
think the American people are buying it because they are living with
the real-world consequences of the Democrats' refusal to work to get
crime under control.
Now, a few days ago, I was watching the news, and I could not believe
what I was seeing. Young people were ransacking a convenience store.
They were doing this in full view of the cameras, continuing to talk to
one another, just going through ransacking that store.
Now, I know I would like to say that was an isolated incident, but we
all know that this is not an isolated incident. What is happening is,
this has become a trend in many of our cities. The numbers aren't
working in our favor when we talk about this trend, whether you are
talking about theft or vandalism or something much worse.
Here are some stats. Since 2019, homicide rates in our largest cities
are up 50 percent. That is since 2019. Aggravated assaults are up 36
percent. Last year, 108,000 Americans died of a drug overdose; 4,000 of
those were Tennesseans.
Now, we can continue to engage in a cable news proxy war or we can do
something about this. We, as lawmakers, cannot control what the pundits
and the activists say, but we can do something to help the millions of
Americans who have become or are at risk of becoming victims of
violence.
Back home in Tennessee, the sheriffs and other local officials whom I
talk to as I have done my 95-county tour, visiting with every county,
these sheriffs, these local officials, parents, principals--they are
all telling me exactly why they are struggling to get this crimewave
under control. Go talk to a police chief or a captain or go talk to a
sheriff or a deputy, and they will tell you: lack of manpower, lack of
funding, and the Democrats' soft-on-crime agenda.
We can help with the first two things right now without spending an
additional dime of taxpayer money. That lack of manpower, that lack of
funding--yes, this is something that we could take action on today if
we chose to.
This month, Senator Hagerty and I filed a bill called the Restoring
Law and Order Act that would establish a grant program to help State,
local, and Tribal law enforcement officials do the work that obviously
our President and the Democrats have chosen not to do.
First and foremost, here is what the bill would do. Our local law
enforcement officers would be able to use these grants to hire more
officers and to train them to deal with violent criminals. They will
also be able to pull in more resources to combat interstate child
trafficking between the open border and the ease with which criminals
are using technology to target kids. This was something we could not
afford to leave out of the Restoring Law and Order Act.
These grants would help communities prioritize tough sentencing for
repeat offenders and use responsible bail practices and pretrial
detention to keep dangerous offenders behind bars. If housing is a
problem, they will be able to address it. If food items are a problem,
then there would be a way to address that.
We are also going to make these grants available to departments that
need help targeting drug crime and getting fentanyl off the streets.
Sheriffs in Tennessee tell me that around 80 percent of the drugs that
they are seizing--80 percent--contain fentanyl, which means there are a
lot of people out there who are ingesting fentanyl and dying without
ever knowing that they were taking something laced with fentanyl. This
is also putting law enforcement at considerable risk. At least one
Tennessee officer is lucky to be alive after accidentally coming into
contact with fentanyl.
Last but not least, we are going to encourage law enforcement to make
use of these grants to clear the investigatory backlog and get evidence
processed as quickly as possible.
So much of our focus has been on urban areas because cities like
Philadelphia, Washington, DC, and Memphis are struggling when it comes
to controlling homicides, carjackings, and other crimes that are really
frightening to people, but rural areas of my State are also seeing
unprecedented levels of crime and drug overdose. So to help these
communities rise to the challenge, this bill commits no less than 25
percent of its total grant allotment to rural and depressed counties.
Now, as I said, this grant program won't spend an additional dime of
taxpayer money. The big IRS payday my Democratic colleagues snuck into
the so-called Inflation Reduction Act will be put to better use. Here
is how you do it. Instead of using that money to hire more bureaucrats
to attack small businesses and independent operators, we are going to
use it to keep the communities where they work safe from violent
criminals.
We also found that Joe Biden and the Democrats have left a lot of
their so-called emergency COVID funding lying around, so we are going
to put those funds toward hiring more officers and forensic examiners
and clearing the rape kit backlogs. Tennesseans are spending $616 more
per month now than they were last year just to keep themselves fed and
their cars running. They can't afford to maintain a slush fund for far-
left priorities when that money could be put to use actually helping
clean up our streets, helping keep our communities safe, and helping to
apprehend drug dealers and keep them in jail. That is where these
dollars should be used.
