Floor Statements

I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff), and the Senator from New York (Mr. Schumer) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I rise to discuss the Senate's urgent need to confirm nominations of Rebecca Lutzko to be U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio and April Perry to serve as U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.

On five previous occasions, I have come to the floor of the Senate to request unanimous consent to move these nominees forward. Each time, the junior Senator from Ohio has objected. He campaigned for the Senate, claiming he would be tough on crime, but now that he is here, he proudly brags that he wants to ``grind the Department of Justice to a halt.''

These communities desperately need these nominees in place. There are 85 U.S. attorneys across the United States. Under President Donald Trump, we approved all 85 without a record rollcall--voice vote. It was the understanding that we would voice--we would debate the issue of an attorney general. When it came to the U.S. attorneys in individual cities and States, it was too important for us to slow these down with additional procedural requirements on the floor. And so we do background checks on these U.S. attorney nominees on a bipartisan basis. And once they clear, we add them to the calendar. That is when the junior Senator from Ohio stepped in and decided he would try to stop the process.

How important is the U.S Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Ohio that he is holding up? The entire Nation has been impacted by the opioid epidemic, but Ohio has been especially hard-hit.

In recent years, fentanyl has been involved in 80 percent of unintentional drug overdose deaths within the State of Ohio. Last year, Federal law enforcement officials and local partners in Ohio seized over 87,000 fentanyl-laced tablets in a span of less than 4 months. And over the course of 1 year, from April 2022 to April 2023, more than 5,000 Ohioans lost their lives to drug overdoses--5,000. Let that sink in.

On average, every day, 14 Ohio families lose a loved one to drugs. How important is it to have a U.S. attorney in Ohio--and in Illinois-- working on this drug crisis that claims so many lives every single day? Can we really make an excuse that we have some political petulance at work on the floor of the Senate that stops us from putting a prosecutor in place to stop this drug trafficking?

The U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Ohio plays a significant role in holding drug traffickers accountable. Last month, the office secured a 320-month sentence for a Toledo-based man who was a local drug distributor for the Sinaloa Cartel and had helped traffic fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine into the State of Ohio. In addition, Federal prosecutors found this defendant engaged in sex trafficking and secured a 140-month sentence after he was convicted.

Notably, the U.S. Attorney's Office coordinated this with both the Toledo Metro Drug Task Force and the Toledo Human Trafficking and Child Exploitation Task Force. That is what an efficient U.S. Attorney's Office does to keep the people of Ohio and Illinois safe.

Why in the world would any Senator stand up and object to a U.S. attorney prosecutor who is working to stop this drug trafficking across his State?

Well, the Senator from Ohio explained it. He is upset, Madam President. He is upset that the U.S. Department of Justice, through a special counsel, would actually consider indicting the former President of the United States. And because he is upset--and he calls it weaponization--he is going to make sure that, in his own State, there is not a Federal prosecutor doing the job that should be done to stop the sale of narcotics and, in my State of Illinois, the same thing.

This is unprecedented. It has not happened in the history of the Senate. You can be upset, petulant, worried, hate it that a friend of yours in politics has been indicted, but to hold that against the people of Ohio and the families who are dying on such a regular

basis from these narcotics--that is shortsighted. That does not really reach the level that we, as Senators, should aspire to.

So, Madam President, I make the following request: I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, with the Republican leader's consultation, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 314 and 315; that there be 2 minutes for debate, equally divided in the usual form, on each nomination; that following the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on the nominations in the order listed; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Madam President, so, on average, every day, 14 Ohio families lose a loved one to drugs.

The explanation: We want to send a message to the Department of Justice. We want to keep the U.S. attorney off the job who would try to attack this narcotics epidemic.

It just doesn't make sense. How can you explain to the people of Ohio and Illinois that you are trying to get some way to make it even on political grounds at their expense? For goodness' sake, for the sake of families in your own home State, give these U.S. attorneys a chance to fight to make life safer for these families.

I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Manchin) is necessarily absent.

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

Mr. President, last night, I announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, will vote to subpoena Harlan Crow, Robin Arkley, and Leonard Leo--two billionaire megadonors and one of their enablers--who sit at the center of the ethical crisis currently gripping the U.S. Supreme Court.

This vote is the next step in the committee's ongoing investigation on the ethics of the Supreme Court. It comes only after Mr. Crow refused to comply with committee requests and Mr. Leo and Arkley outright stonewalled the committee in the exercise of our constitutional authority.

For years--years--reports of ethical misconduct by individual Justices on the Court have raised serious concerns; but over the past year, a series of investigative reports have brought the long-simmering issue to a boil. Story after story has emerged about lavish gifts and luxury trips that Supreme Court Justices shamelessly accepted and failed to disclose. The reported behavior is unworthy of anyone in public office, and it has led to an historic loss of public confidence in the Supreme Court.

Some background here is necessary. Harlan Crow is a billionaire and a Republican megadonor. He first met Justice Clarence Thomas in the mid- 1990s after Thomas's confirmation to the Supreme Court. Not long after they met, Crow began to shower Justice Thomas with lavish gifts, flights on his private jet, invitations to an all-male, invitation-only private club, and a $19,000 Bible that once belonged to Frederick Douglass.

