Eric Schmitt

Mr. SCHMITT

Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize 50 years of steady economic development, volunteerism, and stewardship from the Table Rock Lake Area Chamber of Commerce in Missouri. Formed in 1974 as the Kimberling City Chamber of Commerce, the group has adapted and changed to accommodate the needs and interest of its community. In the 1990s, the chamber launched an initiative to protect the waters of Table Rock Lake, which spawned a part of the organization known today as H2Ozarks. Now, the chamber has embarked on a 5-year economic development initiative called Launch Stone County and has recently moved to a new location in Branson West to provide additional services to the business community. The chamber has remained committed to promoting tourism of Stone County and the Ozarks, working to preserve the beauty of Table Rock Lake for future generations to enjoy. I am proud that such a vibrant community of small businesses exists and thrives in Missouri and hope Table Rock Lake continues to be a celebrated tourist destination for years to come.

Mr. SCHMITT

Mr. SCHMITT. Madam President, I rise today to honor Brett Forbes of Bonne Terre, MO, for his inspirational participation on Team USA's Paralympics powerlifting team. Brett, an 18-year-old from St. Francois County, was born with spina bifida, but has never let his condition keep him from playing sports. Brett's siblings also share his love for athletics; his older brother Drew is an NFL offensive lineman for the Cleveland Browns, and his older sister Holly plays professional basketball overseas in Australia. Since Brett was 6 years old he excelled at wheelchair basketball and committed to training to be a powerlifter. His hard work earned him the opportunity to compete on behalf of Team USA at the World Para Powerlifting American Open in St. Louis, MO. His performance was underscored by his 341-pound lift that broke the American rookie record. Brett did not even realize he was competing for the record, but told reporters that he was simply doing what he trained for. Brett was awarded gold and bronze medals, but his greatest achievement has been his moving story and lesson to all athletes to work hard in order to reach your goals. Brett Forbes is truly a champion of Missouri. He demonstrates a resilient work ethic that encourages all of us to cultivate the skills and talents we possess to reach new heights. I am proud to recognize his work on the U.S. Paralympics powerlifting team and commend his parents for encouraging his and all of their children's athletic endeavors. Brett is a wonderful representative for Missouri and, more broadly, the United States on the world stage. I wish him continued success and am excited to see all this young man will accomplish in the future.

Mr. SCHMITT

Mr. SCHMITT. Madam President, I rise today to recognize and honor a model citizen, Erin Gooch. Erin's dedication to her family and community has earned her the title ``Champion of Missouri.'' Inspired by her son Teddy and his difficulties accessing certain features with local playgrounds due to dwarfism, Erin set off on a mission to transform a local derelict park into a place that all children may enjoy regardless of ability. Alongside Unlimited Play, an organization that helps to plan, design, and build fully accessible playgrounds, Erin has fundraised over $3 million for the Teddy & Friends Inclusive Playground. The new playground in Queeny Park will have specially made swings, ladders, and ramps so that kids of all ages and abilities may safely enjoy every part. With this effort, Erin has become a community pillar. She serves as an exemplary individual, one who is willing to go above and beyond in service of others. Erin is passionate about educating others about people with different disabilities and helping other parents navigate the complexities of the medical and therapy world for their children. She is a dedicated mother of two kids--Chloe and Teddy--and wife to Craig Gooch. Erin is truly a champion of Missouri.

Mr. SCHMITT

Mr. SCHMITT. Madam President, today I rise in recognition of three great people: Trey Filter of Wichita, KS, Casey Filter of Wichita, KS, and Paul Contreras of Bellevue, NE. On February 14 of this year, the Kansas City Chiefs secured a Super Bowl victory for the second year in a row. And just like the parade from a year ago, Chiefs fans of all stripes descended onto Kansas City's Union Station to celebrate this great achievement. As this parade came and went and celebration boiled down, gunfire tragically rang out. Reports say these shots were followed by cries of ``Get him, get him,'' and ``Stop that guy, tackle him.'' Enter Trey Filter and Paul Contreras. In that moment, neither hesitated to risk their safety. Trey bravely launched himself at the alleged shooter, swiftly bringing him down to the ground. Despite the suspect's attempts to flee, Contreras swiftly followed suit, subduing the suspect with Trey until help arrived. Trey's wife Casey secured the firearm, ensuring it posed no further threat until law enforcement arrived on the scene. There were 22 people left with gunshot wounds, and one sadly died. The youngest victim was only 8 years old. Tragedies such as these, especially when conducted in a celebratory setting, speak to how precious life is and how brave it was that the Filters and Paul were willing to risk their lives for those around them. Trey Filter, Casey Filter, and Paul Contreras are champions of Missouri. Heroes are remembered by the actions that define their best qualities, and the actions to step in and protect their community from an armed assailant is as heroic as it is selfless. I am proud to recognize their contribution to the Missouri community.

