Catherine Cortez Masto

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the senior Senator from Nevada and the junior Senator from Virginia be authorized to sign duly enrolled bills or joint resolutions from May 20, 2021, through May 24, 2021.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I understand there are two bills at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. I now ask for a second reading, and I object to my own request, all en bloc.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 228, submitted earlier today.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, that the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening or debate.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I rise to recognize one of my State's incredible educators, Jennifer Jaeger, who announced her retirement after almost three decades of work in the Clark County School District. A native Nevadan, Mrs. Jaeger was born and raised in Las Vegas and began her work in education at UNLV, where she earned a bachelor's degree in secondary education and a master's degree in middle level education and educational leadership. Since obtaining her educator license, Mrs. Jaeger has worked in four different Las Vegas schools in capacities ranging from dean of students to assistant principal to, presently, principal of the Robert O. Gibson Leadership Academy. Mrs. Jaeger has an accomplished history in serving Tier I, Title I schools and was recognized for her excellence in fostering a positive school culture and climate. During her time as principal, Robert O. Gibson Leadership Academy received several accolades, including being named a Magnet School of Excellence for the year 2020 and one of the first Purple Star Schools of Nevada for showing ``a commitment to understanding and addressing the unique needs of military-connected students.'' Through her career, Mrs. Jaeger put immense focus on the well-being of her students, including through her work with low-income families to identify kids in need of new shoes. Her work has yielded annual benefits for students and families in need through the Warm the Soles program. I ask my colleagues to join in me celebrating the amazing work of Jennifer Jaeger. Her service to Nevada schools and the community at- large has been exemplary and worthy of recognition.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 58, S. 1260.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. I yield the floor.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I move to proceed to legislative session.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be in order to file cloture on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 58, S. 1260.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Madam President, I will continue the reading of Martin Luther King's letter from the Birmingham jail. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: ``How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?'' The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: Just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ``an unjust law is no law at all.'' Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an ``I it'' relationship for an ``I though'' relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence, segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and sinful. Paul Tillich has said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong. Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or a power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that State's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured? Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest. I hope you are able to see the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience. In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience. We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ``legal'' and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ``illegal.'' It was ``illegal'' to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues. At this juncture, it is hard to find the words. How many more shootings, how many more individuals have to die before we take action? And I rise because the Senator--my colleague, the great Senator from Connecticut--was identifying these names as a form of prayer, which I could not have said that better, because this is about recognizing those we have lost in order to prevent future loss of life. So I join them to recognize individuals across the country and in my home State of Nevada who have lost their lives: Vincent Brown of Colorado; Zaimier Bell of New Jersey; Anthony Stanley of Missouri; Bao Yang, Minnesota; Daisy Navarrete of Texas; David Camacho, Rhode Island; Deonte Minor, Washington, DC; Ronald B. Williams from Indiana. All of these individuals were killed by gun violence. And just those names would be too many. Yet they represent a few and a heartbreakingly long list of victims, families, and communities whose lives have been ripped apart by senseless gun violence just this year. Sadly, my home State of Nevada has been no stranger to this pain. In Las Vegas, on October 1, 2017, a gunman opened fire on a crowd of thousands of people at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival. He killed 58 people that night. Two more victims have since died from injuries they received that evening. And hundreds, hundreds more were injured-- people who just wanted to enjoy an evening of celebration with their friends and family. I know the fear and the trauma that so many families experienced that day. My niece was at that concert, and my family and I are incredibly grateful that she made it home safely. But I will never forget--never forget--on that Monday after the horrific shooting that took place, sitting at the Reconciliation Center in Las Vegas with the families, with the parents, the uncles, the aunts, the siblings, who were waiting to find out what happened to their loved one. Can you imagine? It is the most horrific thing any family member could go through. You are waiting to hear what happened to your family member--your child, your son, daughter, your niece, your nephew, your father, your mother--and you are hoping that as time and the clock ticks away, your child is not one that is in the backroom with a coroner right now. I cannot tell you how heartbreaking it was to be with those families and talking to them and the fear and the anxiety and the helplessness and the hope that still they clung to that they would find out that their child or their brother or their mother or sister was really safe somewhere in one of the hospitals in Las Vegas. No one can imagine that, and no one should have to imagine it. And no one should ever have to go through that. But that is what families and loved ones have been going through over the years because of the senseless gun violence that is happening across this country. Every day, more than 100 families lose a loved one to gun violence. Austin Cooper Meyer, age 24, from Sparks, NV; Brennan Lee Stewart, age 30, from North Las Vegas; Cameron Lee Robinson, age 28, from Las Vegas; Charleston Hartfield, age 34, from Henderson, NV, a police officer; Erick Steven Silva, age 21, from Las Vegas; Laura Ann Shipp, age 50, from Las Vegas; Neysa Christina Tonks, age 46, from Las Vegas; Quinton Joe Robbins, age 20, from Henderson--those are just 8 of the 60 Americans who lost their lives during the Route 91 Harvest festival shooting in Las Vegas on October 1, and their names and stories will stick with us forever. But we also have to remember the loved ones they have left behind. So many of these names I know now not just because of the horrific shooting but because I have met their family members whom they have left behind--children who were left behind, children who lost their parent to this horrific gunfire, husbands and wives, mothers and fathers. It just goes on and on and on. In the next few minutes, I want to share some stories of Nevadans whose lives have been altered by gun violence. Many of these stories are heartbreaking, and they stem from the October 1 mass shooting that took place in Las Vegas. Before I talk about them, however, I have to also recognize and praise the many heroes who stood up and worked to protect our community that night. After the bullets stopped raining down on the Las Vegas Strip, a former marine turned a truck into a makeshift ambulance and drove more than two dozen people to one of our hospitals. A couple provided CPR to injured victims on the site. And hundreds of concertgoers risked their lives carrying fellow concertgoers to safety. In fact, many younger attendees already had a sense of what to do to stop the bleeding from bullet holes and knew to run for safety in the breaks in between the sounds o gunshots because of training they had received in their schools and workplaces. But after the shooting, I received a letter from a constituent who survived the Las Vegas shooting, and she wrote: On October 1st, 2017, our life was forever changed. . . . My husband and I attended the Route 91 Harvest Festival. We were having the time of our lives, enjoying the different bands we got to see and singing along with all our favorite songs. [My husband] and I were so moved when [one of the bands] led the audience singing God Bless America. Who would have known that just a few hours later our lives would be changed forever? When the shooting . . . started, I thought it was firecrackers. We looked around and then there were more shots. My husband pulled me to the ground, laying on top of me, shielding me from gunfire. He laid there tense waiting to be shot while I laid there waiting for him to go limp. We prayed and told each other we loved [one] another. I prayed we would live to see our children raise their children and I felt Jesus' hands covering us. During a pause in the shooting, my husband pulled me up to start running. I was terrified, [because] we could hear bullets whizzing by and [we] could smell gun powder. There were three people, that I know of, who were shot right around us. The shooting continued for what felt like forever. We continued running and ran across Las Vegas Boulevard while the shooting continued. There was so much confusion and we didn't know if there were more shooters. By the grace of God, my husband [and] I are unharmed physically. Our emotional scars are still to be determined. Sleeping has been difficult. I have had periods of uncontrollable shaking. I have chronic stomach pain and have . . . difficulty eating. All of this seems trivial compared to the families who have lost mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters and the hundreds of people still suffering with physical injuries. Now, I read that letter because it is not just, as I have said before, about the lives we have lost, but it is about the lives who are affected by gun violence. Reading that letter is just heartbreaking-- and to think that her trauma is experienced by so many other Americans from Las Vegas, from Parkland, from Orlando, and from Boulder. It is a stain on our Nation. And I have, since that shooting, been able to meet so many incredible survivors of this shooting, including two sisters, the Marano sisters, who were at the concert that night and are still living with the emotional scars from being there in that horrific shooting. Geena Marano has learned to prepare herself for Independence Day and New Year's Eve, when the sounds of fireworks can sound eerily similar to gunfire. But if a car backfires unexpectedly, she has to start the process of reminding herself: ``You're safe. It's OK. Don't worry.'' And her sister Marisa, who was also at the festival, says her own daughter has picked up on the habit of reacting to loud noises. She said: ``It breaks my heart because my trauma has [now] passed on to her.'' The fear resurfaces for these sisters in so many situations: on anniversaries, including of all the shootings since then; at high schools, where Geena was doing outreach to students and feared that she was putting herself at risk of another shooting; passing the Strip, eerily during the COVID pandemic, like it was on the day of the festival, because the Strip was shut down. Anywhere there is darkness and music, even on an evening out, the sisters still feel the repercussions of that night at the concert. And they are not alone. While the tragedy of the Route 91 shooting may be 3 years behind us, for many survivors a moment can bring it all roaring back, and many more live in fear that it could happen again. Telemachus Orfanos, a survivor of the Route 91 Harvest Festival shooting, was killed when a gunman entered the Borderline Bar & Grill and shot 12 innocent people on November 7, 2018. What happened to Telemachus and other October 1 survivors in the restaurant that night was a uniquely American phenomenon that we should not be proud of. We keep having these mass shootings in our country, and it is past time that we acted. It is not only what our Nation deserves. It is what these families and these survivors and those who lost their lives deserve. The Nevadan who shared her October 1 experience with me ended her letter by stating: I am urging you to pass thoughtful, reasonable controls that will enhance the safety of our 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 is 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.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, during this impeachment trial, I have adhered to the oath I swore at the trial's outset to ``do impartial justice,'' and I have listened with care to the facts and law presented to me as a juror. These facts compel me to conclude that Donald Trump is guilty of inciting an insurrection against our Republic. As the evidence presented by the House impeachment managers has made clear, Donald Trump used the powers at his disposal to ensure he could keep his grip on the Presidency even though he lost the election. As the sitting President and a candidate for reelection, Donald Trump cast doubt on the results of that election for months, arguing that the only way he would lose at the polls was by fraud. Then, after losing to Joe Biden by a margin of 7 million votes in a free and fair election, Donald Trump claimed it was a ``fraudulent election.'' As our system of government allows, Donald Trump turned to State and Federal courts to hear his allegations of widespread fraud. Some of those courts were presided over by judges who Donald Trump himself had selected. Again and again, those courts rejected the allegations of fraud as baseless. Even Trump's own Attorney General, William Barr, publicly declared that he had found no evidence of fraud that could have ``effected a different outcome in the election.'' Faced with defeat in the courts, Mr. Trump nevertheless pressured officials at every level of both State and Federal government, including his own Vice President, Mike Pence, to change the election results. When those efforts failed, he encouraged his supporters to come to Washington, DC, on January 6, the day when Congress would certify the electoral college votes for Joe Biden. He claimed that the election was stolen and tweeted ``We have just begun to fight,'' promising that on January 6, it would be ``wild.'' On December 11, 2020, Donald Trump released two campaign ads claiming the election was a ``fraud'' and instructing his supporters to ``stop the steal.'' His campaign paid $50 million dollars for the ads and ran them up to and until January 5, 2021. Those who heeded that well-funded call understood what President Trump was asking. They didn't just come with protest signs; they came with handcuffs and rifles, bear spray and tactical gear, Molotov cocktails and crossbows, and walkie talkies for communication. On January 6, at a rally just before noon, Donald Trump asked the large crowd assembled before him to march on the Capitol. He asked them to fight ``like hell'' because ``if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.'' Despite knowing that there had been concerns for months about potential violence surrounding the election, Donald Trump urged those at the rally 20 times to ``fight.'' He also called on them to ``stop the steal,'' declaring ``you'll never take back our country with weakness.'' Inspired by President Trump's words, his supporters began streaming toward the Capitol, where they eventually overwhelmed its defenses and threatened those inside. Those in danger included the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, Members of Congress, countless staffers, and thousands of members of law enforcement. And when Donald Trump saw that his supporters were battling U.S. Capitol Police officers and DC police, he said nothing to stop them for more than 2 hours, even when he knew that Vice President Pence, one of his most loyal political allies, was in danger. More, he tweeted further criticism of Mr. Pence as the Vice President's Secret Service detail was laboring to whisk Mr. Pence to safety. Donald Trump was willing to do almost anything to convince Vice President Pence to violate his duty to the Constitution, and so the Vice President had a target on his back. In other words, those who came to Washington at former President Trump's request and attacked the seat of our democracy were trying to do exactly what they believed Donald Trump asked them to: prevent the certification of Joe Biden as President-elect. That is why they frankly admitted, both during the Capitol riot and later to law enforcement, that they were at the Capitol because ``[o]ur president wants us here.'' In response to all these facts, Donald Trump argues that the Constitution does not permit ex-Presidents to be tried for impeachment and that the First Amendment protects his right to encourage an attack on our democracy. These arguments are lawyerly fig leaves. Mr. Trump relies on them so heavily because his own behavior is indefensible. The vast majority of legal scholars agree that the First Amendment does not apply in this instance because the incitement of an insurrection is not protected speech under the Constitution. They also believe the Constitution allows for the impeachment and trial of public officials after they leave office, particularly when, as in this case, the public official was impeached by the House of Representatives while still in office. Otherwise, all an office-holder would have to do to protect him or herself from punishment would be to resign just before impeachment. The Senate has implicitly or explicitly agreed with this view three times in our Nation's history; first, in the very first impeachment trial against former Senator William Blount of Tennessee, held during the lifetime of the Founders; second, in 1876 when Secretary of War William Belknap resigned just hours before the House voted to impeach him for bribery and corruption; and finally, in this impeachment trial of Donald Trump, when a bipartisan majority of the Senate agreed that this trial could proceed in spite of the defendant's objections to its constitutionality. My colleagues understand that the Constitution gives Congress the power to impeach, convict, and disqualify a former officeholder. This is true because otherwise, the country would be vulnerable to a President of either party who could flout any law but resign to be insulated from consequences. As the House managers have argued, if anything is impeachable, it is a President inciting his followers to violence to overturn a legitimate election. Our Founding Fathers held democracy sacred. They feared a demagogue, a leader who would pervert the Constitution in order to keep power, and they sought to protect the new Republic from such a president. Donald Trump is the person the Framers feared. He poses an existential threat to American democracy. He has shown himself willing to use almost every measure at his disposal to gain and retain power, even if it means overturning a free and fair election through violence. We can have no doubt what our Founding Fathers would have made of him: He was exactly the kind of person they wanted to prevent from holding and wielding power. We have seen over the course of this election the profound risks of trifling with our democracy and undermining the legitimacy of our elections. We cannot let future candidates of either party believe that in America, the way to win is to lie and cheat, to whip a crowd into a frenzy, to turn it on public servants and law enforcement alike. We have to reestablish in our politics our absolute commitment to the idea that we resolve our disputes in our courts and in Congress, not by wielding weapons against lawmakers. Our Founding Fathers made clear in the very preamble to the Constitution that ``We the people . . . in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution.'' America cannot be tranquil unless its leaders forswear violence and stand up for democracy. That is why I voted to convict Donald J. Trump of high crimes and misdemeanors against the American people. Unfortunately for our country, many of my colleagues did not agree. I know this is difficult news for many American patriots, who, just as I do, love and cherish our democratic traditions, the rule of law, and the centuries-old tradition of the peaceful transfer of power. To that majority of Americans, I want to say: We must not lose faith in our system of government. We must work all the more diligently to protect it. Right after Supreme Court decided the Dred Scott case--the most odious case in our long legal history--the great abolitionist and orator Frederick Douglass gave a speech. I turn to this speech whenever I am in need of hope. Precisely when slavery seemed to have won a decisive victory, Frederick Douglass, himself a former slave, said in that speech that his ``hopes were never brighter than now.'' He believed that the world would see what a ``scandalous tissue of lies'' the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott was. And he was right. History holds that Court case as one of the most shameful in our history, and I believe it will likewise condemn Donald Trump's incitement of the Capitol attack. So today I remain hopeful because the people of Nevada and all Americans have been able to see the truth for themselves, and they understand that Donald J. Trump must never again be trusted to protect our sacred democracy.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations: Calendar Nos. 18 through 25 and all nominations placed on the Secretary's desk in the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Space Force Service; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table en bloc with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading, and I object to my own request, all en bloc.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I understand that there are two measures at the desk, and I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the biennial report from the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights be printed in the Record

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. I know of no further debate on the resolution.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. I ask unanimous consent that the preamble be agreed to and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 77, submitted earlier today.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 3 p.m., Monday, March 1; further, 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; further, that following the administration of the oath to swear in Sonceria Ann Berry as Secretary of the Senate and any leader remarks, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Cardona nomination; that at 5:30 p.m. the postcloture time on the nomination be considered expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination; finally, that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate and the President be notified of the Senate's action.