Floor Statements

Mr. President, I served beside Senator Feinstein on the Judiciary Committee my entire time here, and I worked closely with her on the Intelligence Committee during the time we overlapped there.

I am honored to join my colleagues in participating in this remembrance to her. It has been said, I think, over and over again, of her elegance, as Senator Collins said; of how put together she was, as Senator Murkowski said; of how gracious she was, as pretty much everyone has said. Her preparedness was another standout virtue in this body.

I have heard her say ``I am going home to read tonight.'' Serving with her on those committees, I saw over and over again the amount of work that she put herself and her staff through to make sure that she was well-prepared. I never saw a Member of this body better prepared than Senator Feinstein.

But the characteristic that I most associate with her is bravery-- whether it was the bravery of throwing herself into California politics as a young woman at a time when not many women were doing that or the way she bravely handled the murders at city hall and her response to that or whether she was willing to come here, when women were few, and break glass ceiling after glass ceiling after glass ceiling.

But the place where I saw her bravery most was when we worked together on the Senate Intelligence Committee torture report. I was kind of Robin to her Batman in that effort. And I still remember her, right about where Senator Murray now is, delivering her legendary speech that blew the cover off the CRA torture report. To get there, she had to get through massive counterattacks from the CIA on her and on our Intelligence Committee staff. She had to oppose the Bush administration that was pushing back against her from the very highest levels.

And when the administration changed, she had to show the same bravery and the same resistance against pretty much equal pressure from the Obama administration to shut up and go away. Well, shut up and go away were not things that Senator Feinstein was willing to hear, and the moment that she spent on the Senate floor delivering that report was one of the moments that I am proudest of in the time that I have been here at the Senate.

Let me close by talking about her last weeks here because I think you have to see those last weeks here in the context of her preparation, her determined effort to be as perfect as she could be, and her bravery because it was not easy for her to come and do the work that she did in those last weeks.

But she knew that we needed her. She knew that despite how difficult it was, despite the difficulty she would have in meeting her own standards of perfection, it would have been easy just to go, but she knew that we needed her. We would have lost our majority in the Judiciary Committee without her, and I view her last months and weeks in this body as the last episode of her long career of bravery.

I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you, Chairman Reed.

We are joined on the Senate floor today in sorrow for a person who meant a lot to both of us.

One of life's profound joys is when you encounter people who are unforgettable, and in the case of Brother Michael, he was unforgettably kind.

He started out as a schoolteacher, always was interested in kids. He went to work in an incarcerative in-house juvenile facility and I think there developed his love for kids who were on the margins, kids who were involved with the justice system, kids who were facing difficulties in their lives, to try to make sure that he could help turn them to a more constructive path.

It was with that spirit that he came to the ACI, the Adult Correctional Institute, in Rhode Island, a formidable building in which--this is when I first met him--in which he was a figure of unique kindliness. There was really almost nothing that you could do that could cause Brother Michael to turn his back on you, and that came through to people so well.

When he started Ocean Tides, he went to the kids whom he could find who often didn't even have a home to go to, but they knew they were welcome at Ocean Tides. They could come through the door at any hour of the night. It was open. He would find them. He would look out for them. If they had needs, he would take care of them. If they needed a meal, he would give them a meal. If they needed a bed, he would give them a bed. If they needed counseling, he would connect with them.

His motto was exactly the one that Senator Reed used: Never, never give up on a kid. That was the simple motto of his life. Child after child after child came through Ocean Tides, and, faced with that relentless love, that completely open and forgiving approach--he could be firm in discussing behavior with a kid, but it was always, always, always clear that he was never going to give up, he was never going to turn his back, and he was never going to stop loving that--in most cases, that boy.

As he developed his skills and his expertise and as people began to flock to him and as Ocean Tides grew, he came to recognize that caring for the child was vitally important, but making sure that the child could reunite with the family, that the family as a unit could succeed and could love and could receive love and give love, became his passion, and with that, Tides Family Services was born.

There are so many people around Rhode Island right now, including people who are very successful, who can look back in their lives to where Brother Michael's endless patience, endless kindness, and endless compassion gave them a pathway to work through whatever problems were clouding and bedeviling their lives and move on and then become successful.

I had the privilege, with then-Chairman Grassley on the Judiciary Committee, of rewriting the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act back in 2018. Actually, we did a lot of work first. We finally got it passed in 2018. I remember going all around Rhode Island to make sure the people who were engaged with kids in the juvenile justice system were--that I heard what their input was, that I heard what they needed.