Mr. SCHMITT

Mr. SCHMITT. Madam President, like my colleagues before me, I rise to bring attention to an issue that is affecting high school students and their families all across the country, including in my home State of Missouri. It is national college decision day, and millions of students who have worked hard are deciding where they will continue their education. Unfortunately, a lot of those students' experiences today will be marred by the Department of Education's complete inability to do the basics of their jobs. There are major issues in the new Free Application for Federal Student Aid--the FAFSA application. Colleges, including Missouri State University, pushed back deadlines for financial aid, and students are left with more questions now than answers. Additionally, on March 22, the Department of Education announced that roughly 200,000 student financial aid records sent to schools included errors in the data. The bipartisan FAFSA Simplification Act eased the bureaucratic burden of students by streamlining the questionnaire from 108 questions down to just 38. For nearly every student in the country, especially first- generation college students, a simplified FAFSA experience would ease the college application experience. Despite plenty of time and adequate funding, the Department of Education failed to properly implement the new FAFSA. Although the FAFSA Simplification Act passed in 2020, the form was not available for prospective students until December of 2023, delaying the financial aid process. Colleges and universities did not begin to receive student data from completed applications until the end of March of 2024, delaying the process even further. My office sent a letter to Secretary Cardona demanding answers on behalf of Missourians impacted by this bureaucratic nightmare, and we still have not received any answers. In the meantime, my office has been working with counselors across the State to assist students and families as they navigate this fiasco. The Department of Education has pushed unnecessary and legally dubious loan-bailout initiatives, while also failing to prioritize existing obligations with established student aid programs. Even more concerning, the Department has prioritized the applications of families with illegal aliens, devising workarounds and loopholes to allow these applications to be submitted. Based on all accounts, working families depending on FAFSA determinations are in the back of the queue for the Department of Education. The Department of Education and Secretary Cardona should prioritize working families and fix this mess now. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHMITT

Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I will speak for just a moment. I know that as the day goes on, I am sure we will have a mutual admiration society of the Wilsonian view that permanent Washington has about foreign policy in this country, so I do not wish to speak about that at this time. I do believe that view is on a collision course with history and the will of the American people. But I rise to speak about sort of the process of the Senate--where we are, how we got here--and to quote a famous St. Louisan, Yogi Berra, ``It's like deja vu all over again.'' Here we are debating. Senator Lee, my friend from Utah, has a motion to table, essentially, Senator Schumer's effort to fill the tree. To the American people who are watching or listening or being reported upon, that means that the majority leader of this Chamber is boxing out everyone. That is right. The 99 other people who were elected by an entire State to advocate for their interests don't get a say. They don't get to offer an amendment. They don't get to say: I would like to build a unique coalition with either somebody from my own party or somebody on the other side of the aisle on something we might agree upon. I think the world's most deliberative body has been reduced to Kabuki theater. There is no uncertainty ever. The only time--and this is the cold, hard truth to my friends in the Gallery--the only time you get to offer an amendment in this place is if it is sure to fail. Think about that. Senator Schumer won't allow U.S. Senators to offer ideas unless he knows they will fail. So, to my Republican and Democrat colleagues, colleagues who may be watching on TV, or their staff, it doesn't need to be that way. This is perhaps one of the most obstructive measures that the majority leader employs, and I don't pretend it is just him. I think one of the things that all of us have to look in the mirror about is whether or not that is what we want this place to be. Mr. President, if we think we have come together on an issue that affects both of our States, we should be allowed to offer those things up. We don't get a chance to do that. Appropriations bills--I know the Senate appropriators have worked hard on individual bills. Chuck Schumer didn't allow those bills to be debated on the floor. It never happened. We ended up with a few minibuses. That would be a great reform. How about, instead of every hour maybe you show up, what if we sat in our seats and actually voted on this stuff for 4 or 5 hours? We could get through a lot. But the Senator from New York is allergic to work unless he can control the outcome; or, say, if you object now, everyone has to change their plans last minute; or if you don't support this without an opportunity to affect it, you are against--pick the poison--you want to shut down the government or you are for Putin. All these ridiculous things get thrown out here. Open it up. I will tell you why it won't happen--because it is a real threat. It is a threat to him because the idea that other Senators who aren't part of the two who get to make all the calls--that we would find a different way. That is a threat to his power because right now he gets to say: Come to me with everything. I will put it in some omnibus. There won't be any time to debate it. They probably won't be able to read it. But if they don't vote for it, you want to shut down the government. So to all the Senators, I would like to work with you to dislodge this concentration of power that no doubt our Founders would be rolling in their graves over. This diffusion of power that is defined by our separation of powers and federalism was meant to spread it out to protect individual liberty. It certainly was never intended for one person in the Senate who can always be recognized and, like last week, did something that had never happened in the history of our Republic, which was to dismiss Articles of Impeachment even though we are supposed to have a trial. Granted, he had accomplices in that. Every single Democrat voted with him. But he is recognized first. He can fill the tree. There are no amendments. We have to beg to be heard, which is why I objected to that farce last week. I don't think it is becoming of a U.S. Senator to say: Oh, thank you, Senator Schumer, for giving me 2 minutes to speak. Anyway, there is a better way. It is playing out again here today because we are essentially taking what the House gives us. The upper Chamber is capitulating to the House to say that we can't actually affect this thing, we can't change anything, and if you do it--pick the poison--you are threatening the security of another country or something ridiculous. I would just hope that this is a clarion call for reform. The Senate is broken. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHMITT

Mr. SCHMITT. Madam President, reserving my right to object, to dismiss or table the Articles of Impeachment against Secretary Mayorkas without trial here today or in committee is an unprecedented move by Senator Schumer. Never before in the history of our Republic has the Senate dismissed or tabled Articles of Impeachment when the impeached individual was alive and had not resigned. As Senator Schumer said in 2020: A fair trial has witnesses. A fair trial has relevant documents, as part of the record. A fair trial seeks the truth. [Nothing] more, [nothing] less. I will not assist Senator Schumer in setting our Constitution ablaze and bulldozing 200 years of precedent. Therefore, I object.

