WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today joined Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in introducing a constitutional amendment to guard the U.S. Supreme Court from partisan efforts to expand and politicize the body. 

The proposed amendment would ensure that the court remains apolitical by cementing the number of justices who can serve at a time at nine. 

“The effort to pack the Supreme Court and turn justices into politicians in robes would delegitimize and destroy one of the most important institutions in America. Congress must protect the judicial branch from political expedience by safeguarding its current structure,” said Kennedy.

Once approved by Congress, the amendment would go to the states for ratification.

“The Democrats’ answer to a Supreme Court that is dedicated to upholding the rule of law and the Constitution is to pack it with liberals who will rule the way they want. The Supreme Court should be independent, not inflated by every new administration. That’s why I’ve introduced a constitutional amendment to permanently keep the number of justices at nine,” said Cruz. 

Sens. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.) and Todd Young (R-Ind.) also cosponsored the legislation. 

The amendment is available here.

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today introduced the Fairness in Fentanyl Sentencing Act of 2023 to crack down on fentanyl trafficking by lowering the threshold required for minimum sentencing in light of the drug’s potency relative to other substances.

The current mandatory minimum threshold does not reflect the substance’s capacity to end lives. For reference, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) states that a mere two milligrams of fentanyl—which can fit on the tip of a pencil—can kill a person. As a result, a lower quantity of fentanyl should trigger a mandatory minimum sentence.

“Fentanyl is 50 times more powerful than heroin. It’s killing Americans, and the justice system needs to make sure that the criminals who are blanketing our communities with fentanyl get sentenced appropriately. The Fairness in Fentanyl Sentencing Act would bring justice to the Louisiana families who have lost loved ones to this scourge,” said Kennedy.

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Katie Britt (R-Ala.) cosponsored the legislation.

“Current federal mandatory minimums are drastically out of step with the deadly threat fentanyl poses to American lives. Fentanyl-related overdoses kill 70,000 Americans each year and cause a new 9/11 every two weeks. I’m glad to work with my colleagues on this legislation. We know that even a miniscule amount of fentanyl can be lethal. It’s time the federal code treat fentanyl for what it is: a weapon of mass destruction,” said Graham. 

“Fentanyl kills over 70,000 Americans each year and is more powerful than most other drugs, but federal sentences for fentanyl trafficking don’t currently reflect its immense threat. We should strengthen these penalties and ensure fentanyl traffickers face the consequences of their crimes,” said Cotton.

“Fentanyl is stealing lives and devastating families in every corner of Alabama and America. This crisis is infiltrating our schools and our communities, and it is past time that we hold the criminals profiting off of this poison accountable. This legislation is an important part of comprehensively addressing the supply of and demand for fentanyl in our country, so we can keep our children safe and our future strong,”said Britt.

Current mandatory minimum sentences for fentanyl trafficking only apply when a trafficker possesses 40 grams or more of fentanyl or 10 grams or more of a fentanyl analogue. The Fairness in Fentanyl Sentencing Act of 2023 would reduce the threshold of possession for minimum prison sentences to two grams of fentanyl or 0.5 grams of a fentanyl analogue.

Background:

• Fentanyl is now the leading cause of death among Americans ages 18-45.
• The CDC states that deaths from fentanyl and fentanyl analogues increased 56% from 2019-2020. According to data, that number is expected to increase for 2021. 
• Last year, the DEA seized enough fentanyl to kill 379 million people—more than the entire U.S. population.

Full text of the bill is available here.

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) today joined Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) in introducing the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) Resolution to recognize that Congress does not have the authority to deem the ERA as a ratified amendment to the Constitution.

The ERA Resolution is a check against an illegitimate effort, S.J.Res.4, that attempts undo the deadline that Congress set in 1972, when the amendment was sent to the states for ratification. 

“Radical lawmakers cannot erase women or their rights from our Constitution. This attempt is legally and morally wrong and would unleash a Pandora’s box of harmful legal implications. Nor can they replace a deadline that passed long ago. This resolution makes clear what most of us already know: The deadline for states to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment has long passed and was rightfully rejected,” said Kennedy.

“The law and the facts outlined in this resolution are clear. Congress has no authority to go back in time to revive a failed constitutional amendment, which makes the current push to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment wrong on its face. Beyond the illegitimacy of trying to resurrect the ERA, we cannot ignore the very serious effects adding the ERA to our Constitution today would have on abortion, religious liberty, protections for women, and more,” said Hyde-Smith.

Sens. James Lankford (R-Okla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.), J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-La.), Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and John Boozman (R-Ark.) also cosponsored the resolution.

The resolution recognizes that:

• The role that Congress had in the constitutional amendment process for the ERA concluded once the amendment was submitted to the states.

• The ERA was not ratified to the Constitution because the deadline passed without having the necessary support from three-fourths of states.
• Congress does not have the authority to change a resolution that proposes a constitutional amendment after it is submitted to the states or after the deadline is reached.
• In order for the ERA to be ratified in a legitimate manner, the process must follow Article V of the Constitution, which requires a re-introduction of the amendment with the same or modified language in addition to being approved by two-thirds of both the House and Senate. 

The potential ramifications of ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment include:

• Legalizing abortion on demand.

• Prohibiting schools from allowing separate-sex athletic teams.
• Prohibiting separate prisons for male and female prisoners.
• Prohibiting separate public restrooms for males and females.
• Requiring women to register for the draft.
• Requiring public funding for sex-reassignment surgeries based on the argument that denying coverage would constitute sex discrimination.
• Requiring doctors to provide puberty blockers to children who claim to identify as transgender.
• Prohibiting religious organizations from having single-sex membership.

Of the 35 states that ratified the ERA before the deadline, four voted to rescind their ratifications.

Full text of the resolution is available here.

Watch Kennedy’s comments here.

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, today spoke on the Senate floor about the Biden administration’s response to recent bank failures. 

Key comments from Kennedy’s speech include:

“When I ran for this office in 2016, I observed at that time that . . . we had too many undeserving people at the top in America getting bailouts, and we had too many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts. And the rest of America—most of America in the middle—was getting the bill, and I didn't think that was fair. And apparently it’s still the case today, Mr. President, and I still don't think it's fair.”

"Now President Biden chose to bail out three of our banks. It was a bail out. You can pretty it up any way you want to, and you can put perfume on a pig, but it still smells like a pig. This was a bailout.”

“It was a bailout for two reasons. Number one, except for the people who own the stock in the banks and their unsecured creditors, President Biden and his regulators guaranteed that nobody affiliated with these banks would have any losses. And he said, ‘That's not a bailout because money's not being provided by the American people. It's being provided by all the other banks in America.’”

“Well, Mr. President, as you know as well as I do, there is no money fairy. There isn't anything free. . . . Those banks . . . they're just going to pass on those costs . . . and, last time I checked, most depositors in banks in America are taxpayers as well.”

“Now, let me let me say a word about Silicon Valley Bank. All the bank failures were an abomination, but I think Silicon Valley Bank is symptomatic of the problem among all three. . . . First of all, Silicon Valley Bank was not broke. It was not an insolvency problem. It wasn’t insolvent. Silicon Valley Bank had a liquidity problem.”

“I mean, here's what happened: Silicon Valley Bank took in a whole bunch of deposits on which they were paying an interest rate, and then Silicon Valley Bank took that money and went out and bought a bunch of securities paying a higher interest rate than Silicon Valley Bank was paying the depositors.”

“You say, ‘That's pretty smart.’”

“There's just one problem. The securities that Silicon Valley Bank bought were very sensitive to interest rates, and, as interest rates went up—and they have—the value of those securities went down if Silicon Valley Bank had to sell them.”

“And, sure enough, Silicon Valley Bank got itself on the position of having to sell them because a lot of its depositors got scared about the bank’s position, and other reasons, and said, ‘We want our money back.’”

“And Silicon Valley Bank didn't have the money because it had to go sell these securities at a loss, and that put it at risk. And that's why we had had a liquidity problem that could have been fixed. It wasn't broke.”

“President Biden's bailout could have been avoided if one or more of three things had happened.”

“Number one: If the management of Silicon Valley Bank had known the difference between a banking textbook and an L.L. Bean catalog, Silicon Valley Bank would have never bought securities that are so sensitive to interest rate[s] without hedging that risk, and it's a very easy thing to do.”

“Number two, okay. Silicon Valley Bank management did it . . . The regulators didn't catch it. There's been a lot of talk about ‘Silicon Valley Bank wasn't being regulated because of a bill passed back in 2018 or 2019.’ That's not true. Silicon Valley Bank was heavily regulated. It had to file regular reports with the federal banking regulators. It was subjected to stress testing. It was subjected to liquidity stress testing.”

“All regulators had to do was read the reports that Silicon Valley Bank was submitting, and they would have seen the problem. You know who saw the problem, way back in November and October? Stock analysts in the private sector that were covering Silicon Valley Bank warned way back last fall—they said, ‘You know what? This bank is . . . setting itself up for a potential liquidity problem.’ The private sector knew it.”

“Where were the regulators? Where were they? You couldn't have found them with a search party. I guess they were asleep, but this whole debacle could have been avoided if the regulators had just done their job and stepped in and said, ‘Silicon Valley Bank, what you're doing is dumb, and you can't do it anymore.’ That would have avoided it.”

“The third thing that could have avoided the president’s bailout . . . The Federal Reserve, the Secretary of Treasury, the head of the FDIC, and all the other regulators allowed the bank to go on instead, instead of getting on the telephone, and calling other banks and saying, ‘I've got a situation here with Silicon Valley Bank. It's not insolvent. It’s just illiquid. We want you to buy it.’ That's what normally happens, and that's all the regulators had to do.”

“Now, why didn't they do that? There's been a lot of talk about, well, they had an auction for the bank, and nobody wanted it. That's not true. There were buyers, but the problem was that the people at the FDIC do not like bank mergers.”

“Some bank mergers make sense. Some bank mergers don't make sense. In this case, it would have made extraordinary sense. And, so, the folks at the FDIC stalled and re-stalled, and then we had mass panic.”

Kennedy’s full comments are here.