John Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk a few minutes about the good people of China, about Confucius Institutes, and the Chinese Communist Party. I meant what I said when I referred to ``the good people of China.'' You visited China, Mr. President. The people of China are wonderful people. They are engaging. They are smart. They have a great sense of humor. They have built an extraordinary economy. I wish I could say the same about their authoritarian government, but I can't. The Communist Party of China is trying to not only swallow China, it is trying to swallow the world. We helped the Communist Party of China be admitted into the World Trade Organization. We were told that if we did, they would embrace free enterprise. We were told that the Communist Party of China would be a valuable participant in a stable world order. None of that has come to be the case. We know what the Communist Party of China has done to Hong Kong. We know what the Communist Party of China has done to the Uighurs. We know what the Communist Party of China has done to the wonderful, wonderful people of Tibet. But I did want to make that distinction between the authoritarian government of the Communist Party of China and the Chinese people. The Communist Party of China, being as aggressive as it is, has for a number of years reached out to our colleges and universities to establish what the Communist Party of China calls ``Confucius Institutes.'' And this was the pitch made by the government of China to our universities: ``We will give you bucket loads of money if you''-- our American universities--``will allow us to establish Confucius Institutes where we can explain our culture to the young people of America, where we can have a free exchange of ideas, and where we can help young Americans learn the Chinese language if they would like.'' That sounds great. You know, I will take a dozen of those. But the Communist Party of China being the Communist Party of China, that is not how our Confucius Institutes have worked out. These institutes, run by the authoritarian Government of China, will not allow the free exchange of ideas. They will not allow anyone to talk about the Uighurs or the people of Tibet or Hong Kong or what happened at Tiananmen Square. They basically--``they'' meaning the Communist Party of China--have used these Confucius Institutes as propaganda arms of their government. Many of our universities have done the right thing. They have said: No, we stand for the free exchange of ideas, and if you are going to come on our campus and tell our people that there are things they can't talk about, then, respectfully, you need--you, the Confucius Institutes--to leave our campus. But some of the universities haven't done the right thing. I am not suggesting that--I am not cynical enough to suggest that it is all about the money, but you can't ignore the fact that I think the Communist Party of China has given our universities, through the years--don't hold me to this figure exactly--but about $150 million to set up these Confucius Institutes. Universities, you know, they build that money into their budget, so they are reluctant to see the Confucius Institutes leave--not all of our universities but some of them. I recognize the economic reality. I have a bill that would say to--we wouldn't get rid of Confucius Institutes. It will just tell our universities: You have to properly manage them. You can't allow the Confucius Institutes to stay on your campus if the Confucius Institutes will not allow for the free exchange of ideas. If kids--I shouldn't call them kids. If young people in our universities want to talk about Tibet, they get to talk about Tibet. And the bill would say that the universities have to take back control of these Confucius Institutes from the Communist Party of China; otherwise, they are not going to be eligible for Federal funds. My bill, once again, doesn't kick anybody off campus. It just says you have to--you, the Communist Party of China, have to do what you originally told us you were going to do. My bill has--our bill, because the Senate passed it twice. Twice this bill has passed the U.S. Senate, the last time with bipartisan support. We put the bill on the NDAA, and, Mr. President, you know how conference committees work with the NDAA. Sometimes it is a ferret fire drill, and there is a lot of confusion, and somehow the Confucius Institute bill got watered down to do nothing in the conference negotiations on the NDAA. I am not criticizing anybody, but it happened. So I am going to ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass the Confucius Institute Act for a third time, and I hope, in our new Congress, we can keep teeth in it in working with our colleagues, not only in the Senate but in the House. Toward that end, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 590, introduced earlier today.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, since we have a few minutes here--I think Senator Sanders is supposed to be next--I just thought I would take a few minutes to talk about President Biden's coronavirus bill. Let me see if I can explain why so many of my Republican colleagues-- and I am a part of that--are disappointed in the bill. This bill will be our sixth coronavirus bill. I don't think anybody, any fair-minded person, can accuse the U.S. Senate, both Democrats and Republicans, of not trying to respond to this devastating virus and the economic problems it has created. I have been very proud, within the first five bills, that we did it on a bipartisan basis. We spent a lot of money, about $4 trillion. That is 4-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0 taxpayer dollars. And, of course, we don't even have 5 percent of that. We borrowed every bit of it. It is a staggering sum. But we did it because we had a crisis. We had to deal with it. That is what we were sent up here to do. We did it on a bipartisan basis. But this, the last bill, President Biden's most recent bill--we call it the $1.9 trillion bill--we haven't done it on a bipartisan basis. I am disappointed in that. I understand politics. The Presiding Officer does too. But I listened very carefully to President Biden throughout the campaign and in his 6 weeks of this administration, and he said very clearly and repeatedly: You know, I want to work with everybody. What I heard him say to the Republicans was: You know, I want to meet you halfway. I don't mean any disrespect, but if that is the case, either he or the people around him are not very good judges of distance. It has been made very clear to us that there would be no negotiations on this bill and that President Biden decided to proceed to reconciliation, which only requires a majority. And I think we both expect there to be 50 Democratic votes in favor of this bill and 50 Republican votes against it, and Vice President Harris will break the tie. That is not a bipartisan bill, and I regret that, and I think it could have been different. You know, we can debate about whether we need $1.9 trillion, and I understand there are good arguments on both sides. I have heard the arguments, and I have listened carefully to my Democratic friends explain why they think we need it. There is another side of the story, and that is that, thank the Lord, we enjoyed 4 percent GDP growth last quarter. Most economists reckon that we will have about 6 percent GDP growth this year. The American people have about $1.6 trillion in excess savings. We have all this liquidity that, as soon as it is allowed to be released, is going to stimulate our economy substantially, in my judgment. Everyone involved is doing a wonderful job on the vaccines. President Trump's team did a wonderful job. President Biden's team is doing a good job. The Governors seem to be doing a great job. People are getting vaccinated. We know that we have a lot of people in America who had the virus and didn't even know it. We are rapidly approaching the point where, either through vaccination or people who had the virus and therefore have the antibodies, we are going to have way over the majority of American people protected. So one point of view is that we don't need to spend $1.9 trillion, but there was a middle ground here, and I am disappointed that the President took the position that, look, we need to spend $2 trillion right now, even though there is $1 trillion at least in previously appropriated funds that we haven't spent yet. Now, a reasonable approach would have been to say: Do we really need to spend $2 trillion? Maybe we ought to spend the other $1 trillion and see if that will do it. Another reasonable approach would have been to say: Maybe we ought to reprogram some of the $1 trillion that hasn't been spent. For example, we appropriated I think about $70 billion to our elementary and secondary schools. They have only spent $4 billion, so why are we giving them another $160 billion in President Biden's bill? Maybe--I am not saying it is the case, but we ought to explore it--maybe the schools didn't need the full $70 billion we gave them if they have only spent $4 billion or $5 billion. So maybe we can reprogram some of that money. Now, if we had this money sitting in a checking account, I would still think--because it represents a scarce resource, I would still think that we need to take a look at the money we have already sent and either spend it, if it is well placed, or reprogram it before we go out and spend $2 trillion. But we don't have the money in a checking account. We will borrow every penny of this money, $2 trillion. That is going to bring debt up to 27, 28, 29 trillion dollars, and we know that right behind it is going to come a green infrastructure bill. I am hearing that could be $2 trillion to $3 trillion more. At some point, we are going to run out of digits. I mean, at some point, we are going to have to change the name of the Department of Treasury to the ``Department of Debt'' because there is no treasury left. It is all debt. The other thing that bothers me about the bill is President Biden-- and, again, I understand politics. He has marketed this bill as an emergency. It is an emergency. We have to do it now. Right now, we need $1.9 trillion to deal with the economic crisis caused by the lockdown. And I understand that argument and that there currently are some Americans who need help, but if what the President is saying is accurate, then why is so much of the money not even going to be spent until a year from now? I look at the bill, and I say, if all that is true to deal with an immediate crisis, why are we giving money to States and local governments that have actually seen their revenues go up? Why? There is no crisis. And I look at the bill and I ask myself, you know, why are we giving money to bail out pension plans? Can we talk about this? And I look at the bill and I say, why, as I just alluded to, why are we giving $160 billion--I think that is the figure--$160 billion to our elementary and secondary education institutions when we have given them $70 billion in the past and they have only spent $4 billion? Where is the fire? They have $65 billion or so left. This is real money. There is no money fairy. I look at the bill--I mean, I want to help the American people. Gosh, many of them do need help. But should we really be sending stimulus checks to people who have never missed a paycheck out there? Do they really need the money if they haven't been laid off and if they have been paid the entire time of the lockdown? Why are we doing this? Couldn't that money--first of all, one option is not to spend it if there is not a need. We can pay down our debt or at least not increase our debt. Another option would be to spend it on something that we really need. I come to the conclusion--I am not trying to be mean-spirited, but that is why I say calling this a coronavirus bill, you know, it is like calling Harvey Weinstein a feminist. This isn't a coronavirus bill, not the way it has been portrayed. Now, the American people still have needs. We still have some folks, primarily in the leisure industry and in the travel industry, who need our help. They do need help. We have a lot of folks who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. They are on unemployment that is about to run out. They need our help, and we ought to help. But the right way to do this is to sit down as a body--Democrats and Republicans--and go through our needs, not our wants, because that is another problem with this bill; it is more ``wanty'' than needy. Let's go through our needs, and let's discuss how much money we should appropriate to those needs in light of the facts that we have already spent $4 trillion and we have a bunch of money left over. And that is not the way this is being done. This is just being rammed down our throats. This is just raw gut politics, which I understand. I have been around it. You have, too, Mr. President. We have both been around the block a few times. But that is not how you allocate scarce resources. The final point I will make is, I know when we did the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act--``we,'' meaning the Republicans--we went through reconciliation. We did. And so a fairminded person might be thinking, well, Kennedy, you know, how can you criticize your Democratic colleagues for using reconciliation if you did it? And that is fair, except when we did the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, we asked our Democratic friends in leadership: Can we sit down and see what we can put together? And we were told: No, we don't want to reduce taxes. That is not what happened this time. Ten of my colleagues--I wasn't invited, and that is OK. But 10 of my colleagues went to the White House and visited with President Biden for 2 hours and came back and said: You know, I think he may want to put a bill together. And we were excited. We were going: Yay, that is great. Wonderful. Then, the next thing we knew, the White House issued a statement and said: Our idea of unity is to do what we say and don't ask questions. Both of us know that is not unity. So all of this could have been avoided. It all could have been avoided. And I think we are going to end up spending money that doesn't need to be spent right now. I think we are going to end up spending money where we don't need to spend it. I am so glad that Senator Schumer withdrew his bridge project and that Speaker Pelosi withdrew her Silicon Valley subway. That is just spending porn as far as I am concerned. But, in any event, I wanted to get that off my chest. We are going to go through a vote-arama, where we all offer amendments. Maybe together we can make this bill better and get rid of some of the spending porn, as I call it, and do the job that the American people sent us here to do. Thank you. I don't see Senator Sanders. I'm sorry. With that, I yield to my good friend Senator Peters.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am going to talk for just a few minutes about the need to open our schools. I think you would agree with me because I followed your career--with admiration, by the way--that our country is only as good as its dreams and we are only as valuable as our children. And, in my judgment, we are doing immeasurable damage in this country to our children. We all know that we had to close down our public schools and our parochial schools and our private schools, pre-K to 12, because of the coronavirus, but I think most fairminded Americans understand that we need to open them. The future of this country is education. It is not the level of the stock market. It is not the unemployment rate. It is not who the President is. It is education, and we know that. So why aren't we opening our public schools when we know it is safe to do so? I am very proud of our efforts in Louisiana. Seventy percent of our public school students are back learning in person--70 percent. And I want to thank every teacher, every parent, every school board member, every maintenance worker in our schools, and anyone who directly or indirectly influenced this result. They are heroes in my opinion. Seventy percent--I am so proud of that. I especially want to thank our teachers. I have been a volunteer public school teacher in Louisiana for--I don't know--20-plus years. I do it three times a year, and I am a real substitute--none of this go for an hour and talk about how a bill becomes a law. I am a real substitute: quarter to 7 to 3, teach five classes, do your bus duty, your lunchroom duty, and get worn out. So I have some appreciation for what it takes to teach, particularly in this difficult environment, and I especially want to thank our teachers. But that 70 percent figure that I am talking about, the number of our public school children in Louisiana who are back to in-person learning, is only 40 percent nationwide, and that is an embarrassment. That is a disgrace. We are doing immeasurable damage--immeasurable damage--to a generation of children. Now, I don't need to tell you we have been struggling with elementary and secondary education for the last 40 or 50 years, and it is very frustrating because Americans can do extraordinary things. We can unravel the human genome. Americans can take a diseased human heart and replace it with a new one and make it beat. Americans can send a person to the moon and bring him back or her back. But we struggle to teach our kids how to read and write and understand the meaning of their diplomas when we have 18 years to do it. Now, there are a lot of reasons for that, and I am sure not blaming anybody, and I don't want to digress. But my point is, we were struggling before the coronavirus. That should tell us that now more than ever, given our circumstances before the coronavirus, we need to take meaningful steps to get these schools back open. We know that it is safe. The CDC Director under President Trump has said it was safe. The CDC Director under President Biden has said it is safe. Vaccination across America is--we started out a little rocky, a lot like our testing program, but it is getting much better. I read an article the other day in the Wall Street Journal, written by a Johns Hopkins researcher, physician, who said, in his opinion, about six or seven times more Americans have had the coronavirus than we know of; therefore, they do have immunity. And he said, coupled with the number of people who have had and survived coronavirus and our vaccine program, which is getting more aggressive every day, we could have a substantial reduction in the number of coronavirus cases by March and April. Indeed, we have seen the decline in the number of our cases now, today, starting from early January. They have declined dramatically. And people smarter than me have suggested it is our vaccines, it is the approach to herd immunity, and, of course, it is the habits that we have developed in terms of social distancing and masking and good hygiene. But my point is that the experts, the science, all tell us that it is safe. And I have to tell you, I don't mean to be unfair because I know it is complicated, or it can be, and I don't mean disrespect, but I have been very, very disappointed with President Biden. He has flipped and flopped on this issue like a banked catfish. He has said we need to follow science, but he refuses to follow the science in terms of opening our schools. We know it can be done because we have been doing it in Louisiana. We have done it. If you look nationwide at the number of private schools that are open, back with in-person education, the number of parochial schools, the number of Catholic schools--they are doing it. Why can't we do it in our public schools? It is not money. For our first five coronavirus bills--I am not counting President Biden's proposed bill. Through our first five coronavirus bills, we have appropriated between $70 billion and $80 billion to our public schools to get them back open. Our public schools have spent $5 billion out of 70 to 80--I think it is $70 billion. So it is not a matter of money. I think it is just--I am not sure what it is. I don't want to be a cynic and say that it is a matter of will. But here is what I am asking President Biden to do; here is what I would do if I were King for a day. I am not; I don't aspire to be. But here is what I am hoping that President Biden will do this afternoon: Call a press conference, and look the American people in the eyes, and look our school board members in the eyes and our teachers and our parents and our maintenance workers and say that we need to open up. If we really believe we are only as good as our dreams, we are only as valuable as our children, then we need to act like it. And I think President Biden needs to call that press conference. He doesn't need to talk about the science, though that is important, or the politics or nibble around the edges. He needs to look the American people in the eye and say: By God, open the schools. Open the schools. Our kids deserve no less. There is not much I agree with former Congressman and Mayor Rahm Emanuel on, even though I think he is a bright guy, but politically we approach the world differently. But he said when he was mayor that kids drop out--not in the 12th grade. They drop out in pre-K and kindergarten and the first, second, third, and the fourth grades. We are going to lose a whole generation of kids here. I see I have some additional time while we are waiting on Senator Schumer. I think I am going to take my additional time--and I will cut it short if Senator Schumer is here--to talk about another issue

