Mike Lee

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I rise again today in support of the bipartisan State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act. This is an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill. In fact, 99 Senators support passing this bill. Only one--oddly, the lead cosponsor of this bill--has objected. Now, the nature of the objection was that passing this bill would somehow reduce the chances of passing that Senator's own wholly unrelated bill, a different bill, a bill not touching the subject matter of this bill. But the idea that it must be all or nothing is silly, and it highlights one of the more vexing problems facing Congress. The idea that unless Congress will pass all of what a particular Senator wants, that no one else can pass anything is something that is a cause of great dismay and frustration. Making it easier for State attorneys general to enforce the antitrust laws is good policy, but it is, of course, not a silver bullet. I agree we still need meaningful reform at the Federal level. Passing this bill would, in no way, shape, or form, set back that project. It would just allow State attorneys general to bring antitrust suits now rather than worrying that Big Tech companies will be able to slow them down by requesting that courts combine them with private litigation. This UC is precisely what happened in the Texas v. Google case. In fact, unanimously passing this bill will only strengthen momentum in Congress for meaningful, much-needed antitrust reform. It will be a proof of concept of sorts, one that indicates that we can set aside our egos and partisan differences in order to achieve a shared goal--in this case, a goal that I believe is shared by all 100 Members of this body. Standing in the way of that achievement accomplishes nothing. In fact, it only plays into the hands of Big Tech. Big Tech would love nothing more than to see antitrust reform suffocate and die on the Senate floor, yet another victim of this ``all or nothing'' mindset, of this mindset that would suggest unless we pass all of what I want now, you can't pass anything, even something that I support. It is important that we pass this bill. All 100 Senators support it. There is only one who has been objecting, and the basis of that objection has nothing to do with the merits of the legislation; it has only to do with the misguided and, ultimately, incorrect assumption that this would somehow interfere with that Senator's wholly unrelated bill. To that end, Madam President, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 261, S. 1787; I further ask that the Lee amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the basic purpose and function of the U.S. Constitution is to protect the American people from the dangerous accumulation of power at the hands of the few. You see, that kind of protection is necessary to make us free. In that respect, it is the structure of our government, set forth in the Constitution, that truly makes us free. It is the bulwark against what would rob us of our freedom. The Framers spent those hot summer days of 1787 in Philadelphia principally debating the structure and role of the Federal Government. Through the centuries of this great American experiment, it has been the structure of our government, not simply the Bill of Rights or other substantive provisions--it has been the structure that has been the most effective protection from waves of oppression and the whims of dictatorship. Tragically, under the auspices of CRT, unrestrained progressivism, and a false sense of national destiny, the modern left has embarked on a campaign of sorts to condemn the Founders, to tarnish the Constitution itself, and deface the structure and institutions that protect our liberty. Progressives have been astoundingly, shockingly, effective. Unfortunately, this effort to seize power to enact a radical agenda, no matter the cost, is not a new tactic of the Democratic Party. President Franklin D. Roosevelt engaged in an institution-shaking campaign to pressure the Supreme Court to consent to and accept with constitutional infirmities his radical New Deal agenda. He wanted to pack the Supreme Court by increasing the number of Justices to appoint his own political loyalists who would then do his bidding. His threats to the structural Constitution of the United States led to the infamous ``switch in time that saved nine.'' Now, Roosevelt's plan to pack the Supreme Court failed as a legislative matter. When it got to this body, when it reached the Senate floor, it didn't go anywhere, but it left a lasting mark, and it has not been a favorable one. Legal scholars, historians, politicians, and people of every stripe and political persuasion have since then condemned this. For example, this Court-packing campaign has been called a ``bad idea'' just in the last few years by the late Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. It was likewise called ``a bonehead idea'' by then-Senator Joe Biden. And yet today many Democrats are returning to that rejected notion and, like a dog to its vomit, going back to a bad idea that was bad then and remains bad now. The Supreme Court has consisted of nine Justices since 1869, over 150 years. It is a settled number that most Americans agree should stay. Not one person has argued that we need to increase the number of Justices because of a human resources problem or a workforce problem. No, it is not that; it is rather that they want to influence the outcome of decisions. They want to politicize the Court. Tragically, the independence of the judiciary is thus being threatened, and it is being threatened, I would add, on several fronts. You have got misguided groups like Ruth Sent Us, along with others, that have attempted to pressure conservative Justices by protesting at those Justices' homes and places of worship. When you show up to someone's home, the home of a public official, especially if that person is a judge or Justice, it is unlawful; 18 U.S.C. section 1507 plainly prohibits that because you are trying to influence them. You can't do that. It is unlawful. In fact, that is a Federal felony, a serious one in fact. It is a serious offense because when you show up at the home of a public official like that, regardless of whatever else you might say or what the signs you are carrying might have printed on them, the lasting message, whether these words are spoken or not, is, ``We know where you sleep.'' That is an implicit threat of physical violence. On other fronts, you have got certain Members of Congress, including some Members of this body, who are willing to place the Court's independence at risk. You have got some Members of this body, including the senior Senator from Massachusetts, who went out and screamed with some of the same protesters in front of the Supreme Court and has written an op-ed for a local paper stating her intent and her desire to pack the Supreme Court, while pioneering the hashtag ``ExpandTheCourt.'' I would venture that the Court is much more popular nationally than is her agenda. But popular acclaim and the support of the constitutional structure of the United States is, of course, not the goal of the modern left. Their goal is power. Fittingly enough, the ambition of individuals is precisely what the Constitution is designed to restrain. It is working as intended. James Madison wrote of the Constitution in Federalist 51: If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and [then] in the next place, oblige it to control itself. I pray that my colleagues supporting this dangerous effort will exercise the self-control of our constitutional form that our constitutional form of government requires. We have all sworn an oath to that, and that oath requires us to take into account the form and the role that it plays in protecting our freedom. The current efforts to undermine and delegitimize the Court are multifaceted and have included the unprecedented treatment of Republican-nominated nominees to the Court, including the public high- tech condemnation of Clarence Thomas and the similarly unfounded attacks on Brett Kavanaugh, on Sam Alito, and on other Republican nominees to the Court; Senator Schumer's very public attempt to intimidate the Court by standing in front of the Supreme Court Building during oral arguments in a Louisiana abortion case, June Medical, shouting: ``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 if you go forward with these awful decisions.'' The Constitution is a structure. It is a process and an organization. When Democrats threaten another branch of government for political ends, they threaten that structure itself. It is dangerous. It is wrong. And I pray for the sake of our Nation that it never succeeds. To that end, every Member of this body should be condemning these efforts and condemning the efforts of those described in the Axios article that ran today explaining that the Department of Homeland Security is now having to investigate serious credible threats of people wanting to burn down the Supreme Court of the United States, people wanting to assassinate Supreme Court Justices and law clerks. We must all condemn them. And I hereby do so in the strongest terms I am capable of communicating.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, I appreciate the insight and the enthusiasm for antitrust law and even for this legislation that has been expressed by my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator from Minnesota. She and I have been partners on a number of things, including the fact that we have alternated back and forth as the chair and ranking member of the Antitrust Subcommittee in the Senate for over a decade now. As she mentioned, she is the lead cosponsor with me on this bill. We have worked together on it. Look: I agree completely that we need to hold Big Tech accountable under antitrust laws. If you want to hold Big Tech accountable, pass this bill. Pass this bill today. There is not a reason to delay. No, I understand and appreciate her desire to pass the Klobuchar- Grassley bill. I get that. It is a different proposal. It is not inconsistent with this one. There is no reason why this one couldn't pass and still allow the other one to move forward, nor is there any reason why this measure becoming law would, in any way, undermine that legislation or that legislative proposal. As to reaching a deal or not reaching a deal, we have been in conversations with the office of Senator Klobuchar for months-- literally, months--about it. We talked about different strategies for making sure that we could get it passed--what might have to change. We both discussed the fact that we preferred to keep the bill intact with the retroactivity provisions in there, but, if necessary, we could remove the retroactivity provisions if, by so doing, we could get it past the hotline. All of that has been done in consultation with the office of the Senator from Minnesota for months--literally months. So none of this is a surprise. This was done in tandem with Senator Klobuchar's office. Finally, I feel the need to push back against the notion that whenever something bigger could happen, nothing smaller in that area may be allowed to pass prior to that. This is a discreet, very specific fix to antitrust law that is desperately needed--urgently needed in order to hold Big Tech accountable under our antitrust laws. There is no good reason to delay this, and it is unfortunate today that we can't do that. I least expected it from the lead cosponsor of the legislation.

Mr. LEE. Madam President, the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act is a much needed reform that would put State attorneys general bringing antitrust suits under the Federal antitrust law on equal footing alongside Federal antitrust enforcement personnel by allowing them to avoid consolidation with private antitrust suits. This would shield these important antitrust actions from the inefficiencies of coordinating their litigation with their slower moving counterparts brought by private litigants, and it would also respect our federalist system of government and recognize the unique and essential role that States play specifically in enforcing our antitrust laws. No doubt, this is exactly why this bill is supported by 45 State attorneys general, including Utah, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Texas, California, Vermont, South Carolina, Rhode Island, Delaware, Nebraska, Connecticut, Missouri, Hawaii, New Jersey, Arkansas, Louisiana, and North Carolina, representing the home States of almost every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. My own reasons for introducing the legislation are simple. States are sovereign entities, and they are entitled to pursue law enforcement actions in defense of their citizens in the venue and in the manner they think best, period. Allowing State antitrust enforcement actions to be consolidated with private lawsuits not only impinges upon State sovereignty, it also needlessly delays consumer redress for antitrust harm. For example, the case brought by 16 States in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico alleging that Google's conduct in digital advertising has violated Federal antitrust laws was transferred from Texas, where that lawsuit was originally filed, to the Southern District of New York to be consolidated with other cases. The transfer was ordered in August of last year. Some 9 months later, discovery is still stayed, and no progress has been made. Had the case just remained in Texas, discovery would be well underway, and the trial was scheduled for next summer. Instead, the case is languishing, and potential remedies to consumer harm are being postponed. Google's delay tactics have been successful. We must eliminate this loophole--a loophole that allows monopolists to delay antitrust enforcement actions brought by State attorneys general. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation. So, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 261, S. 1787. I further ask that the Lee amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to; that the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, my colleagues and I are here today to highlight the fact that our Democratic colleagues have shown the American people how truly radical they are when it comes to abortion. The Women's Health Protection Act--what I believe should be better known as the ``Abortion on Demand Until the Moment of Birth Act''-- casts a vision of abortion in America, one utterly without limitation. Federalism is one of the truly genius ideas behind the U.S. Constitution. Federalism means that we make the majority of our decisions at a more local level rather than at the national level. When we rely on the principle of federalism, more people across the country have more reason to be content with the laws they have. People have a greater say in the legislative process at the local level, which means they get more of the kind of government they want and less of the kind of government they don't want. For nearly the last half-century, the decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey have abused the Constitution by reading into the Constitution a right that exists nowhere in the Constitution. These wrongly decided cases have wreaked havoc on public trust in government, on the republican nature of our government, on the public's understanding of the Constitution. More gravely, these decisions have permitted the euphemistically described ``termination'' of 63 million American lives. That is more than 45 times the number of American lives lost in war since the founding of our Nation--every war combined. Forty-five times that. Let that sink in for a minute. Abortion is a tragedy. It is one that is scarring our Nation's history because of what it says about how we respect human life. Those scores of millions of lives represent--each and every one of them-- unique and unrepeatable genetic makeups and identities and potentials. They represent the loss of Americans of all races, varying physical and mental abilities, all political affiliations and professions, with many targeted because of their race, sex, or disability. Their termination is a loss of ideas, of innovation, and of compassion. Those abortions erase all potential families and communities. Those abortions represent the loss of infinite potential, connection, and love. Abortion is a tragedy that scars our history. So when I read Justice Alito's draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, I was elated--elated--because it relies on federalism and a sound reading of the Constitution to reassert that there is no constitutional right to an abortion. Just because a combination of lawyers wearing robes 48 years ago decided that would be the case does not make it so. Our Constitution is difficult to amend, and it is deliberately that way. They didn't follow this procedure; they tried to circumvent it, and they were wrong. Regulating abortion is a matter reserved for the American people and their elected representatives, not nine unelected Justices. For that very reason, a number of people have turned against it, and because they can't characterize it the way that it actually is, they mischaracterize it. Then they go so far as to encourage people to show up to the homes, the private residences, of the Supreme Court Justices in question. There is no reason to do this that doesn't involve an implicit threat of violence. When you show up at someone's home, you are sending an unmistakable message: We know where you sleep. That is why this is expressly prohibited under Federal law. There is a Federal criminal law prohibiting this under 18 U.S.C. section 1507. Now, stunningly, the White House--the White House--the President's personal spokesperson, Jen Psaki, just in the last few hours, has repeated this charge, has encouraged people to do this, saying: We certainly continue to encourage protests outside of judge's homes. This is wrong, and I call on the President of the United States personally to undo this. He is encouraging unlawful behavior that is inherently dangerous and is inherently threatening. This radical bill that has emerged in the days immediately following the leak of the Dobbs draft opinion is shrouded in the lie of protecting women's health while allowing for killing babies by any means, however gruesome, violent, atrocious, heinous, or cruel, right up until the moment of birth, preempting any State laws that might choose to protect life. Those late-term abortions not only kill viable babies, but they are unreasonably needlessly cruel, and they are extremely dangerous procedures for the mothers themselves. Unlimited abortion is also widely unpopular. Only 17 percent of Americans believe that is the right policy. Among medical professionals, the feelings are similar. Research shows that over one- third of OB-GYNs in America would not even refer a patient for an abortion. But this bill as written would require those same doctors not only to refer but also to provide abortions or risk their employment, notwithstanding any ethical objection they may have to it, notwithstanding any religious objection they may have to it. By waiving the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, carving it out--the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, as it is known, a religious liberty protection enacted by an overwhelming supermajority of Democrats and Republicans--this bill would require hospitals and healthcare workers to perform abortions in violation of their own religious convictions. With this bill, Democrats in the House and the Senate are attempting to take this issue away from the people, away from the States, and force their radical abortion agenda on the American people as a whole. Now, make no mistake, this is their vision for America, fully funded by the abortion industry. It also perpetuates the tragedy of abortion--one that is a scar on our country's history. I hope and pray that State legislatures across the country will follow the example of the State of Utah and pass laws to protect the lives of preborn babies and their mothers.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Americans are facing an affordability crisis. In my home State of Utah, the average household is having to pay an additional $702 every month just for basic living expenses relative to what they paid every month at the beginning of last year. Inflation is unsustainable. Energy is one primary driver of inflation, and this administration's senseless energy policies are largely to blame. The House's version of this bill contains more of these damaging policies that will hurt Americans, and hurt Utahns in particular, while they can least afford it. My motion instructs conferees not to include the House provisions, including one sending $2 billion per year indefinitely to developing countries to support their supply of zero emissions vehicles; another provision that would send $8 billion to the U.N.'s green climate fund, which has historically given money to China; as well as another provision expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should implement the Paris Agreement, which is estimated to lead to a 20 percent increase in the costs for the average American family's electric bill and shrink our national GDP by $2.5 trillion. Americans can't afford these energy policies. My motion will make sure that they don't have to pay for them.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my motion to instruct conferees, which is at the desk.

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

Mr. LEE. I call for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Justice Alito's draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health is a masterpiece of jurisprudence, and it is a long overdue victory for the preborn. It is also a vindication of nearly 50 years of tireless efforts by the pro-life movement, the conservative legal movement, by textualists and originalists, and by President Trump's recent judicial appointments. I am proud to say that this decision vindicates the efforts of people like my late father, who wrote an amicus brief in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health. Incidentally, it was in that context when I first had an encounter with individuals on the opposite side of this issue. I was 11 years old when my father submitted that amicus brief while serving as President Reagan's Solicitor General. One morning, a busload of pro-abortion rights protesters showed up outside of our home. My parents and my siblings were out running errands, going about various activities. I found myself alone that morning. I went outside to talk to the people who had shown up in our quiet suburban neighborhood in a Greyhound-size bus carrying signs and shouting slogans of one sort or another. I introduced myself to the woman who appeared to be in charge. Her first words startled me. She said: Well, hello, little boy. We are not here to hurt you. I thought that was strange. It ought to go without saying. It is a little alarming when that is the first thing someone says to you. I asked her what she was doing. She told me that they were there because they disagreed with some things that my father had submitted to the Supreme Court of the United States in that amicus brief to which I referred. I then asked the question: Why do you have to do it on my lawn? She responded in a way that I found curious. She said: Well, we are trying very hard not to step on your lawn. We are actually staying on the sidewalk. I didn't yet understand the difference between an easement and a walkway and whether they had entered onto the curtilage of our home. All I knew was that it seemed like a strange place to be doing this, in front of a private residence, a home where a public official lived and slept and raised his children. I think about the tireless efforts of people like my late father to stand up for the rights of unborn human beings and for the injustice brought about by Roe v. Wade--a 1973 decision by the Supreme Court that stripped power away from the American people, stripped their opportunity to make decisions regarding abortion at the appropriate level of government, to have those decisions made by their own elected lawmakers rather than by unelected, unaccountable Judges who had arrogated to themselves the almost exclusive prerogative to decide how, when, whether, to what extent abortions may be regulated. What lies before the Supreme Court is the test of weathering the storm of political opinion. The line has been drawn, and Roe v. Wade appears to be on the verge of being overturned. Should this draft opinion become the official holding of the Court, Americans will, once again, have the opportunity to debate and discuss these issues with the American people each deciding, within their respective State, what terms and conditions ought to apply, what restrictions ought to be imposed to protect human life. This should give us all hope that America is not doomed to decline. All it takes is persistence, even in the face of daunting odds and decades of setbacks by those who love God and love our country. For once, good men and women did not do nothing, and this evil will triumph no more. I was thinking recently about a monument that was placed on the Mall upon the hill where the Washington Monument stands. A few months ago, people placed white flags, each memorializing those who had died with COVID-19. I believe at the time there were 6 or 700,000 people in America who had died with this illness, and so there were 6 or 700,000 little white flags, each standing only a few inches tall on that hill where the Washington Monument stands. From a distance, it looked like a snowstorm had hit Washington, DC. It hadn't. It was actually quite beautiful. I started thinking, I started wondering: What if a similar memorial were placed--if only temporarily, like that one was--honoring, memorializing those 63 million babies who had been aborted since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, taking away from the American people the ability to make their own laws in their own States pursuant to authority that belongs to the American people and our constitutional system of government--63 million babies. A portion of this came out of my generation. There are an estimated one-fourth of generation X who were never born because they were aborted--63 million. What if we had small red flags, each representing one of those babies? It has occurred to me that there wouldn't be room enough on that hill to accommodate all of those. I seriously wonder whether there would be room enough in the entire Mall, between the Capitol Building to the east and the Lincoln Memorial to the west, to accommodate all of those red flags. And what would that look like? The COVID memorial looked like a snowstorm. This sea of red flags would look like something else. Now, this moment is not without some sense of loss. When I saw a draft Supreme Court opinion that had been leaked to the news media, I experienced a wave of emotions. As pleased as I was and as encouraged as I am by what appears to be something that will soon become the opinion of the Court, I was also deeply upset that an employee of the Supreme Court of the United States could betray the trust of the Justices. I recalled from my own time that I spent at the Supreme Court, the time I spent as a law clerk working for Justice Alito, the great lengths to which the Court went to protect the internal deliberations of the Justices. We drafted opinions on separate computers--``separate computers'' meaning we had a computer system that allowed us to handle internal correspondence between the chambers, to transfer draft opinions between the various chambers. That computer system was completely walled off from the outside world. It was connected only by a local area network, one that was impenetrable from the outside world. If we wanted to do any research, any outside correspondence, anything that would require internet access, we had to go to a separate computer; we couldn't use that one. It was walled off completely, with good reason. You see, the Court operates in such a way that its ultimate work product in any case will consist of a ruling; and, in fairness to the Justices, you have got to make sure that everything is in order; that the Justices each have decided exactly how they are going to vote, which opinion they are going to join, and what that opinion is going to say before they release their opinions. If those go out too early, then they are not ready. That does a grave injustice to the litigants and to the American people, generally. That is why the Court goes to great lengths. It is not that they are being secretive about it. The Court is actually quite open and transparent. It is a matter of public record what documents they review in each case. The oral arguments presented to the Court are, likewise, matters of public record. And the documents that they produce that have legal operation are also public documents. It is actually a very open and transparent process. But during the time period between when argument is heard and an opinion is rendered, the Court needs to be able to deliberate and consider its options confidentially. So that is what this security system does. It is there to make sure that opinions, as they are being drafted and sent back and forth, don't leak out. In many circumstances, the editing of opinions took place on that same computer system, with drafts going back and forth; redlined, proposed edits between them. In those moments when you did need to print them out, you needed a hard copy, you could do so; but there were conditions attached to them. There was an understanding that they shouldn't leave the building, you can't take them home with you, they shouldn't go outside the Court, they probably shouldn't even go outside of your particular office. And when you are finished with them, you don't just throw it in the wastebasket; you put them in a burn bag. Each law clerk has next to his or her desk a tall brown paper bag with stripes on it, and at the end of the day someone comes around and collects the contents of those burn bags. And they shred them. My understanding is that they shred them a couple times so that the documents are reduced not just to long, thin ribbons of paper that have been cut apart but they have been cut multiple times so that it is a fine mist of confetti. It is also my understanding and was at the time that before any of that even left the building, they would take it to an incinerator--that confetti--and they would burn it and they would grind it up into an ashy pulp, perhaps put some water in there, creating a slurry, so that no one could look at what was previously a draft opinion and discern what is going to happen. You see, lives are at stake. Power is at stake. Sometimes an enormous amount of money is at stake. All these things matter, and the Court wants to make sure that the opinions go out only when they are ready. Every day was filled with a sense of seriousness and of duty, a seriousness felt by everyone, even and especially when there was disagreement. The ability to deliberate and discuss these complicated legal principles through the process of writing, editing, and sharing opinions with their colleagues is how the Justices are able to distill legal principles and arrive at proper legal conclusions and to do so, moreover, in a way that is respectful of the litigants and of each member of the Court. That is why their work is guarded from public scrutiny at this stage and why a breach of confidentiality such as what we have witnessed this week is so damaging. And, to be clear, this is unprecedented. I can't think of another instance of this happening over the Court's entire history--certainly in modern history. I can't think of another instance in all of history in which something like this has happened, as the Court and its personnel have had a long history and a proud tradition of taking great care in these matters. Yet while I am convinced that this leak may have been an attempt to intimidate the Justices and the majority, perhaps an effort to get them to change their position, I am also confident that this attempt will not succeed. And it must not succeed. Chief Justice Roberts said this very thing in his official statement, and he announced that an investigation into the leak will take place. I trust him and the other Justices and the Office of the Marshal at the Supreme Court to steer the Court through this storm and to oversee this investigation. The overwhelming feelings that I have today really are of joy--joy in the probable outcome of this case--and pride in being a former law clerk to Justice Alito, for whom I clerked twice: once when he was serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and again while he was on the Supreme Court. The draft opinion overturns Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, stating that they ``must be overruled and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives,'' noting correctly that the Constitution neither explicitly nor implicitly protects a right to abortion. Every human life, born and unborn, has immeasurable dignity and worth, each unrepeatable and infinitely valuable. The lives of an unborn baby and her mother and her father matter, and the Court overturning prior precedents such as Roe and Casey is not unprecedented--not at all. In fact, some of the Court's most consequential and lauded decisions overturned prior rulings. Justice Alito compared the damage wrought by Roe to that of the ``separate but equal'' doctrine created in Plessy v. Ferguson. Now, thankfully, the Supreme Court of the United States in Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy, putting an end to racially segregated schools, just as it appears now poised to overturn the erroneous decisions in Roe and in Casey. The opinion is exceptionally well reasoned, thorough, and grounded in the Constitution. It also means that in States across our country, including in my home State of Utah, hundreds of thousands of unborn children--children who could not be protected by State law due to restrictions placed on them by an invented, nonexistent constitutional doctrine created out of whole cloth in Roe and in Casey--now have some chance at being protected, depending, of course, on which decision makers in which States make which decisions regarding the protection of human life. As Americans, we must not--we can never forget what is at stake. If this majority decision stands, those who recognize the sanctity of human life--like myself and like a majority of Utahns--will have much to celebrate, but we must also recognize that this is not the end of this chapter in American history. The efforts of the last half century have not been done just simply to overturn Roe. You see, getting to this point, the point that the Court has apparently reached, means that this discussion can finally begin. It is a discussion that has been closed out. Debatable matters have been rendered beyond debate. This, of course, is the vision of a post-Roe America. This is why overturning Roe matters. What happens next with regard to abortion will be determined by the people of the 50 States through their elected leaders, as our constitutional command of federalism demands. Now, some States, like Utah, already have laws in place to protect the most vulnerable among us the moment that Roe and Casey are overturned. I hope and pray that many innocent lives will be saved, not just in my State but all throughout our country. And I pray for all nine Justices' safety and for our country. We all know and we have to remember that the laws adopted in one State will be different than the laws adopted in another. Part of living in a pluralistic society, part of living in our constitutional Republic requires us to accept the idea that people have different opinions; they have different views. Regional differences appear from one State to another. I predict that the laws of Utah with regard to the protection of preborn human life may differ considerably from those of Vermont; that the laws of Massachusetts may differ in meaningful ways from those in Mississippi. Overturning Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood does not do almost any of the things that are recited in the parade of horribles that those who are condemning this decision already have recited. Among the more frequent and perplexing arguments is that the overturning of Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood somehow signals or will result in the demise of democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it is difficult to understand how anyone could even make this argument with a straight face. I don't mean here--not referring to their underlying position; I am referring to the specific argument that this somehow represents a threat to democracy. Quite the opposite is true. By overturning Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, what the Supreme Court will be doing, the very thing it will be allowing is for the democratic process to unfold, for people to make laws as they deem fit in their respective States. You see, all powers not granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government and not prohibited by the Constitution to the States remain to be made with the States or with the people themselves. That is what this does. So if we want to talk about democratic principles, this will further democratic principles. It will advance republican democracy, not undermine it. Another argument that has been made that I find equally perplexing is the suggestion that this somehow amounts to zealots on the Supreme Court of the United States dictating to women across America decisions regarding abortion. That is also not true. There is nothing about overturning Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood that requires that anyone do anything beyond the fact that it is lifting previously recognized but nonexistent impediments to State governments to protect unborn human life. To those who have raised these concerns, to those who disagree with my views on the sanctity of unborn human life--and I recognize that there are those who do; many of them, in fact--I would direct them to their respective State-elected officials, specifically their State legislatures. That is where this decision is to be made. It is not to be made by the Supreme Court of the United States. They can't criminalize anything. It is not within their power. They are just deciding who gets to decide what. Different States are going to decide this differently, but that is part of the entire constitutional design. What Justice Alito wrote in this draft opinion is something that I hope will stand. It is absolutely right. It is unassailable from a constitutional standpoint, and it is absolutely essential to restore the American people to that which is rightfully theirs. I remain deeply troubled by those who appear, whether by leaking this opinion, characterizing it in ways that are unfair, threatening to pack the Supreme Court of the United States, talking about passing legislation that would increase the number of seats on the Supreme Court--these are all efforts designed to degrade, to denigrate and delegitimize the Supreme Court of the United States. To those who have any inclination to do such a thing, I would say this: Roe v. Wade has stood in place nearly my entire life. Since I was old enough to understand it throughout my entire life, I have regarded it as a really bad decision, a very wrong decision. Notwithstanding that, I have always regarded and still regard the Supreme Court of the United States, despite its flaws--flaws stemming from the fact that it is run by fallible, mortal human beings who sometimes make mistakes--despite its flaws, it is the greatest tribunal of its kind anywhere in the world. We would not want to substitute it because there is no better court of last resort anywhere in the world, even with its flaws. We must not risk what would come if we continue to delegitimize the Court. In the meantime, I am grateful that the Court appears finally to be on the verge of correcting this grave injustice, and I look forward to the debates and the discussions that will occur once and for all by the people's elected representatives. These decisions will now be able to be made by the people's elected lawmakers and not by unelected, unaccountable jurists who lack authority to make that decision on behalf of all Americans. I continue to pray for the Court and for our country. Heaven knows our Republic needs it.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Orrin G. Hatch will be remembered for many things. His 42 years of service in this body are marked by successes; historic and prolific legislation; and, of course, statesmanship. He served longer as a U.S. Senator than any other in the history of the State of Utah or in the history of the Republican Party. At his retirement, he had passed more bills into law than any other legislator alive, an astounding 750. While the record of his service is remarkable and memorable, I invite the Senate and the Nation to remember Senator Orrin Hatch by the things that he remembered every day, here in the Senate and in his private life. Every day upon entering his Senate office, Orrin Hatch would look upon a prominently hung painting depicting his Utah pioneer grandfather and great-grandfather as they were fording a stream on horseback. This image, like so much else in his life, was a reminder of Senator Hatch's pioneer legacy, his ancestry, and destiny. In Utah, there is almost no more honorable title than that of pioneer. In the particular parlance of our State, a pioneer is not merely someone who goes where others haven't gone before. No, a pioneer looks toward the future without forgetting who he or she is. A pioneer, like those who settled the Salt Lake Valley and much of the western United States, does so not out of conquest or in search of glory; a pioneer goes and works out of duty and responsibility and faith. Orrin Hatch always remembered his roots. Raised the son of a mechanical laborer, he grew up in a family of little means. Orrin was one of nine children raised in a cramped Depression-era home without indoor plumbing. Two of Orrin's siblings died young. Another, his older brother Jesse, gave the ultimate sacrifice as a turret gunner flying over Austria mere months before the Allied victory in Europe. Orrin always remembered this example of work and sacrifice from his parents and from his brother Jesse. The sense of duty to God, family, and Nation was the primary driver throughout his life. He served a 2-year mission for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- day Saints in Ohio. He became the first in his family to graduate from college, attending Brigham Young University. He met Elaine Hansen, and the couple married in 1957. They later returned to Pittsburgh, PA, and Orrin completed law school at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, while living in what had previously served as a chicken coop in his parents' backyard. He worked as a metalworker and as a janitor to provide for his family while attending law school. Never one to make much of a fuss about it, Orrin Hatch just did the work that was expected of him, and he did it remarkably well. He knew that life was not easy and that he couldn't expect handouts. He developed the reputation of a fighter, and while a dedicated friend with an inviting laugh, he would never forget the lessons he had learned young while in the amateur boxing ring. After moving back to Utah and running a successful law practice in Salt Lake City, Orrin ran for the Senate to fight for the moral fiber and everyday work ethic of Americans that he felt was not being represented adequately in Washington, DC. He won, and he set out to defend family values and constitutional principles. He would remember to do so throughout his career, pioneering the Hatch Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment that sought to correct the erroneous claim that there is a constitutional right to abortion, one that prohibits States from protecting unborn human life, and steadfastly advocating for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Orrin Hatch defended life, religious liberty, economic responsibility, and personal freedom throughout his entire service in the U.S. Senate. His 750 proposals that became law cover everything from welfare reform to regulatory restructuring, to laws adjusting the Federal judiciary, to hallmark tax cuts. Hatch's tenure in the Senate was marked by his chairmanship of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Finance Committee, before serving as President Pro Tempore. Senator Hatch helped rein in activist Federal judges and reformed the entire Federal judiciary, and has helped restore the true meaning of the Constitution as applied and interpreted by our courts. Senator Hatch played a prime role in the nomination of every Supreme Court Justice for decades. He defended the Court and the honor of Justices serving and presenting themselves with different judicial philosophies. Beyond his countless political accomplishments, Orrin Hatch was a dedicated father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and man of faith. He always remembered the most important things in life. He composed countless songs of praise and of patriotism. He served as a volunteer leader in his church congregations and in his communities. He founded the Orrin G. Hatch Foundation to carry on and remember his work and advocacy for collegiality and bipartisanship after his retirement from the Senate. Orrin Hatch always remembered Utah. On weekends, you could find him at the grocery store, in his church congregation, rubbing elbows with people he knew and loved. He would talk about the politics of the day but also the news affecting communities and families he cared for. Those who knew him felt the care and the interest that he had. After I had served as his Senate page, as a high school student, there were just a couple of photos on my wall as a teenager. One was of Karl Malone in his Utah Jazz jersey and another was a photo of me with Senator Orrin Hatch, one of my prized possessions. Later, when I was serving as a missionary along the U.S.-Mexico border, on the Texas side, Senator Hatch sent me a note, along with a $10 check, suggesting that I use it to go get a good lunch. I cherished the note and never could cash the check. You see, the memory and the memento were worth so much more than the lunch it could buy. I still have that check. It is a prized possession. Orrin Hatch also remembered to work. He would come to the Senate early and stay late. He would think years ahead and persistently, methodically, pursue his plans. He would take the time to build coalitions behind ideas and bring about needed reforms. Senator Hatch knew that the Senate was designed to be the cooling saucer, where ideas would steep and percolate, often over the course of years and even decades. Yet Orrin always remembered the people behind the politics. He was a mentor and a friend to Senators from both sides of the aisle, and he built deep friendships with people of all political backgrounds. He cherished a friendship with Senator Ted Kennedy and called the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg a dear friend. He instilled his hallmark good humor and sense of duty on the newer Members of the Senate. I was one of them. He greeted and accepted me warmly--mentioning only a few times over the years the fact that I had, decades previously, served as his Senate page. He was a force for collegiality and cooperation, and while he remained dedicated to the principles and people who brought him to the Senate, he would work with anyone and everyone to get the job done. Orrin Hatch was a giant of the Senate and a veritable pillar in Utah. His influence, his hearty laugh, and powerful advice are missed by us here in the Senate and by millions in Utah. I know I speak for the entire Senate in sending our deepest condolences and warmest appreciation to Elaine and to their children--Brent, Marcia, Scott, Kimberly, Alysa, and Jess, as well as their grandchildren and great- grandchildren. The gift of Senator Hatch's life of service has made our State and our Nation better. As I said, there is perhaps no more noble title in Utah than that of pioneer. Orrin Hatch was a pioneer, through and through--not just the descendant of pioneers but a pioneer in his own right. He followed in the footsteps of his forebearers, and he left a legacy of dedication, of service, and of truth. I commend his memory to the history of our Republic, in the words of a beloved hymn fittingly entitled ``They the Builders of the Nation.'' Here is how it goes: They, the builders of the nation, Blazing trails along the way; Stepping-stones for generations Were their deeds of every day. Building new and firm foundations, Pushing on the wild frontier, Forging onward, ever onward, Blessed, honored Pioneer! I bid my friend Senator Orrin Hatch onward, ever onward. May we as a nation forever remember his legacy is my prayer.

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE

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

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, if the nanny state had a mascot, it would be the Federal Trade Commission. In fact, back in the 1970s, the FTC earned the nickname the ``National Nanny''--this, after it went on a rulemaking binge, one that triggered an unprecedented congressional response. In response to that binge, Congress defunded the Agency for several days. In fact, it refused formally to reauthorize the Commission for some 14 years after that. Thankfully, the FTC changed approach by reining in its rulemaking initiatives. Congress, however, did not learn its lesson and has continued to grant the FTC broad powers over the years. These grants of power and the lack of congressional will have helped put the FTC on a trajectory that looks eerily similar to its ``National Nanny'' era. Under the leadership of Lina Khan, the FTC has only accelerated into this trajectory and is now being transformed into a bigger and more invasive national nanny than ever could have been imagined in the 1970s. Her vision is to transform what is an enforcement Agency into a broader, largely independent regulatory Agency. This move would reduce the congressional oversight of key economic regulation and would also have serious negative implications for countless businesses across the Nation that could find themselves subject to the whims of an unelected, arbitrary, capricious, out-of-control Agency. The FTC is on course to take significant new powers so that it can use its already broad authorities under section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and elsewhere to regulate huge swaths of the American economy. We, accordingly, need to be very careful when considering nominees to the Commission. As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I took seriously my consideration of Mr. Bedoya's nomination and spoke with him on multiple occasions regarding his nomination and regarding his vision for the Federal Trade Commission. During his nomination hearing, I took careful note of my questions to Mr. Bedoya and to his responses to ascertain his vision for the Commission and his view on the scope of the FTC's power. His answers did little to calm my concerns. In fact, they did much to add to my worries, not only about his nomination but about the future of the Commission at large. During my questioning, Mr. Bedoya signaled that he would use section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act to conduct unfair methods of competition rulemaking. That, of course, would be a dangerous expansion of the FTC's rulemaking power, one that would occur without a congressional grant of authority. He refused to share his views on the FTC's repeal of its vertical merger guidelines. He didn't answer when I asked about his views on Lina Khan's use of zombie votes, or proxy votes, of ex-commissioners after they had left the Commission. He would not provide a clear answer on whether he supported Lina Khan's decision to remove key procedural requirements attached to FTC rulemaking--the very statutory, procedural requirements that were instituted in direct response to the Agency's flagrant abuses of its own power in the 1970s. And he openly supports Lina Khan's decision to close out the voice of minority commissioners to approve investigations--an action that has destroyed a bipartisan hallmark of the Commission. Mr. Bedoya did not earn my confidence in his hearing. His nomination is not designed to strengthen American business or bolster our economy. Instead, his nomination will give the Commission the majority it needs to take American economic regulation out of the hands of elected lawmakers. We have to remember that the very first clause of the very first section of the very first article of the Constitution says that all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives. In other words, all Federal lawmaking power-- legislative powers or lawmaking powers--the power to make Federal law as articulated in article I, section I, clause 1--is vested in Congress, not in an outside Agency. Article I, section VII puts even more clarity on it in explaining that, in order to pass a Federal law, you have got to have passage by the Senate and passage by the House of the same piece of legislation, followed by presentment to the President, resulting in signature, veto, or acquiescence. Without that, you cannot make a Federal law. When we pretend to make Federal lawmakers outside of Congress, we have got to be very careful because this is subversive of the entire purpose of the Constitution, putting in the most dangerous power--the power to make prescriptive laws, the power to make laws adding to, altering, materially changing the obligations of members of the public. You have got to go through the branch of government that is most accountable to the people at the most regular intervals. That is why this is so concerning that you have in Mr. Bedoya, like you have in Lina Khan, someone who doesn't fear this type of unaccountable, de facto lawmaking, not only outside of what the Constitution can countenance fairly but also outside of basic standards of accountability and good government. For all of these reasons, I fear that Mr. Bedoya will not only enable but will support the blatant attempts made by Lina Khan to return the FTC to its status as the ``National Nanny'' and, ultimately, the national enemy. Under her leadership, the FTC has shown disregard for the input of minority commissioners and has been frustrated by the legal limits surrounding the FTC's authority. Lina Khan is not afraid to lead the Agency on a path that ignores legal, constitutional, and procedural roadblocks in its way. I am committed to reversing the dangerous trajectory of the FTC; to making sure that we don't return to the 1970s era of the FTC's being the nanny of the nanny state; and to making sure that we restore the FTC's accountability to Congress and, ultimately, to the people. We have to remember that true accountability in our system of government--accountability related to what the law is and how the law is written--always has to be with Congress. That is why article I is written the way that it is. It is why this is something that has to be understood appropriately as a nondelegable duty--that is, the power to make law. We have got to restore that accountability, and I fear that Mr. Bedoya will only further enable the radical takeover of the Federal Trade Commission. I, therefore, cannot and will not support his nomination. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, today, I rise to share my concerns with the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Let me begin my remarks by noting that I have enjoyed getting to know Judge Jackson. My visits with her and conversations with her in the committee and otherwise and also my interaction with Judge Jackson's family have all reinforced what I know of her generally, which is that she is a good person, a noble citizen, and someone who has earned very impressive academic and professional credentials. After graduating from Harvard Law School, she ended up clerking at all three levels of the Federal judiciary and worked at a number of positions over the years as a lawyer. She has now, as a judge, served as a Federal district judge, which is a trial court position, and has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which is an appellate court position. If confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, she will have served at all three levels of the Federal judiciary, which is itself an impressive accomplishment and one that I think would benefit the Supreme Court. Any time they have the insight of someone who has served in that many roles, it can be helpful. She is a good person in many respects and comes with impressive qualifications academically and professionally, but I do have concerns, and those concerns are what I want to turn to now. Many of them date back to efforts by groups like Demand Justice to shame and intimidate Judge Jackson's former boss and the Justice whom she would be replacing if confirmed to this position, Justice Breyer, into retiring by paying for a billboard mounted on a truck to drive around the Supreme Court of the United States, bearing the slogan ``Retire, Breyer.'' These same groups are now the same groups that are spending money--millions of dollars--to advocate for Judge Jackson's speedy confirmation. Then there was the shameless leaking of Justice Breyer's decision to retire well before he was ready to announce it. Now we find ourselves in the midst of a needlessly rushed nomination process, where liberal dark money groups are pressuring Senate Democrats to confirm their preferred Supreme Court nominee months--many months--in advance of when she could actually be seated on the Court. Because of this false sense of urgency being presented by the radical left, we have also seen the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee refuse to accommodate reasonable and commonsense document requests from Republican members of that committee. The same members of the committee who demanded more time to review and interrogate a nominee about his high school yearbook are now feigning outrage and insisting that it is somehow unacceptable that we should demand more time to review a nominee's own judicial record. The contrast is significant. Let me provide some additional context to illustrate how outrageous that aspect of this situation is. My Republican colleagues and I have been very keen to hear from Judge Jackson about her judicial philosophy. This is something that is an essential part of assessing any judicial nominee's fitness for office. The higher level the nomination, the more important it is to understand that. Nowhere is this more important than when the nominee is someone who has been nominated to serve on the highest Court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Jackson, significantly, has refused to describe her judicial philosophy or even to agree that she has one. Instead, she has told us that she has a methodology, but this methodology--neutrally applying the law to all relevant facts--is nothing more than a simple statement--a simple rote recitation--of what judges do, not an explanation of how they do it. When Republicans on the Judiciary Committee pressed Judge Jackson for more information about her judicial philosophy or any statement about it, Chairman Durbin and the nominee both directed us to her judicial record. So we asked Judge Jackson about her record. We inquired about questionable sentences in child pornography cases, sentences that appeared to constitute a pattern and practice of giving inexplicably light sentences to criminals--people who are caught trafficking in what can only be described as the products of the commercialization of child sex torture. These are vile offenses. Her response was that we simply couldn't understand her sentencing decisions. We couldn't understand them just by looking only at the public record because we didn't see what she saw. We didn't have the information that she had. Now, Chairman Durbin told us that we can discern Judge Jackson's judicial philosophy from her judicial record. Judge Jackson told us that we can't understand her judicial record without all of the supporting documents that informed her decisions. So we asked for those supporting documents, which included presentence reports from those cases involving child pornography possession. Chairman Durbin's response? Not on my watch--his words, not mine. Democrats dismissed our requests as baseless attacks on Judge Jackson herself. What if we said, ``That isn't true''? Do they contest that Judge Jackson presided over those cases? That she, in fact, imposed those sentences? Do they contest that she imposed those sentences or that Judge Jackson's sentences departed from both the sentencing guideline ranges and from the requests of the prosecutors? These are simply the facts in the record, and we have questions about them, legitimate questions. So, if this is a baseless attack to a nominee's factual record, what exactly is the purpose and scope of the Senate's duty to offer our advice and consent with regard to such nominations? After we pushed back, Chairman Durbin based his continued refusal on the sensitive nature of the documents at issue. Now, I agree completely that presentence reports are highly sensitive. They contain sensitive information in them, and this body of written work product deals with necessarily sensitive materials on a regular basis. The U.S. Senate deals with sensitive records, so the fact that these are sensitive documents doesn't mean that we can't handle them. In fact, we already have security measures in place to protect that kind of information. We even have specified rooms where we can and routinely do review sensitive information. So hiding behind a glib quote about protecting children at the expense of thousands upon thousands of actual child victims is shameful. The chairman says that parents are living in fear that presentence reports that discuss harm to their children would be confidentially shared with this body for the limited purpose of allowing us to do our job, to review Judge Jackson's record. I think it is more likely--far more likely, in fact--that parents of sexually exploited children live in fear that their children may be victimized again when one of Judge Jackson's defendants gets released from prison after an unconscionably, indefensibly short sentence. To make matters even worse, not only have Democrats refused Republican requests for more information on Judge Jackson's judicial record, but they have withheld information from me and my Republican colleagues on the Judiciary Committee. I am referring in this context to a chart referenced accidentally by a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee that summarized probation office sentencing recommendations gleaned from the presentence reports--the same presentence reports that we have requested and that we have not been allowed to see. Now, I have to admit I am still unclear as to how the majority obtained this information. Chairman Durbin wrote to Republicans that the chart was given to him by the White House, which, in turn, obtained the chart from Judge Jackson's chambers. However, when I and every other Republican member on the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote to Judge Jackson to request further information, she replied that she had no way of obtaining the requested information because it ``is the property of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and I am no longer a member of that court.'' How, then, did her chambers obtain the information that was provided to the White House and then provided to Senate Democrats which came from the presentence reports? Do the Democrats have something to hide--something that they can avoid having to reveal and have discussed by rushing Judge Jackson's nomination? What might it be? It may be the one thing Judge Jackson steadfastly refused to share--her judicial philosophy. Despite my Democratic colleagues' pretending that judicial philosophy is some arcane and esoteric legal concept that doesn't matter, Americans everywhere instinctively understand its importance. While they may not all use the same terminology, Americans know that justice--as we imagine Lady Justice always depicted as being blind or blindfolded--is to ensure equal justice under the law for everyone regardless of their race, their religion, their background, their creed. That kind of justice matters to every petitioner, every respondent, every plaintiff, and every defendant who comes before our courts. That kind of justice can be ensured only by judges adhering to a guiding principle by which they bring clarity out of often unclear language. The Supreme Court is not a representative body; Congress is. Justices are not accountable to the people once they are confirmed, but we are. That is why we have heard from virtually every nominee that their personal perspectives on X, Y, and Z don't matter--because they are fully committed to applying the law without their own personal perspectives getting in the way. That is exactly right and could not more fully demonstrated the importance of judicial philosophy. When a Justice is swayed by her natural inclinations or fails to get to a neutral place when deciding a particular case, adherence to her judicial philosophy keeps her from violating that commitment. That guiding principle constitute a judge's judicial philosophy. Now, look, judicial philosophy is not a methodology or, as I said earlier when Judge Jackson described her judicial methodology as simply applying the law to the facts, that is not describing her unique approach to judicial decision making. She was simply reciting the definition of what a judge does. Every judge applies the law to the facts. That is literally what it means to be a judge. The question is, How? Because statutory and constitutional language is often unclear, whether on its face or as applied in a particular context. What matters is how a judge resolves that ambiguity. Laws are not self-interpreting, and interpretation is rarely obvious, especially in the difficult cases that tend uniquely to come before the Supreme Court of the United States on the merits. You have to have a guiding principle by which to bring clarity out of unclear language. That is your judicial philosophy. So a judge without a judicial philosophy is no more useful than a pastor without a theology. It is just someone making it up as they go along, dressing up their opinions as holy writ. A nominee who claims to have no judicial philosophy is either being misleading or is perhaps unsuited to a lifetime appointment on the Federal bench, let alone on the highest Court in the land. Yet the vast majority of President Biden's judicial nominees have repeatedly asserted that they simply don't have one; that they lack a judicial philosophy. This sudden and uniform shift suddenly and strongly suggests that they are being coached to give precisely that inexplicable, indefensible answer. And yet every judge does, in fact, have a judicial philosophy. Whether they acknowledge it or not, whether it is easily definable by a few words or a few sentences, they do have one. When a nominee refuses to describe her judicial philosophy, the likely explanation is simply that she does have one; she just knows that neither the public nor this body would approve of it. In that case, we are left to infer what her judicial philosophy is from her record, which is precisely what Chairman Durbin and Judge Jackson suggested that we do. Except, as I have already pointed out, they don't want us to have the whole record, and they are unreasonably denying our access to the whole record. So, again, Judge Jackson refuses to tell us what her judicial philosophy is. Senator Durbin says we can find it in her record; Judge Jackson says we can't fully understand her record without all the supporting documents, but neither of them will let us see these documents. If this makes you nervous, that is because it should. So why does this matter? Well, we got to see this firsthand 2 weeks ago. While Judge Jackson insisted that she didn't have a judicial philosophy, she actually did give us a small peek into it. In response to a question from Senator Durbin about the sentencing guidelines and child pornography offenders, she acknowledged Congress implemented a statutory scheme with specific directives to courts to help them determine how they are to sentence defendants found guilty of possessing or distributing child sexual assault material. But then she admitted that she and other judges have made a habit of using the discretion they are given in applying the sentencing guidelines that disregard or discount the parts that, in their view, no longer make sense, saying: Courts are adjusting their sentences in order to account for the changed circumstances. With all due respect, that is not her or any other judge's decision to make. Courts don't change the law; Congress changes the law. If Congress one day decides that receiving child sexual assault material electronically is somehow less offensive than receiving it through the mail, then we will change the law. Judge Jackson insists that she was statutorily required to consider the factors--the very factors she relied upon--to depart from the guidelines, consistently sentencing defendants to prison terms considerably below where the sentencing guidelines would have sent her. All that is true, but all the factors listed in the statute in question, codified in 18 U.S.C. Section 3553, Judge Jackson seems to weigh quite heavily those factors that will decrease an offender's sentence and gives, apparently, short shrift to those who would lengthen the sentence in these child pornography cases. This kind of cherry-picking of considerations resulted in astonishing outcomes, like giving one defendant 3 months in prison instead of 10 years. Her willingness to change the outcome based not on the law but based on her own sense of ``changed circumstances'' demonstrates a lack of judicial humility and restraint, and that is troubling. Unfortunately, this lack of judicial humility and restraint was not limited to any narrow line of cases. It wasn't limited to those cases that involved the production and distribution and possession of child pornography. In the case of Make the Road New York v. McAleenan, Judge Jackson ignored clear statutory language, stating that she didn't even have jurisdiction to review the case. She set aside that language and instead reached back in time to apply the previously enacted and much broader Administrative Procedures Act to obtain her preferred outcome, the outcome advocated for by the dark money group Arabella Advisors, which happens to be funding the campaign for her confirmation. When asked about this case, Judge Jackson doubled down on her faulty reasoning, even though it had been overturned by the left-leaning DC Circuit. Unfortunately, this was not the only case where Judge Jackson ignored clear statutory language to assert jurisdiction and reach her preferred policy outcome. To make matters worse, Judge Jackson took multiple opportunities in her responses to my colleagues' written questions to separate herself from principles that form the bedrock of our constitutional Republic. When asked by Senator Cruz if she believed that individuals possess natural rights, she said: I do not hold a position on whether individuals possess natural rights. This is after she acknowledged that these lines from our Declaration of Independence reflect natural rights: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. When asked by Senator Cornyn if she believed that natural law is reflected in the Bill of Rights, she stated that she ``would interpret the Bill of Rights based on the methods of constitutional interpretation the Supreme Court employs, not based on principles derived from natural law.'' These responses eliminate any hope that I had that even if Judge Jackson interprets and applies statutes incorrectly, she would still be guided by our Founding documents. Every part of Judge Jackson's record--that is, every part that we have been given--seems to indicate something of a desire to separate herself from grounding principles in order to reach her desired outcomes. This is why judicial philosophy matters. This is why it isn't just some esoteric exercise for law nerds. This is why it matters and should matter to every American. When a judge can impose her own policy views in contradiction of the expressed will of the people through their elected representatives in Congress, it doesn't just undermine our representative system of government. As we have seen here, it can put child predators back on the streets. In one case, the convict, upon release from his inexplicably short jail sentence, resumed seeking out suggestive images of children to the point that Judge Jackson had to agree to send him to 6 months in a halfway house. In another case, the convict who had been convicted of raping his 13- year-old niece and then falsifying his address to evade the sex offender registry, sexually assaulted another family member after being released from the light sentence imposed previously by Judge Jackson. Neither of these defendants would have had these opportunities to reoffend had Judge Jackson just followed the sentencing guidelines and what the law required. Judicial philosophy matters. It is foundational to the very fabric of our constitutional Republic. And, again, there are no magic words we are looking for. There is not a single judicial philosophy that is either going to deem it acceptable or not acceptable, but they need to have one. They need to be willing to talk about it and explain what animates, what motivates their decision making, how they will go about construing these statutes. If judges won't commit to giving effect to the words of the laws that Congress passes, as understood at the time they were written and enacted, then American voters have no control over the laws that govern them. We will be ruled in that kind of scenario by a self-anointed class of five philosopher Kings in black robes. I fear Judge Jackson may see the Court in that very way. I fear that based on her answer to a question in the hearing raised by one of my colleagues. In response to that question, she said: Well, anytime the Supreme Court have five votes . . . they have a majority for whatever opinion they determine. The Constitution demands more, and the American people deserve better. For all these reasons, I oppose Judge Jackson's nomination.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, Col. Gail S. Halvorsen is known as the ``Candy Bomber'' because in 1948, Colonel Halvorsen brought not only much needed supplies to the besieged residents of Berlin, but he brought joy in the form of candy bars and bubble gum with miniature parachutes dropped from his airplane. This story of hope, light, and service is but a highlight in a life dedicated to serving others. While Colonel Halvorsen passed away earlier this year at the notable age of 101 years, the people of Utah hold him and his story close to our hearts. Recently, my staff and I were honored to join the Gail S. Halvorsen Foundation and other groups in Utah to help facilitate the donation of six tons of school and baby supplies along with 9,000 letters from Utah schoolchildren to refugees fleeing Ukraine. While logistical challenges are characteristic of international donations of this type, the dedication of the Halvorsen Foundation and all involved ensured these vital supplies made it safely to those within a critical timeline. In a time of violence and evil, when our friends are under attack, Gail Halvorsen is again leading the way for American generosity, kindness, and compassion. The parallels between these two tragic situations are moving. The men and women of America's military volunteered in aiding in delivering supplies to those in need. The Halvorsen family and foundation were involved intimately in the effort. Colonel Halvorsen's daughter brought along chocolate bars to induct the Navy pilots as some of the next generation of ``candy bombers.'' These supplies landed at Tempelhof airbase where the legend began. Now, as then, the people of the United States are showing characteristic kindness. It is particularly moving to me that alongside the supplies and necessities of life, this shipment included touching letters from the schoolchildren of Utah. Gail Halvorsen is remembered not for his efficiency or logistics, but his kindness and gift for human connection. These diapers, packages of formula, and school supplies will be used by the most vulnerable of the Ukrainian refugees. This gesture of kindness will lift up weary hands and encourage struggling hearts of the mothers and fathers of these children. Importantly, at this moment of difficulty and despair, the Gail Halvorsen Foundation and the people of Utah are also remembering the people behind the tragedy and are remembering kindness, humanity, and an individual touch in the effort to relieve suffering. The people of Utah are not unfamiliar with stories of displacement. Utah was settled by religious refugees seeking freedom from persecution and violence. Indeed, the history of the United States is broadly marked by groups fleeing violence, persecution, or turmoil in their homelands. The American empathy for refugees and desire to help those in desperate need is alive and well in the hearts and minds of Utahns. Col. Gail S. Halvorsen lived a life dedicated to service. His signature kindness shines brightly in telling his signature story. His glowing smile matched his glowing personality. In Utah, we miss the ``Candy Bomber'' and his personal touch. Neverthless, his mission and influence continues. The dedicated work of the Gail S. Halvorsen Foundation is changing lives today. Be it caring for refugees, inspiring kindness, or building future generations of STEM professionals, the Gail S. Halvorsen Foundation continues the legacy of one of Utah's greatest citizens. Col. Gail S. Halvorsen's story, his legacy, and his influence carry on bringing smiles and relief all along the way.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Madam President, reserving the right to object. I do think it is significant that the party that is now in the majority that was previously in the minority took a different position when it was not in the minority--when it was not in the majority and when a President of their political party was not in power. There was elaborate and, I believe, an excessive delay in the confirmation of a lot of nominees, even more so than what we are seeing now. I do have concerns that are particular as to this particular nominee and not generalized. They are not concerns that could be dismissed simply as a result of basic partisan disagreements, but based on views that are considerably outside the mainstream and that are radical and harmful. Let me explain. As vice president of the think tank Jobs for the Future, Ms. Loyd was responsible for overseeing that organization's workforce development efforts through the lens of diversity, equity, and inclusion. It is of great concern to me that this body of work produced reports that promulgated ideas aimed at furthering the divisive agenda of critical race theory and ESG scores. One of the most alarming of these reports is one that was published on September 8, 2020, which asserted that due to ``unconscious or implicit bias toward minorities,'' managers are limiting the advancement or promotion of minorities in the workforce. These divisive, inflammatory assumptions are dangerous to the civil fabric of our society. Elevating individuals who espouse this dangerous and divisive ideology to key leadership positions within the Federal Government will only further divide Americans, pitting them one against another. We should instead seek to elevate into positions of leadership those who aim to unify the American people and emphasize the importance of making sure that people are evaluated on the basis of the character of their heart, not the color of their skin. Her work has done the opposite of that. In good conscience, I cannot and will not support the nomination of Ms. Loyd; and on that basis, I object.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of a grateful nation to pay tribute to the unparalleled sacrifices of Utah's Gold Star families. Thank you for your commitment to defending the Constitution of our great Nation. Thank you for your selfless service to others. And thank you for your love of our country, the United States of America. It is essential to our Nation's survival that we recognize and remember the sacrifices you have made. Given the extraordinary nature of your sacrifices, the duty of recognizing and remembering them is of utmost importance. Furthermore, in a time when our Nation's cardinal values are more regularly attacked, this work mends the fraying fabric of freedom. My purpose today is to honor all that you, the Gold Star families of Utah, have done for our Nation and its citizens. On August 1, 2020, a group of Utahns gathered at the North Ogden City Hall. There, in the heat of summer, the families, friends, and neighbors of fallen soldiers came together with business leaders and government officials to dedicate the North Ogden City Gold Star Families Memorial Monument. This monument, the first of its kind in Utah, but not the last, recognizes and remembers the sacrifices of Utah's Gold Star families. A similar monument has been built in St. George and will soon be dedicated. The monuments stand as beacons of light and hope, tributes to those who have been lost. The idea for these monuments was inspired by the work of the Woody Williams Foundation whose mission is ``to honor, recognize, and serve Gold Star Families and the legacy of their Loved Ones who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.'' Their work, which focuses on the philosophical pillars of homeland, family, patriot, sacrifice, and legacy, gave North Ogden City and St. George a vision of what was possible. After seeing the monument in North Ogden City, stakeholders in St. George decided they would raise funds, find land, and construct a monument of their own. St. George City, with the help of numerous residents and businesses began the work of designating space, securing over $100,000 of funding, and planning construction for the monument. The committee worked tirelessly to unify, educate, heal, and inspire others. Months of work led to a beautiful monument which now stands to honor Gold Star families and the losses they have endured. Eight feet tall and 13 feet wide, the monuments made of solid black granite are two-sided tributes to the fallen. One side of each monument bears the words: ``Gold Star Families Memorial Monument, a tribute to Gold Star Families and Relatives who sacrificed a Loved One for our Freedom.'' The other side tells a story across four granite panels highlighting the themes of homeland, family, patriot, and sacrifice. The most significant component of each monument is a gaping hole at the center of the solid granite slabs. The empty space, a silhouette of a saluting servicemember, represents the legacy of the loved ones of the Gold Star families who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. Together, these features tell each community's unique story of sacrifice. On the day of the dedication of the North Ogden monument, powerful stories and memories were shared. I want to highlight just a few. Kirk Chugg, the director of Follow the Flag North Ogden, said there could be ``no better place [for the tribute]. As people go about their day, we hope they see the monument and teach their children what it means. It publicly proclaims to families that we have not forgotten them.'' ``This will help us remember what America is all about,'' said Debbie Allen, mother of the late Lt. Kenneth ``Kage'' Allen. ``I think too many people forget what we stand for.'' James Laselute, of Layton, was there representing his stepson, the late Lance Cpl. Quinn Keith. He said: ``For our family, things like this help us through the grieving process and remind us that our loved one's legacy endures.'' He continued: ``Monuments like this are what keeps their name alive.'' Neal Berube, the mayor of North Ogden City at the time of the monument's dedication shared: ``The Gold Star designation dates back to World War I, when military families displayed service flags featuring a blue star for every immediate family member serving in the Armed Forces. The star's color would change to gold if a loved one died so the community would know the price the family had paid for freedom.'' Mayor Berube then concluded: ``The strength of our nation is our military. The strength of our military is our soldiers. And the strength of our soldiers are our families.'' As the people of St. George set out to dedicate their Gold Star Families Memorial Monument, similar sentiments have been shared. Jennifer Moxon, Bronwyn Mount, and Mayor Michele Randall--who, with the help of the St. George City Council, staff, and in partnership with the Major Brent Taylor Foundation, have helped lead the development of the St. George monument--have made powerful statements of gratitude and hope. Jennifer Moxon, mother of the late Sgt. Douglas Lee Moxon, recently wrote: ``We are a family military. The very freedoms that we sometimes take for granted are what our sons and daughters fight for every day.'' She continued: ``When we lost our son, my perspective changed. The sacrifices these servicemembers and their families make every day are deserving of respect and honor. This monument allows us to pay tribute to the family members who lost loved ones. It is a place where we can come, feel peace, and hopefully recognize their sacrifice will never be forgotten.'' Gold Star Mother Bronwyn Mount, mother of the late Sgt. Bryan Cooper Mount, recently shared: ``I am constantly surprised by the realization that so many people all over the country are remembering and honoring Cooper. To have so many people working towards this dedication, for the last 20 months, has been humbling to our family. To have multiple friends and families be willing to donate to the cost of the memorial has touched us deeply. We are so grateful to be able to visit the memorial and think of Cooper's, and others', sacrifices. We are grateful for a community that cares about the sacrifice.'' Mayor Michele Randall shared: ``On August 6th, 2020, Sgt. Cooper Mount's flag-draped casket arrived at the St. George airport. Moved by the emotion and patriotism of the procession from the airport to the mortuary, the City of St. George chose to be the second city in Utah to install a Gold Star Families Memorial Monument in the heart of the city at historic Town Square. Saturday, March 26th, 2022, will be the dedication of the memorial and the culmination of many hours of work and over $100,000 dollars raised by our residents. I cannot wait for our community to see this breathtaking monument in remembrance of our Gold Star families.'' I am honored to have the opportunity to highlight the great work that so many people freely participated in to make this memorial, which recognizes and remembers the sacrifices of Utah's Gold Star families, possible. These monuments are not the last of their kind in Utah or in the United States. More monuments are being discussed, planned, and constructed. The movement to honor Gold Star families across America has taken hold of many communities throughout the country. Let us not allow this movement to rise in relevance for a moment and then fade. Let us recognize and remember, forever, the sacrifices of our Nation's Gold Star families.

Mr. LEE

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is unkind for us to tell Americans--just moms and dads, ordinary people who are trying to live their lives and put food on the table--that they can't put food on the table and that they are going to be rendered unemployed and unemployable unless they defer to Presidential medical orthodoxy. It is not who we are as Americans. It is especially not who we are as is the case with these mandates. There are not adequate provisions made for those with preexisting medical conditions, for those with religious objections, and for those with natural immunity. That is what we are dealing with here. It is illegal; it is immoral; it is unkind; and we should not fund its enforcement. I plead with my colleagues to support my amendment to defund the enforcement of these mandates.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 20 seconds to respond.

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

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 4989 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given a minute to describe my amendment and a minute be given to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. LEE. Mr. President, it is not helpful to American families to threaten the breadwinner--the mom or the dad or, maybe, both of them in some cases--with being rendered unemployed and unemployable and unable to put bread on the table. This is not about being anti-vaccine. I am not that, and neither are any of the Senators who are supporting this effort. This is about supporting American families. It is not supporting them to order them fired. Vote on Amendment No. 4989