[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 18, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1154-S1161]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

                       FIRE GRANTS AND SAFETY ACT

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
resume legislative session and resume consideration of S. 870.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 870) to amend the Federal Fire Prevention and 
     Control Act of 1974 to authorize appropriations for the 
     United States Fire Administration and firefighter assistance 
     grant programs.

  Pending:
  Schumer amendment No. 58, to add an effective date.


                  Unanimous Consent Agreement--S. 870

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture 
motion with respect to S. 870 be withdrawn and that the only amendments 
in order to the bill be the following: Lee No. 80; Scott No. 81; 
Hagerty No. 72, as modified; Van Hollen No. 85; Sullivan No. 83; and 
Paul No. 79; that if offered, the Senate vote in relation to the 
amendments listed at a time to be determined by the majority leader 
following consultation with the Republican leader; that following 
disposition of the above amendments, amendment No. 58 be withdrawn; 
that the bill, as amended, if amended, be considered read a third time 
and the Senate vote on passage of the bill; that 60 affirmative votes 
be required for the adoption of these amendments and passage of the 
bill, with the exception of the Sullivan and Paul amendments; and that 
there be 2 minutes for debate equally divided between the two leaders 
or their designees prior to each vote, all without intervening action 
or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. For the information of the Senate, the vote on the Lee 
amendment will be at approximately 4:30 p.m. today.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                                 S. 870

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate is 
proceeding to consideration of the Fire Grants and Safety Act.
  This bipartisan legislation, which my colleague from Michigan, 
Senator Peters, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, and I 
have introduced, is cosponsored by our fellow congressional Fire Caucus 
chairs: Senators Murkowski, Tester, and Carper. Our bill would extend 
critical FEMA fire prevention programs, some of which are set to expire 
at the end of this fiscal year.
  Mr. President, your State of Vermont and mine are a lot alike. 
Firefighters are critical to the safety of our communities, whether 
they are small or large.
  Firefighters across Maine and the country courageously serve their 
communities. Recognizing their commitment in 2000 and 2003, I helped 
create FEMA's firefighter grant programs as part of a bipartisan effort 
to ensure that firefighters have the adequate staffing, equipment, and 
training to do their essential jobs as effectively and safely as 
possible. At that time, I was the chair or ranking member of the Senate 
Homeland Security Committee.
  The Fire Grants and Safety Act would reauthorize four critical 
firefighting and emergency services programs: the U.S. Fire 
Administration, which provides training and data to State and local 
fire departments, as well as education and awareness for the public; 
the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, known as the AFG, which 
helps to equip and train firefighters and emergency personnel; the Fire 
Prevention and Safety Grant Program, which provides resources to carry 
out fire prevention education and training; and the Staffing for 
Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Program, better known as the SAFER 
Program, which helps our local fire departments recruit, hire, and 
retain additional firefighters.
  Since October of 2020, fire departments across Maine have received 
just under $12 million from the AFG and SAFER grant programs. These 
critical investments in local, rural fire departments supported 
replacements of decades-old fire engines and obsolete breathing 
apparatuses. They also allowed for the hiring of additional 
firefighters, thus helping to ensure that Maine communities continue to 
provide excellent public safety services to our residents.
  I have visited many of the fire stations around the State, and I have 
seen firsthand the difference these Federal grant programs make in 
improving the safety of our firefighters who risk their lives to 
protect ours. Many of the fire stations in Maine are decades or even a 
century old. They need updated equipment. They need better breathing

[[Page S1155]]

equipment. They need better fire engines. That is the purpose of many 
of these programs.
  They also are helped by these programs in getting a sufficient number 
of firefighters and emergency medical personnel. Fire chiefs across the 
State of Maine tell me of the critical importance of these programs in 
helping their local fire departments keep their communities safe. And 
that is one reason that this bill has such broad support from the 
International Association of Firefighters, the International 
Association of Fire Chiefs--the list goes on and on and on.
  Failure to reauthorize these programs would lessen the ability of our 
firefighters to perform their vital jobs and thus would reduce the 
safety of the public. So I urge all of my colleagues to support the 
swift passage of this legislation to support our firefighters. We 
simply cannot allow these vital programs to expire.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight the importance 
of supporting the brave men and women who protect us every day in all 
50 States. As I laid out on this floor last month, the fires that we 
face are getting worse, not better. Every day, there are more fires 
ravaging our communities and more folks relying on firefighters for 
protection.
  Just last week, almost 4,000 acres in our neighboring State of New 
Jersey were scorched by the Jimmy's Waterhole fire, forcing evacuations 
from something like 170 buildings and homes.
  In Pennsylvania, over 2,500 acres were burned and over 150 homes 
threatened, forcing the Pennsylvania Turnpike to temporarily close.
  Let me just make this as clear and as strong as I can. We have to 
support our firefighters. We have to support our firefighters so that 
when they bravely run toward danger to help others, they are well 
prepared; they are properly trained and equipped.
  That is one of the reasons why I continue to colead the Fire Grants 
and Safety Act with my colleagues on the Congressional Fire Service 
Caucus. Firefighters put their lives on the line for us every day--
every day--and it is our duty to provide them with the necessary 
support that they need.
  I am proud to join alongside Senators Gary Peters, Susan Collins, and 
Lisa Murkowski in fighting for this crucial legislation to better 
ensure that our firefighters are armed with the tools that they need to 
get the job done on behalf of other people.
  Today, I want to talk for a few minutes, if I could, about the Fire 
Grants and Safety Act and how it will actually have an impact on 
communities not just on the east coast, not just on the west coast, the 
middle of our country, but all over the United States of America.
  At a high level, this bill reauthorizes three critical Federal 
programs that support the local fire departments. Let me break it down 
just a little bit, if I could.
  First, this legislation will reauthorize the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response--
also known as the SAFER Grant Program. The SAFER Grant Program provides 
funding for career, for volunteer, and some combination of local fire 
departments to increase the number of men and women on duty at any 
point in time.
  The job of a firefighter can be incredibly demanding, and baseline 
industry standards include protocols like 24-hour staffing to make sure 
our communities have adequate protection of all hours of day and night.
  The SAFER Grant Program also provides funding to recruit staff so 
that we can ensure staffing needs can actually be met. For example, 
SAFER grants could help ensure that more personnel are properly trained 
and available on the ground to assist in major fires in the areas that 
need it the most.
  In States like Delaware, where the majority of our firefighters are 
volunteers, it is particularly important that staffing needs are met 
and resources are provided so that all first responders are ready to 
take on each day that lies ahead of them.
  The Fire Grants and Safety Act also reauthorizes the Assistance to 
Firefighters Grant Program. The Assistance to Firefighters Grant 
Program helps local fire departments and EMS organizations to fulfill 
equipment and training needs, like firetrucks and protective gear, all 
of which lead to a more effective emergency response.
  But firefighters do a whole lot more than just put out fires--I think 
the Presiding Officer and other of our colleagues know. Annually, there 
are over 36 million emergency calls that fire services across the 
country respond to.
  Let me say that again. There are over 36 million emergency calls that 
fire services respond to across the country. That is not going down. 
That is going up. I think it increased about 20 percent over the last 
dozen or so years.