Mr. SCHMITT

Mr. SCHMITT. I thank the Senator. Madam President, I will take this in two parts. I think it is important for us to actually digest--for the folks here watching in the Gallery or the press folks who are here or who have left--to really understand what happened today, because what happened today wasn't some disagreement about the number of amendments people might have on an appropriations bill or whether or not some vehicle is going to be a priority or not. What was established today was a new precedent--something that had never taken place in this Chamber in the history of our Republic. What the Senate Democrats decided to do with a simple majority was to bulldoze 200 years of precedent that said something very simple: that this Chamber would honor our constitutional obligation and conduct a trial to hear the evidence. There is no real debate. We were to hear the evidence from witnesses, with counsel present. There is a whole process--there is a whole procedure--that has been established, finely wrought throughout the ages, that we were to honor--when we raised our right hand when we get sworn in to honor--when we got sworn in today to honor--as U.S. Senators. That is all gone now--maybe forever. I don't see a circumstance now--you heard the parliamentary inquiries asking if a precedent had ever been established for this or that. A hundred years from now, when somebody else has Harry Truman's desk--if I remember to carve my name in it before I die--somebody will have this desk. I don't know that person's name. I don't know their background or what their life experience will be, but they will know what happened today. They will know that the U.S. Senate, under Chuck Schumer, who will go down as one of the worst U.S. Senators in American history because of his actions today--they will know that we just blew off an important duty: to conduct a trial. It wasn't, you know, an idea--and to paraphrase my friend from Louisiana, it wasn't some, you know, ``gamer bro'' with a tweet. These were Articles of Impeachment, voted on by the people's Representatives in the House of Representatives, walked over here and delivered. So Chuck Schumer and the Democrats who voted for that are going to have to own that. And to paraphrase something the Senator from Kentucky said just a few years ago: I think they are going to regret it, and I think they are going to regret it sooner than they think. So, having said that, what was this trial supposed to be about? As the Senator from Utah mentioned, when I was attorney general in Missouri, we brought the first lawsuit against the Biden administration for their actions at the southern border when they decided to undo ``Remain in Mexico.'' We were successful for a while, but what came out of that was a lot of what you might have read in article I of the impeachments that were brought over. A lot of those were from--a lot of those arguments were from that case. As an interesting little side note, when we won--when we had an injunction in place, actually, for the Biden administration to keep this very important protection in place--they ignored it. We had to go back in front of a judge time and time again to get them to abide by the law. But what we have found out from this administration and Secretary Mayorkas specifically is they are willing--he himself is willing to subvert the law, to believe that he is above the law, to lie and to commit a felony that this Chamber now has said doesn't rise to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor--forever. That is the precedent forever. The human toll of this lawlessness at the border that has been overseen by Secretary Mayorkas is devastating. Thousands of people die every month from fentanyl abuse or overdoses. We have a ticking time bomb in this country with a national security threat. We don't know who 2 million people are; and 9 million people have come here illegally. Most of them have been told: Please show up for a court date sometime in the 2030s. That is not going to happen. But 2 million of them--we don't know who they are; we don't know where they are from; we don't know where they are at. We are seeing a record number of Chinese nationals come across just in California alone. People from all across the world are coming here because they know our border is wide open, and it is not by accident. Whatever the motivations are, Secretary Mayorkas's memo and instruction to his employees is to ignore the law. The immigration law in this country, the snapshot, is if somebody comes here illegally, they are detained, and they are deported unless some adjudication exists, like an asylum case is processed; but 9 out of 10 of those are bogus. That had been the law of our country, the law of the land, for a very long time among Republican and Democratic administrations but no longer, because Secretary Mayorkas decided to instruct his employees to subvert that law. If you want to change it, come here. If you want to change a ``shall'' to a ``may,'' that is what we are supposed to do. That is what the article I branch is supposed to do, just like the article I branch here in the Senate is supposed to hold people accountable who are in high positions of government. It is our remedy. As the back-and-forth in that United States vs. Texas and Missouri case from Justice Kavanaugh to the Solicitor General of the United States indicated, what is the remedy here? And the Department of Justice's own lawyer said: Well, they have the remedy of impeachment. But I guess we don't actually have that anymore. So I know that, in these 24-hour news cycles, things move on quickly. Tomorrow, we are going to be on, you know, FISA, and there is national security stuff, and it will be easy, I think, for many to sort of wipe today away, but it won't go away. It is a stain on this institution. It diminishes this body. It is why I stood up to object to a ridiculous idea that, somehow, we are supposed to negotiate away our constitutional duty. That isn't up for grabs. That is our job. Oh, thank you, Senator Schumer, for giving us a half hour to talk about this. No thanks. Not from me. Now, would I do that on some amendment to an approps bill? Probably not. But, when Senator Schumer wants to set our constitutional order on fire, I will stand up and I will object, and I know many other people share that point of view. There is no structure to the arson you are committing. So I appreciate the inquiry--or this back-and-forth we are having with the Senator from Utah because, sadly, this is all we are left with. So many powers of individual Senators have been given away over the years. This institution is no longer the world's greatest deliberative body; it is Kabuki theater with fewer powers now individual Senators have and fewer powers that we have been given by our Founders as an institution. For what? For what? A couple of bad days? A couple of news cycles? Congratulations. Congratulations, Chuck Schumer. You are going to own that, and every single Democrat who voted for it will too. So the border crisis isn't going away. It still exists. The Senate lost an opportunity to hear evidence to hold someone accountable today. I thank the Senator.

