society. it is time to take action to protect our mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, nieces, nephews, cousins, and friends. please do not sit back and do nothing. and she's right. we cannot sit back and do nothing. we must pass commonsense gun legislation, like universal background checks that we have passed in the state of nevada. that will help keep americans safe. we owe it to our friends and families and all of the victims who have already been irrevocably marked by gun violence to take action. thank you, mr. president. mr. murphy: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut.

mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. i thank my friend, senator cortez masto, for that powerful testimony for sharing some of these stories, talking about the impact on families in las vegas and throughout her state and to talk about what this means from a parents' perspective to think that her own family had to wonder whether their loved one was going to come back from that shooting that dominated the news to think about how many lives were changed. senator blumenthal made a really important observation earlier and that was the numbers we're using here, 39,000 people dying a year, the names that we're reading into the record, these are the names of the individuals who have died but what we know is there are hundreds of

thousands of others who have survived gunshot wounds. the trauma is different, but it is still serious and acute when a loved one is shot, obviously that comes with a moral disruption to the family that's hard to calculate and often that injury has lifelong cons qebs -- consequences, individuals bound to a wheelchair, losing the use of legs or arms. these are serious consequences that affect the rest of your life and so while today we are reading into the record the names of those who have died, this stack, which represents, i think, just a fraction of those who have died in 2021, could be four times as high if we had fawcd about those who have -- talked about those who have been

injured in episodes of gun violence. other colleagues are going to join us here today -- tonight on the floor. while they do, let me just read into the record a handful of additional names. car are l -- cleveland sanders, court any smith, -- according -l bottom from georgia, darrell merriwether, da von, gregory marshan from missouri, ervin from new mexico, jacob lee haines from pennsylvania, jonathan martinez, pennsylvania, july eye julie legal carveles,

lee patrick david, west virginia, manyari smith, illinois, marquis louisiana, officer dominic jared, virginia; raymond william, kansas; reginald james, california; robert bigger, illinois. i'm sure some cynical viewer tonight may listen to a name they recognize on this list and say, oh, well, wait a second, i know that guy, he had a criminal

record. that individual was involved with some bad people. there's never a justification for a gun homicide. no matter whether the individuals on these lists were perfect angels or individuals who had made mistakes, none of them deserved to die in an episode of justice. to answer a hypothetical question, i haven't vetted the names i'm reading because not a single person on this list deserved to go in the way that they did. i remember talking to a woman who's become a friend in hartford, connecticut. she lost her son just about a

month before sandy hook. she remembers when sandy hook happened that she latched on to the number of children who were killed, 20 kids were killed that day in sandy hook. i asked senator bennet, were there survivors from the shooting in the supermarket in boulder, he said he had to check and i will check as well, but he wasn't sure there were individuals that were seriously injured. if that is the case, there's parallels to sandy hook, the weapons being used in these crimes are so lethal, so powerful, increasingly it's thoord survive wounds when -- to survive wounds when a bullet enters your body a speed, the bullets that are coming from an ar-15 weapon. in sandy hook, 20 kids were shot and all 20 died.

the number 20 was meaningful to my friend because her son was 20 years old when he was killed on october 20, 2012, the year of sandy hook. he was killed by a 20-year-old and he was the 20th victim of gun violence that year in hartford, connecticut. she told the story about what her life was like after her son was killed -- after shane was killed. she said, first, she didn't want to leave the house ever. she didn't want to see anybody. she would always walk down to the street to the cornerrer store to -- corner store to pick up groceries. she would drive there so there's no chance she would meet people on the way. her life became fundamentally

different, her life ended, in a way when her only son disappeared from the earth. she talked about this strange habit that came to dominate some of her evenings. she would get up in the middle of the night and she would get in her car and she'd drive to the site where shane was shot. shane was shot about two blocks from my house where i live in hartford, connecticut. i drive by the site of shane's shooting almost every day when i go back to our home had she'd drive to that site, she'd stop her car and she'd turn on her high beams as if she was waiting for shane to show up, as if she were waiting for him to come back. she knew he never was, but this became a habit. it just speaks to this immense trauma that families go through when they lose a loved one. a trauma that you can't truly

understand. in sandy hook, one mother adopted another curious, but understandable habit, in the years after sandy hook. she would during an afternoon on a saturday or sunday, convince herself that her son, who had been killed in sandy hook, was at a friend's house. she'd sort of create this fantasy, this fiction in her mind and she'd find it a little bit easier to go about cleaning up the house or doing laundry or playing with her other children if in her mind she could pretend, just for a half-hour or an hour that her son was safe at a friend's house. she was successful in contorting her mind to give her that space for that short period of time. it was what she needed to do. something that you never, ever

want to have to contemplate, creating these fictions in your mind to allow you to survive just for an hour at a time, shinning bright lights on an empty space near downtown hartford thinking that maybe your son will show up. these are contortions of action and thinking that nobody should have to deal with. rosawn tate, shana lynn welcomes, stanley taylor, ty reese, thomas, tyrone brown, tyrone gregory, anthony collins, anthony milian, antoine jamil

johnson, brad rumfield, brittany dawn scruggs, bryan fundora, car lessa taylor, curt inn smith, daevion pullom, detraio dijon whorton, james john del giorno, jessica morehouse, jordan reen, joseph marwan brown, jovanne holman, kevin neal, kimberly marcum, lentaius kor test hall, leonne kellam, lovelle

lovelleularramore. i apologize for mispronouncing many of these names, but it is it important to read these names into the record so at least they live in that space. because the numbers aren't moving our colleagues to action. so far this year, just 2021, there have been 9,649 gun-related deaths. these include homicides and murders, accidental shootings, and suicides. some people take issue with the fact that when we talk about the gun violence epidemic that we're including suicides in these numbers and there have been thousands of suicides in the united states this year, but

it's important that we talk about these deaths together. again, this evening is not going to be a time to go deep into the question of policy change, but when you do start to explore interventions and causes, you will find that many of the same causes for homicides cause suicides as well. for instance, there's a very clear correlation between poverty and gun homicide. there is a very clear correlation between poverty and your risk of suicide. there is a clear correlation between the ease of access to a firearm and homicide as there is to suicide in states that have universal background checks, there are generally lower rates of homicide, there are also generally lower rates of suicide as well. so we talk about suicides together. now, people are paying attention today to this epidemic because

of what has happened in atlanta and what has happened in colorado. and i understand why we pay more attention to mass shootings. there is something unique and frightening about large-scale indiscriminate slaughter. but mass shootings are just not those incidences where ten people die. there's mass shootings where three or four people are shot. that's still a significant crime. and so far this year there have been 104 of those. there's been 104 mass shootings this year. you didn't know that, right? you thought it was just atlanta and boulder. no, not true, there's been 104 mass shootings and i believe mass shootings are defined qh four or -- defined when four or more people have been shot. there have been 104 mass

shootings, 191 injuries of children aged 11 or younger. think about that. almost 200 kids aged 11 or younger have been killed. 129 deaths of teenagers, 128 deaths of teenagers aged 12 to 17. in may 2020, think about this. there were 61 mass shootings. in may 2020 we were mostly focused on the pandemic. we were focused on trying to get people well. the country was thought talking about gun violence in the way it normally would if there were 61 mass shootings in one month. that's the highest monthly total ever tallied by the gun violence archive which is a nonprofit research group where a lot of our data and names come from. they began tracking data in 2013 but since they've been tracking the data, may 2020 was the

highest number of mass shootings, but you didn't hear about it because most of those mass shootings were four, five, six people, not 20, 30, or 40. honestly, many of those mass shootings were likely people of color which don't get as much attention either. yushab mohammad of illinois, mccoby rogers, missouri. rox ann martinez, colorado. steve alfonso, north carolina. terence armor, michigan. timothy swoap, illinois. wendy lee higgins, florida. xzavior frost, oklahoma. anne marie winters wilson, georgia. audrey isham, indiana. cameron watkins, virginia. i'm not even close, mr. president, to the 9,649

gun-related deaths in 2021 al alone. i'm glad to be joined on the floor by my colleague, senator klobuchar who will yield -- who i will yield to in a moment. i want to thank her for being a real steadfast partner in these efforts and in particular focusing as she has on the crime of domestic violence. earlier this evening i was describing a murder in new haven, connecticut, that happened on the same day as colorado in which a young woman was sitting in a car with her boyfriend with her 1-year-old in the back seat. they were in an argument. she was trying to leave him. and she shot him in the car with the child in the back seat. i was talking about how little attention that got in connecticut, never mind the country, how we pay attention to these mass shootings for good

reason. but how every one of these individuals has a story attached to them. she was someone her friends relied on for counsel, for moral support. and how that death initiates so many other traumas. and i was honored to be able to read her name into the record tonight, one of many, who will now find their names on the congressional record so that, you know, at the very least, the record of our proceedings will remember her life and think about what could have been had we notten so cavalier with her life and her safety through our inaction. i yield the floor. ms. klobuchar: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: thank you so much, senator murphy for those beautiful words. when you honor the victims as you should, you honor all victims.

and what i found about these crimes, particularly the crime of domestic violence, is so often the victims have been hidden from view. it's the crime that takes place in someone's bedroom with the door closed. it's a crime that takes place in a house that no one ever sees. and as you know in that situation like this when there's a gun, it becomes deadly. and one of my memories when years ago a police officer in a small town in minnesota responded to a domestic violence call. and what a lot of people don't know is that oftentimes those are the most dangerous calls police officers take. and it was a young victim who had called the police, very young, and was someone who had severe mental illness problems. her boyfriend. and the police went to the door. the door is answered and the guy shot the police officer. and he was wearing a bulletproof vest but he shot him in the

head. and i was at that funeral. it's a reminder that the crime of domestic violence isn't just about one victim. it's about an entire community. and as the widow walked down the aisle of the church, she had her two little boys with her and then she was holding this little girl in a dress covered in stars. and the last time that family had been in that church was for the t nativity play that the bos were in and the dad was sitting proudly in the front row and now they were at his funeral. that's what we're talking about with gun violence. and i join my colleagues on the floor to honor americans whose lives were cruelly and unjustly taken from us by gun violence. and i'm going to read some names of people that should never be forgotten. in alabama chase green. in arizona, isiz garcia tovar,

senior. ie say yas -- isastovar, junior. in connecticut, wania turner. in delaware, damire chambers. in florida, ernst bug riggs, junior. in illinois brenda barnes, greg barnes senior and daniel kenny. in indiana chanelle neil. in kentucky kenya renee cunningham. demontre rhodes and katherine brian. in missouri johnny jones. in ohio, alonso lewis. in tennessee, we have vin nibeezy. in virginia eddie jenkins.

in wisconsin kevin kloth and kevin scheider. those are just 20 names out of the thousands lost every year, an nch of a hundred -- an average of a hundred each day. that's three classrooms of children. we also know the communities where mass shootings occur will never be the same. atlanta, georgia, boulder, colorado, and now the ever growing list of cities and towns forever altered but never forgotten. midland, virginia beach, pittsburgh, parkland, las vegas, orlando, charleston, newtown to name a few. i'm gladly saddened that my home state of minnesota also has communities on that list. on average someone is killed with a gun every 21 hours in my state. that is 422 people each year. tonight i'm going to focus on the loss of two women from minnesota, both of whom were health care workers and both

were moms. for the past year frontline health care workers protected us from the pandemic. but lindsey overbay and bao yang, we failed to protect them. in february, lindsey was killed in a horrible shooting at the atlanta health clinic in buffalo, minnesota where four of her coworkers were also injured. this just happened last month. she was a medical assistant at the clinic and devoted her life to healing others. she had a wonderful laugh that would make a room spark to life. her husband said her life was so distinctive that if you walked into the clinic and you heard her laughing, you knew exactly who it was. the spark of her own life was her family. her husband of ten years and her beloved children, an 8-year-old boy and a 5-year-old girl. friends said that she lived and breathed her kids, that she

cherished every moment spent with them. her field of cardiology put her in contact with older patients whom she loved caring for because she said, quote, they are at an age where they say what they are thinking, end quote. it's gut-wrenching and heartbreaking to think that lindsey won't get to that age, won't get that happy freedom, won't get to see her two children grow up and graduate and have families of their own. it has been reported that the shooter some described as a disgruntled patient had previously made threats against the clinic. although we don't know whether this tragedy would have been prevented in some way we know it would have been. we should be doing more to encourage states to pass commonsense laws that allow family members or law enforcement to get a court order temporarily, prevent a person who is in crisis from buying a gun. by the way, senator murphy knows

this -- after parkland i was in the white house when donald trump was president. i was seated across from him. i was seated next to former vice president pence and i was there because of the doamtion violence bill -- domestic violence bill that i lead. and i still have the piece of paper where i wrote the hashtags down on a piece of paper when donald trump said he was for universal background checks. not once, not ties, not three times, -- not twice, not three times, multiple times. when we talked about this issue, the idea of getting a court order to temporarily prevent a person who is in crisis from buying a gun, some vice president pence supported because of what had happened in indiana, and they had a similar law, president trump said he was for it, that he was for this stuff. and then what happens? and we all know this. the next day, two days later after this meeting that we had that was on tv, he met with the n.r.a. and he backed down. we can't keep backing down and

we know we now have a president, joe biden, that will not back down. so here's another story. just days ago we lost another mother of two. ms. bao yang of st. paul, minnesota. she worked hard raising her sons ages 21 and 11 as a single mom. she held multiple jobs while she studied to be a nurse graduating and getting her license a few years ago. according to her son all she ever wanted was to raise my little brother in the best life she could give him. i could see how much stress she carried every day but still always managed to provide for us. her sister said she was a sweet, loving, caring, hardworking person who only wanted the best for everyone. but a few days ago right around what happened in atlanta on

saturday morning these stories are both completely fresh. they just happened. saturday morning at 8:30, police were called to her house where they found that she had been shot. she died later that morning. according to her family, she was a victim of domestic violence turned deadly because of a gun. her killer was her former boyfriend. unfortunately, her story is far too common. according to the department of justice, nearly half of women killed by intimate partners are killed by current or former dating partners. violence free minnesota, a statewide coalition of organizations that provide services to victims of domestic abuse said that her homicide was -- she was the eighth minnesotan to die due to domestic violence this year. there were 29 domestic violence-related deaths in minnesota last year. and yet federal law does not prohibit abusive dating partners or convicted stalkers from buying a gun which is a problem

i've been trying to fix since i got to washington. we had hearings on this bill. we had a hearing in the judiciary committee years ago where the republican witnesses agreed that we should close what's called the boyfriend loophole. as one of the conservative sheriffs had testified from ways said -- from wisconsin said, he said that basically mean boyfriends shoot just as hard and hit just as hard as mean husbands. but yet that discrepancy exists in a number of states. and what just happened just a few weeks ago? the violence against women act passed in the house of representatives, senator murphy. it passed in the house of representatives with 29 republican votes and that provision is in there. that is now coming over to the u.s. senate and it's been one of the reasons this bill has been stalled out. i do not know how after what we have seen with the numbers of

domestic violence cases, after the story i just told of a woman we just lost this weekend how after what happened in atlanta we cannot acknowledge this violence against women, in particular against women of color. so this one thing that we can do right now. we literally can pass that bill as we work on background checks and all of the other things that we need to do. and i will end with this since senator murphy, what happened in his state with the sandy hook shooting, was forever etched on all of our minds and memories. it still goes down for me when people say what's your best day in the senate. i talk about a bill i passed of maybe little note to some involving a young girl that was killed as a result of a swimming pool tragedy. and we fixed that rule about pools. at least a few years ago no one had died since. then they asked what the saddest day. for me the saddest day is when the background check, the bipartisan background check went

down because those parents that senator murphy knows so well were in my office and i was one of the several senators that had to tell them that no, even though they had the courage to come before the senate, in particular one woman who told me that story of waiting in the firehouse, waiting as one by one the kids would come in and pretty soon they knew that they would never see their little boy again. and how she just broke down crying, remembering the last thing she had seen him do which was point to the picture of the school aide on their refrigerator. and as she sat there crumpled on the floor crying, she thought of that aide and that she'll never leave her side and when they found him shot in school that woman had her arms wrapped around that little boy and they were both shot to death and we had to look at those families and say you had the courage to fight for at that bill that wouldn't have prevented them from killing your children but

you knew, and that was background checks. but the senate did not have the courage to pass it. that time has come. the courage must be in all of us, and we must get this done. thank you, senator murphy. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. casey: mr. president, i rise as my colleagues have tonight to talk about gun violence again. it seems that only a few months passes when we're here over and over again talking about this uniquely american problem.

tonight we gather in grief. a lot of sadness throughout the country. people offering, as i do tonight, once again condolences to the families in both the state of georgia, the state of colorado, and so many others, so many other families throughout the country have lost a loved one just in the last week or month or within the last year. but we also, i think, tonight have to do more than just offer condolences and offer support for the families. we have to ask ourselves some basic questions. and one question that keeps coming back every time we gather, at least for me it doesr a lot of americans -- is not simply why are we not beginning to solve this problem, why aren't we taking action.

there are obvious questions we all ask. but one question that keeps coming to me over and over again is a simple question about the united states senate. will the united states senate once again, as it has now we can say year after year, will the united states senate surrender to gun violence? that's a question i've been asking myself. i certainly asked it on this floor. will the senate continue to surrender to gun violence? and by extension, therefore, the country is not taking action when we don't take action. the only way that we can begin to solve this problem over time is to take action here in the senate. the house has acted over and over again, as we know, bill after bill. in a larger sense, we have to

ask ourselves is it really true, will it be true again that the most powerful nation on earth, really the most powerful nation in the history of the human race, will that nation once again surrender to this problem because of inaction here? i know this is true in every state in the union, but i certainly know it's true in pennsylvania. the people of my home state and the people of america expect us to act. they don't expect us to surrender once again to this problem. they expect us to take action to pass commonsense gun measures that will at a minimum reduce the likelihood that we'll have more mass shootings like we've experienced just in the last week. and over and over again overly

overly -- over and over again over months and now years, and now we're moving into decades of mass casualty events involving guns. so they expect us to act, not to genuflect to the gun lobby. and tonight we have to ask that question again. will the united states senate surrender to this problem and really by implication surrender and genuflect to the gun lobby? tonight i know that my colleague from connecticut, senator murphy, and others have read through some names of victims of gun violence, and i'll add to that list. it's about 20. just a fraction, a tiny fraction of those we lost just in the last couple of years from so many different states. court land williams from the state of missouri. marcus o'brien young from the

state of north carolina. markes warden from virginia. marvin scott from maryland. melvin porter from georgia. omar muhammad juma from texas. russell jones, also from texas. sevian themarkus washington from the state of alabama. angela thomas from oklahoma. stephanie lee from ohio. tajil lefloor from california. tian burwell from virginia. xavier cantor from south carolina. brenda sue strasser, maryland.