  Just a few weeks ago, in my own State, a strong, dangerous tornado 
struck Southern Delaware in the area of Sussex County, our southernmost 
county, near a community called Greenwood and another community called 
Bridgeville. It was our firefighters who showed up to lead people to 
safety.
  We lost a grandfather when the tornado struck Bridgeville, as I 
recall. I think he was in his seventies. He left behind a family.
  Ensuring that funding is provided for EMS alongside fire services is 
critical to the emergency response.
  Finally, the Fire Grants and Safety Act will reauthorize the U.S. 
Fire Administration to provide leadership, to provide coordination, and 
to provide training for first responders and healthcare leaders. 
Responding to emergencies is no small undertaking. It is a huge 
undertaking. In addition to our firefighters, healthcare leaders help 
to guide the disaster response by making sure that people are taken 
care of, both during and after emergency response.
  The U.S. Fire Administration also plays a critical role in that 
coordinated effort, ensuring that our first responders are ready to 
handle hazards, from saving lives to preventing loss of homes and 
personal belongings.
  Beyond the initial response, the Administration collects fire data, 
conducts important research and prevention methods, and hosts public 
safety information and fire service training. This proactive approach 
assists local fire departments in handling future emergencies and 
creates a more comprehensive approach to fire safety.
  The lifesaving work made possible by these three Federal programs 
must continue, and we have the opportunity here in the Senate to make 
that happen. Last month, we came together--Democrats and Republicans--
to vote to take up the Fire Grants and Safety Act. That vote passed by 
a whopping 96 to 0. As the Presiding Officer knows, that doesn't happen 
here every day, and it is a testament to the power of bipartisanship. 
It is also a testament to the critical role that firefighters play in 
communities across America.
  Today, we will improve our emergency response, and we will make sure 
that our firefighters have, if not everything they need, more of what 
they need. I am pleased that our President has announced his support 
for this legislation. I want to strongly encourage our colleagues and 
friends over in the House of Representatives to do their part once we 
have taken care of business here and send the Fire Grants and Safety 
Act to the President's desk.
  Mr. President, I want to go back a little in time. I remember a time 
when my sister and I were young and playing with other kids in our 
neighborhood. Maybe our cousins were with us. We had a firetruck. In 
fact, we had a couple of little firetrucks. We would take turns being a 
firefighter. Some days we would put out fires, and other days we would 
respond to imaginary weather events that endangered our community where 
we lived.
  Later on, decades later, my sister would have her kids--a son and 
daughter--and my wife and I had a couple of boys, and one of their 
favorite toys was firetrucks. On more than a few occasions, they and 
their friends would come over to our house to play, and we would bring 
out the firetrucks.
  They didn't have anything else to do but fight fires. For them, it 
was just

[[Page S1156]]

fun. They loved doing it--doing it with their neighbors and friends--
and loved doing it with their cousins who might be visiting with us. 
That was fun for them.
  In the real world, being a firefighter can be enormously satisfying. 
I don't know that I would say it is fun. It is dangerous, and there is 
a chance that someone will get hurt trying to help out other people, 
and the risks can be, as we know, great. I just want to make sure that 
those young kids who grow up to be firefighters--like the ones whom we 
honored this past month in the Bridgeville Fire Company in Southern 
Delaware--I just want to make sure they know that we value them. We 
value their service. We value their willingness to risk their own lives 
on behalf of other people, including people they may not even know.
  In the legislation that is before us, we have the opportunity to make 
that clear to firefighters around the country--States large and small, 
east and west, blue and red--how much we value them and the service 
they provide to so many of us.
  That is what I have today. I don't see anybody else yearning to 
address our colleagues.
  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. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                          Vladimir Kara-Murza