The final element of this bill would help us get to the root causes
of the rape kit backlogs. In 2021, the U.S. Government spent
$251,975,000 through six separate programs to help law enforcement
conduct rape and sexual assault investigations. Here is that breakdown.
And yes, indeed, Mr. President, $251 million is a lot of money--you are
right. More than $24 million was spent on advocacy programs; almost $34
million to train forensic examiners and their staff to collect and
preserve DNA evidence, analyze it, and present it in the courtroom; $4
million to train and provide resources to medical personnel who treat
victims of sexual assault; almost $90 million to get first responders
and forensic testing capabilities in rural areas up on par with urban
areas; and $158 million just to address the backlog.
Hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested, and still it
seems we cannot get these rape kits processed. Sometimes it takes a
full year to get these results.
I want to use one grant program as a case study to demonstrate the
problem that we are seeing. An audit of the Sexual Assault Kit
Initiative found that between 2015 and 2021, we sent $266 million to 75
grantees in 40 States and DC to process these kits, to process and
obtain this evidence. In that time, they only managed to clear a little
over half of a 136,000-kit backlog.
Now, bear in mind, these kits are the kits that contain the DNA
evidence of violent offenders. These are individuals who have committed
violent sexual assaults. Every one of these should be processed as a
rush order--but no. From 2015 to 2021, with $266 million being sent to
75 grantees in 40 different States and the District of Columbia, they
managed to clear a little over half of a 136,000-case backlog. So you
still have tens of thousands of kits that are gathering dust, and that
is just the ones in the custody of grantees from one single program.
This represents over 50,000 violations of trust and bodily autonomy,
50,000 worst night of an innocent man or woman's life, and 50,000 times
the scum of the Earth thought they committed a crime and they got away
with it, but they also represent 50,000 opportunities for us to take
that rapist or that violent offender and put them in jail for the rest
of their life.
The Restoring Law and Order Act will give the GAO a year to conduct a
study and prepare a report to explain why we haven't been able to clear
the backlog. Why is it we cannot get these kits processed? They are
going to look
[[Page S5135]]
for deficiencies in processing and also let us know where and to what
extent rape kits aren't available at all.
This month, Tennesseans--especially the people of Memphis--have been
stuck in a vicious cycle of grieving and asking: What more could have
been done to spare the victims of two of the most notorious killers in
recent memory?
We already know that at least one brutal murder could have been
prevented if the crime lab had been able to reduce their processing
time for rape kits. Three more may have been prevented if the people
responsible for keeping criminals in jail had done their jobs and
forced a repeat violent offender to serve out a full sentence. That
didn't happen. Four innocent people in Memphis are dead.
The community is heartbroken, and they are grieving. Last night, on
our telephone townhall, they talked a lot about this. They talked about
how it has affected them and their community.
Now, the left has spent 2 years screaming at Congress to defund the
police, pull law enforcement out of neighborhoods, and eliminate
consequences for violent behavior, and it is just plain frightening to
see so many of my colleagues continue to go along with that rhetoric.
Tennesseans agree, and I think the American people agree also. They
don't want an unfair system. They don't want innocent people to be
behind bars. They want a system that works. They are tired of hearing
that they are the problem--at least according to the Democrats' zero-
consequences narrative. That narrative has turned criminals into
victims and innocent people into villains and has left true victims
wondering who was there for them. There is nothing just or equitable
about that.
I would ask my Democratic colleagues to abandon the echo chamber and
get on the phone. Go see and visit and listen to and hear from your
sheriffs and your mayors and other law enforcement officials back
home. Listen to what they have to say. They need your help.
Senator Hagerty and I would love to have their help and support in
passing the Restoring Law and Order Act. We need to move this
legislation. We need to vote on it now before the crimewave gets even
worse.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The clerk will call the
roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. OSSOFF. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________