Sheldon Whitehouse

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 384, S. 3470.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I know of no further debate on the resolution, as amended.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I further ask that the committee-reported substitute amendment to the resolution be agreed to.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. For the information of the Senate, the first rollcall vote of the day will begin at 11:45 a.m. on confirmation of the Heinzelman nomination to be General Counsel of the CIA, with another vote at 1:45 p.m. on the motion to invoke cloture on the Childs nomination to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Thursday, July 14, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Heinzelman nomination postcloture; that all postcloture time be considered expired at 11:45 a.m. and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; further, that following the vote, the Senate resume consideration of the Childs nomination, and the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination at 1:45 p.m.; further, that if any nominations are confirmed during Thursday's session, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, in order to expedite matters and move on to the vote, I yield my time.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 689, submitted earlier today.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I have 12 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees a re authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 385, S. 3510.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be 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. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 103, S. 671.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I further ask unanimous consent that the Hassan substitute amendment 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 with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I rise now for the 284th time with my increasingly tattered and battered ``Time to Wake up'' poster to urge this Chamber to wake up on the issue of climate change. Human beings dumped 36.3 billion tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere last year--last year. After all our big talk, after all the plans and the COPS and the commitments, 36.3 billion tons. That is the highest total ever recorded. We are not doing any better. We continue to do worse, and here in Congress, we continue to do nothing. We have seen this coming for many years. And even with all that warning, nothing. NOAA reports there is currently more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere now than at any time during the last 4 million years. Humankind has never experienced what we are putting ourselves through. Here is a look at it. Over centuries, wobbling, wobbling, back and forth quite steadily. And now--whoops--and all the way up to where we are, out of the historic range of this planet back into geological time. All that carbon pollution has us hurtling toward climate catastrophe. With every ton of carbon dioxide we add, comes a higher risk of destructive changes to our world: ever-stronger hurricanes, rising seas, severe droughts, flooding, heat waves, disease, hunger, and more. We have a simple choice: We act swiftly to address the carbon pollution scorching our planet or we tip our climate over the edge into a cycle of destruction mankind cannot halt. As we disrupt essential planetary operating systems, we face another problem: American deindustrialization and the offshoring of jobs in much of our manufacturing base. After China joined the World Trade Organization back here in 2001, the United States lost almost 6 million manufacturing jobs. It was a complete bloodbath. Communities across America were hollowed out as factories closed and workers were laid off losing union jobs that helped workers support their families and enjoy a good wage and a decent standard of living. Our trade deficit blew up, especially for manufactured goods. In 2001, our trade deficit in manufactured goods topped $250 billion. By 2020, it had more than tripled to almost $900 billion. Then came the COVID-19 pandemic and exposed the fact that we no longer make so much upon which modern life depends. First it was the masks and the protective gear for medical professionals on the frontlines; then shortages came to everything from patio furniture to auto computer chips, bicycles, garage doors, and much more. Well, what if--what if--it turned out there was a solution to both problems, a policy that would simultaneously drive down carbon pollution worldwide and help reshore American manufacturing? Well, it turns out there is such a solution, and it is called a carbon border adjustment. With Senators Coons, Schatz, and Heinrich, I have introduced one here in the Senate. The fact is that American manufacturers are way less carbon-intensive than other competitors. On average, we are nearly 50-percent less carbon-intensive than our trading partners. Here is a list of some of our majors: China, 3.2 times more efficient; Mexico, 1.4 times more efficient; India, 3.8 times more efficient. So if we level the playing field about carbon emissions economy to economy, we win against carbon-intensive nations like China and India. And that is fair. A steel plant in Shanghai shouldn't be able to pollute for free and undercut plants in Pittsburgh that make better steel with less pollution. My border adjustment fixes that problem. Carbon-polluting goods from abroad, fossil fuels, refined petroleum products, petrochemicals, fertilizer, cement, steel would be tariffed on the carbon intensity of their industries. This