  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I come before the Senate this afternoon to 
address the disturbing matter of Vladimir Kara-Murza and to call on the 
State Department to act and act decisively now on behalf of Mr. Kara-
Murza.
  Vladimir Kara-Murza is a courageous Russian leader and outspoken 
opponent of the dictatorship of President Putin there in Russia and a 
leader in the democracy effort in his home country of Russia.
  Many colleagues, myself included, know Vladimir Kara-Murza 
personally. I admire him. I consider him a friend. Other Senators will 
remember who Mr. Kara-Murza is after I remind the Senate of his 
history.
  Mr. Kara-Murza was the right-hand man of the late Russian opposition 
leader Boris Nemtsov. I say the late Russian leader because he was 
assassinated within the shadows of the Kremlin in 2015, after a career 
of courageous, outspoken opposition to the dictatorship in Russia. That 
was Boris Nemtsov.
  His assistant and right-hand man, Kara-Murza, was just this week 
sentenced to a 25-year prison term in Russia, having already served 1 
year in prison for the simple offense of speaking out on behalf of 
freedom and democracy in Russia.
  Over the years, Vladimir Kara-Murza has spoken up against President 
Putin's invasion of Ukraine. He has spoken out against the suppression 
of human rights in Russia.
  He has worked with members of Congress. He has worked with Senator 
Cardin. He has worked with Senators like me and with former Senator 
John McCain. And he has been instrumental in getting us to pass and 
getting the administrations to sign important human rights legislation, 
like the Magnitsky Act, which has now been signed by 35 or more 
countries internationally, to crack down on those individuals within a 
dictatorship regime who have benefited from the violations of human 
rights.
  How has Mr. Vladimir Kara-Murza paid for this offense of speaking out 
on behalf of democracy and freedom? He is the one who has twice been 
poisoned by the Putin regime--on two occasions. And they fumbled it 
twice. Now they have a third chance to kill him, and it may be that, 
unless the State Department acts quickly, the Putin regime may finally 
get their wish and see the obituary of Vladimir Kara-Murza.
  His life is in danger now. Because of his previous poisonings, both 
of which he recovered from, he has suffered already from 
polyneuropathy. After a year in prison, he has lost 40 pounds. He has 
lost feeling in both of his feet now and is losing the feeling in one 
of his arms. That is the situation he finds himself in, the week when 
he was sentenced to a 25-year prison term simply for speaking out on 
behalf of freedom. Even under Russian law, a statutory scheme that none 
of us would approve of--even under Russian law--a diagnosis such as 
this would lead to the release of any prisoner, but not, apparently, 
for Vladimir Kara-Murza. Predictably, the Russian courts have violated 
their own law to keep him detained.
  Today, we read about many victims of Russia's despotism. We have been 
talking this week about former U.S. Marine Paul Whelan, who has been 
sitting in a Russian prison since 2018 under fabricated charges, and 
then the recently detained Wall Street Journal reporter, Evan 
Gershkovich.
  Those two individuals need our support and are getting the support of 
the State Department--the same support that Mr. Vladimir Kara-Murza 
needs now and that the Senate should demand of the State Department.
  The State Department has the capability, as they have done for these 
two other prisoners, Gershkovich and Whelan. They have the ability to 
designate Mr. Kara-Murza as ``wrongfully detained'' under the Levinson 
Act. This classification would make the release of Vladimir Kara-Murza 
a top U.S. Government priority.
  Granting this designation would be a major step forward and would 
raise this case to the highest level of attention within the State 
Department and with regard to their negotiations with the Kremlin. It 
would give negotiators new tools to act strongly and quickly. Strong 
action and quick action is needed now to save the very life of Vladimir 
Kara-Murza.
  Efforts on his behalf could be conducted alongside the efforts that 
are being initiated for Mr. Whelan and Mr. Gershkovich, which I very 
much support.
  I implore the State Department to elevate this case also and save the 
life of Vladimir Kara-Murza, and I implore all Members of Congress to 
join me in urging our government to take immediate action to support 
all three of these gentlemen.
  Let's resolve that our government and our State Department act in 
every way possible to gain the release of these prisoners and in 
particular this prisoner whose life is hanging at the very moment by a 
thread.
  I met with Vladimir Kara-Murza's wife only yesterday. She had met 
with the State Department, along with her attorneys, along with some 
advocates. Clearly, she fears for the life of her husband.
  She is a resident of Northern Virginia, by the way, with two small 
children.
  She fears for the life of her husband, and she worries about the 
future of herself and her children, but also she wonders why the State 
Department would not act in the most forceful way possible, and that is 
with this designation of ``wrongfully detained.''
  Senator Cardin and I will be speaking to Members of the Senate and 
the House about this. We will be passing around a letter to sign to the 
Secretary of State urging that this matter be given the highest 
consideration. And perhaps we can diplomatically obtain the release of 
this courageous person who has committed no crime and save the life of 
Vladimir Kara-Murza.
  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. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                            Amendment No. 80

  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, wildfires pose a significant threat to the 
safety and well-being of our citizens, particularly those living near 
Federal lands. One way to protect against wildfires is with the use of 
fuel breaks.
  Fuel breaks are--think of them as firewalls, firewalls for our 
communities. They are manmade areas with a reduced fuel load that are 
set up to act as a barrier to slow the spread of a wildfire. They slow 
it down and make it so the fire can't spread as quickly.
  In 2021, Congress created a series of categorical exclusions 
specifically for the creation of fuel breaks. That was good. They were 
intended to protect communities adjacent to Federal land from the 
devastating effects of wildfires. However, the Federal Agencies 
responsible for implementing these

[[Page S1157]]

exclusions have been bogged down by regulatory delays.
  These delays are really problematic, and they are adding up, 
especially in certain parts of the country where there is a lot of 
Federal land and where there is a lot of Federal land near where people 
live. For example, in California, there are 5.1 million homes in the 
wildland-urban interface. The Forest Service and the BLM will never 
have the capacity to protect these homes. The hands of the States 
shouldn't be tied while they watch their homes being burned.
  So Congress did a good thing by creating these categorical 
exclusions, but it has been more or less rendered--I think by mistake--
a dead letter in many areas because of these regulatory problems.
  Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we need to make 
this one work. My amendment aims to do precisely that. It aims to 
create a process for States to assume responsibility for the 
environmental analysis, approval, and execution of these projects. By 
allowing States to take on these responsibilities, we can expedite 
these critical projects for community protection.
  The safety and well-being of our citizens and our communities are at 
stake. By passing my amendment, we can take a significant step toward 
protecting our homes, communities, and critical infrastructure from the 
devastating effects of wildfires.
  Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 80 and ask that it be 
reported by number.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment by number.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Lee] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 80.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To make a categorical exclusion available for use on certain 
  land by States and Indian Tribes through a project delivery program)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. STATE AND TRIBAL USE OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FOR 
                   ESTABLISHMENT OF FUEL BREAKS IN FORESTS AND 
                   OTHER WILDLAND VEGETATION.

