John Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 20 minutes prior to the scheduled votes and that Senator Cardin be permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes prior to the scheduled votes.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I want to speak for a few minutes about a favorite son in Louisiana, but to do that, I have to give my remarks a little context. I think, like most Americans and, I know, like the Presiding Officer, I love animals. I grew up in a rural area in Louisiana. And let's see. We had dogs--not all at the same time, but we had dogs. We had cats. We had hamsters. We had chipmunks. We had squirrels. We had alligators, baby alligators. Now, the danger of a baby alligator is that they become a big alligator, and we used to keep our little, baby alligators--their names were Tim and Tubo--in a big washbasin in our backyard, and we put wire on the top. The alligators--they were about this long--were in the tub. Why would we keep wire on the top? Because the neighborhood cats would try to get in there and eat them. Well, Tim and Tubo grew, and they grew, and they grew, and, one day, we forgot to put the screen wire on the top of the washbasin with the water in which Tim and Tubo were residing. By this time, they were about this long. And one of our neighbor's favorite cats, all of a sudden, just had three legs. And we had to release Tim and Tubo at that point. Dad said: No, Tim and Tubo are too big. We have got to release them back to the swamp. Well, I remember we had a baby possum, and I am probably leaving some varmints out. But I love animals. I especially love dogs. I have two at home. I wouldn't ask Becky to choose between me and our pups. And I love when people bring their dogs to work. I am not going to wade into this fierce debate about what kind of pet and what kind of animal is best, but I think we can all agree that there is a special bond between our species and our animal friends. Animals can teach us a lot. Animals teach us love. Animals teach us patience. Animals teach us compassion. Animals, especially dogs, teach us responsibility. Animals teach us to appreciate God's creation. Through our connection with animals, including but not limited to dogs, we all gain a deeper respect for the world around us. Now, in Louisiana, we are blessed to have many animal havens. Some of our animals, of course, are wild. I can remember in my State when alligators were almost extinct. Now we have more alligators than people. By the way, the alligators are surprisingly well organized. So be careful. But we also have a lot of zoos. We have aquariums, none better than those in New Orleans, and those of you who have been to New Orleans may know this. New Orleans is home to what we call the Audubon Nature Institute. That is a nonprofit that we set up in Louisiana. It operates the Audubon Zoo in Uptown New Orleans; the Audubon Aquarium on the riverfront, down near the French Quarter--the Audubon Aquarium and Insectarium we call it; the Audubon Louisiana Nature Center; the Audubon Center for Research of Endangered Species; and the Audubon Coastal Wildlife Network. It is sort of our group of institutions all under the umbrella of the Audubon Nature Institute, and they also do world-class research and work in conservation. Every year, the Audubon Nature Institute and all of its institutions that make it up bring thousands of Louisianians and hundreds of thousands of visitors in our State closer to nature. It fuels our love for wildlife, and it fuels our love for the outdoors. Audubon Park, where our zoo is located--our first institution before we added the aquarium and the other animal havens--wasn't always a prized institution. It wasn't. One man--one person--had a lot of help, but one person led the effort to turn what most of us once referred to as an animal ghetto--our zoo in Audubon Park. It was. It was an animal ghetto but what today we call both an animal haven and an animal heaven. That man's name is Ron Forman--Ron Forman. Ron joined the Audubon Park and Zoo in 1972. That seems like yesterday to me, but to our pages here in the front row, it is a long time ago. Ron started when he was young. He started as a liaison to city hall in New Orleans. At the time, the zoo in Audubon Park was a disaster. It was just a disaster. The enclosures for the animals were small. They were dirty. They were really filthy. They were prison-like. Ron was asked to describe them one time. He said: They are prison-like. This is unacceptable. The condition in which we placed our animals was an embarrassment to the city. It was an embarrassment to the people of Louisiana, and the people knew it. Ron Forman sensed that. He had the vision to be able to say: You know, I can lead an effort. I am not just going to go to government and ask for a bunch of money. I can lead an effort, Ron said, in the community to build support for the zoo, and he did. He not only improved the zoo--we have an aquarium. We have an insectarium. We have an R&D--a research and development--park. We have a conservation park. Ron Forman delivered. He delivered for the human species, and he delivered for our animal friends. By 1977, Ron had climbed the ranks, and he became director of the Audubon Zoo. Then he took off and so did our zoo and our animal havens. He led the effort to transform Audubon Park, which you know is right across from Tulane University, into the Audubon Nature Institute, which, as I said, is the nonprofit conservation and zoological system we know today. Ron helped--and he had a lot of help. I mean, there are thousands of people who contributed, but Ron led the charge. He helped transform a cramped and dirty zoo into a state-of-the-art conservation network, including a zoo, an aquarium, an insectarium, gardens, research institutions, and conservation efforts. And the Audubon Nature Institute has thrived. It hasn't been easy, but it has thrived in large part, in substantial part because of Ron Forman. Now, we got hit by Hurricane Katrina, and it was bad. When we did, the Audubon Zoo and the insectarium and the aquarium and Audubon Park were terribly damaged. Ron didn't get discouraged. He saw the zoo, for example, as a beacon of hope--not as an object of depression but as a beacon of hope. First of all, because of the precautions that he and his team took, we only lost three animals in the storm at the zoo. And if you have been to the zoo, there are trees everywhere. It is just a small miracle. God smiled on us in that respect. The aquarium, unfortunately, down on the river, suffered substantial, substantial losses. It wasn't easy to rebuild all of those facilities. It was very, very hard, but Ron Forman understood. He understood instinctively that we needed to get these institutions back up on their feet because families needed a place to go to forget their hardships. Hurricane Katrina hit in late August. Ron Forman stood up. I thought he had lost his mind. He stood up, and he said: I am going to have Audubon Zoo reopened by Thanksgiving weekend. We were hitting August. Forman stands up in front of God, country, and Louisiana and says: I am going to have the zoo open by November. I thought Ron had been day drinking. I said: It can't be done. I didn't say that publicly. I thought, if anybody can do it, Ron Forman can. He did. This is what he said. He said: We are a city without kids and families, and a city without kids and families right