means that if you are a carbon-intensive cement factory in Mexico, you pay or you invest in technologies to lower your carbon intensity to match that cleaner plant across the border in Texas. That is a powerful incentive to reduce global emissions and a big boost to U.S. companies competing against foreign climate cheaters. The tariff revenues fund a competitive grant program for carbon- emitting U.S. industries to help them invest in the new technologies necessary to reduce their own carbon intensities. Developing countries didn't get us into this mess, and they are getting clobbered by climate change, so we also direct some revenue to the State Department to support decarbonization projects in those countries. To make this work, we need to hold American companies to the same standard as we do overseas, so we set the standard at our U.S. average emissions for the industry. So all you have to do to pay nothing is be better than average. And if you are below average, all you have to do to pay nothing is to clean up your act to where half your industry already is. We also give clear targets to industries for future baseline carbon intensity because that is what industry wants--clarity, certainty to know where the goalposts are. Look at an example. Under my bill, the average or better American steel mill would pay no charge at all because it is better than average. The below average steel mill might pay $5 to $10 per ton of steel produced, a $5 to $10 per ton incentive to clean up its mill. But here is the really good part: Imports from a Chinese steel mill, more like $110 per ton. The below average U.S. steel mill, $5 to $10; the Chinese, $110. That will make Americans feel more competitive compared to polluting Chinese imports, and then buyers will beat a path to our door. We might as well get ready with a U.S. carbon border adjustment because the European Union Parliament is passing a carbon border adjustment of its own. Member states will vote on that proposal later this year. When it takes effect, American companies will pay a carbon tariff to European governments--unless we have one of our own. Now, where we want to be is for the EU, the UK, Canada, Mexico, Japan, perhaps South Korea, all with common carbon border adjustments, creating a common carbon pricing platform across all those major economies so that we move toward decarbonization, and more importantly, the rest of the world that wants to trade with the United States, with the UK, with the EU, has to clean up its act. They would need to decarbonize and fast to have any hope of competing. Trying to convince Chinese manufacturers to clean up their act out of the goodness of their hearts, perhaps, is a bit of a fool's errand. Putting a tariff on their goods so that they have to pay if they don't clean up their act? Now, that is how you get things going. Unfortunately, this is on us now--on Democrats. There are too many Republicans who are just in tow to the fossil fuel industry to help. And, of course, you can't talk about anything having to do with climate change without the dark money scoundrels, propped up by the fossil fuel industry, to come and cause mischief. They are even advertising against my bill. Here is an advertisement against it paid for by AG Conservatives--AG Conservatives. Well, assume that this is a real organization, which it isn't. It is a front group paid for by dark money that hides who the real donors are--just a mouthpiece for somebody who doesn't want to identify themselves. But why would an agriculture group want to hurt manufacturing? It doesn't make any sense. Why would they not want American manufacturing to have that advantage against their Chinese competition? Why would they be asking people to vote no on a carbon border adjustment? And by the way, there are a lot of products where agricultural products form the feedstock for a later manufacturing product. And if we are bringing manufacturing to the United States because we are favored versus dirty polluting foreign manufacturers, why would they not want that to happen? And where is agriculture in this fight anyway when this is mostly about manufacturing? Where, for American agriculture, is the downside? If you think it through, it actually doesn't exist, which helps confirm to me that behind this phony front group is probably the fossil fuel industry pretending that it is some agriculture group. If that were agriculture, that was agriculture from millions of years ago before it all went down to the bottom and got compressed and rotted and turned, after millions of years, into oil. That is the agriculture. So that is what we are up against. That is why Democrats are going to have to do this. The fossil fuel money that is driving the other party makes it impossible for bipartisanship to work. We have a shot in reconciliation to pass a serious climate bill--a real one--and we should make a carbon border adjustment a central component of that bill. It is a win-win-win. We compete on a playing field with a huge built-in advantage for American manufacturing; we spare ourselves carbon tariffs from the EU; and we relentlessly, with economic pressure and power, drive down carbon pollution across the biggest polluters around the globe--a win-win-win. The choice is clear. Let's win. I yield the floor.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 1031, Vinay Vijay Singh, of Pennsylvania, to be Chief Financial Officer, Department of Housing and Urban Development; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 690, submitted earlier today.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Thursday, June 23, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the motion to discharge the Clarke nomination; further, that at 11 a.m., the Senate vote on the motion to discharge the Clarke nomination; that upon the disposition of the motion, the Senate resume legislative session to resume consideration of the House message to accompany S. 2938 and vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to concur in the House amendment with amendment No. 5099.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the Hagerty-Warner substitute 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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Appropriations be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 4346 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of the distinguished Senator Peters.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I would actually ask, in response, that we pass a different measure, and I would ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be discharged from further consideration of S. 4217, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I am here for the 15th time in my series of ``Scheme'' speeches to call attention to the rightwing donors' long-planned scheme to capture and control our Supreme Court. What I will talk about today is that scheme's donor-funded doctrine factory and a case in which the ``Court that dark money built'' could weaponize dangerous, concocted doctrines to power up polluters and threaten the basic function of government. Before I get into this, let me say that I detest and condemn violence or threatened violence against members of the Court, and I object even to protesters making a racket in Justices' neighborhoods. There is a lot to be angry about, but the solution is through democracy and laws, not violence and noise. The capture of the Court by secret and special interests is deadly serious under our laws, and we have to respond seriously under our laws. Neighborhood noise and violent threats don't help. Let's remember that all three Trump Supreme Court Justices were actually chosen and then campaigned for by a dark money donor apparatus. Remember, the whole point of the scheme is to capture the Court so it will deliver big wins for the big rightwing donors, no matter how unpopular or radical those wins are. Remember that the donor elite behind the scheme spent hundreds of millions of dollars on an apparatus to capture the courts. It plotted for decades to seize this power and set up a system to get its hand-picked, extremist nominees onto the Bench. It instructs those Justices with coordinated flotillas of amicus briefs so the Justices know how they are supposed to rule. It is quite an operation. But none of that works--none of that works if judges are following the law as it is. Existing legal precedents are a problem for the scheme. So, to accomplish its mission, a radical deconstruction of our American laws, the big donor elite need to destroy decades of legal precedent. We got a preview in the looming effort, shown by the Alito leaked draft opinion, to destroy precedent protecting women's right to decide about abortion and relocate that right from women to State legislatures. That is just the scheme's opening act, a sop to one segment of its social issues base. The scheme is out to deconstruct American law and destroy established precedent across many areas of the law. Now, if you are out to deconstruct American law and replace it with what the big donors want, you need some intellectual weaponry. You don't just need Justices who will do what you ask, you need legal theories. You need to give the Justices you put on the Court the intellectual artillery--the demolition theories--that will help them destroy the precedents and deconstruct our legal system. So that is a problem. But when you are spending more than half a billion dollars on such a scheme, you can find solutions. And sure enough, rightwing donor interests found solutions. It took time, but the whole scheme took time. It took a lot of money, but the whole scheme took a lot of money. It took patience and planning, but what a payoff when you succeed. And now it is payday. The first thing you do is erect an array of legal think tanks, phony institutes, the hothouses in which the deconstruction theories are grown; the factories, if you will, where doctrines are crafted, reverse-engineered from the results the big donors want so that willing, complicit Justices have the ideological weaponry for deconstruction of the law. These think tanks do a couple of things. First, they nurture rightwing legal scholars to formulate bogus legal doctrines. They pay them comfortable salaries. They grant them nice titles. They cover their trips to conferences and symposia with fellow hothouse scholars. The whole thing apes regular academia, but this academia-resembling performance has a very different mission: It has deliverables. Second, they systematically cheerlead for their new legal doctrines. They create an echo chamber of approval for their cultivated fringe ideas. Once the hothouse conjures a fringe idea, the hothouse bounces it among other so-called scholars and through other anonymously funded affiliate groups and through law school debate clubs and conservative conferences--also funded by secretive donors--and into flotillas of scripted amicus curiae briefs and ultimately, the prize, into legal opinions. They create a legitimization process, and of course they concoct or retool the desirable theories. The legal theories are actually pretty easy to come up with. You reverse-engineer. You start with what big donor interests want and then work backward. And what lots of big donors want--especially fossil fuel companies--is to weaken and disable government regulation. Government