No one--no one--was more important to that process; no one had more fingerprints on the 2018 reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of the United States of America than Brother Michael Reis. The policies that it provided were consistent with his advice and his judgment, which were consistent with his life of service.

You know, it is just endlessly difficult, I think, to deal with a child whose life has gone off rails somehow. It is agonizing work. Brother Michael never had enough, never said ``I am done,'' never seemed exhausted, always had a smile, always had a kindly hug, and always was available and present and forgiving.

So, you know, what he accomplished is a wonderful thing, but what I can't get out of my mind as I think about him is just who he was and how your own heart would soar, your own face would smile, just in the encounter with him because he was that kind of a person.

At one point, he said to me, ``We need to take particular care for the last, the least, and the lost.'' And still to this day, on my computer screen in my office, I have a faded sticker that has ``last,'' ``least,'' and ``lost'' written on it that I wrote down way back whenever it was when he said it, and it stuck in my mind.

So, as Senator Reed said, we lost Brother Michael, but in addition to the institutions and the lives he changed, he also leaves a very powerful legacy in the law through the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act and in the hearts of so many people who were changed by being able to be near such a wonderful person.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, last week, I spoke about the scheme of corruption by rightwing billionaires out to capture the Supreme Court. I mentioned their lawyers' blockade of our investigation into this corruption and described how little sense their lawyers' arguments made.

That brings us to this speech today. The connection is that those, in my view, nonsense lawyers' arguments badly needed propping up. And who should come to the rescue but U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito. Alito's actions propping up that argument caused me to write this ethics complaint against him.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record my full letter to Chief Justice Roberts and a portion of the letter from Mr. Rivkin at the end of my remarks.

Mr. President, this complaint highlights some of the Supreme Court's current legitimacy problems, which are legion. One is that the Court has no procedure for an ethics complaint. I had to write to Chief Justice Roberts, both in his capacity as Chief Justice and in his capacity as Chair of the Judicial Conference, because, unlike in every other Federal court, there is no clarity about process.

The Supreme Court has no formal process for receiving or investigating such complaints, so they go there to die. Complaints about Supreme Court Justices have sometimes been referred to the Judicial Conference, and there, they have mostly disappeared. So it is a mess.

The Supreme Court--the body with the highest responsibility to police proper procedure and fair factfinding throughout the rest of government--has no clear and proper procedure for itself. That is weird, and that is wrong.

Nothing prohibits the Court or the Judicial Conference from adopting procedures to address complaints of misconduct by the Justices. They just haven't bothered to. The most basic modicum of any due process is fair factfinding, but they have no process at all to find out even what the facts are. That is simply not defensible. That has to change, and my complaint presents the Court and the conference that opportunity.

Now let's move from procedure to the substance of my complaint about Justice Alito. At one level, it is an obvious slam-dunk ethics violation. At another, it will take a lot more digging. Let me explain.

My complaint relates to a so-called ``interview'' published on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page July 28 of this year. How it is both an interview and on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, I am not going to explore.

Justice Alito was the person ``interviewed.'' His ``interviewers'' were David Rivkin and James Taranto. In this interview, Justice Alito offered his legal opinion that ``[n]o provision in the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court--period.'' That is the end of his quote.

That comment wasn't just floating in the ether; it was related to my Supreme Court ethics bill, the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, which the Senate Judiciary Committee had advanced just 1 week before, and it also related to an array of congressional oversight information requests from the Senate Judiciary Committee and from the Senate Finance Committee.

More on that later. Back to the slam-dunk part. I sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, where we hear in every Supreme Court confirmation hearing that it would be improper, that it would be wrong even in a confirmation hearing to express opinions on matters that might come before the Court. Well, obviously, Alito's interview comments--his Wall Street Journal editorial page ``opining''--touched on a matter that might come before the Court. That is the slam dunk.

Look at what other Justices have testified about this opining problem, but let's start with Alito himself, who testified in his confirmation hearing that it would be ``improper'' and a ``disservice to the judicial process'' for a Supreme Court nominee to comment on issues that might come before the Court. His words.

Consider also Justice Thomas, who testified that such opining would ``leave the impression that I prejudged this issue,'' which would be, he said, ``inappropriate for any judge who is worth his or her salt.''

Justice Kagan told the committee it would be ``inappropriate'' for her to ``give any indication of how she would rule in a case'' even ``in a somewhat veiled manner.''

Justice Kavanaugh testified that nominees ``cannot discuss cases or issues that might come before them.'' He went on that prejudging an issue in this manner is ``inconsistent with judicial independence, rooted in Article

III.'' He continued that ``litigants who come before [the Court] have to know we have an open mind, that we do not have a closed mind.'' He quoted Justice Ginsburg: ``No hints, no forecasts, no previews.''

