Floor Statements

Mr. President, I was here for the presentation by the Republican leader, and I am happy that he has returned. I told him it was great to see him back and that I couldn't wait to disagree with him; and I am sure I will have an opportunity in the near future.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker), the Senator from Arizona (Ms. Sinema), and the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Whitehouse) are 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.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 198, adoption of the Warnock amendment to provide enhanced protection against debt collector harassment of members of the Armed Forces (199). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 199, adoption of the Cruz amendment to provide remedies to members of the Armed Forces discharged or subject to adverse action under the COVID-19 vaccine mandate (421). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 200, adoption of the Wicker amendment to establish the Office of the Lead Inspector General for Ukraine Assistance (1055). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 201, adoption of the Paul amendment to provide for the independent and objective conduct and supervision of audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations funded with amounts appropriated or otherwise made available to Ukraine for military, economic, and humanitarian aid (438). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 202, adoption of the Barrasso amendment to require the Secretary of Energy to establish a Nuclear Fuel Security Program, expand the American Assured Fuel Supply Program, establish an HALEU for Advanced Nuclear

Reactor Demonstration Projects Program, and submit a report on a civil nuclear credit program, and to enhance programs to build workforce capacity to meet critical mission needs of the Department of Energy (999). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 203, adoption of the Sanders amendment to reduce military spending (1030). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 204, adoption of the Marshall amendment to prohibit the flying, draping, or other display of any flag other than the flag of the United States at public buildings (874). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 205, adoption of the Kennedy amendment to prohibit allocations of Special Drawing Rights at the International Monetary Fund for perpetrators of genocide and state sponsors of terrorism without congressional authorization (1034). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 206, adoption of the Gillibrand amendment to amend title XXXIII of the Public Health Service Act with respect to funding for the World Trade Center Health Program (1065). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 207, adoption of the Hawley amendment to extend the period for filing claims under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and to provide for compensation under such Act for claims relating to Manhattan Project waste, and to improve compensation for workers involved in uranium mining (1058). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 208, adoption of the Menendez amendment to reauthorize the Firefighter Cancer Registry Act of 2018 (638). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 209, adoption of the Schatz amendment to reauthorize the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (1078). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 210, adoption of the Rubio amendment to provide that sums in the Thrift Savings Fund may not be invested in securities that are listed on certain foreign exchanges (523). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 211, adoption of the Reed-Wicker amendment: managers package (1087). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 212, passage of S. 2226, as amended, an original bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2024 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 195, adoption of the Lee amendment to limit the availability of funds for the support of Ukraine (376). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted nay.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 196, adoption of the Cornyn amendment to provide for an investment screening mechanism relating to covered sectors (931). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

I was necessarily absent for rollcall vote No. 197, adoption of the Rounds amendment to amend the Defense Production Act of 1950 to include the Secretary of Agriculture on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and require review of certain agricultural transactions (No. 813). Had I been present for the vote, I would have voted yea.

The Rounds-Tester amendment adds the Secretary of Agriculture to the Committee on Foreign Investment. If the committee determines that investments by foreign adversaries into agricultural real estate or a U.S. business engaged in agriculture or biotech would result in control by the foreign adversary, it requires the President to prohibit the transaction. I support this amendment's efforts to protect critical agricultural assets, but I am concerned that the amendment as drafted merits additional review to avoid unintended risks of discrimination based on national origin or citizenship. While I will support this amendment and its objectives, Senators Rounds and Tester understand my concern and have agreed to continue working with me and our colleagues to resolve these concerns before Congress sends a final bill to the President.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I recently traveled to Vilnius, Lithuania, for this year's NATO Summit. It was a fitting location; Lithuania has had an extraordinary journey breaking free from the tyranny of the Soviet Union and becoming a thriving democracy. The visit also had a deep significance for me personally. One hundred and twelve years ago, my mother came to the United States from Lithuania. Although she never saw her homeland again, she always carried it in her heart.

Just a few decades before my mother arrived in the United States, a Lithuanian Jewish couple, Ida and Arie Krinsky, immigrated to the United States. They settled in Chicago, where Arie toiled in a sweatshop to make a living and support his wife and seven children. Eventually, the Krinsky family changed their surname to Crown. Three of the Crown sons, Henry and his brothers Irving and Sol, established a sand and gravel company, the Material Service Corporation, that would grow into a business empire before merging with General Dynamics.

When Henry Crown passed away in 1990, his obituary in the New York Times referred to him as ``the billionaire whose life exemplified the Horatio Alger rags-to-riches story of American industrialists.'' It is a legacy that has been preserved and expanded by his children. To this day, the Crown family

is widely known for its socially conscious investment and philanthropic efforts, and as a pillar of the Jewish community from Chicago to Israel.

Tragically, late last month, James ``Jim'' Crown, Henry's grandson, passed away in a car accident on his 70th birthday. Born to Renee and Lester Crown, Jim went to high school in Winnetka, attended Hampshire College in Amherst, MA, for his undergraduate studies, and graduated from Stanford Law School. He began his career at Salomon Brothers, eventually becoming vice president of the Capital Markets Service Group. It was during his time on Wall Street that Jim met and fell in love with Paula Hannaway, an investment banker. In 1985, the two married and returned to Chicago to join the family business.

Jim was chair and CEO of Henry Crown and Company, a privately held company dealing in securities, real estate, and other investments. He also was a member of the board of JPMorgan Chase & Co. Jim was one of Chicago's most prominent philanthropists and a longtime member of the board of trustees for the University of Chicago, serving as chair from 2003 to 2009.

In early 2003, Jim had breakfast with a young Illinois State senator who was gearing up to make a run for the U.S. Senate. Some might have seen an inexperienced newcomer with almost no chance of success. But Jim saw what others did not. In Jim's words, ``I was just taken with his sensibility, his intelligence, his values, and how he conducted himself during that campaign.'' That young State senator, Barack Obama, would not only win that seat but go on to become our Nation's first Black President. And Jim was one of his earliest supporters.

Jim represented the best of finance and business; he knew that success went well beyond profits and bull markets. He understood the importance of giving back. In 2021, Jim and Paula made history with a $75 million donation to the University of Chicago's School of Social Work, reportedly the largest ever private donation to a school of social work. Today, the school has been renamed the Crown Family School of Social Work, Policy, and Practice. Jim's father Lester Crown said, ``[Jim] was the leader of our family both intellectually and emotionally, and he looked out for everybody.'' I would add that ``everybody'' stretched far beyond Jim's own family.

And just before his passing, as the head of the Civic Committee and Commercial Club of Chicago, Jim was working to convene Chicago business leaders to focus on ways to address violent crime, to make Chicago ``the Safest Big City in America.'' The strategy centered on investing in the communities most impacted by violent crime, expanding community violence intervention programs, and committing to expand economic opportunity, all with the goal of breaking the cycle of trauma and ending generational poverty. While Jim may be gone, I hope his work will be continued to make this a reality.

Jim is survived by his loving wife of 38 years, Paula; their children, Torie, Hayley, Summer, and W. Andrew; and two grandchildren; as well as his parents Renee and Lester; four sisters Patricia, Susan, Sara, and Janet; two brothers Steve and Daniel. To the entire Crown family and all of those who knew and loved Jim, Loretta and I send our deepest condolences.

Thank you, Jim, for all that you did for the city of Chicago; it will not be the same without you.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was

ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I would like to thank someone who is critical to the functioning of the U.S. Senate--and who has been instrumental in the lives of many of us Senators, staff, and the entire Senate community for more than two decades.

At the end of this week, Sharon Cohen will be retiring after many years of service in the Senate Dining Room. The Senate Dining Room will be a very different place without her, and we will all miss her.

Sharon is wonderful--kind, caring, and dedicated. Since joining the Senate Dining Room, she has won over everyone she has met with her warmth, patience, and dedication--both to her work and to anyone with whom she interacts.

We have all had people who touched our lives, providing guidance during difficult times, or even just a friendly face on long days. Sharon provided all of that--and more--to Senators, staff, and the colleagues who worked beside her every single day.

Throughout her many years of service, Sharon has worked just as hard as anyone else in the Senate--in fact, she has probably worked harder. She never missed a day of work, never showed up late, and never called out sick. Her colleagues always trusted that they could rely on her. It is one of Sharon's many qualities that will be missed in the Senate.

And she was willing to go above and beyond to support fellow workers, both new and old, and lend a hand no matter the task. While her work may not have made headline news every day, Sharon is one of the many unsung heroes that make the Senate run.

Soon, Sharon will be enjoying her well-earned retirement, but true to form, she will stay busy. In fact, she has already started her next role: grandmother to a beautiful new grandchild. She will spend her retirement caring for Trent, or as she refers to him, ``her little man,'' alongside her daughter Angie.

I know I am not alone when I say I will miss Sharon's cheerful presence in the Senate Dining Room. We all are grateful for her many years of hard work and dedication to this body and our country. We wish her all the best as she embarks on a new adventure.

(At the request of Mr. Schumer, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, for most Americans, April 1 is April Fools' Day, a day of pranks, misleading headlines, deception, and trickery. While that also is true for Illinoisans, in 2007, the Illinois General Assembly gave Illinoisans something else to celebrate: Cheap Trick Day, in honor of the rock and roll band.

For nearly 50 years, Cheap Trick has been part of the American soundtrack, lighting up car radios on cross-country drives, blasting through speakers at weddings, and now playing in the next generation's wireless headphones. Through it all, Cheap Trick has kept their listeners humming along to popular tunes like ``Surrender'' and ``The Flame.''

But before they were rock and roll legends, they were just a band from Rockford, IL. In 1973, guitarist Rick Nielsen, bassist Tom Petersson, original vocalist Randy Hogan, and drummer Bun E. Carlos came together to form Cheap Trick. The band came up with their name after attending a Slade concert. Following the English rock band's show, Tom remarked that Slade used ``every cheap trick in the book'' during their set. The name stuck, and the group would go on to become a regular on the Billboard charts.

In 1974, Robin Zander joined the band, replacing Hogan as lead vocalist. While they started out playing shows across the Midwest-- Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa--they would go on to tour the world, opening for the likes of Kiss, Kansas, and Queen. But it was a six-date tour of Japan in the spring of 1978 that changed everything.

Cheap Trick put on the performance of a lifetime before raucous crowds at the Nippon Budokan in Tokyo, Japan. They released the performances as a live album, ``Cheap Trick at Budokan,'' which went triple-platinum, selling more than 3 million certified units. The album included the smash hit ``I Want You to Want Me,'' which decades later remains a mainstay on classic rock radio stations across the country. In 2020, the National Recording Registry at the Library of Congress selected ``Cheap Trick at Budokan'' as one of just 25 recordings to join the National Archives for that year.

And in 2016, Cheap Trick was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, receiving rock and roll's highest honor and taking their place next to their own musical idols, The Beatles. In addition to leaving behind an impressive discography, the band also has helped shape the sound of the next generation of great bands. Groups like

Pearl Jam, Guns N' Roses, Nirvana, and Green Day, all have credited Cheap Trick as an influence.

Cheap Trick has since become a true family business with Daxx, Rick's son, on the drums and Robin Taylor, Robin's son, floating from guitar, bass, and background vocals. The band is still on the road, playing for crowds from all generations looking to enjoy the nostalgic rock sounds of the 80s. As of this year, Cheap Trick has performed more than 5,000 concerts and sold more than 20 million albums.

Aside from April 1, soon, the band will have another date to celebrate. August 15 will mark 50 years of Cheap Trick. No matter how many sold out shows, world tours, or records sold, Cheap Trick will always be a band that got its start in Rockford, IL. I congratulate Cheap Trick on a half century of hits.

Mr. President, just about every week now, we learn something new and deeply troubling about the Justices serving on the Supreme Court, the highest Court in the land in the United States, and their conduct outside the courtroom. From unreported luxury getaways with billionaire benefactors who have business before the Court to donor-funded teaching positions that double as all-expense-paid vacations, to a political megadonor buying a home that belongs to a Justice's relative and then allowing that relative to continue living there rent-free--we have learned all of this in just a few months.

And, last week, another troubling report: According to the Associated Press, Justice Sotomayor used her taxpayer-funded Court staff to help sell copies of her book, in particular by pressing libraries, community colleges, and other public institutions to buy additional copies of her memoir and children's book in conjunction with her speaking engagements.

Let me tell you, if I or any Member of the Senate failed to report an all-expense-paid luxury getaway or if we used our government staff to help sell books we wrote, we would be in big trouble. The same would be true for Members of the House or Cabinet officials in any Presidential administration. That is because all of us are subject to enforceable codes of conduct that prohibit us from using taxpayer funds for personal gain.

But the same, sadly, is not true for the nine Justices across the street. Unlike every other Federal official, Supreme Court Justices are not bound by a code of ethical conduct.

Let me repeat that. Unlike every other Federal official, the nine Supreme Court Justices are not bound by a code of ethical conduct.

They are the most powerful judges in the entire Nation, and yet they are not required to follow even the most basic ethical standards. It is time for that to change. The highest Court in the land should not have the lowest ethical standards.

Tomorrow, the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I chair, will consider legislation I have joined Senator Whitehouse in introducing known as the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, or SCERT Act. Our legislation would require the Supreme Court to adopt an enforceable code of conduct. It would also add new recusal and transparency requirements to Federal law. And these requirements would apply to every Justice, no matter which President of which political party appointed them, or their ideological views notwithstanding.

I wish this legislation were unnecessary. The fact is, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, could clean up the Supreme Court's ethical challenges on his own, and for

years I have encouraged him to do just that. It was more than 11 years ago--more than 11 years ago--when I first urged the Chief Justice in writing to adopt a binding code of conduct, but he didn't accept my suggestion.

And what has happened in the years since? I will tell you: Sadly, the American people's confidence in the Supreme Court has cratered. Public support for the Court is at an alltime low.

So if we are set to restore the public trust in our Nation's high Court, we must begin by enacting the legislation that I have introduced with Senator Whitehouse. I thank him for his leadership on this issue for many years. I hope every member of the Judiciary Committee, on both sides of the aisle, votes tomorrow in support of the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act.

Mr. President, I would like to address statements made earlier today on the floor by the Republican leader. It was his analysis and his comments on the bill which I have just described, which he said takes us out to the ``thinnest constitutional ice.''

The relationship of the legislative branch--Congress--and the Supreme Court is unusual. The Supreme Court is expressly created by the Constitution. Other courts are created by statute, and they become important to us in so many different ways. And the relationship between Congress and the Supreme Court is somewhat unique.

We have nine members of the Supreme Court. That is not required by the Constitution. The number of Supreme Court Justices is established by Congress, and it was established in the middle of the 19th century. It is nine today. It was other numbers before that. Congress has the power to choose the actual numbers of the Court.

And when it came to issues like televised court proceedings for the Supreme Court, there is a bipartisan bill, which I am authoring now-- cosponsoring with Senator Grassley, a Republican from Iowa--to deal with the actual conduct of the proceedings before the Supreme Court.

We also handle the annual budget. Congress passes the annual budget for the Supreme Court as well.

As you can tell, it is a relationship which is intertwined. We do not have the authority nor are we trying to exercise the authority to change or influence a judgment. That is up to the Court itself. But when it comes to the administration of the Court and the rules of administration, the Congress has played an important role.

Senator McConnell described our concern about the ethical situation in the Court as an ``uptick in pearl-clutching and hysterics.'' That colorful term belies the fact that the things that I have described here are very basic and concern Americans of all political faiths.

Senator McConnell said: ``We have been told we should be outraged that the Justices dare to buy and sell property and take vacations.'' Of course, he misses the point. If they want to buy and sell property, that is their business. But when someone else is buying and selling the property of a Justice or his relative, that is relevant for the public to know if the person buying the property has any business before the Court or any impact on the judgment of that Justice.

``It is the same old intimidation campaign by the left,'' according to Senator McConnell, to hold this hearing and consider a bill dealing with the ethics of the Supreme Court. What he conveniently ignores is the fact that the first letter I sent to the Court on this subject was 11 years ago.

The Court has changed dramatically in that period of time, but my message has remained the same, whether the Court is dominated by liberals or conservatives or something in between. That makes quite a difference in this argument.

He calls our effort ``open disdain for a body that refuses to interpret the Constitution through the lens of their party's platform.'' It is not open disdain. It is a recognition that what is going on in the Court is unsustainable.

What they have done and the conduct that has been disclosed already has raised serious questions about the ethical standards of the Court. We want to make sure that changes for the better to maintain the independence of the Court.

And still I struggle to understand the logic of those on the Republican side of the aisle when it comes to ethics in the Supreme Court. They seem to think it is partisan if we raise this issue.

It wasn't that long ago--just last year, 2022--that we considered the issue of disclosure of stock transactions. A bill was passed, a bipartisan bill cosponsored by Senators Cornyn and Coons, and it went to the Supreme Court, and they adopted it as their standard of conduct. Apparently, when it comes to those ethical considerations, cooperation between the two branches is acceptable. Why isn't it acceptable today, as we set out to do?

The first thing I did, when we initiated this subject, was to contact the Supreme Court and let them know that we were sending a letter to the Chief Justice inviting him to come testify and appear and describe the situation at the Court and how it was being handled.

He respectfully declined that invitation and responded with his own defense of the current situation. But we tried from the beginning not to make this partisan. We tried to make it respectful under the Constitution. I am sorry the Chief Justice did not accept our invitation. But we tried several different ways to engage him and the Court and found that the best way to move forward is to consider this legislation tomorrow before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I think it is a step in the right direction to say that our nine Supreme Court Justices will at least be held to the same standards of ethical conduct as every other judge in the Federal system. That is not an unreasonable requirement, and it is one that I think would start to repair the image of the Court, which is badly in need of repair.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until 2:15.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Coons), is necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fetterman), the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Hickenlooper), the Senator from Minnesota (Ms. Klobuchar), and the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Welch) are 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 have nine 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 are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: