[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 190 (Wednesday, November 15, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5515-S5525]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

   FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS AND OTHER EXTENSIONS ACT, 2024--
                           MOTION TO PROCEED

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 248, 
H.R. 6363.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 248, H.R. 6363, a bill 
     making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 
     2024, and for other purposes.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. SCHUMER. I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been presented 
under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 248, H.R. 6363, a bill making further 
     continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2024, and for other 
     purposes.
         Charles E. Schumer, Patty Murray, Jack Reed, Benjamin L. 
           Cardin, Maria Cantwell, Brian Schatz, Chris Van Hollen, 
           Martin Heinrich, Jeanne Shaheen, Amy Klobuchar, 
           Catherine Cortez Masto, Richard J. Durbin, Robert P. 
           Casey, Jr., Tammy Baldwin, Tina Smith, Angus S. King, 
           Jr., Margaret Wood Hassan.

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for the quorum call be rescinded.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


                                 China

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, today, President Biden will meet face to 
face with President Xi Jinping during the APEC summit in San Francisco. 
One month ago, President Xi said during our bipartisan codel that there 
are at least ``a thousand reasons'' for China and the United States to 
have a good relationship. Today, President Xi has the chance to show he 
is serious on at least a couple of those reasons.
  Above all, I look forward to President Biden following up on our 
codel conversation with President Xi in order to get serious on 
combating the spread of fentanyl. Fentanyl was one of the biggest 
issues we raised with President Xi during our bipartisan codel, and I 
related to Jake Sullivan earlier this week that the President should be 
strong on this issue during this meeting.
  One specific issue we raised was for Chinese law enforcement to 
coordinate with U.S. law enforcement and enforce laws already on the 
books to stop the sale of precursor chemicals that go into the making 
of fentanyl.
  Let's be clear. Fentanyl is an American crisis with roots, in large 
part, in China, where large chemical companies openly sell precursor 
chemicals to buyers in places like Mexico, where it is manufactured by 
gangs into fentanyl and then sold in the United States.
  When my colleagues and I met with President Xi a month ago, we were 
blunt on how fentanyl was devastating our communities and that China 
must recognize its role in combating this crisis. I told President Xi 
that China taking steps to crack down on the sale of precursor 
chemicals would be a great, great deal for them. The benefit they would 
see in the boost in American goodwill would far more than outweigh the 
tiny cost on their economy. Any good businessman would see that this 
would be a great trade.

  President Xi seemed receptive to our concerns, and I believe that 
there is a

[[Page S5516]]

good chance we will get some good news coming out of today's meeting. 
So I thank President Biden for his leadership as he meets with Xi for 
the second time in office. It was our experience that President Xi was 
responsive when we spoke candidly with specifics. I know President 
Biden will do the same today.


                               H.R. 6363

  On the CR, Mr. President, last night, the House of Representatives 
overwhelmingly passed a temporary extension of government funding into 
early next year. The vote in the House was 336 to 95, with 209 
Democrats and 127 Republicans voting in favor and 93 Republicans voting 
against it.
  Shortly after the vote, I moved to place the House-passed bill on the 
Senate's legislative calendar, and I have just filed cloture on the 
motion to proceed to get this process moving in the Senate.
  Today, my Democratic colleagues and I will work with Republicans--and 
I will work with Leader McConnell--to see if we can come to an 
agreement to accelerate this bill's passage. If both sides cooperate, 
there is no reason we can't finish this bill even as soon as today; but 
we are going to keep working to see what is possible.
  Now, the House's CR is far from perfect, but we are moving forward 
because we believe it accomplishes two things that I and other 
Democrats have been insistent on for weeks: It will avoid a government 
shutdown, and it will do so without any of the cruel cuts or poison 
pills that the hard right pushed for.
  I think it was very important that Speaker Johnson recognized that 
Democratic votes are necessary to pass anything of significance in 
Congress. I have reminded him every time I have spoken to him that we 
have to work in a bipartisan way to get anything done and, if he 
follows the clarion call of the hard right, whose views are far away 
from even the mainstream of his Conference, let alone the American 
people's or the Senate's, that it would lead to disaster--the same 
problems that we saw under Speaker Boehner, Speaker Ryan, and Speaker 
McCarthy.
  Thus far, the Speaker has heeded the lesson as we finish the 
appropriations process. Bipartisanship is the only way forward, as he 
once noted. When you have a Senate that is Democratic and a President 
that is Democratic and a Republican House, particularly one that just 
follows what the hard right wants, you will not get anything 
accomplished.
  Of course, the CR doesn't do everything we want. Above all, we must 
finish working on President Biden's emergency supplemental request so 
we can send aid to Israel, provide humanitarian aid for innocent 
civilians in Gaza, stand with Ukraine, and provide funds for the Indo-
Pacific. We will continue to work with Leader McConnell on a way 
forward. We intend to move on the President's supplemental package 
sometime in the coming weeks.
  As everyone knows, the biggest holdup right now is the Republicans' 
insistence that they will only approve Ukraine aid in exchange for 
immigration items. We are going to work in the coming weeks, in good 
faith, to see if there is any possibility for a reasonable, realistic 
compromise that Democrats can support. To come to such a compromise, 
both sides will have to give. It can't be one side all the way, as when 
our Republican colleagues offered us, basically, H.R. 2, which we 
totally opposed and had no input into. So I hope we can get this 
reasonable, realistic compromise on the border done.
  The bottom line is that we need to get Israel aid done; we need to 
get Ukraine aid done; we need to get humanitarian aid done; we need to 
get Indo-Pacific aid done. And linking any of these bipartisan issues 
to extremist positions, to extremist poison pills on immigration or any 
other issue, would be a colossal blunder that history will look very 
unkindly upon. I hope we can come to a solution in the coming weeks.
  In the meantime, the most important order of business is to keep the 
government open. We will keep working over the course of the day to 
fast-track the House's bipartisan CR bill. No drama, no delay, no 
government shutdown--that is our goal, and we hope we have an agreement 
very soon. To avoid a shutdown with no cuts in vital programs and no 
poison pills is a very good solution for the American people.


                             Student Loans

  Mr. President, on the student debt CRA, today, Senate Republicans 
continue their cruelty and their lack of connection with what people 
want and need as they force a vote on a cruel measure to eliminate 
President Biden's historic loan repayment program--a punch to the gut 
for millions and millions of borrowers, the overwhelming majority of 
whom are working class, poor, or middle class.
  Let me be clear: I strongly--very strongly--oppose this terrible 
Republican measure to deny American families relief from the crushing 
burden of student debt.
  My Republican colleagues like to talk a big game about helping 
working families, but with this student debt Congressional Review Act, 
they are actively trying to increase the pain on so many working 
Americans, working Americans who need a hand in paying off their 
student loans.
  The hypocrisy is astounding on the other side of the aisle. 
Republicans don't think twice about giving huge tax breaks to 
ultrawealthy billionaires and large corporations, but when it comes to 
helping out working families with student debt relief, suddenly, it is 
too much money; it will raise the deficit; we can't afford it. Give me 
a break. Cut taxes on multibillionaires, and tell a struggling student 
who is making $30,000, $40,000 a year that they can't get a little help 
on their student loans? That is so out of whack with what the American 
people want and care about.
  Let me be clear: The President's SAVE Plan is a major lifeline for 
student loan borrowers to help get their financial houses in order. 
Over 5.5 million Americans are signed up and benefiting from this plan. 
So the worst thing we could do right now is let the Republicans' CRA 
pass and pull the rug out from under these borrowers' feet with no 
warning.

  I strongly oppose this Republican CRA to overturn student debt 
relief. Democrats will keep working to make sure relief reaches every 
borrower in need.


                          Military Promotions

  Mr. President, on Senator Tuberville, yesterday, the Senate Rules 
Committee reported out our resolution to quickly confirm the military 
nominations being blocked by Senator Tuberville. I was proud to join 
the Rules Committee to vote in favor of this resolution. Now that the 
Rules Committee has acted, I will bring this resolution to the floor 
soon so we can swiftly confirm the hundreds of military nominations 
being held by Senator Tuberville.
  You know, Mr. President, there has been a lot of negativity and 
dysfunction in the Senate these days, but Senator Tuberville has 
single-handedly brought the Senate to a new low. He should be ashamed 
of himself. Patience is wearing thinner and thinner with Senator 
Tuberville on both sides of the aisle. What Senator Tuberville is doing 
is an anomaly in the history of this Chamber.
  Of course, every single one of us, not just Senator Tuberville, has 
issues we feel passionately about, we are certain we are right, as he 
is in his anti-abortion stand. Every one of us could go and block all 
of our generals, all of our admirals, and harm our military security 
because we feel passionately and want to put our views above the views 
of the rest of the Chamber and of the American people in this case. And 
what would happen? We would have no military, basically. None. Our 
national security would be at risk--severe risk--and our way of life 
would change.
  If every one of us had the temerity and recklessness to do what 
Senator Tuberville has done--and, thank God, no one else has--of each 
party, it would not only bring the work of this Chamber to a halt, it 
would risk our national security; it would risk our American way of 
life eventually. Current and former military officials have spoken out 
again and again to talk about the devastating impact these holds have 
on our readiness and our military families.
  I wish we had not reached this point. I wish my Republican colleagues 
could have importuned Senator Tuberville to drop his reckless holds, 
but it has not happened. It has not happened. Although, there is still 
some ray of hope, particularly based on what Leader McConnell said in 
his statement in

[[Page S5517]]

the Rules Committee, that maybe, at the last minute, Republican 
colleagues--which is their responsibility--can persuade their colleague 
to back off, to find an off-ramp, to aim, as Leader McConnell said in 
his speech at the Rules Committee, his hold at a policy official who 
has real say on this issue, not at generals, admirals, and flag 
officers who have worked so hard for our military and are now being 
held back and whose families are in difficulty because of what he has 
callously done.
  So we still hold out some small hope that, in the next little, short 
while, our Republican colleagues can persuade Tuberville to back off. 
But if it does not happen, we intend to move this resolution to the 
floor of the Senate to overcome Senator Tuberville's military holds.
  I thank Chair Klobuchar and I thank Chair Reed for their good work on 
moving this important resolution.
  I yield the floor.


                   Recognition of the Minority Leader

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader is recognized.


                             Student Loans

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote on yet 
another bipartisan resolution to overturn a harmful Biden 
administration regulation.
  In its latest iteration, the administration's bid for student loan 
socialism--its so-called income-driven repayment scheme--would likely 
go down in history as the most expensive Federal regulation in our 
history.
  Leading estimates predict this policy would heap a $559 billion bill 
onto taxpayers over the next decade. In exchange, a majority of the 
high-earning borrowers who choose to take on student debt would avoid 
ever paying back the principals they borrowed.
  The administration's plan would actually remove the guardrails that 
ensure Federal loan relief goes to low-income households. Apparently, 
loyal blue-State doctors and lawyers are the most important 
beneficiaries of student loan socialism.
  Whichever way you slice it, the President's policy is a raw deal for 
working Americans who have made the sacrifices to pay off their student 
loans or avoided debt altogether. But with taxpayers footing the bill, 
it is also a powerful incentive for schools to raise the price of 
college even higher.
  A bipartisan majority of our colleagues has already rejected the 
socialist fever dream, and President Biden's first attempt at massive 
loan cancellation was actually struck down by the Supreme Court. But 
today, thanks to the leadership of Chairman Cassidy, Senator Thune, and 
Senator Cornyn, the Senate has another chance to kick student loan 
socialism to the curb.
  I would urge my colleagues to support the resolution later today.


                            Border Security

  Mr. President, on another matter, it is impossible to ignore the 
crisis at our southern border that has erupted on Washington Democrats' 
watch--back-to-back, record-setting years that saw millions upon 
millions of illegal arrivals at the border and historic quantities of 
fentanyl and other lethal drugs pouring across to decimate American 
communities.
  Let's remember where this crisis came from. President Biden 
campaigned on open-borders policies. His message was so compelling that 
crowds literally showed up at the southern border with his campaign 
logo on their shirts. As one put it back then, the President had 
``promised us that everything was going to change.''
  Vice President Harris offered a refrain of her own. She said:

       Say it loud, say it clear, everyone is welcome here.

  She called the previous administration's commonsense border security 
measures ``criminalizing innocent people.''
  Well, this is the administration that canceled commonsense policies 
like ``Remain in Mexico,'' shelved DHS resources meant for border wall 
construction, and abandoned overstretched border enforcement personnel 
to contend with the tidal wave of mass migration.
  Today, cleaning up the administration's mess at the southern border 
is a matter of urgent national security. I am grateful to a group of 
Senate Republicans, including Lankford, Graham, and Cotton, who have 
been working in good faith on substantive policy reforms to bring this 
crisis under control.
  The goal here is simple: Slow the flow, and stop the catch-and-
release asylum system that is overrunning border communities and blue 
cities alike. The crisis isn't crying out for boatloads of new taxpayer 
dollars, just commonsense policy reform.
  Unfortunately, Senate Democrats do not appear ready to admit this 
reality. They are apparently not ready to seriously address asylum 
abuse. That is a stance that has put them out of step with even left-
leaning governments across the Western world.
  For example, Germany, which is struggling with an asylum caseload 
costing roughly $53 billion, is exploring trusted third country 
policies to keep asylum seekers outside its borders while their cases 
are adjudicated. Finland is considering closing some crossing points 
along its borders as Russia weaponizes migrant flows against the West.
  Responsible people everywhere recognize that enforcing sovereign 
borders isn't some hand-wringing moral outrage. In fact, what is 
outrageous is refusing to do so.
  The American people deserve safe streets, stable prices, and secure 
borders. These are the fundamental responsibilities of any government, 
but on all accounts, the Biden administration is failing to deliver.


                                 China

  Mr. President, now on one final matter, 1 year ago, President Biden 
met for the first time with President Xi, the head of the Chinese 
Communist Party, and he pledged that the United States would compete 
vigorously with the PRC. One year later, the President and the chairman 
will meet again--today. So let's take stock of whether the Biden 
administration is living up to its pledge of vigorous competition.
  The stakes of this competition simply cannot be overstated. The 
Chinese military is outpacing us in pivotal military capabilities like 
hypersonics, precise long-range fires, and even naval vessels. Beijing 
has secured a commanding share of the rare minerals necessary to create 
critical supply. Chinese agents are engaged in an aggressive effort to 
steal sensitive Western technologies and government secrets. And the 
PRC consistently signals its disdain for national sovereignty, human 
rights, and the free flow of commerce.
  In other words, strategic competition with China is going to 
determine the course of the next century of American history. Yet the 
Biden administration has too often met this historic moment with 
weakness and naivete. Time and time again, it has sacrificed 
competition on the altar of green climate policy.

  In the administration's quest to turn the American automobile 
industry electric, it has apparently made peace with sending American 
tax dollars to the Chinese industries that dominate battery-making 
inputs. In pursuit of grand climate diplomacy, the administration's 
envoys have been literally laughed out of Beijing by a state that keeps 
on increasing its carbon emissions and has no plan to start cutting 
them literally for years.
  Meanwhile, the consequences of the Biden administration's neglect for 
American hard power are only getting more dangerous. The PRC is 
acquiring new weapons as much as six times faster than the United 
States, and for each of the past 2 years, it announced a 7-percent 
increase in military spending. But even as the President's national 
defense strategy identifies China as ``the pacing threat,'' his defense 
budget requests haven't even kept up with inflation.
  Chairman Xi has gone out of his way to align closely with fellow 
adversaries of the West, stepping up joint military exercises with 
Putin's forces and helping both Moscow and Tehran endure Western 
sanctions.
  China has made military competition with the West a top priority. We 
can't afford to ignore this challenge. Our allies certainly aren't. 
Japan, South Korea, Australia, and other Indo-Pacific partners are 
investing heavily--heavily--in their own defensive.
  Taiwan is seeking to make itself a harder target for Chinese 
aggression, but America must continue to do its part. We have to keep 
investing in the

