Transcripts For CSPAN2 U.S. Senate U.S. Senate 20240712

Regarding a democratic motion to begin work on a bill dropping the Justice Department from supporting lawsuits to strike the Affordable Care act. Live now to the floor of the u. S. Senate on cspan 2. Eternal god, our heavenly father, we cry to you, but sometimes you seem so far away. In our despair you sometimes seem distant, and we are tempted to surmise that we are all alone. When we shout, we seem to hear the echoes of our anguish. Nonetheless, we know that you are holy, mighty, and good. We have trusted you too long to let go. Empower our senators for these challenging times. Remove from their minds all bitterness and contempt for one another. Keep their hearts clean, their spirits courageous, and their minds clear, as they face these daunting times. We pray in your omnipotent name. Amen. The president pro tempore please join me in the pledge of allegiance. The pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The presiding officer under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. Mr. Grassley madam president . The presiding officer the senator pro tempore. Mr. Grassley i ask one minute for morning business. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Grassley President Trump was rightly criticized for dodging a question about the peaceful transfer of power. Instead, trump criticized mailin ballots and rejected the premise that he will lose. No, that doesnt mean that hes planning some sort of coup. But it is important for any president to choose their words very carefully. The same is true for partisans on the other side whipping up fear that our democracy is in jeopardy or that the ballots wont be counted. Even worse is the rhetoric setting the stage to delegitimize any future trump victory. We now hear fullblown conspiracy theories. Let me mention a few. A group of biden supporters conducts a war game, speculating that the president Wont Leave Office without a biden landslide, questioning what the military would do. The chairman of the joint chiefs of staff stepped in with a simple civics lesson the u. S. Military has no role in the elections, he said. Democrats have doubled down on this debunked theory that the Postal Service is plotting with trump to disrupt election mail. The Postal Service does not answer to the president of the United States. It has plenty of capacity to deliver election mail. Plus, the federal government doesnt run elections. The 50 states run those elections. A key goal of russian active measures dating back to the cold war has been to get americans to double to doubt their government, its leaders and democratic institutions. Lets not do russian dirty work for them. No american should be questioning our free and fair elections. Now to my state of iowa, our people, who have requested absentee ballots, will have ballots mailed to them starting on october 5. Remember to fill out completely, including your drivers license or voter p. I. N. Number, and mail them to your county auditor well before election dates, but not later than the day before. Your ballot can be tracked on the secretary of states website. Check out where your ballot is. I have great faith in iowas Election Officials and our postal workers. Iowans who vote in person or absentee can be assured that your vote will count the same as any election. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call mr. Mcconnell madam president . The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell at this time last week, the nation did not know whom President Trump would be nominating to the Supreme Court. But amazingly, we did know what kinds of false attacks the far left would deploy against whoever it was. Democrats and special interests have been telling the country for 45 years 45 years that every Supreme Court vacancy under a republican president was going to bring about the apocalypse. John paul stevens they said was antiwoman. David souter they said wanted to hurt vulnerable people. John roberts was out to get Health Insurance. And, wouldnt you know, the president had barely finished saying judge Amy Coney Barretts name before the same old attacks began rolling in. Our 77yearold male former Vice President and our 69yearold male Senate Democratic leader have tried to inform american women that this 48yearold working mom wants to roll back her own rights as a woman roll back her own rights as a woman. Democrats have tried the to fear morning around a 4yearold academic paper that reinforced one unfair penalty in obamacare, which congress, by the way, has already eliminated three years ago. As an aside, madam president , if the American People are interested in which senators are serious about protecting americans with preexisting conditions, they can simply look up the vote senators took last night just last night. Every single democrat voted against legislation from senator tillis that would have submitted protections for these vulnerable americans. Democrats voted to block protections for preexisting conditions, just like they voted to block hundreds of billions of dollars for coronavirus relief, and just like they voted to block police reform. And a thousand other things they tell americans they support but vote against to block bipartisan progress. So heres another one of the madeup attacks. Democrats are demanding that judge barrett commit in advance in advance to recuse herself from entire categories of cases for no reason. This is another totally invented standard nobody has ever suggested that Supreme Court justices should categorically sit on the sidelines until the president who nominated them has left office. What an absurd suggestion. Justice ginsburg and breyer were confidence during president clintons very first term. Justice sotomayor and kagan were confirmed during president obamas first term. All four of these justices went on to participate in electionrelated proceedings while the president whod nominated them was on the ballot. And Justice Breyer and ginsburg participated actively in clinton v. Jones and other matters connected to president clintons eventually impeachment. In fact, they urged and attempted to get the Supreme Court even more involved. This is a sideshow, a sideshow, madam president. If judge barrett is confirmed, she will swear an oath. She will have a lifetime appointment. Nobody seriously is suggesting she lacks any bit of the integrity which everyone trusted Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, sotomayor, kagan and countless others to exercise. In fact, her integrity and independence are precisely what judge barretts peers across the political spectrum go out of their way to applaud. Judge barrett has no obligation to make any of the bizarre bizarre prejudgments that our democratic colleagues are demanding. Like i said, much of the script has been entirely predictable. Ill tell you one thing i didnt predict. I honestly did not expect the democratic leader to come to the senate floor and say that concerns about antireligious discrimination are, quote, manufactured his stairics. Didnt expect that. I did not expect we would hear the leader of the democratic conference stand on the senate floor and say that americas freedom of religion is, quote, an imaginary issue. The democratic leader claimed intignantly that his fellow democrats would never never make an issue out of a nominees personal religious beliefs. He took great offense such a thing would even be suggested. But the whole country knows that three years ago when the Judiciary Committee was considering this very nominee this one for her current position, Senate Democrats did precisely that, exactly that. The senior senator from california literally implied in front of the entire country that judge barrett was too catholic too catholic to be a judge. Here was the quote the dogma lives loudly within you, she said, and thats of concern. The senior senator from illinois asked judge barrett in the official record listen to this do you consider yourself an an orthodox catholic . The junior senator from hawaii felt spelled to tell the nominee, quote listen to this youd be a catholic judge. Youd be a catholic judge. No one imagined these exchanges, but they happened on video before the entire nation. Multiple sitting senators read it in an open hearing that judge barretts religious views created doubt about her fitness to serve. Outside the senate, it was not imaginary when one faith group in which judge barrett and her family participate reportedly came under cyberattack a few days ago. Their membership directory was reportedly hacked just as judge barrett emerged as a frontrunner. Nobody had to imagine the ominous articles from a. P. , reuters, the washington post, and politico, all implying there was something questionable, questionable or problematic about judge barretts faith practices. Nobody had to imagine politico sending a contributing editor to snoop around the Church Buildings and report what a jute group had written on their whiteboard. So no, americans dont have to imagine this elite disdain. All they have to do is read it. Its not just this one nominee. Nobody imagined it when the junior senator from vermont accused a different nominee of hatred and islam phobia islam phobia because he expressed a personal view that christianity gets things right which islam gets wrong. Its not imaginary when the junior senator from california casts aspersions on another nominee for listen to this belonging to the knights of columbus. And another democrat implied he should quit this mainstream Catholic Group if he wanted to hold Public Office. Quit the knights of columbus if you want to hold Public Office . In america . The democratic leader says these are manufactured hysterics. He said people who call this out are hysterical. Frankly, it would be better for our country if that were true. But thats not the case. Just yesterday, 24 hours after the democratic leader swore that democrats would not make this an issue, the junior senator from hawaii tried to say judge barretts faith is irrelevant, but immediately proceeded to question whether her closely held views can be separated from her ability to make objective, fair decisions. No one, no one should be deceived by these thinly veiled euphemisms. This is the exact form that religious discrimination has taken in america for decades. For decades. Especially when it comes to public service. We do not often hear people say they simply dislike a particular religion altogether. Thank goodness we are mostly past that kind of bigotry. No, going all the way back to jack kennedy, the more common accusation has been something a little more subtle. That people of deep faith or certain faiths are incapable of being fair or objective. That they are incapable of doing certain jobs well. That such americans are torn between divided loyalties and not to be trusted. Heres what the left is trying to say. Oh, we have no problems, no problems with judge barretts faith in an abstract sense. We just think it disqualifies her from this promotion. Madam president , that is the definition of discrimination. About a be century ago, openly anticatholic political cartoons pictured the pope or the Catholic Church as an octopus wrapping its tentacles around the institutions of american government. Thankfully, those displays are long gone. But the core attitude clearly is not. Americans of faith are not imagining the increasingly hostile climate that the political left and the media have spent literally years sowing. And no, there is no free press, as some commentators have suggested, because many prominent liberal voices or prominent democrats themselves identify as catholic. You dont get a free pass just by calling yourself a catholic. More than onefifth of our country belongs to the same church as judge barrett. Onefifth of our country. Tens and tens of millions of americans, all of them, like all americans, must be free to live their faiths in diverse and different ways without being barred, without being barred from public service. These kinds of aspersions do not become any more acceptable if the call is coming from inside the house. Sadly, none of these problems are imaginary. The American Peoples concerns are not manufactured. The Little Sisters of the poor did not wake up thinking it would be good fun if the Obamabiden Administration tried to force them to violate their own consciences. These nuns do not manufacture their lengthy legal battle for the fun of it. It was the secularization left that went on offense. Churches all across america did not go looking for one of these cycles, the cycles of the democratic president ial contenders to suggest places of worship should lose their taxexempt status if they preach or practice traditional teaching. It was the secularization left that went on offense. If parts of the elite american left have become this out of touch with mainstream religious beliefs held by millions and millions of their fellow citizens, it will take more than victim blaming to dig out of it. They can start this week. They could start today. They could commit to evaluating judge barrett on her credentials and qualifications, and they could stop gawking at deeply religious americans like they have encountered extraterrestrial life or bought a ticket for a safari. Madam president , i understand there are three bills at the desk due for a second reading en bloc. The presiding officer the leader is correct. The clerk will read the title of the bill for the second time en bloc. The clerk s. 4773, a bill to establish the paycheck protection program, second draw loan, and for other purposes. S. 4774, a bill to provide support for air carrier workers, and for other purposes. S. 4775, a bill to provide continued emergency assistance, educational support, and Health Care Response for individuals, families, and businesses affected by the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. Mr. Mcconnell in order to place the bills on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i would object to further proceeding en bloc. The presiding officer objection being heard, the measures will be placed en bloc. On the calendar en bloc. Mr. Mcconnell i move to proceed to calendar number 554, s. 4675. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk motion to proceed to s. 4675, a bill to amend the Health Insurance portability and accountability act. The assistant democratic leader. Mr. Durbin i come to the floor today to speak to one of the most significant issues facing the security of our nation. It is a question of domestic terrorism, specifically the threat of violent White Supremacists. In tuesdays president ial debate, Moderator Chris Wallace asked President Donald Trump to condemn White Supremacists and rightwing militia. President trump refused. Instead, he replied, and i quote , proud boys stand back and stand by, end of quote. The proud boys, a farright group that promotes and engages in violence, viewed President Trumps words as call to action. The groups leader, joe biggs, said he took the president s words as a directive to, quote, f them up, close quote. I was aequaled but not surprised by the president s words. He has a long history of inflammatory racist remarks. Now, President Trump claims that violence is a leftwing problem, not a rightwing problem his words. Let me be clear. I joined Vice President biden in condemning all violence, but we know that White Supremacists pose a great threat. An unclassified may, 2017, fbidhs joint intelligence bulletin found that, quote, white supremacist extremism poses a persistent threat of lethal violence, end of quote. This was a finding by the lead Law Enforcement agencies of the Trump Administration. They went on to say that White Supremacists were responsible for more homicides from 2000 to 2016 than any other domestic extremist movement. The director of the f. B. I. , mr. Mr. Wray, in response to a question i posed in the senate Judiciary Committee last year, said that the majority of domestic terrorism arrests involved White Supremacists. Now, for years, i have urged the Trump Administration to respond to the ongoing thread of violent White Supremacists and other far rightwing extremists. Instead, they have repeatedly downplayed this very lethal and real threat. Attorney general barr has never responded to the multiple letters i have sent asking what the department of justice was doing to combat white supremacist violence. Unfortunately, as we have learned from former Trump Administration officials themselves, the Trump Administration has downplayed the threat of violent White Supremacists. Politico recently reported that a draft homeland threat assessment report from d. H. S. Was edited to weaken language on the threat posed by violent White Supremacists, and a d. H. S. Whistleblower alleged the d. H. S. Officials, including ken cuccinelli, requested the modification of the report to make the threat of White Supremacists, quote, appear less severe, and add information on violent leftwing groups. Its not enough to just stand here and condemn the president s remarks at the infamous debate. The American People sent us to congress to act. There is something we can do now. There is something that we can do that will show we are prepared to respond to this threat, to threat to law and order, to this threat of violent White Supremacists. Im the lead sponsor of the domestic terrorism prevention act, Bipartisan Legislation that would address the threat of violent White Supremacists and other domestic terrorists. Our bill would establish offices to combat it domestic terrorism at the department of justice, f. B. I. , and the department of Homeland Security. It would require these offices to regularly assess the domestic terrorism threat and focus their limited resources on the most significant threats. Critically, they would provide training and resources to assist state, local, tribal Law Enforcement in addressing domestic terrorism threat. The house companion to me bill was introduced by my friend congressman bill snyder. Last week the house of representatives passed the bill on a unanimous voice vote. The senate should pass it too. In a few moments staff will provide me with the language to ask for unanimous consent. Im waiting so that theres an opportunity for both sides to discuss the procedure moving forward. In the meantime, several of my colleagues have asked to come to the floor and address the issue. I would yield to them for comment or question through the chair, with the hopes that when the procedural language arrives that i might be able to make the unanimous consent request. A senator madam president. The presiding officer the senator from connecticut. Mr. Blumenthal thank you, madam president. We are here today on probably one of the most Serious National Security issues that we will confront. And i say that as a member of the Armed Services committee, having received a variety of classified briefings on threats to this country, some of them regarding ongoing foreign interference in our election are truly chilling. But the threat to our National Security from White Supremacists now operating so openly that the director of the f. B. I. Has said they are one of the paramount threats, an ongoing Security Threat to our nation, demands action. It should be action now. The bill that my colleague, senator durbin, is offering passed unanimously by the house of representatives within recent days. Let me repeat passed unanimously by the house of representatives, reflect the real and urgent danger of this threat. The president has refused to denounce White Supremacy. The president has told one of the most prominent of those groups to stand by. That failure, an abject failure on the part of the commander in chief to respond to an ongoing Security Threat demands this action now. We must stand up for the integrity of our elections, the security of our nation, and the fundamental freedoms that we pride as American People. We will not allow this cancer to metastasize in this country and thwart the will of americans who are going to the polls in effect right now. Ballots are being cast. The threat to our electoral will is ongoing. And so i am proud to join my colleagues who are here on the floor. We represent an ideological spectrum, as did the house of representatives in unanimously proving this bill. The paramount threat to our nation and the integrity of our elections is White Supremacy, violent extremism, nationalism that potentially jeopardizes the very pillars of our democracy. I yield the floor. Thank you. Mr. Durbin the senator from virginia. The presiding officer the senator from virginia. Mr. Kaine madam president , i rise to support the efforts of my colleagues to bring the unanimous house bill establishing legal procedures for dealing with White Supremacy to the floor of the senate. And i do so in honor of four virginians. In august of 2017, a group called unite the right held a white supremacist rally in charlottesville, virginia. They started on a friday evening when jewish residents of charlottesville were gathering in synagogues, and when students were coming to the university of virginia to start their academic careers. And they rampaged through the campus and community chanting slogans from nazi rallies like jews will not replace us or blood in soil. As if that were not terrorizing enough, on the next day they escalated physical attacks against many. Heather heyer was a charlottesville resident and paralegal with an amazing background and story who was peacefully protesting that day, and a white supremacist from another state revved his car up, hit her and killed her. Deandrei harris was a special education instructional aid in charlottesville and he was set upon by a number of White Supremacists and beaten with objects severely. Two Virginia State troopers, jake cohen and burt bates both of whom i knew. Jake cohen often flew me in a helicopter and i met burt bates because he was part of governor mcauliffes security detail. They were called out because they needed to provide extra security and on that day both of them lost their lives as that helicopter malfunctioned. So i stand on the floor of the senate thinking of two four virginias, two of whom i knew, three of whom lost their lives and one who was injured severely in this unite the right rally, saying its time that we have laws in this country that will enable us to appropriately deal with the chief source of domestic terrorism. And for that, i thank my colleague, and i yield the floor. A senator madam president. The presiding officer the senator from alabama. Mr. Jones thank you, madam president. Thank you, senator durbin, for this bill. Thank you for the colleagues who are on here. I was struck when senator kaine rose in honor of those who died in virginia. The list goes on and on. You can go to emmett till, you can go to the four girls ada mae collins, Denise Mcnair and cynthia wesley. You can go to those who lost their lives in a church in charleston, South Carolina, and the thing that connects them all is not that they died because of the color of their skin, not just because of the White Supremacists that were trying to change the political dynamic in this country. Its an unbroken string that goes backing decades and generations. It goes back to the time of the great original sin of slavery when White Supremacy tried to dominate this country. And it goes back to a string of unbroken deaths that are occurring even as we speak. Hate crimes across this country have proliferated. And whether its not just white on black, its the tree of life synagogue. It is so many things that we have to stop. And the interesting thing to me that, what happened this week is that the day after the president ial debates, when the president of the United States refused to condemn White Supremacy, the governor of the state of alabama, my friend kay ivey, republican governor of the state of alabama apologized to the victims of the 16th Street Church bombing that happened 57 years ago. An acknowledgement that words matter, that statements of Public Officials have an effect on people. They give a green light to violence, often unintended. So this bill that senator durbin has proposed, that has passed, as senator blumenthal and others have said, unanimously is a statement that we cannot allow this to continue. It is a statement that we will as Law Enforcement, as citizens, and people in a free country, will put an end to this kind of rhetoric and this kind of hate. We cannot let this moment pass, folks, in this body. The house passed this bill unanimously. So should the United States senate. We should make a stand with our colleagues in the house, republican and democrat, that tt this is an important statement right now because what is unsaid so much right now is that we see this playing out in this country, we see it playing out in the streets, and we can talk about it from the right or the left, and we can talk about it from republicans or democrats, but the fact is we need to be talking about it in terms of people and victims, innocent victims. Thats what this bill is about protecting the lives of all americans, regardless of the color of their skin, regardless of their religion, regardless of their political persuasion. This bill will do that. Give the f. B. I. The tools necessary, give the statement from the United States senate that we will not stand for this. Support this bill. Thank you, madam president. I yield the floor. A senator madam president. The presiding officer the senator from new jersey. Mr. Booker im grateful, madam president. It has been said that the only thing necessary for evil to be triumphant is for good people to do nothing. And here we are at a time where we know our history. Since 9 11, the greatest terrorism weve seen in our country, actions from a church in South Carolina to a synagogue in pittsburgh, to a walmart in el paso, time and time again the violence that we have seen, the greatest terrorist activities since 9 11 has been domestic terrorism, rightwing extremists, the majority of them White Supremacists. The warnings that we are now getting from our intelligence officials, quoted one in a Judiciary Committee hearing from the department of Homeland Security, the most significant threat right now for the security of our country is White Supremacy and violent White Supremacy. The f. B. I. Has now given a number of warnings. We now are heading towards an election where we are seeing signs of increased activity, increased hate, increased focus. This body, this good body of friends on both sides of the aisle, this is not a time where we must, can do nothing. We must act. We must take measures and steps to end this kind of violent scourge in our country. Obviously this will not accomplish everything, but in a time like this, we must do something. I join my colleagues in support of this legislation. And i want to again affirm the fact, quite encouraging, that it passed in a bipartisan manner in the United States house of representatives. That is so encouraging. We should do the same here. Thank you, madam president. Mr. Durbin madam president. The presiding officer assistant democratic leader. Mr. Durbin first, i ask unanimous consent that senator manchins name be added as a cosponsor to s. 3190. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Durbin thank you. Madam president , were asking for unanimous consent to pass a bill that has passed the house of representatives unanimously by a voice vote. Unanimously, to empower and direct the Law Enforcement agencies of the United States to use their talents and resources to stop domestic terrorism, to stop the killing. We are identifying in the course of it the White Supremacy and farright extremism as one of the sources. Listen to what a Trump Administration department of justice official wrote last year in the new york times. Quote, White Supremacy and farright extremism are among the greatest domestic Security Threats facing the United States. Regret poly, over regrettably over the past 25 years Law Enforcement a lot federal and state levels have been slow to respond. Killings committed by Groups Associated with farright extremist groups have risen significantly. We are not manufacturing a crisis. The Trump Administration department of justice official concurs with our actions that they are needed. How did i get involved in this . It goes back to 2012, as chairman of a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, i held a hearing on the threat of violent rightwing extremism after a white supremacist murdered six worshippers at a sikh temple in oak creek, wisconsin, officials from the department of justice, Homeland Security, and f. B. I. , even at that time testified about the threat posed by violent domestic extremists. When President Trump was asked and challenged to condemn this violence, he refused. The question is whether the United States senate, now given the same opportunity, will stand as the house of representatives has on a unanimous bipartisan basis to say enough when it comes to domestic terrorism inspired by White Supremacy and rightwing extremists. And let me add, there is nothing in this bill to stop the efforts of those same agencies to police and stop leftwing extremism, all extremism. I have no problems condemning all of it. But were focusing on the one that is the most significant, in the words of the department of justice. And so, madam president , i ask unanimous consent the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of h. R. 5602 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. Further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The presiding officer is there objection . Mr. Johnson madam president . The presiding officer the senator from wisconsin. Mr. Johnson reserving the right to object madam president , i just found out about this bill a couple hours ago. Ive been busy, havent really been able to really research it. And thats part of the problem. With what our democratic colleagues are trying to do here is just quick rush through the United States senate. Maybe this has had the full vetting in the United States house of representatives. But here in the United States senate, it hasnt gone through any Committee Process whatever. Unfortunately, i also have to make the point, because im sure theyre trying to make a political point as opposed to trying to make law today, i have to make the point that i am opposed to all forms of domestic terrorism, including White Supremacists. I think i can speak for all my republican colleagues, i think i speak for every United States senator, we all abhor Domestic Violence and terror, including white president obamaists. Supremacists. I dont have much knowledge about this. Even though i am chairman of one of the committees of jurisdiction that would be subject to this piece of legislation. I know that department was not consulted 0en this piece of legislation. Ive been given notice here that the department of justice does not support this piece of legislation because they say it would seriously impede their ability to work in the domestic terrorism space. So again im not exactly sure why the department of justice did not like this piece of legislation, but suffice it to say, they dont. The department of Homeland Security was not even consulted on this. As chairman of the Homeland Security committee, i dont know anything about this bill. This is not the way to pass a serious piece of legislation dealing with a serious issue. Now, if it is a good piece of legislation, the sponsors should have no problem running it through the normal Committee Jurisdiction process. In this case, apparently this is the Judiciary Committee. But i would think my committee would also have some pretty strong equities in this space, not to mention the fact that ive been working with my Ranking Member on precisely these types of issues. So instead of just trying to make a political point, what ive always tried to do is actually get a result to make law. But that that has to go through the full process. That has not been the case here, so, madam president , i object. The presiding officer objection is heard. Mr. Durbin madam president . The presiding officer yes. Mr. Durbin yes, i am trying to make a political point. It should be a bipartisan political point. It should be republicans and democrats in the senate, as there was a unanimous voice vote in the house of representatives on the same measure. Im sorry my colleague from wisconsin has left. The Senate Version of this bill has been pending for nine months. The house has moved their version of it. It is a timely issue. Why waste a day in making america safer . Why not tell our Law Enforcement agencies now, roll up your sleeves, go to work, find the most Dangerous Things happening in this country and stop them. We know one of them is White Supremacists and their rightwing extremism. The president couldnt find an answer two days ago. Today we get a republican objection to come in as a bipartisan basis, as they did in the house, to address this issue. It is a sad moment. I do believe the senator from wisconsin and many lowers say that they are against and many others will say they are against extreme. They had a chance to prove it. They objected. I yield the floor. Mr. Jones madam president . The presiding officer the senator from alabama. Mr. Jones i am compelled to talk about this process that i just heard about. There is no process, folks. Lets just be candid. This senate is not the deliberative process body that the senator from wisconsin talked about. We dont have that. This bill is pending for nine months, but we dont have a that. This is not the senate that i worked in in 1979 where there was a deliberative attempt. There were debates on the floor, debates in the committee. When someone says whether it is on the floor of the senate or whether it is in the media or wherever else, that there should be a normal process, those processes have been gone a long time now. Weve had only a relatively small number of amendments. Weve had virtually no markups in committees. Those dont exist. A understand this bill has been and this bill has been pending for nine months which would have been more than adequate time for the Homeland Security to look at itment more than enough time for the Judiciary Committee to take a look at this. More than enough time to have a hearing on it. Apparently our colleagues in the house felt it was okay. But this body has gotten to be so dysfunctional that we will not allow a unanimously passed bill thats been pending in the senate of the United States for nine months to be passed, to send a statement. The one thing i might disagree a little bit with senator durbin, for me this is not a political statement. This is a this is a statement about Law Enforcement, increasing the ability of Law Enforcement. It is a statement to protect victims of crime. Thats what this bill is about for me. I have seen it all often in my state and throughout the south. Again, that unbroken string. Thats what i see this bill as. So i dont need lectures about process when i see a senate that does not function, leapflogging substantive legislation simply to ram a Supreme Court nominee through. That hasnt been pending for very long either. This is the kind of thing that the senate needs to be doing and passing, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for not doing it. Hopefully that will change. Thank you, madam president. I yield. Mr. Schumer madam president . The presiding officer the democratic leader. Mr. Schumer now before i get into the subject of this pending vote, i do want to thank my colleagues from illinois and connecticut for their bringing this important topic before the senate. President trumps refusal to condemn violent white supremacist groups in the president ial debate, its been around for several days. Weve hardly heard anything out of most of our colleagues. And no one, no one, no one, is is going to buy the argument that it came too suddenly. White supremacy hasnt come too suddenly. The president s remarks has been utah there for several days. Have been out there for several days. It is the filmsiest of excuses to avoid the overwhelming majority of americans would know he should be condemned. They dont care if youre democrat, republican, liberal being conservative. This is you never know how low President Trump can go. But his refusal to condemn White Supremacy is among the lowest things he has done, and boy oh, boy theres lots of them lined up. Im ashamed at my republican colleagues, for america, for decency, have chosen to block this. Now, on another issue of great importance to america, the nomination of judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court has thrust the issue of health care back into the spotlight. Her confirmation to the highest court in the land could put health care for hundreds of millions of americans at risk. As youd imagine, taking away health care is deeply unpopular with the American People. So it seems the strategy from the republican majority is to invent some new distraction of fresh outrage to talk about. My colleagues on the other side would rather talk about anything besides the fact that their president , their party, and their Supreme Court nominee poses a dire threat to Americans Health care. Today, the outrage from the republican leader was directed once again at the idea that democrats would attack the nominees religious beliefs. But, of course, in their zeal to manufacture this issue, republican senators began telegraphing this line of attack even before a nominee had been named. One republican senator wrote me a letter to warn against anticatholic attacks that happened yet against a nominee who hadnt been named. Thats how transparent this republican diversion, ruse is. It appears that the republican majority will crank up the outrage machine to any level of absurdity to avoid talking about Americas Health care reform, the Health Care Reform health care, the health care so Many Americans desperately want and need. In fact, all week the republican leader has mocked the idea that a farright Supreme Court majority might strike down the Affordable Care act and that judge barrett might play a decisive role. Of course, President Trump nominated promised to nominate Supreme Court justices who would terminate the Affordable Care act, and he picked judge barrett. Thats the president s words. Hes only going to pick justices that would terminate the Affordable Care act. And its no mystery why he picked judge barrett. In both major cases brought before the a. C. A. Sorry, in both major cases brought against the a. C. A. , judge barrett twice sided against the law. She publicly criticized Justice Roberts for upholding the law and said that if the Supreme Court read the statute the way she does, they would have to, quote, invalidate it. President trump, terminate it. Judge barrett, invalidate it. Guess what . President trump and republican attorneys general are in court right now suing to do just that, invalidate our Health Care Law in a case that will be heard one week one week after the election. The threat to Americans Health care is very, very real. And Senate Republicans are tying themselves in knots in trying to explain how its not. Leader mcconnell from the floor of the senate called it a joke a joke that judge barrett and a farright majority of the court might vote to take away health care or turn back the clock on womens rights. Maybe he didnt get that message around to his conference because the republican senator from utah only a few days earlier claimed that the Affordable Care act was unconstitutional. And that striking it down shouldnt tarnish judge barrett, if thats what she chooses to do. Another republican senator said he wanted to see evidence that the nominee understood that roe was wrongly decided, that roe was an act of judicial imperialism. And i do believe Amy Coney Barretts record bears that out. Thats his quote. The junior senator from missouri expressed confidence that roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. On the Supreme Court, Justice Barrett could enforce that view. So which is it, republican leader . Is it absurd to think that judge barrett might strike down the Affordable Care act or superit a good thing that or is it a good thing that shouldnt tarnish her reputation . Is it a jo he can that judge barrett could curtail womens fundamental rights or are Republican Leaders relieved to think that so that thinks roe v. Wade is judicial imperialism . Americans are starting to get pretty sick of these double standards and mealy mouth talking points. Pretty sick of politicians who just four years ago declared they couldnt possibly confirm a democratic nominee to the Supreme Court in the early months of an Election Year but are now rushing to confirm a republican nominee in the middle of an election thats already under way. And, most of all, pretty sick of republicans claiming that they support protections for americans with preexisting conditions while at the same time supporting a lawsuit that would eliminate them. Well, were about to put a few of these Senate Republicans on the record. Soon the senate will vote on a bill that, if passed, would protect the health care of hundreds of millions of americans and prevent efforts by the department of justice to advocate that courts strike down the Affordable Care act. I was able to move this measure to the floor, despite the fact that republicans didnt want it, and now well have a vote. Will republican senators vote to stop President Trumps Justice Department from spending taxpayer dollars trying to eliminate the taxpayers health care . We will see very shortly. If senators truly want to support protections for americans with preexisting conditions, theyd rote to damage President Trumps theyd vote to damage President Trumps effort to damage them. Its as simple as that. Yes or no. I ask unanimous consent i be given a chance to finish my remarks in the next few minutes. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Schumer thank you, madam president. Its as simple as that. Are they with the people who want protection or not . Are they standing with President Trump who wants to destroy it . It is that simple. Because if the president if President Trump and the republican lawsuit is successful, every single american stands to lose Vital Health Care protections or access to care. Millions of americans would see drug costs skyrocket. Tens of millions of families would Lose Health Care coverage during the worst Health Crisis in a century. More than 130 million americans with preexisting conditions would lose vital protections, including every american who contacted who contracted covid. Which would be treated as a preexisting condition. Women would see their country hurdle backward at a time when they could be charged more than men for insurance simply because they were women. This vote, which i was fortunate enough to obtain, will show america which party stands with protecting Americans Health care and protections for preexisting conditions and which Party Opposes it. Its plain and simple. Are you with leader mcconnell who wants to rip away peoples protections . Are you with President Trump who wants to ruin our American Health care by eliminating a. C. A. . Or are you with the American People who desperately need these protections . Are you with the mother or father whose son or daughter has cancer and the Insurance Company says youre not getting any insurance or youre going to require that company to give them the insurance that family so desperately needs. The eyes of america are on this body and on republican senators right now. Whose side are you on . President trumps or the American People who Want Health Care . I yield the floor. I notice the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call mr. Johnson mr. President , i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Johnson mr. President , i ask that the mandatory quorum call be waived. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. The clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. The clerk the presiding officer morning business is closed. Under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. The clerk nomination, Michael Jay Newman of ohio to be United States district judge for the Southern District of ohio. The presiding officer the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. The clerk cloture motion. We, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 551, s. 4653, a bill to protect health care of millions of people and so forth, signed by 19 senators. The presiding officer the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of michael j. Newman of ohio to be United States District Court for the Southern District of ohio shall be brought to a close. The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The the presiding officer the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the motion to proceed to s. 4653, a bill to protect the health care of hundreds of millions of people of the United States and prevent efforts of the department of justice to advocate courts to strike down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act shall be brought to a close. The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote vote the presiding officer on 0 this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are 43. Threefifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. The senator for louisiana. Mr. Kennedy mr. President , i want to talk just for a few moments about the internet and social media, and i want to make it clear first that i believe in firmly in free will and responsibility. I believe that no matter what kind of day youre having or whats going on in your life, that youre responsible for your actions. But i think we all know, as a matter of experience and common sense, that there are things in this world that can influence our actions. Social media, which i consider to be an american invention, has many virtues and many advantages, and we know them. I think it has brought the world closer today. I think its given many people a voice. I think its an extraordinary source of knowledge. But, like other an intimations in this world, it has a down side. And one of those down sides is the fact that too often social media becomes an endless electronic brawl. And rather than bringing us together and exposing us to other points of view and causing us to test our assumptions against the arguments of others, it brings us apart. And i think social media is, in part, responsible for that. We all know that many social media platforms are free. Lets take facebook, for example. Facebook is a free service. You open an account, you go on facebook, you can find out what your High School Friends had for dinner saturday night. Now, we give up a lot for that privilege of watching what our High School Friends had for dinner saturday night. Facebook collects an enormous amount of information about it. Im not picking on facebook. Im picking an example. It is a popular that a lot of us use it. Facebook uses it to make money. They know a lot of stuff about it from collecting information about us so they can sell us or they can sell advertisers ads and they can tailor those ads to the individuals who are on facebook according to the information that the social media platform in this case, facebook has about them. And you can even sell more ads, mr. President , if you can keep people who are on facebook coming back and coming back and coming back. So this is what happens. And some see this as a virtue. Some see it as a vice. A social media platform like facebook gathers an enormous amount of information about us, and they learn in intricate detail what motivates us, what our interests are. Another way of saying that would be, they learn what our hot buttons are. And they continually show us whats the word im looking for . Advertisements, information, postings from other people on facebook that reinforce our beliefs, and in some cases they show us very radical bits of information that really push our hot buttons. Now, why would they do that . Well, number one, itll keep us coming back to facebook, and itll keep us on facebook longer, which means that advertisers like us better because were seeing their ads, and it means that facebook can sell more ads at a higher price. Im not criticizing them. Thats just the way business works. But the down side of it is that we only see one point of view. Our point of view is reaffirmed. We never see other points of view. Were never encouraged to question our assumptions or to test our assumptions against the arguments of others. Now, how does facebook do this . And, again, i dont mean just to pick on facebook, but its an example were all aware of. They use algorithms. Im not going to try to explain algorithms. But that is how they show us information that puts pushes our hot buttons. The social media platforms contend that theyre not involved in content, that theyre just publishers. And so when somebody pushes your face your hot button and you get angry and you Say Something that you probably shouldnt say, thats why facebook has turned into an endless electronic brawl, facebook says, hey, its not our fault. Were just a publisher. Thats why under the law, facebook enjoys what we call section 230 liability. But as long as these algorithms are used to push our hot buttons, to reaffirm our points of view, to not show us other points of view, one point of view is that facebook and other social media platforms are not just publishers. They are they are clearly content providers and they are having an impact on on our behavior. So my bill is very is very simple, mr. President. It just says that if you are a social media platform and you use algorithms to push our based on the information the social Media Provider has collected about us, if you use that information to push our hot buttons by continuously showing us information that just reaffirms our point of view, without showing us other points of view, thats fine. Thats perfectly legal. Thats your business model. But in return, you are no longer going to enjoy section 230 liability. This would not limit section 230 liability in a pervasive manner, but it will say if you are going to use algorithms to push your hot buttons and keep other points of view away from us and monitor that has that practice, then you shouldnt enjoy section 230 liability, and thats all my bill does. For that reason, mr. President , mr. President , for that reason, mr. President , as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent the committee on commerce be discharged from further consideration of s. 4756, which is my dont push my buttons act to which i just referred, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, and i further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all in the vain vein of we have talked now for years about section 230 liability, and i think we ought to actually try to do something about it. The presiding officer is there objection . Mr. Wyden reserving the right to object. The presiding officer the senator for oregon. Mr. Wyden mr. President , this bill is a privacy bill. It appears to have been introduced two days ago, and the sponsor has arrived on the floor of the senate and says that his bill ought to be passed immediately and without debate. Now, my guess is that a small circle of beltway insiders have been notified, but i just want the senators to know that passing this bill this way would just make a mockery of the proposition that we ought to have open public debate on significant laws. Were dealing with a rush job here, and i will just tell you, based on what we have picked up, the legislation certainly leaves more questions than answers. First, who does the senator intend to target with the bill . On first read, it could apply to anybody from glassdoor to spotify to cloudfare, from my neighbors blog to higher media outlets. At a higher level, if my colleague wants to protect americans data from collection and abuse, this bill certainly doesnt do that. On the contrary, his legislation would push the platforms to simply force users to consent to their data being collected and used as a condition of using their service. Thats already being done now, and this bill wouldnt change a thing for americans privacy. And very significantly, mr. President , our reading is the kennedy bill only requires consent if user data is both collected and used by the same company, and it has a massive loophole for data brokers and other shady middlemen who are already compiling dossiers of american Sensitive Data and selling it to just about anybody with a credit card. And for the last several years, mr. President , i have been blowing the whistle on these data brokers, these shady middlemen. We have investigated sector after sector where were seeing these people who really adhere from the sleaziest business practices, engaging in these tactics where they can get their hands on americans Sensitive Data and basically just sell it to anybody with a credit card. And i guarantee there is not a senator in this body whos going to go home this weekend and tell their senator, gee, i want these data brokers and these middlemen to be able to sell my Sensitive Data to hither and yon for whatever nefarious purpose somebody might want to buy it for. The facebooks, googles, and twitters of the world have all the resources to pay these guys to outsource their Data Collection and defund. Yet again, as i have said for some time, its the startups and the little guys who are going to be left behind. I have been working on these issues since i came to the senate, and the only person here really, mr. President , who knew how to use a computer is the wonderful senator from vermont, senator leahy. And so as we began to write these formative laws, i said my interest is the startup and the little guy, because the big guys always do great. Its why when we were on the floor talking about a change to 230 before, who sold out the little guys . Facebook. And all that happened was the bad guys went off to the dark web. So this is another bill for the facebooks and the googles. They all have the resources to pay the guys to outsource the Data Collection, as i have been talking about, and the little guy is going to be left behind. This bill does not require consent to collect your data. It doesnt require consent to use it and follow you around the internet. It wouldnt stop Chinese Companies from harvesting american data and selling it to the chinese government. Now, if the senator from louisiana wants to protect americans Sensitive Data, i have got a bill for doing that. Ive got comprehensive privacy legislation. Its called the mind your own business act. We have been soliciting input on it for literally years. It is the toughest bill in terms of holding the executives actually accountable, say, for example, if they lie about their privacy policies. An executive at one of the Major Companies is generating billions in revenues, lies about their privacy policy. The mind your own business act is the one thats toughest in terms of protecting the consumer. It sets tough privacy and cybersecurity standards for companies that collect americans praift data, gives the federal trade Commission Also more authority to issue serious fines, and its backed up with the strongest enforcement provisions on offer if a c. E. O. Lies to the government. So its not as if you cant write privacy proposals. It certainly can be done. Others have ideas on how to do it. Based on everything i have read and particularly this provision thats going to be a holiday for data brokers and shady middlemen to be able to get people peoples sensitive peoples Sensitive Data, for all of the reasons and frankly others that are too numerous to mention, mr. President , i object. The presiding officer objection is heard. A senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator for massachusetts. Mr. Markey mr. President , i rise on behalf of the first responds in our country. Every day men and women on the front lines in the covid pandemic rely on tband, a spectrum which makes it possible for them to communicate with each other. Tband is the radio frequency set aside for Public Safety officials so that they can talk to each other to keep all of us safe, all of us healthy. In 11 metropolitan areas, the tband system enables our courageous Public Safety personnel to work quickly and effectively during lifeanddeath situations. Teband allows emergency medical teams allows them to relay information about medical conditions. It allows them to respond to emergency scenes. Firefighters use tband to quickly coordinate strategy. And after the boston bombing, after the marathon bombing, First Responders used tband to communicate with each other during the ensuing manhunt. This resource is nothing short of a life saver. Tband really stands for trusted band. It is the resource Public Safety can rely upon. Mr. Markey unfortunately, the middleclass tax relief and job creation act of 2012 required the federal Communications Commission to begin to auction off the tband, the trusted band, by february of 2021. But it would cost between 5 billion and 6 billion for First Responders, police and fire, to relocate from the tband. Thats much more money than an auction of that spectrum would ever generate. Plus, for many First Responders, there is simply no alternative to the tband. This is their only option. Thats why this body must pass the dont break up the tband act which repeals the requirement that Public Safety stop using this spectrum. The heroes who jump into action when we need them shouldnt have to scramble to figure out how they will communicate with each other. They shouldnt be left in limbo. My legislation has support from an inspiring coalition of advocates and Public Safety groups, the International Association of fire chiefs, the International Association of chiefs of police, National Sheriffs association, the National League of cities, the u. S. Conference of mayors, the National Association of counties, the association of Public Safety communications official, the national Public Safety telecommunications council, and many others are demanding that we preserve the tband. These groups and the people they represent are not asking for a favor. Theyre just asking to be allowed to do their jobs effectively. I thank leader schumer for his partnership on this issue and his longstanding commitment to the Public Safety community. And i also want to thank Ranking Member cantwell and Ranking Member schatz for their work and dedication to this effort. But dont just take our word for it. Listen to what the current republican chairman of the federal Communications Commission recently said about tbands. Earlier this year chairman ajit pai stated, quote, an f. C. C. Auction of the tband is a bad idea. This is not a partisan issue. It is a Public Safety imperative. There is no cost associated with stopping the tband auction, and Congress Must ensure that the people who step up to keep us safe are taken care of. If we fail to act, the f. C. C. Will have no choice but to move forward and strip this resource from our First Responders. To allow that to happen during a public Health Crisis like the one we face today would be reckless. First responders already face enormous strain economically, enormous pressure to address the pandemic as well as deadly natural disasters across the country. The last thing we should be doing is saddling them with millions or billions of dollars in costs to needlessly alter their critical communication system. Congress can no longer drag its feet. We have run out of time. The f. C. C. Has called on this body to stop the tband auction, but the commission has no choice but to start laying the groundwork to start auctioning the tband. We can and retiree must resolve and we must resolve this problem today. Today is the day to do it. Mr. President , as if as if in le session session i ask unanimous consent the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of h. R. 451 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The presiding officer is there objection . Mr. Barrasso mr. President. The presiding officer the senator for wyoming. Mr. Barrasso thank you, mr. President. Reserve the right to object, im here today to object to this unanimous consent on behalf of the junior senator from texas, senator cruz. As the senator from massachusetts knows, senator cruz is also deeply interested in this issue. Both senators have complementary pieces of language. They have had the language in their legislation agreed to unanimously by both the majority and the minority of the Commerce Committee. So id ask the senator from massachusetts to reach out to the senator from texas. And i understand hes fully willing to work with the senator from massachusetts on amending the house bill to ensure that it passes the senate with a cruz amendment that would not be objectionable to supporters of this bill. As a result, mr. President , i object. The presiding officer objection is heard. Mr. Markey mr. President , i just think that were missing an enormous opportunity here. Its a shame the senate is not acting with the urgency which it needs in order to help our brave men and women who are First Responders in our country. We can work on issues of spectrum going to the private sector. We can do that in a separate bill, and we can do it together. But here we have an opportunity to help our First Responders, the brave men and women who every day risk their lives, and we have to make sure they have the spectrum they need to communicate. With that, mr. President , i yield back. And, mr. President , i doubt the presence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call quorum call a senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator for nebraska. Mrs. Fischer thank you, mr. President. Less than two weeks ago, this country the presiding officer the senate is in a quorum call. Mrs. Fischer my apologies. I ask that the quorum call be vitiated, please. The presiding officer without objection. Mrs. Fischer mr. President , less than two weeks ago, this country lost one of its most brilliant legal minds, Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg. Her passing has left a void that can be felt all across our nation, from nebraska to washington. Sadly, nebraska recently lost another great jurist, judge laurie smithcamp. Judge smithcamp was the first woman to serve my state as a federal judge, a position she had held since 2001. This body voted 1000 to confirm her just six weeks after president george w. Bush nominated her. That doesnt happen very often anymore. And her unanimous approval was a testament to her incredible talent. Judge smithcamp grew up in omaha, but she left nebraska to attend college at stanford university. She graduated with distinction. I am glad to say that she came back home to attend the university of nebraska law school where she distinguished herself again as editor in chief of the nebraska law review. Before becoming a federal judge, she served her state through a series of jobs that spanned the Legal Profession. She began her career in private practice, but soon moved on to become general counsel for the Nebraska Department of correctional services. The head of the Nebraska Attorney general civil rights section and then the chief Deputy Attorney general for criminal matters for the Nebraska Attorney general. These wideranging experiences were part of what made her an exceptional federal judge. Another part was her love for the law and the compassion that flowed from it. She was well known for her dedication to equal treatment for all, regardless of background and for a sentencing philosophy that preferred rehabilitation to punishment. She also understood that success isnt just about achieving your professional goals. She was profoundly generous with her time, and when she wasnt leading nebraskas District Court, she could be found promoting womens participation in the Legal Profession or mentoring young Nebraska Attorneys. This was in addition to recently being elected president of the omaha bar association, a job that she had held since june. Mr. President , laurie was also my friend. She spoke at an event i held in 2016 called bridging the gap, which is aimed to encourage women to engage in their communities at the local, state, and federal level. I am lucky to have known her personally, and to have seen up close the wise advice and the quick wit that made her famous among her colleagues and those she men toward. Through her example, she inspired a generation of young women in nebraska and beyond to pursue careers as importance, advocates, and community leaders, just as Justice Ginsburg did. Both of these extraordinary women blazed a trail that todays young women and girls can follow. I join with both their families in mourning their passing and celebrating their lives. Thank you, mr. President. I yield the floor. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call a senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator for nevada. I ask that the quorum be vitiated. The presiding officer without objection. Ms. Cortez masto mr. President , immediately after a tragedy, we wake up and feel the full force of it again. The shock, the sorrow, and anger can hit us so strongly, its hard to breathe, and that is the first part of mourning. Eventually, the darkest times in our lives start to feel more familiar. They still hurt as much as ever, but they dont surprise us, and they become part of us. Three years ago tonight, bullets split the air at the route 91 harvest Music Festival in my hometown of las vegas, nevada. They sounded like fireworks, like a celebration, but these were the first shots in the worst mass shooting in modern American History. Within minutes, those present at the outdoor festival understood at least some of what was happening. A gunman high up in a hotel room had taken aim at the people below. Hundreds of people were shot and hundreds more wounded trying to get to safety. 58 people lost their lives that night, and two more have passed from grievous wounds since. Within minutes, nevadans began working together to save lives and help those in need. From those with years of training as First Responders to bystanders whose only qualification to help was a car at the ready, las vegans pulled together. Nurses and doctors rushed to hospitals. Ordinary nevadans stood in line to give blood. Individuals and corporations donated their time and energy as well as blankets and food and other support. And in the three years since, many all over the state of nevada have worked to mark what happened through memorial crosses, sculpture, a commemorative community center, and many scholarships honoring the memory of those who lost their lives. Those three years have not erased the loss of the victims, the pain of the survivors, or the scars of the First Responders who rushed into danger to save lives. If anything, the legacy of the route 91 shooting has expanded during that time, not contracted. Like ripples on a pond, the impacts of the shooting linger. It affects different people in different ways. For many, fireworks on the 4th of july are a reminder of what they went through that day. Gina morano has learned to prepare herself for Independence Day and new years eve, but if a car backfires unexpectedly, she has to start the process of reminding herself youre safe, its okay. Her sister marissa, who was also at the festival with her, says that her own daughter has picked up the habit of reacting to loud nerves. She said it breaks my heart because my trauma has passed to her. The fear resurfaces for these sisters in so many situations. On anniversaries, including all the shootings since then. At high schools where gina was doing outreach to students and feared that she was putting herself at risk of another shooting, passing the strip, early empty during the pandemic like it was on the days after the festival. Anywhere where there is darkness and music, even on an evening out. And the morano sisters are not alone. While the tragedy of the route 91 shooting may be years behind us, for many survivors, a moment can bring it all roaring back. This is one of the reasons im so committed to getting more funding and support for Mental Health and Substance Abuse treatment in this country. Just because you cant see many of the scars from the route 91 festival, it doesnt mean they are not there, and thats true for Mental Health in general. So Many Americans deal on a daily basis with challenges that even their closest loved ones can struggle to understand. Many First Responders, for instance, carry the trauma they see at scenes of crime, disaster, and tragedy with them. I introduced legislation to provide confidentiality to federal Law Enforcement who used peer Counseling Services and to track Law Enforcement suicide in order to develop more effective prevention programs for our First Responders. For everyone struggling with Mental Health concerns, peer support can be key, which is why i have introduced the virtual peer support act to help these key Behavioral Health programs move online to meet Huge Community needs during this pandemic because it really does take a community of support to help people through tough times. Treating the wounds, visible and invisible from the route 91 Harvest Festival shooting is only one part of what we owe to survivors. The other part is to take more action at the federal level to prevent attacks like this in the first place, to reduce the gun violence that we have become far too accustomed to. Overwhelming majorities of americans want common sense gun reform, including many responsible gun owners like those in my own family. We can do this here in congress, nevada has done it. At the state level, we banned the bump stocks used in the route 91 shooting. We have closed a loophole that lets private sellers sell guns without background checks. We can and should do all of these things at the federal level. I have pushed for all of these things during my time here in the senate because no family should have to go through what i saw that monday night at the Reunification Center in las vegas when families were waiting to hear what happened to their loved ones the night before at that concert. No one should have to struggle for years with chronic pain, physical or mental, when we can take sensible measures to prevent it. To all of the families i met who have been touched by this tragedy and for the hundreds more that i have spoken with, i want you to know that nevadans havent forgotten you. We are all still vegas strong. We are all still here with you. Were still working together to get you what you need in the wake of a tragedy whose impact has not faded over time. Its just changed and shifted. So tonight at home, let us all remember those who felt the impact of the route 91 shooting from survivors to families to firefighters, nurses, and volunteers. Let us move toward an america that protects its communities from violence and that helps those who live through it heal. Thank you, mr. President. I yield the floor. A senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator for nevada. Ms. Rosen mr. President , three years ago on this very date in my hometown of las vegas, a gun man opened fire from the 32nd floor of the hotel to the unsuspecting crowd below. This lasted just over ten minutes, but in that brief period of time 15 innocent lives were taken and over 400 were injured. It was the worst mass shooting in American History. I stand here today to recognize the third anniversary of this act of terror. I want to speak today about how that one october shooting changed nevada. This mass shooting altered the lives of countless families in las vegas, nevada, and across the country forever. Many of that nights victims are still dealing with the injuries visible and not visible. Many are still grieving and working through the effects of this devastating trauma. All of them have suffered through a pain that no family, no friend, no spouse, no child should ever, ever have to endure. In the three years since the shooting, two more victims have passed away due to injuries they sustained that night. One in 2019 and one earlier this year, bringing the number of lives lost up to 60. 60 sons, daughters, parents, friends, neighbors, people who are loved, people who are part of our community, people who were taken from us far too soon. 60 families that will forever have an empty chair at their thanksgiving table. Amid the violence and terror, there were also heroes who made the choice to run towards danger and help others, like the courageous First Responders who risked their lives to provide aid and the every day citizens who helped others to escape in their cars. Mr. President , nevada remembers one october because it showed us the darkest side of humanity, but in the aftermath, it showed us the brightest and best of who we are. Today we commemorate we commemorate the 60 lives that were lost. Today we recognize we recognize those who are injured and still struggling. Today we celebrate. We celebrate the heroism of our community, not just in the immediate aftermath of that attack, but in the days, weeks, months, and years since many we saw heroes spring into action that night and following days to save lives. And in the following days we saw so many members of our community display heroism. Our community lined up to donate blood, they helped to reunite families and helped to support victims and their families. The phrase vegas strong came into being after that time, and let me assure you, it is a phrase that could not be more true. The strength of our city is simply astounding. We work to build ourselves back up side by side, arm in arm. Its taken time. It hasnt been easy and even now, though we are still not all the way there, but every day the people of las vegas, they show unparalleled resilience and nevadans carry that resilience with them. They carry it in every challenge and in every crisis that we face. I stand here today to honor the men and women who lost their lives on october 1, those injured in the attack, and the heroes who helped to bring our city back. I also call on congress to show the same kind of strength that the people of las vegas has shown. Our nation currently faces many challenges, however my colleagues must recognize the threat that gun violence poses to our comiewrnts and communities and we must honor the memory of those lost. We must take commonsense action to reduce gun violence and ensure that more lives arent lost. And as a legislative body, we must act. The bipartisan background checks act, a bill passed by the house 582 days ago, has been waiting for a vote here in the senate. Today i request in honor of the memories of the lives that are lost, i urge the senate to bring this bill, this important bill, for a vote. Thank you, i yield back my time. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call mr. Cornyn mr. President. The presiding officer the senator for texas. Mr. Cornyn mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Cornyn i have a request for three committees to meet during todays session of the senate. Approved by both the minority and majority leaders. The presiding officer duly noted. Mr. Cornyn i had the pleasure of remeeting judge Amy Coney Barrett who has been nominated to the Supreme Court due to the vacancy left by ruth bader ginsburg. Over the last few days, judge barretts nomination has been applauded by people across the political spectrum, and for good reason. Her background in practicing law and academia and on the federal bench has provided her with an unquestionable knowledge of the law. Much of the praise has come from her colleagues who worked closely with her over the years. Marcus cole, where she teaches said, judge barrett is a brilliant legal scholar and jurist and shes one of the most popular teachers weve ever here at notre dame law school. A group of her former students published a piece that said, while we hold a variety of views regarding how best to interpret statutes in the constitution, we all agree on this, the nation could not ask for a more qualified candidate than the professor we have come to know and revere. Weve also seen support for judge barrett from unlikely sources. A clerk of judge barrett at the Supreme Court more than 20 years ago, he was also a prominent witness for democrats during the impeachment process earlier this year. But hes written an opinion piece titled, Amy Coney Barrett deserves to be on the Supreme Court. He wrote that he knows her to be a brilliant and conscious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases of good faith, applying the jurist prudential principles which she is committed. Barrett meets and exceeds them. So there is really no question that judge barrett has a brilliant legal mind and deep respect for the constitution and an unwavering commitment to the law. But those qualities alone are not what set this exceptional judge apart. Both republicans and democrats who worked with judge barrett throughout her career have spoken about her personal qualities like humility, integrity, and these make her an ideal candidate for this influential position. A group of her former students wrote about the kindness that she has shown to them, both in the classroom and during meals they shared at her home. They said her genuine interest in the personal lives of her students outside the classroom and the seamless way that shes modeled for all of us the integration of her professional and family life reinforces that there is more to life than pursuit of professional accolades. Well, shes certainly proven that to be the case. In addition to rising to the very top of her field, judge barrett is a mother of seven children ranging from the age of eight to 19. Following her nomination on saturday, judge barrett credited her familys ability to balance her and her husbands successful career to the needs of her children to the unwavering support of her husband jesse, who is also an accomplished attorney. In every respect judge barrett is an inspiring role model for young people. I can say as the father of two daughters, of young women in particular, who are pursuing their professional and personal ambitions with equal vigor. If confirmed, Justice Barrett judge barrett, soon to be Justice Barrett, will become the first mother of schoolaged children to serve as a justice and only the fifth woman throughout American History to serve on the United States Supreme Court. Considering the woman whose seat she will fill if confirmed, the significance of that fact cannot be overstated. She would be the only current justice with a degree from a law school other than harvard or yale and bring muchneeded occasional diversity to the bench. Ive always thought it bizarre among all the highly qualified lawyers and judges in america, for some reason its overly populated with people educated in the northeast on the coast. Well, on top of that she would join Justice Thomas as the only justice born in the south and bring another perspective to the court whose members largely hail from the cost. If confirmed, judge barrett would bring an underrepresented view to the Supreme Court. I though we would all be proud to have somebody like her, a person of such strong character serving our nation in this very important capacity. I want to commend President Trump for selecting this outstanding nominee and i was glad to spend some time with her yesterday. She has an unquestionable character, a brilliant mind and the kind of temperament to serve on the Supreme Court. Im eager for the American People to see that for themselves as we begin the public confirmation process. As we know this is the second time judge barrett appeared before the Judiciary Committee in the last few years. It was three years ago where the committee and the Senate Confirmed her to her current position on the seventh Circuit Court of appeals. However there are some warning flags, mr. President. During her confirmation hearing back then, three years ago, democrats on the committee raised questions over judge barretts strong catholic faith and questioned whether it would somehow disqualify her or impair her ability to discharge her responsibilities. One senator went so far as to say the dogma lives loudly within you and thats of concern. Another, ask her whether she was an orthodox catholic. Well, this statement and that insinuation were discriminatory at best and unconstitutional at worst. The constitution itself includes that there is no religious test. Article 6 says no religious test should ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. Mr. President , this is not the first time somebody has been targeted for their catholic faith. I was reminded of the speech that John Fitzgerald kennedy gave in 1960 in houston, texas, to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association addressing some of the explicit and implicit arguments that somehow he would be beholden to the vatican rather than be able to discharge his responsibilities as president of the United States. He pointed out as a catholic that that was not the only concern because if people would do that to a catholic, why not do it to a baptist or a muslim or a jew. He said for a why this year it may be a catholic whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been and may some day again be a jew or a quaker or a unitarian or a baptist. In fact, it was virginias harassment of baptists that helped lead to jeffersons statute of religious freedom. He said tomorrow excuse me today i may be the victim but tomorrow it may be you until the whole fabric of our Harmonious Society is ripped at a time of Great National peril. He made the important point, it seems so obvious that he shouldnt have had to make it. He said, im not the catholic candidate for president. I am the democrat partys candidate for president who happens to be catholic. Finally, said, but if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then the whole nation will be the loser in the eyes of catholics and noncatholics around the word, in the eyes of history and in the eyes of our own people. Mr. President , throughout her career, judge barrett has impressed the brightest legal minds with her deep understanding of the law and commitment to judicial independence. She made clear at her hearing three years ago that she would be loyal to her oath, and that is to uphold and defend the constitution and laws of the United States. Its clear under the appropriate cannons of judicial ethics if for some reason a judge cant apply the law because of some personal opinion or conviction, that they need to disqualify themselves. President kennedy said, if it violates your conscience and your faith and you cant reconcile the two, you should resign. Well, theres just no legitimate reason to question whether judge barretts religious beliefs would make her unfit to serve on the Supreme Court. And i hope our colleagues on the other side will refrain from once again imposing a religious test on judge barrett as we consider her nomination. Mr. President , on another matter, with the school year well under way, i like im sure many of our colleagues are continuing to listen and learn from our teachers and administrators about how this Unprecedented School year is unfolding. Whether its kicking off the year in person or online or with some hybrid model, educators are facing a whole new range of challenges that have made the past several weeks anything but ordinary. Over august i spent some time talking to kindergarten through 12th grade teachers and students to learn how they were anticipating, how they were preparing toll overcome the hurdles brought on by this pandemic. I also visited our colleges and universities to see how they were handling the start of the new year and since then ive stayed in close contact with all of them to learn more about how it is proceeding. On college campuses, for example, in most cases theyre home to more than just classrooms and libraries. They are whole communities on to themselves. Student housing, offices, dining facilities, gyms, convenient stores, and in some cases ful fullservice utility companies. Lee tyner who serves as general counsel for Texas Christian University in fort worth testified before the Judiciary Committee earlier this year and compared running a campus to leading a small city. You have a vast set of responsibilities that extend far beyond the education youre providing to your students, and those responsibilities have grown only more challenging during the pandemic. Back in july i spoke with some of the chancellors of our public colleges and universities to learn more about how they were preparing to deal with the immense challenges that Higher Education was facing. And last friday i was able to catch up and see how things had gone, whether theyd gone according to plan or whether they encountered problems they had not been able to anticipate. I learned about the university of texas systems comprehensive plans to keep children excuse me students and staff safe at each of their campuses across the state which involves serious testing infrastructure. Four institutions have built labs on their own campuses to conduct the testing thats necessary, and each has the capacity to test between 500 and 2,000 people each day. Other campuses are partnering with the u. T. Health Science Center institutions for their own testing. And these are providing a nocost, no outofpocket cost testing opportunity for student, faculty, and staff. The university of north texas system has reopened campuses with a mix of in person, online, and hybrid instruction, and its been very effective at stopping the transmission of the virus. If a student or any close relative tests positive, there are clear guidelines for isolating and then Contact Tracing to minimize the spread. When i spoke last week with the chancellors, u. N. T. Had only 27 active cases on campus and has seen no evidence of covid19 transmission in the classrooms or buildings where they conduct facetoface activities. This is the trend in most campuses that we are seeing. There is a low to zero transmission rate in classrooms thanks to these preparations and these precautions. And the biggest risk to students, staff, and the surrounding communities actually comes from offcampus activities or people who bring it on to the campus who are not part of that student body or administration. In texas and states across the country, weve seen news articles about how offcampus parties and gatherings have been linked to clusters of these new cases. Appropriately, the universities have cracked down on these campus groups or individuals hosting those events and are trying to do what they can to identify them and then stop the spread. John sharp who is the chancellor of the texas a M University System said he talked about one unconventional way that a m is trying to pinpoint potential outbreaks as soon as possible. A m has adopted the practice of wastewater surveillance which has been used for years as a way to detect viruses or diseases within a community. Now its being used to find the source of individual covid19 cases or clusters of cases in student housing, particularly dormitories. The University Takes wastewater samples from Sewage Systems on campus and a positive test allows them to then go back and car get individuals target individuals for testing. Obviously, if theres no virus detected, they know theres no need for that additional testing, at least at that time. This practice can help detect an outbreak in a dorm that could otherwise go unnoticed for several days and thus be spread far and wide. Our colleges and universities across the state have gone to Great Lengths to manage the crisis that did not come with a man. Theyve implemented the best practices to protect the health and safety of students and Staff Members and ensure that their students have access to a quality education, which is the very purpose for which they exist. In our conversation last week, the chancellors told me how helpful cares act funding had been over the last several months and reiterated that they need more help. They need congress to come together and provide more help. And its not just colleges and universities. Its also our elementary, middle, and high schools. Congress has already provided more than 30 billion in emergency relief for education, including 2. 6 billion in texas alone. This funding has gone a long way to prepare for this school year and allow these leaders to manage the risks associated with the spread of the virus. Well, they say they need more help. And its incredibly frustrating that despite this being a bipartisan goal, something we were able to do together in four separate bills now weve been unable to pass another relief bill to give our schools and our children the resources they need in order to be safe. You would think this would be a priority. Well, the two house proposals weve seen, one of which passed the house earlier this year and the other which was introduced last week did include additional funding for education. And a bill we proposed over the summer included another 105 billion for education, more than tripling the investment already made in the cares act. History has proven that legislation gets harder to do the closer we get to an election and perhaps nothing is better evidence of that than where we find ourselves today. But the need for additional help should transcend those partisan differences. I spoke to secretary mnuchin less than an hour ago and he continues talking to speaker pelosi. But you know, at some point while talking is good, its better than not talking, sometimes its important not just to talk but to actually do something. And in this case that would mean the house and the Senate Working with the president to agree on another bill. So i hope were at a point where we can see some relief soon. Im thinking about the Airline Industry and the tens of thousands of airline employees whole have been furloughed. Actually starting today. American airlines and Southwest Airlines are headquartered in my state. And i know that through no fault of their own, the airlines are struggling. Weve tried to help them. We have helped them. But we need to help the airline employees by providing them more assistance during this challenging time. And we could do that if we would get off of dead center and work out some mutually agreeable compromise. Nobody is going to get everything they want. Its not the nature of life or the nature of this business. But the American People are depending on us to do our jobs, and we cannot let them down. Mr. President , i yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. The presiding officer the clerk will call the roll. Quorum call . Quorum call is quorum call quorum call is quorum call quorum call quorum call mr. Mcconnell mr. President. The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell i ask that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. Res. 742 submitted earlier today. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk Senate Resolution 742, designating september 2020 as National Childhood Cancer Awareness month. The presiding officer is there objection to proceeding to the measure . Without objection, the senate will proceed. Mr. Mcconnell i know of no further debate on the measure. The presiding officer is there further debate . If not, all in favor say aye. All those opposed no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The resolution is agreed to. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. Res. 743 submitted earlier today. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk Senate Resolution 743, supporting the goals and ideals of National Retirement security month, and so forth. The presiding officer is there objection to proceeding to the measure . Without objection, the senate will proceed. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the committee on commerce be discharged from further consideration of s. 4462 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk s. 4462, a bill to establish a National Integrated flood information system, and so forth and for other purposes. The presiding officer is there objection to proceeding to the measure . If not, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent that the wicker substitute amendment at the desk be agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of h. R. 2359 which was received from the house. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk h. R. 2359, an act to direct the secretary of Veterans Affairs to submit to congress a report, and so forth. The presiding officer is there objection to proceeding to the measure . Without objection, the senate will proceed. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i know of no further debate on the bill. The presiding officer is there further debate . If not, all those in favor say aye. Opposed no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The bill is passed. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the committee on Veterans Affairs be discharged from further consideration of h. R. 4183 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. The presiding officer the clerk will report. The clerk h. R. 4183, an act to direct the comptroller general of the United States to conduct a study on disability and pension benefits, and so forth and for other purposes. The presiding officer is there objection to proceeding to the measure . If not, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent the committee on agriculture and nutrition and forestry be discharged from further consideration of s. 4433 and the bill be referred to the committee on energy and natural resources. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its Business Today it adjourn until 4 30 p. M. Monday, october 5. Further, following the prayer and pledge the morning hour deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. Finally, following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session for consideration of the newman nomination. The presiding officer is there objection . Without objection,so ordered. Mr. Mcconnell mr. President. The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell i ask unanimous consent that we vitiate action on s. 4462. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell so, mr. President. The presiding officer the majority leader. Mr. Mcconnell i think ill start over with the closing script. I ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its Business Today, it adjourn until 4 30 p. M. , monday, october 5, further, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. Finally following leader remarks the senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the newman nomination. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Mcconnell so if theres nor further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. The presiding officer the Senate Stands adjourned until Senate Stands adjourned until cspan campaign 2020 coverage. Watch the candidates debate and Election Results on cspan. Watch online at sea standout work on the free cspan radio app. Unfiltered view of politics. The competition is on. Middle and High School Students the start of the National Conversation by making a five to six men documentary from exploring what you want the conference to express. 100,000 including the grand prize of 5000. Submit videos january 20, 2021. More information on how to get started on our website. Vice president depends campaigning and i will spoken i will. Fighting for the president reelection. [cheering] [applause] tha