c-span.org orlisten live on the free c-span radio app . >> the competition is on. the apart of this year's can video competition middle and high school students can be the start of the conversation by making a 5 to 6 minute documentary exploring the issues you wantthe president and congress to address in 2021 . the bold with your documentary. show opposing points of view and include c-span video. the owner, there's $100,000 in total cash prizes including a total cash prize of $5000 and the deadline is january 20 2021. be informed, your competition rules and more information on how to get started at our website , studentcam.org.

>> the senate returns today and they vote later on a house passed resolution disapproving a new federal rule revising oversight oflow income banking services . later in the week , a vote on a gop backed coronavirus economic relief bill. they will also take up the supreme court nomination of amy coney barrett . live now to the senate floor on c-span2. >>

in the law and the prophets. we praise you for this profound maxim to guide our ethical conduct. may it provide our lawmakers with wisdom to make sound decisions and strength to walk in the way

of justice and freedom for all. we pray in your wonderful name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. mr. grassley: madam president. the presiding officer: the president pro tempore.

mr. grassley: one minute for morning business, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: last week, news broke about hunter biden's questionable financial dealings. that information allegedly from hunter biden's laptop appears to show vice president biden may have been more aware of his son's financial dealings with foreign despots and criminals than he admitted to the american people. that information was quickly censored by big tech companies. just today director ratcliffe said that hunter biden's laptop -- that issue is not part of a russian disinformation campaign. do you know what actually is fake news? the steele dossier, but i don't

recall reporters and big tech censoring the false reporting about president trump and the steele dossier. instead, the liberal media did just the opposite. they became superspreaders of false reporting across the world. what happened last week is the election interference and anticonservative bias and facebook and twitter are guilty. democrats and liberals in the press can't have veto authority over information just because it makes their nominee look bad. they can't have a double standard. vice president biden owes the american people answers. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: last week, the senate judiciary committee and the entire country heard from one of the most impressive nominees for any public office in a long time.

judge amy coney barrett demonstrated that she has the deep legal expertise, dispassionate judicial temperament and sheer intellectual horsepower that the american people deserve to have on the supreme court. her nomination prompted an outpouring of praise from across academia, the legal profession, and importantly the political spectrum. last week, our committee colleagues saw why fellow legal scholars call judge barrett, quote, a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, and they say she is, quote, tailor made, tailor made for this job. they heard firsthand why her former law clerks and students call her, quote, a woman of unassailable integrity, and, quote, a role model for generations to come. they heard thoughtful answers that explained why the american bar association, an institution the democratic leader has called

the gold standard, deems judge barrett well qualified, well qualified to sit on the supreme court. and they heard why the legal professionals behind the rating call her, quote, a staggering academic mind. a staggering academic mind. the chair of a.b.a.'s standing committee on the federal judiciary told the committee directly that, quote, in interviews with individuals in the legal profession and community to know judge barrett, whether for a few years or decades, not one person, not one uttered a negative word about her character. of course, madam president, there is another way you can tell that judge barrett is so impressive and so qualified, is the fact that the people who precommitted to oppose her nomination have completely retreated from arguing the merits. virtually none of the politicians, pundits, or special interests who oppose judge barrett -- opposed judge barrett from the beginning have even

tried to lay a finger on her qualifications or credentials. we have seen inaccurate claims that it would be abnormal for the senate to fill this seat. we have seen bizarre, barely disguised insinuations about the nominee's religious faith. and now this morning's improper press scrutiny of her children. we have heard democrats try to take hostage our very institutions of government to stop this precedent-backed process from moving forward. but none of the distortions can even begin to cloud the incredible qualifications of the nominee. i look forward to the judiciary committee's vote on thursday. the full senate will turn to judge barrett's nomination as soon as it comes out of committee. i will be proud to vote to confirm this exceptional jurist. now, madam president, on another matter, this week, the senate will vote on more coronavirus relief that congress could deliver to american families right now. month after month, speaker

pelosi has held up urgent assistance for workers, families, schools, and our health care system. month after month, she has refused to set aside non-covid-related demands and far-left policy riders that she knows are sabotaging any shot at a deal. why? well, because -- and these are her own words -- she thinks agreeing to a bipartisan compromise might make the democrats seem like, quote, a cheap date. her words. the speaker said over and over again she does not believe it is better for workers to get something rather than nothing. and thus far, senate democrats have gone along with it. we could have passed hundreds of billions of dollars in relief more than a month ago, but our democratic colleagues voted in lockstep to filibuster the relief and kill the bill. unless democrats got every single non-covid-related wish

list item they were affair, american families would get nothing. every single senate democrat voted to filibuster hundreds of billions of dollars in noncontroversial assistance, except our colleague who is running for vice president, so she wasn't here at all. this has been the position for months -- all or nothing, all or nothing obstruction. it's got to stop. the speaker's marie antoinette act needs to end. zero dollars for working families but a whole lot of television time for the speaker of the house is not a good trade for the american people. speaker pelosi's supposed leverage is not putting food on the table in households where one or both parents have lost their jobs. speaker pelosi's so-called leverage is not helping schools reopen safely or struggling small business to avoid layoffs. the democrat talking points are not doing a single thing to fund more testing, more tracing, or

double down on project warp speed so we can produce and distribute a vaccine. so tomorrow and wednesday, madam president, the senate is going to vote. we will see whether our democratic colleagues in this chamber agree that families deserve nothing rather than something or whether they are ready to let the senate make law across the huge areas where we do not even disagree. tomorrow, we'll have a stand-alone vote on creating a whole second round of the historic paycheck protection program for the hardest hit small businesses. the p.p.p. has saved tens of millions of american jobs and september main streets across america from turning into permanent covid-19 ghost towns. the program is as bipartisan as it gets. not only did it pass unanimously in the first place, we also added funding and made tweaks several times without a single objection in either chamber.

so tomorrow, tuesday, every senator will cast an up-or-down vote on establishing a whole second draw of these emergency loans for the small businesses that need it the most. no more all or nothing, no more endless posturing. just one clear vote on one clear good thing. that nobody even says they oppose. it would make a huge difference for voarks who may otherwise be laid off. and then, madam president, on wednesday, the senate will vote again on a larger bill. it will pour hundreds of billions of dollars into the p.p.p. expansion plus more federal unemployment insurance, more money for safe schools, more money for testing, more money for vaccines, and many other important priorities. nobody thinks this proposal would resolve every problem forever. what it does contain is a half a

trillion dollars, a half a trillion dollars of good that congress can do right now, right now through programs that democrats do not even say they oppose. american families deserve for us to agree where we can, make law, and push huge amounts of money out the door while washington continues arguing over the rest. it's common sense. it's what the country needs. i hope our democrat colleagues will finally let it happen. madam president, what is the pending business? the presiding officer: the clerk will report the pending business. the clerk: house message to accompany s. 178, an act to condemn gross human rights

violations of ethnic turk muslims in xinjiang and calling for detention end to torture, harassment of those communities in and outside china. mr. mcconnell: i withdraw amendment 23. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. i amendment is withdrawn. mr. mcconnell: i send a motion to the desk with a motion to concur with amendment 2652. 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 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to concur in the house amendment to s. 178, an act to condemn gross human rights violations of ethnic turkic muslims in xinjiang and call for an end to torture and harassment of these communities inside and outside china, with a further amendment numbered 2652, 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 have a second-degree amendment to the motion to concur with the amendment. the clerk: the senator from kentucky, mr. mcconnell, proposes an amendment numbered 2680 to amendment numbered 2652. mr. mcconnell: i ask the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to calendar 554, s. 4675. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: motion to proceed to s. 4675, a bill to amend health insurance portability and accountability act. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: last week, the republican majority on the senate judiciary committee concluded what can only be described as a farcical set of hearings for a supreme court nominee. in the midst of the pandemic when several members of the committee majority were exposed to or tested positive for coronavirus or themselves were sick with covid-19 in the days immediately beforehand, hearings and an in-person markup were conducted with virtually no regard for the risks. no uniform testing protocol was put into place to protect all the people who had to be in that room. why? because the republican majority wanted to jam this nomination through before the election. the chairman of the committee ignored the committee's quorum rules so that he could conduct business without the participation of the minority. why? because the republican majority

has decided to ignore the rules, norms, and standards, even their own rules, even their own standards, to get this nominee on to the bench. four short years ago every member of that judiciary committee said that we shouldn't approve a supreme court nominee in a presidential election year. many refused even to meet with obama's nominee. quote, use my words against me, chamber graham said, in a case -- in case a supreme court vacancy opened up in the final years of his -- year of his term. lindsey graham says, this is his quote talking about himself. lindsey graham says, let the next president decide. but now there's suppose -- their supposed principle that we should not approve supreme court nominees in election years has been exposed as a farce. the republican majority is trying to confirm a supreme court nominee in the middle of a national election. the republican majority is running the most hypocritical,

most partisan and least legitimate process in the history of supreme court confirmations. again, the republican majority is running the most hypocritical, most partisan, and least legitimate process in the history, the long history, of supreme court nominations. and what of the nominee? she performed as nearly every trump nominated judge performed when nominated to the supreme court. essentially she answers nothing -- nothing of substance. throughout the week, the judiciary committee and the american people were treated to the same practiced evasions that have become a hallmark of these hearings. according to judge barrett, the judicial standard of ethics that a nominee, quote, shouldn't comment on cases that might come before the court, quote, is an excuse so large that it applies to any question she might not want to answer.

even questions of basic legal fact. it produced an absurd and stunning set of exchanges. judge barrett would not say whether voter intimidation is illegal. it very much is. judge barrett would not say whether congress is empowered to protect the right to vote. we certainly have that power. judge barrett would not say if the president of the united states can unilaterally change the rate of an election. he cannot. she wouldn't say if presidents should commit to the peaceful transfer of power if if absent itee ballots were proper to vote. on the final day of her confirmation hearings, judge barrett refused to say if climate change was real because her answer might, quote, be

politically convert yas. seriously, this nominee was unable to confirm the xins of climate change, what's next? gravity? is the earth round? the flat earth society might find that opinion politically controversial. she's are not opinions of opinion, these are matters of law and matters of fact. she is a sitting judge finance the republican majority gets its way, she will be a justice on the highest court in the country. but apparently the american people do not deserve to hear anything about her views. the principle thing we learned about judge barrett in her hearings is that she believes she doesn't have to answer any question that might upset president trump. but, of course, we do know that judge barrett has a certain interpretation of our laws and constitution, one that she wants to hide from the american people because it's so adverse to what they believe. president trump swore that he would only nominate justices to

the supreme court who would, quote, terminate the affordable care act. judge barrett herself harshly criticized judge robert's decision to uphold the law. judge hawley said she was satisfied that roe v. wade was not correctly decided. at one moment in the hearings, she said that she considered brown v. brown a super precedent outside the legal challenge but roe v. wade is not. despite what the american people heard in the hearings last week, judge barrett does have hearings, she does hold views. she has a track record of criticizing the decisions that upheld our health care law. she belonged to organizations and signed her name to advertisements that called for an end, an end to a woman's right to choose. her judicial opinions express an extreme and rather bizarre view of the second amendment.

that -- felons from owning guns, a view far to the right of seven justice scalia. if judge barrett is confirmed, that will matter to americans whose fundamental rights are on the line from the supreme court, to affordable health care, to marry who they love, to join a union, to make private decisions with a doctor, to vote without having to jump through 15 hoops. the american people should make no mistake. if judge barrett becomes justice barrett, every single one of their fundamental rights would be at risk. this nominee, is so -- her views are so far away from what the average american believes, would do so much damage to the fundamental structure and comity

of this country, that i just hope and pray two republicans will see the light and realize that we should not nominate any nominee before the election, which is two weeks and one day away. now, of course, instead of ramming through a supreme court nominee in the most hypocritical of circumstances, the republican majority should be working with democrats on a real comprehensive covid relief bill. over the past few weeks, covid-19 cases, unfortunately, have swelled across the country. the united states reported 69,000 new cases last friday with ten states reporting their highest single-day totals ever. poverty is beginning to increase. unemployment remains alarmingly high. more than six million americans

missed their rent or mortgage payments in september. what we need right now is an emergency relief package with enough resources to beat back this enormous crisis, and, yet, leader mcconnell this week will once again force a vote on a partisan, ee -- partisan bill so full of poison pills that it is obvious he designed it to fail. in the immortal words of yogi berra, it is deja vu all over again. he tried the same thing last month, it failed. instead of trying to work with democrats to meet the -- the desperate needs of the measurable american people -- american people, leader mcconnell is back. it doesn't have enough funding for universities, it does nothing for the census or our elections and aced bandons state

and local and tribal governments on the brink of catastrophe. it doesn't include recent bipartisan legislation that help independent muse emand theater venues to help our stages act or bipartisan legislation to help our ailing restaurants. it is totally inadequate when it comes to funding for testing, tracing, especially given the new spike in cases, especially given the fact that a second wave may be upon us. i hope and pray it isn't. and it once again includes the poison pill of all poison pills, a sweeping corporate immunity provision that would shield corporations from accountability if they put their workers in harm's way. let me be clear. the republican proposal was unacceptable a month ago. it remains unacceptable now even more so that the crisis has gotten even worse. remember, leader mcconnell has been clear that as many as 20 republican senators don't want to provide anymore relief to the american people. one senator said, quote, not

another dime. according to press reports, republican senators gave their counterparts in the white house an earful for even considering a bigger package of aid. so this is not a is serious attempt at pandemic relief. it seems to be another attempt at giving republicans political cover before the election. now, speaker pelosi continues to negotiate with secretary mnuchin in the white house in the hopes of finding a deal that would actually meet the needs of the american people. instead of repeating the same failed partisan gambit, leader mcconnell should be working with democrats and the republicans on a proposal that actually has a chance of making it through both houses of congress. the longer he waits, the greater the cost to the american people. now, before i yield the floor, i want to be clear about one thing. because our republican colleagues have made such a mockery of the supreme court confirmation process, we are not going to have business as usual

here in the senate. tonight i will move to bring up a vote under the congressional review act and force action on a resolution to undo the trump administration's gutting of reinvestment -- of the community reinvestment act. this is an important fight in its own right. we should be standing up for critical civil rights laws like the community reinvestment act that the laws that help deliver opportunity and resources to communities of color. the trump administration's rewrite of the rule not only undermines core elements of the c.r.a., but it replaces past practices with complicated requirements -- complicated rights that would lead to less lending in communities that need it most. i fought hard -- i fought too hard throughout my career to lift up the protections of the c.r.a. and stand idly by as the

trump administration tries to tear them down. the window to challenge this rule under the congressional review act closes today. so i'll move to consider the resolution this evening. normally we would work these votes out with the majority, but their abuse of the supreme court process means we will not have business as usual, not now, not until republicans stop their mad dash to confirm a supreme court justice mere days before a presidential election. now, madam president, i move to proceed to h.j. res. 90, a joint resolution of the congressional disapproval relating to the community reinvestment act regulations, which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to h.j. res. 90, providing for congressional disapproval under chapter eight of title 5, united

states code of the rules submitted by the office of the comptroller of the currency relating to the reinvestment act regulations. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the vote on the motion to proceed to h.j. res. 90 occur at 5:45 today with the time equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered.

mrs. blackburn: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you, mr. president. it doesn't take a genius to

figure out that there is a small but very loud sector of the american people who are willing to condition their tolerance for diverging viewpoints on how they feel, they themselves feel about what's being said, worshipped, or reported. and as scary and frightening as that attitude is to many of us, it is increasingly reflected in the very companies that have the most influence over how we access and consume information. last week we saw two of these companies go to extremes to get in line with radicals who are trying to block, censor, and intimidate their way to power. we all know the companies and the controversy i'm talking about. twitter and facebook censored the spread of a "new york post"

article containing allegations that could potentially affect the outcome of the upcoming election. that's all i'm going to say about the article itself because, frankly, the content bears no importance on how anyone should react to what happened after it was posted. someone working for a private company, someone who is a content reviewer or content moderator, someone working for a private company made a unilateral decision to stop americans from reading that article. they didn't like it. they said i have the power to stop it. and because i have that power, i

am going to stop it. now, that, mr. president, is precisely what happened. and i will tell you, colleagues, it is not just that they blocked the link and the text of the article. it's that at least in twitter's case, they suspended the trump campaign's account. they suspended "the new york post" account. they blocked the white house press secretary's account. and they suppressed information posted by the house judiciary committee republicans. and they couldn't even provide a plausible explanation for why they did this. think about that.

they made themselves the arbiters of free speech. and they and their almighty position decided they were going to determine what you could hear, when you could hear it, how you could hear it. they decided. the common element, of course, in all of this action that took place was "the new york post" story. was it information or hacked information or just inconvenient information? no one seems to want to answer that question. why do they not want to answer that question, mr. president? it is because they didn't like the information. it did not suit their narrative.

but the way things stand, they didn't have to because there is no real accountability. and now their weak explanations have been coopted into arguments made by activist, rival media organizations, and even adjourn ills who are insisting the information is harmful and must be stricken from the record. a senator: would the gentlelady yield. i have an judgment. it will take a brief minute. mrs. blackburn: i would be happy to yield to the democratic leader. mr. schumer: i thank the senator from tennessee. i just want to put the members on notice. later this evening i will make a motion to adjourn the senate until after the november election. the republican majority refused to consider the supreme court nominee of a dually elected gctic -- democratic president because it was -- because it was eight months before the election. now they're trying to ram through a justice days before an election, the most rushed, most

partisan, least legitimate process in supreme court history and it should not proceed. so i want the members to know i will move to adjourn until after the election with the ability to come back into session if there's a bipartisan agreement on a covid relief package. i thank the gentlelady for letting me put members on notice that we will do this later this evening. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mrs. blackburn: thank you very much, mr. president. i have to tell you, listening to the democratic leader there, this is one of the things that social media has taken off on. me lost -- they lost the 2016 presidential election and they have never accepted the results. never. it doesn't fit their narrative. so what do they do? look at this. let's just not even work.

let's just adjourn. let's not do our constitutional duty. i tell you what. you can't make this stuff up. you really can't. cognitive dissidence of this moment in history has overwhelmed the discourse. it's important to make it abundantly clear that the outrage, the absolute outrage from the american people over this incident with social media has everything to do with their very fluid and subjective standards that these companies use to control the flow of information. and over the last few years, they have gotten worse about it. and you know what, mr. president? they do it until we slap their hands and then pull them back in. pardon me. and we say you can't do this.

now, in the case that we're discussing that happened this week, it looks suspiciously like they applied a brand new set of standards because someone got spooked at the prospect of losing momentum on a political narrative. and they're all working together on this. so let's go home. let's not work. let's not do our job. let's bury a story on social media. why? their gal didn't win in 2016 and donald trump did because the american people said we're with him, not her. now, here in washington we can argue all over election-year politics but in tennessee, the people are seeing this for what it is. they're not talking about politics. they think this is pretty terrifying. they're seeing a news platform.

censor the news. and they're seeing extremely powerful people cheer it on. and to them and to me that's frightening. they're looking to us to get into one of those policy debates my colleagues across the aisle were so eager to jump into just last week during judge barrett's confirmation hearings. fortunately for them, we've got a head start on that discussion. big tech has spent the last several years building up a body of evidence against its own intentions. and if we don't address their growing influence, we'll lose our ability to create responsive policy. i've already come to the floor several times to speak on various ways we're doing this. through legislation, antitrust investigations, and some good old fashion committee hearings,

congress doing its job, precisely why we ought not to adjourn, precisely why we should stay here and do our work. on october 28, the commerce committee will host a few familiar faces for a hearing where we will analyze the effect that the liability shield found in section 230 of the communications decency act has on big tech's behavior. over the course of the hearing, we'll speak with jack dorsey of twitter, mark zuckerberg of facebook and google about their approach to using the section 230 shield. we'll also examine various legislative proposals for modernize section 230, including one of my own that would resolve some am ambiguities regarding what sorts of content moderation policies are shielded from

liability and which ones aren't protected. we're going to talk about the unintended consequences that stem from these policies. we're going to talk about their platforms' interactions with activists and with the media. and i think we'll probably get around to talking about it whether they like it or not because we have the bipartisan and unanimously authorized subpoenas in hand to do it. and they -- pardon me, mr. president -- those subpoenas are good through the end of this congress. hopefully by going straight to the top, we'll gain a better understanding of why these companies can't seem to regulate themselves, why they can't seem to stop themselves from having a complete meltdown every single time we turn up the heat and

talk about these issues of privacy, talk about censorship, talk about prioritization, talk about preferencing, talk about holding them accountable for the spectrum they use to put out their message and the activity that they're taking now to censor the free speech of the american public. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. i'm glad to see a member of the majority say mitch mcconnell should have us around here doing some work. we've seen senator mcconnell say there was no urgency to help unemployed workers, 600,000 unemployed workers in my state in august, lost their $600 a week.

what are they to do? more foreclosures are up. i appreciate the senator from tennessee. maybe she'll talk to senator mcconnell and ask him to do his job so we can do our jobs. mr. president, i rise to speak in support of house joint resolution 90, the joint resolution of disapproval of the office of the control of the currencies community reinvestment act rule. we know who gets hit the hardest by this pandemic and economic crisis. not wall street. it's not c.e.o.'s. it's not u.s. senators. it's low-income workers. it's essential workers. it's workers who go to work every day and get exposed to this virus. then come home anxious about potentially infecting their families. it's the middle class. it's communities of color. those are the people getting hit the hardest. it's the same story, mr. president, we see over and over. corporate lobbyists and their allies in washington do whatever it takes, whatever it takes to

make sure that wall street recovers and then they say oh, no, we can't afford to. we can't -- the budget, the deficit. we can't -- give a tax cut to rich people. we can't do anything for regular people, for middle class people, for low-income people. we just can't afford to help anyone else. the stock market is back up so leader mcconnell and president trump seem to think that everything is just fine, thank you, in our country. meanwhile, families don't know how to feed their children, how they'll make rent, how the families -- they don't know about family businesses closing their doors, schools can't open for in-person learning. but, oh, yeah, the stock market is up, so leader mcconnell, president trump seem to think everything is fine. black-owned businesses have chose closed at twice the rate, including in the state of arkansas, closed twice at the rate of white-owned businesses during this pandemic. blanc and latino workers are more likely to be left behind.

low-wage workers are more likely to remain out of work. 600,000 people in my state can't find jobs. they lost their unemployment insurance, but the stock market is up. so leader mcconnell and president trump seem to think everything is fine. low-wage workers more likely remain out of work, more likely to struggle for food. leader mcconnell is taking care of his contributors. he's taking care of the big-money people, taking care of wall street. the stock market is up. i know i said that many times. but that's what matter to far too many people around here and the president of the united states of the we should be rolling up our sleeves to invest in neighborhoods and the small businesses that sustain this. instead, we've had another trump appointee working to make it harder to invest in these communities. redlining, government banks sank

-- you know how it started. it was the brac codes after reconstruction. then it was jim crow. then it was redlining. now it is locking in discrimination by trump nominees. we've had another trump appointee working to make it harder to invest. for decades, redlining government-backed discrimination left parts of this country, communities in ohio and arkansas with virtually no investment from banks. all kinds of people dream to get loans, but they couldn't do it. whole communities struggled toest go the loans they needed. banks were happy to take black and brown and low-income people's deposits, and then they would lend their money tout to wealthy investors. long after redlining, long after

legal segregation officially ended, people living in largely black and brown neighborhoods weren't able to get mortgages to buy a home because the bank just wasn't making loans in those parts of town. small farms, small businesses couldn't get the loans they needed to grow. that's why we passed the community reinvestment act, the c.r.a., to make it clear banks have a responsibility to serve all of the places they do business, including low- and moderate-income neighborhood. the c.r.a. is one of the foundational civil rights laws passed to address decades of explicit disinvestment and begin to indo the legacy of redlining. for 40 years our government and banks alike have recognized in theory -- in theory -- that banking shouldn't just be about serving the people with six-figure salaries and big mortgages. it's about helping a family farm take out a lower class about a

bus driver -- helping a bus driver buy their first homing, a brother and sister open a corner store in neighborhood where there is nowhere to buy fresh groceries, it is about listening to what communities need and making it help, like helping to finance a new affordable housing development or small loans so people don't have to turn payday -- it's about people who are locked out of investments because of who they were. the entities control the currency, the federal reserve, the fdic acted together over those 40 years so there was one c.r.a. for all banks to fowl, one settle of expectations about serving customers and communities. in may, the trump o.c.c. threw out 40 years of progress, just threw it out the window. but the shortcut is up. so leader mcconnell and

president trump think everything is just fine. we've established -- even senator mcconnell understands this -- we've established that he this pandemic disproportionately harms black and brown communities in kentucky, in arkansas, in new jersey, in delaware, in ohio, all over this country. but trump's o.c.c. unilaterally rewrote the c.r.a., unilaterally. the other trump nominees didn't even go that far. just six weeks before the rule is finalized, civil rights leader, community development organizations, state and local officials, senator menendez on the one hand banking and housing committee and i and others i thinked over 7,500 communities on the proposed rewrite of the c.r.a. the vast majority of commenters opposed the agency's proposal. a coalition of civil rights leaders, naac perjures the fair housing alliance said the proposed rule invited a rule to a return to discrimination against communities of color in low- and moderate-income

neighborhoods. it was the block -- it was the black codes, then it was jim crow, then it was redlining. the trump administration says yes to that. but 22 state attorneys general wrote that the proposal is contrary to community readjustment -- community reinvestment act' purpose and texts it. it will harm communities and states a. it should be withdrawn. across my home state of ohio, cities from akron and toledo and mansfield and lima wrote resolutions opposing this plan. some in government, those not directly connected to the trump administration, listened to the people whom we serve. fdic heard the feedback, they saw the financial pain of the pandemic. they declined to move forward. the federal reserve also said no. but the o.c.c. plowed ahead. it i can node ignored the thousands of -- it ignored the thousands of civil rights groups

who all told them their plan wouldn't work. instead, the agency said we know best. they think these trump appointees in washington know better than mayors and city council members and local advocates and small businesses in ohio and around the country. the day after think announced they were ignoring the rest of the country and plowing ahead, comptrollers of the currency announced he would resign. first he up flicts this on us. then he walks away. the federal reserve has set on a path for all regulators to work together to create a c.r.a. rule that will increase the focuses on lending. that's what c.r.a. is there for. that used to be bipartisan. that used to be consensus around here. we should be investing in this community that have been systematically excluded from sharing in our country's prosperity. that means strengthening c.r.a. it means listening to communities when they tell us what they need.

but the o.c.c. rule does the opposite. they even acknowledge there was widespread opposition to this rule, particularly from the communities the c.r.a. was meant to serve. it should be easy, mr. president, for my republican colleagues to join us in voting to revoke the o.c.c.'s rule, to stand up for the underserved in low of h. and moderate-income communities who the c.r.a. was meant to serve. i ask our republican colleagues, join with what the o.c.c. wanted to do. join with the federal reserve, joy powell, trump appointee. it's what the senate should be doing, working to get outer senate through this the worst crisis we've seen. invest in the communities getting hit the hardest. instead, leader mcconnell suing the fine 58 days before the election to jam flew another special interest judge who will carry out the counter agenda that the voters keep rejectings. senate needs to get back to focus on the people we're here to serve, to repeal the o.c.c.'s

rule to gut the community reinvestment act. i urge my colleagues -- i urge my colleagues to support the resolution so we can get back on a path to strengthening the c.r.a. the stock market being you p, as important as that is to leader mcconnell and president trump and their belief that everything is fine because the stock market is up, there's way more to measure our economy than that. support or resolution. strengthen the c.r.a., help our communities across country. i yield the floor. ing before yielding the floor, i would like to enter records from the center for responsible lending, 45 civil rights organizations, consumer advocates, and unionssupport of h.j. res. 90 in opposing the o.c.c. c.r.a. rule. i ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. coons: i rise too join my colleagues from ohio and new jersey in saying that we should not allow this why c. rule gutting the core elements of the c.r.a. to move forward. it is the land mark anti-redlining law created to improve the welfare of low- and moderate-income americans. the community reinvestment act works. since its enactment in 1977, it's resulted in trillions of dollars vin vested in low and moderate income communities. it promotes equal access to credit and capital for black and browns communities and it's essential to the economic health of our country. it's a successful incentive for

banks to provide mortgage lending and financial services to neighborhood of color and low and moderate income communities. there is a long legacy of racial discrimination in our nation in financial services and the community reinvestment act has been a vital tool in helping to fight that cruel legacy. in delaware, i've seen the benefits of the c.r.a. firsthand. i've seen investments in affordable housing, homeownership opportunities, and economic and small business development as a result. discover bank, for example, partnered with the delaware state housing authority to provide mortgages to low and moderate income borrowers throughout the state by purchasing loans originated. a half a million dollar line of credit to help build homes for low and moderate income and gave million-dollar low-interest

loan. and capital one recently made a $20 million loan to finance the community education build income downtown wilmington. the o.c.c. final rule is wrong in substance and in process. the c.r.a. has been beneficial for more than four decades. sure there is some room for modernization or improvement. and it's necessary to continue to build on this monumental act. but the o.c.c. final rule goes in exactly the wrong direction. in substance, it's oniricly to encourage investment. instead, it expands qualifying c.r.a. activities to include ones that don't directly benefit communities in need. this o.c.c. rule will cause harm to current investment areas leading to less community development in delaware and across the nation. the o.c.c. rule would allow banks to pass their c.r.a. assessments with broad-stroke large investments instead of targeted investmented in underserved communities. in process, the o.c.c. hasn't

worked to achieve consensus with fellow federal regulators, the fed and the fdic, nor with banks, community advocacy and civil rights groups. that's why i'm joining my colleagues from new jersey, ohio,and many other states in voting for congressional disapproval of this o.c.c. final rule that undermines and actively weak innocence important civil rights law. we must ensure changes to the c.r.a. strengthen the law, not weaken it. and all the relate the regulators and stakeholders must work together to ensure any changes to the c.r.a., work to combat racial inequality and to lift up communities long overlooked by traditional banking and their investment priorities. thank you, mr. president. with that, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. menendez: mr. president, today i rise to urge my

colleagues to take a stand for civil rights and basic financial fairness and join us in defense of the community reinvestment act. i appreciate my distinguished colleagues from delaware and the ranking democrat on the banking committee, senator brown, for his remarks. for more than four decades now, this core civil rights law has helped ensure that banks that do business in our low- and moderate-income communities actually invest -- invest -- in those communities. before the community reinvestment act or c.r.a., as it's called, banks often avoided lending to customers on the one hand businesses in the lower-income neighborhoods where they opened branches. so this practice was known as redlining. because back then banks would draw literal red lines around

communities that they did not want to lend money to. and, not surprisingly, the communities that were red lined were african american, latino, and low-income communities. in -- in essence, they were content to take the deposits from low and moderate families, people of color, small businesses, and farms, but then they turned around and denied those very customers mortgages, loans, and other lines of credit. the community reinvestment act was enacted to put an end to that redlining and spur greater investment in our minority communities and lower income neighborhoods. but even today, we're still grappling with the socioeconomic and racial consequences of this systemic financial discrimination. many of our most impoverished neighborhoods are the same neighborhoods that were redlined

decades ago. it's one of the reasons that the generational wealth of black and brown americans remain drastically lesser than those of their white counterparts. that's why we have to reject the trump administration's proposed rule changes to the community reinvestment act. the office of the comptroller of the currency, the o.c.c., that c.r.a. new rule would result in significantly fewer loans, investments, and services to low and moderate income communities, and it would permit banks to avoid businesses and investments in these neighborhoods. in essence, it would lead to a new form of modern-day redlining, all with the federal government's blessing. it's no wonder why civil rights groups including the naacp, the leadership conference on civil and human rights, have fought so hard against this rule. they do not want banks to be given the green light to

discriminate against minority and low-income consumers. now, make no mistake, industry stakeholders and regulators are just as divided over the trump administration's actions. that's why, in fact, neither the federal deposit insurance corporation nor the federal reserve have joined in this effort. neither of them have joined in this effort. that's why i urge our colleagues to do the right thing and repeal this harmful new c.r.a. rule. in a year where the entrenched racial and economic disparities that have long plagued our nation have been exacerbated and on full display, the last thing we need to do is to steer money away from black and brown families, homeowners, consumers, and businesses. as a matter of fact, in the midst of this pandemic, we can see the consequences to those communities that are often at the front line of mortgage foreclosure and losing their homes. so i urge my colleagues to join

me in rejecting this new c.r.a. rule. this is about protecting civil rights. this is about protecting economic opportunity for all. and this is about continuing to do the hard work of reversing the discrimination, the financial disparities, and the socioeconomic injustices that have plagued our nation for far too long. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. crapo: thank you, mr. president. i rise to oppose the o.c.c.'s final rule on the community reinvestment act, or c.r.a. acting comptroller of the currency, brian brooks, has noted the 234u community reinvestment act rule has finalized for one reason -- to promote more lending and investment in underserved areas. including low and moderate

income neighborhoods. the key changes the rule makes is it clarifies what counts for c.r.a. credit, updates where activity is evaluated, evaluates c.r.a. performancance more objectively, and makes recordkeeping and reporting timelier and more transparent. the o.c.c.'s efforts to improve the c.r.a. framework began in 2017 with an extensive and deliberate process, encouraging numerous stakeholders along the way. the o.c.c. issued its advanced notice of proposed rule making in 2018, and in december, 2019, the o.c.c. jointly issued a proposed rule with the fdic which received 7,500 comments. the o.c.c. says those comments made it better and significantly different from the proposal. the status quo was failing. the o.c.c. found that the

regulatory status quo had failed to improve economic outcomes for underserved groups, including minorities in low and moderate income communities. the c.r.a. regulatory process was broken. acting comptroller brooks has stated, in addition to not achieving the societal goals of the statute, the regulatory process around c.r.a. was broken. banks and stakeholders were uncertain of what activities would qualify for c.r.a. consideration from exam to exam. the framework's lack of objectivity, transparency, consistency, and fairness left the whole process open to sweetheart deals and made it nearly impossible to assess the impact of billions of dollars that were spent each year. stakeholders have voiced the need to update the c.r.a. regulations now for more than a decade. what is the -- what does the final rule do? the final rule teabs objective

criteria for determining and an inus tara tiff list of what qualifies for c.r.a. credit while also creating a preapproval process for banks. it updates and expands assessment areas to better reflect how banks serve customers today, by adding deposit-based assessment areas. it also incentivizes c.r.a. activity in new areas of need, including indian country and rural and distressed areas. the final rule establishes new general performance standards to more objectively evaluate a bank's c.r.a. performance. finally, the rule requires banks to report better data to improve the transparency and accountability of banks and their regulators to their communities. importantly, the rule does not change the o.c.c.'s authority or obligation to fight discrimination and illegal practices. several organizations have

praised the final rule, including the consumer bankers association, the national disability institute, national congress of american indians, and the national diversity coalition. fdic fairm williams has noted there are many provisions in the final rule that will greatly benefit low and moderate income communities and provide greater clarity to banks on c.r.a. expectations. last month, the federal reserve issued its own advance notice of proposed rule making, and active comptroller brooks observed there is a significant amount of overlap between what the fed has proposed and what the o.c.c. has finalized. the o.c.c. issued this rule in may. senate democrats have waited until the end of the congressional review act window to act, timing this vote to be most disruptive to the senate's floor schedule.

more importantly, this vote comes after the rule's effective date of october 1. voiding it would create confusion and uncertainty for communities, industry, and other stakeholders, harming the very communities that the c.r.a. would help. acting comptroller brooks said it well -- overturning the o.c.c.'s new c.r.a. rule would roll back benefits to native americans, people with disabilities, american farmers, and small business owners. it would preserve a status quo that on its face has failed to make the progress it promised 43 years ago. it would force banks, community groups, and examiners to operate in the dark without the transparency of objectivity and regulatory certainty that the new rule provides. it would also prevent future comptrollers from taking up the rule to improve how c.r.a. works in the future. additionally, former comptroller joseph otting wrote the

coronavirus pandemic has only made it more dire that communities, particularly low and moderate income communities, need more capital and better access to capital, and they need it now. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this resolution to preserve this important modernization of our c.r.a. regulations. thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the vote scheduled for 5:45 begin immediately at this time. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are 48. the motion is not agreed to. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader is recognized. mr. schumer: could we have some order please, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order.

please take your conversations out of the chamber. mr. schumer: okay, mr. president. shhh ... so our republican majority refused to consider the supreme court nominee of a duly elected democratic president on the supposed principle that the american people should have a voice in selecting their next supreme court justice. now they're moving forward with a supreme court nomination while a presidential election is already under way. this is the most rushed -- this is the most rushed, most partisan, least legitimate supreme court nomination process in our nation's history -- in our nation's entire history -- and it should not proceed. therefore, i will move to adjourn the senate until after the november 3 election, with the ability to come back into session if there is a bipartisan agreement on a covid relief

package. so therefore i move to adjourn and then convene for a a pro forma session only with no business being conducted at 12:00 noon on the following dates and that following each pro forma session, the senate adjourn until the next pro forma session, tuesday october 20,, friday, october if, tuesday, october 27, friday -- friday november 6. that when the senate adjourns on friday, november 6, it convene at 4:30 monday, november 9, and that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. the presiding officer: that motion would require consent and is not in order. mr. schumer: i appeal the ruling of the caying and -- the chair and move to --

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

vote:

the presiding officer: any senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 58, the nays are 42, and the motion to table is agreed to. and the decision of the chair stands. the senator from ohio. mr. portman: mr. president, i'm glad we just voted down the motion by the democratic leader to adjourn because we have work to do here, including the covid-19 legislation which we need to be here to be working on. i'm glad that adjournment motion was unsuccessful. yes, we have to fill a vacancy on the supreme court. i ask unanimous consent if i could have my remaining remarks

up here in a separate part of the proceedings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i have come to the floor today to pay tribute to john ruffman, a beloved son of ohio who passed away last week at the age of 95. john ruffman was a nationally recognized wildlife artist and a naturalist whose extraordinary artistic skills earned him numerous awards and other recognitions. but it was john's integrity, his humility, his generosity, and his personal warmth that led to so many admirers. john never met a stranger. even in these industry dent times, john never had an enemy. he was an eternal optimist who looked for the best in people, and in doing so brought out the best in everyone. john was a true son of ohio who grew up in cincinnati as a boy and was often found fishing and hunting and sketching along the ohio river. he was a lifelong patriot who was very proud of his country and proud of having served his country as an 18-year-old sailor

during world war ii. and he was generous of spirit and generous in giving back to his community, contributing his time and artwork to literally hundreds of good causes. john loved his family. his kids, rickey and kevin, his grandsons adam and matt, his great grandsons, william, jack, and michael. he lost the love of his life, judy, just under a decade ago. they were inseparable. they are now together. my wife jane and i feel john's presence every day through his artwork that hangs on our walls at home and at work. here in my washington, d.c., office, we display his painting eagle to the moon for the past decade. a masterpiece of natural paintings, signed not just by john, but also john's good friend, the famous astronaut neil armstrong. each ruffman painting as hits own story. eagle to the moon is no

exception. he was commissioned to paint an egon the moon and the apollo 11 mission and neil armstrong's famous words the eagle has landed. john told the governor there are no eagles on the moon. as a naturalist painter, he refused to place one there. the governor insisted. john, always a peacemaker, gave a compromise. he painted a majestic bald eagle flying past a buckeye tree, tying the eagle to the earth and put a glowing moon in the background to please governor rose. the governor could not say no to such a beautiful painting. his paintings are displayed in thousands of offices and living rooms all across ohio and beyond. you will see his work when strolling through my hometown of cincinnati when the side of a downtown building displays a three-story-high mural dedicated to martha, the last passenger pigeon who died at the cincinnati zoo. at age 88, high on a rickety

scaffolding in the august heat, john ruffman led the volunteers in creating that rendition of passenger pigeons, taking it from one of his paintings. those passenger pijions, once numerous but now extinct, soaring through the air in a thick flock, warning us all of the fragility of nature. i will always feel john's presence personally when i'm in the woods of southern ohio. where i had the privilege of spending many hours with him, hunting edible wild mushrooms, hunting turkeys and learning from an accomplished naturalist who had stories about every single tree, flower, and bird. it was a joy to learn from john. it went a lecture. like every good teacher, john drew you in. john was called a modern-day james audubon, and there were striking similarities between the two. both were naturalists, good hunters, artists, and authors whose works were influential in teaching us about the natural world.

like at iew bonn, john was widely recognized as one of the most important ambassadors for nature of his time. starting with his delivery of a hummingbird to the cincinnati museum of natural history at age 10, his name is on specimens he collected around the world and donated to museums. four presidents commissioned paintings and his artwork is hung in the galleries of the smithsonian and right here in the halls of congress. early in its career, john had the great honor as being selected for the artist for the annual duck stamp and is featured in many magazines and documentaries. he received numerous awards and honors including from some of hits favorite organizations like the cincinnati zoo, and so many others. one accolade john was most proud of when he and his wife judy were inducted into the brown county hall of fame. judy and john had a beautiful farm in an art gallery in brown county, 50 miles east of cincinnati. they developed lifelong

friendships and decaded time and energy to their adopted home leading the to restoration of the courthouse and preserving and promoting the boyhood home of ulysses s. grant, one of his heroes. in 2004 i was with john and george w. bush at the white house when he became the first wildlife artist ever to receive the national medal of the arts, the highest honor that can be bestowed upon an artist. until his death, john continued to paint every day at his home studio. he still had a number of commissions he was working on. for countless young artists and lovers of nature, he was and will continue to be a true inspiration. as we mourn our loss, we take heart in knowing that we will all continue to feel his presence, that john ruthven will live on through his masterful artwork, his loving family and all he did to advance the cause of appreciating and protecting

the natural world. i yield back. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, michael jay newman of ohio to be united states district judge for the southern district of ohio. mr. portman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session for 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 understand there are three brils at desk and i -- bills at the desk and i ask for their 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. 4800, a bill to provide coronavirus relief. s. 480 5, a bill to create a point of order against legislation modifying the number of justices for the supreme court of the united states. senate joint resolution 76 proposing an amendment to the constitution of the united states to require that the supreme court of the united states be composed of nine justices. mr. portman: i ask for a second reading and object to my own rk all en bloc. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. the bills will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. portman: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the newman nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. portman: i move to recess. 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 senate stands in recess until noo wait for you for a few minutes to let us know what your top issue is. we will talk about matters of the supremeof court. amy coney barrett had her hearings last week. that process resumes this week.

senior reporter from the hill. good morning. thanks for joining us. morning thank you for joining us. student good morning. walk us through the next steps. what is going on behind the scenes as this week starts off? >> the next steps are on october 22 which is thursday prayed there is going to be a vote in committee on barrett's nomination. she is expected too get every single republican vote on the committee in every single democrat is expected to vote against her. then mitch mcconnell's says that he is going to take up her nomination on the floor friday, october 23. with that means is that he is going to file closure on her parts of the expectation then is, there would be a procedural vote on advancing the nomination on the floor. that vote on tuesday. you need intervening a day between when it is it is filed

and when this actually voted on. so, if mcconnell could speed things up a little bit but keep in the senate and over the weekend. think the expectation is to file for closure on friday, the 23rd. the court to revoke the nomination is on tuesday. the nobody final up or down vote for amy coney barrett on wednesday. that would basically give almocratic senators 30 hours from the date to talk about a nomination. and then it is in the books. >> so what is them for the democrats involved in this process? what is the strategygo of this but going into next? >> there's not a lot they can d do. graham has locked in the vote for the 22nd. typically what happens is democrats on the committee hold over the nomination for

an extra week. but that is not going too happen. graham has locked in the vote for the 22nd. there is really nothing they can do. they can try boycotting the meeting on the 22nd. but that is not, the republicans say they're just going to rewrite the rules. there's a corm rule in the committee that you need to have minority members present to vote on something. if the democrats skip to try to deprive the republicans of that corm it won't make a difference because they'll vote vote on a new set ofl rules. that is something that ted cruz, member of the judiciary committee has said he has been in contact with lindsey graham, the chairman they will do whatever it takes to get this nomination moving. democrats have been saying for weeks that there is no procedural way to stop this, the vote is moving towards two this alex bolton of the hill he's a senior reporter.

mr. bolton you have a story this morning come just to change topics a little bit, looking at joe biden and chuck schumer and the senate and possibly what might happen if the democrats do win. the white house but the senates. if you do talk a little bit about the story and its importance? >> think one of thenk big stories coming out of the barrett confirmation hearings is you had two groups in particular calling for senator feinstein to step down as the top democrat of the committee. it's a preview of the headaches that biden and schumer are going to face if they do when big on alexei as it is expected. if democrats take back the senate if biden is president, there are a lot of big expectations. the fact that you have groups gunning for dianne feinstein

at the end of the amy coney barrett hearings. she prays was a graham and said these are some the best proceeding she's been a part of and hugged him. i guess 20 years ago or 25 years ago would've been not so remarkable display of bipartisanship. at least trying too mend some fences on a committee that has been wracked by i think acrimony going back to kavanaugh and before. with the bright kavanaugh hearing in 2018. after she did that, you had bruce calling for her head. it think it goes to show that liberals, democratic activist, groups on the left and also some maybe junior firebrands in the democratic caucus, they are not in a mood with the republicans prayed they are in a mood too get things done.

and they want bold change. it just goes to show there is pressure on schumer right off the bat to move ahead with the filibuster reform. there is going to be pressure to move with the bold change. there is going to be pressure or medicare expansion. there's going to be pressure for maybe not medicare for all that might be too ambitious. things like the public option or for repealing trumps tax cuts. the 2017 tax cuts and jobs acts will kill that right away. there is not been a lot of talk about with the governing strategy is going to be for democrats. they haven't talked much about their agenda recently. it just shows there is some right now between kind of the establishment and the activist groups.

if you want to follow them by doing something as minor as hugging their chairman, lindsey graham, they're gonna call for you to step down as the next chairman. i think iss a really tough call for schumer. when the first group came out demand justice. this group opposed trump nominees. it's a relatively new group. at skating profile. when you have pro-choice america group, a major group in the democratic coalition then stepping up with a call for resignation. i think that becomes very tough. i think, even if democrats would back the white house and the senate, it's not going tot' be peachy keen. there will be a lot of internal divisions and arguments that we have not even begun to see. we are starting to narrow it. this is alex bolton story on the hill website. you and to read it for your

head yourself or he's a senior reporter, mr. bolton thank you for your time this morning. >> thank you. with the senate confirmation hearings for judge amy kony. concluded, ashley next steps in the confirmation process. starting thursday, live at 9:00 a.m. eastern, the senate judiciary committee votes on judge barrett's nomination prayed than friday live on cspan2, the full senate begins debate on amy kony barrett's confirmation. watch live on c-span, and cspan cspan2. stream or on-demand it c-span.org. or listen on the c-span radio app. tonight on the communicators, republican fcc commissioner brendan carr talks about 5g infrastructure, free speech on the internet and regulation of big tech companies. >> i think we should bring a light touch approach to regulating big tech. but now there's been no touch approach. we have never had a gap

between the size, scale, and power of institution like big tech. in the absence or near absence of regulation. >> watch the communicators with republican fcc commissioner brendan carr tonight at eight eastern on cspan2. coming up next remarks from doctor anthony fauci on the coronavirus and public health pretty talked about the importance of differentiating between politics and policy when it comes to science. john hopkins university this is about 40 minutes. >> high, i am ellen mckenzie dean of the john hopkins school of public health but upon her to be here to launch our quarterly policy reform. due to last-minute scheduling change president daniels was regrettably unable too join us. we arean now recording the conversation slightly in advance of his october 16 broadcast