[[Page S5518]]

sort of defense industrial base that can sustain this armament and 
strengthen our own military for effective deterrence. The Senate has 
multiple opportunities before us--in both supplemental measures and 
full-year Defense appropriations--to do exactly that, and we can't 
afford not to seize these opportunities.
  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. THUNE. 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 Economy

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, yesterday morning, the monthly inflation 
report came out. Once again, inflation was well above the Fed's target 
rate of 2 percent. Overall, prices have risen by 17.6 percent since 
President Biden took office--17.6 percent.
  Price hikes in certain categories are even worse. Groceries are up 
20.9 percent over that same period. Gasoline prices are up 54.8 
percent. Electricity is up almost 25 percent. And rent is up 18 
percent. Car repairs and maintenance are up 26.5 percent. And the list 
goes on.
  The President said the other day that Bidenomics is the American 
dream. It turns out that Bidenomics is more of a nightmare for the 
American people.
  President Biden likes to talk about giving American families ``a 
little bit of breathing room,'' but that is the exact opposite of what 
his policies have provided. Wealthy Democrats may not be concerned 
about a 20-percent increase in the cost of their groceries or a 54-
percent increase in the price of gasoline, but for a lot of hard-
working American families, those kinds of price increases have meant 
the difference between having that ``little bit of breathing room'' and 
having absolutely none.
  The Joint Economic Committee estimates that Bidenflation is costing 
American families $953 per month--$953 per month. Even at half that, 
inflation would be a massive burden on working families. How many 
families have put off needed home or car repairs, deferred a kid's 
braces, or eliminated a family vacation because they are paying 
hundreds of dollars more a month for their basic needs? And how many 
other families haven't even been able to pay for their basic needs 
thanks to the inflation crisis that the President helped create?
  It is no surprise that 65 percent of voters say that they had cut 
back on their nonessential spending or that 52 percent of voters--more 
than half--said that they had cut spending on food or other everyday 
necessities or that 55 percent of voters say they are worse off 
financially under President Biden. It shouldn't come as any big 
surprise.
  Finally, 66 percent of Americans rate the economy as fairly bad or 
very bad. The fact of the matter is, Americans can't catch a break 
under President Biden. First, there was the worst inflation crisis in 
40 years, a crisis that has been improved from its worst point but is 
still very much with us.
  And now there are the heightened interest rates that the Federal 
Reserve was forced to put in place to help rein in this inflation 
crisis. You have higher inflation, higher interest rates.
  So now all Americans are dealing not only with consistently high 
prices; they are also dealing with these sky-high interest rates on 
credit cards and mortgages and car loans, which are being driven, in 
part, by the Fed's rate hikes, which have been done in response to out-
of-control inflation.
  The monthly mortgage payment on a single-family home increased 19 
percent since last year. A recent NBC News article reported:

       [I]n late 2020, the monthly mortgage payment on a typical, 
     newly sold home was around $1,100 in principal and interest. 
     It's now about twice that.

  Let me just repeat that.

       [I]n late 2020, the monthly mortgage payment on a typical, 
     newly sold home was around $1,100 in principal and interest. 
     It's now about twice that.

  If the American dream is owning your own home, it is a dream that has 
become out of reach for too many Americans in the Biden economy. On the 
car-buying front, Americans are facing loan rates last seen, as one 
article noted, during the great recession. And soaring credit card 
interest rates are making it difficult for Americans to afford their 
credit card bills, much less make progress at paying them off. It is a 
situation not helped, of course, by the fact that many Americans had to 
turn to their credit cards to help them get by under Bidenflation.
  It has been a rough 3 years for the American people, and I wish I 
could say that Americans could expect some relief. But with at least 1 
year more on the President's time in office, I am afraid that 
Bidenomics will continue to eliminate American families' breathing room 
for the immediate future--so much for the President's American dream.
  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. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                           U.S. Supreme Court

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court 
issued an official code of conduct. This is really an update over 
existing rules that govern the ethics and operations of the Judiciary, 
not only at the Supreme Court but throughout the Judiciary throughout 
the country. This document was important because questions have been 
raised about the practices of the Court and about public disclosures of 
some of their activities.
  But the good news is, this was adopted by all nine members of the 
Court and codifies ethics rules and principles that guide the Justices' 
conduct.
  I am glad that the Court took this step to make clear to the American 
people that they were committed to operating with the highest ethical 
standards. But I get the impression that some of our colleagues here in 
the Congress think that it is the job of another branch of government 
to tell an independent branch of government what it ought to do. 
Obviously, it is basic government. We have three coequal branches of 
government: the legislative branch, the executive branch. Those are the 
so-called political branches. Then there is the independent judiciary, 
which is, frankly, I believe, the crown jewel of our system.
  I think there are those who sometimes feel like they don't like the 
decisions made by the Federal judges and that the best way to control 
that or to have an impact on it is to undermine public confidence in 
the Judiciary. As my Republican colleagues and I have said for months, 
any decision about the Supreme Court's rules, including their recusal 
rules or formal code of conduct, should not come from the Congress; it 
should come from the Court itself. And now it has done so.
  The Senate has a limited, albeit important, role when it comes to the 
Supreme Court. That is through the confirmation process that we are all 
familiar with. As we know, all nine members of the Supreme Court 
underwent a rigorous confirmation process; they endured hours and hours 
of questions from members of the Judiciary Committee; they had FBI 
background checks and other background checks; they met with each 
Senator who was willing to meet with them one-on-one; and they were 
ultimately confirmed to a seat on the highest Court in the land. That 
is where the Senate's role ends.
  It is not Congress's responsibility or authority to force the 
Justices to adopt a specific code of conduct or to dictate how the 
Supreme Court conducts its business. As I said, the Supreme Court and 
the Federal Judiciary is a separate--separate--and coequal--those are 
important words--separate and coequal branch of government. And it 
falls squarely outside the legislature's authority to tell the Supreme 
Court how to run its business.
  There is another constitutional function that is available to us 
that, fortunately, we haven't had to use in a long time, which is 
impeachment. That is the role of the Senate and the House. The Senate 
confirms, but the House can vote Articles of Impeachment, and then 
there is a trial in the Senate in the most egregious set of 
circumstances, which, thankfully, we are not presented with.
  Many of our friends across the aisle have been particularly vocal 
about

[[Page S5519]]

their desire to see a specific code of ethics for the Supreme Court. As 
a matter of fact, our Democratic colleagues, the majority, have even 
cosponsored a bill that would force--force--a coequal branch of 
government, the Federal judiciary, to adopt a certain specific code of 
conduct. This was introduced by our colleague from Rhode Island, 
Senator Whitehouse, under the guise of ``ethics reform.''
  In addition to the code of conduct, it would impose strict new rules 
for recusal. That means when judges should withdraw from and not 
participate in the decision of a case. It would also subject the 
Justices to a never-ending stream of ethics complaints by politically 
motivated groups. The bill itself would incentivize frivolous ethics 
complaints against Justices to prevent that specific Justice from 
actually sitting on a particular case.
  The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board called this the ``Supreme 
Court Control Act,'' which is certainly an appropriate description.
  This bill is not designed to promote ethics and good governance. It 
was about forcing an independent branch of government to bend to the 
Senate's will. In July, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee banded 
together to pass this potentially unconstitutional bill, but the 
majority leader has yet to bring it to the floor for a vote because I 
think he understands it would be dead on arrival.
  Now that the Supreme Court has adopted an official code of conduct, I 
hope our colleagues across the aisle will finally lay this bad idea to 
rest. They said they wanted the Supreme Court to adopt a code of 
conduct. The Justices have now done that, and so, now, this should be a 
moot issue.
  I hope this development will also encourage the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee to abandon his latest partisan attack on the Court. 
In the Judiciary Committee last Thursday, Chairman Durbin and Senator 
Whitehouse planned to expand their so-called ethics investigation by 
issuing subpoenas to private individuals.
  To be clear, the targets of these subpoenas are not government 
officials. They are not judges. They are not elected officials. They 
are private citizens.
  Democrats want to bully, interrogate, and, potentially, embarrass 
these individuals for committing what, in their eyes, amounts to a 
serious crime, which is being friends with a Supreme Court Justice.
  Senators Durbin and Whitehouse claim this is about transparency and 
rebuilding trust, but the evidence suggests the opposite. I find it 
telling that the only subpoena targets are known to donate to 
Republican candidates and conservative causes. Democrats seem to have 
zero interest in hearing from liberal billionaires and dark-money 
groups that have made it their mission to rig the Supreme Court in 
Democrats' favor.
  If our colleagues wanted to hear from folks who actually jeopardize 
the legitimacy of the Court, my Republican colleagues and I planned to 
provide a range of options. We planned to provide a range of options at 
last week's meeting, but then, abruptly, Senator Durbin gaveled us out, 
without taking up these subpoenas.
  But I did file an amendment to subpoena liberal billionaire George 
Soros, for example, who is one of the biggest benefactors of the 
Democratic Party and a major contributor to the dark-money group known 
as Demand Justice. This isn't your typical public interest advocacy 
group. The entire goal of the misnamed Demand Justice is to pack the 
Court and install a permanent liberal majority.
  Last year, one of the cofounders of Demand Justice tweeted:

       It's time for [the Democrats] to see the Court as a 
     political opponent, just as much as any [Republican] elected 
     official, and run against it.

  So Demand Justice, funded by George Soros, was saying that we need to 
target these lifetime-tenured, nonpolitical officeholders as political 
opponents and run against them. If we want to talk about depoliticizing 
the Court and rebuilding faith in the judiciary, this is where the 
Judiciary Committee should look.
  The millionaires and billionaires who are bankrolling the effort to 
brand the Court as a political opponent are far more relevant to this 
debate than longtime personal friends of the Justices.
  I was eager to see if Democrats' commitment to ``transparency'' held 
up when wealthy Democrats were on the receiving end of a subpoena, but 
we never found out. As I said, just before the committee was supposed 
to vote, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee abruptly adjourned the 
meeting--I would like to think, because he finally had second thoughts 
about how dangerous and inappropriate this entire effort was. After 
all, the Senate Judiciary Committee has no business issuing subpoenas 
for private citizens under the guise of transparency.
  There was no legitimate legislative purpose for conducting this witch 
hunt. Maybe our Democratic colleagues realized that Republican 
amendments were likely to pass, too, causing their partisan smear 
campaign to backfire. But the chairman claimed that it was just a 
matter of timing, and he has put the subpoena authorizations on the 
docket for the Judiciary Committee meeting tomorrow morning--Thursday, 
this week.
  Democrats claim that the Justices are to blame for distrust and lack 
of confidence in the Court, but let's take a look at some facts. The 
Justices already file, like we do, annual financial disclosure reports. 
They recuse themselves, under their rules, from cases when it is 
inappropriate for them to sit. They go to great lengths to avoid even 
the appearance of impropriety. To assuage any remaining concerns about 
ethical standards, as I said, the Justices just adopted a code for the 
first time in history.
  Meanwhile, Senate Democrats, who claim to care about public trust and 
confidence in the Court, are on the warpath. The Democratic leader, the 
majority leader of the U.S. Senate, stood on the steps of the Supreme 
Court just months ago and threatened two sitting Justices by name, 
saying they would pay the price and they didn't know what would hit 
them if they didn't reach his preferred decision in an abortion case--
unbelievable.
  A group of five Democratic Senators made a not-so-subtle threat to 
the Court, claiming it could be restructured if it didn't deliver the 
preferred outcome in a case involving the Second Amendment.
  Fifteen Democratic Senators, including several members of the 
Judiciary Committee, recommended slashing the Supreme Court's budget if 
it failed to meet their demand to implement a new code of ethics that 
had the Democrats' stamp of approval on it.
  And, now, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee wants to 
interrogate private citizens over their personal finances, something he 
claims is imperative to restoring trust in the Supreme Court.
  Well, it is pretty clear that the so-called ethics crisis in the 
Supreme Court isn't really about ethics at all. It is about exerting 
control and domination over a separate, coequal branch of government, 
as the Constitution itself provides. So it is time for the Judiciary 
Committee to abandon its partisan charade and focus on the actual 
crises facing our country.
  While the chairman spends valuable time--limited time--dealing with 
this made-up controversy, we have seen nearly 2.5 million border 
crossings in the past year. We are losing 70,000 Americans a year to 
fentanyl poisoning. The Biden administration has also lost track of 
hundreds of thousands of migrant children.

  You would think that would be a matter of some urgency to the 
Judiciary Committee, and its chairman, that has jurisdiction over those 
matters. But these aren't problems that have earned the time and 
attention of the Judiciary Committee. Rather, it has chosen partisan 
attacks on the independence of the Supreme Court.
  I urge my colleagues to abandon their partisan attacks on the Supreme 
Court and to get back to doing the work of the American people, and a 
good place to start would be at the southern border.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FISCHER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S5520]]

  The Senator from Nebraska.


                        Stop EV Freeloading Act

  Mrs. FISCHER. As Americans in 2023, there is plenty that we disagree 
on, but, last week, USA Today released a new study on something we can 
all agree to hate--potholes. The study ranked all 50 States based on 
how many potholes covered their roads. It also included that the 
average car repair after a tussle with a pothole costs over $400.
  That is a lot of money for Americans to pay unexpectedly after a road 
incident, and, unfortunately, our pothole problem is about to get much 
worse.
  For the past 67 years, the Highway Trust Fund has largely funded road 
maintenance across our Nation. The fund repairs wear and tear from 
vehicles that travel our highways. That is critical for our roads, for 
our infrastructure, and for our transportation.
  But the Highway Trust Fund is running on empty. It is projected to 
run out of money in the next few years. The insolvency of the fund 
would necessitate a total restructuring of our highway repair system, 
and it would throw our national infrastructure under the bus.
  So how do we prevent this from happening? The main source of revenue 
for the fund is the Federal gas tax, which is a user fee. The money 
that drivers pay in taxes when they fill up with gas automatically goes 
toward road construction. But as a smaller percentage of vehicles fill 
up with gas, a smaller amount of money goes into the Highway Trust 
Fund.
  The use of electric vehicles, or EVs, has shot up over the last 
several years, and, of course, EVs don't use gas. Since they don't fill 
up with gas, they don't pay the gas tax, and they don't pay into the 
Highway Trust Fund.
  As more EVs have been adopted, the fund has become more unstable. It 
is not receiving the same revenue as it used to. According to Deloitte, 
U.S. adoption of EVs will increase to 30 percent of new car sales by 
2030. So that is 30 percent of new car drivers not paying into the 
Highway Trust Fund.
  But if anyone should be paying into Federal road repair, it should be 
EV users. EVs can be up to three times heavier than gas-powered cars, 
due to their large batteries. This significant weight puts extra stress 
onto our roads. It pulverizes the road bed, causing more maintenance, 
more upgrades, and more costs.
  The Highway Trust Fund exists to fix exactly the type of damage that 
these heavy EVs can cause. So it is only fair that all highway users, 
both gas-powered and electric vehicles, pay into that fund.
  My recent bill, the Stop EV Freeloading Act would fix this 
discrepancy. This new legislation would require EVs to contribute to 
the Highway Trust Fund through a two-tier fee structure. The first tier 
corresponds to the Federal gas tax. Under my bill, buyers would pay a 
one-time $1,000 fee on EVs at the point of sale. That money would 
contribute to the highway trust fund. This $1,000 fee equals the 
average amount consumers currently contribute to the fund from gas 
taxes over 10 years. Ten years is the average lifespan of an EV 
battery. This fee would tax EVs the same amount once that gas-powered 
cars pay over the lifespan of an EV battery.

  The second tier corresponds to the heavy-vehicle use tax, which also 
contributes to the highway trust fund. Under my legislation, 
manufacturers would pay a one-time fee of $550 on each EV battery 
module with a weight greater than 1,000 pounds. The average EV battery 
weight is a little less than 1,000 pounds, so taxing those heavier than 
average would ensure that the highway trust fund has enough money to 
cover any damage these vehicles inflict on highways. The $550 tax is 
comparable to the fees imposed on heavy trucks because of the 
additional stress they cause to roads and bridges.
  The current structure of the highway trust fund doesn't account for 
damage EVs can and do cause to our roads, and it is only fair that EVs 
and gas-powered vehicles pay those same fees. Both types of vehicles 
should contribute to the fund for the vital repairs and maintenance we 
need.
  Ultimately the changes included in the Stop EV Freeloading Act would 
help the fund escape its impending insolvency. Right now, the highway 
trust fund is losing to the EV industry, and that means our roads are 
going to lose to heavy electric vehicles. When our infrastructure 
starts deteriorating, the American people are going to pay the price. 
My bill would stop that from happening.
  Let's put gas-powered vehicles and electric vehicles on a level 
playing field. That is the only way we would all win.
  I yield the floor.
  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. PADILLA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Judicial Confirmations

  Mr. PADILLA. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate a historic 
milestone for this body and for our country. Last week, as many people 
know, we confirmed the 150th Federal judge nominated by President Biden 
and the 100th woman nominated to the Federal Bench, all in just the 
first 3 years of the Biden Presidency.
  More women have been confirmed to the Federal Bench under President 
Biden than under any President in the history of our country in their 
first term. It is a testament to the seriousness with which President 
Biden and Senate Democrats have taken to not only our role in 
strengthening the Federal judiciary with highly qualified candidates, 
but to do so while building the Federal Bench to better reflect the 
diverse nation that it serves.
  Today, I want to take a moment to recognize three women recently 
confirmed by the Senate who I am confident will now serve with 
distinction.
  First, last week, the Senate confirmed Judge Kenly Kiya Kato to serve 
on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. 
Judge Kato was born and raised in Los Angeles. She earned her 
undergraduate degree from UCLA and her J.D. from Harvard Law School.
  One of her earliest jobs out of law school was in the Central 
District Federal Public Defender's Office, where she represented 
hundreds of clients at the district and circuit court level, helping to 
realize the constitutional right to counsel regardless of income.
  After nearly two decades of work in California, in 2014, she was 
appointed to be Federal magistrate judge.
  As the daughter of Japanese-Americans who were interned during World 
War II, Judge Kato understands personally the importance of equal 
justice under the law. Time and again, she has demonstrated her 
commitment to equal justice as a magistrate judge--a commitment I am 
confident she will now continue on the U.S. District Court for the 
Central District.
  Last week, we also confirmed Monica Ramirez Almadani to the U.S. 
District Court for the Central District. Born in Los Angeles as the 
proud daughter of immigrants from Mexico, Ms. Ramirez Almadani is a 
product of the Los Angeles Unified School District. She went on to earn 
her A.B. from Harvard University and her J.D. from Stanford Law School.
  From the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project to the Immigrants Rights 
Clinic at the U.C. Irvine School of Law, from the California Department 
of Justice to the U.S. Department of Justice, throughout her career, 
she has gathered extensive experience across a wide spectrum of civil 
and criminal law.
  Since 2021, she served as president and CEO of Public Counsel, the 
largest provider of pro bono legal services in the country.
  Whether defending low-income immigrant clients or in her capacity 
representing the U.S. Government at the Department of Justice, she has 
consistently demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the rule of law.
  And now I am confident that she will serve the people of the Central 
District of the U.S. District Court with distinction.
  Finally, I celebrate Monday's confirmation of Judge Ana de Alba to 
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  The daughter of immigrants from Mexico, Judge de Alba grew up in a 
family of farmworkers. A first-generation high school graduate, she 
went on to earn her bachelor's degree and her J.D. from the University 
of California Berkeley.

[[Page S5521]]

  After graduating, she built a successful career in private practice 
in the Central Valley where she focused on complex commercial 
litigation and maintains a robust pro bono practice. She also went on 
to establish a workers' rights clinic for low-wage workers to learn 
their rights and to seek legal advice.
  In 2018, Judge de Alba was appointed to serve as a superior court 
judge for Fresno County, where she served until 2022.
  I was proud to come to the floor in June of last year to urge my 
colleagues to confirm her nomination to the U.S. District Court for the 
Eastern District of California, which we did on a bipartisan basis.
  In the time since then, Judge de Alba has more than proven herself to 
be a qualified jurist, and she is exactly the public servant Americans 
deserve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
  Mr. President, every Member of this body accepts a considerable 
responsibility when we enter office to advise and ultimately recommend 
to the President nominees who will make up our Federal judiciary. As a 
former ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, no one took 
that responsibility more seriously than our late colleague Senator 
Feinstein. I had the great fortune of working alongside Senator 
Feinstein to recommend to President Biden some of the nominees that we 
confirmed this past week. And today, these three women, these nominees 
that round out the 150th confirmation of the Biden Presidency, are just 
as much her accomplishments as they are ours.
  I yield the floor.
  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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             School Choice

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes today 
about elementary and secondary education, more specifically about 
school choice. School choice is inextricably related, in my opinion, to 
social justice. Put another way, I just don't understand how one can be 
a fairminded person and believe in social justice but not support 
school choice.
  In Congress, of course, we seem to face a new crisis every week, and 
while we need to respond to them, I think it is important that we not 
lose sight of what I call the foundational issues that ensure that our 
country is free and democratic and aspirational and prosperous for our 
children and our grandchildren. One of those issues, one of those 
foundational issues, is education.
  Right now, the American people are focused on the border, which is an 
open, bleeding wound; they are focused on inflation; they are focused 
on crime; they are focused on turmoil abroad. I don't blame them, as we 
need to be focused on those things, but while we focus on those things, 
it is a fact that the quality of our students' elementary and secondary 
education has been steadily slipping, steadily slipping. And it is 
clarion clear. Unless you have been living in your parent's basement, 
it is clarion clear that the status quo of education in America isn't 
setting our kids or our country up for success. I take no joy in saying 
that, but sometimes you can't look reality in the eye and deny it; you 
have to admit it.
  Here are a few examples of how America's and Louisiana's pre-K to 12 
students are falling behind. The numbers are the numbers: Math and 
reading scores among American 13-year-olds are at their lowest levels 
in decades. That is not my opinion. That is according to the National 
Assessment of Educational Progress. As the Presiding Officer knows, 
that is a study done annually, known as ``The Nation's Report Card.'' 
On ``The Nation's Report Card,'' just 35 percent of American fourth 
graders--35 percent--are proficient in math. Only 32 percent of 
American fourth graders are proficient in reading.
  American students are slipping globally as well. In 2008, the IMD 
World Competitiveness Center ranked American students first in the 
world. By 2023, the United States had slipped to 10th overall. In 
science, American students ranked 11th. In math, American students 
ranked 30th.
  In Louisiana, I regret to say that roughly half of my students in 
Louisiana in grades K through 3 are not reading at the grade level--
half. Only one-third of my kids in grades 3 through 12 are at grade 
level in the four subjects that the Louisiana Educational Assessment 
Program--we call it LEAP--tests. In fact, we have, in Louisiana, 24 
school systems--24--in which fewer than a quarter of our students--
fewer than a quarter--have proficient LEAP exam scores.
  Now, I have said this before on the Senate floor, and I am going to 
say it again: The American people can do extraordinary things. We can 
unravel the human genome; we can take a diseased human heart and 
replace it with a new one and make it beat; we can send a person to the 
Moon. But we can't seem to figure out how to teach our children how to 
read and how to write and how to do math when we have 18 years to do 
it. And there is no excuse because all children can learn.
  I know it is complicated, and there are a multitude of reasons why 
our children may be struggling. For over 15 years, I have been a 
volunteer substitute teacher in our public schools. I went to a public 
school. In Louisiana, we need substitutes so badly that they will even 
take politicians. I try to do it three times a year--sometimes more, 
sometimes less. Every time, I learn, but I am always reminded every 
time I substitute teach of the fact that it is much, much harder today 
to be a teacher than when I was in a public school and that it is also 
much, much harder today to be a kid. So I have some understanding of 
the challenge.
  The evidence is also clear now that closing schools during the 
pandemic made matters a lot worse. We in America made a mistake. Some 
States did better than others, but most of them got it wrong. But, you 
know, we can't keep blaming things on the pandemic. It has been a few 
years since our schools reopened, and our scores are nowhere near where 
they need to be. The truth is that pre-K to 12 education in America and 
in Louisiana was in trouble well before the pandemic, and we all know 
that. Yet leaders in many States remain hesitant, to say the least, to 
change anything--anything--about our public school system.
  We have all heard the famous definition of ``insanity.'' The 
definition of ``insanity'' is doing the same thing over and over again 
and expecting to get a different result. It is a cliche. Cliches become 
cliches because they are true. We need to follow the law of holes: When 
you are in one, stop digging. When you are in one, stop digging. We 
need to stop making excuses about pre-K through 12 education; and we 
need to stop doing things that don't work and then doing them again. 
You can't expect to fix a broken status quo--to magically fix it--and 
to magically fix our broken schools and equip struggling students if 
you keep doing the same thing.
  The fact--the unhappy fact, the miserable fact--is that too many of 
our schools in America and in Louisiana are failure factories--they are 
failure factories--where violence is common and learning is rare.
  But there are a few States that are bucking the status quo, and they 
are doing it in part by adopting school choice programs. So far, they 
have seen a lot of success.
  School choice programs--``school choice,'' I realize it is a broad 
term--school choice programs can take many different shapes, but they 
all boil down to one thing, one foundational principle: Parents should 
be allowed to take their kids out of failing schools. Parents should be 
allowed to take their children out of failing schools and put them in 
schools that can help those children thrive and certainly do better. It 
is not complicated.
  You know, American parents today, they can go to the grocery store, 
and they can choose from 40 different--maybe more but certainly 40 
different breakfast cereals to feed their child in the morning, but in 
many States, those parents have absolutely no control over which school 
their child can attend.
  Children are stuck in schools, too many of them assigned by their 
parents' ZIP Code, and there is little that most parents--too many 
parents--can do to change that even though it is

[[Page S5522]]

patently absurd to force children to attend failing schools when 
parents could enroll those kids and invest the money that pays for 
their education in better schools. That is where school choice comes 
in.
  In practice, schools facilitate, they implement school choice by 
tweaking how they fund school systems.
  For those of you who are unfamiliar with school funding schemes, most 
public schools have three main sources of funding: Federal dollars, 
State dollars, and local dollars. The exact breakdown of that money 
varies by State and by school system. In Louisiana, for example, the 
average school district gets about 11 percent of its money from Federal 
funding, 44 percent of its money from the State, and another 45 percent 
from local government, so 11, 44, and 45.
  Local dollars typically stay with the school system in a particular 
town or parish. We call our counties parishes. But officials, public 
officials in Louisiana, have the right and the ability to allocate 
those State and Federal dollars the way they want to.
  When States adopt school choice policies--here is how it works--
parents typically get to decide which school will receive their child's 
share of State and Federal funding. The local dollars stay local, but 
parents can redirect the Federal and the State money.
  There are two ways in which States that implement school choice 
reallocate that money, the Federal and the State dollars. The first is 
education savings account, and the second is--you have heard of it--
vouchers.
  Education savings accounts are government-funded savings accounts 
that take all or a portion of the Federal and State dollars allocated 
to each student and give it to parents to use for their kid's 
education. Parents can use the money a multitude of ways. They can use 
the money to pay for tutors, to purchase textbooks for homeschooling. 
Parents can use the State and Federal money to subsidize private school 
tuition. If a student and a parent have money left over when the 
student graduates from high school, that student can even use the 
funding to help pay for college. It is called an education savings 
account.
  Other States use a voucher system. Under a voucher system, parents 
typically do not receive money directly. Instead, they get to choose. 
They tell the school system which school their child is going to go to 
and tell the school system to send the Federal and State money to that 
school. So the money follows the children. The parents can take that 
voucher to a traditional public school. The parents can take that 
voucher to a private school to pay private school tuition. The parents 
can take that voucher to enroll the kids in a charter school they would 
like.
  Charter schools, as you know, are tuition-free, publicly funded 
schools that operate independent of the State. Rather than taking 
marching orders from the government, charter schools are able to design 
their own curriculum and their own standards to help meet the needs of 
each student.
  So whether it is through vouchers or education savings accounts, 
States that have embraced school choice have steadily climbed the ranks 
as the best States in this country for elementary and secondary 
education. That is just a fact. Look it up.
  Take Florida for example. Florida has had school choice for a long 
time--decades. It is not mandatory, but it is an option. A lot of 
parents love that option, and they use it. Graduation rates in Florida 
have steadily increased year after year after year. Florida's fourth 
graders rank third in the country in reading and they rank fourth in 
the country in math according to ``The Nation's Report Card.'' Other 
pro-school-choice States, including Iowa, North Dakota, and Utah, to 
mention a few, have all landed in the top 10 States on ``The Nation's 
Report Card.''
  School choice works.
  Even States that have traditionally struggled with respect to 
education are seeing improvements. Take Louisiana's neighbor, 
Mississippi. Mississippi overhauled its pre-K to 12 system in 2013 to 
help parents get their kids out of failing schools. The State 
implemented a voucher program for kids with dyslexia and low-income 
students to ensure that parents could find a successful school that 
would meet their children's needs.
  Mississippi also implemented a law requiring schools to hold back 
students who cannot read at grade level in the third grade and give 
them additional instruction. In other words, if you are in the third 
grade and after several chances, you can't read at grade level, you are 
not socially promoted to grade 4. You are kept in the third grade until 
you can read, because kids drop out of high school in the third and 
fourth grade. If they can't read, they have no chance.
  Since Mississippi did all of this in 2013, Mississippi has jumped 
from 50th in education to 35th. In 2023, student achievement levels 
reached an alltime high in Mississippi. Graduation rates climbed from 
75 percent in 2011 to 87 percent by 2020--well above the national 
average. Mississippi managed all of this growth--all of this growth--
while spending less money per student than all but four States. It is 
not just money; it is how you spend it.
  This year, we are doing better in Louisiana. This year, Louisiana 
followed the lead of Mississippi, and we passed a law called HB12--I 
have talked about it on the floor--to ensure that all third grade 
students can read at grade level before they can move on to the fourth 
grade. Fortunately--and I thank him for doing it--Governor John Bel 
Edwards did not veto the bill. I was afraid he would. He signed it into 
law, and I want to thank him for that.
  But when it comes to school choice, Governor Edwards has opposed it 
at every turn--every turn. He blocked two bills last year that would 
have established voucher programs for my kids in Louisiana. If those 
two bills had passed, parents of students with special needs or 
students who could not read at grade level by the third grade could 
have taken their State money, the State-funded education dollars--not 
the local, the State dollars--to a different school that could better 
address those children's needs. But the Governor opposed the bills, and 
they didn't make it.

  Those bills would have provided a lifeline to parents--a lifeline to 
parents--who were desperate and still are desperate to help their 
children succeed in school, but Governor Edwards opposed it. He opposed 
allowing these parents to find better alternatives for their children.
  The good news is that Louisiana is about to have a new Governor, and 
the good news is that Louisiana is about to have a brandnew 
legislature. I can't speak for our new Governor, but I know our 
legislators. I have supported many of them. We made some wholesale 
changes. I hope my friends in the Louisiana Legislature are anxious and 
eager and enthusiastic about giving parents, finally, the power to 
remove their children from failing schools.
  Parents overwhelmingly support school choice. In Louisiana, 75 
percent of parents with school-age kids support school choice. 
Nationwide, that number has gone from 64 percent in 2019 to 71 percent 
today.
  So you are asking yourself, who can oppose school choice? Many--not 
all but many--teachers unions and many--not all--of the administrators 
in failing schools; the adults, not the kids--the adults. Our schools 
are supposed to be about our kids, not the adults. Many--not all but 
many--of our teachers unions worry that giving parents the choice to 
pick a different school will result in more students attending nonunion 
schools, such as charter schools. Many--not all, many--administrators 
in failing schools hate the idea that they will need to compete with 
other local schools to attract kids and earn the State and Federal 
dollars that follow those kids. It is called competition.
  As I am sure you have noticed, both of these fears I just referenced 
for some--not all--of our teachers unions and our administrators focus 
on what is best for them and the school system and the adults, not on 
what is best for the parents and the kids.
  Competition makes everybody better. Competition makes everybody 
better, and that is true of our schools too. The United States has a 
highly competitive higher education system, and in return, our 
universities are the best in the world. They are. I have been to a 
school in another country. It was a good school. But as a group, 
American universities are the best in all of human history. Now, they 
have some problems, as we all know about, but they are still the best 
in the world.

[[Page S5523]]

There is a reason that most wealthy and well-connected people around 
the world want to send their children to an American campus to get 
their degrees.
  The excellence of American universities is driven by the fact that 
students can choose to go elsewhere if a university stops delivering a 
quality education. The students and their parents can vote with their 
feet.

  It is called choice. It is about as American as you can get. And that 
same competition, that same choice, will help restore K through 12 
schools to excellence as well. Americans don't need to watch the status 
quo fail their children. They don't. States throughout this country are 
empowering parents to take control of their kids' education, and the 
whole country stands to benefit from their leadership.
  When it comes to education, now, I am an all-of-the-above guy. I 
don't care if it is public schools, charter schools, private schools, 
vouchers, savings accounts, or pixie dust. If it will help our kids 
learn better, I am for it. I don't care who gets mad. And that is why I 
am very optimistic about the leadership changes in Louisiana and the 
good news it could mean for our elementary and secondary education and 
for our parents and our children.
  I am not saying that school choice alone is the silver bullet. We 
have other problems in Louisiana. We need to expand access to education 
programs for at-risk children from early age to age 4. We need to do a 
better job there.
  We have a shortage of qualified teachers. We need to find out which 
of our teachers can teach and pay them like the professionals they are 
and find out which of our teachers can't teach and either teach them 
how or tell them to find a new line of work.
  We have got too much truancy among our kids. Forty percent of our K 
through 8 schools grade A or B; but, somehow, magically, 70 percent of 
our high schools are graded A or B. We know that is not right. We have 
watered down our standards. Also, college costs for our kids and our 
parents have doubled in the last decade.
  So we have other problems, but school choice will help. And I 
believe, as much as I am standing here, that America's future and 
Louisiana's future can be better than our present and it can be better 
than our past, but not if we don't improve our schools. And no one is 
coming to save our schools in Louisiana but ourselves. And with new 
leadership and school choice on the horizon, the future of elementary 
and secondary education in Louisiana can be and is, to me, promising.
  So I end as I began. No fairminded person, in my opinion, can say he 
or she supports social justice if they don't support school choice.
  I neglected to mention, Mr. President, that with me today are two of 
my colleagues from my office: Ms. Maddie Dibble and Mr. Christian Amy. 
I wanted to recognize them.
  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.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Remembering Ted Stevens

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on November 18 of 1923, a young couple 
living in Indianapolis, IN, George and Gertrude Stevens, welcomed their 
third child to the world, and they named him Theodore Fulton Stevens--
``Ted,'' for short.
  And like all new parents, I am sure that George and Gertrude were 
filled with hope and optimism about their boy's future: the things that 
he would do, the places that he would go, the life that he would have. 
But I suspect that even they didn't realize what an extraordinary life 
he would lead, a life of service and accomplishment during which he 
earned his place as a giant in the history of this Chamber and 
certainly in my State of Alaska.
  So we are looking forward to the 100th anniversary of the birth of 
the late Senator Ted Stevens. This is coming up on Saturday. So I have 
come to the floor this afternoon to make sure that all of us who serve 
here and all who are listening know why it is important that we 
continue to remember and celebrate this truly great man.
  Ted's service to our country began during World War II when he 
enlisted in the Army Air Corps as a pilot. He supported General 
Chennault's Flying Tigers in the China-Burma-India theater, flying 
missions over the Hump many, many times behind enemy lines.
  After the war, Ted Stevens completed law school. He moved ``north to 
the future,'' to Alaska, where he served as a U.S. attorney in 
Fairbanks. It was just a few years later, during the Eisenhower 
administration, that he joined the Department of the Interior, where he 
served as Secretary Fred Seaton's right-hand man in the successful 
fight for Alaska's statehood. Then, after statehood, Ted was elected to 
the Alaska House of Representatives. That was 1964.

  He was then appointed to the U.S. Senate in 1968. He would go on to 
win reelection to the Senate seven straight times, receiving almost 80 
percent of the vote back in 2002. In all, he served his State and his 
country for a total of 40 years and 10 days as a Senator--pretty 
extraordinary.
  And Ted was a pretty busy legislator. He chaired four different 
committees, including Appropriations. His colleagues chose him to be 
their minority whip, the majority whip, and the assistant Republican 
leader. He led the Senate's Arms Control Observer Group, the U.S.-China 
interparliamentary group, and he also spent several years as our 
President pro tempore.
  Ted was, by all accounts, a very powerful legislator, but he used his 
power for a single purpose, and that was to help his country and to 
help his State. For him, it was pretty basic.
  He helped us settle Aboriginal land claims and create Alaska Native 
corporations. He secured the authorization to build the Trans-Alaska 
Pipeline System, which remains, to this day, our State's economic 
backbone and provides for our energy security.
  Ted was an outdoors guy. He loved fishing. He was able to write the 
framework that continues today to guide Federal fisheries management. 
That is the Magnuson-Stevens Act. He was a champion for national 
defense as well as international competitiveness, and he truly helped 
America become a superpower and, I believe, the economic envy of the 
world.
  He helped to fund breast cancer research. He promoted women's 
participation in sports through title IX. It was incredible what he did 
for women's athletics and sports.
  He also--very proudly and unabashedly; sometimes maybe even 
gleefully--brought home what I imagined to be billions of dollars. We 
are calling those now congressionally directed spending. It used to be 
earmarks back in the day. But they were specifically targeted to build 
basic infrastructure and to meet community needs across our still young 
and undeveloped State.
  We have terminology in the Senate for those who have been around for 
a while who observed the traditions and the history of the Senate, but 
Ted was really an ``old bull'' in Senate parlance. He was a statesman. 
He was a patriot. He was a force to be reckoned with.
  He was known to have just a little bit of a temper; although, I found 
that, oftentimes, that temper was just used for effect. He would don an 
Incredible Hulk tie just to show you all that he really meant business, 
and on those days when you saw him on the floor and he was wearing the 
tie, you would know maybe it was best to stay out of his way that day 
or, certainly, to be with him when he was fighting for Alaska's 
interests.
  But as much as he was a fighter in that way, he was also one who 
worked across party lines. He legislated in the good old-fashioned way. 
He had a relationship with Senator Dan Inouye from Hawaii--often 
referred to him as his brother--and they led as a model, that duo of 
Alaska and Hawaii. They would rotate--literally rotate--on 
Appropriations being the senior appropriators. One Congress, one would 
be the chairman; the next Congress, majorities come and go. And there 
would be no daylight between the two of them. It was an extraordinary 
relationship built on respect and an understanding that you stand up 
and you fight for your State's needs.
  Ted was one of those who really tried to let the politics stand down 
and just focus on what was good. He had a saying, and it is certainly 
one that has been emblazoned on many things that I have seen in these 
past couple of decades. But he would say:


[[Page S5524]]


  

       To hell with politics. Just do what's right for Alaska.

  And those are words that many of us still follow and that I think 
those in the Senate here would do well to live by: Do what is right for 
the people that have sent you here. Do what is right for your State.
  I am so immensely fortunate to have worked with Ted. I was actually a 
high school intern for Ted Stevens when I graduated from high school--
and then to have the privilege to serve alongside him, to have him as a 
mentor, a friend, a partner over the course of so many decades.
  I have said and have been quoted in different articles about the role 
that Ted played in Alaska's history:

       There is nothing that has happened in my lifetime, there is 
     nothing that has happened since statehood, that Ted Stevens 
     did not touch, that he did not build, did not create.

  He had that much influence. There really was no one like him. He had 
a vision. He was determined to achieve it no matter who or what stood 
in the way.
  He won medals for his distinguished military service. He was chosen 
as ``Alaskan of the Century.'' For the entire 20th century, we 
designated that honor, that respect for him, for his remarkable service 
in statehood and in the Senate.
  Now, it is true that a Federal investigation and extreme 
prosecutorial misconduct tipped an election that prematurely ended 
Ted's time in public office. That type of debasement would cost many 
their faith in the institutions that they had served for so long. But 
not with Ted--not with Ted. He kept his faith in the institution, not 
only in the institution of the Senate but in the institution of the 
judiciary. He knew he was innocent and maintained that, and he was 
ultimately exonerated.
  But he left a reminder with all of us when he gave his departure 
speech in 2008. He left the Senate saying that ``my future is in God's 
hands. Alaska's future is in yours.''
  We actually have had buttons made up with Ted's smiling face--I 
believe it is exactly this picture--and it says:

       Alaska's future is in your hands.

  Believe me, I look at that every single day. I take it very 
seriously.
  We tragically lost Ted in a plane crash, just 2 years later, after he 
left office. This was August of 2010. It is still really hard for me to 
believe that he has been gone for 13 years. But, in so many ways, he is 
still with us; he is still around.
  I see it in my office. I have the same office in the Hart building 
that he had. The same totem pole that he had in his office is now in my 
office. I visit his portrait here in the Capitol right outside that 
door there and visit his grave in Arlington National Cemetery.
  At the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, which I am flying 
in and out of just about every week, it seems there is a statue that 
sits in kind of a main open area, and it is life size, with Ted sitting 
there with a briefcase at his feet and just kind of talking 
extemporaneously. And I walk by and give that hand a little squeeze 
every time I leave to go somewhere.
  I certainly continue to pay my respects, but I often think about how 
Ted would face the issues that we confront today--not only the issues 
but how we are confronting them as legislators and lawmakers.
  I mentioned Ted's legendary temper. And, understand that we all have 
different ways that we can respond and react, but, in fairness, I think 
that Ted would be very discouraged by what he is seeing with the 
politicization, the disrespect, I think, that sometimes we see with 
whether it is name-calling or just not treating one another with the 
level of decorum that the office demands.
  As I say, he was an institutionalist. He believed in this 
institution, as I do, and I think he recognized that if we don't show 
respect for others, for one another, how can we expect that that 
respect will be reciprocated from others who are observing us?
  Ted sometimes referenced the ``pace of forgetting.'' It was his 
recognition that times change, people come and go, and how things 
happened or why they mattered isn't always recorded. Only 26 out of the 
100 Members of the current Senate--barely over a quarter of this 
Chamber--ever had the privilege of serving alongside him. But, while 
Ted may be gone, he is certainly not forgotten. You don't forget 
legends like Ted Stevens, not here in the institution that he loved, 
and, certainly, not back home in Alaska.
  We remember ``Uncle Ted''--that is what we still call him--Senator 
Ted Stevens. We miss him. But as we near his 100th birthday, we will 
celebrate him. We honor his service and thank him for his life of 
dedicated work on our behalf.
  And just a couple of days from now, on Saturday, November 18, I would 
encourage everyone to just stop for just a second and think about the 
contributions of great leaders like Ted Stevens. Certainly, I am going 
to be standing by to wish this great man a happy 100th birthday and to 
count the blessings he left behind.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, 
following my remarks, a really great editorial from the Anchorage Daily 
News, which was published on Sunday, November 12, about Senator 
Steven's birthday.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the Anchorage Daily News, Nov. 12, 2023]

                      The Man Who Reshaped Alaska

                        (By the Editorial Board)

       As we approach the 100-year anniversary of former U.S. Sen. 
     Ted Stevens' birth on Nov. 18, the magnitude of change he 
     wrought in Alaska has only become more important since his 
     death. There are certainly others who were instrumental in 
     making our state what it is today--for example, former Gov. 
     Jay Hammond for the creation of the Permanent Fund and its 
     ensuing dividend; ``Mr. Alaska'' Bob Bartlett, whose advocacy 
     for statehood as a territorial delegate and later career as 
     senator put the Last Frontier on the map in Washington, D.C.; 
     Elizabeth Peratrovich, who championed civil rights for Alaska 
     Native people and played a major role in ensuring the 
     territorial Legislature's passage of the Equal Rights Act of 
     1945. But when it comes to the breadth, pervasiveness and 
     longevity of his legislative accomplishments, it's hard to 
     argue that anyone else has had as great an impact on Alaska 
     as Ted Stevens.
       Although he became notorious on the Beltway for his 
     unashamed embrace of pork barrel projects that benefited 
     Alaska, Stevens had a formative role in almost every major 
     federal law relating to the state. The Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act. 
     The creation of Title IX, which sought to ensure parity in 
     sports opportunities between women and men--as well as 
     several revisions that expanded or restored Title IX tenets 
     after attempts to curtail them. The Amateur Sports Act of 
     1978, which established the U.S. Olympic Committee and laid 
     the groundwork for the U.S. athletic powerhouse of today. The 
     Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. And the 
     Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act that 
     governs fishing in U.S. federal waters. Those are just the 
     topmost highlights of Stevens' four-decade career in the U.S. 
     Senate.
       And, of course, Stevens' reputation for bringing home the 
     bacon to Alaska was well-earned. As with his legislative 
     accomplishments, the list of projects Stevens funded in 
     Alaska is far too long to enumerate. Just in Anchorage, 
     everything from port funds, trail system expansion, social 
     services at Covenant House and Bean's Cafe, the creation of 
     the Alaska Native Heritage Center, the Potter Marsh 
     Conservation Center, the expansion of the Alaska Zoo, the 
     Anchorage Museum, Ben Boeke Arena and Hilltop Ski Area, the 
     Alaska Botanical Garden and the Eagle River Nature Center--
     all benefited from funds Stevens allocated. As Sen. Lisa 
     Murkowski said, ``There is nothing that has happened in my 
     lifetime, there is nothing that has happened since statehood, 
     that Ted Stevens did not touch, that he did not build, did 
     not create.
       Stevens was upfront about his (usually successful) quest to 
     fund Alaska infrastructure at levels well above the per-
     capita funding flowing to other U.S. states. His rationale 
     was that as a state that entered the Union more than a 
     century after the vast majority of the others, Alaska had a 
     lot of catching up to do in bringing its federally funded 
     development up to parity with the rest of the country. And 
     while watchdog groups and legislators from other states 
     chafed at the allocation of funds to a state few of them 
     valued, Stevens' perspective makes good sense to most anyone 
     who has ever been here for any length of time and seen what 
     Alaska has and doesn't.
       Stevens' legacy, like most major figures in Washington, 
     D.C., was not unblemished. He ultimately lost his Senate seat 
     after a jury found him guilty of making false statements 
     related to his financial dealings. That verdict was 
     ultimately tossed and the case vacated after a special 
     investigation by then-Attorney General Eric Holder, who was 
     shocked by the degree of prosecutorial misconduct in the 
     case. In hindsight, it's clear that he shouldn't have been 
     charged, much less convicted. But the damage had been done to 
     Stevens' political prospects, and his

[[Page S5525]]

     closeness to disgraced oilfield services executive Bill Allen 
     surely lost him votes and colored Alaskans' perceptions of 
     their larger-than-life U.S. senator.
       Ultimately, however, it is the work Stevens did in the 
     Capitol that has gone on to define him since his death in a 
     2010 plane crash. And the through-line of that work was a 
     style of politics that is now almost entirely absent in 
     Washington, D.C., today: A willingness to put partisan 
     differences aside in service of the work being done, for our 
     state and the country. ``To hell with politics, just do 
     what's right for Alaska,'' was Stevens' mantra. If we could 
     return to that way of thinking in Juneau and Washington, 
     D.C., we would all be better for it.

                          ____________________