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we guarantee freedom of speech in America. Unlike other countries, we also guarantee freedom after speech. One form of freedom of speech is the right to peacefully protest. That doesn't mean that violence as a part of protest is or should be legal in our country. In fact, it is not. Without order, there can be no justice. We have had, unfortunately, riots throughout this year. In fact, if you look at the numbers, we have had over 50 deaths in our country this year from riots, including here at our own Capitol, and this is the most expensive period of riots in our history. My amendment would prohibit the SBA from providing assistance, such as the Paycheck Protection Program, the Economic Injury Disaster Loans, 7(a) loans, and other small business assistance, to anyone who has been convicted during the past year of a felony or a misdemeanor during and in connection with a riot.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 782 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, do I have any additional time from my original time?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds to respond.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk about two topics today. The first topic I want to address is the issue of immigration. My good friend Senator Durbin is very articulate--he is almost an expert on this issue--and I appreciate his comments. I want to just give you my perspective on immigration because it is so important. Yet this is not why I came down here today. I love legal immigration. I think most Americans do. Louisianans love legal immigration, and I say that with great confidence because, every year, the American people invite over a million of our world's neighbors to become American citizens in a legal manner. We are very welcoming in this country. We invite more people to become citizens in America than any other country in the world, and I am flattered that people want to come here. I mean, other than someone living in North Korea, when is the last time you heard of somebody trying to sneak into China? People want to come to America, and I am so proud of that fact. I don't believe in illegal immigration. Some of my colleagues--not the Chair and Senator Durbin--think that vetting people at the border is racist. I don't. I think it is prudent. Every country does it. We respect the rule of law in this country, and illegal immigration is illegal. Duh. I mean, if you don't like the immigration laws, one should change them. In the meantime, we have to follow the law. I am not real crazy about traffic cameras. I think, in many cases, they are designed to just raise money, but I obey them, and when I get fined, I pay the fine. It doesn't happen often now, but I do it. Look, this country needs an immigration system that looks like somebody designed it on purpose. It does. I think the American people deserve that. I would love to work with Senator Durbin. I am not real interested in nibbling around the edges. I am not real interested in piecemealing. I am not real interested in some sort of widespread amnesty. I think we ought to sit down. We all ought to take our meds and sit down as adults and Senators in good faith, as all Senators are, and try to tackle this problem in a global way. I just wanted to make it clear--this is speaking for me, personally, and I have learned a lot from listening to Senator Durbin as I always do--I am a steadfast believer in legal immigration, but I adamantly oppose illegal immigration. I think it is dangerous. I think it is unfair, especially to those people across the world who have waited in line patiently and followed the immigration laws of our country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, he had been reporting and trying to predict--and had predicted with great accuracy--the weather in the Baton Rouge metropolitan community for 45 years, but Pat's experience covers a whole lot more than being a meteorologist, though he was one of the best I have ever seen in that regard. During his nearly half century of reporting the weather, Pat not only covered more than 500 storms and hurricanes but he also hosted ``We Play Baton Rouge,'' a local game show; ``The 5th Quarter,'' a sports show; and ``Hotline After Dark,'' a local talk show, where his guests-- and I am going to quote here--``ran the gamut from champion bodybuilders, to beer brewers, to duck callers.'' We are a very diverse people in Louisiana. Pat has a warm heart, and he cares for the State and the Baton Rouge community, and that has been on display for a lot of years. I am not telling my people back home anything they don't already know. Pat is especially well known for being chairman of WBRZ--WBRZ, channel 2 in Baton Rouge, our prominent local station, where Pat has worked for so long. Pat has worked hard as chairman of that station's Pat's Coats for Kids--Pat's Coats for Kids. This program has--unfortunately, we have children in America and in Louisiana who are hungry and cold. You can't learn when you are hungry; you can't learn when you are cold. Pat has delivered hundreds of thousands--could be in the millions for all I know--of coats to kids whose parents can't afford to keep them warm in the winter. He has also created the Fill a Prescription for the Needy project, and he started Baton Rouge's St. Patrick's Day parade--the Wearin' of the Green, it is called--which he continues to coordinate every single year. Pat's final broadcast took place on Friday night, as I mentioned, January 29. That does not--I can assure you, knowing Pat Shingleton, that does not mark the end of his service to the people in Baton Rouge. I can say that with great confidence. I predict that Pat will continue to contribute as a community advocate and as a spokesperson at WBRZ. I predict he will continue to champion all of the charity projects that he spearheaded for so many years. Now, when asked about his retirement, Pat said, and I am going to quote, ``I think we're all given a whole bunch of heartbeats.'' ``We're all given a whole bunch of heartbeats,'' Pat said, ``and God gives us these heartbeats to do something good.'' What an eloquent way of putting it. Pat has used his heartbeats pretty well, in my judgment. He has a lot more to go, but he has done it for the good of our State, for the good of the Baton Rouge metropolitan community, and he has done it in the newsroom, and he has done it outside the newsroom. Pat says he is going to spend the extra time with his family--good for him; he has earned it--especially his 1-year-old grandchild. Look, we are going to miss his guiding hand through Louisiana's irreverent weather patterns. We may have to draft him back on a few occasions, but I want to wish him a joyful retirement to soak in all the perks of being a grandfather. Pat, thank you. Thank you for your hard work for the people of Baton Rouge. Thank you for giving so much to the people of Louisiana for all these 45 years. You are a good person, and you are a fine American. God bless you and your family. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, suicide is the second leading cause of death for youth and for young adults aged 10 to 34. It is also the second leading cause of death among college students. Thirty-nine percent, in fact, of college students experience a significant mental health issue, and 50 percent of mental health issues begin by age 14. Seventy-five percent of them begin by age 24. Senators Cornyn, Jones, Warren, Gillibrand, Rosen, and I have introduced the Improving Mental Health Access for Students Act. There is companion legislation in the House that is also bipartisan that has 51 cosponsors. Our legislation is pretty simple. It would require colleges that participate in Federal student aid programs to share contact information for suicide prevention resources with their students, and this is how it works: If a university distributes student ID cards--most do; not all of them do but most do--then the universities would be directed to include the phone numbers for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, for the Crisis Text Line, and for a campus mental health center or program on the student ID card. If a university doesn't have a student ID card, they don't have to publish a student ID card just for that purpose. They can put the information on their websites. The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is well known. It is a national network of over, I think, 180 local crisis centers. Those centers provide confidential emotional support to anybody in a suicidal crisis or emotional distress. They offer 24/7 services, and those services are free. I would also point out that our legislation is also supported by the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Association of School Psychologists, and 14 other mental health-related organizations. Our legislation, finally, would not take effect until 1 year. So I don't want anyone to think that we are requiring our colleges to go out and immediately publish new student IDs. As they publish new student IDs when the current year runs out, we are just asking them to include this information on those IDs. Toward that end, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be discharged from further consideration of our legislation, S. 1782, and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. KENNEDY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few moments today about a Baton Rouge and Louisiana rock star. I am talking about Baton Rouge's own Diane Deaton. This week, Diane announced that she is going to retire from her post as a weather forecaster at WAFB-TV, which we refer to as Channel 9, where she has served on ``9News This Morning'' and on ``Early Edition'' for many years. Diane is known--widely known--affectionately as Queen D. She has been reporting the weather for the people of Louisiana, particularly Southeast Louisiana, for 37 years--37 years--and all at the same station. Over a WAFB career spanning, what, nearly four decades, Diane has become a beloved fixture in our State and in our State capital. Her compassion has been on regular display--and not only in the way that she has walked Louisianians through hurricanes and tornadoes. Weather is important to us in Louisiana. Diane has invested in first and second graders at Buchanan Elementary in East Baton Rouge Parish through an extraordinary program called the Reading Friends program. She has built new homes for families through Habitat for Humanity, where she currently serves as a board member. Diane has been a part of LSU Tiger HATS pet therapy program. That is a program where she and her colleagues visit young patients and their families at one of our leading hospitals, Our Lady of the Lake Children's Hospital. Diane's awards are many. I won't list them all, but they include the Louisiana Association of Broadcasters' Lifetime Achievement Award, the Holly Reynolds Humanitarian of the Year Award--that was from the Capital Area Animal Welfare Society--and the Ulli Goodman Volunteer of the Year Award from the Baton Rouge Ballet Theater. I don't know how she finds the time, but Diane is also certified as a Delta Society Pet Partner for her work using therapy animals. Yet I noticed that Diane's announcement was characteristically humble as she steps away after 37 years. Here is what she said: ``I have never taken for granted the honor and privilege you have given me over these many years by choosing me and my colleagues here at WAFB-TV to keep you and your family safe and informed.'' I think that the gratitude among Louisiana and Baton Rouge residents is certainly mutual. I am glad to hear that Diane will not be leaving our great State. I want to emphasize that. She is going to retire in Louisiana, and I hope she enjoys every moment--every single moment--she gets to sleep in after December 18. No one can argue--no fair-minded person can argue-- that she hasn't earned a rest, even though her familiar weather forecast will be sorely missed in a State that takes more than our fair share of beatings from Mother Nature. I thank you for the chance to honor Diane Deaton. I thank you for the chance to honor Diane Deaton for all of her hard work on behalf of everyone who relies on WAFB-TV for news and for everyone in Louisiana and Baton Rouge whom her volunteer work has touched--and that numbers in the hundreds of thousands. Diane, may the years ahead bring as much joy to you as you have brought to our State and our community. God bless you. I yield the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is horribly newsworthy to say that Judge Barrett's confirmation vote will not be unanimous. It should be. It won't be. If you judged Judge Barrett solely on her intellect and her academic achievements, certainly her nomination should be unanimous. Any fairminded person would have to be impressed. She is an honors graduate of St. Mary's Dominican High School in New Orleans, one of the finest schools in this country. She is an honors graduate of Rhodes College in Memphis, an extraordinary liberal arts school. She is an honors graduate of Notre Dame Law School. She finished first in her class. She clerked for two of the most distinguished jurists in this country--the late Justice Scalia and Judge Silberman. She was a chaired professor at Notre Dame Law School. She is now a member of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Any fairminded person who reads her legal writings and her opinions would come away impressed. If you judged Judge Barrett solely on her integrity, her confirmation vote should be unanimous. We all watched her almost 30 hours of testimony. We all know now about her beautiful family. She has seven beautiful children, two of whom are adopted and two of whom happen to be children of color. She is a devout Christian. If you talk to her former students, to her colleagues, and to her critics, who know her well, they will all tell you that she is a person of integrity. And if you don't want to believe any of those people--I wish you could, and I know the Presiding Officer can--but I wish the American people could see her FBI background check. The Presiding Officer and I know that when the FBI checks your background, it is kind of a combination between an endoscopy and a colonoscopy. They are pretty thorough. There is not a hint of scandal. If Judge Barrett were being judged on the basis of her temperament, she would be a unanimous choice as well. We saw that in her 30 hours of testimony. She listens well. She answers truthfully. She suffers fools gladly. I was just so impressed watching her. The reason that Judge Barrett will not be a unanimous choice, at least within this body, has to do with a little bit of history. This is one person's point of view, but I think history will prove that I am correct. For the last 60 years in America, we have been moving from a representative government and more to what I will call declarative government. We, as you know, are a democracy. We are not a pure democracy, unlike Athens, for example. When we have to make a decision on social or economic policy, each of us doesn't put on a fresh toga and go down to the forum or the public square and vote. We elect representatives to make those decisions for us at the Federal level. They are called Members of Congress, and they are accountable. The people have given their power to our representatives, and if those representatives don't exercise that power in making social and economic policy, those representatives can be unelected. But in the last 60 years, in some cases voluntarily and in some cases involuntarily, this body, the U.S. Congress, which under our Constitution is supposed to make social and economic policy as representatives of the people, has, as I said, in some cases voluntarily and in some cases involuntarily, ceded our power--ceded it to the administrative state and to the judiciary. Let me talk for a moment about the administrative state. Some would call it the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy now at the Federal level is a giant rogue beast. It enjoys power once only known by Kings and Queens. The administrative state makes its own laws, called rules; interprets its own laws; and enforces its own laws before judges that the bureaucracy itself appoints. We in the U.S. Congress have allowed that. The judiciary has helped the administrative state gather that power as well. As you know, there is a rule called the Chevron doctrine. I won't bore you with the details, but it basically says that if the administrative state--the bureaucracy--interprets a rule or regulation or even a statute in a ``reasonable way,'' whatever that is, the judiciary is going to defer to them. The U.S. Congress has also ceded much of its power to the judiciary, and we have had many Federal judges that greedily accepted it. The reason that we will not have a unanimous vote for this eminently qualified nominated jurist is because of that. Some people in America and some of my colleagues like the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court, for the last 60 years, has not demonstrated judicial restraint. Now, I am not going to stand here and tell you that the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't make law. Of course it makes law. It makes law in a particular case--one side wins; one side loses. Sometimes the U.S. Supreme Court makes law at the direction of Congress and at the direction of our Founders. Our Constitution only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. We look to Federal judges to the U.S. Supreme Court to tell us what ``reasonable'' and ``unreasonable'' means, but in all cases our Federal judges and the U.S. Supreme Court is supposed to demonstrate judicial restraint. When it is a close question, when it is a matter of social-- major social or economic policy, then the Federal judiciary is supposed to show deference to the U.S. Congress, but more and more it does not. Some Americans like that. Some of my colleagues in this Chamber like that. They think that the U.S. Supreme Court ought to be a mini- Congress. They think that the U.S. Supreme Court should be a political body. They like the fact that if they can't pass a law changing social and economic policy through the U.S. Congress, they get a second bite at the apple and can go to the U.S. Supreme Court. I don't believe that is constitutional nor does Judge Barrett, I have concluded after 30 hours of testimony, and that is why her confirmation will not be unanimous in this body. Let me tell you what I believe--and I will preface this by saying, after listening to Judge Barrett for 30 hours, this is what I believe she believes: I believe that Madison and his colleagues got it right. I believe that we should have three equal branches of government. I believe we should have checks and balances. I believe that just because those branches of government are equal, that doesn't mean they are the same. I think their Founders intended each of those branches to have their own special role, scope, and mission. I also believe that our Founders felt they were laying the foundation for a representative democracy, that Congress would make the important economic and social policy in this country; that when we talk about how societies meet our human needs, our Americans meet their human needs in terms of security, education, work, health, and well-being, that those decisions would be made by the people, not by the judiciary or the bureaucracy. They would then be made by people through their elective representatives. I believe that our Founders intended Federal judges' role to be to tell us what the law is as enacted by Congress, not what the law ought to be. I believe our Founders intended for Federal judges to call the balls and the strikes--sometimes in doing so making law in a particular case, but to call the balls and the strikes, as Justice Roberts put it. And in doing so, I don't believe our Founders intended for Federal judges to be able to draw their own strike zone. I do not believe that our Founders intended for Federal judges to be politicians in robes. I do not believe that our Founders intended Federal judges--and, certainly, not members of the U.S. Supreme Court-- to be able to rewrite the U.S. Constitution to satisfy some political or social agenda every other Thursday that the American people will not accept through their elected Members of this body and the House of Representatives. It is called judicial restraint. Judge Barrett shares it. It is controversial. It shouldn't be. But that is why, in my judgment, her confirmation vote will not be unanimous. I will be voting for Judge Barrett. I will be doing so enthusiastically. She is one of the finest legal minds I have ever seen, and she understands the role of the U.S. Supreme Court under our Constitution. I yield the floor to the senior Senator from Vermont.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I want to talk just for a few moments about the internet and social media, and I want to make it clear, first, that I believe firmly in free will and responsibility. I believe that no matter what kind of day you are having or what is going on in your life, that you are responsible for your actions. But I think we all know, as a matter of experience and common sense, that there are things in this world that can influence our actions. Social media, which I consider to be an American invention, has many virtues and many advantages, and we know that. I think it has brought the world closer today. I think it has given many people a voice. I think it is an extraordinary source of knowledge. But like other innovations in this world, it has a downside. And one of those downsides is the fact that, too often, social media becomes an endless electronic brawl, and rather than bringing us together and exposing us to other points of view and causing us to test our assumptions against the arguments of others, it brings us apart. I think social media is, in part, responsible for that. We all know that many social media platforms are free. Let's take Facebook, for example. Facebook is a free service. You open an account; you go on Facebook; and you can find out what your high school friends had for dinner Saturday night. Now, we give up a lot from that privilege of watching what our high school friends had for dinner Saturday night. Facebook collects an enormous amount of information about us. And, once again, I am not just picking on Facebook. I am using them as an example because it is such a popular platform that we all know about. Facebook uses that information in a number of ways. First, Facebook uses it to make money. They know a lot of stuff about us from collecting information about us so they can sell advertisers' ads, and they can tailor those ads to the individuals who are on Facebook according to the information that the social media platform-- in this case, Facebook--has about them. You can even sell more ads if you can keep people who are on Facebook coming back and coming back and coming back. So this is what happens. Some see this as a virtue, and some see it as a vice. A social media platform like Facebook gathers an enormous amount of information about us, and they learn, in intricate detail, what motivates us and what our interests are. Another way of saying that would be they learn what our hot buttons are. And they continually show us--what is the word I am looking for--advertisements, information, and postings of other people on Facebook that reinforce our beliefs, and, in some cases, they show us very radical bits of information that really push our hot buttons. Now, why do they do that? Well, No. 1, it will keep us coming back to Facebook, and it will keep us on Facebook longer, which means that advertisers like us better because we are seeing their ads, and it means that Facebook can sell more ads at a higher price. I am not criticizing them. That is just the way the business works. But the downside of it is that we only see one point of view. Our point of view is reaffirmed. We never see other points of view. We are never encouraged to question our assumptions or to test our assumptions against the arguments of others. Now, how does Facebook do this? And, again, I don't mean to just pick on Facebook, but it is an example we are all aware of. They use algorithms. I am not going to try to explain algorithms, but that is how they show us information that pushes our hot buttons. The social media platforms contend that they are not involved in content and that they are just publishers. So when somebody pushes your hot button and you get angry and you say something that you probably shouldn't say--that is why Facebook has turned into an endless electronic brawl--Facebook says: Hey, it is not our fault. We are just a publisher. That is why, under the law, Facebook enjoys what we call section 230 liability. But as long as these algorithms are used to push our hot buttons, to reaffirm our points of view, to not show us other points of view--one point of view is that Facebook and other social media platforms are not just publishers. They are clearly content providers, and they are having an impact on our behavior. My bill is very simple. It just says that if you are a social media platform and you use algorithms based on the information you, the social media provider, have collected about us, if you use that information to push our hot buttons by continuously showing us information that just reaffirms our point of view without showing us other points of view, that is fine. That is perfectly legal. That is your business model. But in return, you are no longer going to enjoy section 230 liability. This would not eliminate section 230 liability in a pervasive manner, but it would say that if you are going to use algorithms to push hot buttons and to keep other points of view away from us and monetize that practice, then you shouldn't enjoy section 230 liability. That is all my bill does. For that reason, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce be discharged from further consideration of S. 4756, which is my Don't Push My Buttons Act, to which I just referred, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all in the vein of, we have talked now for years about section 230 liability, and I think we ought to actually try to do something about it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, though my bill, S. 4403, a bill to amend the Nutria Eradication and Control Act of 2003 to include California in the program, amends P.L. 108-16, which calls specifically for the Secretary to ``require that the program consist of management, research, and public education activities carried out in accordance with the document published by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service entitled `Eradication Strategies for Nutria in the Chesapeake and Delaware Bay Watersheds' dated March 2002'' and to ``give consideration to the 2002 report from the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries titled 'Nutria in Louisiana,' '' the Secretary and State participants should also consider data that has been established since 2002, in developing strategies for the eradication of Nutria.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, a few weeks ago, on August 27, Louisiana and southeastern Texas were hit by Hurricane Laura. I say ``Louisiana'' because if you look at some of the press reports, they say ``Southwest Louisiana,'' but the impact of Hurricane Laura in Louisiana was much greater. The storm came onshore in Southwest Louisiana in Cameron Parish. It headed north, then moved northeast, and finished in the northeastern part of our State. I have seen the damage from the air and on the ground. I have never seen a hurricane do this kind of damage in any State, much less Louisiana. The path of destruction is about 60 miles wide, starting in Southwest Louisiana, running north, bending to the northeast, and it is about 200 miles long. We took it full in the face. When you see devastation like this, when you go through something like this, you start to understand that we human beings are a vain lot. We think we can control nature, but nature controls us. Our entire electrical system went down. Our water system went down. Our internet went down. Our cable TV went down. It was a category 4 storm with winds of up to 150 miles an hour. This storm was unusual in that winds were sustained and did not dissipate as it got further inland. We took it full in the face. Now, it doesn't do any good to complain. Louisianans are resilient people. We live by the old Japanese proverb: ``Fall down seven times, stand up eight.'' We are standing back up. About 60 percent of our electrical power has been restored. We now have water back. In some cases, there are still some boil orders because the water is not clean. But we are deficient in one area, and that is cable TV and internet, with an emphasis on internet. I want you to understand I am not talking here about a mere inconvenience. I am not talking about people missing their favorite television shows. I am talking about kids' education; I am talking about the ability to deliver healthcare; and I am talking about the ability to conduct commerce. None of those things can be done in today's world without the internet. The internet, particularly in Southwest Louisiana, is provided by a company called Suddenlink. (Ms. MURKOWSKI assumed the Chair.) Suddenlink is owned--it was purchased by a company called Altice USA. Its CEO is a gentleman whom I have not had the pleasure of meeting, Mr. Dexter Goei, and I am here today to plead with Suddenlink to please get our internet restored. Suddenlink has done such an abysmal job that Suddenlink needs to change its name to Neverlink. Suddenlink provides internet service to 150,000 Louisianans. I haven't studied their financials, but let's say at $150 a month, if you include the cable television part, Louisianans pay Suddenlink--soon to be named Neverlink if they don't do a better job--about $23 million a month. Now, all of our public utilities have been working very hard. Entergy has worked hard. AT&T has worked hard. CenterPoint Energy has worked hard to get our utilities restored so that we can start recovering. Suddenlink has not worked hard. At one point, we had 29,000 people on the ground helping us to restore our water system, helping us to restore our electric power, helping us to cut trees, helping us to get tarps on roofs. We had at most 300 representatives from Suddenlink--300 representatives to handle restoring internet for 150,000 Louisianans. Suddenlink should be ashamed of itself. We have restored about 60 percent of our electrical power. We have restored about 16 percent of our internet. Once again, I am not talking about someone missing their favorite television program. As the Presiding Officer knows, because you have the same situation in Alaska, all of our public schools are not open, all of our private schools are not open because of the virus. Many of our kids are having to learn remotely, and they can't do it without the internet. They can't. The Presiding Officer is also aware of how the internet is integral to the ability to deliver healthcare. I don't know a single business today that can operate without the internet. Many of our businesses, including our small businesses, because they can't have customers coming into their shops, are doing a lot of their commerce over the internet. There is just one problem in Louisiana. Because of Suddenlink dragging its feet, we don't have internet, and we can't recover without it. I don't mean to be overly critical, but this has just gotten out of hand. Every one of our public utilities has done a yeoman's work--has done an extraordinary job--except the one--except the one. If Mr. Dexter Goei is listening tonight--and again, I don't mean to be overly critical. I plan to visit with him in the next couple of days. I think he has finally agreed to come visit Louisiana. We have three requests. First of all, we need workers on the ground. You can't restore the internet service without people working to restore the internet service, and let me say it again. Entergy, just to pick one of our utility companies, has over 10,000 workers restoring the power. Suddenlink, which provides internet for 150,000 people, has a grand total of 300 people. It can't be done. We are currently not a priority, even though 150,000 of my people write a monthly check to Suddenlink. No. 1, Suddenlink, respectfully, put some people on the ground to get our internet restored. No. 2, we need a local office for Suddenlink. They don't even have one. Maybe it is because they don't have internet, but many people lost their homes. At a minimum, they lost their roofs. They don't have cable boxes. They have to have somebody they can go to and say: Here is my old box. Give me a new box. But Suddenlink doesn't even have a local office. No. 3, I am going to ask Mr. Goei to please commit to our State leadership to start giving us a daily update on restoring the service-- how many homes and businesses have been added each day. Again, I know I am repeating myself, I don't mean to be overly critical and we have been very patient in Louisiana, but the time has come to call it like it is and say it like it is. At the rate they are going, Suddenlink needs to change its name to Neverlink in Louisiana. We cannot recover without internet--we can't do it--and Suddenlink link has let us down. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, thank you to my colleague from New Jersey for yielding me some time. I sit on the Banking Committee with Senator Menendez, and it is my privilege. I have learned a lot from listening to him, along with our chairman, Senator Crapo. While convictions are important to us on the Banking Committee, so is data. I believe that as much as we can be, America is and should be a colorblind meritocracy. I believe in that. I also believe in data. I believe in facts. This is a data bill. This is a fact bill. This doesn't make anybody do anything except be transparent. This bill applies to public companies. Some may call them Wall Street companies, but they are spread throughout America. I make that point simply to reaffirm that this does not apply to small, publicly held companies we sometimes call Main Street businesses. This bill is endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This fact and data bill passed overwhelmingly in the House with a bipartisan coalition, and as Senator Menendez eloquently pointed out, it simply requires public--usually large, but not always--publicly held corporations to report data with respect to their Board of Directors, nominees to the Board of Directors, and their executive officers. The data that these companies are being asked to report is data with respect to gender, data with respect to veteran status, data with respect to ethnicity, and data with respect to race to the extent that the board members, nominees, and the executive officers themselves report that data. Frankly, and I will end on this note, I was very surprised that we didn't have this data. In fact, when I first read Congressman Meeks' bill and Senator Menendez's bill, I thought: This can't be necessary; we must have this data at the Securities and Exchange Commission. We do not, but we will if this bill becomes law. For that reason, I rise in support of Congressman Meeks' legislation and Senator Menendez's legislation, and I support it. With that, I would yield to Senator Menendez.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. So if I might ask, does that mean that both bills together have passed?

Mr. KENNEDY. I believe the Record will reflect that is correct, that Senator Paul--I am not asking you to comment on the accuracy of what I am about to say, but I believe the Record will reflect that Senator Paul's bill was merged with the Carper-Kennedy bill and that those bills have passed as one bill. Now, having said that, if Senator Wyden or anybody else would like to sit down with Senator Carper and me and make some improvements to the bill, I am more than happy to do this and to do that. I will not speak for my good friend and mentor Senator Carper, but I know he would share in my feelings, and I would extend that courtesy to Senator Wyden and to any other Senator who would like to make some changes. Let me reiterate again: This is a serious problem. We hotlined this bill on Thursday. We have worked out many difficult issues, and we found out that there was another Senator who couldn't be available--he said, 5 minutes ago--and that is why we proceeded. But I am willing to unproceed to work with Ron or anybody else who wants to improve this bill. But improving this bill, for me, doesn't mean--I have only been here 3 or 4 years, but I have learned--I have learned the hard way-- that sometimes negotiations can last years. Do you know what? I have said it before: Doing nothing is hard. You never know when you are finished, and we need to do something on this. I am embarrassed to go home. I feel like putting on a bag in the airplane when I get out so that my constituents will not see me. We sent out $1.4 billion of taxpayer money to 1.1 million dead people, and all we had to do was pass a simple bill that says to people at Social Security: Share your death file with the rest of your colleagues. What is controversial about that?

Mr. KENNEDY. Certainly.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield?