student video competition. middle and high school students be the start of a national conversation by making a 5 to 6 minute documentary explaining what you want them to discuss in 2021 be bold with documentary show supporting opposing point of view and include c-span video be a winner with 100,000 dollars in total cash prizes. including grand prize of $5,000. the deadline to submit videos is january 20th, 2021. be informed you'll find competition rules, tips and more information on how to get started at our website. student cam.org. ♪ >> keeping our now over 40 year commitment to congressional coverage live to the floor of the u.s. senate for lawmakers today will be working on a judicial nomination live coverage of the senate is here on c-span2.

>> we'll come to order black will openid the senate with prayer. >> let us pray. lord of heavens army we find our joy from trusting you. today, we are trusting your promise to supply all our needs from your celestial riches. lord, as we differ in faces so we are different in our needs. provide for the myriad needs of our nation and world. bring healing to the sick.

comfort to those who grieve. and wisdom to those who seek to meet the challenges of global health crisis. .... health crisis. lord, give our lawmakers your strength. we claim your promise that you will not with hold any good thing from those who do what is right. we pray in your great 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 tem. mr. grassley: one minute for morning business, please. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: what we've seen over the last week is attempts to get covid relief up and democrats won't let us bring it up even though there's widespread agreement on the need for more covid relief for families, for small businesses, for farms, for schools and colleges, and additional funding for testing and vaccines.

now, these are all noncontroversial items being held up by democrat leaders' all or nothing negotiating position. one controversial item they insist on is bailing outer responsible state governments. iowa's years of sound goarches and fiscal responsibility -- governors has paid off in times like this. a study for the council of state's governments, ranked every state's ability to weather the economic impact with the pandemic. it found my state of iowa to be fiscally sound. the most resilient state in the country. in addition to the consulate of state governments, our government fiscal policy is

second out of all 50 states. other states haven't made the same tough decisions and we're inned -- and were -- were in thehead even before the pandemic. now democrats want iowans to bail outer responsible state governments and somehow this is worth holding up relief for struggling families. come on. i yield the floor. mcconnell madam president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: yesterday evening, the directors of national intelligence and the f.b.i. updated the population. they announced that iran and russia exploited voter information to send misleading e-mails. this is just another reminder that multiple different

adversaries with multiple different objectives want to fuel division among americans and create chaos. iran, china, russia, and other adversaries may have different goals, but they all share the same primary objective of undermining america's confidence in our democracy and they are thrill thrill -- they are thrilled when their disinformation causes us to point fingers at each other rather than at them. the good news is that we spent the last four years gearing up for this. unlike the obama-biden information on whose watch even democrats admit we were caught flat-footed, the trump administration worked overtime with congress and other actors to get us ready. the white house has imposed harsh new sanctions on russians to interfered in 2016. the department of justice, the department of homeland security, and the intelligence community have led efforts to strengthen

and coordinate our defenses. here in the senate, the intelligence committee spent years studying what went wrong in 2016 and published a 1,300-plus page report with recommendations. in the last two years alone, we passed more than 800 -- $800 million to fund and support secure elections. the iranian and russian operations described last night are being combated by the federal government in close coordination with state and local officials and the private sector. details are being shared with congress and the public as appropriate. madam president, this is precisely how the process should work. we're -- we're miles, literally miles ahead of where we were. even washington democrats who spent years talking up the

threets to our election infrastructure are now admitting that we've made huge strides. just a few days ago the junior senator for connecticut admitted, quote, we're going to have a free and fair election because we spent significant money from the federal government and through states to beef up protections of our voter list and our voting systems. end quote. now, it's a separate question whether democrats' ability to express basic patriotic confidence in our institutions should be contingent on whether their preferred candidate seems to be up in the polls. but regardless, that's the truth. i'll close with one point i keep making, the work of protecting our dmomcy is not just from the experts, it is a duty that falls upon every one of us, every single citizen. at this point it is a patriotic duty for americans to be

educated consumers of information. citizens who need information about voting should look to their local official sources and all of us on all sides should take a deep breath and realize that division, disinformation and chaos are exactly -- exactly what our adversaries want. we're all in this together, all of us americans are in this together. now, on a different matter, this morning the judiciary committee reported the nomination of judge amy coney barrett to the floor. her nomination was unanimous. as one cnn journalist stated last week, quote, let's be honest, in another political age, judge amy coney barrett would be getting 70 votes or more in the u.s. senate because of her qualifications. end quote. it is supremely ironic that our democratic colleagues delivered through a temper tantrum what

they should have delivered through a fair appraisal, unanimous endorsement. they, of course, were not there. all last week the legal brilliance and judicial temperament that our nation deserves in a supreme court justice were on full display. we saw why legal peers and fellow scholars, nonpartisan evaluators and students and clerks from across the political spectrum has praised this nominee in the very highest terms. in just a few days, she'll receive a vote on this floor and i anticipate we'll have a new associate justice of the supreme court of the united states. that is exactly what the american people want to happen. clear majorities of americans want judge barrett confirmed. of our fellows citizens who formed an opinion, roughly two out of three want confirmation.

the democratic leaders' histrionics are proving just as unpersuasive outside the chamber as they've proven inside it. his anger and false statements have failed to persuade the senate and they have failed to persuade the american people. day after day our colleague from new york performs the same angry speech with the same falsehoods and force a vote on some pointless impermissible motion. the democratic leader is just lashing out in random ways. a few weeks ago he end toed an intelligence briefing -- torpedoed an intelligence briefing for no reason. this week he blocked a pandemic package and tried repeatedly to adjourn the senate for multiple

weeks. today -- today i understand that he stood outside the senate to shout that democrats would be boycotting the committee vote. and the committee vote actually had already ended. look, i understand that some outside pressure groups have been badgering the democratic leader to act more angry. i'm just sorry for the senate that he obeys them. i'm sorry our colleague felt the need to publicly bragged that he scolded the senior senator from california for being too civil. scolding somebody for being too civil? one of our colleagues, not a good idea to be civil? really, i'm sorry that he feels the need to constantly say things that are false. the american people know that we disagree. they do not expect kumbaya but they deserve an adult

discussion. let's review some facts. first the timeline. the democratic leader claims that this process has been rushed are simply false. 16 days passed between president trump's announcement and the start of the hearings. in the last 60 years alone, eight supreme court confirmations moved faster. only eight moved faster in the last 60 years. then one week elapsed between the end of judge barrett's hearings and today's committee vote. half of all the confirmations since 1916 have moved faster than that. half of all the confirmations since 1916 have moved faster than that. justice john paul stevens was confirmed in 19 days from start

to finish. justice sandra day o'connor, it just took over a month, chief justice marshall was confirmed in one week after john adams already lost reelection. john adams appointed chief justice john marshall after he already lost the election. president lincoln got someone confirmed in one day. obviously it's completely false to say that this has been anywhere close to the fastest process ever. it's just disinformation. here's another nonsense claim. that judge barrett is somehow the most partisan or politicized nominee ever. really? andrew jackson nominated a political operative to the court at the end of his presidency. lincoln put his own campaign manager on the court.

eisenhower nominated earl warren after warren stop competing with him in the 1952 election and campaigned for him. but this professor from indiana who got multiple democratic votes for a confirmation to her current job just three years ago is going to be the most political confirmation ever. in the previous century they put their campaign chairman on the supreme court. that's pretty political. eisenhower put the governor of california who ran against him for the nomination on the court. that's pretty political. i'll give you an example, the great john marshall harlan from kentucky had a partner who was a cabinet member in the grant

administration. a guy named benjamin bristow. and bristow was sort of thought of as mr. clean in the grant administration which had a lot of scandal problems. so the g.o.p. convention in 1876 is going to be in cincinnati. and so in those days, of course, if you wanted to be president, you couldn't admit it. you sort of had to act like you were being drafted. so john marshall harland, the largely unknown partner of the better-known benjamin bristow went to cincinnati to the g.o.p. convention to get his law partner, mr. clean, the nomination, the perfect choice after eight years of scandal in the grant administration. well, it became clear after a few rounds of voting that he wasn't going to be able to pull it off for his partner, benjamin

bristow, so harland, through bristow's votes, to the governor of ohio, rutherford b. hayes. and amazingly enough, right after president hayes was sworn in in march of 1877, it was john marshall harland, not benjamin bristow, who ended up on the supreme court. he served for 30 years with great distinction and was the sole dissenter in plessy versus ferguson, the one member of the supreme court that got it right with regard to desegregation and public accommodations. that actually game the majority opinion 58 years later in brown versus board of education. talk about a political appointment. that was a political appointment.

amy coney barrett is not the most political appointment ever to the supreme court, by any objective standard. so these are not really arguments. they are just kind of angry nerves. the democratic leader said, quote, abraham lincoln, when he had the opportunity to fill the supreme court seat, said it would be unfair to do so close to an election. that's not true. it never happened. president lincoln never said that, nor did he do that. "the washington post" already debunked this disinformation when another democratic senator tried to spread it. now the democratic leader is claiming chairman graham did something unprecedented in committee this morning. that would be news to senator leahy who had a democratic

majority vote multiple judges to the floor in 2014 when they were not -- there were not two republicans present. the chairman of both parties have done the same thing multiple times. and the democratic leader continues to misstate what republicans said in 2016. let me quote verbatim from my very first floor speech after justice scalia passed away. here's what i said. the senate has not filled a vacancy arising in an election year when there was divided government since 1888. that's what we had then, divided government. republican senate, democratic president. now, my friend, the democratic leader, may be emotionally invested in this idea that i said something else. but that's in fact what i said. historical precedence supporting

no confirmation in 2016, and it supports confirming judge barrett now. so look, madam president. everybody knows what's going on here. we know why the democratic leader feels this need to keep saying things that aren't true. our colleague is trying to invent a justification to declare war on judicial independence and pack the supreme court if democrats should win power. that's what this is all about. back in march, you walked across the street, threatened justices by name if they ruled against his wishes. and now, even though this court ended up delighting the political left with several decisions this very year, he still wants an excuse to pack

the court. the american people know what a terrible idea this is. polls show majority support for confirming judge barrett an overwhelming, overwhelming opposition to court packing. the american people are glad that franklin roosevelt didn't get to blow up our independent judiciary in 1937, and they strongly opposed democrat threats now. the democratic leader may support court packing. former vice president biden may call it a live ball, but the american people know these threats are anathema to the rule of law. this senate majority will not let falsehoods drown out facts. we will not reward hostage

taking, and we will not be bullied out of doing what is right. we're going to follow history and precedent and do our jobs. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. grassley: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: one minute in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: throughout my tenure in the senate, i have been a leader in promoting renewable energy sources like being called the father of the wind energy tax credit. this leads to a cleaner environment and increases america's energy independence, but it is concerning to see legislation from progressive members of congress that would eliminate internal combustion

engine vehicles like the vast majority of us drive and depend on. in other words, we all have to buy electric cars. this is supposed to help the environment, but remember, most electric generation is from fossil fuels. there are more practical solutions available. currently renewable fuels can reduce greece house gas emissions by 43%, but they would be -- greenhouse gas emissions by 43% but they would be totally eliminated by this bill. by adding more ethanol and biofiewfl to our energy mix we can reduce emissions while keeping transportation costs low for working families. i ask my colleagues across the aisle to abandon this radical scheme. if they want a cleaner environment, then they should look to renewable fuels produced in our nation's heartland. i yield the floor and suggest

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

mr. schumer: madam president.

the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: plaintiff, madam president, i get into the substance of my remarks, i will briefly address the republican leader. he came on the floor and with his typical vitriol made all kinds of accusations. the bottom line is mcconnell is angry. why? because we democrats have exposed that he has defiled the senate as an institution, more than any person in this generation and many generations because we democrats have exposed the hypocrisy of holding up merrick garland because it was eight months before an election and rushing through amy coney barrett because it is -- because it's something we can do. the bottom line is leader mcconnell doesn't want to hear these things but they're the

truth. it will live on in history. the man who defiled the senate, the man who created owe owe did one of the greatest crit cal acts in the senate sits in that chair. now, the republican majority is steering the senate towards one of the lowest moments in its long history. the damage it does to this chamber may be -- may very well be irrevocable. after thwarting the constitutional prerogative of a dually elected president to appoint a supreme court justice because it was an election year, the republican majority is rushinrushing to confirm a justr a republican president one week, one week before election day. four short years ago all of our republican friends argue that it was principle, that's the word they used, principle to let the american people have a voice in the selection of a supreme court justice because an election was eight months away. those same republicans are preparing to confirm a justice with an election that's eight

days away. what a stench of hypocrisy. in the process, the majority has trampled over every norm, rule, or standard that could possibly stand in its way. has ignored health guidelines to conduct in-person hearings in the middle of a pandemic after republican members of the committee themselves had contracted covid. it has broken long-standing senate precedent, never mind -- never in the history of the senate has a supreme court nominee, a life tiem appointment -- lifetime appointment be considered so close to an election. the presiding officer of the senate confirmed this yesterday in response to this senator's inquiry. never in the history of the senate has a supreme court nominee been confirmed after july of an election year. but even -- but before we even arrived at this sorted chapter, the republican majority broke the rules of the senate to change the rules of the senate lowering the number of votes

required for a supreme court nomination so that republicans could confirm whoever they wanted. they changed the rules of the senate again to limit the amount of time the senate spends considering judicial nominations so they could pass the courts with their right-wing appointees even faster. madam president, it's a hallmark of democracy that might does not make right. but the republicans are blatantly ignoring this principle. here in leader mcconnell's senate, the majority lives by the rule of because we can. they completely ignore the question of whether they should. morality, principles, value, consistency, all out the window. and here now we have the culmination of this republican majority systemic erosion of rules and norms in pursuit of raw political power. a supreme court nominee who will be confirmed on a party-line vote after the rules were changed to allow it in complete

contradiction to the supposed principle that the same party so vehemently argued only four years ago. eight days before an election in which the american people will choose exactly who they want to pick supreme court justices for them. and this idea that because now the senate is controlled by the president, the senate -- and the senate -- the presidency and senate are in one party, the rule doesn't apply. they never said that when they brought merrick garland. it's fakeery. -- fakery. it's part of the house of lies that is being built by the majority to rush a witness -- a supreme court justice like this. it is absurd. it is outrageous. it is a stain on this body, and an indelible mark on this senate majority that will live in history. the senate republican majority is conducting the most rushed, most partisan, and least

legitimate process in the long history of supreme court nominations. and democrats will not lend an ounce of legitimacy to that process. today the members of the minority on the judiciary committee have boycotted the markup of amy coney barrett. the rules of the judiciary committee require that two members of the minority be present in order to conduct a markup. true to form, chairman graham decided to break the rules to move forward with a vote on judge barrett anyway steamrolling over the rules of the judiciary committee just like republicans have steamrolled over principle, honesty, fairness, consistency, decency in their mad rush to confirm a justice before the election. to steamroll over rules, that's the mark of an autocratic society, not the mark of a democracy. and the republican majority is going along with that kind of autocracy, the same kind exhibited by president trump. and it's a shame. the principles of the republican

party are out the window. today the democratic seats on the dias in that committee room remained empty n. their place were eminders of -- reminders of what is ultimately at stake of this nation, the fundamental rights of the american people. in their place were photographs of americans whose lives would be devastated if justice barrett delivers the decisive vote to strike down the affordable care act, ripping away health care from tens of millions of americans and eliminating protections for 130 million americans with preexisting conditions. you could imagine alongside their faces, the faces of women who cherish the right to make their own private medical decisions, the faces of lgbtq americans who want to marry who they love and not be fired for who they are, the faces of american workers who are breaking their backs to make ends meet and need their union to help them get a better wage,

the nations of young people who know the planet is in peril in their lifetimes. i hope that when republican members of the committee took their seats this morning, they looked at those faces. they are to think about what this nomination means for them. i hope they actually took one moment to think about what it says about their sham of a process that democrats were forced to take the extraordinary step of refusing to participate. but while they may realize it or not, they may not even care. the republican majority's mono mon nye cal drive to confirm this justice is the most -- in the most hypocritical of circumstances will forever defile the senate and curtail the fundamental rights of american people for generations to come and to every one of might colleagues, history will remember what you have done. democrats will play no part in it. now, madam president, while the

senate majority rushes to confirm the supreme court justice, it's ignoring a number of very important priorities. earlier this week the republicans had a series of stunt votes on an enation yated bill that left most americans behind and that was even designated to fail. now i want to mention a foreign policy issue the republican majority is ignoring. we have a resolution by senators menendez and murphy to invoke statutory authority under the foreign assistance act to require the secretary of state to assess and report to the congress on turkey's potential human rights abuses in syria. my colleagues introduced this resolution as a result of turkey's invasion of northeast syria and its campaign to ethnically cleanse kurds from the region which has resulted in numerous reports of horrific human rights abuses. the packagic events were a result of the president's decision to abandon our kurdish partners.

the administration didn't lift a finger to uncover the atrocities committed by turkish proxies. even more recently the turkish government led by president erdogan has bled on its hands for the conflict between armenia and are a badge -- he must be exposed. he must be exposed for these actions. the president -- this president has a record of cozying up to dictators and action must be taken. so, mr. president, in order to proceed to s. resolution 409 requesting information on turkey's human rights practices in syria, i move to proceed to legislative session.

the presiding officer: the question is on the motion to proceed. mr. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the vote occur at 12:59 today. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. schumer: i ask for the yeas and nays on the motion. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. mr. thune: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. thune: madam president, amy coney barrett's first judiciary committee hearing back in 2017 has become infamous for the grilling she underwant for -- underwent for her religion. she was an outstanding choice who received a rating of well qualified from the american bar

association and praise from peers on both sides of the political spectrum but despite her superb qualifications it became clear that more than one democrat thought she couldn't be objective and thus shouldn't be confirmed to the courts simply because she was a practicing catholic who took her faith seriously. the dogma lives loudly within you, the democrat ranking member on the judiciary committee said. and that's of concern, she said. do you consider yourself an orthodox catholic, i should say, the democrat whip asked while the junior senator from hawaii suggested that judge barrett would use her catholic faith rather than the law to decide questions. and while democrats toned down the antireligious questioning in judge barrett's supreme court hearing last week, apparently realizing that openly displaying their suspicion of her religion might offend the tens of millions of voters who take their faith seriously, their suspicion of her faiths that still be on display. meanwhile, democrats media

allies haven't hesitated to trot out articles on judge barrett's religious believes, usually with the faint or in some cases not so faint suggestion that her adherence to the teachings of the catt thrik church -- catholic church cast doubt on her fitness for the supreme court. the fact that judge barrett served as a trustee at her children's school, not exactly breaking news, as it was something that judge barrett had already disclosed, was just one more example of the media's implicit suggestion that the nominee's religion makes her unfit for public office. as a side note i'm still waiting for bipartisan condemnation of media coverage of judge barrett's adopted children. somehow "the new york times" felt that judge barrett's brief mentions of her adopted children at her introduction and hearing warranted an article full of unsavory insinuations. i'm wondering if democrats would have found this appropriate coverage of a democrat nominee's

children. madam president, from the attitude displayed by democrats anded media, you would think judge barrett was a member of some remote and bizarre religious cult instead of one of the largest faith groups in the world. and judge brrpt has not -- judge barrett has not been the only judicial nominee subjected to scrutiny for her faith. democrats' vice presidential can dwat -- candidate grilled one nominee on his membership of the knights of columbus, a catholic charitable organization known for dangerousability shipments -- dangerous activities like selling christmas trees and charities like habitat for humanity and special olympics. nor is this the kind of suspicion of practicing catholics and other christians limited to the judicial realm. democrats' suspicion of religious court nominees is one feature of the left's growing hostility to religion generally.

more and more democrats liberals are telling people they 14r50 close their mouths. a democratic candidate hillary clinton suggested christianity has become, quote, judgmental and alienated. one of the current democrat presidential candidates' staffers recently said she doesn't think orthodox catholics, muslims or jews should sit on the supreme court. the current vice presidential candidate introduced legislation in this congress to weaken the religious freedom restoration act, a key law intended to protect americans' right to live out their religion. and forget religious liberty under a democrat administration. the democrat presidential candidate has pub libl -- publicly announced if he becomes president, he intended to go after the little sisters of the poor and order of nuns who spend their lives caring for the elderly poor to force them, to force them to offer a health insurance provision that

violates their religious faith. that's right, madam president. the democrats' presidential candidate has proudly announced that his administration will do the heroic work of pursuing a group of nuns who serve the poor to ensure that they are not allowed to fully live out their religious beliefs. madam president, where to start. perhaps i should start by noting what should be obvious, who's tiltedy to religion is fundamentally un-american. america was founded on religious liberty. long before the declaration of independence were signed, people came to the shore to practice their religion and freedom and that concern for religious liberty continued through the founding. religious freedom was founded as to fundamental that it is the very first freedom mentioned in the bill of rights. congress shall make no law, the bill of rights begins, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof. some have interpreted references to religion in the constitution to somehow mean the founders are looking to preference secularism over religion and seclude religion from the public scare. madam president, nothing could be further from the truth. far from wanting to diminish religion or expliewd it from public life, they saw it as something to be fossered. it was regarded as an essential ingredient to produce the kind of diswhrens who could maintain the kind of republic. to quote george washington, of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indisspencible. the -- indispensable. pillars. human happiness and props of men and citizens, the mere politician equally with the

pious man should cherish them. a volume could not trace all of their connection with private and public felicity. democrats would like to reduce freedom of religion to a toleration and religious people to second-class citizens. that is not what religious freedom meant in america. america's religious freedom has been permission to live out your faith not just in the confines of your home but in the public square. i find it the height of irony that somebody like judge amy coney barrett focused on the intolerance of religious individuals. because there are few people as dogmatic as members of the left wing in america. remember when the women's march was founded at start of the current administration? more than one pro-life group wanted to join and stand for women's rights but they were

kicked off the march's list of partners because the the leaders decided that you can't stand for the dignity of both mother and child and still be a feminist. it is pretty much the same in the democratic party. while a few pro-life democrats are tolerated, the pro-life democrat is on the way to extinction at party level. last year, for example, the democratic attorneys general association announced it would not endorse or finance candidates who do not support abortion borgs. so i height -- abortion. i find it the height of irony when democrats complain about the supposed doing ma tism of -- dog ma tism of individuals. that -- whether it is avidly secular nominated to the bench, or do they assume they can rule fairly in cases involving abortion or religion?

i'm pretty sure they would say they would be able to rule fairly according to law -- to the law. they deny this disrespect. they offer the demeaning suggest that religious people alone are incapable of setting aside their personal beliefs. madam president, i'd like to see the attacks on judge amy coney barrett stop. but more than that, i'd like to see the democrat party return to a deeper respect for religion in the central place of a robust freedom in american life. i'd like to be confident that future nominees will not have to face their religion would keep them from participation. president obama spoke of working class americans as bitter individuals. he didn't mean it in a positive way, but he should have. many great americans have clung to their religion and been

inspired by it to do great things. from serving the needy to fighting for the oppressed. america has been made better by individuals who cling to their faith. and i look forward to seeing the great things that are to come from religious americans serving in the public square and we can start by confirming the eminently qualified amy coney barrett to the supreme court. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader. mr. durbin: madam president, the constitution of the united states makes three references to religion. in the first amendment to the bill of rights it says that we have the right to believe or not believe. it is a matter of personal conscience. and, secondly, there will be no established government religion in the united states. the only other provision is in article 6, where it expressly says there will be no religious test for public office. three simple assertions which

for over 200 years have guided this nation in dealing with religion. the statement just made by the senator from south dakota really tells me that he didn't tune into the hearings that were held just a week or two ago when he it came -- when it came to amy coney barrett. i did. i was there for four days. so i know what was said and who said it and i know what the democrats said and i didn't believe there was one instance, not one, where any democrat raised the issue of this nominee's religion. we took seriously what article 6 says in the constitution, there is no religious test for office. i will tell you that on the other side of the aisle there were frequent references to her religion, expressed references to her religion. that's their right as senators as to how they want to handle the issue. but what i heard from the senator from south dakota, he did not follow the hearing an didn't listen to it, had he, he

wouldn't have made the statements he did on the floor. as a lifelong catholic, i voted for catholics to serve on every court both supreme court and other courts in the land and i voted against them as well. i take the admonition of the constitution seriously. i don't take their religion into account when i cast a vote, nor should anyone when they follow the constitution. one last point i'd like to make that was clearly wrong. when it came to the disgusting attacks on the adopted children of this nominee, the senator from louisiana spoke up against them and so did i on the democratic side. they are unacceptable on either side of the aisle and for any senators to suggest otherwise tells me he did not listen to the hearing itself. i condemn the attack on her family and i repeat that condemnation on the floor of the senate today. and for that senator to ignore that fact troubles me greatly. i count him as a friend. i hope when he reads the record of the actual proceeding before

the senate judiciary committee, he will come and clarify and correct his remarks. the last point i want to make and i know we have a vote in just a few minutes is this. if you can -- ask the american, what is the business of the united states senate for the next five days, i don't think anyone would really, if they didn't follow it closely, the business we are about. we live in a country now where 220,000 people have died from this covid-19 pandemic -- 220,000. eight million have been affected. a country that represents 4.5% of the world's population, the united states accounts for 20% of all the covid-19 deaths in the world and, sadly, it's getting worse before it gets better. in the state of illinois the governor announced yesterday that because of the increased incidents of infection from covid-19 in the four major counties surrounding the city of chicago, we have to close down restaurants and other

establishments. it's heart breaking. i know what it means to the business owners many it's also heartbreaking to read the numbers day in and day out of what this covid-19 virus is doing in america, not just to the poor hapless souls, but to the economy of this country. wouldn't you think that would be the focus on the floor of the united states senate? wouldn't you think that the senate majority leader, senator mcconnell of kentucky, who controls the business of the floor, would make that job one for all of us and stick together on a bipartisan basis to come up with an agreement before we did anything else? if you guessed that, you're wrong. because for the next five days we are consumed with filling one supreme court vacancy. he is determined to fill that vacancy at any cost, including ignoring the major issue of our time, the major issue of the moment, the pandemic which affects this country so gravely. we've lost 220,000 souls, sadly, in america, and it's stitd that

it may reach -- it's estimated it will reach half a million. we are here spending five days not dealing with covid-19 relief, not providing the testing that's needed, not providing unemployment benefits to those who lost jobs, not providing help to small businesses. no, we are focused on one nomination for one vaccine on the -- vacancy on the supreme court. we are not in the ordinary scheme of thing. we are dealing with an extraordinary pandemic which is causing grave damage to this country, the families and the economy. the president may not take it seriously, obviously the senate republicans don't take it seriously. if they did, they would be engaged. i cannot explain or even imagine how he explains why senator mcconnell refuses to sit down in the negotiations for the covid-19 relief. that's right, madam president. they've had negotiations that

have involved senator schumer, speaker pelosi, treasury secretary mnuchin, the president's chief of staff and senator mcconnell refuses to attend those negotiations where they are trying to come up with a bipartisan measure to help us through this crisis. all he does is offer three away votes on the floor, take it or leave it votes on the floor that don't have any bipartisan root to them. they come to us because he wants to have a symbolic roll call for his members to take home and say, well, i tried. no, you didn't try. if for five straight days we do nothing about covid-19 and focus exclusively on this nominee, how in the world will any senator explain that that was the american priority in the moment? it is not. the american priority of the moment is not this vacancy on the supreme court. it's the fact that there are vacancies and homes across america from 220,000 deaths in this country and they continue a pace every single day. we ought to be coming together

on a bipartisan basis. the person who should be leading us in the senate is the senate republican leader. he does not. and as a consequence we waste our moments here when they should be spent helping america with its highest priority. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the yeas and nays were previously ordered and the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any other senators wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 45. the nays are 51. the motion is not agreed to.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of michael jay newman of ohio to be united states district judge for the southern district of ohio signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of michael jay newman of ohio to be united states district judge for the southern district of ohio shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing do vote -- to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 66, the nays are 31, the motion is agreed to. mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, could we have some order, please? the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president, this morning the judiciary committee voted amy coney barrett out in violation of their rules. the rules of the judiciary committee say before you can vote a nominee to the floor, there must be two members of the minority. that has been obeyed by democrats and republicans for a very long time. i remember it in existence for

all the years i was on judiciary. but typical of this republican majority, when there not two democrats there, they just steam rolled the nominee through in violation of the rules. that has been typical. this whole thing has been a steamroller operation. on the most important decision we can make, weeks before a presidential nomination, a nominee, her views are far away on health care, on reproducterrive rights -- reproductive rights. and this was in violation of the rules. in violation of the rules, not surprising given this rush to judgment and this desire to get this nominee through before americans vote. but it is in violations of the rules. so, mr. president, i make a point of order that the barrett

nomination should not be placed on the executive calendar because it was reported in violation of the rules of the senate judiciary committee. the presiding officer: the nomination was in accordance with the rules of the senate. it is not sustained. mr. schumer: i appeal the ruling of the chair and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the yeas and nays are ordered of the question is on the appeal of the ruling of the chair. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

the presiding officer: the chair wants to be clear about the question before the body. the question is, on the appeal of the ruling of the chair shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the senate? the clerk will continue to call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any other senators wishing to vote or chaic their vote -- change their vote? if not the yeas are 53, the nays are 44. the senate sustains the decision of the chair.

mr. lankford: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for oklahoma. mr. lankford: mr. president, i want to let this body know that spent some one-on-one time yesterday with amy coney barrett. i had an opportunity to ask her about agency deference, about religious liberty, about the responsibility of the three branches of government and the separation of those. i spent some time talking about antitrust laws and tribal laws. some things that were not covered in the hearing time. and i walked away even more impressed for her as a leader, for her knowledge, her her

judicial temperament and her sense of responsibility and taking on this responsibility that the nation would ask her to do. it stands in stark contrast to some of the conversations that i've had with some of my colleagues on the other side. and from the hearings over the last week where most of the time my colleagues spent their time saying that people should be afraid of this mother of seven, that she's a terrifying individual that will take away your health care, that will take away your right to be able to destroy your unborn child if you choose to, that she's a racist and that she's antiwoman, which i thought were the ultimate challenges to her as a woman herself, obviously and when she was challenged over and over again about being a racist and segregationist. she's the mother of a multiracial family.

it's by czar -- by czar side by side. amy coney barrett is a native of new orleans, louisiana. she's the daughter of a lawyer and teacher, oldest of seven children. she's been married to her husband jesse for 21 years. she herself is the mother much seven children as i mentioned before, emma, vivian, tess, john peter, liam, and benjamin. they were able to sit behind her and watch their mom. she graduated summa cum laude from law school. she was a clerk for the d.c. circuit judge lawrence silverman and justice scalia. when she was challenged over and over again, you're just like scalia. she responded calmly, i have my own mind.

she practiced both trial and appellate litigation. judge barrett worked for 15 years in academia. she was a distinguished legal scholar at the notre dame law school, george washington university law school, published articles in the colombia, texas and cornell law reviews. three classes in notre dame law have distinguished her as professor of the year. of she was nominated by president trump to serve on the seventh circuit court of appeals and was confirmed by this senate with a bipartisan vote. her colleagues supported herrer letter 2019 nomination. calling her fair and impartial. since joining the circuit court of appeals in 2017, judge barrett has participated in over 600 cases.

the a.b.a. standing committee issued judge barrett a well-qualified rating based on integrity, professional competence an judicial temperament. when confirmed, judge barrett will be the fifth woman to serve on the supreme court in its history. she'll be the first mother of school-aged children to serve on the court and she'll be the only sitting member of the court to have graduated from a law school other than harvard or yale. she'll also be the second sitting member of the court to have been born in the south and only the second member in the court history to have been born in louisiana. she'll be the only sitting member of the court to have served on the seventh circuit which is arising out of illinois, indiana and wisconsin. during the judiciary committee hearings shrks she heard testimony from a former student of judge barrett's. remarkable testimony. she said in part, should you

confirm amy barrett, the country will receive something far greater than an unparalleled legal mind. the supreme court and therefore all americans will gain the service of one of the kindest individuals i have ever known. her brilliance is matched only by her compassion and her honesty is beyond reproach. i do not speak in mere abstractions. rather, i have experienced these characteristics firsthand with life-changing results. judge barrett described a mentor who gave her a treasured book of literature to commemorate their relationship. judge barrett has now passed on that torch to me, giving me a gift of immeasurable value -- the ability to pursue an abundant life with the potential to break down barriers so that i can leave this world a better place than i found it. i could not agree more with her or with her colleagues and peers about her superb qualifications

and preparedness to serve in this role. her commitment to both the role of the court and the rule of law are clear. to read her opinions from the perspective of the losing party demonstrates her fairness, empathy and temperament as a judge. her character, commitment to faith and to her family and her service to her students and the community should not go overlooked. judge barrett has my unqualified, full support, and i look forward to voting for her nomination in the next few days. with that, i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. president. every day we see more americans dying from covid-19 and more americans contracting this virus. as of today, we have hit the awful mark of over 220,000 americans dead from covid-19, the highest death level in the entire world. and with that we're also experiencing the economic fallout and pain that has come with it. it did not have to be this way. president trump knew about this

deadly virus early on, and he could have and should have acted. but even at this moment, there are things that this united states senate can be doing to both stop the spread of the virus and ease the economic pain. we could be taking up and voting on the legislation that passed the house of representatives called the heroes act, which is a comprehensive emergency relief package for the american people. both addressing testing and contact tracing and other issues to stop the spread of the virus and providing essential economic relief to american families, workers, and businesses who are struggling from the fallout. but we haven't even had a chance to vote on that bill here in the united states senate. the heroes act was passed by the house more than five months ago

and then recently the house passed a revised version called heroes 2. we tried to get a vote on that just this past tuesday here in the united states senate. it was blocked by the republican leader, by senator mcconnell. and here we have 12 days to go to the election. instead of focusing on that relief, we're trying to rush through and use an illegitimate process to put another justice on the court. but there's something else that we should also be doing now instead of rushing a justice on the court, in addition to the heroes act, and that is defending the integrity of the our democratic process and the integrity of our elections. and that's what brings me to the floor today, because we have, of course, a few days to go -- 12 days to be exact -- to get to

the election, and yet it's been years -- not just one year, not just two years, not just three years -- years when some of us have been pushing to enact legislation here to defend against foreign interference in our elections. russian interference, which we've known about since 2016, and interference from other adversaries. and so yesterday we hear from the director of national intelligence that there are foreign actors interfering in our elections and attempting to disrupt our process -- russia and iran. well, the question for the united states senate is not the issue of whether or not we were going to have foreign interference. the question for the united states senate is why did we sit back and do nothing about it for

three years -- for three years? senator rubio and i introduced a bipartisan bill -- it's called the deter act -- very straight forward. it says if we catch russia and putin interfering in our elections again, there will be automatic swift sanctions, so that if you're municipality putin and you're thinking -- so that you're vladimir putin and you're thinking about interfering in our elections, you know there will be a certain price to pay. right now it is cost-free to the russians and cost-free to other adversaries. and our bill called for the executive branch to put together a plan to respond and establish up-front penalties not just for russian interference bus for interference from -- but for interference from any adversary. that is the way you deter interference in the first place.

you can't stop interference if there's no cost to be borne by the adversary seeking to disrupt your process. that's pretty simple. we've used the idea and concept of the deterrence in many other cases to try to keep the peace, and yet here we're talking about safeguarding our democracy by putting in place a very simple mechanism to say to anyone who wants to undermine faith in the democratic process or support a particular candidate, as russia did in 201 and as they've worked -- did in 2016 and as they've worked to do in 2020 with president trump -- to put in place where they know if they get caught, they're punished. i'm not talking about pushing punishing a few -- i'm not talking about punishing a few

bureaucrats who may be responsible, but creating penalties on the russian economics the banking sec tech the energy sector, because we all know that you don't have russian bureaucrats and intelligence officials interfering in our elections without the green light from the very top. and that's true of other adversaries who seek to interfere in our elections. and so the real question is, why do we continue to see stonewalling on this simple legislation? why does the trump administration continue to oppose it? and why doesn't the senate do its job as an independent body, supposedly, to protect the integrity of our elections? here's what president trump said just a few years ago in helsinki when he was side by side with

president putin. he said -- this is president trump. quote, my people came to me, dan coats came to me and some others. they said they think it's russia. and i have preyed putin. he just said it's not russia. i will say this. i don't see any reason why it would be. i have confidence in both parties. then he went on to say, quote, i have great confidence in my intelligence people, but i will tell you that president putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today. this is years ago. and yet we hear from our intelligence officials that russia is still interfering. we heard that just yesterday. and that other adversaries are interfering. but the trump administration didn't want to do a damn thing about it. and, unfortunately, this body has been complicit in doing

nothing -- doing nothing to seriously protect the integrity of our elections. and we have to keep asking ourselves the question why we would leave ourselves defenseless. and the only thing you can keep going back to is these continuing statements by president trump talking about how he expects his friendship with vladimir putin and the president's actions, president trump's actions time and again favoring the russian position. so we have a last-minute opportunity here. there are 12 days to go before our election. let us finally, in light of the information that we got yesterday and the information we

got on a monthly basis, let us as the united states senate at least say today if we catch you, russia, if we catch you, iran, we don't care who you are. if you are an adversary interfering in our elections, there will be a price to pay. that was a bipartisan idea more than two years ago, and we still get a lot of lip service in favor of it here on a bipartisan basis. but when it comes to actually doing something about it and holding a vote, time and again, we're denied that opportunity. what's interesting is when this issue came up just last year as part of the national defense authorization act, we had a motion on this floor to instruct the conferees from the house and the senate that as part of the defense authorization bill, we also thought it was important to protect our democracy from interference. we said you should include a provision like the deter act, but as soon as that got behind closed doors, there was a

furious effort by the republican senate leader and the trump administration to prevent that from happening. i had numerous conversations with my colleague from the house side, the chairman of the armed services committee, and it was opposed by the administration and opposed by the republican senate. so here we are, nobody should be surprised by what we heard yesterday. the surprise for the american people has got to be why the hell didn't we do anything about this for three years? we brought everybody together after 2016. i remember we lined up all the intelligence officials, including recent appointees by president trump, and they all told us what had happened in 2016. and everybody said we're going to work really hard to stop it from happening in 2020. and yet, one thing that we could do to make it clear up front

that there would be a price to pay, we have not done. shame on the united states senate for not moving forward. 12 days left. the clock is ticking. let's finally take action so at least our adversaries will know that there will be a price to pay if they continue in these final 12 days to try to interfere in our election process. and so, mr. president, as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs be discharged from further consideration of s. 1060, the deter act, and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. i further ask that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: reserving the right

to object. mr. president, this morning, the senate judiciary committee reported out judge amy coney barrett's nomination to the united states supreme court. i was proud to vote for her in committee. unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle decided to boycott the executive session and in addition, each day, the democratic leader has attempted to adjourn the senate. they say that the senate should not be working on the nomination of amy coney barrett and that it's delaying work on covid relief and now we heard today that we're delaying work and not even engaging in any response to the election interference that we knew four years ago occurred and which, as my colleague said, nobody should be surprised that we heard again that there are efforts at election interference, by russia, by iran, and others.

yesterday, there were three different live unanimous consent requests like this to bypass committees and immediately pass legislation without debate or amendment. these motions to adjourn and take it or leave it requests are a fight over the senate floor schedule. rather than building the necessary bipartisan support to pass needed legislation. so we are told that we haven't done anything for four years, turning to focus specifically on the question of election interference. well, the reality is that we have already signed into law the countering america's adversaries through sanctions act or caatsa, the brink act, the hong kong

autonomy act, and the white house has in addition taken steps to use its iepa authority to impose additional targeted sanctions on those who attempted to interfere in the u.s. election. we're told that we aren't doing anything to work on the covid relief package. my colleague from maryland mentioned that they tried to pass the heroes act here in the senate with a similar tactic that we are seeing with regard to the deter act. what he didn't point out was that twice we have tried to bring forward a $500 billion covid relief package on the floor of this senate, only to have the effort to even move to the bill rejected by our colleagues on the other side, and we tried to bring forward the p.p.p. act just two days ago, only to have that act stopped by our colleagues on the other side of the senate who now tell us that we aren't trying to

pass legislation to help deal with covid relief. the reality is that we won't accept without debate or amendment their take it or leave it proposals. and we need to get a bill on the floor to start dealing with these things. but let's go back to election interference. because i found it just remarkable that the claim is made that when we passed major legislation with over 90 senators on this floor voting for it, that put specific sanction authority and sanctions on russia for election interference, for its aggression in crimea, and for its other aggressive behavior around the globe, particularly its cybersecurity violations, and we have been implementing sanctions for that entire period of time. i just want to review a little bit of it.

on top of it, as i indicated, the president has used his iepa authority for additional sanctions activity. the president signed an executive order that allows for sanctions on any nation or individual who authorizes, directs, or sponsors any interference in our elections. the national defense authorization act, signed by the president last year, included numerous provisions designed to strengthen our deterrence against foreign interference. the president has taken a strong stand against russia for its maligned activities, including imposing sanctions on more than 300 separate russian-related targets through 32 distinct actions, imposing sanctions against seven russian oligarchs, their 12 companies, and 17 senior russian government officials. establishing rolling designations to strengthen sanctions in response to russian aggression against ukraine and russian efforts to evade sanctions on north korea, syria, iran, and others.

imposing sanctions against 16 entities and individuals, including affiliates of the russian internet research agency for their roles in russian interference in our elections. imposing sanctions against three individuals and five entities in sudan, assisting the i.r.a. financier pregozian in evading previously imposed sanctions. designating three additional i.r.a. actors for supporting the i.r.a.'s cryptocurrency accounts. imposing sanctions on russian-related oil brokers for their role in assisting the circumvention of sanctions against venezuela. expelling 60 russian intelligence officers from the united states. and the list goes on. the argument that this administration and this senate have done nothing is simply false. let's just talk a little more about election interference.

the administration here domestically has taken unprecedented action to bolster the security of our elections and to counter foreign malign influence. president trump signed into legislation, passed by this senate, that spent more than $1.2 billion in the states for election security, infrastructure strengthening, and technological enhancements. the president funded the formation of the election infrastructure information sharing and analysis center, a center which helped share security information with elected officials across all 50 states and more than 2,400 local and territorial electoral offices. the administration has conducted hundreds of cybersecurity assessments at no cost to election officials and provides vulnerability reports on a weekly basis. the administration has traveled the country to hold exercises and training with state and local election officials and their private sector partners to improve and test their ability

to prepare for and respond to cyber incidents. the administration has held multiple national level table top to vote exercises with thousands of state and local election officials and private sector partners nationwide. the administration has provided tailored security guidance to nearly 6,000 local election jurisdictions. under president trump, the administration has pushed to increase the security of elections through auditable paper ballots, and now more than 92% of the voters in the general election will cast their ballots with an auditable paper record. mr. president, i could go on and on about this, but the bottom line is yeah, we do need to work and continue to be alert, and my colleague from maryland knows that i'm willing to work on these issues, but we can't just continue to have these take it or leave it, no amendment, no opportunity for change,

unanimous consent requests in the context of the obstruction effort under -- being undertaken right now to try and delay and interfere with a work on amy coney barrett. we can work on all these issues. i invite my colleagues on the other side to vote yes the next time we try to bring a covid relief bill to the floor. and because of these reasons, mr. president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. van hollen: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: mr. president, i thank my colleague for the comments, but to suggest that this is a fight over the schedule and not an effort to protect our elections from what we know is an ongoing and continuing imminent threat i believe misses the point entirely. you mentioned that this is a

take it or leave it proposition. i would suggest that this senate has already taken this because we voted unanimously last year as part of the defense authorization bill to adopt this provision as part of our national defense, to defend our democracy. every single senator voted -- no one came forward to object at that time, and yet here we are 12 days out from election, no action taken, and we get this report yesterday about foreign interference, and nobody should say oh, we're shocked there is foreign interference in our election going on. the shocking thing is we haven't done enough. i appreciate your listing some of the actions the administration took about particular russian individuals, oligarchs, but as you know and as we know, the deter act is not aimed at just punishing

particular bureaucrats and apparatchiks who are obeying the orders of president putin. the whole idea is to deter president putin by making him understand that he and his country will pay a price if they interfere by sanctions on the banking sector and on the all-important energy sector in russia. now, in order to stop interference, we need to do two things. we need to harden our systems at home. and my colleague mentioned some of the actions that have been taken to do that. i will remind my colleagues that democrats put forward the proposal for more resources for state and local governments to pardon those offenses, and it was only after a big fight and lots of opposition from the republican leader here in the senate that we were able to get those funds, and additional funds that have been sitting in the heroes act which passed the house five months ago.

and yet, nothing. and in the proposal put forward the other day by the republican leader, no more money to harden our defenses. but hardening our defenses is not enough. what you want to do is prevent the attacks in the first place, prevent the interference in the first place. and so long as that's cost-free to municipality putin or any otherredder have sierra, they're going to go for this. they have everything to gain by sowing unrest and lack of confidence here. about a so the way to deal with that is through the deter act. and the senate agreed at least with that vote, unanimous vote, a little while ago and then nothing happened. and yet we got report after report from our intelligence community that no surprise, we have this ongoing interference. the senator mentioned all these actions the trump administration has taken.

obviously vladimir putin didn't get the message. he didn't get the message. taking pin-prick actions after the fact isn't going to scare off vladimir putin or any of other adversaries. the only way to get them to focus and stop interfering is to say now upfront that if you cross this wire, if you trip this threshold and interfere in our elections in certain substantial ways, it's going to hurt, not just somebody in the democracy or one officer or five or ten. but it's going it hurt, and you're going to feel the pain in our country. so i must say, i remain incredibly disappointed that even at this late hour, we're unwilling as a body to take this very important action, just as

we've been unwilling to act on the heroes act, both the first version and the second version. and i think as my colleagues know, the democratic leader has proposed that we adjourn subject to being called back for the purpose of acting on a bipartisan agreement, which we'd all like to see, on a covid-19 response bill. but something which the republican senate leader has said he's unwilling to pursue, even the contours of appear agreement had a have been discuss -- of an agreement that have been discussed between pelosi and mnuchin and we continue to see blocking of a measure to protect our democracy with 12 days to go before november 3. and so, mr. president, again i think we're going to rue the day that we weren't clear up front

that the united states is going to stand up and protect its democratic process. i yield the floor. mr. crapo: mr. president, just to briefly respond -- the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. crapo: thank you, mr. president. well, first of all, the notion that there has been blockage of a deal on this side is news to me. the notion that we did not accept the heroes act from the house is not news. and the notion that trying to put the heroes act on the floor of the senate, without the opportunity for debate or amendment, is also not the right way to try to build bipartisan legislation for a deal. i also find it incredible that this administration's actions, sanctioning russia, are considered to be a pinprick in comparison to whatever greater sledgehammer is supposedly needed. the caatsa legislation which i

referenced, which was passed in the first year following the election of president trump, which president trump signed and supported, was a massive increase in american sanction authority against russia and north korea, by the way, and has been utilized more by this president than any sanction authority that any other president has ever had. and the sanction regime that we are putting in place today against russia is designed to go aggressively at election interference. the argument that nobody is doing anything is simply wrong. now, i stand ready to work to build even stronger sanction regimes that can work without destroying our own economy or work without destroying our own industry in different sectors, which is part of the problem with the bill that is being proposed without amendment here today. but we need to recognize that the accusations that this

administration and this senate do not take election interference seriously when we passed the most significant sweeping legislation that has ever been pass in -- passed in this country to deal with it, and there is no effort to try to work on the covid relief package is just part of, frankly you the political attack -- frankly, the political attack of the day. i'm sorry. this is simply wrong. if we want to work together on either of these two issues or other issues, we can on this floor. but we can't do it by these kinds of motions to adjourn and unanimous consent requests to bring bills to the floor and pass them without amendment. it's just not the way -- and my colleague knows this is the kind of thing that republicans and democrats do. they want to bring attention to their legislation. but that's not the way you build a bipartisan agreement that can actually become law. thank you, mr. president. mr. van hollen: mr. president,

i have a brief response. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: this is a bipartisan bill. it's got bipartisan cosponsorship. we've been working for three years. we've made changes. and the proof that everything we're doing is is not working is the fact that we just had the d.n.i. say we should have russian interference in our election. that's why we've got to do something. the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i've enjoyed the colloquy here between our colleagues on election interference. i'm privileged to serve on the senate select committee on intelligence. it's undertaken a three and a half year-long investigation of the election interference that occurred in 2016, and i think the five-volume report of the

select committee on intelligence -- bipartisan report -- is indicative of the seriousness with which we all treat the subject. but i appreciate the senator from idea for his comments, for refreshing all of our memories about the huge amounts of money that we've spent in assistance to state election -- state and local election authorities as well as the good work being done by the department of homeland security to help them secure their networks against cyberattacks a as well as other elements of the united states government, including our intelligence community, the national security agency and others. this is important work. but i agree with him. this is not how we actually build bipartisan consensus here, by coming and asking for unanimous consent without going through the appropriate procedures and frankly the hard work that it takes to build consensus.

but, mr. president, on another matter, today the senate judiciary committee advanced the nomination of judge amy coney barrett to serve on the supreme court. throughout her hearing last week, judge barrett wowed america and certainly my constituents in texas with her impressive knowledge of the law and her clear understanding about the limits but important role that judges play in our republic. she followed the precedent set down by ruth bader ginsburg and refused how she would rule in future cases or commenting on potential political issues, and i think she was correct to do so. we shouldn't embroil judges in the political controversies that we debate here. judges are not policymakers primarily. they're certainly not accountable to the voters.

they have lifetime tenure. that's why their responsibilities are limited but important at the same time. nor by asking her her questions back in 2017 about her religious beliefs, whether she is an orthodox catholic, having to listen to statements like, well, the dogma lives loudly within you, because she is a woman of faith, suggesting somehow she would violate her oath as a judge and impose her own views, instead of the law, from the role -- from the bench. well, judge barrett, i think, took all of us to school a little bit and reminded us very clearly that it's a judge's job to impartially apply the law as written, whether it is the constitution itself or the laws that congress passes. she not only stated her commitment to this most basic

principle but she also has a record to back it up. during her time on the seventh circuit court of appeals, judge barrett has sided with her colleagues 95% of the time in more than 600 cases. it's no surprise the american bar association, which the minority leader has called the gold standard, gave judge barrett its highest rating saying she's well qualified to serve on the supreme court. but we all knew that. as i looked around the room during the first day of questioning, i noticed all the binders that people like i had. if my colleagues' materials preparing for this historic hearing were anything like mine,

they included academic writings, background information about her career. but i noted as judge barrett was answering our question, she seemed to be doing so without even glancing down at any notes. so i asked judge barrett -- i violated is the number-one rule that you learn as a lawyer not to ask a question you don't know the answer to. but did i it anyway because i had a hunch. and i asked her to hold up the notepad sitting in front of her to show us what materials she had been using during the hearing. and it was a memorable moment. she held it up and smiled. and it was blank. i think that spoke volumes about her competency, her preparation, her intelligence -- all things that would commend her confirmation. well, with each question she answered, judge barrett demonstrated her vast knowledge of the law. she made clear she understood,

as i said, the limited role of judges, and she showed compassion and heart as she poured herself into her work each and every day. numerous senators have noted that under ordinary circumstances, a nominee like this would get overwhelming support. but, unfortunately, these aren't normal circumstances. our colleagues on the other side made clear from the get-go that for them this confirmation process wasn't even about the nominee or her qualifications. they attempted to hijack the hearing and use it for, well, it is a harsh word but it is true -- fearmongering. last week's hearing was like split-screen tv. on one half republican senators asked the judge about her judicial philosophy, prior rulings and a range of constitutional doctrines. on the other half, our democratic colleagues delivered

monologues about obamacare, about a future case that she may be called upon to participate in. and they attempted to convince the american people that if she was confirmed, she would somehow take away their health care. well, that's, at bottom, an insult to the judge. it somehow presumes that she is essentially is auditioning for the job based on a ruling in a future case. that would violate every aspect of a judge's oath, as judge barrett noted. judges don't make policy pronouncements. they decide cases. and she very carefully described the case that's pending in front of the supreme court. it's not about obamacare, writ large. it's about the a technical doctrine called severability. if one part of the statute is deemed unconstitutional -- and this one i believe is -- the

individual mandate, because we zeroed out the penalty under the tax cuts and jobs act, the question is, does the rest of the legislation, does the rest of obamacare stand? or does it all have to be struck down? well, she noted that there'd been a number of cases decided recently by the current supreme court that seemed to treat severability with particular care and indeed has a scholastic, as an academic, she and others noted that it's not exactly appropriate for judges to go out and strike down statutes, except to the extent that they are unconstitutional. well, she said, if they're not coming for your health care, she'll serve corporate interests, somehow chip away at our liberties. these are nothing but baseless scare tax break particulars.

the latest one tame this morning when they actually boycotted the judiciary committee vote on judge barrett. they couldn't even be bothered to show up and vote against the nominee they claim is a threat to our democracy. so you know what? judge barrett was confirmed unanimously by the senators present today. instead, in their chairs they had large photographs, much like we've seen at sports arenas and ballparks in the wake of the pandemic since we've had to socially distance and you can't have a large crowd at the ballpark, so people have these cutouts. that's what it looked like in the judiciary committee today. and as i said, because of their antics, because of the stunt, senator graham asked for unanimous consent to proceed with the markup and of course there was no objection because any potential object oorp had

voluntarily absented themselves. but the judge's qualifications speak louder than the unstab yated claims made by her opposition. she graduated from the top of her class from neat dame law school. she held two prestigious clerkships including on the supreme court. she's litigated in the trenches before transitioning into academia where she wrote and taught constitutional law about our federal courts and statutory interpretation. and as i said, for the last three years, she's put all that great experience and training to work on the seventh circuit. this is an exceptional judge with a clear record of faithfully and impartially applying the law. and she will bring additional value to the united states supreme court. the thing -- one of the things i thought was so remarkable, is judge barrett is also an

incredible role model. and i think -- her elevation to the highest court in the land should be an encouragement to young woman who aspire to professional success. and as a great role model on how to balance what we all try to figure out how to balance which is your professional and your personal life. well, she and her husband do a marvelous job with their seven children, both being full time professionals. if confirmed she would be the first mother of school age children -- school-age children and to be only the fifth woman to serve on the high court. she would also be the first justice on the court, current court with a degree from a law school other than yale and harvard. and bring much needed educational diversity to the bench. judge amy coney barrett will serve our country well on the high court, and i have full faith in her ability to

faithfully and impartially apply the law as written. i want to thank chairman graham for leading a fair and respectful hearing. the ranking member, senator feinstein, made that observation and i thought that was very generous and civil of her. i would note that many of the more radical folks on the left have attacked senator feinstein for her civility and they're just wrong, and i think she remains a good role model for all of us. we can have our disagreements without being rude or uncivil or disagreeable. and i think senator feinstein is a model for that. so i'm proud to support judge barrett's nomination in the judiciary committee, mr. president. i look forward to voting for her next week here on the senate floor. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut.

mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, there are a lot of inscriptions, famous word, inspirational sayings that are detailed into and painted on to the walls of the capitol. one of my favorites which i think also happens to be one of the shortest adorns a wall i believe on the way into the house chamber. the saying is at triebted to -- attributed to alexander hamilton and it reads simple, here, sir, people govern. here, sir, people govern. it's purposeful that that quote finds its way on the walls of the capitol building because this is the branch of government that's given primacy by our founders. it's no coincidence we are the article one branch governing, the process of setting the rules by which the country lives, it's supposed to happen here. the article 1 branch, the

elected wing of american democracy. as all of my colleagues know, there's been very little governing here of late. this congress, this senate has effectively been dead. half the normal bills have been passed during this congress compared to normal years and nearly a third of that legislation that we finished has just been renaming postal buildings or authorizing commemorative coins. in fact, over the last two years, the senate has spent four time on a grand total of 20, -- floor time on a grand total of 20, 20 pieces of legislation that weren't routine or emergency spending measures. that's less than a bill a month. we're getting paid $170,000 a year to work on one substantive piece of legislation every 30 days. perhaps you can reconcile this legislative desert if there were no problems to solve in america, if not a single major change in

law was necessary. that, of course, is not the case. a pandemic disease has killed over 200,000 americans. an opioid crisis rages largely uncheck. that took another 70,000 lives last year just in drug overdoses alone. one out of ten americans are out of work today. wildfires and hurricanes and droughts caused by the manmade warming of the planet. they ravage our landscape. there are really big problems that need to be solved, deadly problems, existential problems. so i keep searching for the reason that no legislation is happening here, especially since the senate does actually seem to be doing something. i mean, i'm here voting most weekdays so we must not be totally out of business. no, in fact the senate has been doing something, and that something is confirming judges to a record number of vacancies in the federal court system. those record vacancies were created by senator mcconnell who refused, refused to confirm

virtually any judicial nominees, including to the supreme court during president obama's final two years in office. and the primary reason that senator mcconnell has stopped passing legislation and turned this institution into a judge-confirming simple machine is because the modern republican party currently owns a policy agenda that is about as popular as a pair of wet socks. more people without health insurance and higher rates, nobody wants that. easier access for dark money to influence congress? not very popular. less regulation of financial companies and polluters? well, few people out there are clamoring for that. the criminalization of abortion? not a big groundswell in america. the elimination of the firearms background check system? pretty much everybody hates that idea, too. you see, no parts of that agenda

can actually pass congress. certainly not now with democrats in charge of the house of representatives but republicans couldn't even get that agenda done when they had control of the senate, the house, and the white house. they spent months trying to repeal the affordable care act, for instance, but because republicans figured out that they'd all lose their seats if they repealed the law, they gave up and walked away. frankly, they gave up on it all, not just because they feared the electoral backlash, no. also because they found another way to get their agenda done. you see, republicans found another place for that alexander hamilton quote. it turns out that they can't or they don't want to govern here, but they found a way to get another brampleg of government -- branch of government insulated almost completely from popular opinion to implement their world view. they want that inscription,

here, sir, people govern, to move to a building a block away on the other side of first street, the united states supreme court. and with the elevation of amy coney barrett to that court, republicans will have completed their methodical, careful, surgical procedure, the transplant of american rule setting from the abdominal cavity of this building to that of the building across the street. i want to explain by what i mean by this, but first let's just lay down an obvious predicate about the process that brought us to this moment. it's important. senator republicans were not telling the truth. as it turned out when they said in 2016 that they believe the senate shouldn't confirm a supreme court justice in the final year of a president's term. shocker. they didn't actually mean what they said. they said it in 2016 to try to put some lazy razor thin veneer

of intellectual legitimacy of their refusal to let president obama fill a vacancy on the supreme court, as was his duty and right under the constitution. but we know now that their obstruction of merrick garland was, of course, just a simple naked, antidemocratic, anticonstitutional power grab. they should just have admitted it then because at least it would have avoided the mind blowing hypocrisy of this stunning reversal of position. now suddenly all of a sudden it's okay to confirm a justice in the last year of a president's term, in the last few months of an election when people are actually voting, as it turns out. of course it is because all that matters here now is power. we get that. we'll remember. the rules have changed. the republicans changed them. you went back on your word. and it makes this whole process lack legitimacy. it's important to stipulate that but it's an insufficient

explanation admittedly of my opposition to amy coney barrett because the consequences of this nomination go far beyond the downward spiral upon which republicans have placed this institution. no, the real travesty here is that transplant of law making from here to the supreme court and what it's going to mean for regular people out there when five of 300 million americans, five people who are unelected and totally unaccountable to popular opinion just start changing the rules under which we all live because the rule changes they support and their political movement supports are so wildly unpopular that they couldn't be passed in congress. so they had to be enacted over in the supreme court. 70 times since the passage of the affordable care act, republicans have tried to gut all or part of the law. 31 times republicans tried to repeal it in its entirety. they shut down the entire

federal government for two weeks trying to strong arm democrats to ak questions to their de-- acquiesce to their demands to end health insurance but all 31 times they failed, most spectacularly in the summer of 2017. so having failed here at this political imperative, republicans turned to the courts. senator cornyn kind of explained what they did for you in his remarks just before mine. he said republicans put into the 2017 tax bill a relatively small change to the affordable care act that opened it u up to judicial assault. then not coincidentally, republicans attorney general joined by president trump sued to invalidate the entire law because of that one small change. senator cornyn talked about severability. that's not what the. the presiding officer:s in the case including president trump are asking for. they are asking for that change in law to bring down the entirety of the a.c.a. and president trump confirmed that

once again today in an interview on 60 minutes. mr. murphy: a republican appointed judge ruled for trump at the district court and then a trump appointed, mcconnell confirmed judge provided the decisive vote at the appeals court in favor of striking down the law. now that law is up for legal challenge at the supreme court and, surprise, the hearing to invalidate the entirety of the affordable care act is in three weeks. you wonder why we're rushing through this nomination in record time. amy coney barrett who has already stated on the record that she thinks the law even before the changes in the tax bill were made is unconstitutional has been selected specifically in order to be the fifth vote to invalidate the affordable care act. that's not conspiratorial thinking. that is the president's words. he has said he is not going to put people on the supreme court

unless they do the opposite of what john roberts did. same goes for kneel gorsuch and -- neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh. they've been picked for the court for their willingness to bend the law and constitution through this doctrine called originalism to comply with republican requests of the court. this new crowd of jurists that are trained, midwifed and championed by republican political associations like the federal society, they are brought up through the farm system and up to the majors to do one thing, to win games for the franchise. the pro corporate, antiworker modern republican party. so really coney barrett's confirms is just the final act of this plan to make the supreme court do what the republican congress couldn't. in this case, end the affordable care act and the insurance it provides for 23 million

americans. and the protections that it gives to 130 million americans with preexisting conditions. i love this argument that republicans use all of a sudden that we shouldn't worry about what is about to happen on the supreme court, that it's all a construction of our imagination that there is some effort under way to invalidate the affordable care act. i didn't just wake up yesterday. i've been in congress since the passage of the affordable care act. i have watched the methodical ending campaign of republicans to strike down the entirety of the affordable care act. i watched them make the change to the tax law when they couldn't repeal it through congress. i then watched mainstream republican attorneys general all together en masse to bring a case to invalidate the entire law. i watched the trump administration break with precedent and join that suit arguing against his own government's position and now i have watched this senate elevate three people to the supreme court that have been brought up

through that same political movement who will vote to end those protections in the affordable care act. my eyes have been opened. these last ten years. i know what's going on and so does the american people. joe is a constituent of mine from east haven and he says, after working for decades, i was one of millions laid off due to covid-19. that economic disaster. not only was my livelihood destroyed, but my health insurance disappeared with it i'm not old enough for medicare nor young enough to feel secure without my health. couldcobra is too expensive. the a.c.a. is my only option for health care coverage. margaret from infield, connecticut said, my husband had a near fatal heart attack two

years ago. he's recovered but requires ongoing monitoring. he has a preexisting condition, he was laid off from his job six weeks ago, a job he had for 28 years, we have no income and we have to pay to have his health care continued. without the a.c.a., we would not only have no income, but we'd also have no health insurance. we would be destitute trying to pay his health care bills. imagine 23 million people losing their health insurance in the middle of a pandemic. that's why we're rushing through amy coney barrett's nomination because there is a chance to grab the brass ring and get rid of the affordable care act. and if you don't get amy coney barrett on the court, by the time that hearing happens in three weeks, it makes that effort a lot harder. but health care isn't the only area of our daily lives that will be changed if amy coney barrett turns the supreme court into a new legislative body. let me take you down another radical, the use of the supreme

court to rewrite the nation's firearm laws. the national association's vice grip is near over, evidence of that comes from the 2017-2018 legislative session when the n.r.a. controlled both houses of congress, had their man sitting in the oval office. they had their priorities but couldn't get any of them even called up for a vote and then in 2018, 30-plus n.r.a.a-rated house voters were removed from office and replaced by those who backed background checks. they cannot get -- n.r.a. members can't get a vote because they are so unpopular. just like the a.c.a., just like it is closed here to weaken our nation's gun laws raimtion open. it is time to abandon legislative action and for the republicans to turn to the court. amy coney barrett represents the vanguard of the new radical out

of the box progun thinking, the kind of radical new thinking that is necessary if one wants the courts rather than the legislature to validate background check laws, something that they could never do. amy coney barrett's opinion in cantor v. barr is a sight to behold. it is unconstitutional for a legislature to prohibit felons from owning a gun. let me say this again. she says the second amendment guarantees certain felons the right to own firearms even though 90% of americans think otherwise. what she writes is even more radical and dangerous. she says the courts, not the legislature should be the finder of fact on whether a person is too dangerous to own a gun and she says that courts can overturn any gun restriction if they find evidence that refutes the efficacy of the law. basically, she is saying that

courts are not going to micromanage our gun laws. she believes the second amendment puts the courts, not the legislature in charge of choosing who can own a weapon and who can't. that is, of course, a curiously convenient view for a republican party who would love to weaken our gun laws but can't do it through corning. now, surprise -- congress. now, surprise again, the supreme court rides to the rescue. this, of course, would be devastating for the safety of americans if criminals could once again buy guns. last week i was spending some time with janet rice, whose son shane was killed just a few blocks from my house in hartford. an argument over a girl turn deadly when one angry young man grabbed an illegal weapon likely bought through a loophole in the background check system and used it to shoot shane in the back. this means more suicides, more domestic violence murders and

probably means higher profits for the nmpletd r.a. -- n.r.a.'s members. let's move to one more thing, more power and influence for dark money. no member of the senate who wants to run for reelection of this body would introduce a piece of legislation allowing anonymous billionaire donors. nobody in america supports that. but these dark money groups are a boon for republicans because most of the billionaire -- the billion-dollar interests that want to influence elections like the oil and gas industry support republican candidates. once again the supreme court becomes the backdoor to put rules in place that advance republican interests that could never get enacted by congress. amy coney barrett will join five other justices who will all likely rule that most regulations of campaign finance laws like our federal and state laws restricting the size of

donations to campaigns are tiewnlly invalid. the courts the -- the courts already rule that it protects a corporation'sle right to spend limitless amounts of political money. that is just the beginning. billionaires want all of our campaign finance laws eviscerated and that new radical out of the box thinking on the first amendment suggests that that day is coming if amy coney barrett does what is expected of her and joins other ultra conservatives on the court to strike down our remaining campaign finance laws. here, sir, people governor. that's -- govern. that's what the inscription says on the walls of the united states capitol. and it used to be true. now the inscription should probably read, here, sir, people confirm. because now with an activist rule setting busting the supreme court, there's no need for

republican to pass laws anymore. the amy coney barrett court will do all the lawmaking the republican interests require and frankly, if democrats win this november that same amy coney barrett court will just invalidate any attempts that congress tries to make to expand the affordable care act or pass universal background checks. i know. i get it, i know it feels weird to hear somebody like me to hear amy coney barrett as extreme. she doesn't look extreme. she doesn't talk in extreme tones, but really look at what she stands for. the elimination of the affordable care act. the right of fell obs to own -- felons to own guns, the interpretation of a constitution to allow for the flood of billionaire money into bliks. those are extreme -- -- the erosion of campaign finance laws, none of that could pass congress even when the most partisan republicans were in

charge of all of the relevant law-making institutions here. that agenda was so ub un -- so unpopular and even a republican congress and republican president wouldn't touch it in the end. but over there at the supreme court, well, that's now the place where people will govern after amy coney barrett is rammed through in the quickest confirmation process in modern history, an abomination of a process that makes a mockery of the senate and the constitution. over there, that will become the new power in american democracy and we are all worse off for it. i will oppose amy coney barrett's nomination. i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: no. mr. portman: at 4:20 today, in about five minutes, we will vote on a federal judge. we will vote whether to confirm

michael newman to be the next federal judge for the southern district of ohio. i have known mike newman for over three decades. he is an excellent choice for this role. he is an active member of the legal community in ohio and particularly active in his community of dayton. he is also involved nationally, he was the first magistrate judge ever to be appointed national president of the federal bar association through which he created an impressive national civics program to allow young people to meet with federal judges, including a lot of young people in the southern district of ohio. he started and presides over the ohio southern district's federal veterans treatment court which has helped more than 70 veterans with ptsd and opioid addiction. i have seen the court in action. mike is doing a great job. in fact, this year, he was selected to receive the ohio state bar foundation's ritter award, a lifetime service award given to one lawyer or judge in ohio every year to recognize a long-term commitment to ethics, professionalism, and integrity. that's mike. judge newman is the right choice for this important seat, having

served the community of dayton with honor and distinction, and i'm confident he will do the same in this new role. i urge my colleagues in a moment to strongly support his confirmation. of course, this week, we're also continuing to consider an important nomination of another federal judge, and that's seventh circuit judge amy coney barrett to fill the supreme court vacancy. yesterday, i had the chance to sit down one-on-one with judge barrett to ask her questions and follow up on what i thought was an impressive performance before the senate judiciary committee. even before our meeting, what i knew about judge barrett suggested she would be a good candidate for this important role. based on what i heard in our meeting, it's clear to me she is not only well qualified to serve on the court but that she is also a great listener, has the right understanding of what the court's role is, and would be a terrific supreme court justice. i believe she also understands the need to address the lack of faith in our institutions in this city, including the court, and is willing to play an important role in helping to

rebuild trust. importantly, she reiterated to me what she said in the committee, which is she has a commitment to interpret the text of the constitution and the laws as they are written rather than through the lens of her own policy, her personal preferences. i appreciate that modest approach. it leaves the legislating to the representatives elected by the people rather than the unelected judges, and of course we're all inspired by her personal story and her commitment to her faith, to her family, and to her profession. let's be honest. during normal less partisan times, this woman would be confirmed overwhelmingly. i believe she is an excellent choice. i commend the president for nominating her, and i strongly support her confirmation to the u.s. supreme court. i yield back my time.

the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. mr. portman: i understand we have another minute. let me just say on another topic, which is the coronavirus pandemic, i'm deeply disappointed that yesterday we had another vote here on the floor of the senate where we offered legislation which passed by a majority of the senators but not the supermajority needed that simply focuses on the coronavirus pandemic and the economic consequences of it, and unbelievably, it was blocked. nerpdz, we weren't able to move forward because democrats were not willing to at least get on the issue and begin to discuss and debate the issue. this is sad to me. we're not out of the woods yet, either in terms of the economy or in terms of the pandemic. in fact, we're in the third phase now of the pandemic in many of our states, including mine in ohio.

we need help. this legislation had that help, $30 billion plus for the vaccine as an example. we need that funding to be able to get the vaccine as quickly as possible. money for therapies, money for our schools, money for small businesses to be able to keep their doors open. i'm concerned, mr. president, that we are not using the same bipartisan approach we have four other times in this chamber to be able to help deal with the coronavirus pandemic. with that, i yield back my time. the presiding officer: all postcloture time is expired. the question is on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 67, the nays 30. the nomination is confirmed. the majority leader. the senate will be in order. mr. mcconnell: i move to recess and ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. there is. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote: vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: anies -- senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change a vote? if not, the yeas are 53. the nays are 43. the motion is agreed to. and the senate stands in recess until noon tomorrow. recess: