quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. shelby: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. shelby: thank you. mr. president, the american people -- the presiding officer: we're in a quorum call. mr. shelby: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. shelby: mr. president, the american people are apprehensive about the spread of the coronavirus in the u.s. and abroad, as we can always

remember. global financial markets are on edge. both are resilient but vigorous action is needed to calm nerves, stabilize the situation and get our arms around this crisis. i believe congress must marshal the resources here necessary for an aggressive, comprehensive, and swift response. i'm pleased to report to my colleagues this afternoon that we, with the house, leadership, both sides have reached a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on an emergency supplemental appropriations package to do just that. the agreement provides a surge in funding at every level, local, state, federal, and international to meet the growing challenge that we could face. the total amount, mr. president, included in the package is $7.76 billion, a little under

$8 billion. we arrived at that figure by going back to the agencies, n.i.h., the centers for disease chrome and so forth and said, what do you think you would need if this virus really spreads and we wanted to make sure they had the tools and the resources that we would not shortchange the american people in any way. so the $7.76 billion, we've been told by the people who know, that should be sufficient. we hope it is. mr. president, nearly 85% of this funding will be spent right here in the united states. $2.2 billion is for the centers for disease control that the presiding officer is very familiar with because it's located in atlanta, georgia. including no less than $950 million, just short of a billion dollars, to help state

and local governments prevent and to combat the spread of the virus. mr. president, $836 million will gl to the national institutes of health to, among other things, train health care workers on the front lines and to develop diagnostics, therapeutics and veens related to the -- virus. $51 million will be to approve such products for the american people. mr. president, $3.1 billion of this package is for the public health and social services emergency funds, among other things, to supplement the strategic national stockpile here, develop and purchase diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines, provide resources for community health centers and to provide hospitals and health

systems adapt and respond if this crisis grows. another $30 mol is made available, mr. president, for the purchase of additional diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines should further need arise. in other words a contingency. finally, mr. president, to fight the spread of the virus abroad, which we have to do, $1.25 billion is provided to the state department and usaid to continue their work with our international partners. mr. president, we listened carefully to the agencies and the experts on the front lines in crafting this package. vice president pence has also been very helpful in this effort and i appreciate president trump's eagerness to sign this legislation. i also want to take a moment to thank leaders mcconnell and schumer, vice chairman leahy of the appropriations committee, the chair of the house

appropriations committee and the ranking member for all of us coming together to do the right thing for the american people. we face this crisis together. we're fighting it together. ultimately, mr. president, i believe we will prevail together. but now is the time for action. the house will act first. all indications are they will pass it swiftly, this package, hope so, and when this package arrives in the senate, i would urge my colleagues to do the same so we can get help to those who need it and will ease some of the anxiety stemming from this outbernanke. i think we -- i think we owe it to the american people to do no less. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. leahy: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont is recognized. mr. leahy: madam president, i ask consent the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: madam president, chairman shelby has just spoken, and he and i have worked so hard

together on the appropriations on the emergency coronavirus supplemental request, and i am am -- one, i have always enjoyed working with him. i'm pleased that we can announce that we have reached a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on an emergency supplemental to address the spread of the really novel coronavirus and protect the health and safety of the american people, something we should do when this happens. so i thank my friend, chairman shelby, chairwoman lowey of the other body and ranking member granger for their cooperation. you know, i think one of the things i have found over my decades here in the appropriations committee, we tend to leave our labels at the

door. we have worked together, both republicans and democrats. we don't look at each other as a republican or democrat. we look at each other as a member of the house and the senate, trying to get this done, and i would urge the -- both the majority leader and the democratic leader to move as quickly as possible once the house acts today to get this agreement to the president's desk. as i said last weekend, there is no reason why we cannot, should not finish this bill this week and get it down for signing. we have -- if we have to on friday or even saturday, get it done, get it done now. now, with the house of representatives, we must understand what they are debating is vastly different from the $1.25 billion grossly

inadequate proposal from the trump administration that was sent to congress just nine days ago. this was so poorly thought out that both republicans and democrats said it made no sense. where president trump's proposal would rob peter to pay paul by stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from funds meant to contain the ongoing ebola crisis and take money from programs the american people rely on like the low-income heating assistance program, liheap, our agreement provides $7.8 billion in new emergency funding to address this crisis but does not raid these important programs. do we want to say okay, we will just turn our back on the possibility of ebola? of course not. we can't. and liheap, i would invite any

of those from the white house that think we don't need heating in my home in vermont just a few days ago it was ten below zero. right after that we had 10-12 inches of snow. incidentally, everything kept going in vermont. 1.2 inches of snow in washington, the place would close down, as we know. but i digress. we're not robbing peter to pay paul. we're not stealing hundreds of millions of dollars from funds meant to contain the ongoing ebola crisis. we simply provide $7.8 billion in new emergency funding to address this crisis without raiding those important programs. we also include a $500 million authorization to enhance the availability of telehealth

services, something that could be so helpful to virtually every one of our states. now, we also reject the president's extreme america first mantra that would include nothing for usaid to help contain the spread abroad. let's be realistic. at a time when communicable diseases are only an airplane flight away, that's a recipe for failure. we can stop this before it gets to our borders, why shouldn't we work with other countries to do that? so what we did, instead of ignoring that that might happen, we have provided $1.25 billion in new resources for the global health response to provide humanitarian assistance and secure funding for emergency evacuations of u.s. citizens, if needed. now, we provide $2.2 billion to support federal, state, and

local public health agencies. we then prepare to respond to the coronavirus virus. the funds will support laboratory testing, monitoring, infection control, public health preparedness. this again taking it completely out of politics, saying let's go where the best people are to work with and have the money. i talked about some of this with the need for help with the governor of our state, who is a republican. we have worked very, very closely together. i applaud what he has been doing to prepare for this virus. our agreement is going to provide more than $3 billion for research and development of vaccines, therapeutics, diagnostics to better treat the effects of the coronavirus. we're going to include provisions to ensure that

vaccines developed with the support of federal dollars, with our tax dollars, remain affordable to those most in need. the taxpayers pay for it. they shouldn't have to pay for it a second time because a large company wants to make a huge profit. in fact, we provide nearly $1 billion for the procurement of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies and funding to support community health centers which provide health care to so many in our underserved urban areas but also in our rural communities. and we provide $61 million to the food and drug administration to fast i facilitate the develof new therapies and vaccines to combat the coronavirus, but also to mitigate the potential medical supply chain interruption. importantly, this agreement includes $7 billion in small

business disaster loans. what's happening can really hit these small businesses which are the backbone of america's economy. we have this money, the small business disaster loans, to help mitigate the economic impact on the spread of the coronavirus in the united states. so, madam president, when we confront this crisis, it's important to remember we're not doing it as republicans or democrats seeking to score political points in addressing this threat. it's not something for the republican party or for the democratic party to deal with. we should deal as what we are. we are americans and we're united states senators. the 100 of us have to speak to

our own conscience in time of crisis in our nation's history, the senate has proven its ability to be the conscience of the nation, a steady guiding hand. that's what we have to do now. i am pleased that the house measure does not include legislation related to extending fisa, the foreign intelligence surveillance act. we have had months to deal with that. it has no place on urgent funding legislation to combat the current health situation. and i'm confident we can once again put aside partisan squabbles and help lead our nation forward. taking up this agreement as soon as possible is the first step. i will work with chairman

shelby, the two of us will work together to shepherd this bipartisan, bicameral agreement through the senate and to the president. i would note -- and i will speak further on this later on, that there are an awful lot of members of our staffs, both republican and democratic, who have worked and worked and worked late nights, worked weekends, worked on days off to get us here, and i applaud the men and women who have done that. madam president, i see my distinguished colleague on the floor so i will yield the floor.

mr. barrasso: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. barrasso: i come to the floor today to address america's aging roads and bridges. our highways are in need of repairs all across the country. in some places, we actually need to do rebuilds, new roads. that's why i along with senators carper and capito and cardin have introduced america's transportation infrastructure act.

this bipartisan legislation is going to make a significant investment in our roads, in our bridges, in our tunnels, and will fund our highways at historic levels. now, these investments are critical. but just as critical is speeding up government's approvals for important road projects. last congress, the environment and public works committee, which i chair, heard testimony about a highway project in my home state in wyoming. the project took a decade, a full ten years to get the required federal permits, one after another after another, and then it only took a couple of months to get the project done. a project that's going to make our roads safer and more efficient, which is what the whole desired effect was of this project, it was held up because of ten years of waiting for washington permits. a decade to permit, months to build, any american of common sense knows that that is absurd.

america's transportation infrastructure act cuts through washington red tape so projects can get done faster, better, cheaper, smarter. that's a key. we used president trump's one federal decision policy as a model. it's a great plan, a great policy put forward by the president. sunned the policy -- under the policy environmental reviews will be completed within two years. it's a goal i applaud. our legislation will codify key elements of that into law. it will streamline duplicative projects. the permitting process will be simplified and will occur faster. our bill also gives states increased flexibility, something that states want. so federal approvals can get moving and the project construction can get started sooner. it reduces the amount of paperwork needed from states to complete the projects.

it's unacceptable that the federal government would hold up state projects and put drivers at risk. washington should never prioritize paperwork, which is what washington tends to do. prioritizing paperwork over people's safety. america's transportation infrastructure act cuts red tape. it makes safety a top priority. our legislation is bipartisan. passing the environment and public works committee unanimously, 21-0. president trump called on congress to pass the bill. he did it during his state of the union address last month. this is a win for the entire country. the time is to america's information infrastructure act so we can reduce the costly regulations and improve highway projects so that they can get built. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk

will call the roll. quorum call: quorum

call: quorum call:

mr. murphy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: we're in a quorum call.

i ask it be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, am i recognized? the presiding officer: yes. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i am coming to the floor today as we have just passed the one-year mark since h.r. 8, the bipartisan background checks bill passed the house of representatives. this is a piece of legislation supported by 90% of the american public. it's hard for anything to enjoy 90% support in this country these days. and the data shows us that this is a piece of legislation if enacted that would save lives. we have begged and pleaded for this piece of legislation to come before the senate. i understand that there may not be 60 votes on the senate to pass the exact piece of legislation supported by the house, but we could engage in a process of amendment, a process

of compromise that could end up saving lives and getting a piece of legislation passed that is supported as i miptioned by nine -- mentioned by nine out of ten americans. so i have some remarks after i expect there be an objection to my motion from the majority party. but i will ask unanimous consent of my colleagues that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 29, h.r. 8, the bipartisan background checks act. i further ask 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. enzi: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. enzi: if this unanimous consent were passed without a vote or even debate, that would become law. passage of this request could infringe on the constitutional

right of my constituents and many others across the united states. i believe firmly that that would be the case and it could even result in criminal charges against law abiding firearms owners. so i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. murphy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: mr. president, i'm sorry to hear the objection. it's obviously not surprising. we have been waiting for a year for this body to act on the issue of gun violence. and though there are a range of measures that may actually be controversial, this is not one of them. this is not one of them. it's really hard to find folks out there in america that object to the idea that somebody should have to prove that they're not a criminal, that they don't have a history of serious mental illness before they purchase a firearm. and the fact is that the longer we wait, the more people die. there's no piece of legislation that's going to eliminate every single gun death in this country

but in my state of connecticut when we passed the universal background checks law, we saw a pretty immediate 40% reduction in gun homicides. in missouri they saw an immediate 25% increase. that is the short-term immediate rate of return both on the upside and the downside that you get when you take steps to assure that criminals don't get guns or you take steps to make it easy for criminals to get guns. senator blumenthal is on the floor with me as well and we will make remarks. but i have been unable to persuade my colleagues based on the data that we should pass background checks, the data being the broad public support for the measure. the data being about the impact on people's lives that this piece of legislation would have. and so i want to make the case

that from just a simple standpoint of humanity, we should care about listening to the american public and passing legislation that will reduce these numbers. this is heartbreaking. 39,000 people a year are dying from gunshot wounds. 3,311 on average a month, a hundred a day. the majority of these are suicides but the data tells us that by making it harder for people to buy guns who shouldn't have them because of a serious history of mental illness or because of their criminal background, that you'll have less suicides. but many of these are homicides and many of these are accidental shootings, and all of them are preventable by better policy. remember, this happens in the united states nowhere else in the advanced income world. and it's not because we have more mental illness in the united states. there's no evidence of that. it's not because our kids play more video games in the united states. there is a no evidence of that.

it's not because we spend less money on law enforcement. there's no evidence of that. it's because this country is awash in illegal and dangerous guns. it's because we've made a choice to make it a lot easier for somebody to find a way to a lethal firearm to commit an act of violence. every single one of the hundred who die every day is attached to families and friends and neighbors. the data suggests that for everybody that's killed in a gun homicide, there's 20 other people who experience some kind of life-altering diagnosable trauma because of it. so i want to tell you a few of these stories today, stories of people who over the last year have been amongst this statistic, 40,000 people who died from gunshot wounds. in march 2019, one month after h.r. 8 got here to the senate,

shelby was home with her 6-month-old daughter when she was shot and killed in phoenix, arizona. as a new mom shelby was, quote, doing everything she possibly could to make sure her daughter had the best life, said her cousin. one month after h.r. 8 passed the senate, she was shot and killed when she was home with her 6-month manufacture old daughter. lamar was at a picnic two porches after h.r. 8 got here to the senate when he heard gunshots. instead of running away toward safety, he ran to save his son's 2-year-old grandson. he was shot. he died five days before his 32nd birthday, two months after h.r. 8 got to the senate floor. in may three months after the background check bill got to the

senate, three lgbtq young people were shot in detroit, alan day, timothy, and paris were known for being funny. she was known for being wildly charismatic. police believe their sexual orientation were factors in their murder. a month later -- four months after h.r. 8 got here to the senate -- durell moxley was killed when a shooting broke out in his neighborhood. he and his wife had three young children. he was really proud to be a father. he was pumped. he will really celebrating faith's day. in july five months after h.r. 8 got to the senate, -- five months after sitting on mitch mcconnell's desk awaiting action, julianna carr was killed by her brother in a murder-suicide at a house-warming party in texas.

she left behind a husband and two children who she called her greatest loves. journey thompson was eight years old when he was shot in august, six months -- six months after the senate got h.r. 8. six months of doing nothing on a bill with 90% public support. journey was the 14th child to be shot and killed in st. louis alone last summer. her dad said that losing her was one of the biggest fears of mi life and now i'm living it as a reality. in september, seven months after h.r. 8 showed up in the senate and the senate did nothing with it, usher hahns was 17 years old when he was shot and killed. he was a senior at weaver high school in connecticut. he was a member of hartford's

drill and dance corps. he was a good son. he was a joyful kid. deidre zacardi was murdered in pennsylvania in october eight months after h.r. 8 got to the senate. he also shot their three children, alexis, nathaniel, and katherine, before turning the gun on himself. the abington police said they were deaths were an horrific event. nine months later, gracie was shot by the a classmate with a semiautomatic untraceable ghost gun in santa clarita, california. hundreds attended gracey's memorial service. her friends described her as an independent spirit. in december, ten months -- ten months after the house passed h.r. 8, ten months of doing nothing with it here in the senate, sergeant chris brewster was responding to a domestic

violence call in houston. he was shot by a suspect fleeing the korea. he was aest dod husband, loved making people laugh, his friends described him as wonderfully weird. in january, 11 months after h.r. got to the senate, gregory reeves was killed. he had retired after 22 years as a state trooper, a career that he called his dream job. he was killed in illinois. his friends describe him as the most gentle, kind-hearted person. in february of this year, two sisters -- abane and deha matz were shot in a dormitory from commerce, texas. i just want people to know that they were fun, said her mom. and just last week in milwaukee, almost exactly a year since h.r. 8 came to the senate, five people were shot on the campus of molsoncoors.

people who went to work on a normal wednesday and their families will never get to hug them or tell them goodbye or hear their voices again, shot and killed in a workplace shooting. senator blumenthal and i are not going to give up. we're not going to give up because of what we've been through in connecticut, having experienced and lived through the aftermath of the horrific shoot something at san did hook, but also what we see happening every single day in places that we represent, murders that happen in hartford and bridgeport, and new haven, murders that happen in rural areas of our state as well, accidental shootings, homicides, suicides. nowhere else other than the united states does this epidemic of carnage happen at this rate than the united states of america. and it happens because we have made a choice. we've made a choice to let the

gun industry run washington, d.c., to give them veto power over gun policy that has helped their bottom line, that has made gun company executives rich, but it has resulted in 40,000 people a year dying, 100 a day. and so i will continue to come down to the floor and tell the stories of those who have been lost. and i am deeply, deeply sorry that when we try to bring unanimous consent requests to the senate to have a debate or a vote on h.r. 8, we keep hearing objections. we don't run the senate. democrats are not in charge. we don't get to set the agenda. mitch mcconnell, senator mcconnell does. republicans who are part of leadership do. and all you have to do is bring this bill to the floor. let's have a debate on an

expanded backgrounds checks proposal. i get it. the diversion of the bill that passed the -- that the version of the bill that passed the house might not have 60 votes here. but why don't we at least try to find common ground? why don't we sit down and do what the senate used to do -- find compromise that makes the country a better place? the fact that we aren't even trying to find bipartisan agreement on a background checks proposal is absolutely heartbreaking, not to me or to senator blumenthal. it's heartbreaking to the survivors and the family members of the folks who aren't with us any longer. it's an insult to them that we are not even lifting a finger to try to make this country a safer place. i yield the floor. mr. blumenthal: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you, mr. president. i'm honored to join my colleague and friend, senator murphy, here and first let me thank him for his leadership. we have worked together as a team. we have been partners in this effort from the very first days of of our elections, and we were together at sandy hook on the afternoon in 2012 when we saw and met many of the families who suffered that absolutely unspeakable loss in an unimaginable tragedy that haunts us both to this day. and just this morning, as a matter of fact, i was with one of the dads, mark barden, who has turned his grief into tremendously positive work in our schools, forming an organization called sandy hook promise.

one of the numerous grassroots organizations that has grown in the wake of that tragedy. of course, brady existed before sandy hook. but afterward there was sandy hook promise and newtown action alliance. connecticut against gun violence expanded. moms demand action, students demand action, everytown for gun safety. giffords. the list reflects the outrage and fear of the american public against this epidemic. i am here to talk about an epidemic, a public health menace. and, of course, we must do something -- take effective action and do it promptly. -- against coronavirus. covid-19.

that reflects also a threat to our health and safety. it has already killed americans. it threatens to spread. there is a need for preparedness and honesty and truthfulness to the american public about the extent of the threat and about the need for action. but gun violence today in america -- just today and every day in america -- kills more than 100 people. and that number reflects only the fatalities. it's no measure of the people who are injured, sometimes crippled, for life -- and often emotionally damaged. it fails to reflect the families who suffer those losses and the

trauma that affects children who are truly innocent bystanders to the drive-by shootings in downtown hartford or bridgeport or new haven. literally, no community in america is immune from this public health epidemic, that menace that afflicts america unlike any other country in the world. globalization has affected many public health threats, as we are learning about coronavirus, but america is unique in the magnitude in gun violence epidemic. the costs are not just in human lives and emotion. even if you care nothing about the human condition, think about the dollars and cents, the cost,

the medical care, and, of course, the talent and energy, intelligence, productivity that is lost literally every day in those 100 lives. there is no vaccine. there's no panacea. there's no magic cure. -- for this epidemic. and the bill that brings us here today is just one piece of legislation, one tool that is vitally necessary. but it is only one step. and it will not solve all of the problems of gun violence, but we know it will save lives. we know it from our experience in connecticut.

we know that this enforcement mechanism will keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. it adds no new prohibition. it imposes no new categories of people who are prohibited from buying guns. those categories and the those prohibitions are already in the federal law. this background check expansion to all sales -- not just federally licensed sales, but private sales, sales on the internet -- is simply a way to enforce the existing prohibitions were supported, by the way, by the n.r.a. when they were passed decades ago. it simply makes those prohibitions real. and i know from my experience as a prosecutor over decades, as a state attorney general, that the best laws on the books are dead

letter. if they are unenforced. and that's really why 98% of the american people, the vast majority of the gun owners, and even n.r.a. members support this legislation, because it is a simple, commonsense way to enforce existing prohibitions that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. it is the least we can do. -- for those victims of gun violence whose images and voices and faces are with their families still and many of them with us every day. now, we should be very clear because this measure should not be oversold, that it will not alone solve the problem of gun violence. there are a variety of other

measures, and i've introduced the emergency risk protection order legislation that would enable law enforcement, local police or state and federal law enforcement to take guns away from people who are dangerous to themselves or others. that legislation would require a warrant. it would enable the warrant eventually be challenged in a court proceeding. it would provide due process. it would be particularly important in domestic disputes where the estranged intimate partner may have a gun or suicide where -- is threatened. and it has worked. in florida where it was passed most recently thousands of times. and in connecticut, the first in the nation to adopt an emergency

risk protection order. it has worked. and along with that law, state of storage measures. ethan's law named after ethan song who was lost to his wonderful parents, chris and michael song, because he was visiting a friend whose parents failed to store their gun safely and in that unimaginable tragedy, he was lost. of course, also other measures like eliminating the sweetheart deal that provides unique, virtually absolute immunity to the gun manufacturers. the sandy hook surviving families are seeking redress against the manufacturer of the gun that killed their 20 children and six great

educators. and they are overcoming the obstacles posed by the law that provides that immunity to the gun manufacturers. assault weapon ban, ammunition background checks, high capacity magazines. there are a series of measures that we should consider, not that every one of them is necessary but every one of them can help save lives. no one of them will prevent all of these fatalities. but the least we can do is h.r. 8 which has languished on the senate floor without being called for a vote now for a year. and that is really unconscionable. i know we use that word unconscionable so frequently. perhaps it has lost its meaning. but if we have a conscience, if

we have a belief and a conviction in the democratic process, we should at least give a vote to this measure that is lifesaving, that is supported by almost all of the american people, and that is opposed only by the n.r.a. and a gun lobby that is diminishing in its power. in fact, the n.r.a. is crumbling from within because of financial scandal and from without because of its extreme, inflexible positions are untenable to an american public that sees the public health epidemic before us as a result of gun violence and says enough is enough. there's a movement that eventually will prevail, whether

it will win in this session because we've been blocked again from unanimous consent by our republican colleagues, i don't know. but i know with certainty that it will prevail because these grassroots groups have created a movement. the students of parkland have created a movement. sandy hook, promise, and the newtown action alliance and brady, giffords, others have created a movement. and like many movements, social causes in this country, the civil rights movement being the best example, it has fueled and powered and led by young people who are saying with the most passion of all enough is enough. every one of them, every one of

us knows someone, a family, a coworker, a costudent, a colleague who has been affected by gun violence. almost two-thirds of those hundred deaths every day are suicide. so we know mental health has to be addressed. and we need to invest more in mental health diagnosis and treatment. but again mental health diagnosis and treatment alone are not a solution. i have long spearheaded and advocated mental health parity, more treatment, more insurance coverage, but they alone will not solve the gun violence epidemic in this country. the fact is that states having universal background checks

according to a recent study had 52% fewer mass shootings than states that lack them. it makes sense. background check laws mean that 80% of firearms acquired for criminal purposes can be stopped from sale by unlicensed sellers. we in connecticut have one of the strongest universally background checks on the books anywhere in the country, but we know guns have really no respect for state borders. they cross state borders with impunity. they cause deaths in connecticut even if they've been manufactured elsewhere or sold in the south and come via the iron pipeline to connecticut or new york or new jersey also with

strong gun laws. this national public health epidemic demands a national solution, a federal law that protects our nation. the odessa shooting just this past august serves as a tragic reminder of the steep price that inaction imposes. the odessa shooter failed a background check but then turned right around after he failed that background check from a licensed dealer and bought an assault-style rifle in a private sale. that private sale was not covered by a background check. seven more innocent people are dead as a result. on december 14, 2012, i promised

the parents who lost loved ones at sandy hook and other family members that i would fight and do everything i could to make sure that no more parents would have to bury their children. i have worked tirelessly along with others like my colleague, senator murphy, many of us on this side of the aisle for public health and safety measures that would stop gun violence prevention and i have worked also with senator graham on an emergency risk protection order proposal that showed very serious signs of acceptance on that side of the aisle and even by the white house.

but so far inaction has been the result. and since that day in 2012, december 14, there have been 2,389 mass shootings. 2,389 mass shootings, not counting the individual lives lost in hartford or the suburbs or rural areas. it is an equal opportunity public health epidemic like any epidemic. no one is immune. over 2,000 times families have hadike the parents at newtown to see whether that

morning's kiss goodbye would be the last, waiting to see whether that last wave at the school door would be the final one. that really is unconscionable in the greatest country in the history of the world. when i stood here in the months after 2012, in fact 2013 when we last we last voted on a universal background check bill, it was supported by a majority of my colleagues, 54 voted for it. not enough to reach the 60-vote threshold. and from the gallery i heard one

of those parents shout shame. and they were right. shame on my republican colleagues then. shame on them now if they defy common sense and the will of the american people and they prevent a vote, simply a vote. that's what we're asking, a vote on h.r. 8. a year has passed since the house voted and approved this measure. shame on them, my republican colleagues frks they stand in the way -- colleagues, if they stand in the way of saving lives. shame on them if they allow the carnage to continue on our streets and in our neighborhoods and in our communities crippling

families, tearing apart those communities. the vice-like grip of the gun lobby is breaking. and there will be bipartisan collaboration. it will be the result of not my persuasion in speeches on the floor but the american people at the polls because the ultimate court here is the court of public opinion. the ultimate voice here is the american people. in the military, there's a saying the enemy has a vote. here the enemy are the shooters.

the enemies are the opposers of these commonsense measures. we cannot allow them to have a vote. it is the american people who will vote and they will hold accountable colleagues who fail to be on the right side of this issue and the right side of history. i urge my republican colleagues to rethink, to revisit, to reconsider their staunch, unyielding, inflexible opposition even to having a vo vote. and to them i say do your job. we're here to vote and save lives. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call enclose quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator for mississippi. cock cock i ask unanimous consent that the --. a senator: i ask unanimous consent thatd quorum call be suspended. mr. wicker: this afternoon i call the senate's attention to a pair of bills about broadband access across the united states and the worldwide race to 5-g which we hope to win and will win. the first of these measures ensures that telecommunications networks are safe and secure from foreign intrusion, and the second bill, which i hope the senate will take up and pass even today by unanimous consent would help create highly accurate broadband coverage data that will help expand access to high-speed internet. both of these measures are commerce committee priorities and are the result of extensive negotiations and work on a

bipartisan and bicameral basis. madam president, our economic and national security depend on nationwide access to high-speed internet that is safe and secure. the threat of foreign espionage through our broadband infrastructure is real, and it stems directly from the chinese tech firms like huawei and z.t.e. these companies are pawns of the chinese government. as a matter of fact, for all practical purposes they are wholly owned entity of the chinese government and are putting on a full-court press. huawei and z.t.e. receive massive subsidies each year from the chinese government, and it is really beyond dispute that they are doing the bidding of the chinese communist party. some of our allies have come to realize this threat and have

taken decisive action. i want to commend australia, new zealand and japan. they have all banned huawei technologies from their networks. i'm grateful that the trump administration has shown strong leadership on this issue. last year the commerce department placed huawei on its entity list, severely limiting its ability to do business with the united states companies. that was a bold step, but unfortunately some of our networks had already been compromised by huawei by the time the commerce department took action. so last week the senate took a major step toward removing the chinese threat by passing the secure and trusted communications networks act. this bill which some refer to as the rip and replace bill, to rip out the huawei equipment and

replace it with reliable equipment that will not be engaged in espionage, this legislation will lay the foundation to give strong financial incentives to u.s. firms to strip out the huawei technology and replace it. it will provide strong rural telecom providers transition away from firms controlled by beijing. that bill is now on the president's desk awaiting his signature, and it may be that he's going to wait until it can be joined by the broadband data act which, again, i say could be passed by this body as early as this evening when we adjourn. in december the senate unanimously passed the measure, but because the house passed a slightly amended version of the bill yesterday, we need to act again today to get this bill

across the finish line and on to the white house. the broadband data act addresses the federal communication commission's flawed maps which you and i have been so concerned about, madam president. every year the f.c.c. spends billions of dollars to promote deployment of broadband across the united states. this funding is especially important for america's rural communities which so often lag behind in broadband development. we've done a lot to close the digital divide but an estimated 20 million americans still lack access to broadband. for years members from both parties have noted that the f.c.c.'s maps have overstated broadband coverage, thereby, understating the problem. for example, for mississippi, the f.c.c. map claims that we have a 98% broadband, mobile

broadband coverage, something anybody can say from experience is not true. far from true. without accurate maps, the f.c.c. cannot direct support to areas most in need. the broadband data act will fix this problem by creating a new database of areas in need of service, requiring providers to submit precise data, establishing specific standards for data collection, and allowing crowd sourcing to encourage public participation in the process. as a result, the broadband data act will also help target federal funds toward those areas most in need of assistance. these steps will pave the way for more americans across the heartland to exercise and to access high-speed broadband and

to enjoy the economic opportunities that come with that. coupled with last week's passage of the rip and replace legislation, congress has achieved an important victory for our country and national security. madam president, in conclusion, i want to recognize the excellent work of my staff on the commerce committee, both majority and minority. i want to thank my friend and ranking member, senator cantwell, as well as chairman pallone and ranking member wall den in the house of representatives on the energy and commerce committee as well as the members of their staff. their efforts have gotten us to this point ready for the president to put his signature on these two very important bills. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor and i note the

absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. braun: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. braun: i ask that it be lifted, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. braun: discovery of thousands of fetal remains in indiana at an abortionist home last year horrified us all. highlighted a disturbing trend that indiana has taken the lead in rectifying. this bill is our chance to fix the problem nationally. i believe all human life deserves a dignified burial and fetal remains deserve to be treated with respect, not as medical waste. sadly, irref rans of --

irreverence, grotesque collection is not an isolated incident. for example, in 2015, a minnesota hospital threw out the body of a still-born baby with dirty laundry. indiana has led the way. governor mike pence signed a law in 2016 protect being the dignity of fetal remains, upheld by the supreme court, last year in box v. planned parenthood. this legislation, the dignity for aborted children act builds on indiana's success and provides guidelines for handling fetal remains and penalties for failing to respect the sanctity of human life and ensures that crimes like dr. clofers has consequences. what the bill does would require

abortion providers to dispose of the remains of unborn children just as any other human remains or to release the remains to the family should the family wish to receive them. this bill does not tell anyone what to do with their body. it only holds human fetuses to a higher standard of dignity than medical waste. last week this body could not agree to ban abortions after science tells us fetuses are capable of feeling pain. this body could not agree to ensure that babies born alive after botched abortions should receive the same standard of care as a baby born in a hospital. at the very least we should be able to agree to treat the

remains of unborn children with the reverence befitting a human life rather than as medical waste. given this, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on help be discharged from further consideration of senate bill 2590, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i 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. the presiding officer: is there objection? mrs. murray: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: madam president, reserving the right to object. we have a serious public health crisis on our hands right now and expect it to get much worse. right now families across the

country are looking to congress to put partisanship aside and put their needs first and counting on us to listen to experts and make decisions guided by science, not ideology. we need to know that our number one priority is public health today. instead of discussing this harmful bill that will gut reproductive rights and put unnecessary restrictions on medical providers and undermine medical research, which is an absolute nonstarter, and the absolute last thing we should be doing right now. i think we should be focused on what families need us to be focused on which is the coronavirusout break and what it means for them and what we are doing about it. the news of this virus is spreading throughout the country and the deaths and the illness and the confusion it has caused in my home state of washington and elsewhere is beyond alarming. the trump administration has fallen far short of its responsibilities to washington state and to communities

nationwide. now, i am pleased democrats and republicans in congress were able to put partisanship aside to hammer out the robust emergency supplemental funding agreement that was announced earlier today. it's an agreement that goes well beyond president trump's totally inadequate request in order to actually need the needs we're hearing about from the officials on the front lines of this crisis, like reimbursing states and local governments who have shouldered the cost of this response so far or the need to support research so we can develop new dreements and diagnostic -- treatments and diagnostic tests and vaccines and we need to make sure those are available to everyone. this agreement helps us to prepare for what's next by providing funding to shore up our store of medical supplies and support community health centers in underserved areas and bolster global health and public health preparedness programs. so i'm working to make sure we get that bill signed into law as soon as possible and i will continue to follow it closely because experts have already

made it very clear this is not going to be over soon. and while the funding is a great step, we need to make sure it's not the last one. it is very critical that we continue listening to our health experts, providing needed resources, and preparing for what's next, including what this will mean for families day-to-day lives and people who can't take a day off from work without losing a paycheck or don't have affordable child care if their school closes or don't have health insurance or who are experiencing homelessness. so i hope my republican colleagues will think long and hard about what their priorities are in the midst of this and choose to refocus their energy on working with us to address the urgent issues of the day. so instead of distracting us from serious work and wasting time we don't have. so i object, madam president. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. braun: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. mr. braun: i think if you

continue to make the argument with women's health care and that it's mutually exclusive to consider that and you make -- and you define what we're talking about here, banning abortions where there is pain or not trying to preserve the life of a baby born through a botched abortion, adding this as well, not treating the fetal remains with the dignity that they deserve, i think it's increasingly difficult to make the argument that we constantly hear about women's health care. they're not mutually exclusive. this is something that shouldn't be put into the category that it would impact any of that by putting this into effect. i yield the floor.

mr. lee: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 3259 and that the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i further ask 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. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire she. a senator: reserving the right to object. my colleague is trying to codify -- that will cause harm. in the past few years we've seen the global impact of this policy. health clinics have closed. access to care is decreased.

lives are increasingly put at risk. when women in developing countries and other parts of the world don't have access to family planning and information that they need for women's reproductive health, abortions actually increase rather than decrease. mrs. shaheen: research shows by decreasing access to information about modern contraceptive options that abortion rates increase. so this policy doesn't stop abortions. it only limits the resources that are available that prevent women from having unwanted pregnancies. so, madam president, i have a statement that i will submit for the record, but given the negative impact that this policy has already had on so many women and families around the world, codifying it would just exacerbate those issues. so i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mr. lee: madam president? the presiding officer: the

senator from utah. mr. lee: madam president, it's disappointing that when we take a look at something that is controversial like abortion, we peel it back a layer further. we make it noncontroversial. by making the discussion about something that most americans -- the overwhelming majority of americans agree about, which is regardless of how you feel about abortion, you don't necessarily want your government taking your taxpayer dollars and the taxpayer dollars of a whole lot of people who have very strong feelings against abortion and using that to fund organizations that either perform abortions or that engage in promoting or lobbying or counseling or referring in order to encourage abortions. the overwhelming majority of americans don't want that. regardless of how they feel about life. this shouldn't be a

controversial issue. it's a nonsequitur. it's a strongarm argument to suggest that this somehow limits anyone's options. it doesn't. in fact, it expands options of individuals by saying we're not going to take your money at the point of a gun which is what governments do at the end of the day when they take money. in order to spend it on something that depending on how you phrase the question and which pollster you're talking about, it's either a sizable majority or bare majority of americans who find that morley problematic. but -- morally problematic. an overwhelming majority of americans say no matter what you shouldn't be taking all taxpayer money and using that to fund abortion or abortion-related advocacy. last week the senate had a chance to adopt some measures that would protect the dignity of human life, not just unborn

human life but also born human life, including babies who have been born alive following a failed abortion attempt. and unfortunately, due to a minority of this body, we lost the opportunity to enact those reforms. now those colleagues opposed to these measures did so largely on the claims that they were, as they put them, antiwoman or antihealth care. they claim somehow that these measures interfered with what should be considered personal, the personal nature of health care between women and their doctors. madam president, i could not agree more that health care is personal. it is, after all, about healing,

preserving, and for longing the life of a human being, the life of a person. and in the case of a pregnant woman, it is about two persons, sometimes three. if it's a woman who's pregnant with a single baby, it is two persons. with two beating hearts, two distinct sets of d.n.a., and two unique and eternally valuable, unrepeatable souls, two persons with equal dignity and worth. and we ought to value both of them and provide opportunity and care and rights and protection to both. in the spirit of our founding, we ought to affirm through our laws and through our taxpayer

dollars the truth that every member of our society, every woman, every man, every unborn child is entitled to the right to life and to the full protection of that right under the laws of the united states. and our health care ought to heal, preserve, and protect those lives. unfortunately many of our laws, themselves permit and subsidize exactly the opposite of life. in our country and even tragically abroad. congress allows and helps fund the most radical abortion policy in the western world. enabling procedures that impose barbaric violence upon women and unborn children and ending the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent babies in our nation every single year. and it allows our foreign aid

money to go to organizations that fund and promote abortions overseas, taking the lives of thousands of innocent babies across the globe, especially, by the way, baby girls. in some of these countries abortions happen in much higher numbers to female babies, precisely because they are female. abortion is in many cases the knife's edge of sexism. the exact tool they use to denigrate women's equal dignity and value and worth and right to breathe. in some of these countries women don't even want the abortions. in some cases these organizations force their own so-called enlightened values on them, pressuring them, pressuring these women to take their own children's lives whether they really want to or

not. this form of cultural imperialism is not pro-woman. it is not pro-child, and it is certainly not pro-health care. it is pro-sexism and pro-violence and we must end it. today we can through passage of the protecting life in foreign assistance act. this bill would permanently stop the use of our foreign aid money from funding or promoting abortions overseas. we ought to uphold the equal dignity of women, whether born or unborn in america and across the world. and we should treat their bodies with reverence and dignity and respect, the respect that they deserve, not because any government decided to confer that respect upon them but because they exist.

today we can choose that, too, through senator braun's bill, the dignity for aborted children act. that measure, as senator braun has explained will ensure that aborted children's bodies are not treated simply as medical waste to be crudely disposed of, but that they should instead receive a proper burial or cremation just as we accord to all other human beings. madam president, we ought to support and value women and babies everywhere. in our laws and through our lives we ought to uphold the dignity of each and every human person regardless of race, sex, appearance, abilities, or age. the measures before us today, those that i've outlined and those that have been proposed by

senator braun do just that. and we should support them. for the very same reasons that we should pass them and they shouldn't be objectionable. it's tragic that they've drawn an objection today. it's tragic that any american, much less any member of the united states senate which calls itself the world's greatest deliberative legislative body, would object to these measures. after all, it's difficult to fathom how someone wouldn't want to protect babies. it's difficult to fathom why someone wouldn't be in favor of something at least protecting the conscience rights of u.s. taxpayers who don't want to see their hard earned taxpayer dollars going to fund an operation, a procedure that they know is designed to end a human life, a human life that in many cases is deliberately ended because of the sex of the person whose life is being taken.

this is tragic. it's unacceptable. and it shouldn't happen. not here, not on this soil, not on our watch. we're not going to give up. the fact that we have endured these setbacks today, the fact that these well-conceived, nonobjectionable pieces of legislation have drawn an objection today doesn't mean this issue is going to go away, and it sure doesn't mean these proposals are going to go away. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. kennedy: thank you, madam president. i want to talk to the senate for a few minutes, madam president, about refrigerators. and air conditioners. thank the lord for both of them. they make our lives so much better, especially in the -- the president's home state of mississippi, certainly in my home state of louisiana. refrigerators and air conditioners and the like are able to keep people and things cold by using coolants or

refrigerants, i think some people call them. i'm going to call them coolants. and basically, i won't go into the chemistry and/or the physics, but when a coolant in liquid form is converted to a gas, it's called phase conversion. it absorbs heat. so that's why you will hear people, including but not limited to repairwomen and repairmen talking about cool act act for -- coolant for an air conditioner or a refrigerator. it's that coolant that keeps us and our food cool. years ago, we used to use a coolant called freon. freon. you have probably heard that term.

it's -- it's seldom used today. there are some small occasions when it is used, but for the most part, we have decided freon is not a good coolant, not because it doesn't work but because it is very, very harmful to our environment. so people the world over a number of years ago, including the united states government, said okay, we're not going to use freon anymore. we're going to use another coolant which we generally refer to as hydrofluorocar bonnes. -- hydrofluorocarbons. if you hear the acronym h.f.c., that's what i mean. we instead of using freons, we started using h.f.c.'s.

and then we discovered -- and by we, i mean most of the scientists throughout the world, came to surmise that hydro hydrofluorocarbons or h.f.c.'s are not very good for the environment either. the people who made this decision, many of whom were american scientists, decided we need to develop a third type of coolant other than freon and other than h.f.c.'s to run our air conditioners and run our refrigerators and protect our environment at the same time. a few years ago, the countries -- most of the countries throughout the world made this decision. they got together, these countries, their representatives, and said okay, do you remember we decided to stop using freon and now we have been using these h.f.c.'s, but

we've discovered these h.f.c.'s are also harmful, so we're going to agree, all of these countries said, to develop a third type of coolant, which is not as harmful to our environment, and that is the direction in which the world is headed. within five, ten, 15 years, not only will freon be -- be eliminated, so will hydrofluorocarbons, because the rest of the world is going to be using a third type of coolant which has been developed and is being developed as we speak. there's just one problem. the united states has not agreed with those other countries. that's okay. that's our right. to do it our way.

but that presents yet another problem, madam president. because in five or ten or 15 years, we're going to look up and we're going to be the odd person out. the restest world is going to be using this -- the rest of the world is going to be using this new technology and we're still going to be using hydrofluorocarbons, and we're going to be isolated, and it's going to cost our business community a lot of business, and it's going to hurt us. senator tom carper, a fine american, a good man, and i have a bill. it's called the american innovation in manufacturing act. the senator and i call it the aim act. and we've got a lot of support. at last count, we had 32

cosponsors, half republican, half democrat, and that number is rising as we speak. that's a third of the united states senate. you can't get the united states senate -- a third of the united states senate to agree on much of anything, except they like ice cream. but, i mean, it's really -- for this august body, having 32 cosponsors is a big deal. we're in the process, as you know, madam president, of -- and let me also say this. we've got a lot of support from the business community. for example, the -- i won't read all of the groups that are supporting, but the air conditioning, heating, and refrigeration institute is supporting this bill. they are in charge of our refrigerates and our heaters.

and they're saying, yes, we want to do this. the environmental community supports this bill. it's rare that we get both the environmental community and the business community on the same page. but mainly through senator carper's intellect and charm, we've been able to do that. now, as you know, we are in the process of considering an energy bill, and that energy bill is really an amalgamation of a lot of other bills dealing with energy that are going to be put together in one bill, ably handled by senator murkowski. senator carper and i want to take our bill, the aim act -- american innovation and manufacturing act, which is supported overwhelmingly by the business community and by the environmental community -- and we want to add it to senator

murkowski's bill as an amendment. and that amendment has already been submitted. we've got a lot of support for the amendment. we've got -- the last time i looked -- 28 cosponsors of the amendment, and one again, the business community and the environmental community are supporting it. so, madam president, you're probably thinking, okay, kennedy, so what's the problem? this is something. but what's the problem here? -- this is interesting, but what's the problem here? how can i put this? the problem is the way we operate, madam president. one person in the united states senate can stop the entire united states senate from ever voting on something, as we all know, and i'm not going to go

into the details. and in some cases, that's not necessarily a bad thing. our founders intended the senate to move carefully and slowly. but it is a bad thing, in my judgment, when it's used routinely to keep the senate from having an up-or-down vote on something that's important to the american people. i mean, the logical approach would be, okay, you don't agree with the amendment. that's why god made roll call votes. let's vote. you can vote yea. you can vote nay. or you can jump the rail. but everybody gets to weigh in. that's why i was sent up here. i was -- my people sent me up here to debate and decide. they didn't send me up here to

participate in delay and stultification. and so that's my message today, madam president. let my people vote. once again, i understand there are rare occasions when a senator feels so strongly about something that he or she can and should exercise his right to prevent -- or her right -- to prevent the whole body from considering something. but it has become a routine political weapon, a routine political weapon. and that is one of the reasons, in my judgment, that we don't get more done in the united states senate. i'm not criticizing anybody. i'm part of this body. if i'm criticizing this body, i'm criticizing myself. but doing nothing is hard, because you never know when you're finished. and we can do a lot more in this

body. and i think we all understand that. and i think we can all agree with that. and i think one of the reasons that the united states senate pulls right up there -- polls right up there among the american people with skim milk is because we don't get more done. and one of the reasons we don't get more done is because we're not allowed to vote. once again, i'm not telling anybody how to vote. the vote -- our votes are sacred. but you can vote yea on my ideas and senator carper's ideas. you can vote nay. you cannot vote at all. you can jump the rail. but please let us vote. and i'm not criticizing anybody. i'm really not. i know -- you know, we're

together a lot, madam president, as you know, and we all know each other, and i can honestly say, i like and respect every one of my colleagues in this body. i truly do. may not agree with them, but i look and respect them. so my criticism is not personal. but our process here is a problem. and that is my plea today to my colleagues. please don't object to this amendment. please. it doesn't mean you have to vote for it. you can vote against it. but, please, let the entire body have a vote because that's what democracy is supposed to be all about. and with that, madam president, i yield the floor to my friend, senator carper. mr. carper: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. carper: thank you, madam president. i want to commend the senator

from louisiana for his leadership and for his courage in pushing -- not just helping to develop this proposal that we've offered in legislative form but to try to make sure that it gets the vote that it needs, the debate it needs and the vote that it needs 0en this floor. -- on this floor. for a couple centuries, members of the united states senate would introduce legislation. that legislation would be debated. democrats and republicans would have the opportunity to offer amendments to that legislation. to get votes on that legislation, on their amendments, and we would hammer out a compromise in the senate and eventually with the house and with whoever was president. that's -- there's an old movie the presiding officer may remember, "the way we were." that's the way we were. and we need desperately to get back to the wait we were. when we were the world's

greatest deliberative body. and a good way to get started 0 than path is by supporting the legislation that my friend from louisiana and i have coauthored with the support of a broad coalition of senators and the support of the business community and the environmental community as well. our amendment is -- he's describing today is identical to legislation called the american innovation in manufacturing act. i'm not a real lig one for arizona chrono anymore, but the acronym used is the aim act, currently supported by a bipartisan group of senators. i describe it as noah's arc. and we're continuing on, the cosponsors of our bill and thisempt african american the amendment, like the stand-alone bill, would save consumers money. it would create jobs.

it would support economic growth, and it would help us address our climate crisis. this amendment authorizes e.p.a. to implement a phasedown in the production of consumption of something called hydrofluorocarbons over the next 15 years. when are h.f.c.'s? coolants, refrigerants, substances that help make sure that our air conditioners work and our freezers work and our refrigerators work, among other things, chillers work. unfortunately, something that came before h.f.c.'s was bad for the -- our ozone level, our ozone on our planet and created a big hole in the ozone level of our planet. and figured out that's not good. and what's causing that, it turned out refrigerants that we're using.

so science came along and said, let's replace, get rid of those c.f.c.'s and replace it with something that doesn't give us a hole in the ozone layer. and, guess what, h.f.c.'s work. they do a really good job at that. the bad news is the hydrofluorocarbons prosecute -- are 1,000 times worse. good on one hand, bad on the other hand. so scientists in this country, businesses go to work to say, what can we do with it? they came up with a replacement to replace the h.f.c.'s 1,000 times worse as greenhouse gas, than carbon dioxide. and we have the opportunity to use american technology to put americans to work to sell these products, not just in america but around the world.

american companies have invested literally billions of dollars to produce and sell the next-generation technology to replace h.f.c.'s. our amendment protects those investments. again, the amendment is good for consumers. i'll explain y the amendment drives the deployment of more efficient air conditioning and refrigeration products and equipment. it reduces energy and upkeep costs as well. how much? what is it worth in terms of saving money for consumers? e.p.a. apparently has calculated through its own economic analysis and they've come up with a number that says that our legislation over the next 15 years would save consumers $3.7 billion, $3.7 billion. not millions, billion dollars. our amendment is good for american jobs. the chamber of commerce expects our legislation will result in

the creation of 150,000 additional direct and indirect jobs -- in this country, in the years to come. 150,000 additional jobs, good-paying jobs. our amendment is good for our economy. our legislation is expected to improve the trade imbalance in chemicals and equipment, something we need to do, but to improve our trade imbalance in chemicals and improve it by $12.5 billion, and kress manufacturing out--- and increase manufacturing outcome close to $39 billion over the next seven years. and,oh, by the way, p.s., our amendment good for the planet that we live on and the people who inhabit t and we end up joining the rest of the world to phase down h.f.c.'s a void up to half a degree celsius in terms of increases in our climate -- our temperature on this planet. all these are win-wince.

they're all win-wins. and they are the reasons that our legislation has such broad support from stakeholders. our legislation is supported by an unlikely coalition, as senator kennedy has said. it is not every day you find the lamb and the lion lying down together and finding common cause. but in this case, a whole host of environmental groups, the u.s. chamber, national association of manufacturers, and other business groups, a the although of democrats, a lot of republicans, maybe one or two independents -- i mean, it is a great coalition, and it is one that i'm proud of, having worked with you, senator kennedy, to create. we do all this and we have this broad support in this unlikely coalition. our legislation does so without preempting the roles of states. and with that said, i know that some of our colleagues have called for adding new preemption authorities that would prevent states from addressing h.f.c.'s

to this amendment. my response to them is that -- this, and there are reasons why this is not an issue to be addressed at this time. at this time. as we have seen with the california waiver for vehicle standards, this administration doesn't seem keen on following the law and there is no guarantee that if we require e.p.a. to phase out h.f.c.'s that the trump e.p.a. will do so in a timely manner or legally defensible way. allowing the states holds the federal government accountable. once a strong program is in place states will not need to act and will spend their resources elsewhere. we've seen this happen before with programs. i'd like to add that many of my colleagues in this chamber stated they support innovation to help achieve our climate and clean energy goals. the federal government has many

tools to drive innovation, many tools to drive innovation. federal funding, federal procurement and also regulations. there's a reason we have broad support from the business community, businesses know that regulation will further drive innovation and u.s. investments. without the regulations that would be created if this amendment were adopted the u.s. will continue to lose global leadership and the production of h.f.c. alternative technologies. and let me just add a p.s. i know that some people think that climate change is a hoax, it's not real. my wife and some of her colleagues from the dupont company she worked for for years, madam president, traveled to antarctica earlier this year. a couple of weeks down there, incredible trip, learned a lot and came back and i said how warm was it down there. she says in the 30's.

she came back about five, six weeks ago and the weeks since then the record high temperature in antarctica, south pole, hit 63 degrees. that record lasted about a week and was replaced by a new record, 65. lasted for another week or two. that was broken by another record, i think it was 67 or 68 degrees. like that. a piece of antarctica about the size of district of columbia fell off into the ocean. something's happening here. something's happening here. and i think what it is getting to be pretty clear. and here's the good news. the good news is we can address that concern, that problem which is not a hoax, and we can do so in ways that create tens of thousands of jobs, billions of dollars of export, all kind of economic opportunity, innovation and technology that

we would celebrate and we should celebrate. we need to support this amendment. and i just want to again thank my colleague for his leadership, for allowing me to be his wing man in this effort. i look forward to garnering the support of a broad coalition of our colleagues. it's the right thing to do. let's do it. thanks so much.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: we are not in a quorum call. mr. barrasso: thank you, madam president. madam president, i come to the floor tonight to briefly discuss a message from the chief justice of the supreme court, chief justice john roberts. as you know, chief justice roberts recently sat in the very chair, madam president, in which you're sitting right now as he ably oversaw the impeachment trial.

in a very rare admonition, the chief justice of the supreme court this afternoon released a statement in response to statements made by the minority leader of the united states senate, chuck schumer. the senator speaking outside the court, across the street from this building, he was at a protest while arguments were being heard inside the court, and the comments made by senator schumer certainly appeared to threaten members of the supreme court. the video clip shows senator schumer saying this, he said i want to tell you gorsuch, i want to tell you kavanaugh -- these are members of the supreme court confirmed by the senate. he said i want to tell you, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.

you will pay the price. well, it can't be a political price because justices serve for life. either they die in office or they can resign, step down. there is no political price to be paid. to me, this sounds like he's talking about a physical price. violence. now schumer told abortion rights advocates who were outside the court these very things, i will tell you gorsuch, i will tell you kavanaugh, you have released a whirlwind, and you will pay the price. he goes on to say you won't know what hit you. you, members of the supreme court. he, the minority leader of the united states saying you won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. i believe these statements are

outrageous, they're uncalled for, they are out of bounds, and on their face they appear to invite violence against members of the united states supreme court. madam president, let me just read to you what the chief justice said today in his release. chief justice roberts responded that, this morning senator schumer spoke at a rally in front of the supreme court while a case was being argued inside. he goes on to say senator schumer referred to two members of the court by name and said he wanted to tell them that, quote, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. you won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. the chief justice continued, justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this

sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. he concludes by saying all members of the court will continue to do their job without fear or favor from whatever corridor. that's the statement, madam president, of the chief justice of the supreme court referring to the actions by the minority leader, the senator from new york, chuck schumer. madam president, we cannot tolerate political violence or threats of harassment. we as a body, as a community, as a country should be looking to elevate our debates rather than lower them, which is what senator schumer -- which is what, in my opinion, the minority leader did today. i hope that the minority leader will think twice about comments like these in the future. thank you, madam president, and i yield the floor.