Justice Gorsuch went one better in his confirmation hearing. He actually testified that this ``no opining'' rule applies to discussions about Supreme Court ethics--the exact topic of Justice Alito's Wall Street Journal opining.

Senator Blumenthal on the committee had asked Judge Gorsuch about proposed ethics rules for the Supreme Court and whether they would violate separation of powers. Gorsuch answered:

Senator, I am afraid I just have to respectfully decline to

comment on that because I am afraid that could be a case or

controversy, and you can see how it might be. I can

understand Congress' concern and interest in this area. I

understand that. But I think the proper way to test that

question is the prescribed process of legislation and

litigation.

In sum, the Court itself is plainly on record that this sort of opining is wrong. So that is broken rule one, just offering the opinion, but it gets worse. This was not just general opining out into the general ether. Alito's comments referred to a specific, ongoing legal dispute. Let me explain.

There are ongoing Senate investigations into the scandal of secret billionaire gifts to certain Justices. The Senate Judiciary Committee is investigating reports that Supreme Court Justices accepted and improperly failed to disclose, in violation of Congress's disclosure laws, lavish gifts from billionaire benefactors seeking to influence the Court. The Senate Finance Committee is investigating Federal tax compliance regarding those undisclosed gifts. Were tax laws broken? Were proper declarations made?

In those congressional investigations, requests for information have been sent out. In response to those requests, objections have been raised. Here is where Alito comes in. The objections by the billionaires' lawyers assert that Congress has no constitutional authority to legislate in this area--hence, no authority to investigate. They assert--in my view, plainly wrongly--that our constitutional separation of powers blocks any congressional action in this area, which in turn, they assert--also plainly wrongly, in my view--blocks any congressional investigation.

Set aside the demerits of that argument--for which I refer you to the lawyers' letters I added to the record in my previous speech and my own takedown of that argument--sound or unsound, the point is, it is their argument in that ongoing dispute.

In that ongoing dispute, Justice Alito's Wall Street Journal comments prop up that argument. The language is nearly identical. You can compare it for yourself. In fact, lawyers for some of the billionaires to whom we have sent information requests have actually quoted Justice Alito's comment in declining to respond.

So this is not just some improper general opining; it is a Supreme Court Justice leaning in to one side of a specific ongoing dispute and being used and quoted by one side of a specific ongoing dispute. That is pretty bad. It gets worse.

One of the interviewers in that Wall Street Journal interview, Attorney David Rivkin, wasn't just some interviewer; he is the attorney for a party in that specific ongoing dispute. Rivkin is the attorney making the precise legal argument that Alito echoed, and he is making it in that ongoing dispute. None of this, of course, was disclosed in the so-called ``interview.''

A logical mind would rightfully ask whether Justice Alito opined on this matter at the behest of his interviewer, Attorney Rivkin. A suspicious mind would even wonder whether Attorney Rivkin prepped his witness, as lawyers are wont to do. With no means of factfinding, all this remains unknown.

Bad enough to opine on some general matter that may come before the Court; worse when the opining brings a Supreme Court Justice's influence to bear in a specific ongoing legal dispute; and worse yet when the influence of the Justice might have been summoned by counsel to a party in that dispute.

The timeline is suspicious. Mr. Rivkin's interview with Justice Alito was reportedly conducted in early July 2023. Well, on July 11, Chairman Durbin and I had sent a letter to Rivkin's client in that dispute inquiring about undisclosed gifts and travel provided to Justices. On July 20, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance my judicial ethics bill.

By the way, the Rivkin-Alito Congress-has-no-authority argument fared very poorly that day in the committee.

On July 25, Mr. Rivkin, by letter, refused to answer our information requests on the purported ground that ``any attempt by Congress to enact ethics standards for the Supreme Court would falter on constitutional objections.'' Three days later, on July 28, comes the supportive opining from Justice Alito about those constitutional objections.

There are a lot of questions that need answering under oath about how this mess played out.

But wait, there is more. Attorney Rivkin's client in that dispute has a relationship with Justice Alito. He is a friend and ally of Justice Alito's. Rivkin's client is Leonard Leo. Leo is not just a friend and ally of Alito's. Our oversight questions that Attorney Rivkin is blocking relate to Mr. Leo's actions to facilitate gifts for Supreme Court Justices from rightwing billionaires of free and undisclosed transportation and lodging. Mr. Leo didn't just facilitate; he was Justice Alito's companion on the luxurious Alaskan fishing trip in 2008 that rightwing billionaires funded.

The relationship goes back. Leo's political organization ``had run an advertising campaign supporting Alito in his confirmation fight, and Leo was reportedly part of the team that prepared Alito for his Senate hearings.''

So it appears that Justice Alito, A, improperly opined in the Wall Street Journal, B, to influence a specific ongoing dispute, C, possibly at the behest of counsel in that dispute, and D, to the benefit of a personal friend and ally.

None of that was disclosed in the interview either, and it brings us to the last and most damning point.

Justice Alito's opining, potentially at the behest of his friend and ally's lawyer, props up an argument being used to block inquiry into undisclosed gifts and travel received by Justice Alito himself. Justice Alito himself is the ultimate beneficiary of his own improper opining. It comes full circle.

In the worst-case scenario, Justice Alito broke the rules against opining in order to facilitate an organized campaign to obstruct congressional investigation into tens of thousands of dollars in gifts he, Alito, personally received and doesn't want investigated.

Whether Justice Alito was unwittingly used to provide fodder for such interference or intentionally participated in that interference plan and whether he did it to protect the rightwing billionaires or himself or both, those are questions whose answers require additional facts.

The heart of any due process is a fair determination of the facts. Uniquely in the whole of government, the Supreme Court has insulated its Justices from any semblance of fair factfinding. The obstruction of our inquiries by Mr. Rivkin and Mr. Leo, fueled by Justice Alito's opining, prevents Congress from gathering those facts, and the Supreme Court won't even look. That can't be--not in a nation of laws. That is flagrantly, obviously wrong.

So I have asked the Chief Justice or the Judicial Conference to take whatever steps are necessary to develop a process to investigate this affair and provide the public with the prompt and trustworthy answers it deserves. The Supreme Court's legitimacy cannot stand on an edifice of obstruction, secrecy, and lies.

To be continued, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I say that I appreciate that Senator Scott would like to accelerate disaster aid to his home State. But let me observe that disasters have taken place not only in Florida but in the Presiding Officer's home State of Hawaii, in Vermont, in New York, in Louisiana, and other States as well.

And in response to that, what President Biden did was made a request to Congress in August to pass a comprehensive emergency supplemental that includes an increase in funding for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund. It also includes $45 million for the Department of Ag and $15 million for the Department of Interior to support more than 20,000 firefighters who are out there braving this explosion in new wildfires that are taking place across our country.

This is driven by climate change. Let's be clear about that. We have had 14 named storms so far in the 2023 hurricane season. If you look back at last year, weather-related damage in the United States topped 165 billion. We have had testimony in my Budget Committee from OMB that climate change will cost the Federal budget $2 trillion per year.

We cannot address this piecemeal, and we cannot address it only by providing disaster relief and not doing anything useful to head off these risks. Some of these are what economists call systemic risks. ``Systemic'' doesn't sound like it is a very big word, but what it means is the risk cascades out of the area where the economic harm is taking place to trash the whole economy. Just the way the 2008 mortgage meltdown didn't just trash the banks that had the bad mortgages, it took down the whole U.S. economy--that is predicted for coastal property value crash; that is predicted for a wildfire uninsurability crash; that is predicted for a carbon bubble crash.

And the insurance meltdown has already begun in Florida, in Louisiana, and in Texas. So the warning signs of another 2008-scale financial crisis are already flashing red. And behind those immediate warning signs looms the collapse of Earth's basic natural operating systems that science has predicted for decades and with real precision.

We need to do a lot more than just clean up. We do need to clean up the disasters, but we also need to get the predisaster preparation resources in because we know this is coming, and we know it is getting worse. And we absolutely need to head off the root cause of all of this, which is fossil fuel emissions choking our atmosphere with greenhouse gases, heating up the Earth, and causing us to spin out from basic conditions of habitability of the Earth that have existed for tens of thousands of years.

So what we should do is pass the continuing resolution with full funding for the President's supplemental request for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, for the Department of Agriculture firefighter money, for the Department of Interior firefighter money, and while we are at it, because President Zelenskyy was here today, I will also add that it is really important to continue to support Ukraine.

For those reasons, I will object.

Mr. President, this year, with full bipartisan support, the Senate Budget Committee issued its first subpoena in more than 30 years.

Ranking Member Grassley has just recounted how his office received credible information about Credit Suisse's historical servicing of Nazi clients and their enablers, and the Budget Committee responded by issuing a subpoena compelling the production of relevant documents.

Senator Grassley and his team brought this request to me and my team, and I thank him for bringing this to the committee and for his commitment to pursuing justice for Holocaust survivors and their families.

When we first launched this investigation, I said and I will say it again: When presented with credible evidence of Credit Suisse's Nazi ties, the Budget Committee had an obligation to investigate.

The subpoenaed records shined new light on the extent of Credit Suisse's Nazi ties, uncovering nearly 100 previously undisclosed Nazi- linked accounts and related information. Our investigation revealed the servicing of many of those accounts until as recently as 2020.

For all that this investigation revealed, it also raised new questions about Credit Suisse's role in supporting Nazis fleeing justice following World War II via so-called ratlines. Because of the Budget Committee's investigation, Credit Suisse has expanded the scope of its internal investigation to look into those questions. The bank has committed to producing followup reports prepared by its forensic accountants, ombudspersons, and the bank itself in the coming weeks. We stand ready on the committee to pursue whatever information will fully shine light into this dark chapter.

I will take this opportunity to talk about the importance of strong congressional oversight. Many see Congress only as our Nation's legislative body. While legislating is certainly our most recognizable function, our oversight and investigative functions are not to be overlooked.

As the Supreme Court recognized in 1927, ``The power of inquiry with process to enforce it is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. . . . A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change.''

Recently, in the case of Trump v. Mazars, the Supreme Court said of Congress that ``[w]ithout information, Congress would be shooting in the dark, unable to legislate wisely or effectively.''

So investigations like ours demonstrate what good congressional oversight can achieve: advancing transparency, pursuing justice, ensuring corporate accountability.

Whether it is holding companies responsible for their involvement with the Nazis, as in this case, or shining light on companies that are poisoning our planet while making hard-working Americans foot the bill or just promoting good, transparent corporate citizenship, I pledge, as chairman of the Budget Committee, to determine who is complicit in the looming systemic risks to the Federal budget and the U.S. economy.

Especially where we work together across the aisle, we can accomplish big goals on behalf of the American people. That is why I partnered with Ranking Member Grassley on this investigation, and that is why our staffs continue to work together on other investigations.

Senator Grassley, thank you again for bringing this matter to the committee. Thank you for your passionate pursuit of this issue. I share your commitment to leaving no stone unturned.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I will call this my ``let's say'' speech. Lawyers know what a hypothetical is. We will talk about some hypotheticals related to the scheme to capture the Court.

Let's say, Mr. President, that you are a creepy billionaire and it is your plan to capture and control the Supreme Court, to take it over just like 19th-century robber barons would have taken over and captured the railroad commission that set the rates for their own railroad.

Let's say you sent millions of dollars--secret dollars--to the Federalist Society for it to funnel money to its employee and your operative, Leonard Leo.

Let's say that Leonard Leo got his cred with you and your rightwing billionaire pals when he helped you kill the nomination to the Supreme Court of President George W. Bush's friend and White House Counsel Harriet

Miers-- a political hit job from the far right against a Republican President's nominee, which produced none other than Sam Alito.

Let's say you also sent millions of dollars to Leonard Leo's Judicial Crisis Network, a fictitious-named front group for another front group operating out of the same hallway, on the same floor, in the same building as the Federalist Society.

Let's say you sent the Judicial Crisis Network secret millions of dollars--checks as big as $15 million, checks as big as $17 million--to run ads against Merrick Garland to help Mitch McConnell block his confirmation by the Senate.

Let's say you also sent millions of dollars, secret dollars, identity-laundered through front groups, like 501(c)(4)s and Donors Trust, which exist for the purpose of scrubbing off your identity from your money, and through the 501(c)(4)s and through Donors Trust to Republican political groups, like super PACs controlled by Mitch McConnell.

Let's say, with those secret millions funneled into those super PACs, you acquired loyalty and obedience from Republican political figures.

Let's say that worked. Let's say that for your millions of dollars to the Federalist Society, the Federalist Society allowed you to use its name on a list of Supreme Court nominees that you and your rightwing billionaire pals and Leonard Leo cooked up--a list that the Federalist Society never considered or approved, never an agenda item, never a vote, but a list from some back room of the Federalist Society, pulled together by Leo and the billionaires that Candidate Trump promised to follow.

Let's say that for that Trump promise to let you pick Supreme Court Justices, you agreed to hold your nose and not object to Trump's candidacy.

