[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 151 (Tuesday, September 19, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4572-S4582]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

     MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                   APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2024--Resumed

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume legislative session and the consideration of H.R. 4366, which 
the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4366) making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024, and 
     for other purposes.
  Pending:
       Schumer (for Murray-Collins) amendment No. 1092, in the 
     nature of a substitute.
       Murray amendment No. 1205 (to amendment No. 1092), to 
     change the effective date.
       Murray motion to suspend rule XVI for the consideration of 
     Schumer (for Murray-Collins) amendment No. 1092 (listed 
     above) to the bill.
       Schumer motion to commit the bill to the Committee on 
     Appropriations, with instructions, Schumer amendment No. 
     1230, to change the effective date.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 336

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the Senate still mandates a COVID booster 
vaccine for pages. The Senate COVID vaccine mandate for pages continues 
despite the fact that the Senate voted 83 to 11 to repeal the military 
COVID vaccine mandate. So why in the world would we continue a mandate 
on pages that we have repealed for our soldiers? Is there any science 
to support continuing this mandate? The answer is an emphatic no.
  The science has been clear since the early spring of 2020. Healthy 
children are not seriously affected by COVID. In fact, several large 
studies show that healthy children are rarely hospitalized and that 
deaths from COVID in healthy children are virtually nonexistent.
  Dr. Martin Makary of Johns Hopkins describes a large, nationwide 
study in Israel that found that the risk of COVID death in people under 
30 with two vaccines was essentially zero. A nationwide study from 
Germany showed zero COVID deaths among children over 5 who had no 
comorbidities. Even the head of the WHO, Soumya Swaminathan, concluded 
that there is no evidence right now that suggests healthy children and 
adolescents need boosters. Yet here we are, with Democrats desperately 
clinging to COVID vaccine mandates for young people who have 
essentially zero risk of dying from COVID.
  Common sense should prevail, and the Senate should repeal this 
mandate, just as we did for our young soldiers. We shouldn't allow 
politics to infect and cloud commonsense judgment.
  The vaccine committees that make recommendations for vaccines 
actually don't recommend COVID boosters for young, healthy individuals. 
The FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee 
voted to limit COVID vaccines to adults over 65. They wanted, because 
of the risk profile of the COVID vaccine, to limit it to people who 
were at risk for dying from COVID. A CDC vaccine panel also voted 
against recommending boosters for young, healthy individuals. But these 
committees that have lifelong scientists on them who voted not to 
advise the booster vaccine for adolescents were overruled by a 
political appointee, Biden appointee Rochelle Walensky.
  Dr. Paul Offit, who is the director of the Vaccine Education Center 
and professor of pediatrics and infectious disease at Children's 
Hospital in Philadelphia, wrote that ``a healthy young person with [two 
COVID vaccines] is extremely unlikely to be hospitalized with covid, so 
the case for risking any side effects--such as myocarditis--diminishes 
substantially.'' Dr. Offit, a lifelong proponent of vaccines, even 
advised his own son not to get the COVID booster.
  The argument against mandating COVID boosters on young, healthy 
people is not just that they are unnecessary but that the COVID 
boosters may actually harm young individuals. Reports of heart 
inflammation or myocarditis after COVID vaccines have been consistent 
and worldwide.
  A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association Cardiology 
examined 23 million people across Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden 
and found that the risk of myocarditis increased with COVID 
vaccination, particularly after the second dose. This is exactly why 
several European countries, including Germany, France, Sweden, Denmark, 
and Norway, restrict the use of COVID vaccines among young, healthy 
people. Some countries, such as South Africa and England, recommend 
only one COVID vaccine to avoid the risk of myocarditis.

[[Page S4573]]

  A study in the Journal of Medical Ethics similarly found about 1.5 
cases of myocarditis per 10,000 COVID vaccines but with 80 percent of 
the kids who suffer from a heart inflammation still having symptoms 3 
months later.
  Drs. Prasad and Knudsen looked at 29 studies across 3 continents and 
also found an increase in myocarditis after COVID vaccines. The studies 
reviewed by Prasad and Knudsen showed a little more than 2 cases of 
myocarditis per 15,000 vaccines.
  Even the CDC admits that myocarditis occurs about once per 15,000 
vaccines.
  Dr. Tracey Beth Hoeg looked at the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting 
System and found 1.62 adverse cardiac events per 10,000 vaccines. Now, 
that doesn't sound like a high number, but we are talking about a 
perfectly healthy kid. How would you feel if your perfectly healthy 
young football player or band member is given the vaccine and comes 
home with a heart inflammation? It is actually diagnosed with rising 
heart enzymes the same way that a heart attack is diagnosed. Hoeg found 
that the risk of myocarditis was five times greater than the risk of 
hospitalization from COVID.
  So you are asking yourself, well, could my kid go to the hospital or 
could he get a heart inflammation? Both are rare, but the chance of 
your kid getting a heart inflammation from the vaccine is five times 
greater than your kid being hospitalized from COVID.
  The Vaccine Safety Datalink similarly found a little over 2 cases of 
myocarditis per 15,000 vaccines.
  This is across the scientific literature, across all the continents, 
across the world, and is a consistent finding that even our government 
admits to. But the Democrats want submission. They don't want you to 
have the choice to keep your kid safe and make a decision whether or 
not your kid, who may well have already had COVID, needs yet another 
vaccine.
  Why are we forcing these kids to do something that I would say is 
against medical advice to be a page in our program here? The Senate 
continues to look away from all the evidence of myocarditis. In each of 
these studies, the risk of myocarditis increases with each vaccine. 
About 90 percent of the myocarditis or heart inflammation occurs after 
the second vaccine. Yet, inexplicably, the Senate pages are being 
mandated to take three vaccines. There are all kinds of compromises. 
You could say one; you could say two; but three--you are increasing the 
risk with each successive vaccine. Not only are three COVID vaccines 
unwarranted for young, healthy individuals, this mandate actually risks 
their health.
  It is the height of malpractice to subject young, healthy kids to 
three COVID vaccines. In fact, nowhere in the examination or discussion 
of whether they should have the vaccine is there any discussion of 
whether they have had COVID.
  So what is a vaccine? It is meant to simulate having had the 
infection. Shouldn't they tell us the data on children or adults? If 
you have had the infection, what is your chance of getting it again? 
What is your chance of going to the hospital? What is your chance of 
dying from COVID if you have already had it? They won't tell us for 
adolescents because the answer is zero.
  Originally, the logic of advocates for the COVID vaccine mandates 
argue that the vaccines were not necessarily for the children but to 
protect their parents and grandparents. This argument now holds no 
water, as even the zealous advocates of mandates, such as Biden's CDC 
Director Rochelle Walensky, admit that COVID vaccines do not anymore 
prevent transmission. So the side of the people promoting these 
mandates admits they don't stop transmission. Now, they may well still 
reduce hospitalization and death if you are in the target category--the 
elderly or those with health disease--but for young, healthy kids, 
there is no effect other than to increase their risk of a heart 
inflammation.
  A Danish study confirms that by December 2021, the COVID vaccine's 
effectiveness was less than 10 percent. The virus had mutated on, and 
the vaccine had not been changed.
  A study from January 2022 of over 1.2 million children in New York 
shows that the vaccine effectiveness was 10 percent. It wasn't stopping 
transmission, it wasn't stopping them from getting the disease, and it 
wasn't protecting their health.
  No serious scientist now argues that COVID vaccines stop 
transmission--no one. Yet here we are, with Democrats saying: You are 
not smart enough to make your own decisions. We will make these medical 
choices for you.
  When we look at the effectiveness of the COVID booster, we ask, what 
is the science toward whether or not a booster is effective? Isn't this 
booster now formulated against the newer variants? Yes, the booster is 
directed against newer variants, but about every 3 months or so, the 
virus changes enough that the latest vaccine is no longer effective.
  In fact, the CDC has largely given up testing the boosters and the 
new vaccines for effectiveness. Instead, in pushing for all children to 
get COVID booster vaccines, the CDC doesn't argue that the booster 
stops transmission; it doesn't argue that it prevents hospitalization 
or death. So what argument does the CDC have for continuing to promote 
boosters on our children? The CDC readily admits the vaccines don't 
stop transmission in any group.
  As to hospitalization and death, the CDC can't show any evidence that 
the booster lessens hospitalization or death among young people. Why? 
Because the rate is already virtually zero. It is hard to prove that 
the booster is helping anything when no healthy kids are dying from 
COVID.
  The CDC can't prove that the booster helps because it is impossible 
to improve upon the already low incidence of severe disease among young 
people. In fact, when the CDC approved the COVID booster for children, 
they didn't even argue that it was effective or that it prevented 
anything; what they argued is that the kids will make antibodies if you 
give them a vaccine, which means absolutely nothing.
  I have challenged Anthony Fauci on this, on the lack of 
effectiveness. An antibody response simply means that the vaccine 
generates an immune response but tells you nothing about disease 
prevention. It tells you nothing about preventing hospitalization. It 
tells you nothing about infectiousness. It tells you nothing about 
death rate. In fact, you could give every kid in the country 100 
different COVID boosters, and they will make antibodies each time. That 
doesn't mean they need 100 boosters.
  What they have done is they have given up on trying to prove that the 
booster has any effect on their health, and they just want you to shut 
your eyes, be quiet, and do as you are told. This is the Democrat 
policy. This is the Democrat medical policy for you: Shut up and do as 
you are told. Take the injection. We don't care if your kid might get 
sick. We don't care if you might have a choice. We don't care if you 
have any say in your kid's medical care.
  In a free society, no one should be forced to undergo a medical 
procedure against their will. In a free society, no one should be 
forced to receive an injection into their body that they do not wish to 
have.
  The Democratic Party's support for medical choice seems selective and 
inconsistent. What ever happened to my body, my choice?
  Vaccine mandates for children, who are at virtually no risk for COVID 
death, create vaccine hesitancy among the public. The public is well 
aware that healthy children do not die from COVID, and they rightly 
have resisted COVID vaccines on their children. But the vast overreach 
of vaccine mandates actually creates among the public a tendency to 
doubt and disbelieve the government's overall vaccine message. Because 
of the dishonest, over-the-top mandates on children, the public wonders 
if the government messengers are downplaying other risks.
  It is, however, true that the vast majority of people at risk for 
serious COVID have indeed already been vaccinated. Over 97 percent of 
people over 65 watched the news, learned of their friends, watched 
their neighbors, found out who is dying, and they took the vaccine 
voluntarily.
  If vaccine advocates want the public to continue to listen to public 
health pronouncements, then they need to end the nonsensical vaccine 
mandates on our kids. A good start would be ending the ill-advised 
COVID booster mandate for our Senate pages.

[[Page S4574]]

  So, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on 
Rules and Administration be discharged from further consideration and 
the Senate now proceed to S. Res. 336; further, that the resolution be 
agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be 
considered made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I heard a 
very similar speech last week when Senator Paul came to the floor to 
offer this exact same resolution, and I came to the floor to offer the 
exact same objection. I guess we are going to be here next week and the 
week after having this same back-and-forth on the Senate floor.
  I don't know that this is the most important problem facing the 
country today, the question of whether a small number of Senate pages 
has a vaccine or not. I think Senator Paul's obsession with the page 
vaccine policy is a little weird and not squared with the actual 
priorities of the American public. But I will continue to come down 
here and object because it is important to know that there is no legal 
mandate that pages be vaccinated. It is a policy, not a mandate. 
Senator Paul is proposing a mandate--a mandate--through this resolution 
that under no circumstances can pages be required to have a vaccination 
as a condition of their employment here.
  I find Senator Paul's recitation of his body of evidence interesting. 
I don't dispute the fact that the vaccine today is much more 
efficacious on preventing serious illness and is not, like prior 
vaccines, effective at preventing transmission. But here are two things 
to say about that. Senator Paul says over and over again that if you 
are a healthy kid, you have nothing to worry about, that no healthy 
kids are dying. OK, that is broadly true. It is true that healthy 
children have very little risk of dying of COVID. But the assumption, 
then, is that every single page that is part of this program has no 
preexisting conditions, that every single page comes here with a clean 
bill of health. That is not true.

  There are pages here--just like our employees--who have preexisting 
conditions, and we have a responsibility for the young people who work 
for us. We have a long history in this country of requiring 
vaccinations for young people. Senator Paul objects to that policy, but 
it is long accepted that young people, during their school-age years, 
should have a set of vaccinations to keep them healthy. And if you have 
a preexisting condition, even as a child, you have a potential of dying 
from COVID.
  Guess what. COVID is the eighth leading cause of death for young 
people today. That is not insignificant. And so it is perfectly 
consistent with the general policy we have in this country of requiring 
students to get vaccines to require the same of the page population--
who, by the way, are students.
  The second thing to say about this resolution is this: Even if 
Senator Paul is correct--and I broadly would submit that he is--that 
this vaccine is really about preventing serious illness, not about 
preventing transmission, this resolution is permanent. This says that 
under no circumstances should a Senate page be required to have a 
vaccination.
  But what if a follow-on vaccine is more effective at preventing 
transmission? What if the next COVID variant is a more significant 
threat to children?
  This is a mandate. This says: No matter what the scientific 
recommendations are, under no circumstances--under no circumstances, no 
matter what the scientific recommendation is--can you mandate, can you 
require that a Senate page, as a condition of working in the Senate, 
have a vaccination.
  That is bad policy. I would rather have this question be up to the 
Attending Physician, to the adults who run the Page Program, than have 
mandates from the U.S. Senate about the healthcare policy of our pages.
  I think this is really bad policy, but I also think it is super 
dangerous because, really, the question of whether a handful of pages 
in the Senate have a vaccine is not worthy of a half an hour of back 
and forth between two U.S. Senators. What this ends up being is yet 
another wedge to try to drive apart the American public from a belief 
in science and vaccines.
  This is a longstanding effort by Senator Paul and others to question 
the efficacy of vaccines. It feeds into a broader narrative about the 
efficacy of science writ large, and that has devastating consequences 
for this country because, as people lose faith in medical 
recommendations, as fewer people get vaccines because they come under 
the belief that the vaccine will do more harm than good, people die.
  And so, by itself, this is bad policy, because this is part of a 
broad consensus in this country that students should get vaccinated for 
significant conditions, and this policy stands no matter what the 
future recommendations of medical professionals are.
  But I object to it just as strongly because of how it fits into this 
broader, incredibly dangerous narrative to try to undermine people's 
faith in science and vaccines. And for that reason, I would object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. President, the accusation has been made that my purpose 
is somehow to undermine vaccines and have people question vaccines. 
But, obviously, the arguments were not listened to because in no part 
of my arguments or any of my public statements have I ever said 
anything in general that vaccines are bad. In fact, as a physician, I 
am most fascinated by the development of vaccines. The stories of the 
development of the smallpox vaccine and the polio vaccine were all 
tremendous scientific successes, and there continue to be. My argument 
is simply for medical freedom.
  Now, there has been a disingenuous argument made by the other side. 
They say that I am proposing a mandate, that this will be a legal 
mandate and that there is no mandate.
  If you want to be a page, there is a mandate. Now, they say you can 
just choose not to be a page, but this affects the rest of our society.
  So if your kid gets into Yale or Princeton or Harvard or the 
University of Chicago, many of those schools follow the lead of the 
Senate, follow the lead of the Senate doctors, and say your kid has to 
have three vaccines. But if you look at the evidence carefully that I 
have laid out, you will find that the scientific studies across all 
continents, across the world, across the United States--studies of 
millions of people--show that the vaccines have some downside and 
danger, particularly for children.
  Not once have I said that the elderly shouldn't be vaccinated. In 
fact, for my 92-year-old and 86-year-old in-laws, we suggested and 
tried to get them the vaccine as soon as we could. My wife was 
vaccinated. Now, I chose not to be vaccinated because I had the disease 
in the first couple weeks of COVID and had immunity.
  And the studies turned out--and these are studies of over a million 
people in California and New York. The studies turned out to show that 
actually having had the disease does give you immunity, and it is 
actually twice as potent as the vaccine.
  When I say that, the left gets apoplectic, and they say: Oh, my 
goodness, you are saying people should just get sick to get immunity.
  I am not saying that at all. But I am saying that, if you have gotten 
sick, you have immunity. And we should be honest with people because 
some people have had two vaccines and they want to know: Do I need a 
third one?
  Well, let's release the data on people who have had two vaccines plus 
COVID, and tell us how many people are subsequently getting it again, 
going to the hospital, or dying. Wouldn't you want to know that before 
you take your third, fourth, fifth, six, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth 
vaccine? Release the data. But, in a free country, we make these 
decisions.
  The other side argued that, well, what if one of the pages has health 
conditions. No part of our resolution says anything about them not 
getting a vaccine. Anybody in this country can freely get a vaccine. If 
their parents and they decide to get a vaccine, by all means, do it. 
Nothing in my resolution would prevent pages or anyone else from 
getting a vaccine. What I am arguing for is freedom.

[[Page S4575]]

  As far as the idea that this will be permanent and unwavering and 
won't be able to recognize what new diseases come upon us, every new 
disease requires reevaluation--every new disease. It doesn't mean the 
concept of freedom changes. What would happen is everyone will still 
evaluate this.
  The evaluation of this vaccine when it first came out at the end of 
2020, early 2021, was different than it is now, frankly. It is also 
different if you have had it. People should just be honest with you.
  I am not saying don't take a booster or that you can't take a 
booster. Go take all you want. I am saying the government's job should 
be to give you information, and I am saying the opposite of what he 
actually made a point of.
  Vaccine hesitancy or people undermining the belief that vaccines work 
comes from people who tell you things that are dishonest and untrue. 
There is no science--and I am adamant about what I am saying here. 
There is no science that the booster for your children reduces the 
transmission of the disease. There is no reduction in your child's 
ability to get COVID if they take a COVID booster--zero. The other side 
accepts this. Rochelle Walensky, Biden's nominee, accepts this--no 
change in transmission with the vaccine.

  How about hospitalization and death? There is still some data that 
people at risk for this can have reduced hospitalization, not 
transmission. They can still catch it, but maybe reduced 
hospitalization and death.
  Most of this data came in the previous iterations, when we had the 
wild variety in 2020. Then we got Delta. Then we got Omicron. But we 
have now advanced two or three iterations out. And the one thing we are 
lucky about that the government should be honest with you is that with 
each successive iteration, with each successive mutation and variant, 
the good news is this: It has become less deadly. It has become less 
deadly because the virus is now less deadly but also because the 
community has more immunity. So immunity has developed; the virus has 
evolved to become less deadly, and we are in a much better situation.
  But government medicine and government health policy shouldn't be 
about telling Americans what to do. It should be about giving 
information. The government should never be in the business of 
mandating, whether it is masks or vaccines or any of this other stuff. 
You wear it. You do it if you want--your body, your choice.
  But there is a lot of conflicting data here, and you really need to 
be informed to make an informed choice. There is some data the 
government is still preventing from being released so you can't tell.
  With regard to the masks, we now know that there was a meta-analysis 
of 78 different randomized controlled studies called the Cochrane 
analysis, and they found that masks did not prevent the transmission in 
public. In fact, what they found was there was no evidence that more 
significant mandates or more significant use changed the transmission 
at all.
  This had been the accepted conclusion by all of the medical world 
before 2020. We had never advised masks in public for influenza because 
with influenza, the size of the virus--the same as the size of COVID--
is much smaller than the pores of the mask. We found people really 
cannot wear the masks without touching them. We found that air goes 
around the mask. But, ultimately, we looked at public, large 
populations, and we found that they just didn't prevent the disease.
  Does that mean you can't wear a mask? No. Wear a mask if you think it 
makes you more healthy. In the hospital, they said: Well, doctors wear 
them.
  Of course we do. If you go into a COVID patient's room--and I 
volunteered in the hospital after I got COVID. I got it very early, and 
I felt comfortable going in there because I had already had the 
disease. But wearing a mask made sense to go into the room of someone 
with COVID. We wore the N95 mask because it actually, if worn properly, 
will protect from the particles. We also washed our hands, wore gloves, 
and wore gowns. And as we came out, we took off the gloves, the gowns, 
and the masks and threw them away immediately. And we did it again into 
the next patient's room.
  Done properly, there can be some--it still doesn't work completely 
because, still, a lot of doctors and nurses got COVID, but it is 
probably worth a try.
  In the public setting, it just doesn't work, frankly. Nobody can do 
that. A lot of people don't know this, but the N95 mask--in which, 
actually, the pores are small enough--works with something called an 
electrostatic charge. And after you breathe into it for about 4 hours, 
the moisture from your exhaled breath actually changes the 
electrostatic charge, and it is not as effective in preventing the 
ingress or egress of the COVID virus.
  But, really, what we are arguing here--there can be two sides to 
every argument. What we are arguing about, what we are discussing is 
who should make the choice. The Democratic majority believes that they 
should make the choices for your healthcare and that kids belong to 
them.
  This is the same argument we had in education in Virginia, when you 
had the parents in Northern Virginia saying, ``We want to be involved 
in our children's education,'' and you had the Democratic nominee for 
Governor in Virginia come out in a debate and say that kids don't 
belong to their parents; the school will make these decisions; it is 
none of your business; stay out of it.
  That is what they are telling the pages and their parents--that it is 
none of their business, their healthcare.
  And it could be different for any of them. If a page had a kidney 
transplant or has leukemia and their parents want them to have the 
vaccine, it is probably a reasonable thing to do. But if they are young 
and healthy and have no medical problems, it turns out, if you look 
objectively at the data, that they have five times greater risk of 
getting a heart inflammation than they do of being hospitalized for 
COVID. These are the statistics. People should just be aware of that.
  And good, honest people could still disagree on this. But what 
happens in a free country is you make your decision. You make your 
decision of which doctor you take them to. If you don't appreciate the 
opinion of that doctor and you don't trust that doctor, you go to 
another. And sometimes, it is complicated. Sometimes, mothers and 
fathers don't agree.
  But who wants to give a political party the power to make these 
decisions for your children? How would you feel if your young, healthy 
football player or band member or choir member got the COVID vaccine 
and then has a heart problem that permanently impairs them for the rest 
of their life, when they had zero chance of dying from COVID and 
virtually no chance of being hospitalized?
  Wouldn't you want your government to release the data on what it 
means if your kid has already had COVID? Let's say your kid has already 
had one or two vaccines and they have already had COVID. What does that 
mean? Don't you think having COVID might replace the need for more 
vaccines?
  Your immunity is also broader. The vaccine gives immunity to one 
protein on the surface, the S protein on the surface of the cell. When 
you actually get infected, your body destroys the cells that have the 
virus in, and, as the virus empties out its inner contents, nucleic 
capsids and nuclear proteins, you actually get a broader immunity.
  Now, the left misinterprets this. The left says: You want everybody 
to get sick, and people are going to die.
  I don't want anybody to get sick. All I am telling you is people 
should be given the information. Most of us have had COVID. What does 
it mean? What does it mean if you have had two vaccines and COVID? What 
does that mean toward your future? What does it mean toward your need 
for more vaccines?
  But, ultimately, what we are talking about here is freedom. What we 
are talking about is who should make the medical choices: the 
government, the Democratic Party, or whether or not we should leave 
this to parents and their kids. And I, for one, say that we ought to 
have medical freedom. In a free country, every individual should be 
free to make those decisions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.


                       United Auto Workers Strike

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, right after workers for Stellantis--the old 
name of Stellantis was Chrysler, DaimlerChrysler. Their plant is in 
Toledo. They make the Jeep Cherokee. It

[[Page S4576]]

is made by union workers in Toledo, OH, my State. My wife and I each 
drive Jeep Cherokees. One of those cars once saved my life when a young 
high school kid, at 40 miles an hour in the middle of the day, ran a 
stop sign and hit the side of the car where I was sitting. There were 
essentially no injuries because these are well-made American cars by 
union labor.
  I was over to the picket line Friday morning. I talked with a lot of 
workers. I know many of them. There are 6,000 at this plant. And 
1,000--actually, 1,100 of these workers are at this Chrysler plant, 
this Stellantis plant in Toledo. Those 1,100 workers at the Jeep plant 
are on what is called a tiered wage system where they make fewer than 
$19-and-something an hour. They have been at this Jeep plant, some of 
them for 1 year, some of them 3 years, some of them 5 or 6 years, yet 
they make less than $40,000 a year as union workers.
  The reason for that is some years ago, when Chrysler--then Chrysler--
and GM were in real serious economic trouble, the union--the government 
helped, but the union, in order to save these plants, in order to save, 
essentially, the American automobile industry--they did major givebacks 
of their wages and their benefits.
  They set up--management insisted and the workers went along because 
they wanted to save these companies--they took major pay cuts and set 
up a tiered wage system. So new workers, hundreds and hundreds--over 
1,000 from this plant of 6,000 union workers--were making substandard 
wages.
  That is troubling enough that those workers, years later, are still 
making those substandard wages. In some cases, you can't support a 
family on these wages. Yet that is when Chrysler and GM were in such 
economic trouble.
  Since then, we know how well Chrysler--Stellantis now--and GM are 
doing. We know how well they are doing by a number of measurements. No. 
1, Chrysler--sorry, Stellantis; I always think of them as Chrysler and 
Jeep in my State. Stellantis made $12 billion just in this calendar 
alone. This company made $12 billion. When they were in trouble, the 
workers, by giving up a lot and making sacrifices, saved them. Now 
these companies are so profitable--$12 billion just this year alone, 
Stellantis--they have essentially given nothing back to the workers, 
and they are unwilling to provide the workers a decent benefit--
benefits, wages, all of those things.
  At the same time, I met an entry-level worker there. She just 
started. The CEO of Stellantis makes 850 times what this worker makes--
850 times what this worker makes. The CEO of Stellantis makes 365 times 
what the average worker in Chrysler--the average worker in Stellantis 
makes in that plant and other plants around the country.
  The fact is, these workers--clearly, we come down on the side of 
these workers. The industry has done very well because of America's 
economic system. The industry has done very well because they have had 
the opportunity to do well in this country because the workers 
sacrifice so much. That is why I will go back to the picket line.
  There may be picket lines and shutdowns and strikes in other parts of 
the auto industry. The public clearly sides with these workers. The 
public understands that these CEOs are making between $22- and $29 
million a year. The three CEOs have gotten 30-percent, 40-percent 
increases since the industry did so well.
  Again, a decade ago, workers were willing to give up a lot to keep 
these companies going. Now, they are immensely profitable--$12 billion 
in profits this year alone with the CEO making $22-23 million. The auto 
industry is simply not willing to come to the table and negotiate in 
good faith so these workers can share in the prosperity they created.
  We know it not only hurts those workers when they are making $16 an 
hour; it hurts the community. It hurts Toledo, Lucas County, Wood 
County--those communities that don't have the taxes they would if these 
workers were making decent wages. And they don't have the economic 
prosperity they would if workers were making decent wages and buying--
spending a little more at the grocery store, on movies, on clothes, and 
on all the things that help create a prosperous economy.
  No question, I will continue to stand with workers. I think most of 
the Senate stands with workers. I know most of the American people 
stand with these workers.
  I implore GM and Stellantis and Ford to come to the table and make a 
good faith, decent offer and get these workers back to work. They don't 
want to strike. Their backs are to the wall. They had to strike.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Nebraska.


                               Bidenomics

  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, when it comes to the economy, we hear a 
lot of statistics. Since President Biden took office and put his 
Bidenomics plan into action, prices have risen by 17.37 percent. Rent 
is up by 17 percent, grocery prices by 25 percent, and energy costs by 
43 percent. Gas prices have risen by an unbelievable 65 percent.
  As alarming as those percentages are, I am most concerned about the 
individuals who are hurting because of these increases. That is why I 
was struck by new numbers I saw last week from the Census Bureau. 
Bidenomics is making life harder for children in Nebraska.
  The number of children living in poverty in my home State increased 
by almost 5,000 from 2021 to 2022--5,000 more kids living in poverty. 
That is thousands more families who are living below the poverty line, 
thousands of families who are struggling to pay bills, to buy food, to 
afford a place to sleep. Some of these 5,000 children are from families 
who cannot afford any of these things. They are going hungry. They are 
couch surfing--or worse. That is Bidenomics in Nebraska.
  Bidenomics is making life harder for the more rural parts of 
Nebraska. Soaring prices caused by inflation are especially affecting 
those areas in my State. They are especially affecting kids in more 
rural areas. According to an analysis by an Omaha nonprofit, from 2021 
to 2022, there was a 25-percent increase in the number of kids below 
the poverty line who are located in nonmetro areas of Nebraska. A 
quarter more kids living outside urban areas come from families that 
are barely getting by.
  Some of these children live in sparsely populated areas where it can 
really take hours to get to the grocery store, the pharmacy, or to a 
hospital. When gas is 65 percent more expensive and groceries will 
break the bank, families are going to struggle with those long trips. 
They are in dire need of resources. But inflation is ripping away their 
ability to access those resources. That is Bidenomics in Nebraska.
  Bidenomics is making life harder for anyone who pays rent, mortgage, 
or utilities in Nebraska. The most basic of necessities--affording a 
place to live--is now a huge financial strain. Close to half of the 
renters in Nebraska are spending more than 30 percent of their income 
on housing. Almost 20,000 more renting households are considered 
``financially burdened.'' That is 20,000 more in just 1 year. That is 
Bidenomics in Nebraska.
  Bidenomics is making life harder for businesses and their employees. 
As rent encroaches on a larger percentage of people's incomes, the 
incomes themselves are getting smaller. Nebraska's median income 
declined by 3.6 percent in 2022. Businesses can't pay their employees 
as much when all of their money is being spent on rising utility and 
rent prices. Rising inflation means higher costs, lower salaries, and a 
harder time earning a living. That is Bidenomics in Nebraska.
  Mr. President, I am thankful that my home State of Nebraska has many 
nonprofits that are ready to help those who are struggling from 
inflation. These organizations make a real difference in people's 
lives, and they are part of a rich tradition of charity in my State. 
Charities can do good work to minimize damage, but they cannot do 
surgery on an injured economy. The only way to stitch our economy back 
up is to get rid of this administration's suffocating regulations once 
and for all. The Biden administration must hear. It is time for a new 
approach to the economy.
  So how do we heal the economy? We roll back the regulations that are 
still poisoning it, including those from the ironically named Inflation 
Reduction Act. We unleash American energy, which will lower the gas 
prices that

[[Page S4577]]

have climbed by 65 percent. We can heal our economy by turning the page 
on Bidenomics and adopting a new economic strategy, one focused on 
getting rid of wasteful policies and bringing down costs for everyday 
Americans.
  Nebraskans are experiencing Bidenomics. The American people are 
experiencing Bidenomics. Bidenomics is an economic plan that inflates 
prices, hurts real families, real children, real businesses, and real 
employees. The American people don't want to experience Bidenomics 
anymore.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                            Border Security

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I remember when title 42 went away--the 
COVID public health order that the Border Patrol used to expel people 
from the border region in the interest of public health. There were 
many people who expected a surge of migration recognizing what a 
moneymaking opportunity that human smuggling and drug smuggling is for 
the cartels that control much of the U.S.-Mexican border.
  And for a while it looked like maybe--just maybe--that surge would 
not happen. But despite the administration's best efforts to downplay 
or distract from the situation at the southern border, we now see the 
Biden border crisis in full flower.
  Preliminary data secured by the Washington Post shows that last 
month--last month--a record number of migrant families illegally 
crossed the southern border.
  In August, the Border Patrol arrested more than 91,000 migrants--in 
August--people who entered the United States as part of a family unit, 
the highest number we have seen in a single month. But it is not just 
the families; apprehension numbers have increased dramatically over the 
past couple of months in all categories.
  We have gone from just under 100,000 detentions in June to 132,000 in 
July, to more than 177,000 in August. I would point out that much of 
the migration we have seen into Texas has been seasonal because it has 
been very hot, and it is dangerous for migrants to make the dangerous 
trip from their home to our border. But that hasn't happened this year. 
It got worse and worse the hotter the summer months got.
  So when you include migrants processed through the ports of entry, 
the Washington Post is estimating roughly 230,000 migrant encounters in 
August--230,000.
  This would make it the busiest month for border crossings this 
calendar year. As I said, since title 42 ended in May, the Biden 
administration has tried to spike the ball and declare victory. They 
pointed to a temporary drop in border crossings and said this is the 
proof that their situation was under their control, but that is 
obviously not the case.
  We have just experienced the busiest month in family crossings on 
record and likely the busiest month for overall crossings this calendar 
year. As the New York Times reported, in August alone, nearly 82,000 
migrants passed through the Darien Gap, the sole land route to the 
United States from South America, describing it as ``by far the largest 
single-month total on record.''
  And the border crisis isn't getting any better. If anything, it is 
getting worse, and communities in Texas and those across the Nation are 
beginning to feel the strain. El Paso, for example, right across the 
border from Juarez, in West Texas, is in the midst of a surge in border 
crossings. It is seeing an average of 1,200 encounters per day.
  The leader of Rescue Mission El Paso, which provides migrants with 
food, clothing, and shelter, said:

       We've lost track of what capacity means. We are beyond 
     full.

  Further down the Texas-Mexico border is Eagle Pass, which experienced 
a mass crossing earlier this week. Between midnight on Sunday and 
Monday morning, more than 2,200 migrants crossed illegally. That is 
2,200 in 1 night. The migration surge is happening along the entire 
U.S.-Mexico border, but two areas in particular are under tremendous 
strain. One is the Tucson Sector, which covers most of the Arizona-
Mexico border. Border crossings in this sector have been on the rise, 
with agents apprehending as many as 2,000 migrants a day. This includes 
migrants from all over the world, even those from Senegal.
  It reminds me of, when I was in Yuma, AZ, with four Democratic 
Senators and four Republican Senators, we were welcomed by the Acting 
Border Patrol Chief, who said: Welcome to the Yuma Sector. Last year, 
we encountered people from 174 countries, speaking more than 200 
languages.
  Senator Kelly, the Senator from Arizona, was there and noted that 
Mexicali is a city in Northern Mexico with an airport. And so it was 
explained to us that what likely was happening is that human smugglers 
were facilitating the travel of migrants to Mexicali, where they could 
simply Uber over to the Border Patrol and claim asylum, and the Biden 
administration would make sure they were successfully deposited in the 
United States of America, perhaps to await an asylum hearing that may 
never occur.
  Well, given the spike in border crossings, the Border Patrol--it is 
no surprise--is struggling. The Agency doesn't have the facilities, the 
resources, or the personnel to manage an influx this large, and, 
actually, that is part of the plan.
  If you are a transnational criminal organization that profits from 
smuggling migrants and drugs across the border, what a tremendous idea: 
Let's flood the zone with migrants, and then when the Border Patrol is 
distracted or diverted elsewhere, then here come the drugs. And we saw 
last year alone 108,000 Americans died of drug overdoses, 71,000 from 
synthetic opioids like fentanyl.
  We know where it is coming from. The precursors come from China. It 
goes to Mexico. It is manufactured there, largely, to look like 
traditional pharmaceuticals, but they are contaminated with fentanyl. I 
was in Houston just last week, meeting with some parents who lost their 
children to fentanyl poisoning. I wear on my wrist--I typically don't 
wear things like this, but I have for the last 9 months. A father in 
Carrollton-Farmers Branch asked me to wear this band around my wrist in 
memory of his daughter who lost her life to fentanyl poisoning. It 
says, among other things, ``One pill can kill.''
  Now, the children who die of fentanyl poisoning, they don't know they 
are taking fentanyl. They think it is maybe something more innocuous, 
and that is part of the insidiousness of what the cartels are 
doing. They are using industrial-sized pill presses to make it look 
like things that certainly wouldn't kill you. Maybe it is not optimal, 
things like Xanax or Percocet or some other pharmaceutical drug, but, 
in fact, it is counterfeit and contaminated with fentanyl. And as I 
said, 71,000 Americans died last year alone as a result of synthetic 
opioid poisoning.

  So the Border Patrol can't keep up with the flooding of the zone, and 
here come the drugs, only to be distributed across the country in each 
of our communities by various criminal gangs. Well, because the Border 
Patrol can't keep up with the influx of people, they simply are now 
releasing them. That is right. Instead of returning them across the 
border, they are releasing them onto U.S. streets every day.
  And it is unclear, really, who these individuals are or how they are 
being released. How many of these migrants are asylum seekers who have 
completed a credible fear screening? How many are simply being paroled 
into the country with flimsy instructions and told to appear at an ICE 
office, Immigrations and Customs office, in the interior at their 
destination.
  How many are given a date to appear before an immigration judge, and 
how far away is that court date? I read recently in New York, an 
immigration court date could be as far as 10 years off. We don't have 
answers to these questions because the Biden administration has not 
been candid about exactly what is happening.
  They basically have hoped nobody is noticing what is going on, but we 
are noticing. And, oh, by the way, people like the Governor in 
Massachusetts, the mayors of New York City, of Chicago, and Washington, 
DC, they are noticing because these migrants, once they pass the border 
region, they go somewhere, and what we are seeing is the impact on 
cities very far away from the southern border.
  Well, the Biden administration keeps sweeping the problem under the 
rug and expecting us not to ask questions and conduct appropriate 
oversight. Last week alone, agents released 100 to

[[Page S4578]]

200 migrants a day near Nogales, AZ. The Tucson Sector is not alone. 
San Diego is also seeing a spike in border crossings. Last week, 
Customs and Border Protection closed one of two pedestrian crossings at 
the San Ysidro Port of Entry so personnel could help with the migration 
surge.
  Again, the Border Patrol doesn't have the space or the personnel to 
accommodate the flood of humanity coming across. Videos show hundreds 
of migrants are being released into the streets and sidewalks of San 
Diego, including migrants from as far away as Pakistan and China.
  Now, one of the things that amazes me, when President Biden appointed 
Vice President Kamala Harris as the border czar, she claimed that all 
of the flow of illegal immigration was as a result of local 
circumstances in Mexico or South America and as if we couldn't fix our 
border problems without basically nation building in one of those 
states. But either she does not understand or is unwilling to 
acknowledge that this is a global phenomenon. And who can blame some of 
these people coming across? If you think, Well, for a few thousand 
bucks, maybe I can make my way into the United States and stay there--
well, maybe it is a good bet.
  But it is a disaster when our immigration system is basically handed 
over to transnational criminal organizations that care nothing about 
the people and that care nothing about the drugs that are coming 
across; all they care about is the money. And they are getting richer 
by the day as a result of Biden border policies.
  Well, if there was any question about whether the Biden 
administration understands what is going on, recently, a migrant asked 
an agent if he could travel to Chicago, and the agent replied:

       You can do whatever you want. You're free.

  That is the Biden administration's border enforcement policies.

       You can do whatever you want. You're free.

  If there was any confusion about the Biden administration's catch-
and-release policies, well, that statement cleared it up.

       You can do whatever you want. You're free.

  This interaction happened to be captured on video, and it has made 
the rounds on social media and national news. And it has been viewed by 
people around the world. And, you know, when other people see that, do 
you think they are discouraged or deterred from coming to the United 
States through this illegal route? No. They are encouraged. It is like 
a magnet, which is why we are seeing the huge numbers that we continue 
to see.
  Again, it makes me think the Biden administration simply does not 
understand the dynamics at the border or, which is more likely the 
case, they simply don't care. You have to imagine there are people out 
there who are debating whether or not to make this dangerous journey.
  If they had any doubts about whether or not their journey would be 
successful, well, this video statement pretty much cleared that up. The 
secret is out.
  You know, it is ironic when I hear Secretary Mayorkas of the 
Department of Homeland Security or the President or the Vice President 
say: ``Don't come. Don't come,'' when almost every other message that 
people around the world are receiving is ``Come. You can make it. Just 
pay the money; take the dangerous journey; take the risk; pay these 
criminal organizations the cash they demand; and you can make it into 
the United States.''
  And, boy, have they come. People around the world see that America's 
borders are open. They see videos of migrants from all over the world 
being released in the United States and told ``you're free.''
  The Biden administration continues to create new incentives for 
migrants to make the dangerous journey to the border. President Biden 
has proven he is not only incapable of addressing this crisis, he is 
completely uninterested. He doesn't care. He apparently has no desire 
to enforce the law and secure the border. And the reason I conclude 
that is because if he did care, if he were willing to work with us to 
solve that problem, we are here ready to meet him halfway, but all we 
hear are crickets.
  He would rather appease the open borders base in his political party 
than take the steps needed to protect the American people.
  Border communities have endured the Biden border crisis for more than 
2\1/2\ years now, and they are bracing for yet another migration surge.
  Given the administration's complete and utter failure to address the 
crisis, it is time for Congress to step up. I am proud to cosponsor the 
Secure the Border Act, which was introduced by my friend and fellow 
Texan, Senator Cruz. This legislation would give the Border Patrol the 
tools they need in order to secure the border and safeguard the 
American people. It includes more agents to enforce the law to stop 
anyone or anything that doesn't legally enter the United States.
  It restricts the Biden administration's ability to release thousands 
of migrants into the United States under the weak guise of parole. This 
is not parole in the criminal law sense where somebody is released from 
jail. This is a mechanism under our immigration laws where people are 
simply released and told: You have 2 years in the United States, and 
come back and check with us later on about staying longer. There is no 
such thing as a temporary program. All of this becomes permanent.
  But this legislation tightens asylum standards that prevent migrants 
with frivolous asylum claims from gaming the system. This legislation 
implements a range of reforms that address the humanitarian and 
security crisis at the border. It passed the House in May and has been 
cosponsored by more than half of the Republican conference in the 
Senate.
  My hope was that this would serve as a starting point for the Senate 
to begin discussing ways to secure the border and protect the American 
people. It would also be nice--and I have had this conversation with 
the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, on which I serve, the 
Senator from Illinois, who so far has declined to consider a markup of 
any immigration bills or border security bills. In the Senate, that is 
the committee of jurisdiction on which I sit, and I happen to be the 
ranking member of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee.
  Well, it is clear that President Biden's approach to the border is 
not sustainable. His administration has rolled out one incentive after 
another to encourage--not discourage, not deter, but to encourage--
people from around the world to come to our borders and enter our 
country.
  That is the reason we are experiencing a humanitarian and security 
crisis. The record migration levels of the last year have tested law 
enforcement, tested our cities and nonprofits in ways that I have never 
seen before--a record number of migrants, soaring demands for 
resources, dwindling budgets, overworked personnel--and we haven't even 
talked about the impact of this uncontrolled migration on our local 
hospitals and our education systems and the like. All of them have been 
operating under incredible strain for more than 2 years. So it is past 
time to adopt policies that impose consequences. That is what the 
Border Patrol said we need, is we need consequences to illegal 
immigration.
  Look, I think that legal immigration--orderly, humane legal 
immigration--has been one of the greatest things that America has ever 
embraced. It has made us the country we are today, the most prosperous 
in the world, the most diverse. But surrendering our legal immigration 
system to drug cartels and human smuggling organizations is a recipe 
for disaster--what we are seeing right now.
  Well, any time the Biden administration would like to engage on this 
topic, I am standing ready, willing, and able to do that, but so far, 
even when we have bipartisan legislation like the Bipartisan Border 
Solutions Act that Senator Sinema and I and Congressman Cuellar and 
Congressman Tony Gonzales introduced a couple of years ago, there has 
been zero interest by the Biden administration and no markups in the 
Judiciary Committee simply to consider that and come up with some 
consensus on how to deal with this disaster.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S4579]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Duckworth). The Senator from Vermont.


                                  FEMA

  Mr. WELCH. Madam President, I want to thank my colleagues, and I want 
to thank the administration for the response to the devastating floods 
that we experienced in Vermont this August.
  I am here to make a report and also to make a plea that we replenish 
the Disaster Relief Fund in the FEMA budget so that the work that needs 
to be done in Vermont to help our farms, our families, our communities 
recover will continue to be done.
  Today, I had a telephone conversation that was set up by Senator 
Sanders. Our Governor was on the phone, and my colleague Congresswoman 
Balint was on the phone with the FEMA Administrator. And she has been 
doing a tremendous job. She has been extremely responsive. We are all 
grateful to her for that work. But what she did make very clear is that 
it is absolutely essential to the well-being of FEMA's capacity to 
continue to provide a response that this budget be supplemented and the 
FEMA supplemental be passed.

  So I urge my colleagues--and, again, I want to thank them--from both 
sides of the aisle who have approached me and said: Peter, your folks 
have been hammered by the natural disaster, and we will be here to help 
you. But there is a long way from where we are with the precarious 
activities going on in the House.
  First of all, we are pretty proud of the response. President 
Coolidge, who was our President in 1927 and was a Vermonter from 
Plymouth, VT, toured the flood damage when we had a catastrophic flood 
in 1927. And he nicknamed the State ``a brave little State.'' And that 
is who we are in Vermont. And his appellation of that term was his 
recognition of the indomitable spirit that our people in Vermont have 
to pick themselves up, to pull together, and to rebuild.
  Nearly a century later, of course, this August we experienced another 
devastating flood. What we experienced in July and August was nothing 
short of catastrophic. Towns across the State were devastated, with 
homes and businesses and farms completely destroyed.
  You can see here, this is our capital, Montpelier. And that was right 
after the rains that were parked over Montpelier and just would never 
leave. It is dry now, but these businesses along Main Street have not 
reopened. Some have; many haven't. To some extent, their decision is, 
will the FEMA aid be there so that they have a chance to open those 
doors and make up for the lost income and, hopefully, revive that 
downtown.
  Damage estimates are still coming in; but, currently, it is totaling 
in the hundreds of millions of dollars for our very, very small State.
  The impact on Vermont's farmland is stunning. This is Paul Mazza's 
farm. That farm, with vegetables, row crops, that was under tremendous 
amounts of water. When the water receded--the crops, the berries, the 
pick-your-own crops are not only important to families and nutrition, 
but it was a revered activity by families in Vermont to come to Paul's 
farm and pick their berries with their kids. He is not going to be able 
to harvest any berries this year.
  By the way, in terms of the damage that was done, USDA's Natural 
Resources Conservation Service estimates anywhere between 145,000 and 
686,000 acres of agricultural land in the State was impacted by 
flooding.
  The Conant's Riverside Farm, which I visited along with the Governor 
and Senator Sanders, half their hay and corn was impacted by the 
flooding--silk from the flood-covered corn that was used to feed their 
cows. There is real question about how they are going to make it 
through the winter because what they do is grow the crop and store it 
to feed to their animals over the winter.
  The Foote Brook Farm, which is owned by Joie and Tony Lehouillier in 
Johnson, VT, is one of the main services of food for that community in 
Johnson. The grocery store in that town was totally flooded out but 
will be reopening. Their farm was flooded, too. They had over $100,000 
in losses. And what was really bad this time, they also lost a lot of 
their equipment.
  I do thank the administration, President Biden, and FEMA. I 
acknowledge the tremendous work that Governor Scott and his team have 
been doing staying on top of this. And there has been a tremendous 
effort on the part of Senator Sanders, who has been the leader of our 
delegation of three here in the U.S. Congress, but we have got to get 
that FEMA supplemental passed.
  While $16 billion in FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund is critical, the 
Vermont delegation, as I mentioned, is pushing for more because, with 
what has happened, regrettably, to our colleagues in Hawaii and the 
hurricane in Florida has added to the challenge and of the need. We 
need to increase FEMA's cap for hazard mitigation. We need to make 
small business loans forgivable.
  If you are a small business and you have just implemented a plan to 
expand and you borrowed money from the bank in order to do it, you 
can't afford to take out more loans. So it is really essential that we 
make it possible for folks to get grants--these businesses that are so 
critical to our communities--rather than saddle our small businesses 
with more debt.
  We also need to expand the USDA's Emergency Grant Relief Program for 
our farmers.
  (Mr. MARKEY assumed the Chair.)
  Mr. President, even if the world has moved on for other parts of the 
country, Vermont still needs help.
  One of the heartbreaking situations that you see, we visit when there 
is a farm, there is a family whose home has been destroyed, a business 
that can't open, and do all we can to make certain the relief gets 
there. But if it is your home that you can't get back into, if it is 
your business that you are not certain at all you can reopen, if it is 
your farm where the crops have been destroyed, there is a lot of 
suffering that continues. And it takes an immense amount of courage. 
What we have to do is make certain that folks who are willing to 
rebuild and come up from the floodwaters to do their work again, that 
we make certain we do our work here. That means getting the FEMA 
supplemental passed and enacted into law with the signature of 
President Biden.
  Our farmers, like the seventh generation Conant family farm, they 
need the support of Congress to get through the flooding. Our 
businesses on Main Street that hope to reopen need the support of 
Congress and the FEMA resources. And, of course, our homeowners, 
including folks who have mobile homes that were washed away, they 
absolutely need the assistance in order to get back into a safe and 
secure home.
  So my request to my colleagues is to do what all of us have done for 
each other when the people we represent have been on the receiving end 
of a catastrophic natural disaster, and that is to make certain that we 
come to the aid of our fellow citizens. And the way we can do that is 
by the passage of the FEMA supplemental request.
  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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.


                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I will call this my ``let's say'' 
speech. Lawyers know what a hypothetical is. We will talk about some 
hypotheticals related to the scheme to capture the Court.
  Let's say, Mr. President, that you are a creepy billionaire and it is 
your plan to capture and control the Supreme Court, to take it over 
just like 19th-century robber barons would have taken over and captured 
the railroad commission that set the rates for their own railroad.
  Let's say you sent millions of dollars--secret dollars--to the 
Federalist Society for it to funnel money to its employee and your 
operative, Leonard Leo.
  Let's say that Leonard Leo got his cred with you and your rightwing 
billionaire pals when he helped you kill the nomination to the Supreme 
Court of President George W. Bush's friend and White House Counsel 
Harriet

[[Page S4580]]

Miers-- a political hit job from the far right against a Republican 
President's nominee, which produced none other than Sam Alito.

  Let's say you also sent millions of dollars to Leonard Leo's Judicial 
Crisis Network, a fictitious-named front group for another front group 
operating out of the same hallway, on the same floor, in the same 
building as the Federalist Society.
  Let's say you sent the Judicial Crisis Network secret millions of 
dollars--checks as big as $15 million, checks as big as $17 million--to 
run ads against Merrick Garland to help Mitch McConnell block his 
confirmation by the Senate.
  Let's say you also sent millions of dollars, secret dollars, 
identity-laundered through front groups, like 501(c)(4)s and Donors 
Trust, which exist for the purpose of scrubbing off your identity from 
your money, and through the 501(c)(4)s and through Donors Trust to 
Republican political groups, like super PACs controlled by Mitch 
McConnell.
  Let's say, with those secret millions funneled into those super PACs, 
you acquired loyalty and obedience from Republican political figures.
  Let's say that worked. Let's say that for your millions of dollars to 
the Federalist Society, the Federalist Society allowed you to use its 
name on a list of Supreme Court nominees that you and your rightwing 
billionaire pals and Leonard Leo cooked up--a list that the Federalist 
Society never considered or approved, never an agenda item, never a 
vote, but a list from some back room of the Federalist Society, pulled 
together by Leo and the billionaires that Candidate Trump promised to 
follow.
  Let's say that for that Trump promise to let you pick Supreme Court 
Justices, you agreed to hold your nose and not object to Trump's 
candidacy.
  Let's say that Trump kept that promise and nominated your chosen ones 
to the Supreme Court, and let's say that when Trump kept that promise 
and nominated your chosen ones, you sent millions more to the Judicial 
Crisis Network and to Mitch McConnell's political operation, not just 
to stop Merrick Garland but to push the confirmation of your chosen 
ones: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
  Let's say that you funded dozens of front groups to bring cases and 
to file briefs at the Supreme Court at your orchestrated direction--10, 
11, 12, and in one case, it is 50 at a time--like piano keys on the 
piano, and you sent that message through those front groups in those 
briefs to remind your chosen ones what it is exactly that you wanted 
them to do in those cases.
  Let's say that the chosen ones produced an amazing, statistically 
stunning record of doing, in the opinions they produced, just what your 
front groups asked.
  Let's say you and your fellow billionaires played your front groups 
like piano keys and your chosen Justices harmonized perfectly with 
their direction.
  Let's say that to keep your chosen ones loyal and happy and 
entertained, you secretly paid for their personal lives. You paid for 
family tuitions. You bought family houses and let family members live 
rent-free. You paid for ``Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous"-level 
vacations, including free travel to resorts on private jets, travel on 
private yachts. You gave them expensive gifts, and you directed money 
to their spouses, and, of course, you hung out with them.
  Let's say that last part--keeping them loyal and happy and 
entertained with all those gifts--was illegal. Illegal.
  Let's say that your loyalty gifts program required the chosen ones to 
file false Federal disclosure forms and perhaps even false tax returns.
  Let's say that your loyalty gifts program might put you in trouble 
with the tax man for claiming false business expenses. How could that 
be?
  Let's say that the chosen ones were calling this bonanza of freebies 
``personal hospitality.'' ``Personal hospitality''--a term of art 
allowing nondisclosure under the disclosure laws.
  Let's say that they were all calling it ``personal hospitality,'' but 
you were calling the bonanza ``deductible business expenses of 
corporate yachts and jets.'' Then it wouldn't all add up.
  That is a lot of ``let's say,'' I know, but that is about what we are 
looking at with the Supreme Court right now. We know it is not one 
rightwing billionaire but a little bunch of them. We don't know all the 
freebies yet. Maybe we only know 10 percent of the freebies. We know 
that there has been no meaningful investigation of this, so there is 
lots left to learn. That is our job in Congress, to investigate 
malfeasance in government and expose abuse so the citizens can see what 
has been going on and laws can be changed to better protect against 
that kind of abuse.
  So let's say Congress starts doing its job and starts asking nosy 
questions. What is a creepy billionaire to do? That is easy. You lawyer 
up. You refuse to cooperate. You are a billionaire, remember, so you 
can pay lawyers a thousand dollars an hour until the cows come home and 
not even notice it. A thousand hours of thousand-dollar lawyering 
wouldn't cost you a thousandth of your wealth. You live above the law, 
sheltered by your billions. You actually direct the law through your 
chosen ones on the Supreme Court.

  The impertinence of being investigated is insufferable, so this is 
what you send.
  Here are two actual lawyer letters. One was sent by the lawyer for 
the billionaire Harlan Crow. The other was sent by the lawyer for the 
billionaire's operative and his painting mate, Leonard Leo.
  When I say ``painting mate,'' I mean this painting that Harlan Crow, 
the billionaire, has of his time with Clarence Thomas, one of the 
chosen ones, and Leonard Leo, the operative. Couldn't be more cozy.
  So you send these letters.
  Leo, by the way, has himself joined your billionaire boys' club. He 
did so when one of your billionaires, Barre Seid, set him up with his 
own $1.6 billion slush fund, held through a Utah 501(c)(4) front group 
confected for that transaction.
  Let's walk through what these letters say because the arguments are 
so preposterous, it is hard to imagine they could be made in good 
faith.
  As you can imagine, when letters come from lawyers for billionaires 
in the billionaire Court-packing boys' club, the letters are pretty 
alike.
  The first one for Crow says:

       Congress does not have the constitutional power to impose 
     ethics rules and standards on the Supreme Court.

  The second one for Mr. Leo says:

       Your inquiry exceeds the limits placed by the Constitution 
     on the Committee's investigative authority.

  Then there is a third one for another billionaire where they just did 
one paragraph. Basically, it just says: Yeah, what Leonard Leo's lawyer 
says.

       This inquiry exceeds the limits placed on the legislature 
     by the Constitution.
       We refer you to the relevant portions of the letter . . . 
     directed to you on behalf of Mr. Leo.

  I feel kind of bad for these lawyers because I don't think you can 
bill very much for one paragraph, whereas these guys can bill quite a 
lot. Anyway, poor fellas.
  So let's look at these other letters
  I ask unanimous consent that the first page of the letter of lawyer 
Bopp for billionaire Crow and the first page of the letter of lawyer 
Rivkin for billionaire operative Leo--as exhibits at the end of my 
remarks--with the short, one-paragraph letter, the tagalong letter from 
attorney Clark, be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Lawyers Bopp and Rivkin both tell me that 
investigating their clients' activities is unconstitutional under the 
separation of powers. We can't legislate about Supreme Court ethics, so 
we can't investigate Supreme Court ethics.
  First, remember that alongside separation of powers is its twin, 
checks and balances, which requires branches, like the legislative 
branch, to check and balance the behavior of other branches, like, in 
this case, the judicial branch.
  That is what we are doing here--checks and balances. Let's dive down 
into the specifics a little bit more.
  There are primarily three topics. One, did the billionaire or the 
operative take improper advantage of the Tax Code in their dealings 
with the Justices? That is what we are looking into. The Finance 
Committee has its own investigation, along with the Judiciary 
Committee, to focus on the tax side of this.

[[Page S4581]]

  Well, I have to say it is hard to see how abuse of the Tax Code by a 
private citizen in his tax filings could raise any separation of powers 
concern. That is between the tax filer, the government, and the law. 
The Justices are simply not a party to that. Even if we were looking at 
the Justices' own tax filings, were it to come to that, they would be 
investigated in their roles not as Justices but as taxpayers. Being a 
Justice doesn't allow you to violate the tax laws or immunize you from 
tax investigation or permit you to make actionable false statements in 
your tax returns any more than being a Justice would allow you to 
commit any other offense. So there is tax abuse, issue 1--no visible 
separation-of-powers angle to it.

  Issue 2, did the Justices receiving gifts and emoluments from the 
billionaire or the operative properly report them, or did the judicial 
gifts reporting system fail here? The billionaires' lawyers say that is 
not our business. Well, that is Congress's business for two pretty 
obvious reasons. First, the reporting requirements are a law passed by 
Congress whose implementation we can absolutely oversee like any other 
law passed by Congress, and this law includes Justices. Second, the 
implementing body of that law is the Judicial Conference, a body 
created by Congress whose activities we can absolutely oversee--we 
created it. The notion that Congress cannot investigate to see if an 
Agency it created is properly implementing laws Congress passed is 
ludicrous on its face.
  Peripherally, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court has never 
objected on constitutional grounds to that body or to those laws. The 
Chief Justice actually chairs the Judicial Conference without objection 
to its congressional nature.
  When questions about Justice Thomas's first round of free yacht and 
jet travel from Harlan Crow were raised a decade ago, those concerns 
went, under the law, to the Financial Disclosure Committee of the 
Judicial Conference for review, without objection to the power of 
review by Justice Thomas.
  And when Thomas's recent round of billionaire-funded free yacht and 
jet travel--Crow-Thomas 2.0, you might call it--raised questions anew, 
again, those questions went to the Financial Disclosure Committee of 
the Judicial Conference for review, where those questions pend now, 
again, without objection. Nobody said: The Judicial Conference is 
unconstitutional. The reporting laws are unconstitutional. You can't 
look at this. Congress could never pass those laws. Congress could not 
create judicial conflict.
  Nobody said that.
  Additionally, when Justice Scalia's trick came to light of obtaining 
dozens of free hunting vacations and not disclosing them because it was 
supposedly a ``personal invitation,'' which supposedly made it 
``personal hospitality'' that didn't have to be disclosed, the question 
of that trip's propriety went to the Financial Disclosure Committee of 
the Judicial Conference for review. The conference shut that trick down 
firmly, and Justice Thomas conceded he would abide by the Judicial 
Conference's determination--again, with no assertion that there was 
anything unconstitutional about it. So the separation-of-powers 
argument, in addition to making no sense, founders on the decades-long 
acceptance in real life by Supreme Court Justices of our congressional 
role through these laws and through the Judicial Conference.
  Here is another argument they make. This is an interesting one. We 
have been too mean. We have been too mean looking into these facts. 
They tart that argument up in constitutional terminology, but that is 
it in a nutshell. I have used the analogy, describing Leonard Leo's 
role, in the billionaires' Court-capture scheme, of a spider in a web. 
They think that is too mean.
  The problem with that ``too mean'' argument is that it assumes the 
result. If, in fact, there is a secret operation to capture and control 
the Supreme Court for the benefit of special interests, and if, in 
fact, Leo is its key operative, it is not actually all that mean to 
make an analogy to a spider and a web. It is actually pretty mild and 
quite descriptive.
  The accusation that we are doing this just to be mean and it is 
unfair to ask questions presumes that there is nothing secret and 
sordid and wrong that would be revealed by our investigation. It is a 
little like saying the police can't investigate me because it would be 
unconstitutionally unfair because I am so innocent. Well, that is what 
the police investigation would reveal, just as this congressional 
investigation, unless successfully obstructed by the billionaires, 
might very well reveal a dark episode of secret corruption of our 
highest Court--perhaps, even the most covert, most persistent effort at 
judicial corruption in our country's history.
  To be continued. I will be back with more of this story.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  Gibson Dunn,

                                       Confidential, May 22, 2023.
     Re Response to May 8, 2023, Letters to Harlan R. Crow, CH 
         Asset Company, Carey Commercial Ltd., and Topridge 
         Holdings, LLC.

     Hon. Dick Durbin,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Durbin: We represent Harlan Crow in relation 
     to your letters of May 8, 2023 (the ``Letters''). Today, we 
     also are responding on behalf of CH Asset Company, Carey 
     Commercial Ltd., and Topridge Holdings, LLC. We recognize the 
     important role the Senate Judiciary Committee has in 
     considering legislation related to our federal court system, 
     and we appreciate the opportunity to engage with the 
     Committee.
       After careful consideration, we do not believe the 
     Committee has the authority to investigate Mr. Crow's 
     personal friendship with Justice Clarence Thomas. Most 
     importantly, Congress does not have the constitutional power 
     to impose ethics rules and standards on the Supreme Court. 
     Doing so would exceed Congress's Article I authority and 
     violate basic separation of powers principles. That precludes 
     the Committee from pursuing an investigation in support of 
     such legislation.
       Separately, the Committee has not identified a valid 
     legislative purpose for its investigation and is not 
     authorized to conduct an ethics investigation of a Supreme 
     Court Justice. The Committee's stated purpose of crafting new 
     ethics guidelines for the Supreme Court is inconsistent with 
     its actions and the circumstances in which this investigation 
     was launched, all of which suggest that the Committee is 
     targeting Justice Thomas for special and unwarranted 
     opprobrium. Moreover, any information the Committee might 
     legitimately need to draft legislation on this subject is 
     readily available from other sources, the use of which would 
     not trigger the same separation of powers concerns created by 
     the Committee's requests to Mr. Crow.
       We address each of these points in greater detail below.
                                  ____



                                               BakerHostetler,

                                                    July 25, 2023.
     Re Response to July 11, 2023 Letter to Leonard Leo.

     Hon. Richard Durbin,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency 
         Action, and Federal Rights, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Durbin and Senator Whitehouse: We write on 
     behalf of Leonard Leo in response to your letter of July 11, 
     2023, which requested information concerning Mr. Leo's 
     interactions with Supreme Court Justices. We understand this 
     inquiry is part of an investigation certain members of the 
     Senate Judiciary Committee have undertaken regarding ethics 
     standards and the Supreme Court. While we respect the 
     Committee's oversight role, after reviewing your July 11 
     Letter, the nature of this investigation, and the 
     circumstances surrounding your interest in Mr. Leo, we 
     believe that your inquiry exceeds the limits placed by the 
     Constitution on the Committee's investigative authority.
       Your investigation of Mr. Leo infringes two provisions of 
     the Bill of Rights. By selectively targeting Mr. Leo for 
     investigation on a politically charged basis, while ignoring 
     other potential sources of information on the asserted topic 
     of interest who are similarly situated to Mr. Leo but have 
     different political views that are more consistent with those 
     of the Committee majority, your inquiry appears to be 
     political retaliation against a private citizen in violation 
     of the First Amendment. For similar reasons, your inquiry 
     cannot be reconciled with the Equal Protection component of 
     the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. And regardless 
     of its other constitutional infirmities, it appears that your 
     investigation lacks a valid legislative purpose, because the 
     legislation the Committee is considering would be 
     unconstitutional if enacted.

[[Page S4582]]

     
                                  ____
                                               EricksonSederstrom,


                                             Attorneys at Law,

                                                    July 25, 2023.
     Re Response to Letter Dated July 11, 2023, to Robin P. 
         Arkley, II, Our File No.: 00018.010802.

     Hon. Richard Durbin,
     Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Federal Courts Oversights, Agency 
         Action and Federal Rights, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Durbin and Senator Whitehouse: We write this 
     letter on behalf of Robin P. Arkley, II in response to your 
     letter dated July 11, 2023, which requested information 
     concerning Mr. Arkley's interactions with Supreme Court 
     Justices. While we respect the Senate Committee's oversight 
     role, we believe that this inquiry exceeds the limits placed 
     on the legislature by the Constitution. For our stated 
     reasons, we refer you to the relevant portions of the letter 
     dated July 25, 2023, from Baker & Hostetler directed to you 
     on behalf of Mr. Leo.
       Thank you very much.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Samuel E. Clark.

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ossoff). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________