       Section 40806 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 6592b) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(g) State and Tribal Project Delivery Programs.--
       ``(1) In general.--On request of a State or an Indian 
     Tribe, the Secretary concerned shall enter into an agreement 
     (which may be in the form of a memorandum of understanding) 
     with the State or Indian Tribe, under which the Secretary 
     concerned assigns, and the State or Indian Tribe assumes, the 
     responsibilities of the Secretary concerned with respect to--
       ``(A) 1 or more projects under this section using the 
     categorical exclusion established by subsection (b), 
     including--
       ``(i) environmental review, consultation, and any other 
     action required under any Federal environmental law with 
     respect to the review or approval of a project, including the 
     preparation of a supporting decision memorandum in accordance 
     with subsection (b); and
       ``(ii) carrying out the forest management activities 
     described in subsection (c) on public lands or National 
     Forest System land in the State or under the jurisdiction of 
     the Indian Tribe, as applicable; or
       ``(B) any other project on public lands or National Forest 
     System land in the State or under the jurisdiction of the 
     Indian Tribe, as applicable, using any other categorical 
     exclusion that the Secretary concerned determines to be 
     appropriate for use by the State or Indian Tribe, as 
     applicable, to protect communities from wildfire.
       ``(2) Collaboration.--A State or an Indian Tribe may enter 
     into an agreement under paragraph (1) in collaboration with a 
     unit of local government, a private entity, or a community 
     organization and associated contractors.
       ``(3) Requirements.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State or an Indian Tribe that assumes 
     responsibilities under paragraph (1) shall be subject to the 
     same procedural and substantive requirements as to which the 
     Secretary concerned would be subject.
       ``(B) Retention of responsibilities.--Any responsibility of 
     the Secretary concerned that is not explicitly assigned to 
     and assumed by a State or an Indian Tribe under an agreement 
     under paragraph (1) shall remain the responsibility of the 
     Secretary concerned.
       ``(C) Prohibition.--The Secretary concerned may not require 
     a State or an Indian Tribe, as a condition on entering into 
     an agreement under paragraph (1), to forgo any other means 
     for carrying out the applicable project that is otherwise 
     permissible under applicable law.
       ``(D) Verification of resources.--As a condition on 
     entering into an agreement under paragraph (1), the Secretary 
     concerned may require a State or an Indian Tribe to verify 
     that the State or Indian Tribe has the financial and 
     personnel resources necessary to carry out the 
     responsibilities described in that paragraph.
       ``(4) Agreements.--An agreement under paragraph (1) shall--
       ``(A) be executed by the Governor or the top-ranking 
     official of the State or Indian Tribe that is charged with 
     responsibility for the applicable project;
       ``(B) be in such form as the Secretary concerned may 
     prescribe;
       ``(C) provide that the State or Indian Tribe--
       ``(i) agrees to assume all or part of the responsibilities 
     of the Secretary concerned;
       ``(ii) expressly consents to accept the jurisdiction of the 
     Federal courts for the compliance, discharge, and enforcement 
     of any responsibility of the Secretary concerned assumed by 
     the State or Indian Tribe;
       ``(iii) certifies that State or Tribal laws (including 
     regulations) are in effect that--

       ``(I) authorize the State or Indian Tribe to take the 
     actions necessary to carry out the responsibilities being 
     assumed; and
       ``(II) provide that any decision regarding the public 
     availability of a document under those State or Tribal laws 
     is reviewable by a court of competent jurisdiction; and

       ``(iv) agrees to maintain the financial and personnel 
     resources necessary to carry out the responsibilities being 
     assumed;
       ``(D) require the State or Indian Tribe to provide to the 
     Secretary concerned any information that the Secretary 
     concerned reasonably considers necessary to ensure that the 
     State or Indian Tribe is adequately carrying out the 
     responsibilities assigned to the State or Indian Tribe;
       ``(E) have a term of not more than 5 years; and
       ``(F) be renewable.
       ``(5) Judicial review.--
       ``(A) In general.--The district courts of the United States 
     shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any civil action 
     against a State or an Indian Tribe for a failure to carry out 
     any responsibility assigned to and assumed by the State or 
     Indian Tribe under an agreement under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) Legal standards and requirements.--A civil action 
     described in subparagraph (A) shall be governed by the legal 
     standards and requirements that would apply if the civil 
     action were against the Secretary concerned had the Secretary 
     concerned taken the relevant actions.
       ``(C) Intervention.--The Secretary concerned may intervene 
     in any civil action described in subparagraph (A).
       ``(6) State or tribal responsibility and liability.--A 
     State or an Indian Tribe that assumes responsibilities under 
     an agreement under paragraph (1) shall be--
       ``(A) solely responsible for carrying out the 
     responsibilities; and
       ``(B) solely liable for any action or failure to take an 
     action in carrying out those responsibilities.
       ``(7) Termination.--
       ``(A) In general.--A State or an Indian Tribe may terminate 
     an agreement entered into by the State or Indian Tribe under 
     paragraph (1), at any time, by submitting to the Secretary 
     concerned a notice not later than the date that is 90 days 
     before the date of termination.
       ``(B) Terms and conditions.--A termination under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be subject to such terms and 
     conditions as the Secretary concerned may provide.
       ``(8) Education and other initiatives.--The Secretary 
     concerned, in cooperation with representatives of State and 
     Tribal officials, may carry out education, training, peer-
     exchange, and other initiatives, as appropriate--
       ``(A) to assist States and Indian Tribes in developing the 
     capacity to carry out projects under this subsection; and
       ``(B) to promote information-sharing and collaboration 
     among States and Indian Tribes that are carrying out projects 
     under this subsection.''.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I don't rise every day to oppose 
amendments offered by Senator Lee. I am afraid I am going to have to 
oppose this one for a couple of reasons.
  One, as the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and 
Public Works and as a recovering Governor who has helped run a State 
and was actually the chair of the National Governors Association for a 
while, I believe this amendment undercuts the National Environmental 
Policy Act and the Federal Government's important role in managing our 
Federal lands.
  While I appreciate the need for Federal Agencies and States to work 
together to minimize wildfire risks on our public lands, this 
amendment, I am sorry to say, misses the mark.
  Specifically, this amendment would require--and I underline the word 
``require''--this amendment would require the Forest Service and the 
Bureau of Land Management to allow States to take over Federal 
responsibilities for environmental reviews of many activities on public 
lands. This would be a

[[Page S1158]]

significant change in the management of our public lands, which belong, 
as we know, to all Americans.
  Although Senator Lee's proposal is modeled on a program at the 
Department of Transportation that allows States to assume some 
responsibilities for highway projects, this amendment is far broader in 
scope and impact and lacks the numerous safeguards that are in place 
for the highway program.
  For instance, this amendment establishes mandatory--I emphasize 
``mandatory''--not discretionary assignment of responsibilities to 
States. It has no requirement, as best I can tell, for public notice 
and comment and does not require the Federal Agency to verify that the 
State has the resources and the personnel available to carry out 
Federal responsibilities. It also includes, as best I can tell, no 
auditing or monitoring requirements.
  I am working with my colleagues, I believe on both sides of the 
aisle, on opportunities to improve environmental review procedures. But 
I must say, this is not the right vehicle or way to proceed on this 
provision, and I am reluctantly going to have to urge our colleagues to 
vote no on this particular amendment.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the insight and the observations 
of my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Delaware. I 
appreciate the amount of effort that he puts into this and I am sure a 
lot of hard work.
  He raises some good points, and there are points that I might find 
persuasive if they were accurate. He seems to be under the impression 
that these would be broad categorical inclusions, that these procedures 
we contemplate would apply broadly to all Forest Service operations. It 
wouldn't. This is talking only about fuel breaks and only about fuel 
breaks in narrow sets of circumstances.
  He suggested incorrectly that there is no requirement in place to 
make sure that the States have the resources financially, regulatorily, 
and otherwise to undertake the analysis contemplated under this. It 
does. He has been misinformed on that point.
  Finally, I might feel differently about this if, like my friend from 
Delaware, if I were from a different State, if I were from the State of 
Delaware. But when you look at the Western United States, we have 
Federal land everywhere.
  In every State to the east of Colorado's eastern border, the Federal 
Government owns less than 15 percent of the land in each State, and in 
most cases, it is in the single digits. In many States, it is in the 
low single digits. I don't remember what the percentage of land is in 
Delaware. I can find that out. But in Utah it is two-thirds of our 
land. It is 67 percent. In every State to the west of Colorado's 
Eastern Rim, it is more than 15 percent and usually a lot more than 
that. That affects people. These are people's homes, their livelihoods, 
their communities, their economies are all put in jeopardy by the fact 
that the Federal Government owns too much land. It owns so much land 
that no one would have the capacity to operate this. No one. It is 
impossible.
  More than 5 million homes in California alone are in these affected 
areas. No matter how efficient we may be in the Forest Service, no 
matter how many employees we authorized them to hire, they are still 
not going to be able to keep up with it.
  It is a matter of doing this or losing more property, losing more 
ecosystems and losing more homes and communities and sources of 
economic activity. That is what is at stake.
  Now, if the points he made were factually correct or legally correct, 
he might be right, but they are not correct. We need this, and we need 
to pass this now.
  Mr. President, thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. I don't think I have got this wrong. I may be mistaken, 
but I don't think so.
  I would just say, again, Senator Lee's proposal appears to be 
modeling on a program at the Department of Transportation that allows 
States--and I underline ``allows States''--to assume some 
responsibilities, not all but some responsibilities, for highway 
projects.
  Having said that, this amendment is far broader in scope and impact 
and lacks the numerous safeguards that are in place for the highway 
program. For example, this amendment establishes mandatory--mandatory, 
not discretionary--assignment of responsibilities to States. In doing 
that, it has no requirement for public notice. It does not require the 
Federal Agency to verify that the State has either the resources or the 
personnel available to carry out Federal responsibilities. Moreover, as 
best I can tell, this mandate includes no auditing or monitoring 
requirements. That should give all of us pause. That should give all of 
us pause and cause for concern.
  Having said that, I am working with our colleagues on opportunities 
to improve environmental review procedures, but I just don't believe 
this is the right vehicle for the way to proceed on this particular 
provision. I look forward to discussing it further with our colleague 
from Utah in the days ahead, but for now I am going to urge our 
colleagues to vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. I will point to two things. First, on page 4 of the 
amendment, subdivision (D) Verification of Resources. This requires 
each State or Indian Tribe to go through a process to verify that they 
have got the resources to do it.
  Turn to page 6. It is subject to full judicial review in the same way 
that they would be subject to judicial review if these actions were 
being undertaken by a Federal Agency. So the only difference is, these 
State and local governments, they have both the personnel, and they 
have the incentive to do it. Federal land managers can't and don't and 
won't ever be able to do this the same way State people, State 
officials, State governments, and local governments will be able to.
  We either care about these communities or we don't. If we don't adopt 
this, we are effectively nullifying what Congress passed back in 2021, 
and we cannot do that.
  Mr. President, I know of no further debate on this matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. CARPER. Yes, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am looking at the language of the 
amendment.
  On page 4, subparagraph (D), which is entitled ``Verification of 
Resources,'' reads--I will read part of this. It says:

       As a condition on entering into an agreement under 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned may require a State or 
     [may require] an Indian Tribe to verify that the State or an 
     Indian Tribe has the financial and personnel resources 
     necessary to carry out the responsibilities described in that 
     paragraph.

  It doesn't say ``should.'' It doesn't say ``must.'' It says ``may 
require a State or . . . Indian tribe to verify that the State or 
Indian Tribe has the financial and personnel resources necessary to 
carry out the responsibilities described in that paragraph.''

  I, again, have significant concerns here. I appreciate the intent of 
the author of the amendment, but I will just reiterate again the 
concerns that the more I look at this, the more concerned I am. I would 
rather be less concerned but more concerned I have become.
  With that, I yield back my time.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. The distinction he is dwelling on is the distinction on page 
4, the ``may-shall'' distinction. The only way he can be right on this, 
of course, is if he presupposes that the Secretary is just not going to 
care; that the Secretary is not going to exercise that authority. It is 
not going to happen. I am sure he is not impugning a lack of concern on 
the part of the Secretary of Agriculture to do that. He wouldn't do 
that.
  Secondly, look, if that is what is holding this up, if you want to 
switch--if you would be willing to support it if I made the ``may'' and 
turned it to a ``shall,'' I will do that right now. I will offer up a 
second-degree amendment to my own amendment right now, and we will do 
that. If the gentleman from Delaware were to agree to that, I would be 
fine with it, and we could get this passed.