We know about these initial gifts because Justice Thomas listed them and disclosed them on the financial disclosure forms he was required to submit under Federal law, but those disclosures abruptly stopped in 2004, almost 20 years ago, after a Los Angeles Times report questioned their propriety.

We have since learned that Justice Thomas since continued to receive gifts from Crow that are staggering in both their number and value-- from additional flights on Crow's private jets to nearly annual stays at Crow's luxury camps and private clubs, to vacations on Crow's superyacht. Justice Thomas simply stopped disclosing these gifts to the American people.

But Harlan Crow is not the only billionaire bankrolling the lavish lifestyle of a Supreme Court Justice, and Justice Clarence Thomas is not the only Justice to accept improper gifts.

Let's turn to Robin Arkley. In 2008, Arkley hosted Justice Samuel Alito in his luxury fishing lodge in Alaska. There, Alito fished, flew on the lodge's bush planes, and enjoyed wine costing upwards of $1,000 a bottle--$1,000 a bottle. Justice Alito included none of this on his financial disclosure--nothing.

That 2008 luxury fishing trip was arranged by a man named Leonard Leo. Leo has been a longtime leader of the

conservative Federalist Society and other far-right organizations. He is the key architect of the rightwing campaign to take over the Federal courts, facilitating relationships between political donors and Justices, championing conservative political causes, and wielding a shadowy network of influence over Federal and State judges.

How can a Supreme Court Justice accept such lavish gifts, let alone fail to disclose them to the American people? The answer is very simple: The Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the land, does not have an enforceable code of conduct. Unlike employees of the executive and legislative branches--virtually all of them--unlike Members of Congress and all other Federal judges, the nine Supreme Court Justices alone decide for themselves what conduct is and is not appropriate.

More than 11 years ago, I asked Chief Justice Roberts to adopt a binding code of conduct for all Supreme Court Justices. I have renewed that request repeatedly this year, including last month when I sat literally physically next to the Chief Justice and spoke at the Judicial Conference. Some Justices have now publicly joined the call for an ethics code. I do believe the majority of the Justices on the Supreme Court are embarrassed by these disclosures and want this to come to an end.

So far, Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court have failed to do anything. In the face of the Supreme Court's failure, the Senate Judiciary Committee has exercised its constitutional right and duty to investigate this ethical crisis in order to craft and advance legislation to address it.

Beginning in May, the committee has sent letters to a number of these billionaires, activists, and organizations connected to the undisclosed gifts and travel. I am sorry to say I happen to believe that we have just seen a small amount of the lavish gifts that have gone to the members of the Court. Thanks to the investigative efforts of journalists, as well as the Senate Finance Committee, we have discovered some of these things, but, sadly, I believe there is much more out there.

We are seeking details about what exactly has been given to these Supreme Court Justices as well as how certain individuals and groups that have business before the Court gained such enormous access to the private lives of these Justices. Getting this information is critical.

While there has been reporting on the Justices' ethical failures, I am sorry to say that there is more information out there we need to find.

Just last week--listen to this--the Senate Finance Committee revealed that yet another wealthy benefactor, Anthony Welters, had forgiven a $267,000 interest-only loan to Justice Thomas to purchase a luxury RV. Justice Thomas failed to disclose that.

So you understand what happened: The Justice, who seems to fancy these RVs, had his eye on one that cost over a quarter of a million dollars. Mr. Welters agreed to loan him the money to buy the RV. Justice Thomas made one annual payment of interest on that debt, and then the debt was forgiven. And so the RV is his, a gift from Mr. Welters.

While the loan itself had been the subject of prior reporting, it was only through the Finance Committee's investigation--and the cooperation of Mr. Welters, let me add--that the favorable terms of the loan and its ultimate forgiveness came to light. In contrast to Mr. Welters' willing cooperation, Leonard Leo, Harlan Crow, and Robin Arkley--more of these fawning billionaires--have produced no substantive response and have otherwise stalled the Judiciary Committee's investigation.

Instead, their responses offer a host of baseless arguments that ignore the committee's constitutional authority to inform its legislative efforts. Their defensive and dismissive response make you wonder, What are they trying to hide?

I am not going to stand idly by as these fawning billionaires, with interests before the Court, use their immense wealth to buy private access to the Justices and then deny the Senate Judiciary Committee information to which we are lawfully entitled. That is why the committee will vote to authorize subpoenas to these individuals.

This has been a long battle for many of us, and my colleague Senator Whitehouse has shown extraordinary leadership on this issue as well.

Eleven years ago, it came to my attention that the Supreme Court just didn't have a code of conduct. How can we justify this? Nine Justices on the highest Court in the land, no code of conduct. What about the other Federal judges? They are bound by a code of conduct. If the Justices on the Supreme Court merely assumed the same code of conduct, with some modifications, we would at least say they are making a step in the right direction, but they ignored it, and they resisted it. In fact, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas have been belligerent when they have been confronted with these issues; that it is no one's business but their own as to what they do with their private lives.

Unfortunately, when you accept a post in public service, that is not the case. Our private lives become part of that public service. And certainly, if there is any suggestion of a conflict in a situation where individuals--billionaires--who have an interest before the Court are buying access and time with these Justices, that is certainly relevant to our work in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Mr. President, as a member of the committee, you understand we have gone through this process very deliberately and patiently and slowly and reached a point where we believe subpoenaing this information is the only way to get the facts before the American people.

I am hoping that this is successful; I hope that it becomes bipartisan; and I hope that we bring to this Court the type of reputation which it has enjoyed over the years.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, the Senate will vote to confirm Judge Matthew James Maddox to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

A native Marylander, Judge Maddox received his B.A. from Morgan State University and his J.D. from Yale Law School before clerking for Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Following his clerkship, Judge Maddox worked as an associate at Holland & Knight LLP, where he primarily represented business clients in civil litigation, regulatory compliance, and risk management matters. He then completed a second clerkship with Judge Andre Davis on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Judge Maddox spent the bulk of his legal career working in public service as an assistant U.S. attorney in the District of Maryland. Last year, he was appointed by the judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland to serve as a magistrate judge. The American Bar Association unanimously rated Judge Maddox as ``well qualified,'' and his nomination is strongly supported by his home state Senators, Mr. Cardin and Mr. Van Hollen.

With significant experience in both criminal and civil matters and a proven dedication to equal justice under law, Judge Maddox will serve the District of Maryland with distinction.

I am proud to support his nomination.

I announce that the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ossoff) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, interesting in our democracy: two different political parties and two different attitudes toward registration and voting.

Many of us on this side of the aisle believe that expanding the number of voters makes the democracy stronger. So does President Biden. His Executive order was a message to the Agencies: Help where you can to help with voter registration and to make sure that voting is accessible to Americans across the board.

Example: They decided that VA health facilities would be registration sites for disabled veterans. Does that sound like some radical idea? It sounds to me like common sense.

That is the kind of thing we should support, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 1243

I announce that the Senator from Virginia (Mr. Warner) is necessarily absent.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be granted to the following interns of Senator Kelly for today: Alison Bonn, Emmeline Farwell, Alexandra Parker, and Jesus Rendon-Silva.

Madam President, as you and I both know, we are in the process of talking about the spending bills, long overdue. We are in our fiscal year as of October 1. Well, here comes the end of October, and we are still laboring over how we are going to spend money for the next fiscal year from October 1 to September 30 of the year 2024.

And there is debate back and forth between the House and Senate, debate on the Senate floor, and some issues are becoming priorities. I would like to address one of them that doesn't get a lot of attention, and it should.

I don't agree with former President George W. Bush on many things, but I have given him credit repeatedly for making the United States a leader in stemming the HIV/AIDS epidemic in some of the poorest parts of the world.

Twenty years ago, the program was called the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, PEPFAR, what Bono once said was ``the most eloquent expression of American values anyone can think of in recent times.''

You see, PEPFAR, and its companion effort, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, dramatically curtailed the AIDS epidemic that was ravaging the world. It has saved more than 25 million lives so far.

Both of these programs provided retroviral drugs for those with AIDS, allowing them to live productive lives and prevent the spread of disease through childbirth.

They have been so effective that some might have forgotten just how devastating AIDS was in certain parts of the world. At one point, it was killing more than 2 million people a year globally and leaving 14 million orphans in sub-Saharan Africa. In some of the most highly affected countries, life expectancy had dropped 20 years.

PEPFAR and the Global Fund dramatically improved outcomes for millions of people across the world. These programs are not only the right thing to do, they are also one of the most effective examples of America's soft power and the international development effort and a stark contrast of what China and others are displaying in many parts of the world.

So imagine my concern and surprise that there is currently an effort by extreme Republicans in the House of Representatives to block the reauthorization of this hugely successful, bipartisan George W. Bush program over a false and manufactured abortion concern. Taking the extreme position of

blocking this lifesaving program is as shortsighted and nihilistic as siding with Vladimir Putin and failing to help Ukraine.

Just last week, the Bush Institute and a group of more than 30 retired Ambassadors and foreign policy leaders urged Congress to swiftly reauthorize PEPFAR.

They wrote:

Abandoning it abruptly now would send a bleak message,

suggesting we are no longer able to set aside our politics

for the betterment of democracies and the world.

With this, I agree completely. Right now, America's reputation on the global stage is being threatened by House Republicans' internal politics, but reauthorizing PEPFAR is common sense to reassure the world that Americans can push past partisanship and use our influence, resources, and power to save lives. Some things are simply beyond politics.

Former President Bush acknowledged this when he wrote in the Washington Post recently:

We are on the verge of ending the HIV/AIDS epidemic. To

abandon our commitment now would forfeit two decades of

unimaginable progress and raise further questions about the

worth of America's word.

I couldn't agree more, and I call on my Republican friends to help reauthorize this historic, bipartisan, lifesaving effort without further delay.

I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman) is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) and the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Maine (Mr. King) and the Senator from California (Mr. Padilla) are necessarily absent.