>> thank you mr. speaker. we would like to pass on their thanks to the uk government for being one of the top donors to the global polio initiative which has made africa free from wild polio. will the prime minister congratulate me and joining for their module monumental efforts contributing over to william dollars and helping to vaccinate over 2.5 children around the world? >> i think might right honorable arfriend. it's a fine example of the philanthropy and public spirit of the british people which has been shown clearly throughout this crisis. >> thank you mr. speaker. i know the prime minister refused to recognize my ticket last week but my local housing has a rating list of more than 7000 households. 200,000 renters are the risk of imminent covid eviction and will

the funds reinstate the evictions to prevent even bigger housing crisis? >> mr. speaker. >> the senate is grappling back into session and we continue to watch for ministers just need time at c-span .org. now live to the senate floor here on c-span2. mr. lankford: mr. president. i have three requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mr. lankford: mr. president, we are once again in a conversation about freedom of religion and the free exercise of religion and what that means. there is simply -- i would argue that it means the ability to have any faith, to have no faith at all, change your faith, and to be able to live it out. the ability to have a faith as a part of who we are. it's our most precious possession within us. it's not that.

if it's something less than that, the free exercise of religion has limitations on it, then it's simply the freedom to worship or to have a name faith around you but not to actually live your faith, but that's not what we have in this country, thankfully. we have a constitutionally protected right to the free exercise of religion. we have more than the freedom of worship at the place of our choosing. we have the ability to live our faith freely, seven days a week, in all aspects of our lives. the question has become, though, are there certain positions in public life where you cannot have the free exercise of religion, where if you are elected or appointed into certain offices, you lose your constitutional right. the united states constitution makes that very, very clear. article 6 of the constitution says no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the united states. it should be pretty straightforward and clear.

in our last conversation hearing, then-professor amy coney barrett said, when asked a question about her faith, senator, i see no conflict between having a sincerely held faith and my duties as a judge. in fact, we have many judges both state and federal across the country who have sincerely held religious views and still impartially and honestly discharged that i obligations as a judge, and if i were confirmed as a judge, i would decide cases according to rule of law, beginning to end, and in rare circumstances that might ever rise -- and i can't imagine one sitting here now -- where i felt i had some conscientious objection to the law, i would recuse. three years ago, like today, judge barrett's faith, not her judicial philosophy, her temperament teams to be front and center. three years ago, my colleague from california, senator dianne feinstein, said this during amy coney barrett's confirmation hearing. why is it that so many of us on

this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that, you know, dogma and law are two different things, and i think whatever religion is, it has its own dogma. the law is totally different, and i think in your case, froafer, when i read your speeches, the conclusion one -- professor, when i read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you. senator durbin from illinois just asked her a very straightforward question. do you consider yourself an orthodox catholic? questions like that about defining the faith and how much of a catholic are you or how much dogma lives new is really a question of how much faith do you really practice? do you have a name on you or do you practice a little too much faith for my comfort level? see, the free exercise of religion pertains to an individual's sincerely held religious beliefs. it's not about the acceptance of

that belief by others. if it were, the free exercise of religion would be dictated by what others believe rather than what you believe. but in america, -- at least the america that i know -- individuals are allowed to have a faith, live their faith, have no faith, or change their faith. and for whatever reason, judge amy coney barrett is being criticized because she is catholic. there is an a.p. article that came out just this week that did an in-depth view. it was sent all over the country. an in-depth view about she is not just catholic, she is one of those catholics. and went into great detail about she attends bible studies and is on a board of a school and helps educate children and seems to believe that there is a personal relationship with jesus as they quoted in the article, as if that is some sort of criminal

thing and needs to have some suspicion. it's about her faith that she is being challenged in this undercurrent. justice ginsburg was not shy about the fact that she was jewish, nor should she be. we have heard a lot about the fact that she was the longest serving jewish justice and the first jewish person to lie in state in the capitol. why is it okay for justice ginsburg to talk about her faith and not judge barrett? why is justice ginsburg's faith celebrated and judge barrett's faith is currently being demonized? because those on the left believe their faith is okay, but for people on the right, it's suspicious. even last night, vice president biden introduced himself as an irish catholic, and that's celebrated on the left, but for judge barrett to identify herself as a catholic, she is asked questioningly, yeah, but are you one of those orthodox

catholics? one of the most remembered things about justice ginsburg, of many, was her storied friendship with justice scalia. on paper, they would be the unlikeliest of friends. she was a jewish liberal. he was a catholic conservative. their differences didn't divide them or offend each other. of their friendship, judge barrett said particularly poignant to me was the -- her meaning justice ginsburg, was her long and deep friendship with justice scalia, my own mentor. justice scalia and ginsburg disagreed fiercely in print without rancor in person. their ability to maintain a warm and rich friendship despite their differences even inspired an opera. these two great americans demonstrated that arguments, even about matters of great consequence, need not destroy affection. there's no question that justice

ginsburg did a lot for the advancement of women in this country. doesn't judge barrett also exemplify that? she is a circuit court judge. she graduated suma cum laude from notre dame law school, first in her class. she has been a professor for 15 years at notre dame. clerked for a supreme court justice, mother of seven children. three times voted at the top lar at notre dame. 34 clerks -- supreme court clerks that worked alongside barrett of all parties wrote this -- we are democrats, republicans, and independents. and we have a diverse points of view on politics, judicial philosophy, and much else, yet we all write to support the nomination of professor barrett to be a circuit judge on the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit. professor barrett is a woman of

remarkable intellect and character. she is imminently qualified for the job. all 49 faculty members, full-time faculty members at notre dame in law school, all 49 of them, all of them signed a letter stating barrett possesses an abundance of all the other qualities that shaped extraordinary jurists, discipline, intellect, wisdom, impeccable temperament, and above all fundamental decency and humanity. 73 law professors across the country, including former obama administration solicitor general neil cadle stated this -- although we have different perspectives on the methods and conclusions in her work, we all agree that professor barrett's contributions to legal scholarship are rigorous, fair-minded, respectful, and constructive. so she is criticizeed tenaciously because of her faith. she is criticized because she is not woman enough and whatever

that may mean. she has even been criticized this past week and called a white colonizer. two of her seven children were adopted from haiti. she has been accused of using her children as props. how low can this go? this is what judge barrett had to say about her family. the president has asked me to become the ninth justice, and as it happens, i'm used to being in a group of nine, my family. our family includes me, my husband, jessie, emma, vivian, tess, john peter, liam, julia, and benjamin. vivian and john peter, as the president said, were born in haiti, and they came to us five years apart when they were very young. the most revealing fact about

benjamin, our youngest, is that his brothers and sisters unreservedly identify him as their favorite sibling. our children, she said, our children obviously make our life very full. while i'm a judge, i'm better known back home as a parent, car-pool driver, birthday party planner. when schools went remote last spring, i tried on another hat. jessie -- that is her husband -- jessie and i became coprincipals of the barrett e. learning academy. and yes, the list of enrolled students was a very long. our children are my greatest joy, even though they deprive me of any reasonable amount of sleep. judge barrett has even been criticized in her faith and being criticized in her relationship in her family. judge barrett said about her husband and her family, i could not have managed this very full

life without the unwavering support of my husband jesse. at the start of our marriage, i imagined that we would run our household as partners. as it's turned out, jesse does far more than his share of the work. to my chagrin, i learned at dinner recently that my children consider him to be the better cook. for 21 years, jesse has asked me every single morning what he can do for me that day. and although i almost always say nothing, he still finds ways to take things off my plate. and that's not because he has a lot of free time. he has a very busy law practice. it's because he is a superb and generous husband and i am very fortunate. faith, family, why are we doing personal attacks on a qualified candidate for the supreme court of the united states?

first in her class. recognized by the faculty as superior. recognized by judges and leaders across the country as qualified. why are we into this conversation? september 29, an article from npr was entitled "amy coney barrett's catholicism is controversial but may not be a confirmation issue." the article said never before has the court been so dominated by one religious denomination, that is catholics. it is legitimate for senators to be concerned about whether the court is reflecting the diversity of faith in the united states. wow. now it's maybe we have too many catholics. maybe this is one too many and senators should consider the greater diversity. as odd as it sounds, the article didn't identify the fact that amy coney barrett would be the only justice not to have graduated from harvard or yale. there doesn't seem to be a desire to have a diversity of

opinion or background on that. it's just about this one area, her faith. imposing a religious test on supreme court justices is not only antithetical to the constitution, it's a very slippery slope, and it's one we have been down before, and i thought we had cleared. in 1960, 1960, then-candidate john f. kennedy stood in front of a group of ministers in houston, texas, who were concerned about having a catholic president because we as a country had never had a catholic president, and there were all these rumors and innuendos out there that the president would work for the pope. so in 1960, j.f.k. stood in houston, texas, and spoke to a group of ministers and made this statement. he said i believe in an america where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where

religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all. for while this year it may be catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been and may someday be again a jew or a quaker or a unitarian or a baptist. it was virginia's harassment of baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to jefferson's statute of religious freedom. 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. j.f.k. said this -- finally, i believe in an america where religious intolerance will someday end, where all men and all churches are treated as equal, where every man has the right to the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice, where there is no catholic vote, no anti-catholic vote, no block voting of any kind and where catholics, process tants, jews, at the lay

and pastoral level will refrain from the attitudes of disdain and division which has so often marred the works of the past and promote instead the american ideal of brotherhood. this is the kind of america i believe in and it represents the kind of presidency in which i believe a great office which must never be humbled by any one religious group or with holding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. i believe in a president whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed on him by the nation nor imposed on him by the nation as with holding that office. i would not look with favor upon the president or in this case i would say a judge, working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberties. nor would a system of checks and balances permit him to do so. neither would i look those who

would look to article 6 of the constitution by requiring a religious test. if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be out openly working to repeal it. we are a nation that celebrates faith, that recognizes faith as a unifying factor even in a diversity of faith. i've had the privilege, and many of us have, to be able to pray with each other. we are senators of different faiths, different backgrounds, different places. and we work to treat each other with respect. faith is not something that americans should demand nor the senate should demand that people have to take off to be able to serve the american people. we don't take our faith off. it's not a jersey that we ware on the outside -- wear on the outside, it is the core of who we are on the inside. that's not something that you just take off to put on public

service. you put on public service but your core faith should not be challenged to be removed from your soul to be a viable person to be able to serve in the court. let's work on our concept of religious liberty whether you're a christian, whether you're a muslim, whether you're a buddhist or a hindu, you can be a great american and you can serve this great country in any location that you choose because we are a nation that honors and protects the right of the free exercise of religion. with that, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. our nation's small businesses -- mr. cramer: faced an existential crisis and unprecedented threat. and like the rest of us, they didn't truly know what this virus was, how long it would hit us or what the future would hold. but they did know that their businesses were preparing to close, that employees were being told to stay home and they

needed help which is why and every other colleague in this chamber created the cares act and created the paycheck protection program. we gave money to the administration who in turn gave that money to lenders and those lenders in turn loaned that money to small businesses to use on employ retention and if they followed the rules, they were told they wouldn't have to return the money. that was the commitment we made to them while we strongly encouraged them. and i emphasis strongly encouraged them to use the program, and it worked. we had nearly five million p.p.p. loans worth $570 billion out the door which kept tens of millions of people on some counts on the payrolls instead of on the unemployment roles. now history will be the judge of the long-term success of the program. but it's unquestionable in the short term this program

succeeded. it's time for us now, mr. president, to uphold our commitment. america's lenders an borrowers are ready to take that next step, proving they complied with the rules so they can receive forgiveness for these loans. sadly for them, but not surprising to me, the forgiveness process designed by the agency is burdensome, complex and already in need of reform. that's not just my opinion, mr. president, it is -- that is the opinion of the government accountability office. they said, quote, applying for loan forgiveness is more time consuming than applying for the p.p.p. loan itself and requires more lender review. unquote. mr. president, you see the trap that we've laid for our borrowers and lenders. we, the federal government, spent weeks, months telling our hurting fragile small businesses, take this money, take this money, just use it correctly and it will be forgiven. well, here we are, our businesses are still struggling,

still facing uncertainty and the agency prescribed solution appears to have a system more intense than any they have experienced during this pandemic just so they can prove to the right people that they didn't use their money incorrectly. and that's a problem -- we know it's going to be a problem for a long time. and that's why we've been working on bipartisan solutions to the problems in this bipartisan program for months. over the summer senator menendez and i brought together a bipartisan collision and -- coalition and introduced the paycheck protection program small business protection act. here is what it is. of those five million p.p.p. recipients, they had loans of $250,000 or less. they account for about 132 billion of the p.p.p. funds we spent. think about that. 4.2 million of the five million so that 86% of the borrowers account for 132 billion of the

571 billion that we spent. that's only 71% many we separated 86% of the loans which accounted for 27% of the money, if borrowers, small businesses, create a simple one-page business to the lender, our banks, our credit unions, the loan would be forgiven. it's that simple. it eliminates the anxiety felt by our businesses, puts accountability on the borrowers and let's us focus on the 14% of the p.p.p. recipients who took 73% of the funds. if this seems obvious and common sense, it's because it is. congress is not known as working together. a -- to work with arizona to alabama from north carolina to nebraska. nearly a third of the senate with members from both parties have signed on to our bill. what's happened since?

well, you know as well as anybody, mr. president, our friends blocked us from considering a new relief package a cup of weeks ago. many of our provisions in that bipartisan bill were in that package. politics prevailed and we came up short. that happens around here. but just because our total package was blocked doesn't mean our small businesses and lenders who -- who gave them p.p.p. funds don't still need the relief. that's what we've heard from our communities and hundreds of association leaders from all across the country. so on their behalf, on behalf of the small businesses who need help and the lenders we encouraged to help them, i'm going to be calling for unanimous consent to passage of zest 4117. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on small business be discharged from further consideration of s. 4117, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. further, that the johnson amendment at the desk be considered and agreed to, the

bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i reserve the right to object. mr. president, i want to thank my friend, senator cramer for bringing attention to this issue. i think he knows that the p.p.p. program was included in the cares act. i take great pride working with senator rubio, republican ant democrat, other -- and democrat, other members of our committee, we were the architects of the p.p.p. program. it was bipartisan, and it was included in the cares act and it was enacted in march. it's very interesting that if we would have gone with the original bill that came out with the republicans, it would not have been a bipartisan bill, much of the help for the small businesses would not have been in in the dares act -- cares

acts. we were able to advance the type of tools that were necessary to help america's small businesses. i must tell you the number one priority today for small businesses is to safely be able to resume full operations. they needed -- they need it safe for parents and their children to be able to get back to school. they need for us to get this virus under control so businesses that depend on large gatherings such as food services, hospitalities, events, travel, and tourism can literally survive. the house took its action to help accomplish these goals last may when they passed the heroes act. and to this date the republican leader, senator mcconnell, has not allowed us to take up that comprehensive legislation that will help our country, help deal with the virus, help our

economy, and help small businesses. just today speaker pelosi has updated the heroes act because it's been over four months since it was passed so that we now have a heroes act that is within the range between what the republicans originally suggested and the democrats had originally suggested. that's moverring towards a bipartisan bill -- moving towards a bipartisan bill. that's what we need. now, in the heroes act, there are so many provisions that are desperately needed for small business that are not in this unanimous consent request. let me point out a few. we need a second round of p.p.p. businesses that have suffered significant revenue losses, the hardest hit, the smaller of the small businesses need more help. the p.p.p. program was designed for an eight-week pandemic. this pandemic has gone long beyond eight weeks.

the house legislation includes resources for mission lenders. why do i mention that, such as cdfi and minority depositry institutions. we found when you rely on the 7-a commercial loans in order to forgive traditional loans, those traditionally underserved are not able to get the same kind of attention, minority businesses, woman-owned base businesses, businesses in rural areas. we need to provide allocations for mission lenders. that is not included in the unanimous consent. we need to expand p.p.p. eligibility. we heard from our nonprofits that were left out of the first round. they need to be included. local newspapers were not included. previous incarcerated individuals were denied certain help. the house legislation, the heroes act makes those changes

so that all eligible small businesses would be able to qualify for these loans. the economic injury disaster loan program is desperately in need of congressional attention. we have bipartisan support for significantly increasing the resources going into the edle program so that we can plenish the grants and provide the -- replenish the grants that are desperately needed for small businesses. that we can eliminate that $150,000 cap that was put on for the small business organizations, we need to make it clear that the loans can be made up to $2 million under the program. we need to help state and local government that's in the heroes act that is not in the unanimous consent that's being suggested. why do we have to help state and local government? because it is needed to operate

effect he -- effectively. the house provides the funds so it can directly help the small businesses. that is not included in the unanimous consent. we can include the 7-a program, the 504 program, the microloan programs, they are in the house bill, now in the unanimous consent request. we heard from the live venue operators. they need help. they are going to close if we don't do something to help them. it's our responsibility to act. it's in the heroes act. it's not in the unanimous consent request. we need to expand the employee retention tax credit which allows workers to be able to retained by small businesses. that's expanded under the heroes act. it's not in the unanimous consent request. and i could go on and on and on about all of the provisions that are necessary to help small businesses that we need to take up now. if we wait until after the elections, more small businesses will be shuttered forever.

that's the number one priority for small businesses. now, we also find that we need to help in regards to stream lining the process for loan forgiveness. i agree with my colleague. i agree we need to simplify that blows. i had my arguments with the small business administration. and so those who oversight in the executive branch. we know what they did to the eidl program. they didn't administer that the way we said. three days to process the grants. they didn't do that. they didn't give us the data we needed so we can understand the program. so why do we have confidence that under your unanimous unanis consent request -- i'm not exactly sure that will work. here's the good news. we want to do something in this area because you're right. the senator is right. we need to streamline the process. the s.b.a. is not doing it the

way we intended it to be done. the house took action. but it's a little different. for those loans under $50,000, why don't we do it without any paper. let them retain the records but let's eliminate any possibility of the s.b.a. delaying the loan forgiveness. i think that's one we should look at. we can't do that if we would let this consent go forward. and then lastly, this consent deals also with the safe harbor for the p.p.p. lenders. it would provide safe harbor from claims under the small business act, the false claims act, the financial institutions reform, recovery and enforcement act, the federal deposit insurance act and the bank secrecy act or any other federal, state, or criminal or civil law regulations. i think we should look at take before we just all of a sudden

agree that we should give that type of blanket safe harbor. so, mr. president, small businesses need help now. my colleague is correct. they need help now. but they need help far broader, far broader than this unanimous consent takes us. and there is need for negotiations in regards to the provisions that the gentleman has brought to the floor. and i can assure him that i will continue to work with senator rubio in a bipartisan manner once we get the numbers from the powers to be, that is, the speaker of the house and the secretary of the treasury, the administration and our leaders, we'll put together as we did under the cares act a comprehensive program to help all small business, not just those struggling right now with this form but those who can't even get the loan because they weren't eligible and they should have been eligible or those who need additional help. or those who need the eidl

program to work well or the mike row loan -- microloan. we want to provide that comprehensive help right now, this week. this unanimous consent just doesn't get us there. my commitment to my colleague is we'll -- we're going to work with him. we're going to work with other colleagues as we always do and we are going to include a provision to make it easier for small businesses to get loan forgiveness because we agree the s.b.a.s that not interpreted our law the way we want it to. so for all those reasons, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. a senator: i appreciate senator cardin's commitment to working together. mr. cramer: we're all committed to that as well. i do struggle a little bit that the reasons to oppose something for all the reasons that aren't in there. there aren't new idle program.

p.p.p. program, or microprogram or tax credits. of course trax credits are a whole knew jurisdiction. there's not unemployment. there are lots of things that aren't in it. but politics is the art of the possible. and around here, big packages become very difficult and politics gets in the way. i was hoping we could find an increment to help small businesses in a significant way that frankly isn't going to cost the government anything. in fact, it might save them some money just in the hiring of another large bureaucracy. so i'm working forward to working with the -- looking forward to working with the gentleman. i appreciate his work on p.p.p., with chairman rubio, senator collins on creating this program. i'm just disappointed we couldn't get it across the finish line today and i hope we will soon. i will yield knowing a couple of my colleagues want to speak on the same topic. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north carolina.

a senator: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank my colleague senator rounds to north dakota to north carolina businesses are struggling. i heard what senator war din said. i'm sympathetic to most of what he said. mr. tillis: but as he travel across the state and i've had 65 telephone town halls since covid started, talking with citizens in north carolina for an hour, spending 55 minutes hearing from them and answering their questions. we have a very difficult problem in north carolina and across the country. i just talked with a hotel and lodging association, restaurant association just a few weeks ago. they said we have 18,000 restaurants in north carolina. 9,000 of them are at risk of closing permanently. when we passed the cares act, we knew we had to do something big, bold, and fast. and i think everyone at the small business administration and the banking industry that mobilized to do something that is unprecedented, getting that money out into the hands of

businesses. the program is called the paycheck protection program for a reason. we were doing everything we could to make sure that those businesses who were willing could make payroll, keep people on their benefits, keep people on their health care, try to weather the storm while closures across this country closing down businesses or certainly dramatically reducing business. and thank goodness for the brave businesses that stepped up and applied for a paycheck protection loan and thank goodness for the banks that were willing to underwrite it while we were still really working the rules out literally building the cars that's rolling down the road. they should be commended for what they do. this measure is a simple measure. we know that more than 85% of all the loans that were underwritten under the paycheck protection program are under $150,000. we know that they're small businesses. but we have a lot of paperwork that these businesses are going

to have to do and small businesses interacting with the federal government on four or five occasions before the loan is forgiven is a daunting task when you're still trying to figure out how you can make payroll and how you can keep your business going. and then you have the banking industry that we relied on for moving all this capital out. they're making sure payrolls can be met that want to be prepared for the next traunch of cares act paycheck protection program loans. we're going to tie them up over paperwork with these small business loans that we can forgive? and it's not like we're turning a blind eye to compliance. we'll go and look at that loan portfolio with the same sort of sampling that the i.r.s. does to make sure if there's any fraud on are abuse, that people are held accountable. if senator cardin really wants to get to the work of the next paycheck protection program, let's lay the groundwork and clear the plum ming so when we -- plumbing so when we call on the small business administration who is in the process of hiring people just to

deal with loan forgiveness. the banks that want to provide more loans need to clear the backlog so they have the capacity to do it as fast as possible. senator cardin is right. we've got a lot more to do. this is a step in a long journey. by doing this forgiveness program, the measure that senator cardin objected to, we could have had the opportunity to take a straw off the camel's back. but we've got to do something. and we continue to have to follow up on the cares act. but i'm very disappointed that we've gotten to where we are in this chamber where everybody knows this is good legislation. we should do it. and they're turning their backs on businesses and unfortunately, i think it's going to result in more people on unemployment, more businesses closing, and i will work as hard as i can with senator kramer and -- cramer and senator rounds and other members to get this done. i yield the floor, mr.

president. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. rounds: thank you, mr. president. first let me thank my colleague from north dakota for making this presentation to begin with. my colleague from north carolina for supporting him in this action. we appreciate the comments that the senator from maryland has made. but we most certainly disagree with the approach he is suggesting. senator cramer has suggested that we have a very serious problem here which has to be addressed. this is something that does not affect just republican businesses. it affects all businesses. when you're talking about 4.2 million small businesses across the united states that are being impacted, that have borrowed money in good faith and who kept their businesses open, and now surprisingly when it comes time for the forgiveness portion of this to occur, we now have a very challenging process put in

place, a burdensome process that could only have been done with the common sense found in washington, d.c. and not in the rest of the country. to make the applications more difficult to get a forgiveness than the actual application to participate in the program in the first place is simply absurd. let me share with you a message from one of our bank executives in south dakota. this is a rather prominent c.e.o. in south dakota. and i will share with you that i've cleaned this up a little bit. so let me paraphrase his quote to us when we asked him for information concerning how the banks are going to try to handle this. remember, the banks didn't have to participate in this, but they did so in a way to literally get money out in a very short period of time to businesses who desperately needed the money in order to survive.

first of all, they stayed on open lines of communication with the s.b.a. literally 24/7 more than a week trying to get approval for individual applications that they helped small businesses to actually fill out the applications in the first place. but second of all, these banks become responsible for these loans and unless they are forgiven, they stay with the bank. now, how in the world can we expect these banks to go back in if we are successful in coming to an agreement on additional loans in the future being made if we can't even thol up on our -- follow up on our agreement that we would make this a simple process to get the loans forgiveness in the first traunch that we've completed. let me share with you what this c.e.o. says. and this has to do with his version of what's going on and literally we received dozens of these types of comments from bank loan officers in the upper midwest and particularly in south dakota.

and i paraphrase because as i say, we had to clean this up a little bit. the forgiveness piece of the p.p.p. is a disaster. i have 750 loans out of 1,381 under $20,000. and 50 under $2,000. they have basically the same forgiveness process as the loans of my largest borrower which is for over $4 million. so we're asking them to fill out the same paperwork as we do a large loan recipient. and then he goes on to say, the simplified version of the p.p.p. forgiveness loan application is not that simple. the government accountability office has studied it and says it takes a borrower 15 hours to complete. and the lender 75 hours to process. let me put that back again.

15 hours for the loan borrower to actually do the paperwork, 75 hours to process it. our borrowers are not happy, nor are we as bankers. this is not what we signed up for in order to get disaster payments to our customers. we are trying to hold off the small businesses who borrowed under $150,000 but they are getting anxious. we as lenders busted our tails to get this money out and we are getting absolutely hosed by this process. and i might add, that's not the word he used. lenders feel as though they have really been let down. there is more than a little fatigue with the entire p.p.p. loan forgiveness process. if we used any kind of common sense like they've got in the upper midwest we would have fixed this already. unfortunately it is in the middle of the political process in washington, d.c.

4.2 million small businesses handle in the balance. their ability to take care of a loan that we had committed if they followed through would be forgiven is now in jeopardy. time is running out. mr. president, i appreciate the opportunity once again to support the legislation which mr. cramer, senator cramer from north dakota has proposed. i hope that our colleagues on both sides of the aisle will come back and start using some of that common sense that seems to prevail in the rest of the united states, even though it is not always evident here in washington, d.c. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to discuss the president's historic choice for the u.s. supreme court. the president has nominated judge amy coney barrett, of the seventh circuit court of appeals. she would fill the vacancy left by the passing of ruth bader ginsburg ruth bader. this is a powerful appointment by president trump. she has a stellar record and a solid character. she will serve as a role model for an entire generation in the legal profession. she's already been vetted by this senate. she was vetted and received bipartisan support when she was

confirmed three years ago to her current court position. well, that's the definition of highly qualified. she embodies the qualities that the american people want in a justice. now, the american people want fair justices. they want justices who know that their job is to apply the law and not legitimate from the bench. that's what people in my home state of wyoming talked about this past weekend when i was visiting at home. it's what the people of wyoming want. they the want judge barrett and she is committed through her time in the legal profession and on the bench to these very values. so here in the senate in this body we have a job to do and it is to offer advise and consent. we will hold fair hearings and hold a timely floor vote on judge barrett's nomination. mr. president, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle don't seem to feel the same way

about this process. in fact, they have already announced their opposition to the nominee. regardless of how qualified this nominee is before us, regardless of the vacancy that exists on the court, regardless of the spectacle that the american people saw two years in the confirmation of justice kavanaugh, the senate minority leader has made his position clear. he seems to be so disturbed by the prospect of a constitutional jurist on the bench that he's willing to upend the core institutions of our nation. now democrat senators are calling on their colleagues to pack the court, to add two more liberal activist judges to the supreme court. one senator tweeted about it this weekend. that's, of course, what they plan to do if they win the white house, the house, and the senate in the november elections. now, this would deliver partisan decisions that make law but don't apply the law.

now, for vice president biden in the presidential debate last night, he refused to eabs a specific -- refused to answer a specific, direct question about this very topic. he refused to reject a position that democrats are holding that is highly unpopular and highly decisive. and -- divisive. you know who said that was a bad idea, mr. president? it was ruth bader ginsburg. she said nine members is the right number. she said it works. people shouldn't try to add to that. it would be seen as partisan, political. and, of course, that number has been in place since 1869. last year in an interview she said nine was the right number. so this isn't something she said a long time ago. it was last year in an interview with public national radio. senior democrats appear to be

determined to make the senate and remake it and destroy the supreme court in the process. the radical left sees judge barrett simply as collateral damage. she is an obstacle to be overcome no matter the cost. that's why she's being attacked for her faith for being an active member of her church, for participating fully. she's being attacked as a mother, being attacked for her religious beliefs. the far left in their haste to attack the judge never mention that she has seven children. now two of those seven children were adopted from haiti. one of her children has special needs. so judge barrett is a full-time caregiver as well as a public servant. she understands the importance of health care had she understands how precious life is. she is an outstanding nominee. two years ago, mr. president, we considered another nominee for the supreme court. democrats dragged him through

the mud. we witnessed a gang land character assassination. i wouldn't be surprised if we see the same thing happen again and the far left is already demanding it. they are demanding that mud continue to be thrown at this nominee, mr. president, until it sticks. something, anything to undermine her character and to undermine her credibility. now, i might remind my friends of the outcome of that seek and destroy mission last time. justice kavanaugh's family was put through the meat grinder and republicans stood by him. he was confirmed by the senate and sits on the supreme court. the senate and impeachment won't stand for political games and we won't accept the tricks that the far left will try to pull. chairman grassley promised a fair process in the judiciary committee.

the majority leader has said he will have a full and fair consideration on the senate floor. we won't -- if democrats continue to smear this outstanding nominee, this mother of seven, this woman of faith, it's going to backfire on them again. they continue such stunts at their own peril. after the kavanaugh confirmation devolved into a circus, democrats lost seats in the senate and they lost credibility with the public. the american people expect fairness. they demand it for the highest court in the land and senate republicans will ensure it. we will ensure judge barrett is fairly treated. she deserves dignity and respect and we will ensure that she is heard. mr. president, amy coney barrett appears to have all the qualities i look for in a supreme court justice. she's a model of integrity, of intelligence, and of judicial

independence. she is highly qualified to the role to which he is nominated and she'll receive a fair vote in the united states senate. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for minnesota. ms. klobuchar: mr. president, i am here today to make clear what is at stake if the supreme court overturns the affordable care act in the middle of this global pandemic. this is something the trump administration has been trying for years. it came out of a case in texas and they brought it all the way now to the u.s. supreme court. it has been over nine months

since the united states had its first confirmed case of the coronavirus. now we have over seven million cases and tragically over 200,000 people have died. it's been nine months, but still we do not have a national testing strategy in place, something that would not only save lives but also would be a great help in having the ability to open our economy again. we don't have sufficient contact tracing or clear guidance to schools and businesses, how to keep their students and employees and customers safe. nearly 30 million people are out of work and today many are still struggling to pay their rent and put food on the table for their families. millions of kids are sometimes going to school in hybrid models, in for a few days, out for a few days.

they are learning to use zoom. first graders, one of my staff's daughters is learning to use the mute an unmute button. but instead of telling the american people of how deadly this was we had a president who didn't tell us. it was personal to me when the president told the american people that this was all going to go away. that it was going to go away by easter the same time that he knew we now know that it was deadly, that he knew that it was airborne when my family was just trying to wash off all the counters and wash your hands, which is still a good idea, but we thought that would be the way to keep awr selves safe -- ourselves safe. this president didn't share this information. and my husband early on got very, very sick from this virus and wound up in the hospital on

oxygen and got better. it is personal to me and it is personal to others who had a friend or family member who died or who has gotten sick the now in my husband's case thanks to the brave frontline workers and the nurses and the doctors in the hospital, and thanks to the fluke, it'ser is eni didn'ty -- serendipity as to who survives and who doesn't, our story isn't unique. many people who went to the hospital didn't come home. we know this has inordinately hit frontline workers and inorder assistantly hit -- inordinately hit people of color. after the house first passed the heroes, legislation to provide true funding for testing to help state and local governments go

through to this time to make sure our elections are safe during this pandemic, and still we wait. and while i am encouraged that speaker pelosi is once again negotiating after she and senator schumer had met with the white house, met with the majority leader of this senate, offered to go half way, that was rejected and still people kept dying. i thinking is like 800 people -- 800 businesses closed a day, hundreds of people dying a day. so now they are at it again. speaker pelosi is coming up with a new plan that is significantly less funding but one that we hope have a glimmer of hope. but this has not been a priority in this place. instead the plan is to spend the next few weeks jamming through a nominee to the supreme court. what's the rush?

why not focus on working together to help the american people get through this pandemic? why not focus on getting a bunch of the bills done that have been sitting on the majority leader's desk, like the violence against women act? that's sitting there. why not take some action on climate change? that's sitting there as the fires are blazing on the west coast. why not do something about pharmaceutical prices? something the president has claimed to be trying to do something about in the last month of his administration. well, another challenge to the affordable care act is going to be back up before the supreme court just one week after the election on november 10. do you think that has anything to do with this rush to a justice? is that what it is because it's right after the election.

otherwise why wouldn't you wait? see who wins the election. that's what abraham lincoln did, the only time in history a justice died this close to an election, he waited to see who won. but, no, we are told this has to happen now despite the fact that only a few years ago a completely different president was -- precedent was set by the majority of people that are serving in this senate right now on the republican side of the aisle. but what's coming up, november 10, the case, the affordable care act, or as they like to call it, obamacare. i always liked it that president obama was always happy to adopt the name for the bill given that the bill has become more and more popular, given that it has helped hundreds of thousands of people to get insurance, given that it has helped more than that, millions of people to not be kicked off their insurance. you don't have to be in one of

those exchanges to be protected by the affordable care act, which basically says if you have a preexisting condition, whether it's diabetes, whether it is alzheimer's, whether it is cancer, that you cannot be kicked off of your health insurance. that applies to everyone in america with that bill. so there are people in this senate right here that have been trying to repeal that affordable care act, trying to do it for years. we had a big debate over it but that didn't work. that didn't work. because john mccain in. i can still picture him walking through that door and saying no while he was sick, that he wasn't going to again nye -- going to deny health care coverage to people because he had it himself. then they tried again. went down to texas. found a court down there maybe that they thought could be helpful. and guess what? then it gets struck down, down

there. not just a part of it. they said no, no, no. maybe the whole thing. so that's what's coming up to the supreme court on november 10. so if you can't get your way one way, the administration decided we're going to try it in court. it is their lawyers, their lawyers that argued this. donald trump's lawyers. they have been trying to get rid of the affordable care act and the protections it provides for people with preexisting conditions for years. but have we seen an alternative plan from this president? no, we have not. that last time when we saw that effort by my colleagues to repeal the health care law, it would have kicked 11 million people off of medicaid. it would have let insurance companies charge people more if they got sick. and it included an age tax where an older person could have been charged five times more than a younger person. that was the plan we saw before. that plan was opposed by every

major group you trust when it comes to your health care. the largest groups of doctors, nurses, seniors, hospitals, people with cancer, alzheimer's, lung disease, diabetes. they said it was the worst bill for the people of this country. there never even was a vote on that bill because it was so unpopular. and that was, of course, just months after that previous effort i just described where john mccain walked into the chamber and gave the repeal of the affordable care act that would have taken health care away from so many americans, a big no. senator mccain believed that courage is not just standing by yourself, giving a speech to an empty chamber like i happen to be doing right now except thank you to the ten people take are in -- that are in here. it's not just that.

it's whether or not you're willing to stand next to someone who you don't always agree with for the betterment of this country. but that's not what we are seeing here. my colleagues have not been able to succeed in repealing the health care law using the legislative process the administration has turned to the court. let's look at the track record. i like looking at evidence as a former prosecutor. even before he was elected the president promised that his judicial appointment, quote, will do the right thing. end quote. and overturn the affordable care act. he has criticized the sitting chief justice, justice roberts, for upholding the law when it was last before the court. and just days ago he said on twitter that it would be a big win if the supreme court strikes down the health law. and now with americans already

voting, the president is trying to jam through a nominee who has already voiced serious opposition to upholding the affordable care act. the same year that this nominee became a judge, that would be in 2017. she was confirmed in october. she published an article with the university of minnesota law school journal, pretty good journal, writing that she believes chief justice roberts -- this was her criticism of the chief justice -- quote, push the affordable care act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute. if president trump's nominee is confirmed before oral arguments on november 10, yes, she could easily cast a deciding vote to strike down the law in its entirety. the american people know what that means to them. to starve protections for people

with preexisting conditions like diabetes or asthma would be again. more than a hundred million americans have a preexisting condition and the affordable care act makes sure they can't be denied insurance coverage or charged significantly higher premiums. before the a.c.a. -- and i remember this because we debated it in this very chamber -- 43 states allowed insurance to charge higher premiums to people with preexisting conditions. we can't go back to that. without the affordable care act's health insurance exchange and the support for states to expand medicaid, it is estimated that 20 million americans would lose their insurance. the ability to keep your kid on your insurance plan until they are 26 years old would be gone. how many parents are using this right now in the middle of this pandemic? i don't know the numbers, but i know it's a lot. the work we have done to close the medicare donut hole coverage gap for prescription drugs would be gone. the provisions that help people buy insurance on the health care

exchanges would be gone in the middle of a global pandemic. over seven million americans have been infected by the virus and the cases are rising. that is seven million people who without the affordable care act could be found to have another preexisting condition. and that is seven million people who may have recovered from the virus but as dr. fauci has warned, may continue to struggle with a range of long-term effects that require comprehensive health care coverage. so why? why ram this through in two weeks? is it because that case is coming up? if you read the president's tweets, makes you think it has a lot to do with it or is it because the alternative theory he's put out there, that he wants to make sure that supreme court is in place in order to decide the election results.

neither of those theories is a reason to jam through a nominee, and my colleagues know it. i know that the people of this country see through this raw use of political power. they know their health care is on the line. they know what's on the line. they know our environment is on the line. that's why they're voting and they're voting in droves. they're voting as we speak. they're casting ballots with each and every second we stand here in this chamber. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. wendy is a constituent of mine from stamford, connecticut, and she tells a story that is going to sound incredibly familiar to folks who have been part of this health care debate over the last ten years in this chamber. she says when my daughter was 15, she was diagnosed with a type of bone cancer and underwent a year of treatment.

we were hopeful that she was cured. but exactly one year ago it was two months after she graduated from college and about to move across the country to begin her career when she underwent a routine checkup and found out that the cancer had returned. the past year has included more chemo, surgery, and immune know therapy. my daughter is now 23 years old and she is the definition of a preexisting condition. she's still on our health plan but we're already looking at the time in about two years when that will no longer be possible. although she is at least feeling well enough to begin the job search again, there's no security for any of us without the existence of the affordable care act as an option. so she not have employer-based health care. she's a young woman who's already gone through so much in these short years. there are enough unknowns. please continue -- this is her writing to me -- to protect the

affordable care act so she knows she has health care. president trump last night contested the idea that a hundred million americans have preexisting conditions. well, maybe he is right because most data suggests the number is 130 million americans have some form of preexisting condition that if insurance companies were allowed to would either result in rate hikes for them because of their diagnosis or they would be made -- insurance would be made unavailable to them entirely. now, it's been almost ten years since we lived in a world where insurance companies could deny you health care because of a preexisting condition, could raise your rates simply because you're a woman. and so for many americans, it's even hard to remember those days in which you could be discriminated against just because of a childhood cancer of the but those days are about to come back. we are literally months away if

president trump is successful in ramming through the supreme court nominee, from insurance companies once again being able to deny coverage from anybody they want based upon their gender, based upon their medical history, based upon their prior diagnoses. and this isn't a hyperbole because i've been in the congress long enough to know two things. one, republicans will stop at nothing in order to repeal the affordable care act. and we'll talk this afternoon about what that means beyond rt 130 million -- beyond the 130 million americans who will have their rates increased. but i know something else as well which is there is no replacement. there is nothing coming from the republican majority in the senate or from this administration to replace the affordable care act. and you know why i know that? because i've been waiting for

the replacement for a decade, and it has never showed up because it never will. republicans tried to repeal the affordable care act here, the first year of the president's term. a lot of people said it was a foregone conclusion. of course, after having pledged to repeal the affordable care act for five years, republicans now with control of the senate and the house and the white house, well of course made good on their promise. of course we know how that turned out. they couldn't because the american people rose up. phone lines lit up. town hall meetings exploded, and republicans in the end could not find the votes, even with majorities in both houses and control of the white house to repeal the affordable care act. well then, republicans said let's find another way. if we can't use the most democratic process, legislation in order to repeal the affordable care act, then let's

go to the courts. and so republican attorneys general filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn the entirety of the affordable care act on a legal premise that most mainstream scholars thought had no shot, but they weren't counting on this president being able to pack the courts with enough extreme right-wing jurists to accept the flawed argument. so the president started by putting neil gorsuch on the court. continued with brett kavanaugh. and now one vote away from being able to overturn the affordable care act, he now has a chance with the nomination of amy coney barrett to finally get what he couldn't get done in the elected branch of american government, the full repeal and elimination of the affordable care act with nothing to replace it. it's not hyperbole because there is literally that case that i described getting ready for

argument before the supreme court a week after election day. so guess why it is so important that we confirm a justice before election day? because they need the votes to invalidate the affordable care act shortly after the election occurs. and it becomes a little bit harder if that justice is not there to hear the arguments in mid-november. take republicans at their word. they want the affordable care act gone. take republicans at their word. they don't have a replacement. it will be a humanitarian catastrophe in this country if in the middle of a pandemic, a pandemic that is killing a thousand people a day, 44,000 new infections that we know of on a daily basis for 23 million americans to lose access to insurance. remember, this lawsuit doesn't ask for the affordable care act to be eliminated in pieces or

over time. the remedy it seeks is the affordable care act gone, all of it, overnight. 23 million americans who rely on it, 260,000 in my state, the equivalent of 62 different towns in my state alone losing their health insurance. and don't think that states are going to be able to pick up the pieces here. a lot of these folks are on medicaid. and theoretically states could decide to pick up the bill themselves but they can't because the president has forced states to foot the lion's share of the bill for fighting covid because of the failure to stand up a national response. so state vs no money lying around -- states have no money lying around to make up for all the people who are going to lose medicaid access. 23 million people can lose their insurance potential -- potentially by the end of the year or early next year if this justice gets confirmed to the court but then all those people with preexisting conditions. and remember, we now have a new

preexisting condition. that is covid. what we are learning about covid-19 is very, very worrying. researchers have observed changes to the heart, to the vascular system, the lungs, the brain, the kidneys in those who have gotten sick and even in many people that are asymptomatic. in fact, there's a study out there right now that dr. fauci noted before the help committee recently that shows 70% t to 80% of people who have had covid have some lasting damage to their heart. covid is a preexisting condition. now, you may think i haven't had covid, so i'm not at risk of that preexisting condition causing my rates to go up, if amy coney barrett gets confirmed to the court. well, you don't know if you've had covid or not.

and let me tell you that insurance companies are not going to play dumb if they are allowed to discriminate against you because you have covid, then they are going to require to you prove that you haven't had it before you get a policy. millions and millions of americans are going to have their rates increased or be denied health care at all because they had covid, whether they were asimple tomatic or symptomatic. that in itself is a health care crisis in this country. and so, mr. president, the stakes of this debate over the nomination of this new supreme court justice couldn't be higher. senator klobuchar talked about the fact that the supreme court may decide the outcome of this election, and that's a subject that we should explore at a different time. but one week after the election, the court will hear a case asking for the invalidation of

the entire affordable care act. republicans in the senate and the white house have no plan to replace it, and if that case is successful, 23 million people are at risk of losing their health insurance, 11 million who are on the exchanges, 12 million who are covered by medicaid, 133 million americans, roughly half of america's population under the age of 65, could have their rates increase because of preexisting conditions, 2 million young people under the age of 26 could be kicked off their parents' health insurance, 9 million people who receive federal subsidies, tax credits to buy private insurance would lose to coverage in the midst of a global pandemic. covid diagnoses will possibly render you ineligible for insurance. that is a nightmare.

a nightmare on top of the pandemic nightmare that we are living throughed currently. so we are on the floor today to make sure that our senate republican colleagues don't distract the american public, don't try to create controversies around this nomination that don't exist, don't try to put words in democrats' mouths. thereon what we're saying. what we are saying is that this nomination -- listen to we are saying. this is about the future of the health care system. every senator who votes to confirm amy coney barrett to the supreme court, i believe, is voting to take insurance away from over 20 million americans, voting to render covid a preexisting condition that requires you to pay more for health care for the rest of your life and going back to the days

in which any preexisting condition could cause you to lose your health insurance and then lose everything that you have saved up over decades and decades. betty burger is one of those people. i will finish with her story. should had good insurance through her husband her entire life. he changed jobs, and he had about a week period of time in which he didn't have a job in between those two jobs and didn't have health care. during that week, one of their kids was diagnosed with cancer and it became a preexisting condition, such that the husband's employer's new health care plan wouldn't cover it and the burgers lost everything -- everything. they went bankrupt. they went through her savings, they went through the college fund, they lost their house, they lost everything. it's been a decade since any

american had to face that kind of financial ruin because of a diagnosis to them or their child. it is hard for us to remember those days, but they are coming back. they are coming back, i tell you this now, if this supreme court justice is rammed through over the course of the next month. i yield back. mrs. shaheen: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: i join my colleague. justice ginsburg was not only an extraordinary legal mind, but she was an unwavering advocate for equality under the law. i believe she epitomize what had we should seek in any supreme court justice -- a respect for

the rule of law coupled with an understanding that our constitution was designed to protect the rights of the many, not just the few. unfortunately, president trump and my colleagues across the aisle are doing a disservice to justice ginsburg's legacy by attempting to rush through a nominee when the election is already under way. and that's not being dramatic. the fact is we have 31 states, including my home state of new hampshire, that are already begun distributing their absentee ballots. i was at a u.p.s. distribution center in the city of dover yesterday -- actually, it was on monday -- and i talked to several people there who showed me their absentee ballots because they had filled them out and they were getting ready to mail them. so voting is already under way. and this is no ordinary election. it comes during a global

pandemic when cities and towns are struggling to stay afloat and americans are trying to figure out how they're going to continue to pay the rent and put food on the table. with more than 200,000 americans, including 439 granite staters, who have died from covid-19, we are still experiencing as many as 40,000 new cases each day in this country. our economy is struggling to get back on its feet. there are still 11.5 million fewer workers employed since the pandemic began, and many are unable to go back to work because the majority of our child care centers remain closed out of safety concerns, and we still have so many schools -- at least in new hampshire -- where the students are working from home, if they're lucky, they're going to school part-type and working from home part-time, but most of them are not back in school full-time. treatment and recovery centers

are reporting that the overdose crisis has worsened because of the pandemic, and in new hampshire where we saw in 2019 for the first time in a number of years the overdose death rate begin to fall, we are now seeing it increase again. and we are facing a looming eviction crisis and housing shortage that's been exacerbated by covid-19. and yet, given this reality, what we're seeing in the senate is not an effort to pass a bipartisan covid-19 relief package that's actually going to help the millions who have been impacted by this pandemic. instead, what we're seeing from the republican leadership here is a focus on quickly ramming through a nominee to serve on the supreme court in just a few short weeks. and while that is going on, we've seen republican leadership in the senate blocking bipartisan negotiations on a

covid-19 relief bill. that's been going on since may, when we received the house bill called the heroes act. and during those last four months, businesses have been shuttered in new hampshire and across this country, families have been evicted, hospitals have laid off staff -- all of this going on while the pandemic continues. more than 40,000 new cases a day yesterday i was in nashua, the second-largest city in new hampshire, and i met with leadership from st. joseph's hospital there. i'm one of two -- one of two hospitals in nashua. one of the four hospitals that has treated the most covid cases of any of the hospitals in new hampshire. nashua is one of the communities in new hampshire that's been hardest hit by the coronavirus. what i heard at the hospital was

that covid-19 has had a huge impact on their facility. despite the very much-needed infusion of funds into the cares act, they are still forecasting significant losses. they have had to furlough employees, many of whom rely on their jobs at st. joseph's, not just for their health care but also for their child care benefits. they shared that they have concerns with the lack of availability for testing capability. they've had orders that have never arrived at their facility, despite commitments from the companies who are selling the tests. but the leadership and the staff at st. joseph remain committed to serving their community, as do all of the hospitals across new hampshire. so many of whom are facing similar financial difficulties and need additional help from the federal government.

i'm hearing from people across my state who urgently need federal help. i've had letters from people all across new hampshire representing different industries in the state and different segments of our communities. i want to read an excerpt from a letter that i received from pamela keeley, who works with the new hampshire coalition against domestic violence. she says, and i quote, the pandemic has had brave consequences on the health and safety of survivors, as they encounter ongoing barriers to accessing the support they need. overall, the statewide hotlines have seen a% increase in call volume -- a 7% increase in call volume. pam's letter goes 0en to highlight what's at stake if congress refuses to act. show says, quote, prolonged inaction in providing additional

funding places survivors and their families at increased jeopardy. the time to intervene is now. they need help now. i also want to read a letter from chris coats, the county administrator for cheshire county, new hampshire. chris' letter describes the important role local governments are playing in mitigating the spread of covid-19. he says, quote, we are providing essential support and guidance to small businesses. record numbers of unemployed individuals and those suffering from mental illness and substance use disorders. end quote. state and local leaders like chris are facing severe budgetary shortfalls. they desperately need help from congress. the state of new hampshire alone expects to experience a budget shortfall of nearly $540 million

if congress doesn't provide additional support. in his letter, chris coats goes on to say, quote, cheshire county is not looking for a special handout. my request reflects the simple reality that county governments along with our state and local partners are dealing with immense challenges at the community level. end quote. and then i also heard from the seacoast chamber alliance, which represents chambers of commerce in the communities of hampton, exeter, portsmouth, dover, summersworth, and rochester. the chamber alliance says they respectfully request you and your colleagues in the senate work together in a bipartisan effort to approve a comprehensive funding relief package to support our businesses. they goes on to say, although we and our members are grateful for

the support already allocated through previous cares relief funding panels, we know this economic crisis caused by covid-19 is far from over and for many the worst is yet to come. they finally conclude by saying, it is clear that without another round of assistance, many businesses will not survive into 2021. mr. president, i have a umin of letters here -- i have a number of letters clear, including the ones i quoted from. i ask unanimous consent that these letters be entered into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. so in the middle of this pandemic, the likes of which we haven't seen in more than 100 years, what we see here in the senate is that majority leader mcconnell has prioritized moving a nominee who would enable the court to strip away critical health protections that keep americans safe.

instead of providing more resources for the businesses, the hospitals, the health care providers, the people who have lost their jobs, instead of providing more resources for them, the majority is hoping to confirm a nominee who would strike down health care coverage for people, including those with preexisting conditions. my colleague from connecticut, senator murphy, was very he -- eloquent in talking about what the impact of striking down the affordable care act will be. but the fundamental concern is that instead of working together here to help americans who are struggling with this pandemic, what the majority has chosen to do, what the republicans in this chamber have chosen to do is to ram through a nominee who threatens to erode these fundamental rights while in the court. right now granite staters and all americans need the senate to

work for them, not for a partisan agenda to rat calize the -- to radicalize the supreme court. i urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to set aside this effort, to work together for the american people, to get people the help they so desperately need. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nevada. ms. rosen: thank you. i rise today to -- talk about president trump's refusal to denounce white supremacy during last night's debate. with anti-semitism raring its ugly head around the globe and the nation being torn apart over political leaders, --

differences, particularly the president trump must call out hate. last night the president failed to rise to the occasion and failed the american people in doing so. on the global stage, in the year 2020 the leader of the free world gave an unequivocal wink and nod to white supremacists, racists and neo-nazis all while the nation and the world looked on in absolute horror. not only did the president of our united states not condemn the white spew president -- higy supremacist violence, he implicitly gave them marching orders. when asked to condemn the hate group, the proud boys, the president of the united states said that they should stand back and stand by. let me repeat. he gave the order for them to stand back and stand by.

there is no justification for his words or for his refusal to give a clear, direct and swift condemnation of white supremacy. the president's emboldening of violent extremists comes as the f.b.i. and the department of homeland security named white supremacists extremists as the, the most significant terrorism-related threat right here in the united states. as a member of the homeland security and governmental affairs committee, i heard the f.b.i. director testify to this very point just last week. the message was clear. white supremacists pose a dangerous and violent threat to our homeland. against this back drop the president's shocking remarks

last night was a continuation of deeply be disturbing pattern of racist and anti-semitic behavior that the president has allowed to take place on his watch. a few years ago in charlottesville, violent chaos and hatred were on full display for the world to see as neo-nazis openly marched in the streets. they chanted jews will not replace us and blood and soil. president trump not only didn't denounce this anti-semitic and racist rhetoric, he did something much worse. he did something much worse. he praised the white nationalists. he praised them as very fine people. these were not very fine people. just last month a teen vigilante asked his mother to drive him across state lines to the protest in kenosha with a rifle. he went there to use it, and in

fact he did. he took the life of two people and shot a third. he has been charged with homicide, and rightly so. instead of condemning this act of hatred, president trump has hailed this murderer as a hero. but this is the norm for president trump. the president's use of dog whistles and charge languages gives a voice to white supremacy and empowers vigilantes. it is inexcusable and it is indefensible, mr. president. this rise in hatred that the president fails to condemn is one of the reasons why last year i cofounded the senate bipartisan task force for combatting anti-semitism. the goal of this bipartisan, nonpartisan endeavor is to help stop hate before it starts, to call out bigotry and anti-semitism wherever we see i.

i'm proud of the work that we've done so far to push back on anti-semitism right here in the united states, in europe, in the middle east, and around the world. but the president's silence is, his disturbing call to arms to white supremacist groups like the proud boys makes our work that much harder. some of the president's defenders often write off his most troubling statements claiming the president misspoke or that we just don't understand what he's trying to say or his speaking style or that he's just joking. let me be clear, he didn't misspeak last night. he didn't make a joke last night. and regardless of what others say, words matter. his words matter. he is the president of the united states.

well, let me say today as the president should have said last night, and i invite all of my colleagues here in this chamber to join me in repeating this statement -- i condemn white nationalism. i condemn racism. i condemn anti-semitism. and i condemn and denounce the groups that promote these vile ideologies, the proud boys among them. so we must speak out and we must take action. and i urge my colleagues again on both sides of the aisle not to be complicit in their silence. i want them all to join me. i want you all to join me in denouncing white supremacy as president trump failed to do

clearly, explicitly in last night's debate. this is not a partisan issue. it never will be a partisan issue. i hope that all my colleagues join me in denouncing hatred in all forms. i yield back. ms. rosen: mr. president, i joat the absence -- i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. without objection. mr. burr: mr. president, i rise to in a minute ask unanimous consent to call up and pass the intercountry adoption information act of 2019, but first let me say this is a strong bipartisan bill that was first introduced in march of 2019 with senators cardin, blunt, klobuchar, tillis, brown, wicker as original cosponsors when the house considered its version of the bill last year, it passed 397-0. let me repeat that. 397-0. our country is divided on many

issues right now but one thing that unites us is the belief that all children deserve to grow up in a permanent loving home. this is a matter of justice and of recognizing the intrinsic dignity in every human being. many americans have done more than just hold this belief. they've acted on it. adopting children both domestically and internationally, according to the most recent available statistics, however, in intercountry adoption dramatically declined in recent years of the last year fewer than 3,000 children were adopted into the united states, down from nearly 23,000 in 2004. there are numerous reasons for this decline, many of which warrant continued efforts to ensure that orphaned children are given the chance to grow up in a loving home whether in their own country or here in the united states. we must address any barriers by examining our own policies and how they're implementing and by working internationally to help more children grow up in a

family. each year the state department releases its annual report on intercountry adoptions. a key document that keeps families, adoption agencies and policymakers informed about the state of adoption. the report is publicly available and it includes, among other things, the number of intercountry adoptions involving immigration to the united states and the country from which each child emigrates, the time required for completion of the adoption and the information on the adoption agencies, their fees and their work. but to better tackle this issue, we need to provide more transparency and accountability about some of the critical factors affecting intercountry adoption. the intercountry adoption information act adds additional key elements to this report by requiring the state department provide information on, one, countries that have enacted policies to prevent adoptions from the united states. two, actions the state

department has taken which have prevent adoptions to the united states. and, three, for each of these how the state department has worked to encourage the resumption of intercountry adoptions. mr. president, there are children around the world whose only chance to grow, to grow up in a family is through the intercountry adoption program. there are families in the united states who are eager to open their arms, their homes, their hearts to these children. i ask unanimous consent at this time to call up and pass h.r. 1952 to further transparency accountability and to ensure we're working towards the goals of enabling children and the families that love them. i ask unanimous consent that the committee on foreign relations be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 1952 and the house proceed to immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the senate proceed to immediate consideration.

correct? mr. burr: i didn't hear the president. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1952, an act to amend the intercountry adoption act of 2000 to require the secretary of state to report on intercountry adoptions, and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed. mr. burr: mr. president, 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: without objection. mr. burr: mr. president, i'd now like to talk about a special project in north carolina which involves my farmer partner from north carolina, senator kay hagan. we're currently in the process of building a brand-new f.a.a.

tower at the piedmont triad internationalater. the bill before us would name the currently under construction airport tower after senator kay hagan. the late senator hagan worked tirelessly to secure the funding for the new tower and it will serve as a fitting tribute to her legacy as a senator and her work on behalf of the citizens of north carolina. once completed in 2022, the 180-foot tower will not only provide a state-of-the-art tower for the airport but also serve other general aviation airports in a rather large geographic region. in one of her last public appear seniors in june of 2019, she was able to participate in the groundbreaking ceremony of that f.a.a. tower. this bill has bipartisan support in the senate, including senator klobuchar and tillis.

a companion bill has been introduced in the house with a majority of the delegation supporting it. this is a testament to senator hagan and shows hoe we can continue to work together to not only achieve great things for our constituents but also recognize the achievements of public servants like kay hagan. madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of s. 4762 introduced earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 4762, a bill to designate the airport traffic control tower located at piedmont try ad international airport in greensboro, north carolina, as the senator kay hagan airport traffic control tower. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. the senate will proceed. mr. burr: madam president, 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: without objection. mr. burr: madam president, that's all of the unanimous consent requests i have today. but since the floor is vacant, let me take this opportunity to say that the american people have just seen that the senate can function. the senate can pass legislation. the senate can find legislation that both sides agree on. we quite frankly have issues that we disagree on, but why not spend the balance of this week, the balance of this year focused on the things that we can find agreement on and come to this floor and debate them and pass them. there are many more things that we agree upon on both sides of the aisle than we disagree upon. there are some hot-button ires that we will probably never find unanimity on.

but there are many, many things that affect thousands, if not millions, of people's lives in this country that we can do by simply unanimous consent. it just takes a willingness of 100 members of the united states senate to agree to take it up. so i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, don't be the one or don't be part of the contingent that objects to something. if it's in the best interest of this institution, of this country, of the american people, let it come up. let it have a debate and let it have a vote, hopefully a unanimous consent request like we've just seen. with that, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president. madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: are we in the middle of a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, we are. mrs. shaheen: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. madam president, there's a lot going on in america right now. we're in the middle of a pandemic where we lost over 200,000 people. we have millions who are unemployed. we're only 34 days away from a presidential election. so it's easy to see that a lot of americans could have missed the fact that we're also in the middle of a decennial census. under article 1 of the constitution since 1790, every

ten years the united states conducted a census. the u.s. census bureau is currently excusing the 2020 decennial census. as we speak conductors are filling out forms in our country despite the tremendous obstacles that have been posed by covid-19. and their work is of utmost importance. i want to take this opportunity to first thank them for their very challenging efforts. the 2020 census will dictate apportionment of the house of representatives for the next decade and in addition federal programs rely on census data to distribute more than $1.5 trillion in funding every year to states, localities, individuals, and businesses. so the stakes are high for the census, and we only have one chance to get it right, one chance every ten years.

as the vice chair of the senate commerce, justice, science, and related agencies appropriations subcommittee, i've worked with members on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the census bureau has the resources it needs to ensure a complete and accurate 2020 census. this includes securing for the past several fiscal years the entire amount that was requested by the administration, including reserve funding which has been critical to meet the challenges of the covid-19 pandemic. however, in addition to funding, this census needs sufficient time to get the job right, to protect public health on april 13, 2020, census director steven dillingham and commerce secretary wilbur ross announced the census bureau would delay field operations by three months, and they asked congress to delay reporting apportionment and redistricting

counts by four months in order to, and i quote, ensure the completeness and accuracy of the 2020 census. so that was census director dillingham and commerce secretary ross. under this revised plan, the largest and most important field data collection operation to follow up with households that have been nonresponsive would run until october 31. on a bipartisan basis, this request from the administration was welcomed. we want to give the census both the time and the resources that it needs to do the job right. over the course of the summer, the trump administration installed new political appointees at the census, and a number of reports indicated that the trump administration was looking to rush the 2020 decennial operations so that secretary ross, despite what he said to us last spring could

transmit the apportionment accounts to the president by december 31, 2020. on august 3, last month, census director dillingham an announced 2020 field operations would be shortened by a month, ending today, september 30. this decision to curtail operations was not based on the advice of career census bureau experts. census data collection operations are incredibly complicated, even under the best of conditions, but their complexity is greatly exacerbated by the covid-19 pandemic. and in fact this spring experts made clear that a four-month delay of statutory deadlines was necessary. in may tim olson, director of field operations for the 2020 decennial census stated, and i'm quoting here, we have past

the point where we can meet the legislative requirement of december 31. we can't do that anymore. and that was back in may. after the truncated data collection operations were announced, a career official stated, it's going to be impossible to complete the count in time. i'm very fearful we're going to have a massive undercount. i share this fear. i am deeply concerned that cutting short data collection and processing operations during a global pandemic will necessitate changes that will be detrimental to the accuracy and completeness of the 2020 census. in particular, i'm concerned the census bureau will reduce the number of attempts to count households and significantly increase the use of less accurate data collection methods this could lead to a substantial undercount in historically hard to count areas. those areas include native

american, rural, and immigrant communities. an undercount would mean that these communities are left disenfranchised without proper political representation and without millions of dollars of federal funding. so we should be clear about the gravity of this outcome. this would be a constitutional crisis that further undermines faith in our governing is institutions. i called for the department of commerce inspector general to investigate why the trump administration suddenly curtailed data collection operations. i've also requested that the government accountability office conduct an investigation into how this rushed timeline could affect data quality and the overall completeness of the census count. last week the commerce inspector general released a preliminary report finding what we already knew, that the decision to accelerate the 2020 census

schedule was not made by the experts at the census bureau and that rushed schedule increases the risk to the accuracy of the 2020 census. in particular, the report raises that the curtailed timeline does not provide schedule flexibility in the case of natural disasters. and of course unfortunately over the last month we've seen record wildfires out west and several hurricanes in the gulf. this has delayed operations in these regions. the g.a.o. came to a similar conclusion, publishing a report last month that found cutting the time frame for the 2020 census could increase the risk of an inaccurate count. one line from the inspector general's report really stuck with me. it said, quote, a statutory extension would permit the bureau to adhere as closely as

practicable to the 2020 census plan it developed over the decade instead of the re-plan it developed over a weekend. end quote. i hope my colleagues will review these reports. i know everybody's anxious to go home. i'm anxious to go home. but i hope people will review these reports and join me in providing the census bureau the time the agency needs. this last-minute attempt to shorten data clinics and data processing -- data collection and data processing isn't surprising. the trump administration made other attempts to manipulate the count for political gain. it's been well documented that political operatives pushed the administration and secretary of commerce wilbur ross to include a citizenship question as part of the 2020 census. in an attempt to reduce participation in immigrant communities. secretary ross' attempt to

include a citizenship question was rejected by the supreme court ultimately. we can't let this undermine the constitutionally mandate count succeed. prematurely because there would be irreparable harm to communities from rushing the count. however, this could be just temporary. define court -- defying the court, the census bureau announced that it will end october 5. the census bureau also announced plans to appeal the court's injunction. this is not solely a rural or urban issue, a red state or blue state problem. i hope my colleagues will listen to this because the states with the lowest percentage of ballots

counted is louisiana, montana, mississippi, senator wicker, and georgia. some of these states are on the bubble of gaining or losing representatives so an undercount which is a real risk if operations are rushed and shut down prematurely would have serious repercussions. that's why i called on my colleagues to pass a four-month extension of the krens sus deadline to -- census deadline. congress also missed an opportunity to address this issue as part of the continuing resolution. again, there is bipartisan support for this extension with a bipartisan bill filed. in addition last month a bipartisan group of 48 senators sent a letter to senate and house leadership calling to extend the statutory deadline as part of the next coronavirus

relief package, as the house has done in the updated heroes act that was released recently. we should ensure that the data collection operations, including nonresponse and self response continue through october 31. it is imperative for the census to count every person in the united states, where they live, and this includes communities that have had historically low participation in decennial census. the census is too important to allow meddling for political gain. we must take action immediately to ensure that the census bureau takes the time to get it right. thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from montana. mr. daines: i ask consent to use props in my speech. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection.

mr. daines: madam president, water is the most basic element of human life. in montana, we depend on a steady supply of water to drink, supply our crops and water energy through hydropower. water is a precious resource, but there's still rural communities in montana that face challenges to access and are in dire need of federal assistance. the health and economic risks associated with the lack of reliable water have increased because of the current pandemic. i'm standing here today to highlight three bills that would ensure rural montana communities have access to water. senate bill 1882 would allow the 130 family farms in the kinsy irrigation company and sidney water users irrigation district to use slick zone power which

they have relied on for 74 years. thankfully this bill has been passed out of the united states senate and now awaits house consideration. i want to thank both the senate and house leadership for getting this bill to the finish line and i urge my colleagues in the house to pass it. another montana water priority is the bipartisan st. mary's reinvestment act which supports the st. mary milk river product that has restoration over the 100-year-old infrastructure. i'm happy to work with the entire montana delegation on this important bill. it supplies over 13,000 water users, including the black feet reservation. the catastrophic failure of a drop structure this past summer is proof that congress must pass this bipartisan legislation. i spent time up there in july,

saw first hand that catastrophic failure of that drop and how it is so important to get this legislation passed. this bill is critical for montana families, montana farmers and ranchers. i would like tole highlight my bipartisan bill, -- to highlight my bipartisan bill, the clean water for rural communities act. it's hard it to believe there are approximately 40,000 americans across 12 counties in both montana and north dakota who currently do not have access to water that is safe to drink. in fact, i brought with me today some examples of the drinking water that montanaians in central and eastern parts of our state have shared with me. here's a sample, literally came from the tap from the arnason's.

it's hard to believe that we're in 2020 that montana can open up a tap and see water like this. this example came from the good family. again, yellow water, it's black water. this is water that's literally come from taps from montanans who live in the eastern part of our state. iron content in these impacted areas is nearly five times the safe drinking water act standard and all residents must rely on bottled water. this water is so contaminated it is corrosive to appliances, requires residents to operate water softeners to avoid damage. my bill would provide montanans access to reliable, safe water.

i don't think that is asking for too much. all we're asking for is reliable and safe water for thousands of montanans. both of these drinking water projects have been working with the bureau of wreck reclamationr over 15 years to gain federal authorization, and they can't wait any longer. madam president, i rise today on behalf of the 40,000 montanans who lack access to clean water and i urge swift passage of the clean water community act. i yield back my time. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. a senator: we're going back and forth, but if you're in a hurry, you go ahead. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi is recognized. mr. wicker: i'll be happy to yield to my friend. i was told the order but i'll be happy to yield to my friend.

i thank my colleague. madam president, i have a serious matter to discuss with members today about the united states relationship with our ally japan. japan has been a valued american partner in the pacific. it's our fourth largest trading partner and close military ally. our nations are better off because of the alliance between japan and the united states and i hope it goes stronger -- grows stronger in the days ahead. i regret that today i must be sharply critical of the japanese government. today i rise to express concern over japan's unjust treatment of an american citizen, greg kelly. it is a concern that raises questions about whether americans can be comfortable about japan's adherence to the basic rule of law.

mr. kelley has become the latest victim of japan's criminal justice system. some have called it a hostage justice system. even some leaders in japan call it a hostage justice system because it is. it is unfair, harsh and arbitrary. japanese prosecutors have an alarming conviction rate of 99%. clearly designed to produce guilty verdicts. greg kelley is a tennessee resident who joined nissan in 1988 and became a respected employee. he rose steadily within the company and in june of 2012 became the first american to join nissan's board. but shortly before thanksgiving of 2018, his 30-year career at

nissan came to a crashing halt, a troubling halt to his career and to fundamental fairness. a company executive lured him to tokyo for what was supposed to be an urgent business meeting. mr. kelley was two weeks away from a badly needed neck surgery and was hesitant to travel internationally, but the nissan executive assured him he would be home within a week so mr. kelley boarded a nissan corporate jet to tokyo. in fact, greg kelley had been lied to and was walking into a trap designed by nissan executives and by japanese authorities, madam president. according to e-mails obtained by bloomberg news, that nissan executive was working in

collusion with japanese prosecutors to disrupt a merger between nissan and the french auto company renault. greg kelley was involve in negotiating that merger and their plan was to frame him for bogus financial crimes and throwing him under the bus. while he was en route to tokyo, nissan executives launched a boardroom coup to strip mr. kelley of his position. government prosecutors seized his boss, chairman of the board of nissan, for allegedly underreporting his income. another bogus charge. upon hours of arrival at the airport, mr. kelley was arrested on these trumped up charges. mr. kelley was treated with cruelty by japanese authorities

from day one. he was kept in solid terry confine -- sold terry confinement for 40 days where he slept on the floor in the dead of winter with no heat. he was interrogated daily for several hours at a time without the presence of a defense counsel, a basic legal right. this is the treatment given to our american citizen by the japanese authorities, madam president. his request for medical attention were refused. when they did eventually allow him to get surgery, it was too late to do much good and predictably greg kelley's physical condition got worse. now, thankfully mr. kelley was eventually allowed to live in a tokyo apartment awaiting trial. his trial began only this month,

more than 650 days after arrest. now with regard to former c.e.o. carlos gone, in a celebrated escapade, mr. gone was able to escape from japan to his native lebanon. but greg kelley remains in braille today and vehemently denies the charges against him. it is ironic that the head of nissan was involved in the same crime. instead of being arrested, he was allowed simply to resign. japanese leaders may deny it, but this looks an awful lot like there's a double standard in japan's justice system, a

lenient standard for native japanese and a much heard one for americans. this double standard is not lost on american businesses and it's not lost on this senator. and japan should worry about the consequences of its behavior. a perceived legal bias could put a serious chilling effect on our economic relationship as more americans think twice about doing business in japan or doing business with japan. mr. kelly's treatment in the japanese courtroom has been no less appalling as the trial began a few days ago, the court allowed prosecutors to give a six-hour presentation at the opening of the trial with no simultaneous english translation. they denied the same right to mr. kelley. he's yet to make his opening statement. instead of letting mr. kelley

speak in his own defense, the court then recessed for two weeks. the proceedings have been incredibly slow and will continue to be incredibly slow. the trial is expected to last more than a year. because japanese rules allow the prosecutors to meet at the trial for only six days per month. and also because the court refused to allow simultaneous english translation at the trial. this is a stark reminder of how fortunate we are in this country, madam president, under ow constitution, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial. i have zero confidence that the japanese criminal justice system will give mr. kelly a fair trial. the fix was in for him from the beginning. his being lured to japan, his wrongful arrest, his deplorable

treatment and solitary confinement and in court are a scandal worthy of vladimir putin, not our allies in japan. it should be an embarrassment for any modern democracy. this is a matter that should have been resolved in the boardroom and by shareholders. this needless ordeal sends an unmistakable message to the american business community. in you do business in japan, you had better watch your back. when it suits japanese interes interests, they could set a trap for you. throw you under the bus, put you in prison, deprive you of your rights to counsel, and your rights to return home and waste years of your life needlessly. that's the message it sends to the american business community. this is a shameful story for an ally ever the united states, and it looms as an ominous shadow

over the coming tokyo olympic games, the recently completed u.s.-japan agreement and future trade negotiations. our two nations have shared in prosperity for decades because of mutual respect and mutual cooperation. i hope our japanese friends will show a renewed interest in preserving that relationship which has been harmed by the greg kelly fiasco. the newly installed prime minister of japan, prime he needs to intervene in this matter. japan needs to right this wrong and end this highly visible stain on its international reputation. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont.

mr. leahy: madam president, today we in the senate will vote on a continuing resolution to keep the government funded through december 11, 2020. it's the last day we can do that. i strongly urge all members to vote aye. the last thing our country needs is a government shutdown in the middle of a global pandemic in an unprecedented economic crises. the bill we're considering passed the house by a wide margin. it showed they were doing their job, sometimes a rarity in washington. it provides funding for the government through december 11 at fiscal year 2020 funding levels and under the same terms and conditions contained in the

fiscal year 2020 appropriations bills. it also clufs several -- includes several authorization matters to extend programs that otherwise would expire including important health and transportation and veterans programs. and i'm pleased the bill includes the emergency uscis stopgap stabilization act. this will help prevent furloughs of federal employees at the u.s. citizenship and immigration services, many of whom work in my home state of vermont. now these are dedicated federal employees. they perform critical work helping immigrants apply for citizenship and visas and asyl asylum. and they come to work every single day living under the threat of furloughs for months now in the middle of a global

pandemic and all the while continuing their important work. while i believe more fiscal reforms and strong oversight are needed at uscis, this legislation will help stave off the immediate crises while we work on a longer-term solution. i'm also glad the bill includes nearly $8 billion for child nutrition programs, especially the extension of the pandemic and electronic benefits transfer, that's the e.p -- e.b.t. program. it provides millions of children for additional ben fights for food purchases while schools are closed. this assistance is desperately needed as families across the nation struggle to make ends meet and to put food on the table. now, i support the continuing

resolution as my role as vice chairman of the appropriations committee, and i urge my colleagues to do the same. but i cannot help but note the reason we need this is because of a dysfunctional congress is a stop of that. it's a senseless and entirely avoigtable made-in-washington crises. the senate appropriations committee should have been allowed to do its work. we could have completed all 12 appropriations bills months ago. a majority of those bills would have had overwhelmingly bipartisan support of both republicans and democrats. apparently the republican leader did not want to allow that to

happen. so we're left with a continuing resolution that simply kicks the can down the road. not only did we not complete our work on the fiscal year 2021 appropriations bill, the senate has not acted on a much-needed covid relief bill to address impacts of the pandemic in every town across america, every single town represented by every single senator in this body. look what's happening across our country. schools are struggling to safely educate our nation's children in both the classrooms and remotely without enough funding to do so. more than nine milt children do not -- nine million children do not have access to the internet in their homes. in normal times this would set them far behind their affluent peers who can access online

educational resources. by doing nothing, by doing nothing at a time when many of our -- which much, actually, of our nation's children are remote learning, senate republicans and president trump are choosing to leave these children behind. and these children are all over the nation in every single state, and they're being left behind. inaction is a choice. that choice is to actively prop up a cycle of poverty for yet another generation. look at the line at our food banks. they're at a historic low during this enormous economic downturn. today in america, the wealthiest country in the world, one in four households are experiencing food insecurity during this

pandemic. nobody in this room has looked their child in the eyes with the knowledge that you do not know where the next meal will come from. think of those people who do day by day have to look at their children knowing that they don't know where their next meal is coming from and thousand they're going -- and how they're going to feed this children. and inaction here and at the white house is a choice to let that child go hungry and force their parents to live with the terrible pain that comes when you cannot put enough food on the table for your family. families are struggling to pay rent and eviction moratoriums have expired across the country in every state. in july it was reported that in this economy, more than 43

million americans, one-quarter of the adult population in this country either missed a rent or mortgage payment or had little to no confidence they could make the next payment. that was two rents or mortgage payments ago with no relief. more than 31 million americans were unemployed in august. 163,735 bigs have closed -- businesses have closed. and 97,066 of those have closed permanently. states don't have the money they need to safely carry out an election. there's only -- it's only 34 days away. and in the middle, a pandemic. without a legislative change extending critical deadlines, our ability to achieve a fair

and accurate count in the 2020 census remains at risk, a census that's required under the constitution of the united states, a constitution we all have taken an oath to uphold. the american people are suffering and politics are being played to keep that suffering continuing. it's infuriating that the republican leadership refuses to acknowledge this relate reality -- this reality. instead of doing their job and considering and passing full-year appropriations bills and a desperately needed covid relief bill, senate republicans have focused this year almost entirely on packing the courts with right-wing extreme judges. faced with an unprecedented health and economic crises to spur republicans to action? no, but what does?

aha, the supreme court vacancy in an eex legislation year -- in an election year under republican precedent should not be filled until the american people have a say in november. all of a sudden they're ready to go to work. that's shameful. at least wait until the election. let the american people speak. you know, it's frustrating because we could have passed every one of these appropriations bills and not be faced with this. and i bet they would have passed overwhelmingly. so if senate republicans want to keep the senate in session during october, i say do it. there's plenty of work left undone that the senate could act on. the fiscal year 2021 appropriations bill, covid relief bill, or any one of the hundreds of bills the house has passed that are currently bottled up in senator mcconnell's legislative

graveyard. but these pressing needs, pressing needs of people going hungry, being thrown out of their homes, not getting the medical care they need, facing the danger of covid, something the president said would go away in the spring, their needs are being ignored while republicans focus on filling a vacancy to the supreme court. they should rightfully remain vacant until a month from now when the people have spoken at the polls. congress is failing the american people because republicans led by president trump care more about securing a hyper partisan supreme court than the health and safety of the american people, all people no matter their politics in this country. it's that simple. now, i am committed to completing the fiscal year 2021 appropriations bills. i want to produce bipartisan

bills before the c.r. expires on december 11. i think chairman shelby shares this commitment. i look forward to working with him to complete our work. when he was not blocked by his own party's leadership, we passed by overwhelming margins all of the appropriations bills. let's work to complete our work. but for now let's remove the threat of any more chaos in this country, prevent a government shutdown by passing this bill. soy urge all members in both parties to vote aye on the continuing resolution and i believe we've reached the hour of 5:00. i will put my full statement in the record. and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to table amendment 2663.

the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to table. all in favor say aye. opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i know of no further debate on h.r. 8337. the presiding officer: is there further debate? if not, the clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time. the clerk: calendar number 55 if, h.r. 8837, an act making continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2021 and for other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any seernts in the chamber wishing to vote or change his are or her vote? if not, the yeas are 84, the nays are 10. the bill is passed. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask the chair lay before the senate the house message to accompany 178 and ask

for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: do any senators in the chamber wish to vote or change his or her vote? if not the yeas are 48, the nays 46 and the motion is agreed to. the chair lays before the senate the following message from the house. the clerk: resolved that the bill from the senate s. 178 entitled an act against human rights violations against muslims in xinjiang and call for torture and harassment in these communities outside china do pass with an amendment. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask for the yeas and nays on the pending motion to concur with amendment

2652. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i have a second agree amendment to the motion to concur with amendment. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, for mr. tillis proposes an amendment numbered 2673 to amendment number 2652. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to table amendment number 2673 and i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his or her vote. if not, the ayes are 47, the nays are 47, and the motion is nod agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 863. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, alone mercedes -- eileen mercedes to be judge for the southern district of florida. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: , cloture motion we,

the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on of aaileen cannon mercedes, of florida, to be district judge for florida. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 862. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, toby krauss, of kansas to be united states district judge for the district of kansas. the presiding officer: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on of toby krauss,

of kansas to be united states district judge for the district of kansas. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes company to have it -- appear to have it the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to consider calendar number 864. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, david kalabry to be judge for the northern district of ohio. cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on jay philip

calabressi of ohio, signed by 17 senators as follows: mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 865. the presiding officer: those opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, jay race net. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of james ray nepp, ii, of ohio

to be united states district judge for the northern district of ohio. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 866. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, michael jay newman of ohio to be united states district judge for the southern district of ohio. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: 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 nomination of michael jay newman of ohio to be united states district judge for the southern district of ohio signed by 17 senators as follows.

mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: mr. president, the communist party of china is committing a genocide against the uighur people. let me say take again. the communist party of china is committing a genocide against the uighur people. under the secretary of the communist party xi, one million uighurs have been placed in concentration camps simply because of their religion. the regime is performing forced abortions and forced sterilization of uighur women. the communist party of china is also harvesting organs for uighurs and members and the male hong chinese to rightly sleep in the same beds at the wives of uighur men detained in the camps. in addition to these disgusting human rights abuses, the

communist party of china is stripping away the freedom and autonomy the people of hong kong were guaranteed. they are threatening taiwan, building up their military to compete with us, arresting and detaining foreign journalists and punishing anyone who disagrees with them. and secretary xi has established a surveillance system in beijing that tracks every movement you make online and in person. the actions of xi and the chinese communist party find the face of the fundamental values that unite freedom-loving countries around the world. values that the olympic games are meant to foster and promote. yet in just two years, communist china is slated to host the 2022 olympic games. the international olympic committee charter states, its goal is, quote, sport at the service of the harmonious development of humankind with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the

preservation of human dignity. and the ioc contract they adopted requires that the host protect and respect human rights. i'm -- unfortunately but not by accident the contract doesn't take effect until after the 2022 beijing games. think about that. 56 years ago the international olympic committee took a historic step and stood up to the government of south africa and its racist apartheid system and banned the country from participation in the 1964 tokyo olympic games. south africa was also included for the 1968 mexico city games and in 1970 the ioc indefinitely expelled south africa from olympic competition. germany and japan were banned from participating in the 1948 games for their roles in world war ii. afghanistan was banned in 2000 because of the taliban's discrimination against women. and south korea was pressured by

the i.o.c. to enact democratic reforms before it hosted the 1988 games. should communist china which places no value on human life or freedom be allowed to host the 2022 games, absolutely not. doing so will netten the safety of athletes and attendees and financially reward the dictatorship responsible for genocide against its muslim population. my colleague from massachusetts senator markey and i introduced a bipartisan resolution calling on the international plim pick committee -- olympic committee to rebid the 2022 games to a country that recognizes and respects human rights. this isn't about a boycott. i am absolutely opposed to a boycott. it's not about politics. this is a fight about human rights which transcends politics. moving the olympic games out of communist china doesn't hurt athlete. it keeps them safe from communist china's aggression. last year the world watched

while china pressured the nba to sensor themselves over -- censor themselves over one tweet. we saw the nba coward to communist china's wishes. they even prohibited athletes that were in china at the time from speaking with reporters. if communist china has the ability to censor the nba, an american organization, from speaking about anything that my offend general secretary xi, what will they do to athletes from around the world? will this are jeem start restricting participating athletes? what about the press? will the broadcast be censored to apiece general xi. we have to open our eyes to this threat and stand against the genocide of the uighurs and the political oppression of hong kongers. we also have to consider the safety of athletes and spectators from all over the word. for the hundreds of millions who will watch the games, we must again lead by example and refuse to give communist china a platform to whitewash its crimes. i stand with the freedom-loving

people of hong kong -- peaceful community of chinese muslims including uighurs and journalists and political dissidents in china. i hope all of my colleagues will join me in demanding that the i.o.c. rebid the 2022 olympic games should china fail to abandon its indefensible course. as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the foreign relations committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to senate resolution 526. i furlgt ask the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: reserving the right to object. let me first say i want to be clear that my opposition that i'll announce briefly to moving this resolution by u.c. today is

not by any means because i disagree with the assessment of china's abhorrent human rights record or the importance of the olympics living up to the highest standards of upholding human dignity. the olympic charter states the goal of olympianism is to promote a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity. beijing has not by a long shot earned the honor of hosting the 2022 games. now, my record is crystal clear when it comes to calling out and condemning china's horrific record on human rights. as my colleagues' know, during my years in congress i have introduced, advocated for, and helped pass legislation on behalf of the people of xinjiang, tibet, democratic and autonomous hong kong supporting democracy across the indo-pacific region. just recently i introduced a comprehensive bill to strengthen

the united states across various sectors to best confront and encounter china's efforts. i also recently released a report about the necessity of standing up against china's dangerous new digital authoritarianism. so there's no question that under xi, china has taken great leaps backwards on human right, establishing concentration camps in xinjiang and instituting a surveillance state that not even george orwell could have imagined and crushing any thought and ideas that derve wyatt from the dictates of the party. china's rise bringing hundreds of millions out of poverty during the last century is something the chinese people can be justly proud of but the totally tearian vision currently crushing the chinese people is one of the century's great tragedies. i'm sympathetic to the goals of the resolution and the sponsor of the legislation. however, i believe these issues merit serious discussion in

drafting of the appropriate language before the senate foreign relietions committee. -- relations committee. i have been urging chairman risch to hold a legislative markup for months to discuss the many pressing pieces of legislation members of both sides of the aisle have had pending for many months. so i would in response to the gentleman's request say that there is a human rights crisis much closer to home that we have discussed before the committee. we have an opportunity to address people suffering from a dictatorship who right here in the united states many of whom live in senator scott's state of florida. for the second time in two weeks i would like to call upon this body to take up legislation the house has passed that would december nature venezuela for temporary protective status.

i'm asking republicans to remember there was a time before president trump when our nation stood in solidarity with the victims of dictatorship. nicholas ma diewr ra is a dictator -- maduro is a dictator. 200,000 venezuelans currently live in the united states without legal status. they're unable to safely return to their homeland and they would benefit from temporary protective status. i believe we have to do the right thing. we have to uphold the american value, and offer them protection. so, mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 549 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. mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from kentucky.

mr. paul: reserving the right to object. i have no problem with asking unanimous consent at this point to pass your legislation with a few amendments. since this won't be going through committee, we ought to, like you say, examine the legislation and think about what it involves and i think having a few commonsense amendments would make sense. there's about 200,000, 270,000 venezuelans. i think we can accommodate them. we're a big, great country and america has room for them. we should make sure, though, they don't overburden the welfare system and there should be rules that people as part of this program do not come to the country to receive welfare. that's my first amendment. my second amendment would say that at the end of the 18-month period, congress should vote on whether or not to extend the period. in the past, we have granted this temporary status and it's been renewed decade after decade and becomes just sort of this lost zone for people that we can't figure out a permanent solution for.

my third amendment would actually create an ability to absorb more people in our country and would be more of a permanent solution. my third amendment is called the believe act and it's a bill that i've had out there for several years. and what it would do is take the merit-based employment in our country, employment-based visas, and double these visas. so if you want to accommodate the 200,000 venezuelan, we need more green cards for permanent status. this would be increased employment-based visas. my unanimous consent request would be to pass your bill with these three amendments, one, two prohibit welfare. two, to make it congress' prerogative to decide that this term needs to be extended, would have to be a vote by this body. and then the third thing would be that we expand our employment-based visas in order to accommodate folks like this in our country. and i would ask unanimous consent that your bill be passed

and also including my three amendments to the bill and at this point i ask unanimous consent for that. the presiding officer: does the senator so modify his request? mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: reserving the right to object to this modification. these three amendments -- i respect my colleague. sits on the foreign relations committee. we don't always agree but i always respect listening to him. this effort that i'm trying to bring to the floor in line with senator scott's question about human rights in china, well, this is human rights right here in our hemisphere. the amendments that the gentleman proposes seeks to basically gut the existing statute for temporary protective status, and it distracts from other issues in our immigration system as the price for providing venezuelans with temporary protection in our country. one of these amendments is aimed at making it nearly impossible to renew t.p.s. for foreign nationals, no matter the country

or the conditions in the country. and i would also note that at a time which we have 131,000 temporary protected status of other country, helping to support the nation as essential workers. so i object to the modification and i object to senator scott's motion. the presiding officer: the objection is heard to both requests. mr. paul: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: and i voice my objection to the original motion from senator menendez. the presiding officer: objection is heard to the request. the senator from florida. mr. scott: mr. president, first off, as you'd expect, i'm disappointed in two ways. number one, i'm disappointed that we couldn't get a resolution done that dealt with what's going on in china. i would love the process to work perfectly, that everybody would do things in proper order. but the resolution is pretty simple. we know all the bad things that

are happening in china and we need to stand up. we have a chance now, not in six months, now in -- i don't know what time it would take to go through the foreign relations committee but we ought to be standing up now to say the i.o.c. needs to move the olympics. i'm disappointed my colleague is not willing to go along with a civilian resolution to do that. number two, i proposed -- what my colleague knows is the bill he's proposing will never get done. i have colleagues that want to reform and fix the t.p.s. program. i worked with my colleagues, all 53 republican colleagues, and they said that as long as we do a commonsense reform with the t.p.s. program, we would go ahead and do t.p.s. for venezuelans. that's a bill that we could do today. we could have done it a couple of times where my colleague on the other side of the aisle, another blocked it. it doesn't make any sense to me

why we're not getting this done. we can both talk about all the problems that, what the venezuelans, issues they're dealing with. it's very disappointing to me. i don't know what the reason is. i've been trying to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to say what is the problem, and nobody will say this is exactly what it is and this is what you need to change to get it done. i don't know how we get things done up here if people are not willing to talk to each other to figure out how to get it done. we also, i've also proposed other things that my colleague has blocked, trying to make sure that maduro there was no revenues that could get to the maduro regime and that was blocked. this doesn't make any sense to me. i don't know what the issue is, i don't know if because it was proposed by republicans rather than democrats, but we have got to figure out how to stand up together against human rights violations around the world. it should be simple to say the

international committee should not be hosting the olympic games in 2022. it's pretty simple. it should be pretty simple to say if we want to get t.p.s. to take care of whether it's for venezuelans or for salvadorans or anybody else we need to have a scen -- commonsense reform in the t.p.s. system. i hope my colleagues will commit to work with me to try to help the venezuelans and help others by fixing this t.p.s. program. i hope he would work hard. either he has a resolution he agrees with me on or work through the foreign relations committee to do something but we've got to do everything we can to stop the genocide by the uighurs in communist coal chinad do everything to help the venezuelans that are here and need t.p.s. thank you, mr. president. mr. menendez: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i appreciate my colleague from

florida's comments. let me just say first, we don't even need legislation for venezuelans to get t.p.s. let's not lose sight of that. president trump, with a stroke of his pen, could give temporary, temporary protected status to the 200,000 venezuelans that have need the maduro regime, a regime that president trump himself has signaled out in every possible way as a regime that undermines the human rights of its people and that attacks them. we don't even need legislation. the only reason the house of representatives with a democratic majority has passed legislation is to try to instigate the president to go ahead and give t.p.s. to venezuelans. and unfortunately, senator scott, every time he's come to offer what he calls a reform of t.p.s. is really basically the death of t.p.s. and i don't know why we have to

deny those who presently have t.p.s. and whose country's status may not have changed, slaying their status in order to give it to venezuelans. i'm not that solomonic. that's why there has been an objection. but again, i remind us that we don't even need legislation. president trump, with the signature of his pen, could declare t.p.s. for venezuelans. that's the first thing. the second thing is i would urge my colleague and all my republican colleagues -- by the way, i know that you all know this, but just to remind us, you're in the majority. chairman risch is the chairman because there is a republican majority. chairman risch gets to call when the senate foreign relations committee goes into a business meeting. so as i have said to many of my colleagues, if you want to see your legislation considered -- and i certainly would agree to an agenda that includes senator

scott's legislation -- urge senator risch to hold a business meeting and a markup on legislation. that's the way this body is supposed to work. otherwise then, let's just meet here as 100 and make it the committee as a whole where we can all opine and cast amendments on appropriations, judiciary, foreign relations, energy, commerce, the whole spectrum. but if the committee system is supposed to mean anything, which is the concentration of those who dedicated their time to be on that committee and who have insights in it and from which legislation passes through, then it has to hold meetings and markups to consider legislation. so it's not that you have to urge us. you have to urge your colleague, the chairman, to hold markups to consider your legislation. i'm sure that with some

modifications i would be one of those who would support your legislation in committee. but we cannot have everybody bypass the committee, come to the floor and think that that's the way that things are going to operate. yes, there are some things we would love to see and there's a timely fashion. it sounds like from the reading of the majority leader's several motions that he made for nominations, we're going to be here next week. well, the chairman of the foreign relations committee could call a business markup for next week. we could get your resolution on, we could get it passed and then we could get it to the floor. why not? why not? the last thing, i don't know what the senator is referring to in terms of stopping monies going to maduro. my act which became law along with senator rubio and others in essence exactly tried to do that. but i'm certainly happy to join with the senator in any efforts to continue to work on stopping any flow of money to the maduro

regime, and more importantly, to reclaim the money that is already the national pat try mow ni that has been spent elsewhere. t.p.s. for venezuelans could have happened already, could have happened yesterday, could happen today, could happen tomorrow if president trump only wants to declare it so. i think he should. i don't think we should have to pass legislation, but that's where we're at. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. scott: i appreciate the comments of my colleague from new jersey. step one, i still have not heard a, what the issue is of a resolution that it sounds like 99 other people, 99 other senators are okay with with regard to holding general secretary xi accountable. it seems to me that we have the opportunity right now between the two of us if we need to make

a change, maybe we can make a change but i'd like to get something done today. number two, the t.p.s. program is a temporary program and is not operated as a temporary program and it has to be reformed. i agree with my colleague from new jersey, i would like the president to say that the venezuelans will get t.p.s. right now. but i think the white house position is we've got to fix the program, because the program doesn't work. it's not a temporary program. that's why my fix does what a lot of senators up here keep saying. they want to say we've got to take back power we've given to the president, and my, mine does that. the president still can do t.p.s., but after he does if he wants to extend it, it's got to come back to congress and we get to make a decision. it's pretty commonsense. if we did that right now, we could do, get t.p.s. for venezuelans. the senator from new jersey has blocked my bill. it's a bill with senator rubio

to hold maduro accountable by prohibiting federal ainches -- agencies from doing anyone who supports the oppressing maduro regime. he's blocking a bill that's going to prevent money from going there. we've got to stand up whether it's against the castro regime, maduro. we've got to support democracy and freedom in latin america. i hope my colleague would stop blocking that bill also. mr. menendez: mr. president, has the senator yielded the floor? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, i won't stay the whole night debating my colleague, although i would enjoy that. but let me just say, number one, is that he has the power as a colleague in the majority to go to the chairman of the foreign relations committee and say i really think this resolution is timely and needs

to be done. we're going to be in session next week. the chairman of the foreign relations committee can call a markup next week. his resolution, i will give him my word that i will support asking the chairman to put his resolution on the business meeting. and with probably some modifications, i would support it. but he needs to ask the chairman to hold a markup, number one. number two, the reality is that the concern about t.p.s. not being,, quote-unquote, temporary, well that concern was vitiated, i don't know if it was the 9th or 11th circuit court of appeals that recently held an opinion that said the president of the united states can give t.p.s. and he can end t.p.s. in his judgment. i don't necessarily agree with that judicial decision, but nonetheless, that is right now the law of the land. so that concern is over.

the suggestion that we have to end t.p.s. as we know it in order to make sure that it only remains a temporary protected status, the courts have determined that. they said the president can give t.p.s. and can take it away. so as far as i learned in my civics lessons, the courts is the final law of the land and interpreting it what it is that the law is. lastly, i'd like the gentleman to have him get in contact with my -- i don't know what legislation he keeps referring to that somehow we blocked. but before the gentleman even arrived here, i have been pursuing the castro regime for 20-something years since i was in the house of representatives representatives, passing the libertad act and so much others. and certainly the maduro regime as well. so happy to look at that. but let's get the chairman of the foreign relations committee

to hold a markup, and i think we could solve a lot of these problems. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: the senators are concluded with their discussion? the presiding officer: they both yielded the floor. mr. whitehouse: it appears that they are. mr. president, i am back again. thee and me once again together to discuss climate change as unprecedented wildfires scorch the west coast and a deadly hurricane season churns in the atlantic and americans cry out

for action. powerful players outside this chamber hear that cry, including recently over 200 c.e.o.'s of major american corporations who form the business roundtable. here are some of the 200 companies represented by those c.e.o.'s. as i discussed last week, the business roundtable just earlier this month called for science-based climate policy to reduce carbon pollution consistent with the paris agreement, and specifically endorsed carbon pricing. from verizon to chevron to apple to welz fargo to mackenzie to

american airlines to amazon, to pfizer, to ford. it's quite the who's who of corporate america. so why, you might ask, did the business roundtable do this when normally business lobbists are up here telling us to get out of their way? the answer is economics 101. pollution is the textbook example of market failure. a factory dumps toxic pollution in the river, anyone living downstream bears the cost of that pollution. their property values decrease. they may even get sick. it's basic economic theory that polluters ought to bear those

costs, the downstream cost, if you will. even milton friedman, the patron saint of economics greece that polluters should pay the costs associated with their pollution. for the big carbon polluters, this is big bucks. the international monetary fund calculation that fossil fuel enjoys a $600 billion subsidy in the united states every year -- every year $600 billion. and it's mostly because the industry has managed to offload the costs of carbon pollution on to the general public. why do you think they are so busy here in congress all the time? they are trying to protect that subsidy. so if it is economics 101 that a product's price should reflect its true cost and if in the case

of fossil fuels they are cheating on that rule, then a price on carbon pollution, as the business roundtable recommends, is a correction to that market failure. the ceo's also read the same warnings as the rest of us. dozens of central banks, economists and other financial experts warn of massive economic risks caused by our failure to address climate change. risks one recent estimate put at triple the 2008 great recession, risks called systematic, meaning they take down the whole financial system, not just fossil fuel and business executives -- tend to take that seriously. this is a good news story if you listen to the business voice coming through the business roundtable.

here's the problem. the business voice doesn't just come through the business roundtable. it also comes through other groups, groups that are historic enemies of climate action, constantly up to climate mischief. the same corporations whose c.e.o.'s sent the message through the business roundtable send the opposite and even louder message through these enemy groups. which brings me to the u.s. chamber of commerce. by far the largest lobbists in town, a prolific litigator, a dark money elections spender, and an opponent of serious climate action.

in a recent study by influence map, the chamber was denominated one of the worst climate obstructers in america. in my view it is not one of the worst, it is the worst because of the power that it brings behind its message. if you imagine the business roundtable as emitting a positive political squeak, the chamber can emit a negative roar, and they have for a long time. this chart is a partial list of the companies that are members of both the business roundtable and the chamber of commerce. i say it's partial because the u.s. chamber of commerce, unlike local chamber of comers is very secretive. it doesn't disclose its funds, it doesn't disclose its membership. so the companies here either

voluntarily their membership or the press ferreted it out. let's look at what some of these companies say about climate change and what they do through the chamber. let's start here with johnson and johnson. they are a consumers company. you probably have plenty of johnson and johnson and your house. they say that it is serious and congress should enact a carbon price. in its corporate materials, they say that climate change is impacting health and risks resulting from a changing climate has the potential to negatively impact economies around the world. johnson and johnson recognizes the importance of government action, stating while companies have a responsibility and

ability to mitigate climate change, the unilateral capabilities of businesses are limited, addressing these issues requires the collaboration of companies with governments to achieve systematic change at scale. end quote. so sounds like the company gets it. but johnson and johnson also put at least $750,000 behind the chamber last year. what did the chamber just do on climate? it filed a brief supporting the trump administration's effort to undo emission standards for cars and trucks set by california but honored across the country. well, the nonpartisan rodium group estimates that revoking those fuel emission standards would result in up to about

600 million metric tons of additional co2 emissions through 2035. that is equal to a year of 130 million cars or from the electricity needed to power 100 million homes. so which voice of johnson and johnson are we supposed to listen to, the business roundtable voice or the chamber voice? how about united airlines? here's united. united airlines doesn't disclose its funding of the chamber, but it's on the chamber's board so it's likely a major financial backer involved in chamber policy decisions. same thing. through the business roundtable,

united says that climate change is serious and congress should enact a carbon price. and on united's website you will find good language about climate change and the importance of reducing emissions. united has pledged to cut emissions in half by 2050. meanwhile what's the chamber on whose board united sits doing? the watchdog group influence map has caught the chamber repeatedly lobbying the trump administration to unravel carbon pollution limits. so you have to wonder from its seat on the chamber board did united know about this? did they do anything to stop those activities? they sit on the board after all. look also at coca-cola, one of our most iconic american brands.

through the business roundtable coca-cola says that climbing is serious and that congress should ening act -- enact a carbon price. coca-cola says in its own materials that, quote, climate change is already having an impact on our business at multiple points at our value chain. end quote. it says it's committed to reducing its emissions. but in 2019, coca-cola gave the chamber at least $34,000. it didn't disclose the total amount. what was the chamber up to on climate? it was in court litigating in favor of the trump administration against efforts to reduce carbon pollution from power plants. now, coca-cola and the beverage industry also has a trade association of their own which appears from public reporting to

have made zero effort on this climate problem, notwithstanding those multiple impact on coca-cola's value chain. that trade association knows how to lobby when it wants to. on climate, it just doesn't want to. so let's have a look at at&t, another one here on the board. i'm not seeing it right now so i'm going to keep looking as i talk. it's another iconic american brand like coca-cola, and like united, at&t sits on the chamber's board. presumably sitting on the chamber's board it's influential

within the organization. in the first six months of 2019, at&t reported giving the chamber at least $144,000. now, at&t wants congress to adopt a very specific climate policy. first, of course, through the business roundtable united says -- at&t says that climate change is serious and that congress should enact a carbon price. but also at&t is a founding member of the climate leadership council and at&t supports the c.l.c.'s detailed carbon price proposal. well, that's through their business roundtable and climate leadership council voice. what do we hear through their

chamber voice? well, i can tell you something about where the chamber is on carbon pricing because with senators schatz and gillibrand and heinrich i introduced carbon pricing legislation that isn't that different from the c.l.c. proposal. and senator coons and finestein have a carbon pricing bill. so does senator van hollen and senator durbin, our deputy minority leader just announced one. over in the house there are multiple carbon pricing bills. has the chamber supported any of these bills? nope. not one. has it even engaged on any of them? not with me. not on ours. not that i can tell on any of the others. and when election season rolls around, the chamber has spent millions supporting candidates

who oppose comprehensive climate policies. so the chamber message is pretty clear. don't support a serious carbon price. so which voice of at&t's are we to listen to? the c.l.c. and roundtable positive squeaks about carbon pricing or the chamber's negative roar against carbon pricing, the roar that says to members here, don't you dare. these companies, all of them, just said they support carbon pricing, are funding a group that is opposing climate action and specifically carbon pricing at every turn in congress, in court, in elections, in regulatory agencies. i've called out just a few -- there's at&t right here. i called out just a few

companies today to make the point, but every one of these companies -- every one of them is in the same position, the climate policy they support through the business roundtable is opposed by the entity they support the chamber. they've got to straighten that out. whether you're u.p.s., home depot, american express, metlife, or marion, or abbott or morgan stanley or southern company or intel or pepsico, you name it, anthem, pfizer, johnson, lily, dow, exxonmobil, you've got to straighten this out. because these are big and influential companies. in fact, this year the market

capitalization of the entire oil and gas sector dropped below the market capitalization of just apple. quarts report -- quartz reported in june that apple could buy exxonmobil just with cash on hand. yet, these companies have been mostly silent while polluters called the shots around here in congress and for a long time. they haven't asked hard questions about the chamber's fossil fuel funding and they've mostly stood by while the chamber, their own organization, became a worst climate obstructor. i think this is beginning to change. last week i spoke at a series, ceres event, on corporate climate lobbying during new york climate week. over 100 people from scores of

different companies participat participated. the interest among corporations and investors in getting a handle on anty climate lobbying is -- anticlimate lobbying is surging. to all of them i said, change the chamber. get it to follow the business round table and support pricing. get it to come to congress in favor of science-based climate policy. get the truth out of the chamber about how much money it's been taking from the fossil fuel industry, particularly for these companies who are board members of the chamber, you guys have a due diligence duty to know that stuff. changing that bah he moth -- behemoth, the anticlimate changing would be a change

indeed. that would help finally break the logjam that the fossil fuel industry has created here in congress. let me wrap up bring pointing out the obvious which is that time is running out. if we don't act soon, we will lock in the worst consequences of climate change for decades. so to these companies i ask why if this is as important as you say it is, do you not speak with a clear voice? why do you let corporate america's most powerful political mouth piece oppose you? look at these companies. why do you tolerate that? and why do you fund it and sit on its board while it opposes you? climate change is not an issue you want to be on both sides of. so why are you on both sides of

it. whom do you expect congress to listen to? which voice of yours are we to take as the real one. if you want us to listen to your business roundtable voice, you better make sure it's not drowned out by the massive business lobby that you fund that has been our worst enemy against climate action. you all need to wake up. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from indiana. a senator: i rise today in support of president trump's nomination of indiana's amy coney barrett to the supreme

court of the united states. in the coming days americans will hear a great deal about judge barrett. mr. young: much of it from people who never met her, who never worked with her, but as a fellow hoosier, i've had the privilege of actually getting to know judge barrett and her family and to understand the breadth of her intellect and the thoughtful reasoning of her wo work. my own opinions have been informed by my personal interactions with her and supported by the countless students, clerks, and former colleagues who despite their varied political beliefs are united in their admiration for judge barrett. they will second what i tell you here. amy coney barrett's qualifications to fill this seat are beyond question.

the character she will demonstrate once in it will be exceptional. her career is beyond distinguished. she graduated magna cum laude from rhodes college an. she was highly decorated while doing both, including dean's award recognition and best exam in numerous courses. she held prestigious clerkships for judge lawrence silverman on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit and for the late justice antonin scalia on the u.s. supreme court. she is a respected educator teaching for nearly two decades at notre dame's law school where she was named distinguished professor of the year three times. in 2017 she was nominated to

fill a vacancy on the u.s. circuit court of appeals for the seventh circuit. i have to say i was incredibly pleased by her nomination to the federal bench and i was proud to vote for her confirmation. and i wasn't alone in my esteem for judge barrett. during her confirmation process, those students and colleagues, former and current, came forward with words of support and praise by the score. they described her as fair and decent, brilliant and generous. they were struck by her integrity, her impartiality, and her temperment. and they spoke of her dedication to teaching students not how to think but how to think for themselves.

they were called the long lines extending outside of her office of those students who sought and were always given advice and mentoring. and though they came from different backgrounds and held differing views, they came together as a chorus to say this. amy coney barrett possesses exactly the type of mind and the strength of character america's constitutional system relies on. i agreed then and i still do. just three years ago i didn't hear a single credible criticism of judge barrett based on her legal qualifications. and i don't anticipate hearing one now. she will be guided by the law and precedence. she will be faithful to the

constitution. as compelling as the testimonies of those who admire her are, it's through her own words that we can see the type of supreme court justice amy barrett will be. a judge is obligated to apply the law as it is and not as she wishes it would be, judge barrett has said. she obliged to follow the law even when her personal preferences cut the other way or when she will experience great public criticism for doing so. now, it's important for americans to understand, to understand her qualifications for the supreme court and her fidelity to the constitution. but they should also know a bit about her life away if the bench

-- away from the bench. when i met her, it was quite obvious that amy coney barrett was less interested in cataloguing her professional accomplishments and more inclined to discuss family and the accomplishments of her children who she clearly loves so very much. judge barrett and her husband, jesse, have been married for over 20 years now. their family is a large one and a loving one. their parents -- they're parents to seven children. their youngest son has special needs. they twice adopted both times from haiti. judge barrett is asked what greater thing can you do than raise children. that's where you have your greatest impact on the world. it's clear not just from those words but from simply spending a few moments with this beautiful

family that this is her life's joy and her greatest point of pride. how absurd, then, to see describe as some here and the media, see her described as antihealth care. it's the opposite actually. as the head of a large household, amy coney barrett knows full well and better than most of her detractors how important medical coverage is to every american's health. and to their peace of mind, too. and this includes insurance for those with preexisting conditions which republicans have time and time again committed to protect while working to make health care more affordable and more accessible. now, with all of this, this is

actually not why judge barrett was nominated or why she belongs on the supreme court. and let us be truthful. it's also not the real reason why those who oppose her do so and do so with such rage. in the absence of actual objections to amy coney barrett's resume, they've rummaged through and purposely wharped judge barrett's record. they've wharped her legal writes to position her as the more tall en-- mortal enemy of obamacare. this is a lie. now, her scholarship if properly read rather than quickly mind for propaganda reveals no such thing. for 30 years democrats have

consistently, they have continually cried wolf painting every republican supreme court nominee as the end of the republic hoping always to scare the american people to their side. and just as we witnessed two years ago when their lies run out of beleaves, the lies grow more reckless -- believers, their lies grow more reckless. this is a dangerous game to play right now, doubly so for the party that is blocking health care legislation during a pandemic. judge barrett hafnts been nominate -- hasn't been nominated to the supreme court to make policy. in seem to have forgotten but that's our job. president trump selected her not only because of her sharp mind and impressive qualifications but because she won't legislate

from the bench. that's the whole point. of course there are others who may take a different, even darker tact. to them none of this matters, not the impeccable credentials, not the ringing endorsements, not that she's a role model of an accomplishmented professional and a loving mother. not that she's been described as mind blowing intelligent and one of the most humble people you will ever meet, none of it. we'll hear from them in coming days. likely in this chamber. we'll hear a lot from them. and if past is prologue, they may choose to focus instead on judge barrett's religious beliefs. not out of any deep conviction

but out of desperation. they may argue that it's impossible to live a life of faith and uphold the law. they may create a caricature of judge barrett that has no relation to reality and one that reflects their own intolerance, not hers. it is regrettable that in 2020 we must still repeat this refrain. we do not have a religious test for public service in the united states of america. and we never have. it's true judge barrett is a faithful catholic. it's true.

so, too, are five current supreme court justices. so too are millions of america americans. to argue that this prohibits her from sitting on the supreme court is nothing short of religious bigotry. in 1793, diswrornlg washington pen -- george washingtoned penned a letter to members of the new jerusalem church of baltimore, maryland. in it, washington outlined one of the principles that makes america so unique. a man's religious tenets, he wrote, will not deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest offices that are known in the united states. happily, 200 years later we now apply washington's equation regarding the holding of high

office to both men and women. it's unfortunate, though, that two centuries later we must still be reminded that every american can worship and pray as they please and no doors of opportunity shall be closed because of it. and there's this -- since our founding, 114 americans have sat on the supreme court. only four have been women. are those who oppose this president and this pick really willing to use religious prejudice as an excuse to oppose confirming the fifth? come on.

if so, the faith of my colleagues should be worried about isn't judge barrett's, but the american people's in this institution. in the coming weeks i hope we don't regress into religious bigotry, and i hope that the senate can move past the personal attacks of some past nominees. and instead focus on the professional qualifications and judicial comportment of judge barrett. we're constitutionally obligated to provide our advice and consent to the president on his judicial nominees. my hope, and pras it is a ney -- it is a naive one is that we will fulfill our responsibility by holding hearings that are informative rather than destructive, not unlike those that led to justice

ruth bader ginsburg's bipartisan nomination in 1993. and if the senate does this and we consider judge barrett's qualifications, she will be confirmed and subsequently serve with great honor, distinction, and she'll do the american people proud. both the high court and our country will be better for it. mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. young: mr. president, i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. a senator: i'd like to ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from ohio. the senator for ohio is recognized. mr. portman: thank you. i ask unanimous consent that the senior senator from north dakota and the majority leader be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills for joint resolutions on

wednesday, september 30. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i'd like to talk about the nomination for amy coney barrett for associate justice. i think the president made a great pick. from all impressions she is a great lawyer, judge and person. we've begun the process of looking at judge barrett. she's been meeting with members of the senate. i look forward to my meeting with her. the precedent for moving forward with this nomination at this time is crystal clear. during an election year when one party holds the presidency and the senate in the entire history of our country, the senate has confirmed the nominee in every single case except one. that one is exception, by the way, was somebody who withdrew because of ethics concerns that both republicans and democrats had. the precedent is very clear, when you've got the president and the senate of the same party, we confirm. in contrast, when power has been divided and a supreme court

vacancy arises during an election year the senate precedent is not to confirm the nominee. the last time a confirmation occurred with the president and senate of different parties was in the 1880's. that distinction is what separates us now from 2016. back then i wrote an op-ed and i quote some argue the american people have already spoken and i agree that they have, both the president and the senate joort were fairly -- majority were fairly and legitimately elected. the last time we spoke as a nation two years ago the american people voted for a republican party in the is u.s. senate in an election that was wiedly viewed that the people wanted to check on the power of the presidency. the president has every right to nominate a supreme court justice, i said, but the founders also gave the senate the exclusive right to decide whether to move forward on that nominee. in other words, in keeping with the precedent that i laid out earlier, the republican senate

did what the democratic senate had traditional done with the republican president's nominee. the comments i made in 2016 were all in that context of divided government. in fact, in that same op-ed, i warned that divided government is not, and i quote, the time to go through what would be a highly contentious process with a very high lield that the nominee -- likelihood that the nominee would not be confirmed. end quote. i did not believe that justice garland would not have been confirmed. that was not a good result to have that kind of highly contentious process through the institution of the supreme court or for the senate. now of course we've got a very different situation. we've got a president and a senate of the same party. in fact, we have a republican senate that was elected in 2016 and reelected in 2018 in part to support well-qualified judges nominated by the president. no one can disagree that judge barrett has an impressive legal

background. as i've looked into her background both as a law professor at notre dame where three times she won the distinguished teaching award and of course in her record as a judge on the u.s. circuit for the seventh circuit, judge barrett has been highly regarded for her work in the legal world. by the way, she's been highly regarded from folks across a wide variety of legal philosophies. they say she's smart. they say she understands the law. they say she's well qualified. in fact, the american bar association said that about her when she was nominated and successfully confirmed here in the united states senate to the circuit court, which of course is the second level, right below the supreme court. so she has already gone through the process here. she's been confirmed here. the american bar association looked at her and said she is well qualified, which is their highest rating. so my hope is that there will

not be any argument about whether she is well qualified or not because she clearly is, has an impressive legal background. her personal story is impressive. after getting a full ride at notre dame law she earned a prestigious clerkship on the supreme court for justice antonin scalia. she married jesse barrett, a classmate of hers at notre dame and raised seven wonderful children, two adopted from haiti. she's still raising them all while advancing her own extraordinary career in the law. frankly, i think she's a great model for working parents everywhere. as we heard during her last confirmation to the circuit court right here on the floor of the united states senate when we talked about her, she is admired as a good person. colleagues at notre dame, her students at notre dame, others from across the political spectrum have called her fair.

they have called her compassionate. they said she's a good person. apart from those legal qualifications and the character, i think it's fair for the senate to insist on knowing a judge's judicial philosophy. my view is that it's the role of the supreme court justice to fairly and impartially apply the law and protect our rights guaranteed by the constitution but not to advance their personal preferences or even their policy goals. that's not the job of a judge. they're not supposed to be like us, legislators. they're not supposed to legislate from the bench. they're supposed to follow the constitution, follow precedent. it's no understatement to say that judge barrett is being interviewed for one of the most important jobs in the country, and that's why it's important we do get a fair and accurate picture of her judicial philosophy. and you know what? her judicial philosophy lines up with what i think is right for the court, but more importantly, what most americans think is right for the

court. as an opinion piece in the "wall street journal" put it recently, judge barrett's body of work puts her, quote, at the center of the mainstream consensus on the judge's role as an arbiter, not a lawmaker, who abides by the duty to enforce the law as written, end quote. that's a record. that's the philosophy that she has talked about as she was confirmed by this body just a couple years ago. i know that judicial nominations have become incredibly partisan around here. my hope is that judge barrett will be given a thorough and a fair evaluation from both sides of the aisle. to that end, i hope my democratic colleagues will at least meet with judge barrett and engage with her and any concerns they might have rather than dismiss her nomination out of hand. and i hope that those who end up opposing her will be able to do so without resorting to the kind of character assassination that we saw with judge kavanaugh.

i look forward to the four days of judiciary committee hearings that have already been announced by chairman graham. this will be giving every member of committee plenty of time to ask questions, express their views, to have the dialogue that they're looking for. i will be joining millions of americans and watching those proceedings. i will also look forward to my one-on-one meeting with her. this will give me a chance to further assess judge barrett's character, temperament, and legal philosophy. my hope is that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will also take the opportunity to fairly review her character, her judicial temperament, and her legal qualifications, which are so impressive, and do so in a respectful manner. i yield back my time.

the presiding officer: the senator for ohio. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of executive calendar 845, through

853, 869, 870, and all nominations on the secretary's desk in the air force and marine corps, navy, and space force and that the president be notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that 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. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the senate now proceed to en bloc consideration of the following senate resolutions which were submitted earlier today, s. res. 730 through s. res. 741. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i know of no further debate on the resolutions. the presiding officer: if there's no further debate, the question is on the adoption of the resolutions en bloc. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the resolutions are aboptd --

adopted en bloc. mr. portman: i ask that the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table all en bloc. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 687 and the senate proceed its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate s. res. 687 honoring the live of nicoa simpson. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i ask that the preamble be agreed to and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the commerce committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate proceed to s. res. 694. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 694, recognizing 100 years of service by chief petty officers in the united states coast guard. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. portman: i ask unanimous

consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of calendar number 426, s. 910. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 426, s. 910, a bill to reauthorize and amend the national sea grant college program act and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute be withdrawn and the wicker amendment at the desk be agreed to and the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i know of no further debate on the bill, as amended. the presiding officer: if there is no further debate, the question is on passage of the bill, as amended. all in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to are it. the ayes do have it. the bill, as amended, is passed.

mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the committee on commerce be discharged from further consideration of s. 1069 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. 1069, a bill to require the secretary of commerce, acting through the administrator of the national oceanic atmosphere to have a constituent-driven program and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: if there's no further debate. the question is passage of the bill. all in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. portman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the commit on e.p.w. be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 3 the 9. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 3399, an act to amend the nutria control act of 2003 to include california. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i know of no further debate on the bill. the presiding officer: all if -- in favor say aye. all opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the bill the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. mr. portman: i ask that the committee be discharged from s. 4403. the presiding officer: the clerk will report.

the clerk: s. 4403, a bill to amend the nutria eradication and control act of 2003 to include california and the program and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. port i ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i know of no further debate on this bill. the presiding officer: if there's no further debate, the question is on the passage of the bill. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on finance be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 991 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 991, an act to extend certain provisions of the caribbean basin economic recovery act until september 30, 2030 and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will

proceed to the measure. mr. portman: 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: without objection. mr. portman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on veterans affairs be discharged from further consideration of h.r. 561 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 561, an act to amend title 38 united states code to improve the oversight of contracts awarded by the secretary of veterans affairs to small business concerns owned and controlled by veterans and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the committee will proceed -- the senate will proceed. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of calendar number 508, s. 3681. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 508, s. 3681, a bill to require a

joint task force on the operation of air travel during and after the covid-19 pandemic and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported substitute amendment be withdrawn, the markey amendment substituted at the desk be agreed to, and that the bill be amended and considered read a third time and passed, the committee-reported title amendment be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: mr. president, i understand there are three bills at the desk. i ask for their reading -- first reading en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bill for the first 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. portman: i now ask for a second reading and object to my own request all en bloc. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bills will receive their second reading on the second day of the next legislative day. mr. portman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12:00 noon thursday, october 1. further, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be 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 and morning business be closed. finally, following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session for the consideration of the newman nomination. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. portman: mr. president, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator for ohio. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the previous order with respect to s. 1069 be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of s.

calendar 481. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar 481, s. 1069, a bill to require the secretary of commerce acting through the administrator of the national oceanic and atmospheric administration to establish a constituent-driven program and so forth and for other purposes. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i know of no further debate on this bill, mr. president. the presiding officer: if there's no further debate, the question is on passage of the bill. all in favor say aye. all opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the bill is passed. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: mr. president, if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until

more lives seven senate coverage on "c-span2" in the senate returns. the senate judiciary committee chair lindsay graham announced the confirmation hearing for october 12th and then tuesday the 13th on the begins taking questions from kim members. sharon graham expects it was like three to four days . you can watch live coverage every day of the supreme court confirmation hearing on c-span. online assessment .org or listen live on free radio app. senate minority leader chuck schumer discuss the nomination of the judge to the supreme