[[Page S1159]]

  

  Mr. CARPER. I am not prepared to know whether or not there are other 
safeguards--I appreciate the good intent that the Senator from Utah is 
showing. But standing here on the fly, I am just reluctant to say that 
if you change this one place and this one word in this proposal, then I 
am OK with all of it. I will need a little bit of time to work on it 
and decide. It is hard to do it on the fly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, this is how the western lands suffer--people 
from the Eastern United States, with neither the knowledge nor the 
concern about how they are managed and don't care. And so while they 
passed something in 2021 to make these firebreaks easier to put in 
place, as a practical reality, the regulatory hurdles are proving too 
much. This would fix that. This is reasonable. There is nothing that 
the Senator from Delaware has pointed to that makes this amendment to 
this bill objectionable in any way. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  And if you do so--if you come from the west of Colorado, you know 
exactly what I am talking about. If you come from the Eastern United 
States, I beg you to imagine, for a moment, that you represent a 
Western State, where we have experienced, in some cases, decades of 
drought and where we are sitting ducks, where we are an island of 
private land amidst a vast overwhelming sea of Federal land that is 
chronically mismanaged just because it is physically impossible for 
them to manage it properly to avoid this kind of thing. I urge you to 
be sympathetic to this and support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. This is the last thing I would say with respect to this 
amendment. If this amendment is not adopted, I would say to the Senator 
from Utah, I welcome the opportunity for my staff and your staff to sit 
down and talk through it and to better understand our concerns and 
better understand where you are coming from.
  Mr. LEE. I would be happy to.
  Mr. CARPER. Yes. We will keep on it.
  Mr. LEE. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. I appreciate the magnanimous offer from my colleague. I will 
take him up on that. I am still hoping that it will pass. It is still 
my hope that it should pass today.
  Mr. President, I know of no further debate.


                        Vote on Amendment No. 80

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  Mr. LEE. I call for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. 
Feinstein) is necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 49, nays 50, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 87 Leg.]

                                YEAS--49

     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Boozman
     Braun
     Britt
     Budd
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Lankford
     Lee
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Ricketts
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Schmitt
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Vance
     Wicker
     Young

                                NAYS--50

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Fetterman
     Gillibrand
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Kelly
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lujan
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Warren
     Welch
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Feinstein
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). On this vote, the yeas are 49, 
the nays are 50.
  Under the previous order requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this 
amendment, the amendment is not agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 80) was rejected.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, few have left their mark on this country 
like our dear friend Senator Dianne Feinstein. She is a legend in 
California, the first woman Senator from the State.
  She is a legend here in the Senate--the longest serving woman Senator 
in U.S. history. She built a reputation as an expert legislator on so 
many issues--gun violence, VAWA, the environment, women's rights, and 
so much more.
  But her impact doesn't end there. Dianne is a legend throughout the 
country. She shattered enumerable glass ceilings, moved countless 
mountains, and molded millions of minds. Few have accomplished as much 
in office as Senator Feinstein.
  Our colleague and friend has made her wish clear, that another 
Senator temporarily serve on the Committee on the Judiciary until she 
returns. I thank Senator Cardin for agreeing to step in.
  So today, I am acting not just as leader, but as Dianne's friend in 
honoring her wishes until she returns to the Senate. Mr. President, 
when someone as dear and as accomplished as Senator Feinstein asks us 
for something so important to her, we ought to respect it.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration 
of my resolution which is at the desk; I further ask unanimous consent 
the resolution be agreed to, that the motion to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. GRAHAM. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I will be very brief. To my colleague and good friend 
Senator Schumer, I want to let you know that 99 Senators agree with 
what you said about Senator Feinstein. We all hope--I am the ranking 
member of the Judiciary. She is a dear friend, and we hope for her 
speedy recovery and return back to the Senate.
  But with all due respect to my colleague Senator Schumer, this is 
about a handful of judges that you can't get the votes for. I have been 
a pretty consistent vote in the Committee on the Judiciary in a 
bipartisan fashion. I understand you won the election and we lost. I 
want to make sure we process judges fairly.
  The reason this is being made is to try to change the numbers on the 
committee in a way that I think would be harmful to the Senate and to 
pass out a handful of judges that I think should never be on the bench.
  With that in mind and with all due respect to Senator Feinstein, I 
object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here for now the 21st in my 
series of speeches about the scheme to capture and control our Supreme 
Court, a scheme to which rightwing special interests have devoted 
hundreds of millions of dark money dollars. The ingredients in this 
noxious cocktail are creepy rightwing billionaires, phony front groups, 
amenable justices, large sums of money, and secrecy.
  This month, we have gotten a whole new look at how these ingredients 
mix.
  According to extraordinary reporting by ProPublica, for more than 20 
years, Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted luxury trips, virtually 
every year, from billionaire Harlan Crow without disclosing them. Here 
is how ProPublica described it:

       [Thomas] has vacationed on Crow's superyacht around the 
     globe. He flies on Crow's Bombardier Global 5000 jet. He has 
     gone with Crow to the Bohemian Grove, the exclusive 
     California all-male retreat, and to

[[Page S1160]]

     Crow's sprawling ranch in East Texas. And Thomas typically 
     spends about a week every summer at Crow's private resort in 
     the Adirondacks.

