WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, today introduced the Crawfish Recovery Assistance from Weather Disasters and Droughts (CRAWDAD) Act. The bill would support Louisiana’s crawfish jobs as droughts and severe weather have put strain on the industry.
“Louisiana’s crawfish farmers have worked hard to weather a bad freeze and devastating drought. My CRAWDAD Act would give mudbug farmers the help they need to keep delivering quality Louisiana fare to crawfish lovers everywhere,” said Kennedy.
The CRAWDAD Act would expand Emergency Livestock Assistance Program (ELAP) funding to crawfish producers. The bill would also classify a drought as a weather event that the Secretary of Agriculture could declare as an emergency.
Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack expanded ELAP in the past to extend assistance to crawfish farmers when the industry suffered losses in 2021. Kennedy’s bill would ensure crawfish farmers remain eligible for the assistance they need without waiting for bureaucrats to make that determination.
Background:
- The ELAP provides producers of livestock, honeybees and farm-raised fish access to federal financial assistance when they face adverse weather, disease or loss conditions.
- In 2023, Louisiana experienced extreme drought conditions that led to a shortage in crawfish and higher market prices.
- As a result, the price per pound of crawfish is now nearly double what it was in 2023.
- Kennedy’s bill would ensure that Louisiana’s crawfish farmers could receive federal aid in order to sustain their businesses and Louisiana jobs during difficult conditions.
The Louisiana Farm Bureau supports Kennedy’s CRAWDAD Act.
“Drought has not spared any crop or commodity in Louisiana, but crawfish, in-particular, has no current safety net to keep our farmers afloat. Senator Kennedy offering this bill is a huge support to our efforts to get crawfish farmers an adequate safety net, while also updating an existing cattle program with common sense solutions. We depend on someone like Senator Kennedy to deliver these solutions and he has stepped up in a big way,” said Louisiana Farm Bureau President Jim Harper.
Full bill text of the CRAWDAD Act is available here.
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today joined Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas) in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. The case challenges the FDA’s move to make the chemical abortion pill available through the mail without a doctor’s visit or in-person medical supervision.
“The FDA’s move to make abortion pills available by mail—without so much as a doctor’s visit—puts women and babies in danger. It’s also illegal. The Supreme Court should stop the FDA before at-home abortions steal more lives,” said Kennedy.
“The intent of our friend-of-the-court brief makes the case for holding the FDA accountable for endangering the lives of women and girls in its march to make abortion-inducing drugs easily available. It is about taking to task a federal agency that has willingly and aggressively subverted federal law. I hope the brief is well received as this case is heard by the justices,” said Hyde-Smith.
“The FDA is not only breaking the law by making dangerous abortion drugs available through the mail without proper medical oversight, but they are also endangering the safety of women and girls. I am proud to lead this initiative with Senator Hyde-Smith to keep politics out of health care,” said Pfluger.
The lawmakers’ amicus brief argues that:
- The FDA’s failure to adhere to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) has created significant health and safety risks to women and girls.
- The FDA has permitted mail-order chemical abortion drugs in violation of federal law.
Background:
- In Sept. 2000, the FDA used an accelerated process for drugs that treat “serious or life-threatening illnesses” to approve mifepristone, the chemical abortion pill.
- Upon the initial approval of the drug, the FDA required that the drug only be used in the first seven weeks of pregnancy and with a prescription from a physician.
- In March 2016, the FDA revised these restrictions to allow non-physicians to prescribe and administer the drug in a single office visit, extend its use to ten weeks and no longer require doctors to report non-fatal medical complications.
- The Biden FDA again modified the these restrictions in Dec. 2021. This time, it made permanent a COVID-19 pandemic-related decision to undo the requirement that the drug be dispensed in person. This move cemented a system of mail-order abortion drugs.
- In Nov. 2022, doctors and medical associations filed suit against the FDA, arguing that they violated the Administrative Procedure Act in their 2000, 2016 and 2021 decisions.
- In April 2023, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary ruling ordering a hold on federal approval of mifepristone. Within days, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed much of the lower court’s ruling but ordered the chemical abortion pill remain on the market pending further litigation.
- Also in April 2023, the Supreme Court granted the Biden Justice Department’s request for emergency relief. That put the lower court’s ruling on hold. In Dec. 2023, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the abortion pill cases.
Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), John Thune (R-S.D.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) signed the brief along with more than 90 members of the House of Representatives.
The amicus brief is available here.
Kennedy speaks out against radical transgender activism: “We know this agenda is dangerous.”
Feb 28 2024
Watch Kennedy's comments here.
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) spoke on the Senate floor against the radical medicalization of children who experience gender confusion. Kennedy explained that most children will outgrow gender confusion and condemned the activists who pressure parents into responding to often temporary gender confusion by subjecting their children to harmful drugs and surgeries.
Key excerpts from Kennedy’s remarks include:
“Well before a child learns the difference between adjectives and verbs, activists in many government schools are teaching their pre-K students lessons on transgender pronouns—pronouns like ‘ze’ and ‘zir.’ Public libraries host ‘drag queen story time’ for children of all ages. . . . TikTok essentially functions as a how-to-transition guidebook.
“The issue of gender, Mr. President, has morphed from a topic that only involved the personal decisions of private adults into a movement—a movement that seeks to inject questions about gender and sexuality into every aspect of a child’s life with or without parental approval.”
. . .
“Many activists are comfortable allowing children to take sterilizing medications at 13 years of age, after a single appointment with a therapist—all because adults are supposed to trust children when they claim they’re a different gender.
“I’m very thankful to say that Louisiana is full of compassion and common sense, and we don’t do that. We know this agenda is dangerous, and we know it’s outrageous.”
. . .
“Sec. Hillary Clinton once famously said it takes a village to raise a child. What she meant was that it takes the federal government to raise a child. No, it doesn't.
“Kids need parents to succeed, and parents have the right to raise their children according to their values. Parents are here to protect kids from danger, from the kids’ own immaturity and from misguided government agents.”
. . .
“I am terrified that our country is mass-producing a generation of mutilated and sterilized young people because policymakers in our schools, in our cities, in our state capitals and in Washington are too afraid to stand up and say enough. . . . That’s why I was so proud of the Louisiana state legislature. The Louisiana state legislature passed HB 648. HB 648 protects Louisiana’s children and supports their parents. HB 648 makes it illegal to use puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery on children under the age of 18.”
. . .
“Nothing disturbs me, Mr. President, more than the notion that a child’s upbringing should be determined by some bureaucrat rather than the child’s parents, especially when those bureaucrats use the power of the government to maim children. It makes me want to throw up. It makes me want to reach for the sick bucket. Congress must do more to protect parents and their kids from the zealots of the transgender movement.”
Background:
- The population of transgender children in the United States nearly doubled between 2017 and 2020. In Louisiana, 13-to-17-year-olds are nearly three times more likely to say they identify as transgender than adults aged 25 to 64.
- Most young children outgrow their gender dysphoria. According to a study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, roughly 85% of children diagnosed with gender dysphoria at a young age did not remain dysphoric after adolescence.
- Many gender-confused children also suffer from mental health issues. Children who identify as transgender are up to 13 times more likely to have ADHD, depression or anxiety than non-transgender children. A study out of the United Kingdom found that 35% of the children who received gender treatment had moderate or severe autism.
- Many European countries have restricted the use of hormone treatments and surgeries on children. Most notably, the United Kingdom’s National Health Service shut down its transgender youth treatment center, the Tavistock Clinic, after an investigation revealed that the clinic had put young people “at considerable risk” of long-term mental distress.
- Still, many activists encourage parents to “affirm” their children’s gender dysphoria no matter how young their children may be. Activists also encourage parents to allow their children to receive “gender-affirming care,” including puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries. These drugs and surgeries can inflict irreparable harm on children.
- Puberty blockers are hormone-based injections or implants given to children as young as 8 years old to delay the onset of puberty. Gonadotropin, the hormone used in puberty blockers, is the same hormone used to chemically castrate sex offenders. It can leave children with diminished bone density and harm their future fertility.
- Cross-sex hormones begin to transition children to appear more like the other gender. Boys take estrogen, which can cause infertility, blood clots and heart problems. Girls take testosterone, which can also cause infertility, male-pattern baldness and high blood pressure. Adults have given cross-sex hormones to children as young as 13 years old.
- Sex-reassignment surgeries, including mastectomies, phalloplasty and vaginoplasty, are largely irreversible. They can result in infertility and loss of sexual function. Activists have advocated for 15-year-old girls to access double mastectomies and 17-year-old boys to receive vaginoplasties.
- Activists claim that “gender reaffirming care” improves the mental health of children with gender confusion. However, a study in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that there is no significant reduction in mental health issues following hormone treatments or sex-reassignment surgeries.
- American parents have struggled to protect their children from these radical procedures. Parents in some states can lose custody of their children for refusing to abide by the transgender ideology. In Oregon, children as young as 15 years old can receive Medicaid-funded hormone treatments without their parents’ consent.
- Kennedy is a co-sponsor of the Families’ Rights and Responsibilities Act, a bill that would help parents defend themselves when radical bureaucrats attack them for refusing to comply with the transgender agenda.
Read more about the Families’ Rights and Responsibilities Act here.
View Kennedy’s full remarks here.
View Kennedy’s full exchanges here.
WASHINGTON – A Democrat today cut off Sen. John Kennedy (R-La), a member of the Senate Budget Committee, in a hearing as he defended life and highlighted the horrors of abortion.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) chaired the committee.
Key remarks from Kennedy’s exchange with Caitlin Myers and Leilah Zahedi-Spung, whom committee Democrats brought as witnesses, are below. Kennedy also questioned Leslie Ford, a witness for Republicans.
Kennedy: “My good friend Senator Whitehouse said, I want to quote, ‘Reproductive justice is economic justice.’ Close quote. Do you agree with that?”
Myers: “I might, as an economist, use the word ‘rights,’ but yeah, I do agree with that.”
Kennedy: “Okay, that’s not true for the baby, is it?”
Myers: “Well, first of all, I would refer to a ‘fetus,’ not a ‘baby.’”
Kennedy: “Well, a ‘fetus’—I refer to it as a ‘baby’—that's not true for the baby, is it?
. . .
Myers: “I'm sorry. I don't really understand . . . I'm not here to talk about ethics, assignment of personhood. That’s not my role.”
Kennedy: “Well, but you said you agreed with the chairman's statement that, ‘Reproductive justice is economic justice.’ There is no economic justice for the baby because the baby's dead, right?”
Myers: “I don't really know how to answer your question.”
Kennedy: “Well, is the baby dead or alive?”
. . .
Myers: “The fetus would be dead after an abortion.”
Kennedy: “All right. If the if the mother is healthy and the baby is healthy, do you support abortion up to the moment of birth?”
Myers: “You know, I think that’s a really hard question to answer because that just doesn’t happen. You’re asking me about something that simply doesn’t happen—”
Kennedy: “Well, actually, I will tell you, it’s legal in Vermont, New Jersey, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico, Alaska and the District of Columbia, and the loon wing of the Democratic Party supports abortion up to the moment of birth. So, do you support that or are oppose it?”
. . .
Kennedy: “It’s real simple: You either support abortion for a healthy mother and baby up to the moment of birth, or you don’t—and I don’t think it’s a difficult question.”
. . .
Kennedy: “This is a baby at 21 weeks, okay? The baby can feel pain, right?”
Ford: “Yes.”
Kennedy: “And the baby’s pretty developed, right?”
Ford: “Yes.”
Kennedy: “And, do you know the name of the procedure that the doctor would use to abort that baby at 21 weeks? . . . It's called dilation and evacuation, is that right?”
Ford: “As far as I understand it.”
Kennedy: “Yeah, and, first, the doctor would dilate the cervix, and then the doctor would take what's called [a sopher] clamp. It's really a pair of pliers with sharp teeth on the end, and, without giving the baby any pain medication, the doctor would go through the vagina, through the uterus, and start tearing the baby apart, is that right?”
Ford: “As far as I understand the procedure.”
Kennedy: “And [the doctor] might start with the legs and pull them out, and the arms and pull them out, right? And then she might go for the heart or the spine and just pull the baby out piece by piece. Is that right? Without giving the baby pain medication?”
Ford: “That's what I understand the procedure to be.”
Kennedy: “Okay, but then you've got to get the head out. The baby's dead. Maybe not. Maybe it's still in pain, but then you've got to get the head out, and—even with the cervix dilated--you've got to get the head out, which is hard. So, then the doctor would go in and use those pliers to crush the baby's head. Is that right?”
Ford: “As far as I know.”
Kennedy: “And then she'd pull the head out, the crushed skull out, right?”
Whitehouse: “Senator Kennedy, your time has expired here . . .”
Kennedy: “Well, you gave the others plenty of time, Mr. Chairman.”
Whitehouse: “Just letting you know your time's expired. [We have] other senators waiting.”
Kennedy: “Well, [I] was waiting when you were letting others—I'm sorry you don't want to hear about what happens in an actual abortion, but [I thought] that was what we were here to talk about.”
Whitehouse: “No one else has gone over. Some of the witnesses went a little bit long, but on both sides.”
Kennedy: “I thought we were here about protecting mothers and killing babies.”
Whitehouse: “I'm going to turn to Senator Stabenow.”
Kennedy: “Well, I'm sorry you don’t want to hear it.”
View full remarks here.
View Kennedy’s full exchanges here.
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, questioned Colette Peters, the director of the Bureau of Prisons, about the recidivism rate associated with criminals released under the First Step Act.
Kennedy: “How many criminals have you released under the First Step Act?”
. . .
Peters: “We have about 30,000 individuals that have been released since the passage of the First Step Act.”
Kennedy: “All right, so you've released 30,000 criminals under the First Step Act, okay? . . . Before you released them, did you contact any of their victims to say, ‘We're about to let this guy out’?”
Peters: “Senator, it's my understanding that that notification happens through the U.S. Attorney's Office, but I will check into that and get back to you.”
Kennedy: “You don't know?”
Peters: “Senator, I don't.”
. . .
Kennedy: “Wow. Okay, of the 30,000 criminals you let free, how many of them have come back, have committed a crime again, hurt somebody else?”
Peters: “So, that number is one that we're still looking at as it relates to the recidivism rate for those that were released on the First Step Act.”
Kennedy: “You don't have any idea?”
Peters: “No, Senator.”
. . .
Kennedy: “So let me get this straight: The First Step Act was passed in 2018. This is 2024, am I right so far?”
Peters: “That's correct.”
Kennedy: “That's six years, and, in six years, you've let 30,000 criminals go, right?”
Peters: “That's correct.”
Kennedy: “And you don't have the slightest idea how many of them committed another crime and came back?”
Peters: “I don't have that number in front of me, sir.”
Kennedy: “And you run the Bureau of Prisons?”
Peters: “That's correct.”
. . .
Kennedy: “You know, [we] were told that it would save money and it would be in the interest of public safety to release criminals from prison. I didn't vote for it, but the majority rules, and so Congress did it.
“And Ms. Peters, Director Peters at the Bureau of Prisons, and her colleagues released 30,000 criminals, all of whom are there for a reason, okay? They didn't just go to prison for a free toaster. They were there for a reason.
“And, so, her department let them go, and, after six years, we don't have the slightest idea. Not a single one of the 40,000 of her employees [knows] how many have committed a second crime and come back. So, how the hell are we supposed to figure out whether it worked?”
. . .
Kennedy: “The director let 30,000 of these folks go and can't tell me today how many have come back. . . . It takes my breath away.”
View full remarks here.
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today introduced the Empowering Immigration Courts Act to give immigration judges a tool to stop litigants from drawing out proceedings unnecessarily, which further burdens the immigration system and rewards illegal immigration.
Specifically, the legislation would give immigration judges the same contempt authority federal judges have to punish by fine litigants who misbehave or flout court orders.
“Under President Biden’s watch, America has seen 9 million migrants attempt to cross the southern border. The current court structure can’t process this level of illegal immigration effectively. My bill would give immigration judges a critical tool to help them better manage their overwhelmed dockets and cut down on the backlog of immigration cases,” said Kennedy.
Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-Wis.) introduced the bill in the House of Representatives. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) cosponsored the act.
“Illegal aliens routinely skip their court date and flout our immigration laws. I am proud to cosponsor Senator Kennedy’s bill that helps fix this problem by giving immigration courts the same contempt power as federal district courts. This will allow immigration judges to hold illegal aliens who skip their court dates in contempt and punish them with fines. I call on the Senate to pass this bill that takes a step in the right direction and helps restore order to the immigration court system,” said Cruz.
“As our immigration system continues to be overrun and mismanaged, there is a simple problem Congress can solve today: contempt authority for immigration judges. Presently, these judges do not have the same authority as all other federal judges to discipline trial lawyers for misbehavior. This legislation will give much-needed authority to our immigration judges so they can ensure order in their courtrooms and better manage their dockets,” said Blackburn.
Background:
- In 1996, Congress passed a law authorizing the attorney general to issue regulations empowering immigration judges to sanction litigants who misbehave or violate court orders. However, in the nearly three decades since Congress passed the law, no attorney general has issued such regulations.
- In March 2021, Kennedy first introduced the Empowering Immigration Courts Act so that immigration judges could fine those found to be in contempt of court.
Full text of the Empowering Immigration Courts Act is available here.
Kennedy, Judiciary Republicans demand Mayorkas explain parole status of Riley murder suspect
Feb 27 2024
WASHINGTON– Sen. John Kennedy (R-La), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today joined all other Republican members of the Judiciary Committee in demanding answers from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas about why Venezuelan national Jose Antonio Ibarra was paroled into the U.S.
Ibarra is the suspect in the murder of Augusta University student Laken Riley.
“We are deeply saddened by this senseless and preventable act of violence, and we write today demanding answers about how Ibarra was allowed to enter and remain in the United States,” the senators wrote.