Mr. SCHMITT

Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Goodwill of Western Missouri and Eastern Kansas, also known as MoKan Goodwill, for their 130th anniversary of being a pillar of support for the Kansas City community. Goodwill Industries' mission has remained the same since its founding: provide services and resources for those in need wherever they may be. For the Kansas City region, the Helping Hand Institute carried out this mission starting in 1894. They provided food, shelter, and work relief programs for those who were homeless and without resources. Through the Helping Hand Institute, thousands of Kansas City citizens were able to obtain employment and become self-sufficient. By 1925, Goodwill Industries of Greater Kansas City had grown to incorporate workforce programs focused on collected used goods and then trained and hired people with disabilities or disadvantages to repair those goods. These repaired items were then sold in stores to support the program. In the 1940s, Goodwill had expanded its focus to become a training center and added services such as employment skills training and vocational rehabilitation for persons with disabilities. In 1956, Goodwill started workforce development programs supported by contracts with the State Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, providing paid employment for persons with disabilities who repaired donated furniture and clothing sold in Goodwill stores. In 1978, it became apparent that a name better reflecting the geographical scope of Helping Hands Institute and Goodwill Industries' programs and services was needed. In 2010, the organization changed to its present name, Goodwill of Western Missouri and Eastern Kansas. Today, I am proud to say that MoKan Goodwill continues to be a nonprofit leader in the Kansas City region providing resources and services to individuals who face barriers to obtaining employment. No matter the barrier, MoKan Goodwill continues this 130-year mission to help provide those in need an opportunity to become self-sufficient and participate in the rich work of their local communities. I congratulate MoKan Goodwill on their service to our communities and wish them the best of luck with the next 130 years.

Mr. SCHMITT

Mr. SCHMITT. Madam President, I submit the following notice in writing: In accordance with Rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice in writing that it is my intention to move to suspend the following portion of paragraph 1 of Rule XXII: ``to lay on the table'' for the purposes of preventing the disposition of the Articles of Impeachment against Alejandro Mayorkas without a complete and full trial.

Mr. SCHMITT

Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Captain William Davis of Joplin, MO, for his service to the State of Missouri. On March 8, 2022, the Joplin Police responded to a disturbance in the parking lot of the Northpark Crossing Shopping Center. As he attempted to flee, the perpetrator sadly killed Corporal Benjamin Cooper and Officer Jake Reed. The perpetrator shot at Captain Davis and Officer Rick Hirshey as they pulled up to the scene, seriously wounding Officer Rick Hirshey. Amidst these devastating events, Captain Davis courageously intervened to stop further harm. It is because of Captain Davis's selfless action that this murderous rampage was stopped before further losses could be incurred. Captain Davis's bravery in the face of danger prompted him to be recognized as Public Safety Officer Hero of the Year in 2022. This nationwide celebration, hosted by the First Responder's Children's Foundation, is dedicated to first responder heroes who risk their lives every day in service to our communities. Captain Davis is truly a Champion of Missouri. I am grateful for his commitment to keeping our communities safe and his willingness to face the dangers that arise. I wish him the best as he continues to grow in his career as a captain in the Joplin Police Department.

Mr. SCHMITT

Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise today to honor Joseph Sapp of Branson, MO, for his service to the State of Missouri. On December 12, 2022, Branson Police Department Sergeant Abe Jones responded to a call about an altercation in progress in the parking lot of a Branson apartment complex. Sergeant Jones attempted to arrest the suspect, but the suspect repeatedly punched Sergeant Jones in the head. Joseph Sapp, a 19-year-old living in the apartment complex, immediately sprang into action and shoved the assailant away from Sergeant Jones. This support gave Sergeant Jones enough time to get to his feet and arrest the suspect. Joseph selflessly abandoned his own safety and, as a result, prevented any further injury to the officer and, more broadly, to the public. Joseph has since joined the U.S. Army and is stationed in Texas. Joseph Sapp is truly a Champion of Missouri. His example of bravery serves as a testament to the character of our future generation. It is a sacrifice to jump into a conflict to save another's life. I know that Joseph's character of courage will serve him well as he pursues his career in the military, further serving our great country.

Mr. SCHMITT

Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise to bring attention to the matter of grave importance to the Senate. My friend and colleague from Indiana just spoke about this just a few minutes ago. We are going to be delivered Articles of Impeachment to this Chamber, which is a very important role that the Senate plays in our constitutional structure, our constitutional order. All of us are sworn in as jurors. This is a solemn act. We swear when we take our oath that we will abide by the Constitution, we will protect the Constitution. This is something we are supposed to do. Politically speaking, Secretary Mayorkas has been a disaster. If you could have a Mount Rushmore of worst Cabinet members in the history of the United States of America, he would be on that Mount Rushmore. Legally speaking, he has undermined the laws of the United States. But before we get there, we actually have to have a trial. In no instance in the history of this great Republic--in 240-plus years--has this body, the world's greatest deliberative body ever, in the history of our country, dismissed or tabled Articles of Impeachment for someone who is still serving in office or alive. Let me repeat that: It has never happened. To quote my colleague from New York who often says this: History is watching. Chuck Schumer, history is watching, because 200 years from now, God willing, in this Republic, people will be in our chairs. We don't know their names. They will be referring back to the precedent that is set in this Chamber to go down a road we have never gone down. Vote how you want to vote based on the evidence, your point of view. Vote how you want to vote. But the idea that we would be setting this very dangerous precedent because Chuck Schumer doesn't want it in the news cycle for a couple of days is ridiculous. For my friends on both sides of the aisle that care about this place, this is, perhaps, the most dangerous act you could inflict upon us, short of blowing up the filibuster, to say that we are not going to hear the evidence; that we are not going to vote as Senators because we are afraid of a news cycle, which, by the way, would highlight the total and utter disaster that happens at our border. Mr. President, 9 million people have come across illegally. I rise to point out just one aspect of that that is incredibly dangerous for this country--the number of Chinese nationals that are coming here. There have been 22,233 encounters of Chinese nationals crossing illegally at the northern and southern borders so far in fiscal year 2024. There were 24,125 encounters last year. To put that scale in perspective, there were just 342 apprehensions of Chinese nationals in 1987 and fiscal year 2022. That is a dramatic increase. They are our greatest adversary. The 21st century will be defined by who wins this great power struggle. And if you don't think--there have been documented cases--that some of these folks are coming here to spy on us, including military installations, I have some oceanfront property in Missouri I would like to sell you. Secretary Mayorkas, in his own memo, advocated for ignoring U.S. law. This is a big deal. Again, regardless of how you feel about how you are going to vote on this, my point of view is: There is a lot of evidence that could be presented and will be presented to show that he has purposefully undermined the sovereignty of the United States of America. That is a serious charge. The House of Representatives has voted to send that here. Let's hear it out. Let's do our constitutional duty. Let's not be afraid to do our jobs. I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHMITT

Mr. SCHMITT. Madam President, I rise today to recognize and honor a model citizen Tom Henke. Tom's outstanding support of his family and other families who have children with developmental disorders has earned him the title of ``Champion of Missouri.'' In addition to the accomplishment of winning the World Series Championship with the St. Louis Cardinals as a pitcher, his efforts in raising support for a cause near and dear to him have established him as a cornerstone of the Jefferson City community. But before I break down what makes him a cut above the rest, let me tell you a little about his family and what inspires him. Tom's family motivates him both professionally and personally. He and his father used to play catch with a baseball when he was a child. This simple act enabled him with a passion for the sport that would serve him throughout his life as he went on to play on the highest stage possible, the MLB. While in college, he met his wife Kathy, married, and had four wonderful children: Linsay, Ryan, Kim, and Amanda. His family and his faith are the centerpiece of his life. Tom's commitment to his family has served as an inspiration in support of the Special Learning Center in Jefferson City. Inspired by his daughter Amanda, Tom established the Tom Henke Charity Classic Golf Tournament, which pairs celebrities and participants to play a round of golf together in support of the center. Through his efforts, this event has been pivotal in support of those with disabilities and has raised over $1 million in charity for the Special Learning Center in Jefferson City. This center empowers parents and their children with skills that will serve them for their entire lives. Tom Henke is truly a Champion of Missouri. As a father, I appreciate the unwavering dedication it takes to support a family. I understand from personal experience that caring for someone with a special need requires love and patience. My experiences with my wife and children's family have pushed me to stand here today and honor this distinguished man in his life's journey.

Mr. SCHMITT

Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2882 with further amendment No. 1795.

Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, Jefferson Smith, the newly minted Senator in Frank Capra's ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' opined: ``Liberty's too precious a thing to be buried in books. Men should hold it up in front of them every single day of their lives and say: I'm free to think and to speak. My ancestors couldn't, I can, and my children will.'' My amendment tackles a fundamental issue that should bring us together as a Senate: protecting Americans' First Amendment rights in the virtual town square. The First Amendment is the beating heart of our Constitution. It protects fundamental human expression, and the government shouldn't be deciding what we can read or what we can hear or what we can say. Earlier this week, Murphy v. Murray was heard in the U.S. Supreme Court. I filed that case when I was attorney general of Missouri. At issue in that case is what is at the heart of the issue here in this amendment, which is pretty simple: Should the Federal Government and its leviathan of Agencies be allowed to coerce and collude with social media companies to censor speech online? The answer for every American should be a resounding no. Unfortunately, that is what top officials in the Biden administration were doing and why this amendment is so important. What is more, censorship isn't limited to just conservative-leaning speech.

Mr. SCHMITT. This affects everyone, all ideologies. This should bring us together. This would protect Americans' free speech. I urge this body to support it.

Mr. SCHMITT. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SCHMITT

Mr. SCHMITT. Madam President, I rise today to honor the 175th anniversary of the organization of Laclede County, MO, and its county seat, Lebanon. As America expanded westward in the 1800s, Laclede County and Lebanon served as a crossroads. On February 24, 1849, the city and county were established. Pierre Laclede, a French fur trader and the founder of St. Louis, MO, is the county's namesake. The region witnessed the rapid change ushered by innovated modes of transportation like the railroad and later the highway system, including the famous Route 66 in the 1920s. Today, I-44 traces a similar route in this area and Laclede County continues as an intersection between time periods of history. The citizens in Laclede County, which include the cities and villages of Conway, Lebanon, Richland, Evergreen, Phillipsburg, and Stoutland, maintain their commitment to preserve the community's history for future generations. The county is proud to be the hometown of prominent figures like Jim Bohannon, a renowned radio news and talk show host, Michael S. Hopkins, an esteemed NASA astronaut and Air Force colonel, and Betty Wagoner, a professional baseball player for the South Bend Blue Sox. Today, Laclede County is home to more than 36,000 proud Missourians, and more than 14,000 of that number reside in the city of Lebanon. Both Laclede County and Lebanon hold great significance to the State of Missouri, and I hope the region continues to thrive for many years to come.

Mr. SCHMITT

Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, I rise--maybe there are some discussions happening about amendments actually happening. I would hope in a Chamber that has historically been known as the world's most deliberative body that we can actually do that. I find it hard to believe--and it has happened on occasion--that Senators who were elected here by entire States actually don't have the opportunity to offer amendments to have them voted on. But here we are, and those are, I guess, some discussions that are taking place. I do have an amendment and one that saves $110 million and displaces a position dedicated to algorithmic justice, whatever in the world that is. But I thought it would be a good opportunity--because ``algorithmic justice'' sounds very Orwellian to me--to highlight some of the real abuses we have seen of free speech in the last few years. I am 48. So I suppose I am one of the younger members in the Senate. But I am also old enough to remember when people of all political stripes, including liberals, actually believed in free speech; that it was something that we believed provided a part of our national identity. What makes America exceptional is that we can tolerate different points of view--agree and disagree, persuade, be willing to be persuaded--that that is a core American value. I think what has happened in the last few years is this debate has somehow gotten off the rails about the willingness of some to actually censor because they disagree or they think something is threatening or it might be misinformation. That might well be true, but the government certainly doesn't have a right to tell you what you can hear and what you can say. It just doesn't. It is fundamental, and they also don't get to outsource that censorship to private parties. In my last job, I filed a lawsuit Missouri v. Biden. And Missouri v. Biden exposed a vast censorship enterprise. It is actually being heard in the U.S. Supreme Court in about 2 weeks. So we filed the lawsuit-- Missouri and Louisiana filed it--and we were actually able to obtain discovery in advance of the preliminary injunction hearing, which was a win. So thousands, literally tens of thousands of pages of emails and text messages were exposed. And all I can say is--if I have the opportunity to use all of my time, I could use--by the way, I would be more than willing to go more than an hour--we will get to the court's ruling. But I thought it might be worth highlighting because many Members--maybe this will boost C-SPAN viewership. I don't know--but many of the Members may not have heard the allegations and then ultimately what was proven to the court in their opinion. In 1783, George Washington warned that if ``the freedom of Speech may be taken away--[then] dumb & silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.'' That was in George Washington's Address to the officers in the Army on March 15, 1783. I think what I will do for the sake of cutting out some of this is leave the citations out. You will have to trust me, but it is all on the record. So you can find this. The citations are, in fact, noted. The freedom of speech in the United States now--this is, by the way, from the second amended complaint that was filed on June of 2022 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, the Monroe Division. The freedom of speech in the United States now faces one of its greatest assaults by federal government officials in our nation's history. A private entity violates the First Amendment ``if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful viewpoint. The government cannot accomplish, through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.'' That is exactly what occurred over the past several years, beginning with express and implied threats from government officials and culminating in the Biden administration's open and explicit censorship programs. Having threatened and cajoled social media platforms for years to censor viewpoints and speakers disfavored by the left, senior government officials in the executive branch have moved into place-- does anybody--can you find some readers? I mentioned 48, but here we go. The font on this, that I printed off, is more difficult to read than I would have thought. . . . moved into a phase of open collusion with social- media companies to suppress disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content on social-media platforms under the Orwellian guise of halting so-called ``disinformation,'' ``misinformation,'' or ``malinformation.'' 4. The aggressive censorship that Defendants have procured constitutes government action for at least five reasons: (1) absent federal intervention, common-law and statutory doctrines, as well as voluntary conduct and natural free- market forces, would have restrained the emergence of censorship and suppression of speech of disfavored speakers, content, and viewpoint on social media; and yet, (2) through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and other actions, the federal government subsidized, fostered, encouraged, and empowered the creation of a small number of massive social-media companies with disproportionate ability to censor and suppress speech on the basis of speaker, content, and viewpoint; (3) such inducements as Section 230 and other legal benefits (such as the absence of antitrust enforcement) constitute an immensely valuable benefit to social-media platforms and incentive to do the bidding of federal officials; (4) federal officials--including, most notably, certain Defendants herein--have repeatedly and aggressively threatened to remove these legal benefits and impose other adverse consequences on social-media platforms if they do not aggressively censor and suppress disfavored speakers, content, and viewpoints on their platforms; and (5) Defendants herein, colluding and coordinating with each other, have also directly coordinated and colluded with social-media platforms to identify disfavored speakers, viewpoints, and content and thus have procured the actual censorship and suppression of the freedom of speech. These factors are both individually and collectively sufficient to establish government action in the censorship and suppression of social-media speech, especially given the inherent power imbalance: not only do the government actors here have the power to penalize noncompliant companies, but they have threatened to exercise that authority. So, in this case, government officials--so a lot of these lawsuits about what social media companies were doing, were filed against social media companies themselves who moved to the Northern District of California and were never to be seen again. What made this lawsuit unique was government actors in their official capacity were sued because of their activity and their censorship by way of social media companies by threatening investigations, threatening to pull section 230 protections if they weren't censoring enough, threatening antitrust actions. The complaint continues: As a direct result of these actions, there have been an unprecedented rise of censorship and suppression of free speech--including core political speech--on social-media platforms. Many viewpoints and speakers have been unlawfully and unconstitutionally silenced in the modern public square. These actions gravely threaten the fundamental right of free speech and free discourse for virtually all citizens in Missouri, Louisiana, and America, both on social media and elsewhere. And they have directly impacted individual Plaintiffs in this case, all of whom have been censored and/ or shadowbanned as a result of Defendants' actions. Under the First Amendment, the federal Government should play no role in policing private speech or picking winners and losers in the marketplace of ideas. But that is what federal officials are doing, on a massive scale--the full scope and impact of which yet to be determined. Secretary Mayorkas of DHS commented that the federal Government's efforts to police private speech on social media are occurring ``across the federal enterprise.'' It turns out that this statement is quite literally true. This case involves a massive, sprawling federal ``Censorship Enterprise,'' which includes dozens of federal officials across at least eleven federal agencies and components, who communicate with social-media platforms about misinformation, disinformation, and the suppression of private speech on social media--all with the intent and effect of pressuring social-media platforms to censor and suppress private speech that federal officials disfavor. Moving to the General Allegations. A. Freedom of Speech Is the Bedrock of American Liberty. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . .'' et cetera. Article I, subsection 8 of the Missouri Constitution provides something similar. I won't read the whole paragraph. The freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the First Amendment is one of the greatest bulwarks of [our] liberty. These rights are fundamental and must be protected against government interference. . . . If the President or Congress enacted a law or issued an order requiring the suppression of certain disfavored viewpoints or on social media, or directing social media to demonetize, shadow-ban, or expel certain disfavored speakers, such a law or order would be manifestly unconstitutional under the First Amendment. ``If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.'' That was in the West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. In another case the First Amendment was noted: ``[T]he First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.'' That is Ashcroft v. ACLU. ``In light of the substantial and expansive threats to free [speech] posed by content-based restrictions, the Supreme Court has rejected as `startling and dangerous' a `free- floating test for First Amendment coverage . . . [based on] an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and benefits.' '' U.S. v. Alvarez. Section 2 of the General Allegations: Merely labeling speech ``misinformation'' or ``disinformation'' does not strip away First Amendment protection. Labeling disfavored speech ``misinformation'' or ``disinformation'' does not strip it of First Amendment protection. ``Absent from those few categories where the law allows content-based regulation of speech is any general exception to the First Amendment for false statements. This comports with the common understanding that some false statements are inevitable if there is to be open and vigorous expression of views in public and private conversation, expression the First Amendment seeks to guarantee.'' The Supreme Court has thus rejected the argument that ``false statements, as a general rule, are beyond constitutional protection.'' ``Permitting the government to decree this speech to be a criminal offense, whether shouted from the rooftops or made in a barely audible whisper, would endorse government authority to compile a list of subjects about which false statements are punishable. That governmental power has no clear limiting principle. Our constitutional tradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania's Ministry of Truth.'' That is cited from the previous case as well and also cited, by the way, ``Nineteen Eighty-Four'' by George Orwell. ``Were the Court to hold-- In that same case-- ``Were the Court to hold that the interest in truthful discourse alone is sufficient to sustain a ban on speech . . . it would give government a broad censorial power unprecedented in this Court's cases or in our constitutional tradition. The mere potential for the exercise of that power casts a chill, a chill the First Amendment cannot permit if free speech, thought, and discourse are to remain a foundation of our freedom.'' Section 3. Counterspeech, not censorship, is the proper response to ``misinformation.'' When the Government believes that speech is false and harmful, ``counterspeech,'' not censorship, must ``suffice to achieve its interest.'' The First Amendment presumes that ``the dynamics of free speech, of counterspeech, of refutation, can overcome the lie.'' ``The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society. The response to the unreasoned is the rational; to the uninformed, the enlightened; to the straightout lie, the simple truth.'' ``The theory of our Constitution is `that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.'' It is in the same case, also quoting Abrams v. United States, 1919. ``The First Amendment itself ensures the right to respond to speech we do not like, and for a good reason. Freedom of speech and thought flows not from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable rights of the person. And suppression of speech by the government can make exposure of falsity more difficult, not less so. Society has the right and civic duty to engage in open, dynamic, rational discourse. These ends are not well served when the government seeks to orchestrate public discussion through content-based mandates.'' Section 4. Americans have a First Amendment right to be exposed to a free flow of speech, viewpoints, and content, free from censorship by government officials. The First Amendment also protects the right to receive others' thoughts, messages, and viewpoints freely, in a free flow of public discourse. ``[W]here a speaker exists . . . , the protection afforded is to the communication, to its source and to its recipients both.'' That is Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, from 1976. The right to receive information is ``an inherent corollary of the rights to free speech and press that are explicitly, guaranteed by the Constitution,'' because ``the right to receive ideas follows ineluctably from the sender's First Amendment right to send them.'' ``The dissemination of ideas can accomplish nothing if otherwise willing addressees are not free to receive and consider them. It would be a barren marketplace of ideas that had only sellers and no buyers.'' Lamont v. Postmaster General. ``A fundamental principle of the First Amendment is that all persons have access to places where they can speak and listen, and then, after reflection, speak and listen once more.'' Packingham v. North Carolina. ``[A]ssuring that the public has access to a multiplicity of information sources is a governmental purpose of the highest order, for it promotes values central to the First Amendment.'' Turner Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. FCC. I am going to skip a little bit here. Section 5. Government officials may not circumvent the First Amendment by inducing, threatening, and/or colluding with private entities to suppress protected speech. It is ``axiomatic'' that the government may not ``induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.'' Norwood v. Harrison. A private entity violates the First Amendment if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful viewpoint.'' Knight First Amendment Institute. ``The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.'' Threats of adverse regulatory or legislative action, to induce private actors to censor third parties' speech, violate the First Amendment. See Hammerhead Enters. v. Brezenoff (``Where comments of a government official can reasonably be interpreted as intimating that some form of punishment or adverse regulatory action will follow the failure to accede to the official's request, a valid claim can be stated.'') I am going to save you all the citations from that. The unprecedented control over private speech exercised by social-media companies gives government officials an unprecedented opportunity to circumvent the First Amendment and achieve indirect censorship of private speech. ``By virtue of its ownership of the essential pathway,'' a social media platform ``can . . . silence the voice of competing speakers with a mere flick of the switch.'' Turner. ``The potential for abuse of this private power over a central avenue of communication cannot be overlooked.'' Part B. The Dominance of Social Media as a Forum for Public Information and Discourse. Social media companies have become, in many ways, ``the modern public square.'' Social media platforms provide ``perhaps the most powerful mechanisms available to a private citizen to make his or her voice heard.'' ``Today's digital platforms provide avenues for historically unprecedented amounts of speech, including speech by government actors.'' By the way, you can follow that online. You can also listen to the Supreme Court arguments in 2 weeks. I will just close with this. This is a case that is being argued, and as we talk about these issues, I would hope that, as a body, we could come together to allow individual Senators to offer amendments. I would hope that, over time, we can also find common ground on this idea that the government shouldn't have any business in suppressing speech. The temptation to control so-called misinformation is great, and this case stands for the proposition that you cannot outsource that to social media companies. It is an Orwellian scheme that played out among a whole host of government agencies and bureaucracies, and I hope that case, which I think is the most important free speech case in the history of our country, spells it out very clearly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the general allegations from the seconded amended complaint of Missouri v. Biden be printed in the Record.

Mr. SCHMITT. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. SCHMITT. Madam President, I move to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4366, with my amendment No. 1626.

Mr. SCHMITT. Madam President, I will be brief and just sort of walk through this amendment. This is a good government amendment that I hope that everybody can get behind. The House omnibus includes a provision allowing the NTIA to capture 337 million in IIJA funding to expand its bureaucracy. So just to sort of walk through this, under the Infrastructure Act, there was $42 billion for administrative costs. That is $850 million. That money, as it relates to the BEAD Program, because it is pretty diffused across the country, they don't have a lot of those administrative costs. So now they are coming back in under the BEAD Program and saying we need $337 million for administrative costs. But they have only justified $226 million. So this would save taxpayers $110 million. If they want to justify it down the road for something specific, they can go ahead and do that. But this is to sort of deal with that. If you want another reason to support this: There is also some new initiative related to Algorithmic Justice--whatever that is--and we would make sure that no dollars go to Algorithmic Justice.

Mr. SCHMITT. I will just respond. I ask for 30 extra seconds.

Mr. SCHMITT. Fifteen seconds. I would just say this: If that were true, maybe you have a good reason to vote against it. That is not true. According to Commerce and Approps, there is $110 million that won't be affected by any of that. So this is just saving $110 million. All the things the great Senator just talked about, all that is going to happen. You are not taking anything away. You are just saving $110 million that Commerce and Approps say has not been justified. Vote on Motion to Concur with Amendment No. 1626