  One of those trips has been valued at more than $500,000.
  We have heard from civil servants who have to report a gift of $5. 
This Justice received a gift of a trip that they valued at $500,000. It 
was a trip to Indonesia on Crow's private jet, followed by, and I quote 
here, ``nine days of island-hopping . . . on a superyacht staffed by a 
coterie of attendants, and a private chef.'' And that is just one 
excursion. No telling how many others there were.
  None of this was disclosed. The supposed rationale was that it was 
all ``personal hospitality.'' So let's set aside for one second the 
question of whether this actually was personal hospitality. Let's 
presume that there was personal hospitality here somewhere. What that 
overlooks is the problem of the personal hospitality exemption, which 
covers exemption from disclosure of ``food, lodging, or entertainment 
received as personal hospitality of an individual.'' Food, lodging, or 
entertainment--not transportation, not travel, not trips on Harlan 
Crow's private jet.
  ProPublica was able to identify multiple trips that Thomas took on 
Crow's jet, and each one of those trips seems to be a slam dunk 
violation of this provision--not food, not lodging, not entertainment. 
Transportation.
  It does not stop there. Additional reporting by ProPublica revealed 
more of Crow's undisclosed generosity. In 2014, Crow purchased from 
Thomas and his relatives three properties in Georgia, including the 
home where Thomas's mother lives. There seemed to be more collateral 
gifts in the form of renovations and an agreement that Thomas's mother 
would live there rent-free for the rest of her life.
  There is much more to learn about this transaction, but back to the 
disclosure, here is what the law requires for property disclosures. It 
requires the disclosure of any purchase, sale, or exchange during the 
preceding calendar year which exceeds $1,000 in real property, other 
than property used solely as a personal residence of the reporting 
individual. If it is not your home, if it is any other real property, 
and if it is worth more than $1,000, the law requires that it be 
reported. Thomas disclosed none of this on the annual disclosure forms 
required by law.
  This law applies across the government. This isn't something special 
for the Supreme Court. But transparency is especially important for 
judges, who must recuse themselves from cases if there is even an 
appearance of impropriety.
  Purchasing Thomas's property and offering him free international 
vacations weren't the only favors bestowed by the billionaire. In 2011, 
the New York Times reported on him having ``done many favors for the 
justice and his wife,'' including using his company to finance what the 
Times called ``the multimillion-dollar purchase and restoration'' of a 
property where Justice Thomas's mother used to work; donating $175,000 
to a Savannah library project dedicated to Justice Thomas; giving 
Justice Thomas a $19,000 Bible that belonged to Frederick Douglass; and 
``providing $500,000 for Ginni Thomas [his spouse] to start a Tea 
Party-related group.''
  Well, could any of that raise an appearance of impropriety or was it 
purely ``personal,'' nothing to do with the Court? Well, let's have a 
look at a picture that shows us a little illumination of that.
  This is a painting that Harlan Crow commissioned during one of 
Thomas's visits to Crow's private, lakeside, Adirondack retreat. On the 
right here is Crow himself. Next to him is Justice Thomas.
  Crow sits on the board of two conservative organizations that file 
briefs before the Supreme Court. Crow is also a donor to the Federalist 
Society, from which Trump's infamous Supreme Court list emerged. By the 
way, dark money surged into the Federalist Society during that period. 
Crow is also a political donor to Republican politicians.
  Investigation would show whether all this amounted to enough business 
before the Court to create a conflict of interest, but the Supreme 
Court won't permit any investigation of its members.
  Here on the left is the infamous Leonard Leo, the man behind that 
Trump Supreme Court list, whose three new Justices created the far-
right supermajority that Justice Thomas now enjoys. Leo's front group, 
the Judicial Crisis Network, bought the campaign ads for the three 
Justices, paid for with dark money.
  Here is a graphic I have used before showing Leonard Leo's flotilla 
of front groups that he uses. He has more. This is just one assortment 
of his front groups.
  Here is the Judicial Crisis Network, which took checks as big as $17 
million from anonymous donors and used that money to spend on ads for 
the confirmation of the three new Justices.
  Leo is the one who helped the rightwing billionaires knock out 
Harriet Miers. Do you remember when she was a nominee for the Supreme 
Court by a Republican President? Knocked her out to make room for none 
other than Sam Alito to get onto the Court.

  The campaign Leo oversaw by the billionaires to capture the Court has 
been tallied at more than $580 million--$580 million--much of it dark 
money. And he recently received from another creepy rightwing 
billionaire a $1.6 billion slush fund into yet another 501(c)(4) front 
group.
  So it is deeply misleading to claim that Justice Thomas never 
vacationed with people who had business before the Court. Leonard Leo's 
business is the Court. The creepy billionaire's campaign was to capture 
the Court. Leo was the billionaire's contractor for construction of the 
Court that dark money built.
  Personal hospitality. After Thomas gets on the Court, a major 
Republican donor befriends him, with half a million dollars for his 
spouse's activist group, a renovated home for his mother, and lavish 
undisclosed vacations, at which Thomas was sometimes accompanied by 
rightwing activists at the center of the scheme to capture the Court. 
And we are supposed to believe this is all legit? I don't think so.
  Guess who else doesn't think so. Justice Thomas, who knew this 
smelled enough that he broke the disclosure law repeatedly to keep it 
secret.
  Guess who else doesn't think so. Ask other Federal judges. They can't 
get away with this personal hospitality nonsense. They know that this 
is wrong and that it is embarrassing to the judiciary. That is why the 
Judicial Conference just cracked down on the personal hospitality 
shenanigans of their supreme court colleagues.
  Thomas is feeling enough heat that he even released a public 
statement. ``Early in my tenure at the Court,'' he said, ``I sought 
guidance from my colleagues and others in the judiciary, and was 
advised that this sort of personal hospitality . . . was not 
reportable'' and that he has ``always sought to comply with disclosure 
guidelines.''
  Wow, where to begin. First, who ``advised'' Thomas that this 
``personal hospitality . . . was not reportable''? Whoever it was, they 
were wrong. I have spoken before about this personal hospitality issue. 
The reporting exemption for personal hospitality covers ordinary gifts 
of ``food, lodging, and entertainment'' from friends and family. There 
is not an exemption for transportation, for all that flying around the 
world in private jets. It just isn't there.
  We don't know who advised him, but I can pretty surely tell you who 
didn't advise him; that is, the formal committees of the Judicial 
Conference that advise on ethics and financial disclosure issues. They 
have committees for this. That would be the obvious place to go for 
real advice. Yet all indications are that he did not. I suspect that 
Thomas knew they would not like the facts that he would have to 
disclose if he were to ask them in candor to offer an opinion on his 
situation. He also, I suspect, knew that he would not like the answer 
he would get. So he just didn't file.
  The recent definition of ``personal hospitality'' that the Judicial 
Conference announced in response to 2 years of urging from me was 
intended to clarify what was already prohibited--a clarification that 
every other branch had already issued. And the reporting law never 
exempted private jet travel.
  Thomas actually knew this because he had reported flying on Crow's 
private jet before, back in 1997. What changed?

[[Page S1161]]

  Federal law is crystal clear on the need to report real estate 
transactions worth over $1,000. The law is so clear that CNN reported 
yesterday that Thomas will amend his disclosure report to include that 
sale.
  According to what CNN called ``a source close to Thomas,'' Thomas 
``has always filled out his forms with the help of his aides,'' and he 
didn't think he needed to report the sale because he didn't make any 
money off it. Well, that excuse might be believable if the statutory 
language weren't so clear--crystal clear--and if Thomas weren't what 
one commentator has called a ``repeat offender'' at disclosure.
  In 2011, Thomas had to amend 13 years' worth of financial disclosure 
reports to add his wife's income from the Heritage Foundation, a dark 
money, conservative outfit which also files amicus briefs at the 
Supreme Court. He said it was a ``misunderstanding.''
  Here is what he misunderstood: Financial Disclosure Report form; B, 
spouse's noninvestment income. ``If you were married during any portion 
of the reporting year, complete this section.'' Income: None or date 
and source. That is not complicated. Those instructions are simple. 
And, like his private jet travel, Justice Thomas had reported his 
wife's income before, back in 1996. What changed?
  Congressman Hank Johnson and I sent a bicameral letter to Chief 
Justice Roberts urging him to get his courthouse in order and set up a 
means to investigate these and other serious allegations of 
misconduct. We also sent a letter to the Judicial Conference calling 
for the Conference to refer Justice Thomas to the Attorney General for 
failure to report his real estate transaction with Crow.

  Here is how that works under the ethics law:

       The head of each Agency, or the Judicial Conference, shall 
     refer to the Attorney General the name of any individual 
     which such official or committee has reasonable cause to 
     believe has willfully failed to file a report or has 
     willfully falsified or willfully failed to file information 
     required to be reported.
       The Attorney General [in turn] may bring a Civil Action 
     against any individual . . . who knowingly or willfully fails 
     to file or report any information that such individual is 
     required to report.

  That is not complicated.
  And the Supreme Court is completely alone here in this peculiar 
approach to these issues. Wherever else you go in government, you will 
find an ethics code, and you will find a process for investigating and 
enforcing the ethics rules.
  Congress has Ethics Committees. The executive branch has an ethics 
office and inspectors general. Federal courts have their own ethics 
process. Only the Supreme Court has none of that. No designated place 
to submit complaints. No investigative mechanism to review complaints. 
No impartial panel to decide complaints. No transparency.
  All of that needs to change if we are to rebuild confidence in our 
highest Court.
  Without investigation, it is impossible to determine if Justice 
Thomas violated still another Federal law by participating in cases 
implicating his wife's political activities. We need investigation to 
find out whether he broke that law.
  Without investigation, there is no way to evaluate the ethics of the 
20-year, $30 million private judicial lobbying campaign run by 
rightwing political activists who wined and dined Justices Thomas, 
Alito, and Scalia--the three Justices who, as the New York Times 
described it, ``proved amenable.'' Amenable.
  Without any prospect of investigation, there is little reason for a 
Justice to comply with the ethics standards. When there is no ref, 
there is ultimately no rules. The rule that clearly pertains is that it 
is not OK to judge one's own case. That rule is so obvious, I hardly 
need to state it, and that rule is so old it is in Latin: ``Nemo judex 
in sua causa.'' No one should be judged in their own case. We know that 
Justice Thomas is familiar with this rule because he cited it in an 
opinion he wrote just a few years ago when he noted that ``At common 
law, a fair tribunal meant that `no man shall be a judge in his own 
case.' ''
  This good old rule, grounded in history and tradition, the present 
Supreme Court constantly and flagrantly flouts. That must stop. The 
Justices have lost the benefit of the doubt--240 years the Court went 
without needing this, but this Roberts Court has squandered the 
public's confidence with its behavior, and now there must be rules and 
process.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee, along with my subcommittee, will hold 
a hearing to consider these issues. I hope our colleagues will take it 
seriously. Congressman Hank Johnson and I have introduced the Supreme 
Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, which would solve a lot of 
this mess--this big, tragic, unnecessary, self-inflicted mess.
  Let me conclude where I began, with that noxious cocktail of creepy 
rightwing billionaires, phony front groups, amenable Justices, large 
sums of money, and secrecy. It is a toxic brew. The ethics failures at 
the Court are just one part of that stinking cocktail. We have Justices 
picked in some backroom at the Federalist Society by creepy 
billionaires to put on a list for Donald Trump. We have Justices who 
came through a confirmation process so tainted with influence that the 
FBI was breaking its own procedures in background investigations and 
Senators were pulling screeching 180s on confirming Supreme Court 
Justices in an election year. Flotillas of front group amici--amici 
curiae--who won't tell who orchestrates and funds them appear in Court 
to tell those Justices what to do. And the Justices, with astonishing 
statistical reliability, do as they are told.

  To get the results they want, the Justices smash through precedent, 
violate so-called conservative judicial principles, make up false 
facts, and change the applicable legal standards. All of this mess--all 
of it--is the product of that toxic brew of creepy rightwing 
billionaires, phony front groups, amenable Justices, large sums of 
money, and secrecy.
  For now, let's at least fix the ethics mess and bring the Supreme 
Court into alignment with the rest of the Federal courts. The highest 
Court should not have the lowest standards.
  To be continued.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. If I may interrupt the distinguished Senator from 
Alaska for 1 minute to do some closing business and then leave her the 
floor.

                          ____________________