regulators stop all sorts of harmful corporate practices: pollution of our air, water, and climate; dangerous factory floor working conditions; crooked schemes that cheat investors; snake oil medications that don't cure disease; unsafe products; insurance policies that don't pay. The list is long. Demolishing that protective network of regulations protecting America's health, safety, and financial well-being is a scheme priority, and the destruction begins by pejoratively naming the Agencies whose work protects us the ``administrative state.'' There are many of these doctrine-growing hothouses. Two examples are the Cato Institute, originally founded by the Koch brothers, and the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School, of course. Both of these groups are funded to pump out and legitimize anti-regulatory fringe theories and talking points. Think of them as factories for ideological artillery designed for the demolition of Federal Agencies' authority, particularly over polluters. What do they manufacture? Well, the concocted doctrines fall into a few buckets. There is the so-called unitary executive theory, cooked up to argue that safeguards set in place by Congress to protect Federal Agencies against political interference are unconstitutional. Now, if you are a big donor and you paid big bucks to get your man in the White House, you want political interference by your guy in regulatory decisions. Congress built safeguards against that for a very good reason. But a captured Court could disable Congress's ability to defend the Agencies that Congress itself created. This unitary executive legal theory was the pet theory of the Reagan administration. It was thoroughly debunked by serious scholars and rejected initially even by the Supreme Court. But the rightwing Court-capture apparatus has persistently kept this theory a Federalist Society cornerstone and diligently packed the Court with new Justices more amenable to this nonsense. Other concocted doctrines also target Agencies. The so-called nondelegation doctrine is so radical and meritless that the Supreme Court dismissed it a century ago, except for rare cases that no longer exist where Congress might give Agencies power with no direction whatsoever. This nondelegation idea has been retooled in the doctrine factories to target Agency regulation generally. Under this doctrine as retooled, the power is removed from Congress and given to unelected courts to decide how questions should be assigned by Congress to Federal Agencies. This gives big, regulated industries a big weapon to attack the Federal Government's ability to regulate problems that they cause, at a minimum allowing industries to tie public protection regulations up in years, even decades, of litigation. Federalist Society Justices on the Court long clamored for the nondelegation doctrine, and as new Federalist Society Justices get added to the Court, it becomes more probable. Certainly the dark money front groups that provide instruction and encouragement to the Federalist Society Justices--they are in full clamor, using amicus curiae briefs to signal their wishes to the captured Court. On now to yet another hothouse-grown doctrine, the major questions doctrine, which provides a similar weapons platform to assault public safety regulations. Where the nondelegation doctrine would require Congress to set more specific regulatory standards for Agencies to police, the major questions doctrine would let the unelected Court determine that some questions are just too big to regulate--too big to regulate at all. Again, at a minimum, that lets big industries snarl Agency protections up in litigation. At worst, it forces Congress into detailed, complex questions that Congress already determined--already determined--should better be handled by expert Agencies. Perhaps I should mention here how hard the Federalist Society Justices have worked to create avenues of corporate political influence, including anonymous, unlimited, corporate political spending, allowing corporate interests to blockade action in Congress; but while it is relevant here, that is a longer story for another day. All of these concocted doctrines share the premise that Congress may not deploy Agency regulation against certain problems and that the power to grant Agencies authority to regulate in certain areas is, instead, to be decided by unelected courts--in present circumstances, decided by a captured Supreme Court with Members installed by big special interest money. What could possibly go wrong? All of these concocted doctrines overlook the robust oversight of Federal Agencies by the people's Representatives in Congress and by courts, tasked by Congress, with applying the Administrative Procedure Act. If an Agency were to go rogue, Congress can immediately intervene. Congress can reverse the decision of the Agency. Congress can change the underlying law the Agency enforces. Congress can redirect, defund, or even eliminate the errant Agency. Moreover, if Agencies don't follow the law as Congress directed or if the Agencies behave illogically or unfairly or don't give evidence proper consideration, there are avenues of legal relief in court. But the donors behind the scheme don't want relief from improper or misguided Agency action. They want relief from lawful, legitimate, and correct Agency action. This is a power grab by regulated interests using the Court, and they can do it because of the scheme. It is not a bug that these doctrines threaten harm to an array of basic government functions; it is their purpose. Let's go back to what the rightwing, corporate-funded propaganda machine likes to deride as the ``administrative state''--their little code word. What has really gone on in these Agencies? I will tell you what has gone on. Over nonstop quarreling by big special interests, regulatory Agencies made life better. They made drinking water safer. They cleaned up smokestacks. They put airbags in cars and required better seatbelts. They protected us from contaminated food. They made medication safer and more effective--no more snake oil mysteries. They made financial markets safer places for retirement funds and college savings plans to grow. They made it harder for stockjobbers to sucker innocent investors. They required insurance policies to actually pay when an insured risk occurs. They put an end to people dying from disasters like boiler explosions that used to be a regular thing. Americans live longer; highways are no longer carnage; products are safer; markets are stronger; and the American economy is more robust. So, whenever you hear the phrase ``administrative state,'' it should ring in your head a little alarm bell that special interest mischief is afoot, which brings me to the ruling expected from the Supreme Court in a case called West Virginia v. EPA. The fossil fuel interests behind the case are challenging the Federal Government's power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. Put simply, they want to make it harder to fight climate change. I can't think of a more important protection for the American people than a livable planet, and I can't think of a Member of Congress who has done more work to achieve those protections than the Presiding Officer, but the fossil fuel industry is desperate to continue to pollute for free. The first thing to know about this case is that there is no case. The Constitution requires ``a case or controversy''--that is the language in the Constitution: ``a case or controversy'' before the Court can intervene--and, here, there is no case because there is no Agency rule to challenge. The Trump administration's rule, which was a sop to polluters, was thrown out--gone. The Obama-era rule is not being pursued--gone. Biden's EPA has announced that it is formulating a new, different rule that it has not yet produced. It is not out. There is no rule in place right now. That does not seem to bother the scheme's new donor-selected majority. A few Republican States, bolstered and probably directed by an armada of rightwing, dark-money front groups, sued to challenge the EPA's authority, and the captured Court jumped right in. Think about that for a moment. With no actual rule to review, the Court is, apparently, going to decide this case based on what the Biden administration might do or issue some general observations about the EPA. Where I come from, there is a name for that. It is called an advisory opinion, and our Supreme Court is forbidden to do that under our Constitution. This is actually a big deal at the heart of the separation of powers, but the Federalist Society Justices, packed onto the Court with fossil fuel dark money, are on a mission to deconstruct the administrative state. So why let the Constitution get in the way? Just throw out more precedent about case or controversy. What is one more smashed precedent in the captured Court's cascade of precedent demolition? The donors don't care. They are not finicky. They want results. Fossil fuel is the political 800-pound gorilla in this country. The industry spent decades blocking climate action in Congress. It lurked behind this web of climate denial front groups that sowed false doubt about climate science. It was their job to mischaracterize the science. It is behind what watchdog group Influence Map calls the biggest climate-obstructing trade organization in Washington--the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Boom. It maintains its own trade group hitmen, like the American Petroleum Institute. It funnels secret money by the tens of millions into Republican super-PACs and other secret, partisan political spending fronts in a not-so-hostile takeover of the Republican Party, and it wrote some of the biggest checks to pay for the scheme, funneled through dark-money conduits like DonorsTrust and the Judicial Crisis Network. When I say we now have the Court that dark money built, it is probably more accurate to say that we now have the Court that dark fossil fuel money built. So watch out for the six-Justice supermajority that is poised to rule in this no case ``case.'' It is no surprise that the amici--the amicus curiae, the so-called friends of the Court--gathered in this case read like a who's who of fossil fuel polluter front groups. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, for instance, produces hothouse attacks on the EPA's authority, and is funded by ExxonMobil, Murray Energy, the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, and the Koch brothers' political groups. Fossil fuel front groups, as amici and litigants, sing a harmonious chorus of ``unitary executive'' and ``nondelegation'' and ``major question''--all concocted doctrines targeting the administrative state they so resent. Back before the takeover, here is what the Court said in a case called Mistretta. The Court said this: In our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives. That is the language of the Court: In our increasingly complex society, replete with ever changing and more technical problems, Congress simply cannot do its job absent an ability to delegate power under broad general directives. That is the precedent of the Court. That is the law of the land, and it is the law that special interests sent these Justices to the Court to deconstruct. So get ready. To be continued. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.