now--because so many of our families and kids have left--is a city without soul. It is a city without heart. So we just thought it was critical to get the thing open for Thanksgiving weekend. And he did. The zoo opened on Thanksgiving weekend. We were able to give thousands of parents and children a sense of normalcy and optimism during the holiday season at a very difficult time for my State and for my city. Now, Ron also led us through the COVID-19 pandemic. Like many businesses and many institutions, the Audubon Zoo and Aquarium and Gardens had to close or restrict attendance to try to help stop the spread of the virus. Attendance at the zoo dropped 50 percent--50 percent. We had almost no cashflow. Under different leadership, we wouldn't have made it. We wouldn't have made it, but we had a secret weapon. We had Ron Forman, because Ron had the passion, and he had the business sense, and he had the support of the community and the support of government to guide the nonprofit through the pandemic. Now, for the first time in 50 years, Louisiana is looking for a new leader for the Audubon Nature Institute because Ron is stepping down. I am sad to see him go. I am happy for him. He is still going to stay on as president emeritus, and we are still going to be able to access his big heart and tap his big brain, but we are going to have a new leader. But thank God Ron is going to stick around for a while to continue his advocacy while we look for a new CEO. Ron Forman made the Audubon Zoo--he made New Orleans home to one of the country's--one of the world's best zoos. He made New Orleans home to one of the world's best aquariums and best insectariums and best research and development centers and best conservation efforts. He didn't do it alone, but he led us, and that is why I wanted to rise today. I just wanted to thank Ron. I wanted to thank Ron Forman for his vision. I wanted to thank Ron Forman for his guts. Some of the things Ron did were not always popular. They were right. But it took courage. I want to thank Ron Forman for his dedication. I want to thank Ron Forman for his love of animals, and I want to thank Ron Forman for his love of people. He brought us all together in New Orleans. I just will never forget him for what he did for us. So, Ron, if you are listening, thank you, my friend, for giving so much to our animal friends. Thank you, Ron Forman, for giving so much to the people of Louisiana and the people of America. Thank you, Ron Forman, for your leadership. I yield to my colleague.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session and that at 1:45 p.m. today the Chair execute the order of July 9, 2024, with respect to the Meriweather nomination.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that our rollcall vote begin immediately.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with me today is one of my colleagues in my office, Mr. Christian Amy. Mr. President, I want to talk for a few minutes about America, about Washington, DC, and about Louisiana. Every time I leave Washington, DC, and go back home to America, I am reminded of how parochial Washington, DC, can be, how removed it can be, how unaware it can be. We often hear people in the city where our Capitol sits say: Well, the American people just don't understand. The American people--you often hear--just don't know what they are talking about. They don't know what we know. They don't read the news. They don't keep up like we do. So, recently, I conducted a poll to test that point of view, and some were surprised with the results of the poll. I was not. One of the questions I asked in the poll of the people of Louisiana is, How frequently would you say they follow the news? About 70 percent of my people in Louisiana follow the news every single day because--actually, it is 67.8 percent. Some of my colleagues back home were surprised by that. I was not; 23.5 percent said a few times a week; and only 6.4 percent of my people don't consult the news or read the news very often. I also, out of curiosity, tested a poll where my people were receiving their news: 39 percent of the people of Louisiana--70 percent of whom follow the news every single day--get their news from cable TV. Another 21.1 percent get their news from morning and evening broadcast television, not cable--local television news and national television news. So, I guess, from one point of view--and I think the numbers bear this out in Louisiana--in terms of the source of news, television is king. Television is king. Seventy percent--or, rather, sixty percent of my people, most of whom follow the news every single day, get their news either from cable TV, from the national evening and morning news, and from local television evening and morning news. Twenty-seven percent of my people get their news primarily from the internet. To break that down, it is about 12.6 percent from social media apps--Facebook, Twitter; 4.7--almost 5 percent--from YouTube; and another 9.1 percent from Apple News, Google News, and those sorts of sites on the internet. So television news for both national and, particularly, local is king in Louisiana, with 60 percent of the people saying that is my go-to news source, but the internet is also a substantial factor at 27 percent: 27 percent of my people--70 percent of whom read the news every day--get their news from the internet. Radio news is also important in my State. Seven percent of my people and change listen to radio news as their primary source of news. Coming in last--consistent with national trends--only 4 percent of my people receive their news today from newspapers. My, how the world has changed. I just found these numbers to be interesting. The source of news for most of my people was interesting to me, but I was very, very pleased to find that 70 percent of my people in Louisiana read the news every single day, and in most cases, they get it from television but also the internet and radio as well. Sometimes we get along in Washington in terms of our perceptions of what is going on in the real America. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk just for a few minutes this evening about my people in Louisiana. They are hurting. Inflation is gutting them like a fish. This inflation, like all inflation, is manmade, and that man's name is President Joe Biden. President Biden has proven to be an inflation machine. He has spent trillions and trillions of dollars that we do not have. He has injected so much money into this economy that we are practically drowning in liquidity. Unless you were in the quad playing frisbee during Econ 101, you know that, inevitably, that is going to cause inflation. And, indeed, it did. I realize there is a yawning disconnect between what President Biden says and what my people in Louisiana are experiencing. There is. President Biden says that the economy is just fine. He says the economy is just wonderful. I will tell you what my people say. My people say, with respect, Mr. President: You need to put down the bong because, in our State, we are paying more to live worse. And we are not going to be able to retire because of you, Mr. President, until 4 years after we are dead. Louisiana is not a wealthy State. Our median household income is about $58,000. That is mom and dad both working, two children--$58,000. It is about $4,800 a month. President Biden's inflation is costing my people an extra $900 a month. That is not a year--$900 a month; $11,000 a year. My average family is making, once again, $58,000 a year. They have got to find, all of a sudden, an extra $11,000 a year. Since President Biden has been President, his inflation has cost the average family in Louisiana an extra $22,000. You don't have to take my word for it. You can see this chart. You don't have to be a senior at Caltech to see that the direction is up, and these extra costs were caused by inflation. The prices of consumer goods in my State, on average, are up 20 percent since President Biden took office. Some are up a lot more; some are up a little less. But the average is 20 percent. Credit card debt is up 46 percent. The average credit card balance in Louisiana is now $5,800. When you are making $58,000 a year for a family of four, $5,800 is a lot. Delinquent credit card debt is up 11 percent, the highest in 12 years. We have had a record number of people who have had to take early withdrawals from their retirement accounts. The average electricity bill in Louisiana is up 28 percent since President Biden took office; gasoline in Louisiana, up 53 percent; eggs, 69 percent; bread, 28 percent; coffee, 28 percent; rice, 29 percent; flour, 30 percent; milk, 15 percent; ice cream, 22 percent; chicken per pound, 27 percent. If you are a mom and dad and you are both working and you have maybe two car notes--certainly one car note--and a mortgage and two children, how can you afford this? You can't. When you group these necessities that I have just talked about by category, what you see is that, on average, for my people in Louisiana--again, we are not a wealthy State--food is up 21 percent on average; housing is up 290 percent; clothing is up 11 percent; used cars and trucks are up 21 percent; new cars and trucks are up 19 percent; and mortgage rates are up a breathtaking 156 percent. Now, President Biden has said, truthfully--and I agree with him on this, and I am very happy that it happened--that inflation is coming down, and it is. But let me tell you the difference between inflation and prices. When inflation starts to go down, we call that disinflation. That doesn't mean prices are falling; that just means that prices are going up less quickly. At one point, we were experiencing 9 percent inflation. Prices were going up an average of 9 percent a year. Now, it is somewhere in the 2 to 3.5 percent range. That means that prices are only going up 2 to 3 percent a year. Again, that doesn't mean prices are falling; that just means they are going up less quickly. That is a long-winded way of saying that disinflation, which I just described, is very different from deflation. Deflation is when prices fall. And these prices--the President leaves this part out. These prices, I am sad to say, are permanent. They may not go up any more if we can get inflation down to roughly 1 to 2 percent, but the higher prices are still permanent. And don't take my word for it. I can refer you to the testimony of both Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Federal Reserve Chairman Jay Powell, who both testified in the Banking Committee on which I sit. These prices are permanent. Mr. President, my people are really getting good--they are really getting good at barely getting by. And it hurts; it hurts deeply. President Biden's inflation, in my State, is a cancer on the American dream. And it didn't have to be this way. We tried to tell him. We tried to tell him. When I say ``we,'' not only many of my Republican colleagues, but many of my Democratic friends did as well. Jason Furman, economic adviser to President Obama--I remember clearly Dr. Furman, now at Harvard, said: With all due respect, Mr. President, if you spend this kind of money, you are going to have inflation. And we did. And the worst part of this is that President Biden has no plan to get it down--none. And I regret to say, but I think the only place that we are going to find economic sanity in our country again is in the voting booth. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I neglected to introduce one of my colleagues to the Senate, Ms. Jess Andrews, who was just here. She is my communications director, and she helped me research my remarks, and I wanted to thank her. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, reserving the right to object and with all the respect I can muster for Senator Durbin--and I mean that, Dick--I do not believe that most of my colleagues think this bill is about ethics. This bill is about abortion. In June of 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the Dobbs case. It returned the issue of abortion to the American people through their States. While the Supreme Court was deliberating that case, my colleague and my friend Senator Schumer went over to the Supreme Court and on the steps of the Supreme Court building--I was there; I remember it like it was yesterday--this is what Senator Schumer said: I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh-- Not ``Justice Gorsuch.'' Not ``Justice Kavanaugh.'' I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you-- Senator Schumer said-- if you go forward with these awful decisions. What we are seeing today with this legislation, in my opinion but most Senators agree with me, is part of the promised whirlwind. And I do not believe that we should try to undermine the integrity of the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States because we are unhappy with one of its opinions. I will withhold my objection at this time to allow my friend Senator Lee to speak.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, with me today is a current member of my staff, one of my colleagues, Mr. Josh Dunn. I want to talk, Madam President, about a topic I hate to talk about. It is very unpleasant, but it is necessary that we talk about this. Some of my colleagues want it to go away, but it is not going away. I thought that we had all agreed that sexual predators and bigots are not welcome in America's workplaces. We have all heard of the #MeToo movement. The #MeToo movement, President Biden endorsed it. Many of my colleagues have actively supported it, as have I. The #MeToo movement reminds us all that America is no place for creepy old men who sexually harass and demean their employees. I thought we had agreed to that. I don't remember seeing any exceptions in the #MeToo movement for President Biden's appointees to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. We call it the FDIC. There is not supposed to be a carve- out for bigots and perverts at the FDIC to harass their coworkers when they are supposed to be regulating America's banks. So why hasn't--why hasn't President Biden shown FDIC Chairman, Mr. Martin Gruenberg, and his leadership team the door? Why hasn't he fired them? Based on the latest report from the Agency, not a single Biden appointee should keep his or her job at the FDIC. Now, Mr. Gruenberg released a statement a few minutes ago. He didn't say he resigned. He said he is prepared to resign as soon as his successor is confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In the meantime, he is going to continue on as FDIC Chairman. It triggers my gag reflex. I mentioned this report. This report, 234 pages, it was done by a law firm called Cleary Gottlieb at the request of the FDIC. The FDIC and Mr. Gruenberg were forced to ask for this report because the Wall Street Journal published a series of articles about the sexcapades at the FDIC, and the FDIC leadership was forced to respond. Cleary Gottlieb issued this report. I was very suspect at first because Mr. Gruenberg and others had picked Cleary Gottlieb to do it. But after the report has been issued and I have had a chance to read it, it is clear to me the law firm--as it should have--pulled no punches. The report tells us that nearly 1 in 10 employees--1 in 10--at the FDIC has experienced sexual harassment, racial discrimination, verbal abuse, or other inappropriate behavior while working at the Agency. I want you to listen to this. I hate to have to say it, but I want the American people to understand what has been going on under Mr. Gruenberg's leadership at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. This is what the report told us: One Hispanic employee told investigators with the Cleary Gottlieb law firm that his FDIC supervisor made him recite the Pledge of Allegiance at work to ``prove that they were American.'' Another FDIC employee reported that her supervisor told her ``You're a mother. You don't belong in the workplace.'' The report goes on. One senior FDIC official who had a reputation for visiting brothels during his work trips--isn't that special--sent his coworker a photograph of his penis. Another senior FDIC official, who allegedly was thrown out of a strip club during a work trip because he groped the dancers, this official, the same day, asked his female coworker ``Does your husband eat you?'' An FDIC field officer pursued sexual relationships with several female employees, including a student intern. Another employee reported that a former FDIC executive ``grabbed her and rubbed himself on her after a happy hour.'' My God. One female employee recounted more than 6 years of persistent sexual harassment from a senior FDIC bank examiner. She said the examiner continuously sent her disturbing text messages, including one that said ``get naked Bitch.'' The employee said the behavior bordered on the edge of stalking. You think? Look, I could go on for hours here. I am not sure my stomach can stand it. In total, there are 6,000 workers at the FDIC. In total, more than 500 reported misconduct by their bosses--creepy old men. They reported 145 incidents of sexual harassment; 436 reports of gender-, sexuality-, or race-based discrimination; and 320 incidents of verbal abuse and bullying. The investigators in this report noted that many of these employees had never previously reported the harassment because the employees at the FDIC had a real and widespread fear of retaliation from the Agency's management. The FDIC employees who did report, through the years, who did report their harassment to the Agency, quickly realized that it was a mistake and a waste of time. From 2015 to 2023, 92 brave employees directly reported incidents and instances of harassment or abuse to the Agency. Good for them. The management at the FDIC didn't fire or demote or dock the pay of a single creep because of these reports. In fact, the FDIC often punished the victims rather than the predators. They would move the victims from the victim's job, not the predator. The predator got to stay. The victims were moved. It didn't matter if they were experienced. It didn't matter if the victim enjoyed his or her job. They had to move because a creep was molesting them. In fact, when a male examiner called his colleague ``a grizzly bear with tits,'' the FDIC relocated the woman instead of the man who made the comment. Again, I am sorry to do this, but I am just reciting the details of just eight of the hundreds of reports of harassment at the FDIC. Now, FDIC Chairman Mr. Martin Gruenberg has been a top official at the FDIC for two decades, as the FDIC has devolved into what apparently is a hellscape for its employees. Mr. Gruenberg has been Chairman of the FDIC for 10 of the last 13 years. He started at the Agency in 2005. Mr. Gruenberg didn't just supervise the harassment at the FDIC. According to the report, he participated in it. According to Mr. Gruenberg's employees, Chairman Gruenberg repeatedly ``disrespected, disparaged, and mistreated'' his staff--not the predators but his staff that was trying to help him manage the Agency. According to the report, Mr. Gruenberg would berate them, threaten to fire them, participate in ``embarrassing and inappropriate'' group chats with them and throw temper tantrums; or he would throw papers his staff prepared for him against the wall. One of his loyal staff members told investigators: In my entire career of 35 years--in my entire career of 35 years--I have never had anybody treat me like that. Reports of Chairman Gruenberg's abusive behavior ranged from 2007 to just last year, showing that he has been a menace to his employees for just about as long as anyone can remember. Yet when my friends in the House of Representatives asked him if he had ever been formally accused of abuse, do you know what he said? He seemed to forget he was the target of an abuse allegation. He said: ``No.'' He had to go back and later correct the record to confirm that he was. Mr. Gruenberg didn't just struggle with holding himself responsible for bad behavior, but he also refused to hold others accountable too. He even handpicked a known abuser. He picked one of these creepy old men, someone whose outburst had cost the FDIC more than 100,000 bucks in a settlement, for a key promotion to serve as the FDIC's general counsel. Employees told investigators that they expect Chairman Gruenberg's leadership team to ``pay, promote, or move'' the serial predators within the FDIC. It is all in the report. Mr. Gruenberg has not once--not once--taken responsibility for his failed leadership. He said he was sorry, but he has never taken responsibility. When he was speaking with the investigators who compiled this report, Mr. Gruenberg denied every single, solitary allegation. Now, the role of the investigators was not to advise the FDIC about whether Mr. Gruenberg and his leadership team should resign. But if you read the report--200-plus pages--it is clear what they think. The investigators said: Mr. Gruenberg's ``apparent inability or unwillingness to recognize how others experience certain difficult interactions with him'' would make it difficult--I would use the word ``impossible''--for him to restore the FDIC to something that resembles a respectable workplace. Chairman Gruenberg is far from the only bad apple at the FDIC. That much is clear from the report. Not everyone is a bad apple at the FDIC. There are employees who are very good employees there, but not all of them. And they have been getting away with this for years. In my opinion, after you read this report, you would conclude that everyone in senior management either knew of the gross, disgusting, and bigoted behavior and did nothing, or they have proven themselves to be such incompetent leaders that they don't deserve to oversee a pet goldfish, much less a Federal Agency. If the executives at the FDIC had any sense of decency, they would resign today, not issue some weeny statement that ``Yeah, I know things are bad at the FDIC, and I will consider resigning as soon as the Senate confirms my successor, but I am going to continue in the meantime.'' That is the statement that Mr. Gruenberg issued. And do you know what we have heard out of the Biden White House? Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada. If I could fire Mr. Gruenberg, I would. But the only person who can fire Mr. Gruenberg is President Biden. Yet no one at the White House wants to talk about this. No one seems interested in firing Chairman Gruenberg or demanding his resignation, and President Biden won't even address it. He sent a spokeswoman out to suggest that President Biden has not fired Mr. Gruenberg because Chairman Gruenberg apologized and has committed to the recommendations that have been provided by the independent report. Let me get this straight. Chairman Gruenberg is going to implement the recommendations, which investigated the abuse while he was chairman of the FDIC. Let's take a look at a few of the recommended changes that President Biden thinks Chairman Gruenberg is qualified to implement. One recommendation that the report includes says that the FDIC must work to protect the victims of sexual harassment, discrimination, and bullying. Do you think? How is Mr. Gruenberg, who issued a statement today, saying, ``Well, I might resign as soon as the Senate confirms my successor''--how is Mr. Gruenberg, who has proven for more than two decades that he has no interest in protecting his employees--supposed to get that job done? He won't even admit that he is a bully. How does the White House think he is going to recognize and deter other bullies and predators? Another recommendation in the report is to enact a culture transformation--a culture transformation--within the FDIC. The investigators recommended that the Board of the FDIC hire an individual to oversee this transformation. I thought that is why we had a Chairman. I thought that is why we had a Chairman. If Mr. Gruenberg's past hiring decisions are any indication, he and the Board will probably promote the Agency's top pervert to the post. The most important recommendation the investigators made, in my view, is that the FDIC must hold leadership accountable for their harassment. Does President Biden really believe--does he really believe--that Chairman Gruenberg is going to hold himself accountable? Are the dozens of creepy old men that the Chairman has protected for two decades? Put down the bong. Wouldn't firing Mr. Gruenberg and every other bigot or predator and senior management at the FDIC be the obvious first step in holding leadership accountable for this abuse? As one employee put it, allowing Mr. Gruenberg to oversee improvements to the FDIC's culture is like ``foxes guarding the henhouse.'' I would put it another way. It is like asking Alec Baldwin to teach a course on gun safety. Mr. Gruenberg and every single member of senior management ought to hide their heads in a bag. The #MeToo movement ought to mean something. And, frankly, the White House should hide its head in a bag. I don't read an exception to moral order in the #MeToo movement for the FDIC because Mr. Gruenberg happens to be of a particular party--the same party as the President's. These folks ought to quit, and they ought to quit today. And if they don't, President Biden should fire them. Anything short of firing them will show that President Biden condones this behavior. The FDIC employees--and there are many good ones--are only responsible for making sure that our banks are secure in the wealthiest and most powerful country in all of human history. Those FDIC employees deserve a professional workplace. They deserve a workplace where they can do their jobs with dignity. And young women don't deserve to be sexually harassed and sent pictures of their boss's genitals. The taxpayers deserve this too, and the banks being examined deserve this as well. You know, when President Biden took office, in 2021, I remember in one of his press conferences--I don't know how the subject came up, but the subject of appropriate workplace conduct came up--President Biden correctly said that he would fire on the spot any appointee who disrespected other members of his staff. Those are the President's words: ``on the spot.'' And he told his appointees that he expected them to do the same. The evidence is plentiful that Chairman Gruenberg disrespected his staff and allowed a toxic culture to bloom at the FDIC. He should resign. He should resign immediately. It is time to clean house at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Charlie November and Quinn Eisenfeld, who are interns in my office, be granted floor privileges until May 21, 2024.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with me today are two of my valuable colleagues from my office, Ms. Maddy Dibble and Mr. Christian Amy, and I am glad to have them today and thank them for their good work. From afar, being an NFL football player looks like a lot of fun, but if you have ever been down on the field when those guys are playing, it is brutal. I mean, it is brutal. Some NFL linemen weigh over 300 pounds, and it is all muscle. A lot of NFL quarterbacks, they are pretty big themselves, but they are not 300 pounds. They probably miss their high school days when they only had a chubby 16-year-old lineman trying to tackle them under those Friday night lights. We have a player on the New Orleans Saints that we are all proud of in Louisiana, Mr. Cam Jordan. I will bet even Mr. Jordan, who is a starting defensive end for the Saints, one of the best in the NFL, has days when he wishes his competitors were only half as big as the ones he faces every Sunday and every day in practice. But think about this, if Mr. Jordan were to announce tomorrow that he identifies as a 16-year-old and if Mr. Jordan then tried to join the football team at Zachary High School, my alma mater, no one in America would pretend that Mr. Jordan is actually a student athlete with the right to take the field along with teenage boys. I mean, most Americans would think you are from outer space. They would be thinking, What planet did he just parachute in from? I mean, every sane person in Louisiana and on planet Earth would understand that a 34-year-old NFL player has no place attacking kids who haven't even been to the prom yet, for God's sake. Not only would it be unfair to allow Mr. Jordan on the Zachary High School football team, he would probably send a few kids to the hospital in the first quarter, in the first minute. Men and women don't take the field against one another for the same reasons. It is fundamentally unfair, and women could get hurt. Yet there are activists in our country today--I wish I didn't have to say this--and there is a President in our White House who think the laws of physics and biology don't apply to transgender athletes. And these activists and President Biden are happy to destroy athletic opportunities for every woman in America to prove their point. These activists and President Biden are working throughout the country--you have read about it in the media--to force biological women and girls to compete against biological men and boys. The ACLU is one of those supporters. The ACLU, for example, says it is a ``fact'' that ``trans girls are girls.'' Now, these activists and President Biden say that it is ``a myth''-- they call it a myth--that transgender female athletes have a physical advantage over biological girls. As an aside, if that is the case, if this is a myth and not a fact, then you have to wonder why so few transgender men who are actually biological women are anxious to play on male sports teams, but I digress. The fact is, you don't need a graduate degree in anatomy to know that these claims are specious. They just are. Both medical and the physical science and the data show that men have obvious and significant advantages over female athletes. I mean, unless you are the reason that your parents drink, you know that. It is just a fact. That is how our Creator made us. Even before birth, baby boys begin developing different hormones and skeletal structures that help them outperform women athletically. Testosterone exposure in the womb, before the baby is born, alters brain development in boys. This improves their motor skills, increases their aggression, two traits that benefit competitive athletes. Boys also experience what doctors and scientists call a ``mini puberty.'' They call it a mini puberty in the womb, so that shortly after birth baby boys will gain weight faster than baby girls. That is biology. That is not political ideology; that is biology. And that ultimately contributes to boys being taller than girls, on average, later in life. The differences between boys and girls, as I think most of us know, explode during puberty. They explode during puberty. Girls develop hearts that are 14 percent smaller than boys. Girls develop lungs, smaller lungs, that are 12 percent smaller than men, on average. That helps boys take in more oxygen--duh. It helps them pump blood more efficiently than girls can. That is biology, and that gives boys a clear edge in endurance sports, sports like running, cycling, swimming, rowing. Girls, also during puberty--again, a biological fact--develop a wider pelvis, on average, and this decreases the amount of force their legs can exert when they are lifting or kicking or pedaling. That is another relative disadvantage when you compare female athletes to male athletes. Boys develop broader shoulders. I think most of us know that. Common sense is illegal in Washington, DC, but it is not in the rest of America, and I think Americans know that. Boys develop broader shoulders to make space for more upper body muscle mass--again, a biological fact. It is hard to think of a sport--I can't think of one--in which a higher muscle-to-fat ratio isn't helpful. The average boy will also grow 5 inches taller than the average girl during this time. Even when women and men are the same height, men have higher levels of bone density, which helps them move more forcefully and escape more injuries in athletics--a biological fact. Women are at a competitive physical disadvantage against men from birth, and this is especially clear at the very elite levels of athletics. Top-ranked high school boys, for example, regularly outsprint female Olympians. Many high school boys--now, we are talking the elites in high school, I wasn't one of those, but the really, fine male athletes in high school, they could run faster than female Olympians, and they are in high school. In 2016, for example, American female sprinter Allyson Felix, Ms. Felix earned an Olympic Gold Medal in the women's 400-meter race. Ms. Felix is a wonderful athlete. A year later, after she won a gold medal, more than 285 American teenage boys logged a faster 400-meter time than Ms. Felix. Don't take my word for it, it came from a study done at Duke University. More than 4,300 adult male athletes across America clocked faster 400-meter times than Ms. Felix, and she was an Olympian. In many Olympic track or swimming events, the female world record holder wouldn't even qualify--wouldn't even qualify--to compete against men. In strength-based sports, such as weight lifting, men outperform elite women in the same weight class by as much as 30 percent. Activists try to distract from biological reality by claiming that men lose their advantages over women when the men begin taking cross- sex hormones. That is not true. The differences between men and women begin in the womb, and no number, no amount of hormone treatments or surgeries can undo those. Estrogen shots don't shrink a man's heart or his lungs, nor do they change the structure of the pelvis or the size of a skeleton, nor do they change your height. One study revealed that men who have been taking cross-sex hormone treatments for 2 years can still run 12 percent faster and do 10 percent more pushups, on average, than women. That is just a biological fact. If you think that is misogynistic, curse our Creator, if you have the courage. It is just a biological fact. Perhaps that is why the University of Pennsylvania swimmer--you have heard of her. When she first competed, her name was William Thomas. She was a male. She is now a transgender female, very prominent athlete. She now goes by Lia Thomas. She went from being the 554th ranked man in swimming to a top-ranked woman in the 200-yard freestyle when she was allowed to compete with biological women as a transgender female. Now, at least in swimming, each athlete gets their own lane. A mediocre male athlete's transition into a top-tier female athlete kills the dreams, and it steals the scholarships of biological women. I will talk more about that later. But at least the female swimmers aren't usually in physical danger because everybody has got their lane. Contact sports are a whole different--a whole different--thing. Transgender athletes have seriously injured female competitors on several occasions, as President Biden's and these activists' movement have been forced on many of our schools. In May 2023, for example, about a year ago, a high school volleyball player in North Carolina sued her State's high school athletics association after a transgender player--transgender female, born a biological male--spiked the ball in her face. Boom, hit her, right in the face. She got a concussion. She is suffering from long-term physical and mental injuries--not just physical injuries but mental injuries. Last October, a high school senior in California suffered a season- ending concussion after a transgender--born biological male, now a transgender female--after a transgender volleyball player spiked the ball and hit this young woman in the face during a game. She couldn't play high school volleyball anymore. This February, a girls' basketball team in Massachusetts forfeited a game. They said ``no mas''; we quit; we can't go on. They forfeited a game after a transgender athlete--biological male, transgender female-- injured three female players. The other team was going to run out of players, so they had to quit, and the coaches were worried that more of their players were going to be hurt. Now how many women and girls are going to be rushed to the hospital while activists and President Biden create safe places in which transgender athletes can hurt female athletes as a matter of course? Shouldn't we be asking that question? Some activists say that a biological man--as I indicated, some activists may say that a biological man has the same physicality as a biological woman. Put down the ball if you believe that, but some--this is America. You are entitled to say what you want. And some say that a biological man doesn't have any advantage physically over a biological female, but that doesn't change the laws of nature. That doesn't change the laws of science. That doesn't change the laws of anatomy. The truth is that a woman's bone doesn't care that the person who snapped it identifies as a woman or a man or whatever. They just know their bone is broken. American female athletes are not lab rats. They are not lab rats we can subject to a social experiment. They have goals and dreams, too, and they have worked hard, too, to develop their skills, to earn scholarships, to win championships. No girl, no woman, no female in America should end up on the bench with her arm in a sling because the Biden administration wanted a biological man to feel included. Broken bones will heal in most cases, but transgender athletes have also inflicted a different kind of pain on female athletes, a pain that is a lot harder to mend. I am thinking of the pain felt by athletes like the swimmer from the University of Florida who missed out on the chance to swim as an All American because Ms. Lia Thomas, formerly Mr. William Thomas, who ranked 554 as a man in swimming took her place and dominated the women's race. We should all worry about the swimmer from Virginia Tech who didn't get to compete in the final race of her collegiate career. That is a race she will never get back because Ms. Thomas stole her spot in the pool. How discouraging. How discouraging it must be to dedicate your life to a goal, only to have these activists and President Biden rip them away because institutions are unwilling to accept the immutable facts of anatomy. I reject the proposition. I do. I reject the proposition that it is OK that some young athlete is losing out--spends hours in the pool or in the gym each night--has to have her college championship taken away by a biological boy because the Biden administration says so. I reject that. Transgender athletes are not just undermining the game for female athletes, they are also stealing opportunities for women athletes to earn scholarships to get an education. This isn't just about competitive competition; this is about getting an education. That is why we call them scholar athletes. The NCAA, for example--not exactly a model of courage, by the way. You ever seen a catfish once you catch it and bring it up on the bank? It flips and flops, and it flips and it flops. That is the NCAA. They just go with the political winds. Their attitude is: We have standards. If you don't like our standards, we have others. The NCAA sets limits on the number of scholarships available for every sport, men and women. By definition, giving a transgender athlete a scholarship means a nontransgender girl will not get one. Duh. Yet the University of Washington recently offered the first Division I women's volleyball scholarship in the country to a biological male. It won't be the last. This is the first Division I scholarship taken away from a female athlete, but it won't be the last. Now, that makes President Biden happy. I am happy he is happy. But that makes most fairminded Americans sad. It makes me sad. Additionally, we have only just begun to see how much money is at stake for female athletes who could earn private sponsorships. Have you followed the career of Angel Reese, our star--former star at LSU now playing in professional basketball? Have you followed the career of Ms. Caitlin Clark? They make a lot more money from their sponsorships than they do from their salary playing their sport. Now, regardless of how you feel about paying college athletes, it is here. Name, image, and likeness sponsorships--they are here, and they present an enormous financial opportunity to athletes. From July of 2021 to June of 2022, about a year, college athletes earned nearly $1 billion in sponsorship deals. We are talking a lot of money here. We don't know yet how much sponsorship money female athletes can earn. We are sort of in the infancy of this. But we know for certain that they won't earn a penny if a biological male takes their spot on the team. I know that. A lot of girls are already suffering the consequences of this reality. Chelsea Mitchell--Ms. Chelsea Mitchell--for example, she missed out on several track and field championships because the State of Connecticut forced her to compete against biological boys. She sued her State high school athletic association--good for her--because she believes she could have earned a better scholarship if she had finished first. This is what she told reporters. When colleges looked at me, they didn't see a winner. They saw a second or a third place. I wasn't a first place finisher, and I think that is what really hurt me. The playing field--I have talked a lot about it--the playing field is not the only place where young women worry about facing transgender females. The locker room has become a nightmare. Ms. Riley Gaines, a female swimmer, she has been very outspoken to protect female athletics. You have probably seen her interview. She said: I felt and feel ``extreme discomfort''--her words, not mine--sharing a locker room with a nude biological man. She added: We were not forewarned. We were not asked for our consent. And we did not give our consent. Ms. Gaines and more than a dozen other female athletes recently sued the NCAA--good for them--for forcing them to share a locker room with Ms. Lia Thomas, formerly Mr. William Thomas. The plaintiffs say that what the NCAA did violated their 14th Amendment right to bodily privacy, and it is hard not to believe them. If Ms. Gaines--who is a tremendous athlete, and she is very well- educated--felt disturbed and violated by having a biological man in her locker room, think how horrifying it is for a teenage junior high school girl--a teenage junior high school girl--in her locker room after soccer or volleyball practice with a biological male. Imagine how helpless parents feel when they can't shield their teenage daughter from naked men and boys without killing their daughter's chances to play and win the sports they love. It is the choice parents face. You can either play the sport--their daughter can either play the sport they love, or they can be forced to look at a young boy's penis in the locker room. Are you kidding me? The discomfort that adults and President Biden are subjecting female athletes to should be enough for us to say that biological males should not be in the girl's locker room, let alone exposing their penises in front of those girls. Only fools would ignore the reality that some--not all, now--but some men would abuse misguided gender policies for their own sexual advantage. We have already seen some horrific instances of this. You have probably read about the disturbing assault in Loudoun County, VA, sexual abuse in girls restrooms by biological males. I will happily send you the media articles, President Biden, if your staff has not shown them to you. Now, look, I have great empathy. I have genuine empathy for the small percentage of Americans who struggle with gender dysphoria. I do. And I hope they can somehow find peace in their lives. But I do not think that we need to sacrifice the physical safety of women. I do not think that we need to or should sacrifice women's athletic, educational, or professional opportunities just because some activists and President Biden claim that injecting biological men into women's sports is the only way to make transgender Americans feel included. And don't let activists and President Biden try to tell you that protecting women is a controversial opinion. They are going to try. And 70 percent--70 percent--of Americans polled--you will see this every time--70 percent of Americans think only girls should compete in women's sports. In fact, many transgender Americans are part of that 70 percent. They don't believe biological men should compete in women's sports because it is going to destroy women's sports. Yet their stories by some members of the media have been co-opted by people determined to force boys onto girls teams and into their locker rooms. Now, Louisiana has already put a stop to this. In 2022, the Louisiana State Legislature passed a bill--it is now an act--called the Fairness in Women's Sports Act. It prohibits biological boys from competing against girls in elementary or high school sports. It sailed through our State legislature. It was bipartisan. Republicans voted for it, and a whole bunch of Democrats voted for it. It is just common sense that biological girls should take the field against biological girls and biological boys should compete only against biological boys. That is how we in Louisiana see it. We need a whole lot more of Louisiana's common sense in Washington, DC. Congress has done a lot. I am proud of this body. Congress has done a lot to protect women's sports in the 50 years since title IX became law. I am very proud of title IX. I think President Biden is trying to turn it into something that we don't recognize, and I don't think he has the authority to do it. But I am very proud of the original title IX, and it would be a great disgrace to allow activists and President Biden to erase all the progress that we have made in elevating women and women athletes in order to conduct a social experiment, in order to demand inclusion. Let me give you the bottom line. Activists and President Biden want to force young female athletes to change clothes in front of biological boys in their locker rooms. They accept the biological man's slide tackle on the football field with a smile. That is what they want women to do--just grin and bear it. And President Biden and activists want young women to hide their tears when a biological male walks away with a trophy that those women have spent their entire lives working for. And it is wrong. Pass me the sick bucket. Pass me the sick bucket. That is what most fairminded Americans are thinking. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Nadler, my colleagues in the New York delegation, Mr. Speaker, and Leader Jeffries. Mr. Speaker, I stand before you humbled by the opportunity God has given us to be together in this moment, this awesome and magnificent responsibility that has been granted to me by the people of western New York. I am grateful to those who have entrusted me with their vote and their confidence to represent our beloved Buffalo-Niagara region in the United States Congress. I want to take a moment to recognize my family, who is here with me, my wife, Katie, and our children, Connor, Eireann, and Padraic. I also want to recognize my parents, Martin and Mary Kennedy, and my in-laws, Dave and Jane Duerk. My brother, John, also made the visit down, along with many other family members and friends. I am grateful that they can all join us here today. Looking down on us are our baby angel, Brigid, along with so many other family members and friends who have passed on and whose spirits remain with us here today on this auspicious occasion. They are no doubt toasting and celebrating in Heaven above. Calling Buffalo, New York, and America home were the O'Briens and O'Donohues, Wilsons and Flynns, Dobmeirs and Stearns, McCarthys and Duffys. Mixed all together, the result is a Kennedy. I hail from the City of Good Neighbors, the community of good neighbors; the original home of the Seneca Nation of Indians; the village of Buffalo, burned to the ground by the British in the War of 1812, and rebuilt and incorporated in 1832; the western terminus of the Erie Canal, helping to transform our Nation through improved commerce; a border community with our greatest ally, Canada, to the north; a region surrounded by Great Lakes; and, in between, one of the greatest wonders of the world, Niagara Falls. The grandeur of the falls is only surpassed by the people who have defined the region around us. Today, we stand as a community of patriotic citizens who have always championed democracy and freedom, from the days of serving as a final stop on the Underground Railroad to the Niagara Movement, the precursor of the NAACP, which was formed in our community. The equality and justice these leaders strove for over a century ago has yet to be fully achieved, and there is still so much more work to be done. In Buffalo-Niagara, we walk in the footsteps of Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mary Talbert, Shirley Chisholm, and so many other civil rights leaders. In their spirit, we march on. It was Niagara Falls that made Buffalo the City of Light. While we have seen our share of darkness, Buffalo is seeing a resurgence that generations only dreamt of, as a melting pot of ethnicities and cultures are helping to redefine our region and an economic renaissance has taken hold. We are a working-class community with a belief in achieving a better life and the American Dream through education; honest, hard work; and perseverance. I believe the character traits that define us in the Buffalo-Niagara region are the same ideals held by all Americans. I believe the hope we hold as a western New York community in achieving our greatest potential is shared equally by all communities across our country. I look forward to working with my colleagues to change our country for the better. I am hopeful that we in this Chamber can demonstrate leadership on a world stage that our fellow Americans can be proud of. I wish to thank, once again, the people of western New York for having faith in me to lead our community and our country in the United States Congress. God bless us all. God bless America.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, 2004 would probably be preferable, but I will accept a friendly amendment that we make it 2024. (Chorus of Hear! Hear!) Vote on Motion

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I have a motion. I think my motion takes precedent.

Mr. KENNEDY. Having heard Senator Schumer's serious allegations-- which, in my judgment, are specious--about the constitutionality of these impeachment proceedings, we find ourselves in the awkward position, because we are in impeachment proceedings, of being unable to discuss in public the merits of Senator Schumer's claim, and at the same time, my Democratic friends have refused to go into closed session so we can discuss it.

Mr. KENNEDY. For that reason, I move we adjourn this Court of Impeachment immediately until 12 o'clock noon on Tuesday, April 30, and I ask for the yeas and nays. Vote on Motion to Adjourn

Mr. KENNEDY.--I move that we adjourn until 12 noon on May 1, 2004, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I have a motion, and it takes precedence.

Mr. KENNEDY. As I appreciate the majority leader's allegation, lying to the United States Congress is not a high crime and misdemeanor. You don't have to be Mensa material to know that it is not always----

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. I just want to be able to be sure I understand, Senator. I asked Senator Lee if he would yield to a question. I thought I heard Senator Schumer argue today that lying to the U.S. Congress was not a high crime or misdemeanor and, therefore, could not be the basis for an Article of Impeachment. Did I hear that correctly?

Mr. KENNEDY. So even though lying to the U.S. Congress is a felony under the precedent that the majority leader and our Democratic colleagues established, it is not a high crime or misdemeanor? Is that what we did?