“Under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, immigration parole should only be granted on a case-by-case basis, and only if there is an urgent humanitarian reason or significant public benefit justifying a grant of parole,” they continued.
The senators also highlighted that they previously raised concerns about DHS’s ability to make hundreds of thousands of case-by-case determinations for parole each year. Under sworn testimony on Nov. 8, 2023, before the committee, Mayorkas stated that the department did, in fact, determine parole on a case-by-case basis.
“We demand that you show us your work. No later than March 8th, please provide us with a copy of the case file for Jose Antonio Ibarra, including the record showing what urgent humanitarian reason or significant public benefit justified the decision to grant him parole,” the senators concluded.
The full letter is available here.
Kennedy, Risch file bicameral amicus brief with SCOTUS in support of Idaho’s pro-life law
Feb 27 2024
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) joined Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho) and more than 100 other lawmakers in filing an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States to support Idaho as it defends its Defense of Life Act.
The Biden administration claims to have discovered a new power in the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), a law that President Ronald Reagan signed, to require doctors to perform certain abortions in violation of many states’ pro-life laws.
“The Biden administration’s case against Idaho’s Defense of Life Act is the president’s latest scheme to force his radical pro-abortion ideology on all Americans. Idaho requires doctors to protect the lives of mothers and their unborn children, and there’s no legal basis for the Biden administration to try to overrule a law that Idahoans passed democratically,” said Kennedy.
“Idahoans have passed a strong law to protect the lives of mothers and the unborn, yet the Biden administration is seeking every opportunity to expand abortion. This administration cherrypicked pieces of existing statute and wrongfully reinterpreted it to fit their agenda. Their manipulation of federal law cannot usurp state law, and there is no federal right to an abortion. This amicus brief demonstrates how the administration’s substantial federal overreach is aimed at undermining pro-life protections not only in Idaho but around the nation,” said Risch.
Background:
- EMTALA requires hospitals to provide necessary stabilizing treatment to patients before transferring them to another hospital because of the patient’s inability to pay.
- The Biden administration claims that EMTALA overrides pro-life state laws and requires doctors to perform abortions in some circumstances.
- To the contrary, the lawmakers’ amicus brief argues that EMTALA says nothing about abortion and actually requires doctors to provide treatment to both a mother and her unborn child.
- As the Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, there is no constitutional right to abortion.
Sens. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), John Thune (R-S.D.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Pete Rickets (R-Neb.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) also joined the brief along with more than 93 members of the House of Representatives.
The amicus brief is available here.
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, today announced $1,908,608 in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant for Louisiana disaster aid.
“Hurricane Ida dealt a tough blow to south Louisiana’s electrical infrastructure. I’m grateful to see this $1.9 million help rebuild the roads that support these communities,” said Kennedy.
The FEMA aid will fund the following:
- $1,908,608 for the South Louisiana Electrical Cooperative Association to rebuild two substation access roadways damaged by Hurricane Ida and related emergency procedures.
Kennedy, Cotton challenge Biden admin’s plan to collect American investors’ personal data with amicus brief
Feb 23 2024
MADISONVILLE, La. – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Banking and Judiciary Committees, joined Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and 20 other colleagues in filing an amicus brief in American Securities Association v. SEC, a case in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT).
The SEC’s CAT will collect all customer and order information for equity securities and listed options, including data that might be considered personally identifiable information.
Congress did not authorize the CAT, which leaves investors to pay higher costs for the program while it puts personal information, such as social security numbers and birth dates, at risk of being hacked.
“More than 158 million Americans invest their hard-earned savings in the stock market, and they trust that their personal information is secure. Despite concerns about recent cyberattacks at federal agencies, the Biden administration is moving forward with its Consolidated Audit Trail—without Congressional authorization. This unconstitutional plan jeopardizes investors’ data and requires them to pay higher fees. The appeals court should stop it before bad actors exploit the CAT to take advantage of Americans,” said Kennedy.
“The SEC never brought this proposal before Congress to request funds because the Biden administration knows the program is a gross overreach that would suck up the personal data of millions of law-abiding Americans. More than that, the SEC has shown it is incapable of safely storing sensitive data. This program needs to be killed before it begins,” said Cotton.
Background:
- In Nov. 2023, Kennedy penned an op-ed highlighting concerns regarding the SEC’s move to store investors’ personally identifiable information through the CAT.
- In July 2023, Kennedy introduced the Protecting Investors’ Personally Identifiable Information Act to protect information that could reveal the identity of American investors.
Sens. John Boozman (R-Ark.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.) signed the brief along with 12 members of the House of Representatives.
The amicus brief is available here.