taralyn cantrell arkansas. teshandra from mississippi. darius ford from georgia. ramel richardson from louisiana. sarah laroka from colorado. and finally andrei odom from ohio. i'm not sure it's possible for any one of us who hasn't been, whose family has not been a victim of gun violence to in any way not only understand but even to offer the appropriate words that we try to offer to these families on a night like this and on so many other days and nights. i always turn back to the words of others about what this might mean to those families. i just can't even imagine what it would be like to lose a

family member to gun violence or to any violence, for that matter. remember the words of the great recording artist bruce springsteen. he wrote a song in the aftermath, the horror of the aftermath of 9/11, and he was trying to capture in a series of songs that he wrote and put in an album at the time, capturing the loss, the pain, the pain of the loss that so many american families felt at that time. and i always thought it was applicable, that kind of loss to what these families feel when a member of their family is killed by gun violence. springsteen's refrain in that song -- the name of the song is "you're missing." he keeps using that refrain, you're missing when i shut out the lights. you're missing when i close my eyes. you're missing when i see the sun rise. that's the reality for these

families. every moment of their day will be a time when they will be missing that family member. for god only knows how long. so we're thinking of those families tonight who have loved and lost. we're also remembering -- and this is another area where we have not taken action. we're also remembering families that had a member of their family become a victim of gun violence but they survived, but their life has changed unalterably. the life of that individual has changed, the life of his or her family changes, and so many burdens they have to carry having survived gun violence. we know that 100 are killed each day, more than 40,000 across the country in our country. but we also know numbers about

those who have survived. 230 people sustain a nonfatal gun injury every day. it's estimated that about ten million americans have been shot and injured during their lifetime. ten million americans. we also know that gun violence injuries are more likely to occur in younger people. each year approximately 15,600 children and teenagers are shot and injured. black children and teenagers are 14 times more likely than their white peers to die by gun homicide. those who survive, those huge numbers who survive have their lives changed forever. the role that that victim plays in the family is made exponentially more difficult. i'll talk about one of those individuals tonight.

his name is asir harris. asir harris was 17 years old in february of 2018. february 15 to be exact. it was the day after the parkland shooting in florida. azir was shot five times on his way to grab something to eat with two of his friends in south philadelphia. he was paralyzed from the waist down, struck in the crossfire of gun violence as an innocent bystander. azir's life and his family's life was turned upside down in seconds. their house was just blocks away from where he almost lost his life. again, as i said, shot five times. to navigate their two-story home, azir's father would carry him up and down the stairs in their home. they searched desperately to

relocate but were having trouble finding housing. which is often nearly impossible for victims of gun violence. the family was eventually able to relocate into a home in north philadelphia, but in the process they were forced to leave behind some of their adult children in the old home they came from. azir continues to learn about how to navigate his new life in a wheelchair, and the family continues to struggle to find ways to improve his quality of life. now they're searching for housing outside of the city so they might be able to find a home with a backyard for azir to enjoy. azir and his family will never be able to forget about this shooting, when he was shot five times, because they live with the consequences of that violence every single day. they are just one of millions who struggle financially, who

struggle physically, who struggle emotionally because of the trauma of gun violence that has ravaged our communities, our schools, our churches, and our businesses. so the united states senate has an obligation on this part of the problem as well. we can't surrender to gun violence and we can't surrender to the question of what we're going to do to help those who survive. we certainly have to pass commonsense gun measures, as i mentioned before. something as simple as overwhelmingly popular as universal background checks. and at the same time we can pass a number of other commonsense measures, including a bill that i'm leading with here in the senate and paired up with united states representatives dwight evans in the house, a great leader in our state from the city of philadelphia. this bill is the resources for

victims of gun violence, and dwight evans and i are working to get it passed. the bill would create an interagency advisory council with experts from federal agencies, victims of gun violence and victim assistance professionals. among other things, this council would make it easier for victims to gather resources by disseminating information about different benefits and programs that could assist the victims, the victims of gun violence like azir and his family. but i come back to where i started as i conclude my remarks, mr. president. we have to ask that question, will the united states senate once again surrender to gun violence, do nothing about the tragic loss of life that we've seen just in the last week,

surrender to the carnage that we see not just this week and last week and month after month, but now literally decade after decade. there hasn't been on the floor of the united states senate a significant substantial debate on gun violence in i don't know how long, i guess since 2013. eight years of virtually no debate and eight years of not voting, not even casting a vote on these commonsense gun measures because the gun lobby has created a blockade. so the senate was not even permitted i guess under their rules, the rules of the gun lobby and the rules of the majority most recently, prohibited from even debating, let alone voting on commonsense measures. so while the victims of gun violence are burdened by the --

all the changes in their lives and the expense and the trauma they lived through, while others suffer through the consequence of losing a loved one and -- and feel that sense of missing someone every day, while all that's happening, the united states senate is frozen in place for eight years at least where we haven't even voted on commonsense measures. it's time for the united states senate to act, not to genuflect to the gun lobby like so many in this chamber seem to want to do year after year. it's time for the senate to act and pass commonsense gun reform at long last. i yield the floor. blument blument mr. president. the presiding officer: -- mr. blumenthal: mr. president, i want to thank senator casey and all of my colleagues for coming

to the floor tonight that senator murphy and i are now leading and now recognize senator van hollen from maryland who is a great friend and colleague who knows a lot about this topic. mr. van hollen: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. president. i want to thank senator blumenthal, senator murphy, everybody, who has been brought together by this tragedy that we witnessed in our country, first a few days ago in atlanta and then boulder. and the tragedy is these are not isolated events. these are the kind of tragedies that we see all too often and indeed every day in neighborhoods and streets around our country. so it's important that we come together to talk about the horror of the daily toll of gun

violence and also highlight the horror of the fact that this body and the federal government have not taken action to stop it -- those daily horrors. mr. president, i want to begin by joining my colleagues and reading outloud the names of 20 of our fellow americans who have perished from gun violence just this year. 15 from across the country and five from my home state of maryland. this is this year and this is just a few of those who have been shut down and shot down through gun violence. caleb day, of ohio, age 19. cody nichols, campbell of indiana, age 27.

alex jackson, of new mexico, age 15. gregory duane lynne, of texas, age 32. deborah derek, of new jersey, age 63. jason b. west, of north carolina, age 36. jeremiah lowery of louisiana, age 17. caleb martin, of south carolina, age 18. lavonte sharon johnson, of virginia, age 23. holly elizabeth beerd, of montana, alabama, march 11, 2021, age 51. jessica louise of texas, age 20. nagibat sole.

richard douglas sloan, of kentucky, age 33. tyre riley, of indiana, age 18. and in maryland, -- in my state of maryland just this year, april renee lawson, age 18. genesis garrett, able 22 -- age 22. teri welcomes, -- williams, age 18. again gersly, age 50. guy thomas, age 52. mr. president, we read these names tonight and remember these lives because it is important to pay tribute to those who we've

lost but it is also to make sure that tonight is not the end of their story and that we dedicate ourselves to turning words into action here in the united states senate. our country's now experiencing an upswing in gun violence, the largest increase in gun violence since 1960, between the years 2019 and 2020, we've seen that big jump. and it should horrify everyone and give us pause and cause us to reflect. mr. president, i've been texting back and forth in the last few days after the shootings in atlanta and boulder with a friend of mine that i first met

two decades ago. her name is carol pryce, and i met her under the most tragic of circumstances. carol and her husband john lost their beloved 13-year-old son john to gun violence. their beautiful 13-year-old boy john went next door to play at a neighbor's house. there was a loose gun and it was an accidental shooting. john died. he was 13 years old. like so many other parents or loved ones of victims of shooting deaths, carol had the courage to take her pain, take her tragedy and work to try to make sure that that kind of pain and tragedy didn't happen to

another family in the state of maryland or in the country. but she did what was within her power. at the time i was in the maryland legislature and she came and implored the maryland legislature to do something -- something to prevent this kind of horrible tragedy from being experienced by other maryland families. and the legislature acted. maryland became the first state in the country at that time to require that guns sold in our state have embedded trigger locks, safety locks so that if they were left lying around, it would be less likely that some 13-year-old boy or girl would pick it up and shoot their friend. and that bill saved lives in maryland. that's because of carol pryce. and you think of what's

happening today in our country, the pandemic hit, what did we do? we worked to follow the advice of public health experts, social distance, wear masks and went into overdrive to develop a vaccine to stop the deaths. so when it comes to the epidemic of gun violence, we see no such actions being taken here at the federal level. the normal thing to do to do what the maryland state legislature did in response to that tragedy that care pryce brought to prevent other families from experiencing that tragedy. and when carol texted me the other day, it was just another

reminder that the pain of losing a loved one to gun violence never goes away. and, in fact, that pain comes back again and again when we see these mass shootings, and it comes back again and again when carol pryce reads about another boy or girl or other person who's died from gun violence in maryland. again, we see it on a daily basis. and the reason it's so important that we come together and focus on this is that there are some, i think in our country, who have lost capacity to be surprised. i know we were all shocked and surprised after columbine, after sandy hook, after the pulse

nightclub and the emanuel shooting, maybe the shooting in las vegas. we were shocked at some point in the past that people would indiscriminately take the lives of others. we were shocked at the daily toll of gun violence, even if it was in a place like baltimore, another city in maryland, that it didn't make the national news but still was a shocking thing that somebody would just gun down a fellow human being. but now when we see it happen time and again, mass shootings and the daily toll, nobody can claim surprise. what is surprising is that as a nation we haven't summoned the will to do something about it the same way we've worked to summon the will to defeat the coronavirus pandemic.

in 2019, 757 marylanders died from gun violence. in fact, it's become so routine that by this time tomorrow on the current trajectory, two more -- two more marylanders will have died from gun violence. that's one state out of our 50 states. this is something that tears at the fabric of communities in our country. it has had a disproportionate impact and pain on communities of color. i want to tell my colleagues about denise reed who knows what it's like to carry the burden and pain of losing loved ones to gun violence. denise grew up in baltimore. she lost her uncle to gun

violence. she lost her cousin to gun violence. she lost her cousin's girlfriend to gun violence. her mother was shot standing in the doorway of their baltimore home. thankfully she survived. in october 2006, denise's sun tayvon was shot and gravely wounded, paralyzed from the neck down. he survived his injury for three years but passed away after that. so tonight, i ask all of us to pay tribute to denise and her son tayvon walter sr. who's gone too soon. but i want to tell you about denise because she is an inspiration to us all. she still lives in baltimore.

she works as the chaplain with the baltimore city police working every day to serve her community and give back to the city she loves but wants to make better and safer. my state of maryland has thankfully joined denise and carol pryce and all of those who have lost someone to gun violence by passing commonsense measures in our state of maryland. but the state of maryland, like every other state, is not an island. we can't do it alone. we need for the congress to take action. if you look at guns that are used in maryland in crimes, 54% of them come from outside of the state of maryland, from states that do not have those kind of

commonsense gun laws that make people safer. and so maryland, like so many other states, is calling upon our brothers and sisters from across the union to help us take action and we know that the public believes and understands that too. some of my colleagues have said 90% of the american public supports basic background checks for people purchasing guns. i want to tell my colleagues about michael derrick bond who was born march 18, 1983. excelled in school throughout his life. he went to college in maryland. then he moved to delaware. his mother, cheryl, remembers picking up the phone one day and hearing her son at the other end of the line saying, mom, i went to walmart and got a gun in 15 minutes. i can't get a driver's license

that fast but i got a gun because i'm feeling pain and i have a gun to my head. cheryl and michael spoke on the phone for two hours before michael agreed to take the bullets out of his gun. but that wasn't the last time that he made an attempt, and michael died of suicide, a gunshot, february 2014. mr. president, whether it's the ease of getting a gun to commit suicide or the ease ever getting a gun to -- of getting a gun to shoot down others, what we have in the country today is simply unacceptable. as daniel webster who's a public health researcher at johns hopkins university of maryland has said, gun violence is not inevitable. it's very preventable. we know that. we know there are things we can do to prevent gun violence. mr. president, i'm not going to

into into a litany of legislation that we could pass to make things better. i do want to point out, though, that we have an organization, the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms and explosives, a.t.f. as it's commonly referred to, whose job it is, who's charged with protecting the public from the illegal use and trafficking of firearms, and yet while we give them that charge, we give them that responsibility, the house and the senate over the years have tied up their hands. we've handcuffed them. we've made it very difficult for them to do their job. we prevent them from sharing trace crime data on firearms with the public and on people doing research into the gun violence epidemic. we bar the a.t.f. from legally

requiring gun dealers to keep accurate inventories of their guns and report lost or stolen firearms. simple things like that that we say they can't do. mr. president, i want to end by talking about an initiative of the mayor of baltimore city, mayor brandon scott who's worked with every town, the organization, to create a cutting edge internal system to help law enforcement track and understand and disrupt the stream of firearms entering the city of baltimore. and they've worked hard to try to overcome these obstacles that we put in the way of a.t.f. but that's a challenge and it shouldn't be so hard. we had a program in the city of baltimore, still do. it's called safe streets.

it's headed by a person called don take barksdale. he went by the name of tatter. known throughout baltimore as the smiling face of safe streets which was a gun violence prevention program. donte was committed to the mission. he helped others learn to put down their guns. donte was shot to death on january 17 of this year. in that moment maryland lost a son, a mentor, a hero as mayor scott called him, a man who saved thousands of lives in our city, thousands of lives, and yet his was taken by gun violence. gun violence that's preventable. mr. president, i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: member after member has come down tonight to speak, and the conversations as we all have come down here was to come do something that i think is exordinarily poignant. this is a floor where policy is debated, where ideas of governance are discussed. it is the deliberative body. but we are in a democracy and we represent people. and so tonight the idea was that we would come down here and talk about people, but the pain is that they are not alive, that we would discuss the deceased, the

dead, the murdered, the killed. i believe that if america has not broken your heart, then you don't love her enough. name after name tonight has been spoken by colleague after colleague and dear god, every single name is a son or daughter. it is a brother or sister. it is a family member. they are a person -- part of a community and they are dead. but this is not just any limited list. it seems to grow like a cancer on the s soul of our country. you take my age, 51 years old. in just the time of my life, the death in our country has been

something like has never before been seen. and even a country at war. because the people that have died, the human beings that have lost, the family members that have been slain, their total number in just my lifetime add up to more than all of the americans that have died in every single war from the revolution to our current wars in the middle east. and so my friends and my colleagues have read name after name after name, but the painful heartbreaking reality is we could have taken hour after hour over days after days to name the total that have died in my lifetime. and the heartbreak, the stories that they have to stagger you,

when you hear the testimony on march 1, cadence pique who was 4 years old and his brother who was 3 years old were gunned down, killed in warsaw, missouri. jennifer garcia, 21 years of a age, charlie lopez, 20 years killed in portland, oregon. say their names. say their names. say their names. coby hilliard, 19, killed in temple, texas. april williams, 21, her mom tammy briggs, 46, killed in

georgia. in augusta. say their names. say their names. christine ruffin, age 61, killed with a gun in palm city, flo florida. delquon daniels, 23 years old, killed with a gun in rochester, new york. say their names. say their names. jurisan vasquez, 19, killed with a gun in myrtle beach, south carolina. lionel darling, age 39. ranisha doddson, age 30, killed with guns. killed with guns. say their name. say their name. maritzaromahila, penagua , age

20, killed with a gun in loss angelus. another killed with a gun in chicago. mishila marie meredith, 19, killed with a gun in el dorado, illinois. victor booker, age 20, killed with a gun in fiend nings, -- phoenix, arizona, ronald lee roy, junior, age 25 killed with a gun in columbus, ohio. say their names. say their names. this is the question of our country. what is the quality of our mercy. how courageous is our empathy? how destitute is our compassion? how anemic is our love for one another that this many americans are dying hour after hour, day after day, month after month, year after year? the carnage in our country like never before seen in humanity,

and we do nothing as a society. and a government that was formed to -- for a more perfect union, for domestic tranquility, for justice at the top of our federal government's constitution is the very ideal that we are for the common defense. say their names. do we honor them? do we love their survivors? love is not sentimentality. it's not words. it demands something. it necessitates sacrifice. and i can't tell you -- i am one of those folks who serving as

mayor in an american city would have my police officers show me the films of murders from our cameras, human beings being shot and killed. how could it not shake the core of your soul? how could it not rip open wounds that cannot be healed? my colleagues reading names of people, children lost, kids lost to suicide, bodies mangled, people paralyzed. how could it not call to your conscience? how could it not demand from all of us not to sit idly by and watch and witness? we are wounded as a society. we are hurting. there is pain that is unspoken. and that is so dangerous. 2018, shahad smith.

i knew him well. i used to live in high-rise projects at the top of my block. there was a group of boys led by this young man named hassan washington. hassan was brilliant. he was funny. he had a sharp wit. he had charisma. that had was -- shahad was one the young man in high school who hang out with him in the lobby of my buildings. i would come home and see them there. i'll tell you in 2018, i make it to the united states senate. and i get a call from jimmy wright, police officer from those buildings who -- a beautiful man. and he was shaken. they killed shahad on my block where i live as a united states senator, at the top of my block. and i'll never forget who you jimmy described it. he said, i talked to the police

officer. he was killed with an assault rifle. the police officer told me his head exploded. and i -- i -- i had to hold on to something because most of the kids from that lobby, the children i watched grow up in my eight years living in those projects and those buildings, black boys in a world where there's so much assault. the first of them to die. 2005 i would come home at night. was chasing my dream to be the mayor of the largest city in my state.

i was getting ready to run for office. i came home and i smelled marijuana in the lobby. now, we live in a country where it's a lot different watching kids at stanford or yale spoke pot who have no worries. but for inner city black kids, i'll tell you right now they have no margins for experimentation. i said to myself, oh, i got to intervene here. so i started asking the -- let's get out of this lobby. let's go do something. let's go to the movies. let's eat. i will never forget, i said you guys choose a movie. that was a mistake, because they took me to something called "saw 2." do not see that movie. we went out to dinner, andrew's diner. i asked them what their dreams were and this moved me because they were humble dreams. i said i would connect them with mentors. i had all these plans about how

to help these young men get out of the danger zone. then i got too busy with my campaign. and i remember feeling a little guilty that i was too busy to follow through on the commitments i had made, and i, i consoled myself that i was running for mayor when i become mayor i'll be able to help all children in the city. i'll step up then. let me get through this campaign. i would come home at night, the boys weren't mad at me or anything like that. they would still greet me and cheer me on when i came into the lobby, shahad and hassan. it would lift me up. one day they had lawn signs waving them and formed a parade line, as i walked down, waving them until i got in the elevator and then i realized where did they get those lawn signs from? they're kind of expensive. i ended up winning, and i had death threats on me. when you're elected office, death threats, you have security. the next thing i know, i had

police officers stationed in the lobby and the boys weren't there anymore. they didn't want to hang out where the police officers were. and i didn't think too much about it because i was running at full speed as a new mayor. 36, 37 years old, the violent crime in our city was peaking. there were too many shooters in that hot summer, i will never forget. i would run to every street corner where i could where there was a shooting from our city and i would stand there and say this is not who we are. this is not america. this is not newark. we're going to overcome this. i would give street level sermons telling people about the vision for our city and we would eventually turn down the violence. but in those early days, a month into my office i show up on a street corner, there is a body covered by a sheet and another one being loaded on the back of an ambulance, and i barely paid attention to the humanity on the street. i didn't ask for the names. i was busy, i was too busy

ministering to the living. i get home that night to steal a couple hours of sleep in my early days as mayor, and i'll never forget sitting in my bedroom with my p blackberry going through it, and i saw the name on the homicide report. in that moment in my life, something broke if me that will never fix. it wasn't an anonymous name that i didn't know. it wasn't just a cold issuance of another crime in a big city. the name was hassan washington, four floor below me he lives with his grandma.

a kid i promised to help with his dreams. i will never forget his funeral for as long as i live. perry's funeral home, god bless them, those professionals, i entered that funeral home as the newly minted mayor, and i was so upset when i saw it was in their basement room because going into that room was like descending into a ship, a narrow staircase. i get into this room, we were piled on top of each other like we were chained together in grief. people were crying. everybody was showing up. everybody was there for what is an american tradition almost every day, another boy, another black boy in a box killed by a gun.

and i wish i could tell you, mr. president, that i was strong in that moment. i wish i could tell you that i was mayoral, that i was the leader, the father of the city but i wasn't. i felt shame, i felt hurt, i felt embarrassment. i tried to lean on other people in that room. there were folk i had known for years. but finally i had enough, i had to run. i left there. i jumped in my s.u.v., drove to my new office in city hall, and for the first time, not the last, but for the first time as the mayor in new jersey's great and largest city, i sat in that office and i wept over a dead boy. and all i could think about was climbing through the feelings of shame and hurt and pain. all i could think about was that funeral, that basement room packed full of people.

all of us were there for his death, but where were we for his life? what a morbid thing we've been doing here tonight. reading the names of dead people, killed in our country, hoping that somehow, somehow we can change. well, i will tell you this right now. we are in a distraught moment in our nation, where most of us agree on solid steps. it won't solve all of the problems but it would make a difference. it would save a hassan, it would save a shahad. it would save the three- and four-year olds whose names i've

read. the question is, how courageous are we? how much do we truly love one another? what will we do? this is a moment in american history that could be the inflection point. if we act now, we can end some of this nightmare. if we fail to do anything, we'll be back here again. the list of the dead will be longer. the heartache and the pain and the wounds and the grief and the sorrow and the shame will be deeper in america, the world's greatest country. we must demand of each other a greater love. we must end the poverty of empathy. we must free ourselves from this prison, from this dungeon.

we must release ourselves from these chains. we must demand that this nation be the nation we want it to be, be the nation we hope it should be, be the nation that those in military uniforms died for, a nation where we make real the greatest principles of humanity, the greatest calling of every faith that there is. not words, but real true manifestation of the principle and the call. will we be silent? will we be ignorant? will we avoid? will we do nothing? will we be passive? or will we truly be a nation that loves one another? i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: marsha wrightman curry from new york.

mitchell wright jr. from missouri. nicholas tarply from pennsylvania. ruben lewis iii from california. rice wingate bay, maryland. robert croshiar, massachusetts. samuel lament smith williams, tennessee. spencer wilcox oregon. anthony castillo, new york. mr. president, we didn't come close to finishing this list tonight. we didn't make a dent in the list of those names of the people that have died from gun violence in 2021 alone, a year in which almost 10,000 people have died in less than three months from suicides and homicides and accidental shootings. it's a choice.

none of this is inevitable. almost all of it is preventable. it only happens here in the united states of america because other countries make different choices. congress goes for the next two weeks on a district work period. we wanted to come to the floor tonight to make clear that we are not going to forget those who have died through the inaction of this body, their national leaders that were going to renew our commitment to be better and to change and to begin that process in the wake of the shootings in boulder and atlanta by making sure that everybody hears the names of those who have died. i yield to senator bluhm thowl to wrap up -- to senator blumenthal to wrap up for the evening. mr. blumenthal: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut.

mr. blumenthal: there is no last word tonight. there is no final saying here. there are no final names. ito roman. ayala yew -- eubanks. dominic boston. james ray. we could be here a long time, but the tragedy is there will be more names, 100 more at this time tomorrow night. and every one of these names is a future cut short. every one of them is a life that could have given so much, bringing more light and joy, pride, grace, dignity. my colleagues have come to the floor with great eloquence, and i want to thank them.

but the most eloquent part of tonight are the names, and we should take inspiration from the courage of their families, the strength of survivors, the advocates and activists who are forming a political movement that is creating ripples turning into waves that will overcome. they will overcome. the cowardice of colleagues who fail to heed the american public , and they will be held accountable. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: i ask that we dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: i understand there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 963, a bill to authorize a dedicated domestic terrorism offices within the office of homeland security and so forth and for other purposes. mr. murphy: mr. president, i now ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be -- the bill will

receive a second reading on the next legislative day. mr. murphy: mr. president, i now ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h.r. 1651, which was received from the house and is at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 1651, an act to amend the cares act to extend the sunset for the definition of small business debtor and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. murphy: mr. president, i further ask the durbin amendment be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: mr. president, finally, i would ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it

adjourns until 10:00 a.m., thursday, march 25, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed. that upon the conclusion of morning business, the senate resume the motion to proceed to proceed to calendar number 11, h.r. 1799, as provided under the previous order, finally the votes scheduled for 11:00 a.m., begin at 10:45 a.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. murphy: for the information of senators, we expect to have four roll call votes beginning at 10:45 a.m. tomorrow, additional roll call votes are expected during thursday's session. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator sullivan and senator sasse. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. sullivan: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: mr. president, i want to come down to the senate

floor for a couple of reasons, but first i want to talk a little bit about what happened in alaska last weekend, an important meeting between the united states and china. our senior diplomats, their senior diplomats took place in alaska appeared let's just say -- alaska, and let's say it was as frosties a the alaska -- frosty alaska area. chinese were -- there was a bit of a tongue-lashing of tony lincoln, i think our team pushed back appropriately, our national security provider, jake campbell. this was the first face-to-face meeting between the united

states and chinese diplomats with the biden administration. and what we saw, mr. president, was a very confident china, a very aggressive china that showed up in alaska. for example, they were talking about, quote, chinese-style democracy. we also know that as a dictatorship. earth to the chinese communist party, there is no democracy in coal mine. you run an authoritarian regime, so don't try too fool anybody. it's a dictatorship, not a democracy. but, mr. president, the bigger issue is this. xi jinping, believe that it is rising, that for this century, it is unstoppable and that for the united states and the west, but particularly the united states, our country, is declining and there's nothing we

can do to stop this. they say this in private, they say it in public, and they believe it and they are confident to the point of being cocky, -- as we saw in alaska to the point of calling their dictatorship a democracy, and of course it isn't. my view and i think it is the view of every senator here, it is never a good idea to bet against the united states. every major power in the world that has done so has lost that bet. that's a fact. but we clearly have work to do. we have a lot of work to do as it relates to this challenge. mr. president, i've been coming to the senate floor for the last six years talking about this issue, talking about this challenge, talking about some of the thing that need to do to address the biggest u.s. strategic challenge for this century, it's the rise of china. now we have a new administration

in power and it was clear from the alaska meeting that the chinese communist party plans to aggressively challenge the biden administration. now, i have a lot of disagreements already with the biden administration, especially the way in which they are treating my state. i've been speaking on the senate floor, eight executive orders, focused on alaska, shutting down our economy, killing jobs, and i will fight them hard on this. but, mr. president, on china, i believe it is imperative that we all work together, not as democrats and republicans, but as americans, as we have done when other major powers have threatened the united states. the communist party of china clearly sees one of our major weaknesses as our political

divisions. they write about it. it's in all the intel. they talk about it. and, look, we're a democracy, we're transparent, unlike them. our political divisions are on full display. you see them tonight. by the way, we've had political division since the found -- since the founding of the republic. china doesn't share their political divisions with the world, but they have them, no doubt about it. but here's a fact -- here is a fact and we'll all need to know this. every american needs to know this. xi jinping and the chinese communist party's worst nightmare is seeing a long-term, bipartisan strong u.s. strategy to deal with the rise of china, to deal with the rise of china for what they are, our number one geo tra extra trijic -- geostrategic challenge for this

century. it is something that we need to work together on, on this issue. and it's something that's starting to happen. it's something that's starting to happen. now, i had a good opportunity to meet with secretary blinken, to neat with national security advisor, jake sullivan, curt campbell, when they were in alaska and i also was able to get a good debrief from secretary austin about his visits in asia, particularly in india. the secretary of state and the national security advisor talk about dealing with china from what they call positions or situations of strength -- situations of strength. they actually took that term from the foarl secretary of -- former secretary of state dean atchenson, which they are trying to put together a long testify

term strategy in 1947, 1948, 1949 to deal with the soviet union and they did it with democrats and republicans, nato, the strategy of containment. these were all things that came together in this body. so i want to talk very briefly about these -- some of these positions of strength that the administration is trying to put together as it relates to china and i think it's in our interest to help them. first of all, i think it's important, and of course as an alaska senator, i was glad that meeting took place in anchorage. but it was also a symbol, one of the things the chinese frequently states, xi jinping frequently states it is that asia should be for asians. the subtext of that is we're trying to kick the united states out of asia. here's more news for the

chinese, the communist party of china, we are an asian nation. we've been an asian nation for centuries. my hometown of anchorage where this meeting took place is closer to tokyo than is it to this city, washington, d.c. aleutian island chain goes to the other side. we have been there 200 years, we'll be there 200, 300, 500 more. i'm glad they held the meeting in alaska for that reason, on american soil, and they chose to do that purposely. mr. president, let me talk about a couple of other positions of strength that i think it's incumbent upon us to try to help this administration to help our country with. some are going to be up in the senate and the house. a lot more are going to be up to the president and his team where we can influence it, we should.

as i mentioned, politically being unified on issues that relate to china is exactly what the chinese communist party fears the most and it's starting to happen. legislation to outcompete china economically, critical -- critical. the more that we can do that, the more that we can show we're united, the more important what we do here is going to matter in the long-term competition with regard to china. let me give you another one, mr. president. allies. allies. the united states is an ally-rich nation, china is an ally-poor country. very few allies, north korea, russia, maybe, maybe not. china doesn't have allies, they

have customers. we have a network and it is one of our most important strad strategies. -- strategies. and i will give the administration a lot of credit for setting this up in an important way for their first meeting. the leaders of the quad. the quad is the united states, japan, australia and india. started by president george w. bush, taken to another level by president trump and taken to a really high level by president biden, the leader level was a really smart move. the quad could help anchor our alliances in the region in a critical way, three of the four biggest economies in the world are part of the quad. some of the best milts in the world are -- militaries in the world are part of the quad. so to have that meeting, even though it was virtual with the leaders, presidents, prime ministers of the quad was smart

and something i think they should be commended on. then to have the secretary of state and the secretary of defense go to korea, go to japan, continue on, the secretary of defense, to india. also very smart. the chinese know this is a huge weakness of theirs and it's a huge strength of ours. and as senators, the more that we can do to encourage this on our own, go to these countries, reinforce the importance of these alliances is clearly a position of strength that the administration is off to a good start with. let me give you another within, mr. president. a position of strength, our military. our military. this is going to be pretty simple. if we see dramatic cuts to our military, and right now the biden administration is debating this. there is a real fight going on internally. where is the budget going to be?

we can't see cuts. the second term of the obama-biden administration cut defense by 25%, they gutted readiness. the chinese an russians -- and russians were applauding that whole period. we worked hard to build that up under the trump administration. they are going to keep it going. last year in the ndaa, we put in the defense bill a bipartisan piece of legislation called the pacific deterrence initiative. the admiral in charge of the indo-pacific region testified in front of the armed services committee, his replacement testified yesterday, all of them said we need to fully fund the pacific initiative, a bipartisan part of the defense bill last year, $4.6 billion is what they

think we need. to reorder the balance stickily in the air of the taiwan strait. the administration is debating this light now. they need to fund it. this body will approve it, but that's going to be a position of strength that's up to them but people are watching, we're watching, our allies are watching and of course the chinese communist party is watching. let me give one more, mr. president, one more that i think is critical. taking advantage of america's resources, critical minerals. yes, energy. yes, natural gas. yes, oil. part of the -- prior to the pandemic, we were the world's energy superpower, largest producer of oil in the world, largest producer of natural gas in the world, largest producer of renewables in the world. this is a good thing for our country.

our allies in the region know it. the chinese know it. and again there's a debate within the administration right now on energy. the president has recently told some of our great union leaders he's, quote, all in for natural gas. we should do that. that's the reason we reduced greenhouse gas emissions over the last 15 years, more than any other country, big country in the world. because of the revolution of natural gaws. our allies -- gas. our allies need that. they know it's a national security strength that we have. on the other hand, we have other elements to the administration that clearly want to unilaterally give away our energy. restrict production of oil and gas. makes no sense. so energy, energy is another position of strength that we should be encouraging, and i'm certainly encouraging the biden

administration to recognize as something good for our economy, good for jobs, but, yes, really good for our national security and really important in our competition with china. the biden administration national security team knows this. i think they recognize it. but again, mr. president, we'll be watching. it's important. so this is going to be an issue that we're going to be focused on here in the united states senate, in my view, for the next 50 to a hundred years if we're doing it right. if we work together, if we work from positions of strength as the secretary of state and national security adviser have mentioned, are focused on, the way this is going to end is the way it's ended with other major powers that have challenged the united states. i'm very confident of that, and i think most of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are. we need to get working together

on that. mr. president, i ask that my following remarks appear in a different part of the congressional record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: mr. president, it's not thursday yet but it's almost thursday. and that's when i love to come down to the floor of the u.s. senate to recognize an alaskan who's doing something great for our state. and as many know here, we call this person our alaskan of the week. now it's one of my favorite times of the week. i know that a couple hill watchers like it, too. i want to give a shout out to chris chaffey from roll call. he actually did a piece in roll call today about the alaskan of the week series. so thank you, chris. i hope you're watching. it's a little late and it's not thursday. but anyway, i appreciate the shotout in your series today. so i'm going to get to the

punch. our alaskan of the week tonight, this week is rod boyce. a friend of mine, former long time editor of one of my favorite -- it's actually my favorite newspaper in alaska, the fair banks daily news minor. he clearly is deserving of this great, important award. but before i talk about rod, let me give you a little update about what's going on in the state. first, some good news. something we're all very proud of in alaska. the economy is hurting. we're not proud of that, but in terms of the pandemic, the health elements, our state continues to be the number one state vaccinated per capita of any state in the country. this is a mini miracle, by the way, mr. president, because we're a really big state. we're really spread out, really small populations.

and yet federal government, tribal health care system, v.a., state of alaska, everybody coming together is making it happen. about three weeks ago we announced that anyone over 16 can get a vaccine. and some communities are hitting 60%, 70% vaccinated already in alaska. really important. we're opening up. if you're watching, you don't live in alaska, come visit. it's going to be safe but we're very proud of that accomplishment because it's taken a lot of work. of course, it's cold in alaska but the sun has been shining. the snow has been amazing. we've had a lot of it recently. the spirits are up. we had an iditarod winner. congratulations to dallas seavey on the fifth win, incredible,

incredible. some may take issue with the claim that alaska is the most unique state in the union, but consider this. every year teams of mushers and their dogs barrel hundreds of miles across the state toward the city of nome in some of the harshest conditions, rugged conditions on the planet earth. certainly these are the kind of events that we think makes aclass came -- alaska unique and a big sense of community. now, i've said it before, mr. president. alaska isn't always the easiest place to live. it's far from the lower 48. the weather can be extreme, very tough, but as a result, the people in communities bond and they work together particularly in some of our most remote communities. we're one big community in the great state of alaska. as my colleague from nebraska knows. every community in alaska in america needs to be able to share reliable, credible

information. on that topic, of course, has been a lot of negative attention in the past couple of years paid to some in the national media, particularly in the last few years. but the vital role, the vital role of local journalism and how that role plays in different chiewn advertise across our -- different communities across our country in my view hasn't had nearly enough attention and it's a positive role, our local reporters. so our alaskan of the week rod boyce who until just a few weeks ago was the long time editor of the "fair banks daily news minor" and had spent nearly his entire career, 35 years ensuring that alaskans stay connected through local news. now, rod himself hasn't made huge headlines in the state. as a matter of fact, that's one of the reasons for the alaskan of the week, to do a shout out to someone who hasn't gotten a lot of recognition. the only time rod has gotten a

lot of headlines is one instance, a mush mishap. i'm going to talk briefly about that. but as an old school newsman, he liked to stay behind the headlines, behind the scenes. but he has been behind the scenes of so many of those headlines in our state. for jeers he would -- for years he worked tirelessly first at papers across the state. then for 27 years at the news minor to keep the great community of fair banks and north pole, alaska, in the interior part of our state connected and informed. so, mr. president, here's a little bit about rod. born in london, england. now, i've known rod for many years. i did not know that fact. born in london, england. his family moved to southern california in the 1960's. his father designed and engineered refineries and rod's father and his wife, rod's mom, raised both him and his sister. he didn't -- wasn't sure he want -- what he wanted to do in life.

he was inspired by a trip he took to england early in his college career. came back with a camera and -- that he actually found on a bench in the heathrow airport. an interesting detail. and he found his calling in adjournism. he was the editor of the school newspaper at the state university. did some stints at small papers, landed at the sacramento union, the oldest paper in the west, by the way, one that mark twain used to write for. it was his first experience with a good old fashion newspaper war. the younger afternoon paper, the "sacramento bee" decided to take on the establishment sacramento union. eventually the bee one by by then rod had made his way to the great state of alaska to enter another, even bigger newspaper

war. the anchorage times, the established paper versus the upstart anchorage daily news. any person in news in alaska who has been around a while will talk about that newspaper war was something of awe in their voice. both papers then were fully staffed up at least 30 reporters each. bureaus all across the state, even bureaus here in d.c., presocial media days, pretwitter days, reporters spent their days on the streets knocking on doors, stealing each other's scoops. it was called should leather reporting and -- shoe leather reporting and great journalism in alaska emerged 678 the young anchorage daily news, still around, won the war. so rod was on the losing team. so he began to work for a small chain of six or seven rural

papers called alaska newspaper, inc. and it was here that rod got his first glimpse of rural alaska. he learned about fisheries issues. ate his first piece of muktuk. that's wheel blubber. experienced the beauty and became aware of the heartbreak of rural alaska, the true spiritual sole of our -- soul of our state. one of the spiritual souls of america, i would argue. after a few years with the alaska newspapers, he took the job that he's been so good at for almost three decades, editor of the "fair banks daily news minor" which is my wonderful wife, julie's hometown. the first city i lived in with julie and a brand new daughter of ours, megan, and of course i can still consider the "news

minor" to be my hometown newspaper. as i mentioned rod was an editor for 27 years for this great interior alaska paper. the news minor is small but mighty in alaska, punching way above its weight, winning journal i'm wards, breaking stories on health crises, injustice, scandals, economic opportunities. everyday stories about everyday people, the kind of stories that draw us together as communities. as rod said, quote, it's not just national journalism that matters. local journalism matters, too. to that end it was his policy until he just retired a couple of weeks ago to have at least 95% of the front page of the "news minor" devoted to local news. that's a great idea. so, mr. president, so many

alaskans have interests, hobbies, lifestyles that many here in the lower 48 just don't understand, rod included. for many years he spent his days in the newsroom and his evenings and weekends mush dogs. and he still mushes. he loves it. it's a family affair. he and his wife, julie, used to put their daughter edie in a sled when she was just in diapers and edie is still doing it. the most dogs they ever had now is 27. it's down to 18. this is hard work. it's tons of work. my wife, julie, and her family also raised sled dogs. it's really hard work, particularly in the cold interior alaska winters. and, mr. president, it's also dangerous. as rod can attest. in 2000 when competing for the first time in the 200-mile sled dog race on the kenai peninsula,

he took a wrong turn. it was snowing hard. it was difficult to see. the trail got obliterated and he couldn't figure out how to get back on the trail. so he staked his dogs and hunkered down on a ridge to build camp. he had some candy, reece cease pieces, dried lamb for the dogs, a cooker, thermos, fuel, he had bunny boots fortunately but not a parka. he spent his days exploring going as far as he dared to try to find the trail. at night he could hear the helicopters above looking for rod but they couldn't see him through the cloud cover. what was going on turned out to be one of the largest land search and rescue missions in alaska history. trying to find rod boyce, the intrepid editor of the "news minor" but he didn't know that.

he just knew that his days were ticking away. rod's wife, julie, was worried sick, of course, but kept it together throughout. on the sixth day, sixth day, almost a week when the sky cleared, he headed out again in a -- and a snow machine came his way. i think i'm the guy you're looking for he he told the driver. ron gave him a candy bar and rode rod to safety. that night he and his wife celebrated with a beer and a cheeseburger. his feet were in bad shape, but otherwise he was unharmed. when he made it back to the news room, his fellow reporters put up markers that led from his parking space into the building in case he got lost again. he thought it was pretty funny. mr. president, on january 22, rod boyce left the news miner to take a job as a science writer

in public information officer at the very cool and esteemed geophysical institute at the university of alaska fairbanks. he spends his days writing about the tsunamis, skies and the heavens. he said, quote, it's a nerd's dream. i had a good 35-year run in newspapers, he said, and was very fortunate to experience the things that i did and interact with all sorts of public officials and regular folks on the street. i got to see them at their highs and lows, their tragedies and their happiest moments. and he still has hopes for local news. quote, a local news outlet can tie a local community together, and that's super important. i hope that never changes, said rod. me too, rod. here's to local journalism. here's to the mighty fairbanks

news miner, and here's to rod boyce. thank you for being the guy behind the headlines all these many years. thank you for keeping our communities and the interior connected, and congratulations on perhaps one of the biggest awards you've ever received -- our alaskan of the week. i yield the floor.

mr. schumer: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. schumer: mr. president, i forgot my glasses. mr. schumer: mr. president, i understand that there is a bill

at the desk, and i ask for the first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: h.r. 1868, an act to prevent across-the-board direct spending cuts, and for other purposes. mr. schumer: i now ask for a second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection being heard, the bill will get its next reading on the next legislative day.

mr. sasse: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. sasse: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to speak at some length, if time will permit me, about the same subject my friend from washington state so eloquently addressed. my colleagues know that although when i speak, i sometimes get very passionate. i have not very often in past years risen to the floor for any extended period of time. i do that today because so much is at stake. for over 200 years, the senate has embodied the brilliance of our founding fathers in creating an intricate system of checks and balances among the three branches of government. this system has served two critical purposes, both allowing the senate to act as an independent restraining force on the excesses of the executive

branch and protecting minority rights within the senate itself. the framers used this dual system of checks and balances to underscore the independent nature of the senate and its members. the framers sought not to ensure simple majority rule, but to allow minority views, whether they are conservative, liberal, or moderate to have an enduring role in the senate in order to check the excesses of the majority. this system is now being tested in the extreme. i believe the proposed course of action we are hearing about these days is one that has the potential to do more damage to this system than anything that has occurred since i have become a senator. history will judge us harshly, in my view, if we eliminate over 200 years of precedent and procedure in this body, and i might add, doing it by breaking a second rule of the senate, and that is changing the rules of the senate by a mere majority vote. when examining the senate's proper role in our system of government generally and in the process of judicial nominations

specifically, we should begin, in my view, but not end with our founding fathers. as any grade school student knows, our government is one that was infused by the framers with checks and balances. i should have said at the outset that i owe special thanks, and i will list them, to a group of constitutional scholars and law professors in some of our great universities and law schools for editing this speech for me and for helping me write this speech because i think it may be one of the most important speeches for historical purposes that i will have given in the 32 years since i have been in the senate. when examining the the senate's proper role in our system of government and in the process of judicial nominations, as i said, we have to look at what our founders thought when they talked about checks and balances. the theoretical underpinning of this system can be found in federalist 51 where the architect of our constitution, james madison, advanced his famous theory that the constitution set up a system in which, quote, ambition must be

made to counteract ambition, close quote. ambition must be made to counteract ambition. as madison notes, this is because, quote, the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers and the same department consists in giving those who administer each department necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments by the other, close quote. our founders made the conscious decision to set up a system of government that was different from the english parliamentary system. the system, by the way, with which they were the most familiar. the founders reacted viscerally to the aggrandizement of power of any one branch or one person even in a person or body elected by the majority of the citizens of the country. under the system the founders created, they made sure that no longer would any one person or body be able to run roughshod over everyone else. they wanted to allow the sovereign people, not the sovereign government, the

sovereign people to pursue a strategy of divide and conquer and in the process to protect the few against the excesses of the many which they would witness in the frenchl revolution. the independence of the judiciary was vital to the success of that venture. as federalist 78 notes, the complete independence of the courts of justice is peck kuhl larly essential -- peck kuhl larly essential in a limited constitution. our founders felt strongly that judges should exercise independent judgments and not be beholden to any one person or body. john adams stated thus, the dignity and stability of government and all it's branches, the moral of the people and every blessing of society defends upon an upright and skillful justice that power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive and independent upon both that so it may be a check upon both as both should be checks upon that.

adams continues, the judges therefore should always be men of learning and experience in the laws of exemplary morals, great patience and attention. their minds should not be distracted with jarring interests. they should not be dependent upon any one man or body of men, close quote. in order to ensure judicial independence, the very independence which adams spoke, the founders did not give the appointment power to any one person or body. although it is instructed for us as we debate this issue in determining the respective authority of the senate and the executive, it is important to note that from much of the constitutional convention, the power of judicial appointment was solely, solely vested in the hands of the legislature. for the numerous votes taken about how to resolve this issue never did the founders conclude it should start with the executive and be within the power of the executive. james madison, for instance, was, quote, not satisfied with referring the appointment to the executive. instead he was rather inclined,

quote, to give it to the senatorial branch which he envisioned as a group sufficiently stable and independent to provide deliberative judgments, close quote. it was widely agreed that the senate would be composed of men nearly equal to that of the executive and would of course have on the whole more wisdom than the executive. it is very important to point out that they felt it would be less easy for candidates, referring to candidates for the bench, to intrigue with senators and more than with the executive. during the drafting of the constitution four separate attempts were made to include presidential involvement in judicial appointments but because of the widespread fear of presidential power they all failed. there continued to be proponents of presidential involvement, however, and finally at the 11th hour the appointment power was divided and shared as a consequence of the connecticut compromise i will speak to in a minute, between the two institutions, that is the president and the senate. in the end the founders set up a system in which the president nominates and the senate has the power to give or to withhold,

to withhold it's advice and consent. the role of the advice and consent was not understood to be purely formal. the framers clearly contemplated a substantive role on the part of the senate in checking the president. this makes a lot of sense for how best can we ensure that the senate is -- than by requiring two separate and wholly independent entities to sign off before a judge takes the bench. there is a latin proverb which translates to, who will guard the guardians. our founders were smart enough to put the president and the senate acting independently in charge of guarding our judicial guardians. who will guard the guardians? as a senator i view this as not just a right but one that transcends the partisan disputes of any decade. multiple checks was not lost on

our founders even on those mo were very much in favor of a strong executive. for example, alexander hamilton, probably the strongest advocate for a stronger executive, quote, the rejection by a senate would be a strong motive to take care in proposing nominations. the president would be afraid and ashamed to bring forward candidates who had no other merit than that, possessing the insignificance to render them the instrument of his pleasure. hamilton rebutted the argument that it would give an improper influence over the president by stating, quote, if by influencing the president be meant restraining him, this is precisely what must have been intend and it has been shown that that restraint would be sal ewery. close quote. the end result of the founders is a system in which the president and senate had significant roles, a system

where the senate was required to exercise independent judgment not simply to rubber-stamp p the president's desires. as senator william mcclay said, they will readily observe that the part assigned to the senate was important, no less than being a great check, the regulator and director, or if i may so speak, the balance of this government. this was meant to guard against the mistakes of the president in his appointments to office. the depriving power should be the same as the appointing power. close quote. the founders gave us a system where senate was to play a substantive role in judicial nominations, they pliefded us guidance on what type of legislative body they envisioned. in new government they set up where power would be separated and check the other power, the founders had a special, unique role for the senate that does in the exist anywhere else in governance or any parliamentary

system. there is often the repeated discussion between two distinguished founding fathers, thomas jefferson and george washington. reportedly at a breakfast that jefferson was having with washington upon returning from paris because he was not there when the constitution was written, jefferson was somewhat upset that there would be a bicameral legislative body that a senate was set up. he asked washington, why did you do this? set up this senate and washington looked at jefferson as they were having tea and said, why did you pour that tea into your saucer. and jefferson responded, to cool it and that was the purpose of the saucer, it was not to keep the table cloth clean. washington stated, even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it. the senate was to my an independent, and moderating, not heard here very often, moderating and reflecting role

in our government. what aspects of the senate led it to become the saucer, cooling the passions of the day for the betterment of america's longer-term future. first, the founders certainly did not envision the senate as a body of unadult rated -- they were concerned about the majority's ability as they put it to, quote, oppress the minority. it was in this vein that the senate was setup. first to protect the people against their rulers and secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into they themselves might be led. the use of the senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness. with more system, with more wisdom than the popular branch. structurally, the founders set up a different type of legislature by ensuring that each citizen, here's an important point and if anybody

in the chamber understands this, the presiding officer does, they set up this legislative body to ensure that each system did not have an equal say. that sound outrageous to say that they did not have an equal say but each state did have an equal say. in fact, for over a century, senators were not chosen by the people and it was not until 1913 that they were elected by the people as opposed to selected by the state's legislative body. today, mr. president, you and i stand directly before the people of our state for election, but the senate is a legislative body that does not reflect the simple popular majority because reputation is by states. that means someone from maine has over 25 times as much effective voting power in this body as does a senator from california. an interesting little fact, and i do not say this to say anything other than how the system works there are more desks on that side of the aisle

than on this side. that side has 55, does that mean that this side of the aisle does not recognize that we on this side have only 45 desks appeared they represent more -- and they represent more people than we do. if we added up all the people in the senate, they add up to fewer people than the democratic party represent in the people. we represent the majority of the people, but in this chamber it is irrelevant and it should be because this was never intended in any sense to be majority institution. this distinctive quality of the senate was part of the great compromise with which we would not have had a constitution, recognized as the connecticut compromise. edmund randolph who would be secretary of state, represented virginia at the constitutional convention and he argued for fuller proportional representation in the debates over the proper form of the legislative branch but ultimately he agreed to the

connecticut compromise. after reflection, that so often happens, he realized his first position was incorrect and stated, quote, the general object was to provide a cure for the ills, that in tracing these evils to their origin, every man, referring to every man who agreed to the compromise, had found in the turbulence an follies of democracy that some check therefore was to be sought against this tendency in our governments and a good senate seemed most likely to answer this purpose and so the founders quite intentionally designed the senate with these distinctive feerts. article -- features, article 1, each house must determine its own rules. each house may determine the rules of its proceedings. the text contains no limitation or deny. the senate is able to advise its own rules and the filibuster was

one of the procedural rules of the mini rules that vest the minority with the senate with the potential toll have a final say over the senate's business. it was clear from the start the senate would be a different type of legislative body. it would be a consensus body that respects the rights of minorities, even the extreme minority power of a single senator because that single senator can respect -- can represent a single and whole state. the way it played out in practice was thought of as the right of unlimited debate. i find it fascinating. we're talking about the limitation of a right that has -- that has already limited the original right of the founding fathers. the fact was that there was no way to cut off debate for the first decades of this republic. joseph story, famous justice and probably one of the best known ar bitters, his remark about the importance of the right of debate was that, quote, the next great and vital privilege is the freedom of speech and debate

without which all over privileges would be unimportant and ineffectual and that goes to the very heart of what made the senate different. in the senate, each individual senator was more than a number to be counted on the way to a majority vote. something i think some of us have forgotten. daniel webster would put it this way, this is a senate of equals, of men of honor and character and absolute independence. we know no ms.ers, this is a hall for mutual consultation and discussion, not an arena for the exhibition of champions. extended debate, the filibuster, was a means to reach a more modest and more moderate result to achieve compromise and common ground to allow senators, as webster put it, to be men, and now men and women of absolute independence. until 1917, there was no method to cut off debate in the senate to bring any measure to a vote. legislative or nomination, none

except unanimous consent, unanimous consent was required up until 1917 to get a vote on a judge or a bill or anything on to the executive calendar. the senate was a place where minority rights flourished completely, totally unchecked, a place for the unlimited rights of debate for each and every senator. in part, this can be understood as a recognition of our federal system of government in which we were not just a community of individuals but a community of sovereign states. through the senate, each the state, through their two senators, had a right to extensive debate an full consideration of its views. for much of the senate's history, until less than 100 years ago to close off debate required not just two-thirds of the votes, but it required all the votes. the senate's history is replete in which a committed minority flexed its right to debate muscle. there was a filibuster over the location of the capitol of the united states in the first congress. but what about how this tradition of unlimited debate played out in the nomination

context as opposed to the legislative process? first, the text of the constitution makes no distinction whatsoever between nominations an legislation. nonetheless, those who are pushing the nuclear option seem to suggest that while respect for minority rights has a strong tradition on the legislative side of our business, things were completely different when it came to considering nominations. in fact, it's exactly the opposite. the history of the senate shows, and i will point to it now that previous senates certainly did not view that to be the case. while it is my personal belief that the senate should be more judicious in the use of the filibuster that is not how it always happened. president monroe's nominations did not meet the floors, in spite of his popularity and the party's control of senate. president adams had a number of judicial nominations plocd from getting to the floor, more than

1,300 appointments by president taft were filibuster filibuster the. not only does this past practice show no distinction between legislation an judicial nominations in lardz to the recognition -- regards to the recognition of minority rights, the formal rules of the senate never recognized such a distinction except for a 30-year stretch when legislation was made subject to cloture but nominations were not. do my colleagues hear this? all of those who think that a judge is more entitled to a vote than legislation, in 1917, it was decided that absolute unlimited debate should be curtailed and there needed to be a two-thirds vote to cut off debate in order to bring legislation to the floor. but there was no change with regard to judicial nominations thrrvetion a requirement of unanimous consent to get a nominee voted on, so much for the tart that the constitution leads for the vote on nominations more. it flies in the fact of the

facts and intent of the framers. it certainly undercuts the claim that there has been by tradition, the insulation of judicial nominees from filibusters. the senate long recognized the exercise of minority rights with respect to nominations and it should come as no surprise in periods where the electorate is split, the filibustering of nominationses with used extensively. my good friend senator hatch who is now on the senate floor as my mother would say, god love him because she quite likes him and i like him too, he may remember when i was the chairman of the judicial of judiciary committee when the why democrats controlled the senate at a time when they controlled the presidency and the senate, the country remained very divided. numerous filibusters resulted, even in cases not involving the judiciary. i remind my friends that the nomination of dr. henry foster, sam brown, janet napolitano for

the disprict of arizona and -- district of arizona were all filibustered. we controlled the senate, the house, the presidency, but the nation was nonetheless still divided. some may counter that there should be a difference between how judicial nominees should be treated versus the treatment according to executive branch nominees, the cabinet and the rest, constitutional text and historic -- we have one appointments clause, it is instructive to look at examples. in 1881, stanley matthews was nominated to the supreme court. a filibuster was mounted but the republican majority in the senate was unable to break the filibuster and stanley matthews supreme court nomination failed without getting a vote. in 1968, filibuster to block abe for theess from becoming chief judge and thorn bury was one

where the democrats controlled the senate and the republicans filibustered. the leader of that successful filibuster effort against justice for theess was a republican senator, robert griffin, of michigan. in commenting on george washington's nomination of, the republican senator who mounted a successful filibuster against for theess on the floor translated, for theess never got a vote even though he was a sitting supreme court justice about to be elevated to chief justice. what did they say about the first fight in the senate, quote, that action in 1795 said that the president then in office and to future presidents, don't expect the senate to be a rubber-stamp, we have an independent, coequal responsibility and we intend to exercise that coresponsibility as those who drafted the duly noted constitution so clearly intended. there's also a very important difference between the executives and nominees.

it should be noted that legislation is not forever. judicial appointments are for the life of a candidate. of course no president has unlimited authority, even related to his own cabinet but when you look at judges, they serve for life. an interesting fact that difference yen yates us from the 1500's when the filibusters took place and in 1968 when they took place, the average time a federal judge spends on the bench if appointed in the last ten years from today has increased from 15 to 24 years. that means that on average every judge revote for will be on the bench for a quarter of a century. since the impeachment clause is fortunately not often used, the only opportunity for the senate to have its say is in this process. the nuclear option was so named because if would cause widespread bedlam and dysfunction throughout the senate as the minority party, my party, has pledged to render its vigorous protest. but i do not want to dwell on the immediate consequences which i agree with my senate judiciary

committee chairman would be dramatic. he said if we come to the nuclear option, the senate will be in turmoil and the judiciary committee will be in hell. however sirius serious -- however serious the immediate consequences would be and however the dysfunction would make both parties look juvenile and incompetent, the -- the nuclear option threatens the fundamental bulwark of the constitutional design, specifically the nuclear option is a double-barreled assault on this institution. first, requiring only a bare majority of senators to confirm a nominee is completely contrary to the history an intent of the senate. nuclear option also sets up a tradition in history that says we are not going to change the rules of the senate by a simple majority vote. it breaks the rule to change the rule. if we go down this path of the nuclear option, we will be left with a much different system than what our founders intended and somehow the senate has

functioned throughout its history. the senate mass always been a place where the structure and rules permit part moving agendas to be slowed down, where hot heads could cool and where consensus could be given a second chance if not a third or a fourth chance. while 90% of the business is conducted here by unanimous consent in this body, those items that do involve a difference of opinion including judicial nominations must at least gain the consent of 60% of its members in order to have an item become law. this is not a procedural quirk. this is not an accident of history. it's what differentiates the senate if the house of representatives and differentiates us from the english parliament. president lyndon johnson, the master of the senate put it this way. in this country a majority may govern but it doesn't rule. the genius of our constitutional and representative government is the multitude of safeguards given to protect minority rights. and it is not just leaders from

the democratic party who understood the importance of protecting minority rights. former senate majority leader howard baker wrote in 1993 that compromising the filibuster, quote, would topple one of the pillars of american democracy, the protection of minority rights from majority rule. the senate is the only body in the federal government where these minority rights are fully and specifically protected. put simply, the nuclear option would eviscerate the senate and turn it into the house of representatives. the nuclear option would eviscerate the senate and turn it into the house of representatives. it's not only a bad idea, it upsets the constitutional design and it disserves the country. no longer would the senate be a different kind of legislative body that the founders intended. no longer would the senate be the saucer to cool the passions of the immediate majority. without the filibuster, more than 40 senators would lack the means by which to encourage compromise in the process of

appointing judges. without the filibuster the majority would transform this body into nothing more than a rubber stamp for every judicial nomination. the senate needs the threat of the filibuster to force a press -- a president to appoint judge wos will occupy the sensible center rather than those who cater to every whim of a temporary majority. and here is why. it is a yes or no vote. you can't amend a nomination. with legislation you can tinker around the edges and modify a bill to make it more palatable. you can't do that with a judge. you either vote for all of him or her or none. only by the threat of a filibuster can we obtain compromise when it comes to judges. we as senators collectively need to remember that it is our institutional duty to check any presidential attempt to take over the judiciary. as the congressional research service, the independent and nonpartisan research arm of the congress stated, the nuclear option would, quote, strengthen the executive branch's hand in the selection of federal judges.

this shouldn't be a partisan issue but an institutional one. will the senate aid and abet in the erosion of its article one power by conceding to a greater branch influence over the courts. as one said to me in the face of an audacious claim by president nixon, are we the president's men or the senate's. he resolved that in a caucus by speaking to us as only john stennis could saying i'm a senate man, not a president's man. too many people here forget that. earlier i explained that for much of the senate's history, a single senator could stop legislation or a nomination dead in its tracks. more recent changes to the senate rules now require only three-fifths of the senate rather than all of its members to end a debate. proponents of the nuclear option argue that their poem is simply the late -- proposal is simply the latest in a growing trend toward majoritarian in the senate. god save us from that fate if it's true. i strongly disagree. even a cursory review to the

previous changes on senate rules of unlimited debate shows the previous mechanisms to invoke cloture always still respected minority rights. the nuclear option completely eviscerates minority rights. it does not -- it is not simply a change this degree but a change in kind. it is a discontinuous action that is a sea change fundamentally restructuring what the senate is all about. it would change the senate from a body that protects minority rights to one that is purely ma major tearian. thus, rather than simply being the next logical step in accommodating the rules of the senate to the demands of the legislative and policy ma dernty, the nuclear option is a leap off of the institutional precipice. and so here we collectively stand on the edge of the most important procedural change during my 32-year senate career and one of the most important ever considered in the senate. a change that would effectively destroy the senate's independence and providing advice and consent. the nuclear option would gut the very essence and core of what the senate is about as an

institution flying directly in the nation of our founders who deliberately rejected a parliamentary system. our founders deliberately rejected a parliamentary system. a current debate over a particular set of issues should not be permitted to destroy what history has bestowed to us. the stakes are much, much higher than the contemporary controversy over the judiciary. racket kara, the noted author on senate history wrote the following in a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the senate committee on rules and administration, quote, in considering any modification to the right of extended debate in the senate, senators should realize that they are dealing not with the particular dispute of the moment but with a fundamental character of the senate of the united states and with the deeper issue of the balance between majority and minority rights. you need only look at what happened when the senate gradually rendered more and more of its power over international affairs to learn the lesson that once you surrender power, you will never get it back, close

quote. the fight over the nuclear option is not about -- just about the procedure for confirming judges. it is also fundamentally about the integrity of the senate. put simply the nuclear option changes the rules midstream and once the senate starts changing the rules outside of its own rules which is what a nuclear action does, there is nothing to stop a temporary majority from doing so whenever a particular rule would pose an obstacle. it is a little akin to us agreeing to work together on a field. i don't have to sit down and agree with you that we're going to divide up this field but i say, okay. i will share my rights with you in this field but here's the deal. we agree to at the start. any changes in this agreement we make about how to run this field have to be by a supermajority, okay because that way i'm giving up rights which all the founders did in this body, in this constitution, the rights of my people for a whole government. but if you're going to change those rules with a pure majority vote, then i would have never gotten into this deal with you in the first place. i suffer from teaching

constitutional law for the last 13 years and advance -- an advanced class on constitutional law, a seminar every saturday morning. and i teach this clause. i point out the essence of our limited constitutional government which is so different from every other is that it is based on the consent of the governed. the governed would never have given consent in 1789 if they knew the outfit they were giving the consent to would be able by simple majority to alter their say in their governance. the senate is a continuing body meaning that the rules of the senate continue from one session to the next, specifically rule 5 provides that the rules of the senate shall continue from one congress to the next congress unless they are changed as provided for by the rules. and so i say to my colleague from north carolina now on the floor, i say this to my colleague from south carolina, i say this to my colleague from utah, if you vote for this nuclear option, you're about to break faith with the american people and the sacred commitment that was made on how to change the rules.

senate rule 22 allows only a rule change with two-thirds vote. the continuing body system is unlike many other legislative bodies and is part of what makes the senate different and allows it to avoid being captured by the temporary passions of the moment. it makes it different from the house of representatives which comes up with new rules each and every congress from scratch. the nuclear option doesn't propose to change the judicial filibuster rule by securing a two-thirds vote as is required under the existing rules. it would change the rule by a bare majority. in fact, as pointed out recently by a group of legal scholars, quote, on at least three separate occasions the senate has expressly rejected the argument that a simple majority has the authority claimed by the proponents of this nuclear option, close quote. one historical incident is particularly enlightening. in 1925 the senate overwhelmingly refused to agree to then advice president daws' suggestion that the senate adopt a proposal for amending its rules identical to the nuclear

option. on this occasion an informal poll was taken in the senate and indicated over 80% of the senators were opposed to this radical step. let me be very clear. never before have senate rules been changed except by following the procedures laid out in the senate rules. never once in the history of the senate. the congressional research service directly points out that there is no previous precedent for changing the senate rules this way. the nuclear option uses an ultravires mechanism that has never been used in the senate. employment of the nuclear option would require the chair to overturn previous precedent. the senate parliamentarian, the nonpartisan expert, on the senate's procedural rules who is hired by the majority has reportedly said that republicans will have to overrule him or her to employ the nuclear option. adopting the nuclear option would send a terrible message about the mallability of senate rules. for longer will they be the

framework that each party works within. i've been in the senate for a long time. there are plenty of times i would have loved to have changed this rule or that rule to pass a bill or to get a nominee confirmed that i felt strongly about, but i didn't. and it was understood that the option of doing so just wasn't on the table. you fought political battles. you fought hard but you fought them within the strictures and requirements of the senate rules. despite the short-term pain that understanding has served both parties well and provided long-term game. adopting the nuclear option would change this fundamental understanding and unbroken practice of what the senate is all about. senators would start thinking about changing other rules when they became inconvenient. instead of a two-thirds of a vote to change a rule, you'd now have a precedent that it only takes a bare majority. altering senate rules to help in one political fight or another could become standing operating procedure which in my view would be disastrous. the congressional research service has stated that adopting the nuclear option would set a precedent that could apply to

virtually all senate business. it would ultimately threaten both parties, not just one. the service report states this. the presence of such a precedent might in principle enable a voting majority of the senate to alter any procedure at will by raising a point of order, by such means a voting majority might subsequently impose limitations on the consideration of any item of business, prohibiting debate or amendment to any desired degree. such a majority might even alter applicable procedures from one item of business to the next, from one form of proceeding to a contrary one depending on the immediate objects, close quote. just as the struggle over the nuclear option is about constitutional law and senate history, it is also about something much more simple and fundamental. it's about playing by the rules. i reiterate that i think senator frist and his allies think they're acting on the basis of principle and commitment but i regret to say they're also threatening to unilaterally change the rules in the million dollar of the game -- middle of the game.

imagine a baseball team declaring the ninth inning would -- would the nantz stand for that if there's one thing the country stands for is fair play. not tilting the playing felt in favor of one side or the other. we play by the rules and we win and lose by the rules. that quintessentially american trait is abandoned in the nuclear option. republican senators as well as democratic ones have benefited from minority protections. much more importantly, american citizens have benefited from the senate's checks on the excesses of a temporary majority. but this is not just about games and playing them the right way. this is about a much more etheer ial concept, justice. in his groundbreaking treaties, the philosopher john rawls pointed to procedural justice. relying on thomas hobbs and john

locke, he argues that, quote, in activities as diverse as cutting a birthday cake and conducting a criminal trial, it is the procedure that makes the outcome just, an outcome is just if it has been arrived at through fair procedure. this principle undergirds our legal system including criminal and civil trials. moreover, it is at the very core of our constitution. the term due process of law appears not once but twice in our constitution because our predecessors recognized the vital importance of setting proper procedures, proper rules, and of abiding by them. it is also a bedrock principle we senators rely on in accepting outcomes with which we may disagree. we know that the debate was fairly conducted, the game was played by the rules, a decision to change the senate's rules in violation of those very same rules abandons the procedural

justice that h legitimates everything we do. it's interesting to ask ourselves what's different now. why are we at this precipice where the nuclear option is actually being seriously debated and very well might be utilized? why have we reached this point when such a seemingly radical rule change is being seriously considered by a majority of senators? it's a good question and i don't have an easy answer. we've avoided such fights in the past largely because cooler heads have prevailed and accommodation was the watch word. as senator sam ervin used to say the separation of power should not, as president woodrow wilson warned, become an invasion for warfare between the two branches. throughout this country's history whether during times of war or political division president have sometimes extended an olive branch across the aisle. past presidents have in those circumstances made bipartisan appointments selecting nominees who were consensus candidates and often members of the other party. president clinton had two supreme court nominees and the

left was pushing us as hard as the right is pushing you. what did he do? i spent several hours with him consulting on it and he picked two people on his watch who got 90 or so votes. moderate mainstream appointments. he did not appoint scalias, thomass, people acceptable to the republicans because he was wise enough to know even though he was president we were still a divided nation. history provides ample examples. during the midst of the civil war, president lincoln selected members of the opposition democratic party for key positions naming steven field to the supreme court in 1863 and andrew johnson as his vice president in 1864. on the brink of the american entrance into world war ii, president roosevelt likewise selected members of the opposition republican party elevating har land fist to be chief justice and henry stimson as secretary of war. in 1945 president truman named republican senator harold burton to the supreme court and in 1956 president eisenhower named

democrat william brennan to the supreme court. who has happened to us? what have we become? does anyone not understand this nation is divided red and blue and what it needs is a pux purple heart? lest any of my colleagues think these examples are colds let me remind them the senate has recent examples during times of close political division. as i mentioned previously, president clinton followed this historic practice during vacancies to the supreme court a decade ago. as explained by my friend, the senior senator from utah who was then the ranking member of the senate judiciary committee, president clinton consulted with him and the republican caucus during the high court vacancies in 1993 and 1994. the result was president clinton's selection of two outstanding consensus nominees, ruth bader ginsburg and steven breyer both of whom were confirmed overwhelmingly by the senate by votes of 97-3 and 89-9 respectively. the last two vacancies on the supreme court are textbook

examples of the executive branch working in cooperative and collegial fashion to secure consensus appointments, thus averting an ideological show down. the two constitutional partners given roles in this nomination process engaged in a consulting process that respected rights and obligations of both branches as an institutional matter while producing outstanding nominees highly respected by both parties. to be sure, a careful reading of our nation's history does not always provide the examples of consultation, comity and consensus in the nomination process. presidents of both parties have at times attempted to appoint nominees or remove them once confirmed over the objections of the senate, including in some instances where the senate was composed of a majority of the president's own party. and sometimes the senate has had to stand strong and toe the line against impeelerrist leadings. our first president, george washington saw one of his nominees to the supreme court

rejected by the senate. the the senate voted 14-10 to reject the nomination of john rut ledge of south carolina to be chief justice. what's historically instructive i think is that while the senate was dominated by "the federalist," president washington's party. 13 of the 14 senators who rejected the nomination were federalists. the senate also stood firm in the 1805 impeachment of supreme court justice samuel chase. president jefferson's party had majorities in both the house and the senate and jefferson set his sights on the supreme court. he wanted to remove justice chase, a committed federalist and frequent critic. he was able to impeach chase on a party line vote and the president had enough members in his party to convict him but members of the president's own party stood up to their president. the senate as an institution stood up to executive overreaching. justice chase was not convicted and the independence of the judiciary was preserved.

the senate again stood firm in the 1937 court packing plan by president franklin roosevelt. this particular example of senate resolving is instructive for today's debates so let me describe it in some detail. it was the summer of 1937 and president roosevelt had come off of his landslide victory and he had a congress made up of solid new dealers but the nine old men of the supreme court were thwarting his economic agenda overturning law after law overwhelmingly passed by the congress and from statehouses across the country. in this environment president roosevelt unveiled his court packing plan. he wanted to increase the number of justices on the court to 15 allowing himself to nominate these additional judges. in an act of great courage, roosevelt's own party stood up against this institutional power grab. they did not agree with the judicial activism of the supreme court but they believed that roosevelt was wrong to seek to defy established traditions as a way of stopping that activism. in may 1937 the senate judiciary

committee, a committee controlled by democrats and supportive of the president's political aims, issued a stinging rebuke. they put out a report condemning roosevelt's plan arguing that it was an effort to punish the justices and that executive branch attempts to dominate the judiciary lead inevitably to autocratic dominance, the very thing against which the american colonies revolted and to prevent which the constitution was in every particular framed. our predecessors in the senate showed great courage that day and stood up to their president as a coequal institution. and they did, and they did so not for the agenda of the president which in fact many agreed with. they did it to preserve our system's checks and balances. they did it to ensure the integrity of the system. when the founders created a, quote, different kind of legislative body in creating the senate, they envisioned a bulwark against unilateral power. it worked back then and i hope it works now. the noted historian arthur

schlesinger jr. argued in a parliamentary system president roosevelt's effort to pack the court would have succeeded. he wrote the court bill couldn't have failed if we had a parliamentary system in 1937. a parliamentary legislature would have gone ahead with their president but the founders envisioned for us a different kind of legislature, an independent institution that could think for itself. in the end roosevelt's plan failed because democrats in congress thought court packing was dangerous even if they would have supported the newly constituted court's rulings. this institution acted as an institution. in summary then, what do the senate's actions of 1795, 1805 and 1937 share in complon? i believe they are demonstrating its constitutional role as an independent check on the president even popularly elected presidents of the same political party. one final note from our senate

history, even when the senate's rules have been l changed in the past to limit extended debate, it has been done with great care, remarkable hesitancy and by virtual consensus. take what occurred during the senate's two most important previous changes to the filibuster rule. the 1917 creation of cloture and the 1975 lowering of the cloture threshold. first let's look at 1917. on the eve of the united states entry into world war i with american personnel and vessels in great danger on the high seas president wilson asked the congress, asked that congress authorize the arming of vessels. over three fourths of the senate agreed with this proposal on the merits but a tiny minority opposed. with american lives and property at risk, the senate still took over two months to come to the point of determining to change its rules to permit cloture. when they did so, they did it by virtual consensus and in a

supremely bipartisan manner. a conference committee composed of democrats and republicans each named to the committee by party leadership drafted and proposed the new rule and it was then adopted by an overwhelming vote of 76-3. in 1975, i was a part of a bipartisan effort to lower the threshold for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths. many of us were reacting against the filibustering of so many years of vital civil rights legislation. civil rights was a strong impetus for me seeking public office in the first place. i was not calling shots back in 1975. i was a junior senator having been in the chamber for only two years at that point but i will make no bones about it. for about two weeks in 1975 i was part of a slim bipartisan majority that supported jettisons established senate rules and ending debate on a rules change by a simple

majority. that rules change on the table back in 1975 was not to eliminate the filibuster in its entirety which is what the current nuclear option would do for judicial nominations. rather it was to change from the then existing two thirds cloture requirement to three fifths. it was a change in degree, not a fundamental restructuring of the senate to completely do away with minority rights. the rule change was also attempted at the beginning of the senate session and it applied across the board as opposed to the change currently on the table brought up midsession concerning only the very small subset of the senate's business. nonetheless my decision to support cutting off debate on a rules change by a simple majority vote was misguided. i carefully listened to the debate in 1975 and i learned much from my senior colleagues, in particular i remember senator mansfield being a principled voice against the effort to break the rules to amend the rules. senator mansfield stood on the floor and said this, quote, the fact that i can and do support

changing the cloture threshold from two thirds to three fifths does not mean that i condone or support the route taken or the methods being used to reach the objective of senate rule 22. the present motion to invoke cloture by a simple majority, if it succeeds would alter the concept of the senate so drastically that i cannot under any circumstances find any justification for it. the proponents of this motion would disregard the rules which have governed the senate over the years, over the decades simply by stating that the rules do not exist. they insist that their position is right and any means used are therefore proper. i cannot agree, close quote. senator mansfield's eloquent defense of the senate's institutional character and his respect for its rules rings as true today as it did 30 years ago. senator mansfield's courage and conviction in that emotionally charged time is further evidence of why he is one of the giants

of the senate. in the end cooler heads prevailed and the senate came together in a way that only the senate can. i changed my mind. i along with many of my senate colleagues. we reversed ourselves and we changed the cloture rule but only by following the rules. ultimately over three-quarters of the voting senators, a bipartisan group, voted to end debate. in fact the deal that was struck called for reducing the required cloture threshold from two thirds to three fifths but it retained the higher two thirds threshold for future rules changes. now i understand that passions today are running high on both sides of the nuclear option issue. i can relate to my current republican colleagues. i agree with my distinguished judiciary committee chairman that neither side has clean hands in thesque laifting judicial wars. i also understand the frustration of my republican colleagues especially those who are relatively new to this chamber that only a minority of

senators can have such power in this body. for me, the lesson from my 1975 experience which i believe strongly applies to the dispute today is that the senate ought not act rationally by changing its rules to satisfy a strong willed majority acting in the heat of the moment. today, as in 1975, the solution to what some called the potential constitutional crisis, lies in the thoughtful eft for the by a bipartisan majority of senators to heed the wisdom of those who established the carefully crafted system of check and balances, protecting the rights of the noomplet it is one -- it is one thing to change the rules, it is another to overturn them. federalist 1, emphasizes that americans have a unique opportunity to choose a government by choice. it has been remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country to decide this important question,

whether the societies of men are capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice or whether they are forever destined to defend for their political constitutions on accident an on -- and on force, close quote. this is a question posed at the time of founding and also a question posed to us today. at the time of the founding, it was a question about whether america would be able to choose well in determining our form of government. we know from the experience of the last 225 years, that the founding generation chose well. as a question posed to citizens and to senators today, it is a question about whether we will be able to preserve the form of government they chose. the framers created the senate as a unique legislative body designed to protect against the excesses of any temporary majority, including with respect to judicial nominations and they left all of us the responsibility of guaranteeing an independent federal

judiciary, one price of which is that it sometimes reaches results senators don't like. it's up to us to preserve the previous guarantees, our history, our american sense of fair play and our constitution demand it. i would ask my colleagues who are considering supporting the nuclear option, those who propose to jump off the precipice whether they believe history will judge them favorably. in so many instances, our forefathers came together an stepped back from the cliff. in each case the actions of those states have been preserved and strengthened the senate to the betterment of the health of our constitutional republic and to all of our advantage. our careers in the senate will one day end as we are only the senate's temporary officeholders, but the senate itself will go on. while -- will historians study the actions taken in the spring

of 2005 look upon the current members as statesmen who placed the institution of state above policy or will historians see us as politicians bending to the will -- i am not comfortable with the role -- i for one am comfortable with the role i will play in this upcoming historic moment and i hope all of my colleagues feel the same. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate >> thursday president biden

holds his first official news conference since taking office. watch live coverage at 10 pm eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> the supreme court heard oral arguments in a case deciding whether police can enter a home without a warrant and seize weapons owned by a person perceivedto be endangering their life or the lives of others . the nation's highest court has until june to issue a rulingin kenny versus strong . >> the honorable chief

justice and associate justices of thesupreme court of the united states . o yez, all citizens are admonished to give their attention for the court is now sitting. god save the united statesand this honorable court . >> we will hear an argumentin case 2157 , neely versus strong. >> mister chief justice may please the court. the fourth amendment recognizes the sanctity of the home by drawing a form line at the door. the government cannot cross thatline without a warrant unless there's consent . here there was neither. respondents warrantless seizure and their subsequent seizures of his lawfully possessed gun in his garage highlighted the fourth amendment. the first circuit tried to

get around the warrant requirement by creating a new section based on katie. but the katie involved a standardized search of a car in police custody. it doesn't grant a license i for intruding in a whole hold. quite the opposite. every page of the court's decision relies on the constitutional differences between cards and houses. respondents need a different tack. they claim the warrant requirement isn't even implicated for non-investigatory reasons but in case after case the court has consistently applied but weren't requirement to homes regardless of the government regarding including where public safety is at stake. moreover the line between investigatory and non-investigatory actionis hardly clear . nearly every criminal violation has public safety implications. dispensing with the work requirements whatever police can point to a health or safety motive when it is the fourth amendment .

there's no reason to create a lw sweeping new rule. where there is a true emergency or people asked me help existing law already allows exception to the warrant requirement. many states provide a number of ways for the government to address problems while respecting the fourth amendment including red flag laws and involuntary commitment procedures but absent consent or exigent circumstances the fourth amendment doesn't allow officers to conduct searches orseizures in the home pursuant only to their own discretion . i'd be happy to answer the courts questions . >> mister dvoretsky, say the police gets a call and they say it's her elderly neighbor, it's 8:00, she's never late for anything. she's not answering the phone. i haven't seen her leave the house. they asked the police if they could come over and check it out. police do that, go on to the property and can't seemuch through the windows but the back door is open .

they go in. she's not there but she comes back and says what are you doing here, sues them under 1983 violating herfourth amendment rights does she win ? >> i think in that situation you have to ask whether the police had an objective basis for believing there was emergency there. >> will have and analyze that, i'd i'm giving you all the facts. do they have a basis because neighbors say they haven't seen her all day and she didn't come over for dinner, she's never late . is that enough? >> that alone would not be d enough, you would need fax to suggest there was a true emergency and no other alternative for the police but to go in. there are other things that could be done in that situation. >> onassume family members aren't answering the phone either. the neighbors are saying

she's an elderly woman. she's never late. she's late. they are not able to reach her by phone and they don't know who else to call. the police areviolating the constitution because they walk in the back door to make sure she's not lying on the floor . >> i think absent either consent or some objectively reasonable condition of emergency which i don't think those facts establish the police can't go into somebody's house without a warrant. that is the base method. >> it's 24 hours later, can they go in then? >> i think there is a line drawing question of how many facts you have to add to that hypothetical until it becomes an emergency. i think 24 hours would not be enough. perhaps at a certain point they could get a warrant for a missing person and go in on that basis but just the fact that somebody for 24 hours mightnot choose to show up for dinner or answer the phone .

>> but that's not the only facts, there are more facts which is that she was supposed to come over for evdinner and she's neverlate and the neighbors haven't been able to reach her. none of that matters . maybe she dies, the difference between 8:00 at night and 8:00 the next day. >> if all you have is 24 hours that wouldn't be enough . maybe if you have thosefacts plus a couple more days perhaps that would be enough . ultimately it comes down to whether the police have an objective basis to think there is an emergency that requires them to go in . >> does it matter if we're talking about a community caretaking, what the community is like? could it be that it's somebody like andy ofmayberry is all right because somebody expect him to keep track of things but kojak isn't ?

>> i don't think police would have different license to enter the home without a warrant based on those sorts of considerations, no your se honor. >> justice thomas. >> thank you mister chief justice. counsel i am going to return to the chief justice's point. where in the fourth amendment is a wellness check precluded ? >> your honor i think that the basic command of the fourth amendment is, and this court has recognized in numerous cases is that warrantless intrusions of the home are unreasonable absence consent or exigent circumstances. if wellness checks were justified in light of all the facts and circumstances presented, then the fourth amendment in that circumstance would allow it but absent that. >> what does the fourth amendment say, what are the words in the fourth amendment that preclude a wellnesscheck

? not the exceptions, not the jurisprudence but the words. >> the right of the people to be secure in their houses against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. this court has interpreted their requirements of unreasonable search and seizure to mean that a search of a whole is unreasonable absence a warrant unless -- >> your skipping a step. what if a police officer simply comes on to your porch to collect for a local charity. where that, how is that different from a wellness check ? >> i think the police officers are allowed to come onto the porch for a wellness check if all they're doing is knocking on the door to check on you . i think they can't go further than that if they don't have consent to enter hathe home and

go inside of simply going onto the porch and knocking on the door whether it's to check on wellness or whether it's to collect for a charity , i don't think that's prohibited. >> i think the point of the chiefs question is if the elderly woman doesn't show up , she could be sick. she could be watching tv. she could be doing any number of things but t you know, maybe we agree that the police officers shouldn't. through the windows in search of contraband or something that looks like a search. but to see if she is okay, how does that become a search ? how does looking for someone to determine whether that person is okay, how is that a search or seizure? >> i think it's a search or seizure when the police entered the home without consent and invade the privacy of the home and

violate in that instancethe right of the people to be secure in their home . >> he does go in and he finds her unconscious on the floor. can she sue him? >> if he goes in and it turns out there was an actual emergency ? >> yes, you wouldn't know t unless he enters the premises . he doesn't have any knowledge of that before. he goes in because exactly as the chief said, the neighbors invited her to dinner. she's never late and he finds she has actually fallen and broken her hip. >> justice thomas, while it's not a hindsight inquiry i think if those were the facts i think if he goes in without an objective basis and happens to have guessed correctly that she did need help that would not absolve the officer of liability but i do think if the officer has

an objective basis before hand for going in that would be emergency aid in that and in that situationthere would be no fourth amendment violation . >>thank you . >> justice breyer. >> i have a factual question and a legal question. the police went to the porch and they went inside and then they took your client and took him and then they went back and got the guns. how long after they put him in the ambulance or wherever they put him, how long afterwards did they get the gun? >> justice breyer, i can't tell you exactly how many minutes or seconds it was but it was all part of the same visit . >> all part of the same visit. >> is 30 minutes toolong, is five minutes to short, any idea ? >> i think it would be less s than five minutes. >> second question is a legal question which i'm having a

hard time with . i think you could apply exigent circumstances and i think wait a minute, there's so many situations where it's obvious the police to enter . babies have been crying for five hours . nobody seems to be around. a rat comes out of the house at a time when rats carry serious diseases. a person goes into the house at the police think people inside the house don't know that this person has a serious communicable disease particularly for older people who happen to live in the house. we all can think of dozens of instances and if we call those exigentcircumstances we weaken the accident circumstances and if we move to a whole new thing like caretaker i don't know what we do . so what's myyour answer to my dilemma, legally ? >> exited circumstances, the exit ones or what, how do we do it?

>> the way this court has understood accident circumstances is a true emergency . >> too narrow because there are lots of health emergencies. what about the rats, the baby crying, the old people who don't know they're goingto be exposed to deadly viruses etc. . we can think of lots of circumstances where it's very reasonable for a policeman to going to the house . and you can do, we both can. am i supposed to move the accident circumstances rules which grew up in a different context for what ? >> justice breyer, to take a couple of your examples the baby crying i think would be a true emergency but rats, that was what was at issue in the frank case this court overruled. >> try reading something where end coming out of the house could give people bubonic plague . it's easy to invent hypotheticals or do we just take this case on a common-law basis, with no rule and say this is toomuch

or too little ? it was a long term, it was a different. i'm trying to my dilemma and i want your answer. >> justice breyer, i think you apply the accident circumstances doctrine the way this court has always applied it which is requiring a true emergency and if there isn't a true emergency there may be other alternatives the police and take advantage of like administrative warrants . that's what the court contemplated in the camera case involving housing code issues and it is neither a true emergency or something that can be addressed in that sort of manner, and i think the fourth amendment requires the policenot go in . >> thank you, justice alito. >> mister dvoretsky, the way this court case has been presented is most unhelpful because it conflates several separateissues .

one is whether a warrant is needed under certain circumstances. i know that's what you want to talk about, i want to put that aside talk about an issue that comes before that and that is what are the spermissible reasons for a search or seizure and the amount of evidence that a governmental officer has to have two deconduct the search or seizure. so what i'd like to do is to try to give you some situations and ask you to tell us as briefly as you possibly can what whether a search would be permitted under the circumstances and the amount of information s that would be needed for a nonconsensual search by some governmental officer also putting aside the question of whether it's a police officer or somebody else so the first one is a person in the house may commit suicide where suicideis not a crime. is that a permissible reason

for a search ? >> for a search by an officer without any other authorization, just in the author's discretion? >> without consent, no, that's not a permissible reason. >> even if the officer has erprobable cause to believe the person will commit suicide. >> it may depend on the immediacy of the situation and that hypothetical . >> a person may commit, the probable cause the personwill commit suicide, reason to enter . >> that may be a reason to enter. >> does the officer need probable cause, reasonable suspicion or something else ? >> i think the officer needs to have an objective basis to believe the suicide is going to be immediate and that therefore the officer must enter. >> immediacy goes to the warrant requirement. probable cause and reasonable suspicion orsomething else .

>> i think they are related because i think for the warrant requirement, you're asking something similar to a probable cause kind of inquiry which is is there a reasonable basis to believe that, is there a reasonable basis to believe the officer needs to go in, these are all intertwined. >> let me go on to the second example. a vulnerable person in the house, for example a person with a disability, an elderly person with dementia, a child may be abused or denied care. probable cause, reasonable suspicion issomething else . >> i think you would need probable cause in that situation but that's the criminal situation so you could get a criminal warrant there. >> you need to be able to get a criminal warrant? >> from the hypothetical as i understood it that would be criminal abuse of an elderly

individual in the house. if the police suspect that they need probable cause that crime is being committed and the judge can add an authorized warrant . >> the child calls the police and says 500 miles away. my mother asked mild dementia . last time i spoke she said something was wrong.she's upset it was hard to make sense of it and now when i call the caretaker always provides, gives me excuses why my mother can't me on the phone. can the police do anything? >> that's a example of having a basis to believe that a crime is being committed. the police could investigate that and seek a criminal warrant. >> you think that's probable cause? >> that sounds like probable cause based on these investigating a warrant based on a tip that a crime is committed . >> thank you. mrs. sotomayor.

>> i'd be hard-pressed to think any judge would not consider the hypothetical by the chief justice as justifying and not an entryby police officers . you have a neighbor who suspects an elderly woman to come visit . a known sister who comes and tells the police she's never late. and it's now she's really late and there's no answer. i don't see how under any circumstance either the emergency aid or emergency doctrine, exit circumstance doctrine wouldn't permit that search. if that's the case, then maybe justice breyer is right . but if i disagree with him and believe that both of the

emergency aid doctrine and the accident circumstance doctrines would permit most entries that where there is reasonable cause to believe that someone might be in need . what does that do to your argument ? >> justice sotomayor, i don't mean to fight too hard on the hypothetical that the chief justice presented. the emergency aid doctrine if it could cover that sort of situation it would also cover lots of other situations that the other side is positing today require community caretaking exception . the emergency aid doctrine covers true emergencies if there is reasonable cause to believesomeone is in need . that doesn't help the respondents in this case. they haven't argued accident circumstances and in fact have waived accident circumstances . >> i don't disagree and you mcan always posit an argument

in the middle and then officers would have qualified immunity but my point to you is are you trying to break your right, the community caretaking exception was created because of all of these hypotheticals. but i think hyat the core and i thought that was your argument is that there has to be some sense of relevancy. some sense that there's a real problemgoing on . >> that's absolutely right justice sotomayor. the agent circumstances doctrine requires a true emergency with immediate action and if you have a reasonable cause to believe someone is in need , let's say the emergency circumstances doctrine is satisfied but -- >> that's what your brief pointed out that many of the circumstances that have been looked at previously by other courts under the community

caretaking exception are covered by either the emergency aid or exigent circumstances doctrines, correct? >> yes, that's right. >> thank you council. >> justice kagan. >> mister dvoretsky, you mentioned a bit ago the possibility of administrative warrants . i'd like to explore that a bit. suppose the locality, suppose you were to win this case and the locality said we want to set up a good scheme of giving permission for the kinds of welfare checks that we've been doing. what with that scheme look like and how far away would be from what we think of as the kind of scheme that producesntcriminal warrants ? >> justice kagan, i think it would depend on what the state is trying to accomplish with a welfare check scheme but the two sorts of schemes that have rated in states are

red flag laws and involuntary commitment laws . the red flag laws in many states that allow more it's where guns, taking guns from people is necessary because they pose a risk of harm to themselves or others. >> by what standard do those laws operate, is it improbable caused standard, could it be something lower c? >> it's usually a probable cause standard and the laws provide specific criteria for a court to consider about whether the person poses a risk . >> suppose the locality sent probable causes too much and we shouldn't use a breasonable suspicion, would that be appropriate? some judge or other state official. >> i think the fact that it goes through a third-party is a key part of that schemei think that's a significant factor under the fourth amendment . it would be more defensible under the fourth amendment as

it requires probable cause. i don't know depending on the details of the scheme whether some likely lesser standard would be sufficient probable cause by a judge would i think be the gold standard of such a scheme for fourth puamendment purposes. >> i'm less interested in the gold standard than the dividing line between constitutional and not what you also said these red flag laws were about during guns in the hands of people who would do harm to themselves or others. could you, do you think constitutionally you could broaden those laws to encompass schemes like the chief justice is hypothetical ? >> i think you could. thstates can provide for a warrant for a welfare check as long as there is an objective basis or believing there's a person inside in need. and in that situation it might not have to be a true emergency because it's not a police officer making that judgment in his or her

discretion on their own but rather you have a neutral decision-maker. i'm not aware of states having done that but they probably could as long as you had again, and objective basis found by a judge by a mutual decision making. >> in the state that have done this what neutral decision-makers are you using west and mark what would be constitutionally permissible? >> there using judges. >> you think that's orrequired? >> some sort of a neutral decision-maker is required whether a state could have an administrative law judge or other decision-maker . that might well be fine . >> onelast question on a different subject . you said the respondents have waived the argument that this was a true emergency . putting the waiver question aside, why wasn'tthis a true emergency ?

>> justice, the only basis the officers had for thinking mister ken ely was potentially suicidal was a statement he had made the night before but 12 hours passed since that statement. it was in the home with the gun during that time. nothing happened and the officer said when they spoke with mister ken ely he seemed calm and normal life. those circumstances don't make out an emergency without involving a mental health professional, neutral decision-maker other than the officers discretion. >> justice gorsuch. >> ..

. >> you wouldn't need the hot pursuit exemption because police can always say they try to protect the occupants in the home delight of having a criminal in their midst. likewise you would need a hotel were to into the home to arrest somebody because then they say it would be dangerous for the other occupants of the home to have children in the home with them. seventy situation involving drugs and alcohol probation saynt they were going into make sure the suspect was okay. that is contrary as well.

and so to create an exception that those rules are essentialng to the fourth amendment. >> accepting that might be the case and everything can be described as health or safety, what does the government do that doesn't involve health or safety, how to the help to have an administrative warrant requirement? i understand it treated the home as asylum and a castle of defense virtually impenetrable concerned about physical injuries as you describe in your brief but if the government could get the administrative warrant to test to test it was too cold too cold that affects health or safety if that is what you are conceding and what is left of the fourth amendment?

>> you are involving a neutral decision-maker. >> i understand that but that's awful by the government. >> may t be a separate government maybe so with the executive officer permitting another executive officer with reasonable suspicion? that the house might be too warm or too cold? is that really a reasonable search or seizure? >> if you have one executive officer providing authorization for another that would be problematic if you had a trulyly d neutral decision-maker having not involved is arbitrary harassment gives the occupant of the homee some notice it is simply the officer acting on his or her own. >> mymy time is expired. >> justice kavanaugh. >> the circumstances where it

would matter are older people who fall and suicide. so i want to focus on those two things. the chief justices questions focused on older people that fall does to test on - - statistics are quite shocking and many of us when there is a neighbor we haven't seen or parents who live in a different place will come instead of barging into the house or calling if the parent lives in a different place, you call the local police officer who might have a relationship and asked them

to check in. when katie do that consistently with the fourth amendment? >> i thank you can always call the police. >> that when can they go win? your answer to the chief justice i thought was somewhat startling spirit the police can go in when they have reasonable cause to believe there is someone in need. >> back down. you haven't seen the person you talk to your. florida on a sunday night they were not there so on monday you call the police. what happens. >> i think perhaps in that situation depending on how many facts you give them with your parents being reliable not missing calls or appointments but adding to

that hypothetical it is the more likely the police could invoke emergency aid as a basis for going into make sure the person is n okay. but you needd to have that objective basis to think. >> is not perfect information a neighbor who cares about another neighbor or a parent it what i'm worried about is the longer youre are in the house and no one comes to get you you are more likely to die in statistics are huge for older people dying from falls. >> justice kavanaugh this is why it is not certainty and it is on the objective basis. >> let's talk about suicide. how many people died every day by gunshot inna the united states. >> every day on average every single day on average 65 suicides by gunshot in the united states on average.

every day. please officers are critical when a neighbor or family member in this instance can help prevent that. so why and are the facts here is it preventing suicide that says i am fearful they will commit suicide? that is not good enough? >> what they saidhe in this case she wanted the officers toan check and make sure he was okay. they found him okay. and 12 hours had passed. now whether or not somebody in that situation.

>> police officers in the moment, don't have time to do all this. they are faced with a spouse, they are reacting to a situation. that's not enough and in the person commits suicide. that is not ata good result. >> and that is what your position unfortunately will leave officers backing away when older people have fallen or there is concern about that or risk of suicide. >> justice kavanaugh in a situation like this they could've been a mental health professional. >> time is of the essence in this case said the situation they have the objective basis to think idea is of the accident so they can go win. >>. >> i have a question talk about a neutral decision-maker

about often the competitive enterprise so if some communities are doing that sometimes mental health checks don't go so well and people and up getting hurt for someone that is mentally ill or post the gun on the police or a knife and sometimes the person who is the subject of welfare check some create a situation of social workers is that n reasonable? to have the administrative scheme or something like that but a community that has a system if there is a welfare check and the social worker goes and that is being described? >> the social worker would still be subject to the fourth

amendment. >> but with that satisfy the fourth amendment? >> a social worker would be better equipped if they show up on the scene and decide in their professional judgment they have to go in that goes towards showing there were circumstances. >> if there were indigent circumstances than the police could and that is covered by the president. does it affect theve reasonable calculus if you have a neutral person that you think would be appropriately involved with that kind of person shows up and says yes, no person has been in there rather than having the police than a social worker will check from

the parent who has not been heard from. >> likely that would satisfy the fourth amendment. the framework i would use to e think about that is the social worker is making a determination. >> this is not indigent circumstances. using my question by saying no. but they are nothing the matter which government official. >> i think that's right if the social worker simply going in based on the judgment that there is no indigent circumstance but the person could benefit from help ime don't think that's a determination the government can make. >> but those administrative schemes you are imagining it sounds odd to my ears to talk about probable cause to think that someone would benefit from help we use that probable cause requirement for that a crime has been committed are there circumstances where

reasonable suspicion suspicion is outside of the investigation? >> there are. that is what the court calls for in the case. and those lawsre i mentioned earlier where probable cause will also apply in other context like housing code violations. >> housing code violations sounds different probable cause sounds that there is a violation even if it is not criminal. it sounds odd to apply that probable cause standard that justice kavanaugh has with an elderly person who needs help there is no violation. >> but the way the states have looked at the probable cause standard means the objective basis to believe of fill in

the blank. >> thank you. >> one minute to wrap up. >> thank you mr. chief justice. the fourth amendment protects the home in a special way. when it comes to the home a reasonable search requires a warrant unless there is concern for a true emergency. a number of the courts questions have focused on practical consequences. those indigent circumstances vastine will cover the majority of situations that one might beof concerned about. where police can point to the objective basis, the need to go in they can do so. and some of the other scenarios they can come up with with the administrative foreign type regime to meet the need the respondents that are in this case so it would

allow people to go into the whole without a word in a situation that would essentially blue up numerous fourth amendment doctrines that has been upheld. >> thank youim counsel. >> thank you mr. chief justice and if it pleases the court. please officers and first responders under circumstances may into the home without swarrant. it should. but the petitioner has the absolute position under no circumstances can it occur except for indigent circumstances. nothing approach is contrary for the fourth amendment there may be f

circumstances but the advent of the potential harm is not clear butdi the need to respond is immediate time could be of the essence so then the questions you have asked have outlined some examples of people who are elderly. and then those who don't get the his or her mail for three days and the potential harm is not so clear with the need to respond that could be immediate. and also to illustrate this point but the petitioner demonstrated the potential for suicide and the officers reasonably acted against the risk. in this case not allowing that

action may result in death or injury. that is why the absolute prohibition community caretaking in the home without a warrant that is objectively reasonable to do sost thank you mr. chief justice. >> so let's suppose the police get a call from the neighbor as the johnson's are away i know they are not here to have a fence around. their backyard it is locked but there is a cat ine the tree can you help get the cat down? is that community caretaking? >> yes. i think it is. here's why. look at the intrusion to get up in a tree and up against the privacy rights and to me climbing a tree and getting a

cat does not interfere privacy right. that is not a caretaking activity o. >> common-law the interest protected by the fourth amendment is a little more significant than that. in the backyard surrounded by a locked fence is entitled to protection as well. if you're a cat caught in a tree you waited there for a while it might come down on its own. >> that's true but that is whether or not it is intrusive. but common-law reflects criminal investigation and entered into a home for criminals. nash of that's a way to look at it.

and not for criminal investigation. >> justice thomas. >> thank you mr. chief justice. let's look back at the cases that led to this and with the gridlock. they were all cases involving impounded or wrecked cars. how did we get from that to this case? and they are required to enter a private home it is speak of vehicles but it is essential and applies to a reasonable objective and to indicate

there may be differences in privacy rights excuse me differences in the outcome in a home versus a car. >> i'm sorry for cutting you off but to my point in katie chief justice rehnquist says there is a warrant requirement we normally say the fourth amendment standard when it comes to the home the requirements that those are met. but he says one class of casess which constitutes at least an exception to this general rule is automobile searches. that sounds to me that is an

exception with the general requirement for a warrant. and i'm trying to figure out how you got from this case to the case to the general rule the exception to the general rule i don't understand how we did that. >> i would say that is a criminal investigation. and then i go back to randolph where the court says no you can't pull away from things that happened in the house that you have to react to it. so again, we go from the vehicle but the test is the same. the fourth amendment is that

searches and seizures should not be unreasonable. >> my problem is that if you take the caretaker exception into the word reasonable , there is no stopping. but otherwise it causes a different problem. so we are looking for subsidiary standards that you need a warrant for administrative searches words like normally and so forth and there is some wiggle room there. what word you think of the standard rhode island row into its law? it has to a suicide?ac

>> the american psychological association says you must take those threat seriously. that's what we are writing about. the common-law approach in this case and they wrote the statute after the case began and then to take them into protective custody, if the officer has reason to believe he is in immediate care and treatment and a risk of serious harm is reasonable mental disability what about that? the officer has reason to believe serious harm for mental disability and then said for this case that is a reasonable standard. >> isn't that the fourth amendment standard? >> i don't know. that's what i am asking you. in general 1956. >> yes.

>> what do you think is simply saying as written a standard that is reasonable as applied to this case? and then i read the sentence i just read to you it is a probable cause if the officer has reason to believe. >> i go back to the question presented because that is whether the community caretaking exception to the fourth amendment extends to the home. so for purposes of suicide in rhode island that doesn't answeron the question. >> that is what we said. but that doesn't mean there's no exception there are emergencies to a person who is a suicide threat the law does

come up with a reasonable standard we think does not violate the fourth amendment. >> i think that helps for suicidal issues in rhode island. >> one standard for the country if that is okay in rhode island it is okay anywhere. >> what do you think of it? >> yes. >> i agree. >>. >> counsel, one of the things that is troubling to a lot of people about the caretaking exception is it doesn't seem to have any clear boundaries. when you talk like getting a cat down from a tree, that fortifies that concern. so narrow this down, let's talk about the reasons why a

search may be conducted or a seizure. putting aside the issue of a warrant can we narrow it down to preventing life-threatening injury or serious injury or a definable quantity of property damage? can we have structure in any of those ways? >> i do. the most important goal obviously is injury to life or death or destruction, major destruction of property. and i think it's any different because when it involved against the privacy rights like climbing up a tree to get a cat doesn't account for a lot but if somebody does die that accounts for a lot.

i do think we have presented many standards for the community care. >> isn't that amount of information? probable cause reasonable suspicion, something else. >> i think it has to be objectively reasonable and probable cause that is related to criminal activity. >> what is the calculation of probability? and it is c pretty substantial requirement. reasonable suspicion has a clear meaning it could be applied in different context is that what you are advocating? >> no. i'm advocating to use the text of the fourth amendment and

that is reasonable us. if we stick with it that is objectively reasonable with all the guardrails we have put in that is the proper way to address this. >> counsel i think justice alito hit the nail on the head as i have read the decision of the lower circuits they all seem to have different factors that make up community caretaking and actually sure what it means. but i am concerned deeply of the first of the circuits claim there is no requirement officers selected the least intrusive means for the community caretaking responsibility. think what everyone has forgotten at least in this situation, there was no immediate danger to the person threatening suicide and no

immediate danger because the suicide person was removed to a hospital. so the c issue is so notwithstanding that or the ability to ask the wife she would consent to giving up the gun and ammunition that they decided on their own to go in and sees the gun. that appears to me to take away from any of the limiting principles that justice alito pushed fourth. some you call it reasonable suspicion, some suspicion, whatever adjective you put there, there was no

immediate danger, readily accessible alternative that was ignored. and you put into the hands of law enforcement the ability to use their judgment as opposed to that of the psychiatrist who was treating this man. they could have asked the psychiatrist they should remove the gun or not. they did not do anything. what is the limitingve principles? how serious does the threat have to be? how much judgment? how do we limit? could they have gone into the house and not just the gun but any bat or knife or anything else in their judgment this man could have used to commit suicide? >> that is where the objective reasonableness and analysis comes into play.

>> it doesn't. because the question is the objective reasonableness has to be going into the place and seizing. >> so what was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. >> one of the things to keep acin mind when they were faced with a situation taken to the hospital for evaluation they didn't know when he would be back. >> why. >> they could have taken that ammunition and not the gun. >> they could have done all of those things. >> i would think if the police have some good reason to think a person will use a gun or

other weapon to take his own life or to take the life of a spouse or other family member, that would count as reason enough for the police to proceed. it is the exigent circumstances or falls within the exception we have set up for emergency aid. so why do you make that argument? >> the timing would happen in a minute or happen in a day so that distinction with that circumstances and applicable. >> can you explain that to me? it was not and immediate threat? why did you think that? >> because the timing of the potential harm could not be determined it was

undeterminable so those circumstances looking at emergency aid and with michigan and brigham what happens to be right in front of the officers that was the community caretaking with the advent of the harm does not have to be immediate. in fact it is unknown. >> i understand with community caretaking that is a phrase that covers a lot of stuff but really we've only use that phrase with respect to automobiles and inventory searches. but if there is anyone principle of the fourth amendment law the court has

created that the automobile is distinctly not. >> i agree. but that ways into the balance and the privacy right is limited the home is at the forefront and if the entry into the home is challenge. >> and looking to common-law with the fourth amendment people could try to pass on property with a private necessity of indigent circumstances. i'm unable to locate with the trust pass have you been able

to locate anything in the common-law that comes close to what you are asking? >> i don't think the common-law helps either side with the history of the making of the fourth amendment i do think that restatement is the best example in going in for purposes of helping someone. >> of the original meaning of history does not help to following up with justice kagan quickly, i would have thought in cases of threatened violence against oneself or others for the prospect someone is lying and in the vast majority of cases and

only when long time delay that will become a problem. so why doesn't that take care of the practical concerns voiced here today? >> so to interpret and clarify that those circumstances ask account for situations the officer does not know when that will occur something must be done. ic>> thank you and good morning. picking up on the justices question it does make it seem the amicus brief written by the utah solicitor general

that they cases before the court because of confusion and nomenclature. and says although mislabeled the warrant exception and with the emergency aid standard. so are we just here because of confusion about labeling? >> if this court looks at brigham and michigan versus fisher in situations apart from those they can't say when it will happen if the need is imminent then i do think you

have to look at the response of the caretaking and indigent circumstances the proactive caretaking and look at the fact in this case and then to be evaluated. and then frankly to indicate he was discharged. those are proactive things that fall within the community caretaking that may not be applicableug. >> thank you. >> you told justice gorsuch the example of common-law of something like this was if you entered property because of necessity there is no liability. is it really the case to say i have a neighbor and i understand the wife is concerned of the presence of the gun?

so i take the gun and then take them back' to my house i'm not liable for trespass or conversion? >> i didn't say conversion. that could be different. don't forget were talking about a tort action. but under that restatement. >> and asking justmr for the entry but you don't have an example of that withth common-law. >> correct. >> let me ask you this. what if he went into his home and found a meth lab? they can take that he can be prosecuted? >> yes. >> talk about how far the exception might go because there is an umbrella for a lot of different things and then please look through the window and see people gathered together not wearing masks. can they enter?

>> yes. >> but there may be a criminal violation. >> that was not part of my hypothetical. there is no crime there is a mask ordinance but there is no penalty for it. is there a concern about spread? >> yes look at the transient hazard the non- investigatory reason for engaging in that activity and withh the facts they have seen it and done what they do. that fits within community caretaking. >> one minute to wrap up. >> thank you mr. chief justice.

and the meaning and the spirit of the fourth amendment is not by caretaking activities in the most vulnerablees times. as long as intrusions are reasonable with the privacy interest, the question presented is something that should be answered with the absolute prohibition is not consistent with the fourth amendment. coronation with those in need please officers cannot turn their back and walk away the circuit decision should be affirmed in the question presented should be answered in the affirmative. thank you. >> mr. chief justice a may please the court. with the fourth amendment cases. and the fact now or not at all but because there is p no

warrant in these situations from welfare checks on welfare elderly residents and suicide checks. although there have been a lotot of questions exigent circumstances the label you give it is not nearly as important as the principal the key principle is someone is at risk of serious harm and it is reasonable for officials than that is enough. officials don't need to showll up additional time to get a warrant. because again for many of these situations, there is no warrant process at all. >> how do you feel about the cat? would you let the police bring it down or die in the tree? >> your honor with the

community caretaking one is harm to people, number two is harm to property and inconveniences we are here to defend the people with the government interest. >> so no concerned about property or animals? >> i think there would have to be unusually compelling circumstances for those other types of insurance to be sufficiently important to match the privacy. >> so water dripping in someone's home and they own the van gogh it will ruin the painting is that compelling? >> with the painting.re >> they are elderly women they are off somewhere nobody can reach them. >> again there may be circumstances the court went to answer that question and maybe leave that open.

the most important cases for the court to cover was the protection and there are cases where there are water dripping from above of their concern starting a fire in the home. >> why are not arguing for the exception is not community caretaking but objectively reasonably grounds life is in danger. >> that is more or less what we put forward here we think the communityel caretaking label is a little misleading because it was so bound up in the circumstances of the vehicle e and katie but that if there are specific facts that are objectively established the justification, in particular the need for assistance and if they are reasonably tailored. >> justice thomas.

>> thank you mr. chief justice. as well-meaning as they may be, there will always be someone that does not want the government's help for the intrusion. normally when we look at these things and we look for some common-law, historic analog and then that there is none, can you give us ppsomething to look to for the appropriate tests? you gave us a number of test but normally we look for some analog with that be the best example. >> of course. but the duties of the

conscionable one is the peacekeeping role in one was a law enforcement role. when he acted in a peacekeeping role and you could enter a home without a warrant and to stop with disorderly drinking and that is different from the law enforcement capacity. that they do think that's the best analog that you have here and petitioner has identified a single case as common-law and the noninvestigatory in tree where a warrant was requiredt . >> it sounds that what you gave me white fit under the current exceptions and things of that sort. i don't know why we would need

a categoryyo to cover those examples. >> do you think the circumstances and aid that it is reasonable to act now if somebody would be injured in we're moments and we are perfectly fine we think that would cover circumstances like welfare check in the current suicide threat. the problem is when you have the petitioner saying those are the circumstances where it will come to a head in a moment and that's too risky even with common-law. >> justice breyer. >> if you accept hypothetically what we cannot for see how broad that might be and diffuse the present

words with those exigent circumstances than in this situation they might be too narrow. but what what the government think of taking this case as a common-law case it does involve suicide. they are serious and you say the rhode island legislature has enacted subsequently a statute that we believe has ano constitutional standard that allows the officers to protect custody if the officer has reason to believe there is a risk of likelihood of serious harm a mental disability? >> justice breyer we would be fine to clear of the minutes. >> that's the very thing we

cannot do. i don't know how to do it. because obviously one month is ridiculous. one second is too short. you tell me how do you define the word imminent? with psychologist and psychiatrist we say any utterance of the words threatening suicide should be taken very seriously. i'm not an expert but i think the law should take it seriously. what do you want to say?nk >> if you said current ongoing crisis for which it is reasonable to a act now and that is by reasonableness rather than the mere moment rulee or by the comparison to a process that doesn't even exist, then that would give room for the

situation. >> how far can we go and giving a little bit more substance to what has been labeled community caretaking? maybe it does. so at least it encompasses a situation where the objective is to prevent life-threatening or serious physical injury. that would be a first step. >> i think that is correct. )-right-parenthesis on serious physical harm because it would require to be unconscious. >> serious physical harm how much information does the officer have to have whether a police officer or mental health professional? >> the specific facts to

objectively establish the prosecutorial justification make it reasonable tont act now with the law enforcement officials and to others which i do think it is a part of the case but the petitioner is asking for a warrant process that social workers doing mental health professionals do think that the risk of suicide is sufficient if my friend said she was so distraught she would jump out the window and then they question that person and said it's just a joke. >> that likely would not be sufficient again you need the specific facts and here you don't have a justice statement that was not hyperbole but coupled with the protection of a live firearm for the

individual that knows that they packed a bag and here's the magazine for the gun and then left for the night and called the police the next morning and then you have confirmation that he did say it and so on. so courts are o perfectly capable to draw the line between the two scenarios. >>. >> one of the reasons the fourth amendment was clear was to make the secure persons in their home. the's the language of fourth amendment. it seems to me and i have a proble' removing him and take him to the hospital that is a seizure. because we have reason to believe he was threatening suicide and even though 12

hours had passed the wife was still concerned andco he admitted to the threat calling it a joke i don't think they have to fit that description at face value given the circumstances described. so seizing him and taking him to the home with psychiatric examination is the edge agent circumstance that here as a point out to your colleague which is going into the home without an attempt with concern for the wife and then keeping it indefinitely until a lawsuit is filed. the wife tried to get it back, he tried to get it back, weeks and weeks went by.

with that permit the police to search and seize without some standard? we run the risk ofso situations like this one repeating themselves. so can you concentrate on the exigency with respect to the second seizure addition? my colleagues seem concerned with the first one, preventing the suicide, which has to do with seizing the individual or even going in. i'm talking about a second seizure. and not in plain view. they went in and literally searched and took it. >> justice that with the gun b was found in violation. so take that part out of the case then the question was should these officers have

followed petitioners to make sure they got a mental health evaluation or did they think taking guns with a new they were was a choice? i think that is the closest part of the case without the benefit of hindsight it was a reasonable choicee for them to temporarily take a hold of these. >> justice kagan. >> can i ask you about a few of the community care cases in the lower courts? there is a lot of noise coming from one house. the officer knocks, nobody comes to the door, neighbors are complaining but it doesn't rise to the. level of a crime. can the officer go in? >>. >> what do you think?

>> no we should leave theti question open. >> if we had to decide right now i would say probably not because we think the risk of harm to a person is the core. >> what about when the officer goes to the home trying to leave a protective order or something but the officer finds the lights are on inside and a tv on can the officer go in? >> probably not. i don't think there was specific sufficient facts to believe somebody needed assistance. >> the house owner goes to the store leaving door partially it charted the neighbor calls the police the police doesn't receive apply because is

nobody there can he search the house. >> if it is just an open door it's probably insufficient. others have other facts like a car in the driveway covered in leaves and mailve outside. >> so this community care exception has these dimensions in the lower court and then to encompass all of these cases? >> no. because you have highlighted a couple of the more unusual ones in the vast majority if you look throughap these are things like suicide checks and welfare checks and unattended children and weapons left accessible to know adults in the home and risk of explosion and just much more obvious circumstances. of course we want someone to intervene there.

>> good morning. if i understand what you said this morning is different from your brief you agreed we should look to the common law to understand thete reasonableness test? >> we agree the court looks to common law. >> okay. stand you agree there will find a test that allows trespass for something of exigent circumstances like injury or grave injury to a person? >> there are huge differences. and with that private individuals and then property is common law. and then you will see officials allowed to entered with the peacekeeping duties. >> be your asking us to rely on the common law general rule that a trespass is permissible

the aid of someone in danger of imminent physical injuryow spirit that's not quite how the trespass rule is framed and generally in the restatement it is reasonably appearing necessary to prevent a harm. i wouldn't want that immediacy. >> but i thought you said it had to do t with physical harm? >> common law actually extends. >> i'm asking about your argument now. >> the argument we suspended today the government interest is paramount to match the significant in the home will give homes toge properties. >> and if that is all true why

doesn't that naturally fit under the circumstances task that started and now has to do with a nuisance? >> to be clear we have not located this but the reason why the exigent circumstances have tripped up the lower courts is because it is often thought of the time available to getet a warrant. so what if in this jurisdiction for criminal case somebody could get a warrant within an hour? they need to know that will occur within one hour. . . . . >> is that accurate? >> that is accurate and i was just explaining and think the key part in many circumstances

is timing if you limit the moment or limit this to the time available to get a warrant when there is no warrant available then that's when you enter an in-depth excluded. >> which is reasonable to act now, is that inaccurate? do ien hear that correctly. >> that is correct. >> on common law the two reasonable, unreasonable as to the term search and seizure, we certainly don't ignore the common law even to the word for writing an opinion and it goes to the rule that you're proposing how would we write the following sentence or paragraph our role is consistent with the common law of the cause and you can fill in the blank with the rest of your time. >> the common law drew the line between government officials

acting in a non-investigatory pacitti. they were allowed to enter homes without warrants in order to address a reasonable responsibility of disturbance or serious physical harm, that also is a common law of trespass which applied to government officials and the private individual. i would note that the common law rule and government officials would be allowed to enter in fewer circumstances than privatr individuals to enter. >> just a spirit? >> just a spirit? >> sorry i was on mute. can you say how the common law rule justifies a trespass in your view and justify saving the

guns? >> that the circumstance were i think there's no parallel with government officials are permitted to do in private individuals are permitted to do. >> you said you would be okay if the rule that we articulated if we sided with you did not include the ability to seize guns or other things? >> i would not be okay if you're talking about the common law trespass rule that applied to individuals from that you can derive the general point which is an entry justified when there is a serious harm at risk. on the other hand government officials are allowed to do things all the time that private individuals cannot do. it would limit government officials to private individuals only. >> 12 in you won't need a common-law analog winter in you sees the guns and drugs and that sort of thing.

>> of course plainview applies if someone is acting in a reasonable way meaning the fourth amendment and the other things that law enforcement officers or government officials are entitled to do. >> even if the reason they entered the house was to seizeic the guns? >> yes part of the test that were talking about in terms of the scope is we would expect what they do in the house to be reasonably tailored to the non-investigatory. that is permissible. i would encourage a court not to focus on the guns of this case in parts because it does not make an argument about the case and in large part because a lot of this is covered by the principles and they will involve firearms. >> a minute to wrap up.

>> think you mr. chief justice the distinction between investing for tory and non-invested for tory is nothing new and they suggested would undermine order part from first amendment kate entering case logs but the court has drawn that trooper maddox search is a mandatory drug testing and inventory searches and in those cases does analysis start by asking whether there is an objective person for having law enforcement. if there is a warrant is required and if not a general reasonable review and also to apply that to public safety in homesap including domestic violence to break up fights or to provide first aid. or applying a warrant would make little sense as a matter of history of logic and no matter the label government officials can constitutionally address

serious threat to lives or health. >> thank you counsel, are we afforded your friends on the other side more time than anticipated so why don't you take up to ten additional minutes for further questions or points you might like to make, during that time my colleagues are free to ask additional questions and i would like to start byy asking you whether you're concerned the reliance, your answer and a lot of the situations was that is an emergency aid, why shouldn't we be concerned that doing that would dilute the limits on those exceptions? ass, opposed to having a more carefully defined exception for

situations that are the eggs agent or have much of an emergency. >> mr. chief justice if you have a situation that is not that engine or an emergency then we should not be going in. the reason the temporal limit on the circumstance doctrine is so important that indentures that claiming the circumstances doesn't just become a pretext for law enforcement. there were a couple of cases -- not so much a pretext for law enforcement for communityw caretaking. >> i think either way the risk the officers go when and they say because the looking out for somebody's interest but not ann emergency situation and they end up at a minimum invading the privacy of a home of somebody who might of wanted to be left alone or criminal prosecution pursuant to the plain view

doctrine there is a couple of cases that illustrate this perfectly i think justice kagan brought up in that situation police officers turned the television on in the door was ajar they went inside and claimed they were doing so because they thought the person might need help and they found the surface next to them and they were criminal and prosecuted and they held that with a permissible use of community caretaking. when you call it community caretaking or circumstances, either way not having the carefully defined temporal limit on what constitutes a circumstance is critical for protecting the interest in underlying the fourth amendment. >> think about what the sg said today as opposed to the statements in the sg brief as anderson is ratner we don't care about the label and we can

caught a circumstance and she said has to be a current ongoing crisis. the only thing we care about no courts should think it has to be really immediate or in the space of time in which to get a warrant because after all a lot of places there is no place to get a warrant in certain stands like these. so what would be wrong with that. >> justice kagan let me make two points, i think it's critical that the need to act is imminent and if you pose that imminent requirement in the injury is ieither happy now or it's about to happen i agree it doesn't need to happen now and it doesn't need to happen in a matter of seconds but it has to be quite imminent in its to impose that limit that i would describe the other point i woule like to make in response to that

the states have come up with numerous warrant regimes that would apply in these types of situations there was one in rhode island in this very case where the police if he had refused to speak to mental health professional rather than take it upon themselves to send them to the hospital police could've gotten an order from the court that in their judgment there was an emergency there required to sending him to the hospital and the court could authorize that. there were not widespread administrative warning regimes but the court contemplated that it was necessary to protect the fourth amendment and states in the years since have come up with it. i do think states have created these procedures and that is a significant part of the answer to the question is having those alternatives. >> counsel could you backup a moment i think you blew past it

pretty quickly. explain what the parents are with diluting the eminencee requirement. >> i think the problem with diluting the eminence requirement, i think the cases it was straight goose. if you don't ensure circumstances are edged and, an infinite array of situations be able to say we had some reason to believe the person inside might need help so if you take a case like welch where the police went to somebody's home, the person had committed drunk driving but it was not a hot pursuit in the person was not a risk to the public because he was 30 home but the police went into his house with a warrant in arrested him. this court said it violated the for the moment under the other side view of the law person will believe the police could say we were very concerned that this

person was inebriated and at home and needed help. if you allow that situation to constitute circumstance not only is that contrary to the court cases but to your point i think it dilutes all the interest that the fourth amendment. >> on the question of suicide how is an officer supposed to determine how immediate the person might commit suicide not risk is assuming the officers gotten some articulable suspicion provided by somebody else that a person is suicidal.e how are they supposed to determine it's going to happen now, tonight how is officer supposed to figures that out. >> it depends on what they see when they go to the home. >> so they see nothing when they go to the home, this person is suicidalal and they can't get in

the home? just let it go. >> consult a mental health professional and if they can't. >> that takes a few hours and in the meantime the suicide occurred. >> in many states it would not take a few hours it can be donei much more quickly but if they did find they could notot consut a mental health professional because they cannot return for a few hours and if they had a credible reason to believe based on whatever information or tips outhat were given. >> the formulas are great the officers had to make a split-second decision, they don't have time to figure it out. they've been told the person's suicidal assault the drunk driving, and suicidal and you want them to hesitate and i really question the. >> justice kavanaugh if they have been told the person's suicidal and cannot get in touch

with the person or the mental health professional i think in that situation they can go in. >> he would impose a mental health professional requirement in there? >> the officer can just take those facts and can't make a judgment trying to save a life? >> if they could do that in a matter of moments on the cell phone when driving to the house to check out the person and call a mental health professional i think they ought to do that. >> that seems to me going too farth. let's be realistic. this is the chief justice question about the lady who doesn't come out of her home. i do understand the difference between the wellness checks and what the common law permits you to do in the seizing of guns from the home where the person

is no longer there or suicide threat. this is a big difference between the two, why can't you see the difference? why can't you roll articulate the difference in a more reasonable way? >> i think on the facts of this case the different as they were able to speak to him and he answered the door and he did not want to be help and they had no basic to think there was an immediate harm that would've prevented them fromno that situation. >> that is different i want to deal with the two seizures differently and i want you to articulate a rule that lsarticulates. >> i do think as your question earlier suggested that the seizure of the gun is solely indefensible because it took an extra step of going into the hole when it was an intimate

risk when he was in the hospital. i don't think that the seizure of mr. camilo was a for the moment violation but i think one could distinguish between along the line. >> white you take a minute to wrap up. >> the one point i want to get added on the common law, on the common law the only situation where officers can go in either through the hot pursuit situation or stopping ongoing violence, the reason it does not establish otherwise in the restatement provision says officers cannot commit a trespass if the person does not want help. the reason there is not a common law example requiring a warrant in these sort of situations is because the caretaking functions are not one the officers perform at all. i think the bottom line of our position were not saying police officers can never answer were

detained any consent, warrant or an emergency exit for the situation but they ought to be defined with a tight temporal limit in order tosi ensure that interest by the fourth amendment. the first relied on the community caretaking exception as the sole basis because the caretaking exception does not extend to the home. >> thank you counsel, the cases to the. >> coming up thursday the senate homeland security committee holds the confirmation hearing at 10:15 a.m. eastern for fema administrator nominee, then at 1:15 p.m. president biden holds his first official news conference since taking conference. on cspan2 the senate is back to consider an extension to the paycheck protection loan program for the end of may senators are expected to vote on president biden's nominee for deputy treasury secretary.

at noon on cspan3 the ceo of facebook, twitter and google testify about the spread of online misinformation at a house energy and subcommittee hearing and more streaming live on our website including an infrastructure hearing with transportation secretary pete buttigieg. that's at 11:00 a.m. eastern. later veterans affairs executory testifies that an oversight hearing on ba operation that gets underway on 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> senate majority leader chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell made a rare appearance at a committee hearing to testify about voting rights legislation in the senate rules committee is considering s1 for the people act in a wide range in built to voting rights in campaign finance. >> republican legislature that seized on the former president that the election was