Let's say that Trump kept that promise and nominated your chosen ones to the Supreme Court, and let's say that when Trump kept that promise and nominated your chosen ones, you sent millions more to the Judicial Crisis Network and to Mitch McConnell's political operation, not just to stop Merrick Garland but to push the confirmation of your chosen ones: Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Let's say that you funded dozens of front groups to bring cases and to file briefs at the Supreme Court at your orchestrated direction--10, 11, 12, and in one case, it is 50 at a time--like piano keys on the piano, and you sent that message through those front groups in those briefs to remind your chosen ones what it is exactly that you wanted them to do in those cases.

Let's say that the chosen ones produced an amazing, statistically stunning record of doing, in the opinions they produced, just what your front groups asked.

Let's say you and your fellow billionaires played your front groups like piano keys and your chosen Justices harmonized perfectly with their direction.

Let's say that to keep your chosen ones loyal and happy and entertained, you secretly paid for their personal lives. You paid for family tuitions. You bought family houses and let family members live rent-free. You paid for ``Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous"-level vacations, including free travel to resorts on private jets, travel on private yachts. You gave them expensive gifts, and you directed money to their spouses, and, of course, you hung out with them.

Let's say that last part--keeping them loyal and happy and entertained with all those gifts--was illegal. Illegal.

Let's say that your loyalty gifts program required the chosen ones to file false Federal disclosure forms and perhaps even false tax returns.

Let's say that your loyalty gifts program might put you in trouble with the tax man for claiming false business expenses. How could that be?

Let's say that the chosen ones were calling this bonanza of freebies ``personal hospitality.'' ``Personal hospitality''--a term of art allowing nondisclosure under the disclosure laws.

Let's say that they were all calling it ``personal hospitality,'' but you were calling the bonanza ``deductible business expenses of corporate yachts and jets.'' Then it wouldn't all add up.

That is a lot of ``let's say,'' I know, but that is about what we are looking at with the Supreme Court right now. We know it is not one rightwing billionaire but a little bunch of them. We don't know all the freebies yet. Maybe we only know 10 percent of the freebies. We know that there has been no meaningful investigation of this, so there is lots left to learn. That is our job in Congress, to investigate malfeasance in government and expose abuse so the citizens can see what has been going on and laws can be changed to better protect against that kind of abuse.

So let's say Congress starts doing its job and starts asking nosy questions. What is a creepy billionaire to do? That is easy. You lawyer up. You refuse to cooperate. You are a billionaire, remember, so you can pay lawyers a thousand dollars an hour until the cows come home and not even notice it. A thousand hours of thousand-dollar lawyering wouldn't cost you a thousandth of your wealth. You live above the law, sheltered by your billions. You actually direct the law through your chosen ones on the Supreme Court.

The impertinence of being investigated is insufferable, so this is what you send.

Here are two actual lawyer letters. One was sent by the lawyer for the billionaire Harlan Crow. The other was sent by the lawyer for the billionaire's operative and his painting mate, Leonard Leo.

When I say ``painting mate,'' I mean this painting that Harlan Crow, the billionaire, has of his time with Clarence Thomas, one of the chosen ones, and Leonard Leo, the operative. Couldn't be more cozy.

So you send these letters.

Leo, by the way, has himself joined your billionaire boys' club. He did so when one of your billionaires, Barre Seid, set him up with his own $1.6 billion slush fund, held through a Utah 501(c)(4) front group confected for that transaction.

Let's walk through what these letters say because the arguments are so preposterous, it is hard to imagine they could be made in good faith.

As you can imagine, when letters come from lawyers for billionaires in the billionaire Court-packing boys' club, the letters are pretty alike.

The first one for Crow says:

Congress does not have the constitutional power to impose

ethics rules and standards on the Supreme Court.

The second one for Mr. Leo says:

Your inquiry exceeds the limits placed by the Constitution

on the Committee's investigative authority.

Then there is a third one for another billionaire where they just did one paragraph. Basically, it just says: Yeah, what Leonard Leo's lawyer says.

This inquiry exceeds the limits placed on the legislature

by the Constitution.

We refer you to the relevant portions of the letter . . .

directed to you on behalf of Mr. Leo.

I feel kind of bad for these lawyers because I don't think you can bill very much for one paragraph, whereas these guys can bill quite a lot. Anyway, poor fellas.

So let's look at these other letters

I ask unanimous consent that the first page of the letter of lawyer Bopp for billionaire Crow and the first page of the letter of lawyer Rivkin for billionaire operative Leo--as exhibits at the end of my remarks--with the short, one-paragraph letter, the tagalong letter from attorney Clark, be printed in the Record.

Lawyers Bopp and Rivkin both tell me that investigating their clients' activities is unconstitutional under the separation of powers. We can't legislate about Supreme Court ethics, so we can't investigate Supreme Court ethics.

First, remember that alongside separation of powers is its twin, checks and balances, which requires branches, like the legislative branch, to check and balance the behavior of other branches, like, in this case, the judicial branch.

That is what we are doing here--checks and balances. Let's dive down into the specifics a little bit more.

There are primarily three topics. One, did the billionaire or the operative take improper advantage of the Tax Code in their dealings with the Justices? That is what we are looking into. The Finance Committee has its own investigation, along with the Judiciary Committee, to focus on the tax side of this.

Well, I have to say it is hard to see how abuse of the Tax Code by a private citizen in his tax filings could raise any separation of powers concern. That is between the tax filer, the government, and the law. The Justices are simply not a party to that. Even if we were looking at the Justices' own tax filings, were it to come to that, they would be investigated in their roles not as Justices but as taxpayers. Being a Justice doesn't allow you to violate the tax laws or immunize you from tax investigation or permit you to make actionable false statements in your tax returns any more than being a Justice would allow you to commit any other offense. So there is tax abuse, issue 1--no visible separation-of-powers angle to it.

Issue 2, did the Justices receiving gifts and emoluments from the billionaire or the operative properly report them, or did the judicial gifts reporting system fail here? The billionaires' lawyers say that is not our business. Well, that is Congress's business for two pretty obvious reasons. First, the reporting requirements are a law passed by Congress whose implementation we can absolutely oversee like any other law passed by Congress, and this law includes Justices. Second, the implementing body of that law is the Judicial Conference, a body created by Congress whose activities we can absolutely oversee--we created it. The notion that Congress cannot investigate to see if an Agency it created is properly implementing laws Congress passed is ludicrous on its face.

Peripherally, it is worth noting that the Supreme Court has never objected on constitutional grounds to that body or to those laws. The Chief Justice actually chairs the Judicial Conference without objection to its congressional nature.

When questions about Justice Thomas's first round of free yacht and jet travel from Harlan Crow were raised a decade ago, those concerns went, under the law, to the Financial Disclosure Committee of the Judicial Conference for review, without objection to the power of review by Justice Thomas.

And when Thomas's recent round of billionaire-funded free yacht and jet travel--Crow-Thomas 2.0, you might call it--raised questions anew, again, those questions went to the Financial Disclosure Committee of the Judicial Conference for review, where those questions pend now, again, without objection. Nobody said: The Judicial Conference is unconstitutional. The reporting laws are unconstitutional. You can't look at this. Congress could never pass those laws. Congress could not create judicial conflict.

Nobody said that.

Additionally, when Justice Scalia's trick came to light of obtaining dozens of free hunting vacations and not disclosing them because it was supposedly a ``personal invitation,'' which supposedly made it ``personal hospitality'' that didn't have to be disclosed, the question of that trip's propriety went to the Financial Disclosure Committee of the Judicial Conference for review. The conference shut that trick down firmly, and Justice Thomas conceded he would abide by the Judicial Conference's determination--again, with no assertion that there was anything unconstitutional about it. So the separation-of-powers argument, in addition to making no sense, founders on the decades-long acceptance in real life by Supreme Court Justices of our congressional role through these laws and through the Judicial Conference.

Here is another argument they make. This is an interesting one. We have been too mean. We have been too mean looking into these facts. They tart that argument up in constitutional terminology, but that is it in a nutshell. I have used the analogy, describing Leonard Leo's role, in the billionaires' Court-capture scheme, of a spider in a web. They think that is too mean.

The problem with that ``too mean'' argument is that it assumes the result. If, in fact, there is a secret operation to capture and control the Supreme Court for the benefit of special interests, and if, in fact, Leo is its key operative, it is not actually all that mean to make an analogy to a spider and a web. It is actually pretty mild and quite descriptive.

The accusation that we are doing this just to be mean and it is unfair to ask questions presumes that there is nothing secret and sordid and wrong that would be revealed by our investigation. It is a little like saying the police can't investigate me because it would be unconstitutionally unfair because I am so innocent. Well, that is what the police investigation would reveal, just as this congressional investigation, unless successfully obstructed by the billionaires, might very well reveal a dark episode of secret corruption of our highest Court--perhaps, even the most covert, most persistent effort at judicial corruption in our country's history.

To be continued. I will be back with more of this story.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I have four 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:

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

Mr. President, I am very happy to be here and resolve a--I guess, celebrate the resolution of a longstanding wrong done to the American people. Senator Stabenow can correct me if I am wrong, but my recollection is that the ban that Congress put on Medicare negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies the way, say, the Veterans' Administration already does was a magical appearance of

a tiny little bit of language, not in the Senate, not in the House, but in the secret confines of the conference committee that merged the two bills.

It just slipped in as a sentence. Nobody took credit for it. I still can't identify who slipped that thing in there; but once it got slipped in, the pharmaceutical industry defended it with all the venom and power and money and muscle that they had. And we beat them. We took it away.

Now, just like the Veterans' Administration, Medicare gets to negotiate and drive prices down, and that is going to make a big difference for Rhode Islanders with diabetes, with cancer, with blood clots, with heart disease, with rheumatoid arthritis. This happened because all of us--Senate Democrats--got together, stuck to our guns, and made it happen through the Inflation Reduction Act which came out of the Budget Committee, originally--the authorization. We are lowering the prices of these 10 very expensive drugs; and even though the pharmaceutical industry is going to try to wrassle around in court, it is pretty hard to say that Medicare doesn't have the same authority that its sister Agency, the Veterans' Administration, has to negotiate for pharmaceuticals.

It shows how much they will try to try to get that little slippery sentence that got slipped into that bill back to defend their price gouging.

Vaccines are now free with Medicare. Insulin is capped at $35 a month. Drug companies are penalized if they jack up their prices higher than the rate of inflation. A $3,250 cap on out-of-pocket spending for seniors is just about to go into effect, and the next year it drops to a $2,000 limit. I think that will cover 11,000 Rhode Islanders who now pay higher out-of-pocket costs than those.

These changes will save tens of thousands of Medicare Part D enrollees in Rhode Island over $23 million. That is a big number in our small State. I would like to think that the Inflation Reduction Act was bipartisan. It would be great if this had passed with bipartisan support. It didn't. Not a single Republican vote came. I regret that, but we are going to continue. There is more progress to be made. We have shown that it can be done.

And while we are at it, we need to strengthen Medicare--both Social Security and Medicare, and we have a bill that has had its hearing in the Budget Committee to strengthen Social Security and Medicare by making people who are making over $400,000 a year and the superrich-- who hide their income through all sorts of tricks so it doesn't show up as regular income--pay a fair share, support these essential programs.

So we can celebrate a win today, and we can go forward with confidence to future wins.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023--the FRA, by its initials--which Congress passed 3 months ago, represented a bipartisan agreement. It resolved a manufactured default crisis. It avoided an economic catastrophe that was threatened, and it set funding levels for the upcoming year. Pursuant to section 121 of that Act, I previously filed, on June 21, budgetary aggregates and committee allocations for fiscal year 2024. Today, I am adjusting those levels to account for Senate amendment No. 1092 to H.R. 4366, the proposed package making appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2024.

This first package includes the fiscal year 2024 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies; Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies; and Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies appropriations bills.

Section 251 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended by the FRA, establishes statutory limits on discretionary funding levels for fiscal years 2024 and 2025, and allows for adjustments to those limits. Sections 302 and 314(a) of the Congressional Budget Act allow the chairman of the Budget Committee to revise the allocations, aggregates, and levels consistent with those adjustments. Senate amendment No. 1092 is eligible for an adjustment. Division C, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2024, includes $10.8 billion of budget authority and $8.3 billion of outlays that are designated as emergency funding. The emergency funding in this division is consistent with the bipartisan agreement tied to the enactment of the FRA.

In addition, the Senate Appropriations Committee has reported eight other bills that include funding eligible for an adjustment. I am also making those adjustments in today's filing.

In total, I am revising the allocation to the Appropriations Committee by $62.2 billion of budget authority and $23.8 billion of outlays. Excluding off-budget amounts, I am revising the budgetary aggregates by $61.9 billion of budget authority and $23.5 billion of outlays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these accompanying tables, which provide details about the adjustment filing, be printed in the Record at the conclusion of these remarks.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I have eight 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:

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 298, Michael Colin Casey, to be Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center; that the Senate vote on the nomination without any 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; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate resume legislative session.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions: S. Res. 337, National Direct Support Professionals Recognition Week; S. Res. 338, Patriot Week; and S. Res. 339, Blood Donation Drive.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles, where applicable, be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 12 noon on Wednesday, September 13; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, 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 resume consideration of the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 198, H.R. 4366, postcloture; further, that all time during adjournment, recess, morning business, and leader remarks count against the postcloture time.

Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Murray, I ask unanimous consent that the following report from the Committee on Appropriations be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.