Richard Shelby

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2124 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, this afternoon, I want to discuss my grave concerns with S. 1. Many have said that this political power grab is a solution in search of a problem. I agree with that. This bill contains, I believe, a number of alarming provisions that would have a devastating impact on our Nation's electoral process. It would make our elections more chaotic and less secure. This legislation contains more than 800 pages of bad policies that I believe America does not need and does not want. I believe that the strength of our election system is in its diversity, allowing each State to determine what is best for them. S. 1 would force a single, partisan view of elections on more than 10,000 jurisdictions across the country. For example, State and local election administrators would be forced to change, one, how they register voters and which voting systems they use; how they handle early voting and absentee ballots; and how they maintain voter lists. It makes election fraud easier to commit and harder to detect by allowing unlimited ballot harvesting, undermining voter ID laws, and making it more difficult to maintain accurate voting lists. A recent university poll found that 80 percent of Americans support requiring a form of identification before a person can vote. Think about it--80 percent. Remember, now, presently, Americans are required to present a photo ID to do a number of things. We all do it every day: at the airport to board a commercial flight; in a hospital for any outpatient or inpatient procedure; at the pharmacy to purchase over-the-counter sinus medication and certain prescriptions; at the bank to open a bank account; to apply for a mortgage; to drive, buy, or rent a car; to get married; to purchase a gun; to rent a hotel room; to donate blood; to obtain a passport; to pick up packages at the U.S. Post Office. We all do this every day. This legislation would permanently tip the scales in favor of the Democrats by politicizing the Federal Election Commission, pouring Federal tax dollars into campaigns and chilling free speech. Do Americans really want their taxes going toward a Federal campaign fund that would finance the expenses of all candidates running for Congress? S. 1 would reverse years of improvements that have been made in many States, improvements that protect the security, integrity, and the credibility of our elections. Each State, I believe, should be left with the freedom and flexibility to administer its own respective elections, without interference from the Federal Government. S. 1 mandates ballot drop boxes, which increase the risk of fraud by allowing people other than the voter to drop off marked ballots outside of the view of election officials. As I mentioned before, this bill provides government funding for campaigns: $6 of Federal funding for every $1 from small donors. My gosh, it would be a windfall for a lot of incumbents. This essentially forces Americans to fund candidates they don't agree with and support attack ads against those they do agree with. It federalizes redistricting, putting in place one set of Federal rules for redrawing congressional districts--something that has traditionally been a role for each State. Lastly, Mr. President, S. 1 requires States to give felons the right to vote once they are out of prison. While this is a bad bill all around, I believe these are some of the top worst provisions and the provisions that American people oppose the most: One, gutting State voter ID laws, again; two, spending taxpayer dollars on political campaigns; three, allowing unlimited ballot harvesting; and four, turning the Federal Election Commission into a partisan operation. So just to name those, among others, are reasons to vote against this bill. I think the American people do not want this, and they do not deserve to be the recipients of such harmful policy. I do not support this bill, and I trust that a majority of the Senate will not vote accordingly. Thank you

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, global hegemony is a Chinese Communist Party's ultimate aim--we all know that--and they have grown increasingly brazen in their power plays designed to seize that. The bill before the Senate purports to counter Chinese ambition and aggression by accelerating, among other things, American investment in critical technologies, but I believe such investment will fail to meet the objective if we shortchange America's military. Unfortunately, that is just what President Biden plans to do. Yes, amid all the tough talk about China, President Biden proposes increasing domestic spending by nearly 20 percent while holding defense spending basically flat. And that is on top of several trillion more he has proposed in off-budget spending to supercharge the far-left agenda here at home. Meanwhile, China is headed in the opposite direction, increasing the budget for the People's Liberation Army by nearly 7 percent this year. Don't think for a moment they aren't taking note of President Biden's plans and sensing weakness and opportunity here because they are. The Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese leadership, which is the same, understands and heeds only one thing: strength and power. A respected and feared American military, I believe, is the bulwark against the rise of China and the power of China. That is why we must not shortchange defense spending--not now, not ever. And that is why I am pleased to join my Republican colleagues in offering this amendment to ensure parity between increases in defense and domestic spending. I encourage my colleagues on the other side to join us here in putting America's security first. Projecting real strength to counter Chinese ambition and aggression should be a bipartisan objective. We will see if it is.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Robert Campbell, of Mobile, AL, who will soon step down as regional manager at Lamar Advertising. Robert Campbell joined Lamar Advertising in 1972 as a posting manager in Mobile. Robert rose through the ranks of sales manager and general manager before being appointed regional manager in 1983. Throughout his tenure, Robert oversaw the integration of numerous meaningful acquisitions and hired and trained dozens in the company. He has served on the national legislative committee for the Outdoor Advertising Association of America, OAAA, for over two decades, and in 2007 he was inducted into the OAAA Hall of Fame. Further, Robert is a longtime supporter of the University of Alabama and its football program. His enthusiasm for Alabama is unwavering, even though the corporate headquarters of his company is based in Baton Rouge. Robert is an effective legislative advocate, and I appreciate his hard work throughout the years. It is with great pleasure that I join his friends, family, and colleagues in recognizing his commitment. I congratulate him on his retirement, and I wish him all the best as he transitions into a new chapter of his life.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life of Paul Charles Wesch of Mobile, AL, who passed away on December 27, 2020. He will be long remembered for his vast knowledge of finance, law, and business, and for his commitment to his community. Paul was born in Seattle, WA, on November 20, 1954. He grew up in Hunstville, AL, where he graduated from Butler High School in 1973. He went on to earn two undergraduate degrees, a law degree, and later a LL.M degree in taxation from the University of Alabama. Upon graduation from law school in 1980, he accepted a position with Stanard and Mills law firm in Mobile. In 1984, Paul joined The Mitchell Company as a real estate developer, where he worked for nearly 30 years. During his tenure at The Mitchell Company, he served as executive vice president, general counsel, and director. Paul was later appointed in 2013 by Mobile Mayor Sandy Stimpson to be the city's executive finance director. A few years later, in 2016, he became Mayor Stimpson's chief of staff while continuing to serve as finance director. In addition to his professional achievements, Paul previously served as chairman of the Mobile County Republican Party and managed several political campaigns. He served on the board of directors for National Security Group, Inc., as well as the USS Alabama Battleship Commission. Paul was also involved with Camp Rap-A-Hope, St. Mary's Home for Children, and the University of Alabama President's Cabinet for several years. He was a respected member of the Athelstan Club, the Mobile Bar Association, and the Alabama Bar Association. I offer my deepest condolences to Paul's wife, Linda; his children, Paul, Caroline, and Colden; his sister, Sharon; his brother-in-law, Stephen; and his nieces and nephews. I join all of their loved ones as they mourn his loss and celebrate his many life accomplishments.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I would like to start by thanking my good friend Senator Lamar Alexander for his nearly two decades in the Senate and his longstanding devotion to improving our country. His dedication to the people of Tennessee and Americans throughout our Nation has been unwavering. We have served together in the Senate for 18 years, but he has been in public service for much longer than that. I remember when Senator Alexander was first elected to the Senate in 2002. He was no stranger to his new colleagues. Lamar had already served as the Governor of Tennessee, the president of the University of Tennessee, and the Secretary of Education under George H.W. Bush. He also ran for President in 1996 and again in 2000. We should have seen the writing on the wall then--that Senator Alexander would be one of the smartest and most ambitious Members we would serve with throughout our careers. Born in Maryville, TN, Lamar graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Vanderbilt University and went on to receive his juris doctor from the New York University, NYU, School of Law. He then clerked on the Fifth Circuit for Judge John Minor Wisdom in New Orleans. Following his time in Louisiana, he moved to Washington to work as a legislative assistant for then-Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee. This is when he met his beloved wife Honey. They married and had four children, and his remarkable career took off. During Lamar's time as a U.S. Senator, he served as the chairman of the Senate Republican conference, an important leadership position in which he influenced his fellow Members to accomplish conservative achievements by working in unison. Currently, Lamar is the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, HELP, Committee-- a``Class A'' committee in the Senate. In 2016, he was instrumental in passing the overwhelmingly bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act--landmark legislation that has brought new innovations and advances to patients who need them faster and more efficiently. I have been blessed to serve with Lamar on the Senate Rules Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee, where he is the current chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. In this role on Appropriations, he has supported and advanced a host of important national priorities, such as nuclear security, critical infrastructure projects across the country, and the science and research taking place at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. I, along with my colleagues on the committee, am grateful for his hard work to craft many years of significant and influential funding measures. Lamar came to the Senate as a staffer and is leaving as chairman of one of the largest and most significant committees in the Senate. His impact and leadership during his time here has been both substantial and constructive. Lamar and I have travelled the world together. Annette and I have enjoyed the many hours spent with Honey and him. He will be missed in the Senate. I thank Senator Alexander for his dedication to the betterment of our country and wish him all the best in his next chapter of life.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to my friend and former colleague, Senator Paul Sarbanes, who passed away December 6, 2020. I join the entire Nation in mourning his passing. Paul was born in Salisbury, MD, on February 3, 1933. His first job was busing tables and washing dishes at his parents' restaurant on Maryland's Eastern Shore. He attended Princeton University, where he received the Moses Taylor Pryne Honor Prize, Princeton's highest undergraduate honor. He was a Rhodes Scholar, which earned him admission to Balliol College of the University of Oxford in Oxford, England. Upon his return to the United States, Paul attended Harvard Law School. In the early 1960s, Paul Sarbanes clerked for Fourth Circuit Judge Morris A. Soper before entering private practice with two Baltimore law firms. In 1966, Paul ran for the Maryland House of Delegates in Baltimore City, where he served on both the Judiciary and the Ways and Means Committees. Four years later in 1970, Sarbanes was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, representing Maryland's Fourth and later Maryland's Third Congressional Districts from 1971 to 1977. Paul continued his public service when he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1976. Senator Sarbanes served Maryland well. He sat on many committees but was chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee prior to my years as chairman. After serving five terms in the U.S. Senate, Paul retired to Maryland in 2007. The same year, he earned the Foreign Language Advocacy Award from the Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages in recognition of his lifelong commitment to the ancient world's values and languages. Paul was admired by many and will be missed by his sons, John and Michael, his daughter, Janet, and his seven grandchildren. He was known for his intellect and tenacity and will be remembered for his devotion to Maryland and the Nation. I ask the entire Senate to join me in recognizing and honoring the life of Paul Sarbanes.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, my seatmate here, Pat Roberts, is going to be missed not just by the whole Senate, not by the Nation, not by the people of Kansas, but by a lot of us he keeps going day-to-day and has for a long time. I first met Pat Roberts in 1979. I had just been elected in 1978 to the U.S. House of Representatives. As has been said here today, he was the chief of staff of distinguished Congressman Keith Sebelius, who was well recognized and well respected on both sides of the aisle. Pat was his chief of staff. Our paths crossed later when he was elected to the Senate. We served on the Intelligence Committee together and on other committees. He is unique. That wit of his, I think--the humor--is genetic. He has a daughter who is like that, which is wonderful, I think. I told Pat one time: That must be an inherited characteristic. He smiled. He understood. Yet Pat Roberts is a lot more than just a little humor to me; he is a serious person. He has had, as you know, a distinguished career as a Kansas State graduate, a Marine officer, a staffer, a Congressman, and one who has chaired both Ag Committees in the House and Senate, which has never been done--40 years of elected office between the House and the Senate. We are going to miss you, Pat. I am going to miss you. I have sat here with you, and I have sat all over the Senate with you. I will tell you, if you are feeling down about something or if you are feeling bleak that day, Pat will either straighten you out or make you think that this is not all bad, that America is coming together, and that it is always coming together. So, Pat, you have your great family up here with you today. Franki has been unique for you. She has been a great influence on you. We are going to miss you. I am going to miss that humor every day. Godspeed Mr. President, today, I would like to speak about my longtime colleague and friend, Senator Pat Roberts. Pat and I have served together in Congress for 40 years. It comes as no surprise that he is the longest-serving member of the Kansas delegation. Born in Topeka, Pat graduated from Kansas State University (K-State) and served as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps, achieving the rank of First Lieutenant. He went on to work for Senator Frank Carlson and later Congressman Keith Sebelius, whom he succeeded in the House of Representatives in 1980. Pat and I were colleagues in the House. It was there that we first became friends. In 1996, Pat was elected to represent Kansas in the U.S. Senate and is currently finishing his fourth term. Pat Roberts has had quite the career in public service. Over his four decades in Congress, he has served as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, the Senate Ethics Committee, the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the Senate Agriculture Committee. Pat Roberts is the first Member of Congress in history to have chaired both the House Agriculture Committee and the Senate Agriculture Committee. He has also served as the ranking member on each of those committees. In 2018, Senator Roberts became the first Member of Congress to write and pass farm bill in both Chambers. Over the years, his dedication to the people of Kansas has been extraordinary and inspiring. He arrived on Capitol Hill as a staffer in 1967--and is leaving Washington as the longest serving Member of Congress in his State's history. It is also worth noting that he never lost a race. Not once. Pat Roberts will undoubtedly be missed in the Senate by his peers on both sides of the aisle. Senator Roberts is currently my deskmate on the Senate floor. I know I will miss his congeniality and humor during our conversations. Annette and I have enjoyed spending time with Pat and Franki over the years. We wish them all the best. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Reserving the right to object. My colleagues, I believe here today, are promoting legislation that they claim will spur Congress to pass appropriations bills in the event of a government shutdown--in other words, to avoid it. I think they have a good idea, but would that do the job? I doubt it, but this debate will go on, and it should because I agree with the frustration that so many of you have, including the Presiding Officer here. We are having to part with it. My colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, and I, for 2 straight years, with cooperation--bipartisanship--were able basically to pass these appropriations bills, most of them, for the first time in years. This has slowed down this year, absolutely. I know it is a big Presidential race and everybody running this year and that throws it into it. But we would like to pass these bills before October 1, just as you would. But I don't believe this legislation would do what you think it would do, and I think it deserves further inquiry and scrutiny. I believe it would exacerbate, in some ways, the problem that we are trying to resolve here. We are right now close to closing out, hopefully, all of our appropriations bills. We call it an omnibus. I agree with their frustration. We should, as a body, both parties, every Member of the Senate, should have had the priority, No. 1, to do this before October 1 each year, as we used to do it. So unless this legislation somehow prohibits political partisanship, I don't believe it will increase the probability that we get our work done, shutdown or not. I think the key is to work together. Senator Leahy and I have demonstrated that in a few years, but we need all of us to come together on this and place the rules first, place the government--don't shut down. I stand before you every day. The worst thing we can do is shut down the government. The specter of a shutdown is bad in itself, which we face right today. So I believe the most important incentive right now for us to do is try to work together. If we can't, we are going to have to do something. It might be something like what you are talking about, but I think it deserves further debate, further inquiry. And there is a political downside to all this, I know. But if we work together, we will get these bills passed. Nobody is more acutely aware of that than my colleague from Vermont, who has been on the Appropriations Committee for many years, before I was even there. But the American people, as someone said here today, elected us to do our job. They are absolutely right--we should do our job and do it promptly, and we can if we work together. Having said that, I know this issue is not going away unless we do our job like we should, but I object to the unanimous consent request at this point.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. What a good speech here. We don't hear them like that every day. To my colleague Senator Jones, 3 years was not a long time here, but we feel his presence. I can tell you that I have known Doug a long time. I remember I came to the U.S. House when he came up to work in the Senate for Senator Heflin in the Judiciary Committee and so forth. I supported him when he was nominated by President Clinton to be the U.S. attorney in the Northern District of Alabama, where he did a tremendous job. I worked with him day after day, as we all do, on a lot of issues that affected the country but affected, especially, our State of Alabama at times, and we worked hand in glove. We have become friends. We have our differences, but we also have a lot of things that he talked about today where we would come together for the State and for the country. I wish him well. I think we will hear more from him in the weeks ahead, in the months ahead. I certainly hope so. He has a lot to give. He has a great family. He has a great wife in Louise and a great partner there. He has a great staff and we worked together and we will continue to do this. But one theme--and I like that he kept expounding on it here today-- that if we work together in the Senate, Republicans and Democrats, we get things done; if not, things don't happen. I wish Senator Jones Godspeed and wish him the best Mr. President, today I would like to speak about my fellow Alabama colleague and friend, Senator Doug Jones. I have known Doug Jones since he was a young staffer working for Senator Howell Heflin on the Senate Judiciary Committee. During his 3 years as a Member in the Senate, I believe we have worked well together. He and his staff have shown a lot of professionalism and class while in Washington. He is respected by all of his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. While we may not agree on every policy, Doug understands the Senate and respects the institution. It has been an honor to serve with him. Annette and I have enjoyed spending time with Doug and Louise, and we wish them all the best. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent now that the mandatory quorum call be waived.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, during my time in the U.S. Senate, I have had, right here, the privilege of being part of the confirmation process for each Justice currently sitting on the Supreme Court--yes, each one. As such, over the years I have had the opportunity to meet with many of the Nation's most talented jurists. At this time, I consider Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be the most qualified Supreme Court nominee I have encountered in my 34 years in the U.S. Senate. Let me explain. Education--that is important. Judge Barrett, born and raised in the New Orleans area, is the eldest of seven children, as has been spoken of here. And if you take a look at her scholastic credentials, you know she was an exceptional student. Judge Barrett graduated magnum cum laude from Rhodes College in Memphis, TN, and was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa. She also graduated summa cum laude from Notre Dame Law School, where she was the executive editor of the Notre Dame Law Review and finished first in her class. Look at some of her professional experience. This is important. Judge Barrett is no stranger to the courtroom. She has decades of exemplary professional legal experience that I believe deem her well qualified to sit as a Supreme Court Justice. Following law school, Judge Barrett clerked for Justice Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. He is a great jurist in his own right, Judge Silberman. One year later, she had clerked at the U.S. Supreme Court for Justice Scalia, one of the renowned judges, gaining fundamental legal experience that would help shape her future legal career. From there, she practiced law and taught as a visiting professor at George Washington University Law School here in Washington. Judge Barrett went on to serve as a law professor for 15 years at her alma mater, Notre Dame University Law School. In that period of time, she was awarded Notre Dame Law School's Distinguished Professor of the Year Award three separate times. Most recently, in 2017, Judge Barrett was confirmed right here in the Senate as a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. And during this time on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, she authored 79--79--majority opinions as a circuit court judge. Let's review for a minute the judicial philosophy and temperament of Judge Barrett. I think that is highly important. While her education and professional experience are certainly noteworthy, it is her judicial philosophy and temperament that really set her nomination apart, I believe, from a lot of others. I am a firm believer that any nominee to the Supreme Court must and should demonstrate that he or she consistently and honorably applies the law as it is written, impartially and equally to all individuals. Judge Barrett has, time and again, shown through her opinions and her statements that she will base her decisions on the law and the Constitution, not on personal policy preferences, as it should be. She has also demonstrated a deep commitment to the Constitution and its protections established by our Founding Fathers. When considering potential nominees to the Supreme Court, I find one's judicial temperament to be vitally important. The American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary, which consists of 19 lawyers who conduct nonpartisan peer reviews of Federal judicial nominees, relies on confident assessments of judges, lawyers, law professors and deans, community leaders, and others with knowledge of the nominee. I want to share what some of them have said about her. For Judge Barrett, the committee invited 944 people to provide input into whether she is qualified for the Supreme Court. I would like to share here in the Senate this afternoon just a few of the comments that the American Bar Association committee provided. They said about her, ``whip smart, highly productive, punctual and well-prepared.'' ``A brilliant writer and thinker.'' ``An intellectual giant with people skills and engaging warmth.'' ``The myth is real. She is a staggering academic mind.'' Judge Barrett ``has demonstrated stellar judicial temperament in all settings: She is often described as a `good listener' who makes time for people, whether they are law students, law clerks, colleagues or friends.'' Of other note here, I have comments from Randall Noel, the chair of the American Bar Association Standing Committee, and he said Judge Barrett ``is incredibly honest and forthright.'' Judge Barrett is an ``exemplar of living an integrated life in which her intellect, integrity and compassion weave the different threads of her life together seamlessly.'' Think about all this. He also says: ``All of the experienced, dedicated, and knowledgeable sitting judges, legal scholars, and lawyers who have worked with or against Judge Barrett had high praise for her intellect and [her] ability to communicate clearly and effectively.'' It is no surprise that the American Bar Association found Barrett's professional competence to have exceeded their high standards for Supreme Court nominees. As a country, we should seek, I believe, to have judges who are thoughtful, fair-minded, and respectful. Judge Barrett exemplifies all of these traits. In conclusion, I believe that the role of the Constitution of advice and consent that we talk about here to the Supreme Court nominees to be one of my most important responsibilities here in the Senate. Judge Amy Coney Barrett is as qualified for the U.S. Supreme Court as any nominee I have encountered in 34 years here, and I have the utmost confidence that she will serve the Court and this country with honesty and integrity. I look forward later today to voting to confirm her nomination and encourage my colleagues to do the same. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I wish to honor the life of Mrs. Melissia Davis of Kennedy, AL, who passed away on September 7, 2020. She will be remembered as a dedicated public servant who was committed to bettering her community and State. Melissia worked diligently for 26 years as the State representative in my U.S. Senate Office in Tuscaloosa, AL. She covered the West Alabama region, specifically serving the counties of Fayette, Greene, Hale, Lamar, Marion, Pickens, and Tuscaloosa. I first met Melissia when she was working for the Internal Revenue Service, and I was eager to hire her. I knew she would be an exemplary employee. Over the years, Melissia gained a deep understanding of constituent services and remained dedicated to working with Federal, State, and local agencies on behalf of my constituents. Melissia served with distinction on the board of trustees of her alma mater, Stillman College in Tuscaloosa, AL. She was the chairwoman of the Stillman House Restoration Committee for 13 years. Under her leadership, the historic Stillman House was placed on the Alabama Historic Register and National Register of Historic Places. She was also successful in placing Stillman College on the Alabama Register of Landmarks and Heritage, designating the campus as an Alabama Historic District. Outside of her professional career, Mrs. Davis was heavily involved with Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., the West Alabama United Way Campaign, Habitat for Humanity, and several other local endeavors. Additionally, Melissia was a dedicated member of Elizabeth Baptist Church, where she taught Sunday school and served as a matron. Not only did Melissia live a life of service, she embodied it. Melissia's many accomplishments and contributions to the State of Alabama will long be remembered. Melissia was passionate about her hometown of Kennedy, AL, and she served as one of its strongest advocates. She will be remembered for her great sense of humor and style. Melissia touched the lives of many over the years, and she will be greatly missed. I offer my deepest condolences to Melissia's husband, Burkles Davis, II, and her two children, Alecia Nicole Davis and Burkles ``Trey'' Davis, III, and to all of their loved ones as they celebrate her life and mourn her passing.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the service of Commander Edward H. Murray of the U.S. Navy on the occasion of his retirement after 20 years of Active Duty. I would like to briefly share with my colleagues some of the highlights of his fine career. For the past 20 years, Commander Murray excelled in leading Navy Sailors as an E-2C naval flight officer. He served sea tours with VAW- 116, deploying on the USS Constellation and USS Abraham Lincoln in support of coalition forces in Iraq and operations in the Western Pacific. He also deployed to the Western Pacific with VTC-12 onboard the USS Bonhomme Richard, providing airspace and diplomatic coordination. Ashore, Commander Murray's assignments included a special selection as aide-de-camp to the four-star commander of the U.S. Naval Forces in Naples, Italy, during operations in Kosovo and Libya. He also served my colleague, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, as a legislative fellow and then continued his service in the Navy Office of Legislative Affairs as deputy director of the Senate Liaison Office. I have gotten to know Commander Murray over the past 2 years through his assignment to the Navy's Appropriations Matters Office. As a representative of the Chief of Naval Operations and Secretary of the Navy, he provided valuable support to Members of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees regarding the Navy's budgetary needs. His efforts to provide timely and transparent information to the committees contributed to the enactment of the Defense Appropriations Acts for fiscal years 2019 and 2020. Commander Murray also provided superior support to me and many of my colleagues as we traveled across Europe and Asia conducting oversight of critical national security assets abroad. As Commander Murray departs the Pentagon, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his retirement; to thank him, his wife Amanda, and his family for their years of service; and to wish him the very best going forward.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, today I introduced legislation that provides $306 billion in additional resources to fight the coronavirus and to mitigate its impact on American families, schools, and businesses. I want to briefly highlight some of the main provisions. They have probably been talked about already this afternoon. First, $6 billion goes for States to ramp up testing, with a particular emphasis on schools, employers, childcare facilities, and nursing homes. Second, $26 billion goes for the development and distribution of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. We have made meaningful progress on each of these fronts, but we haven't gotten there yet, as we all know. Third, there is $105 billion for the Education Stabilization Fund to help schools adapt to the circumstances they face, which are extraordinary. The CDC has emphasized the importance of getting kids back into school and has issued guidelines on how to do so safely. That is why this legislation provides additional funding for K-12 schools to get kids back into the classroom at least 50 percent of the time, which would be a big start. We recognize they will incur additional expense if they reopen safely, and we have to try to provide for that. The fourth point I want to highlight briefly here is $20 billion in additional assistance for our Nation's farmers and our ranchers. The fifth and final point: nearly $30 billion to bolster the U.S. defense industrial base, which is important to all of us. We must never take our eyes off the ball there. These resources will prevent furloughs of thousands of employees from across the country who help Americans stay safe. I can go on and on, but time is moving on here this afternoon. We realize this is just the first step. We have to work together. We have to work in a bipartisan fashion here and put America first. We know the House has some high numbers. We have good numbers, I believe. I look forward to some bipartisan help on this and moving these bills along. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, we face a serious global crisis today with the spread of the coronavirus. We all know that. The American people, I believe, expect us here in the U.S. Senate to set aside politics and set into motion a swift and sweeping response to this danger. Yesterday was a big step in that direction. I and Vice Chairman Leahy, who is on the floor here with me, in conjunction with the leaders on both sides and with our House counterparts, introduced a comprehensive plan that provides our experts and agencies on the frontlines with the resources they tell us they need to combat this crisis. The package we introduced includes $7.8 billion in discretionary appropriations for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the State Department, the USAID, and the Small Business Administration. The package also authorizes an additional $500 million in mandatory spending for telehealth through Medicare. Combined, this emergency supplemental provides $8.3 billion in resources to attack the crisis at the local, State, Federal, and international levels. In situations like this, I believe no expense should be spared to protect the American people, and in crafting this package, none was. It is an aggressive plan, a vigorous plan, that has received an overwhelming positive reaction in the House and in the marketplace. It is the Senate's responsibility today to keep the momentum going. I urge my colleagues to vote yes and demonstrate to the American people that we here in the Senate are unified and have their backs on this crisis.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, the American people are apprehensive about the spread of the coronavirus in the United States and abroad, as we can always remember. Global financial markets are on edge. Both are resilient, but vigorous action, I believe, is needed to calm nerves, stabilize the situation, and get our arms around this crisis. I believe Congress must marshal the resources necessary for an aggressive, comprehensive, and swift response. I am pleased to report to my colleagues this afternoon that we, with the House and leadership on both sides, have reached a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on an emergency supplemental appropriations package to do just that. The agreement provides a surge in funding at every level, as I have advocated for--local, State, Federal, and international--to meet the growing challenge that we face. The total amount included in the package is $7.76 billion, a little under $8 billion. We arrived at that figure by going back to the agencies--the NIH, the Centers for Disease Control, and so forth. We asked: What do you need? What do you think you would need if this virus really spreads? We wanted to make sure that they had the tools and the resources and that we would not shortchange the American people in any way. So the $7.76 billion, we have been told by the people who know, should be sufficient. We hope it is. Nearly 85 percent of this funding will be spent right here in the United States--85 percent. And $2.2 billion is for the Centers for Disease Control, which the Presiding Officer is very familiar with because it is located in Atlanta, GA, including, no less than $950 million--just short of a billion--to help States and local governments prevent and combat the spread of the virus. Now, $836 million will go to the National Institutes of Health to, among other things, train healthcare workers on the frontlines and to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines related to the virus. And $61 million will support the Food and Drug Administration's role in approving such products for the American people. Now, $3.1 billion of this package is for the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund, among other things, to supplement the Strategic National Stockpile here; to develop and purchase diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines; to provide resources for community health centers; and to help hospitals and help systems adapt and respond if this crisis grows. Another $300 million is made available for the purchase of additional diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines, should further need arise--in other words, a contingency. Finally, to fight the spread of the virus abroad, which we have to do, $1.25 billion is provided to the State Department and USAID to continue their work with our international partners. We have listened carefully to the agencies and the experts on the frontlines in crafting this package. Vice President Pence has also been very helpful in this effort, and I appreciate President Trump's eagerness to sign this legislation. I also take a moment to thank Leaders McConnell and Schumer, Vice Chairman Leahy of the Appropriations Committee, Chairwoman Lowey, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, and Ranking Member Granger for all of us coming together to do the right thing for the American people. We face this crisis together. We are fighting it together. Ultimately, I believe we will prevail together, but now is the time for action. The House will act first. All indications are they will pass it swiftly--this package. I hope so. When this package arrives in the Senate, I would urge my colleagues to do the same so we can get help to those who need it and ease some of the anxiety stemming from this outbreak. I think we owe it to the American people to do no less. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and honor Laura Dove as she retires from serving as Secretary for the Majority of the U.S. Senate. Laura began her service many years ago as a Senate page. She returned as an assistant in the Senate Republican Cloakroom under Republican Leader Bob Dole. In her more than 20 years of dedicated service, she has worked in various capacities. This includes in the Republican Cloakroom, with the Senate Republican Conference, under Republican leadership, and in her current role as Secretary for the Majority. This is quite an honor and an accomplishment, as Secretaries for the Majority and the Minority are elected officers nominated by the party's leader. During her time in the Senate, Laura provided much-needed parliamentary guidance and counsel to Senators. She was no stranger to this type of advice, as her father served as the Senate Parliamentarian for many years. Laura has succeeded in every aspect of her service to the U.S. Senate, and I can personally say she will be greatly missed throughout the Upper Chamber. I wish her all the best as she transitions to the next exciting chapter in her life.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that before we recess, I be allowed to finish my remarks.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, I rise today in the U.S. Senate in support of Andrew Brasher of Montgomery, AL, whom I recommended and was later nominated by President Trump to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, a very important post. I believe Judge Brasher to be an esteemed choice for this high honor. Formerly Alabama's solicitor general and currently a U.S. district judge for the Middle District of Alabama, Judge Brasher is no stranger to the courtroom. I have the utmost regard for his vast legal ability and his commitment to the rule of law, and I believe he is well suited for this respected position. Judge Brasher excelled academically from a young age. He earned his bachelor of arts with honors from Samford University in Birmingham, AL, where he graduated summa cum laude and met his wife Julia there. He currently serves on the school's board of overseers. Judge Brasher went on from Samford University in Birmingham to graduate cum laude from Harvard Law School and was the first in his family to receive his juris doctorate. While in law school at Harvard, he was a member of the Harvard Law Review and received the Victor Brudney Prize. The Presiding Officer probably recalls this, but this is a high honor at Harvard granted annually at the law school to the best student paper on a subject associated with corporate governance. This is a very high honor. Upon graduation, Judge Brasher served as a law clerk to Judge William H. Pryor, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, making him neither a stranger to the courtroom nor to the Eleventh Circuit. Following his clerkship with Judge Pryor, Andrew Brasher practiced law in Birmingham, AL, with the law firm Bradley Arant Boult Cummings. During his time with Bradley Arant, he worked in the firm's litigation and white-collar criminal defense practice groups. He eventually joined the Alabama attorney general's office, serving for several years as the deputy solicitor general and then went on to become the solicitor general for the State of Alabama. Judge Brasher's experience speaks for itself. He has argued and won cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the Supreme Court of Alabama. While serving as solicitor general of the State of Alabama, Judge Brasher won two Best Brief Award honors from the National Association of Attorneys General. This accomplishment, as the Presiding Officer knows, is no easy feat. He proved to be an exceptionally skilled attorney, but his ambitions did not stop there. In 2018, the Presiding Officer probably will remember, I recommended and President Trump nominated Andrew Brasher to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. Last year, he was confirmed by the full Senate to sit on the court as a Federal district judge. Since his confirmation, Judge Brasher has served the State of Alabama and the Nation with integrity and purpose. I am confident that in his new capacity, he will continue to do so. I believe Judge Brasher is very worthy of this nomination. His judicial temperament and respect for the law, as it is written, will help him exhibit, I believe, impartiality and fairness with tact. President Trump, I believe, has made the right decision in selecting Judge Brasher for this important job. I believe he will be an asset to our judicial branch on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. I am hopeful that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will vote to confirm Andrew Brasher without reservation later today. I remain confident that his dedication to justice will contribute to the respected standards of our Nation's judicial system. I wish Judge Brasher and his wife Julia--along with their two boys, Hank and Drew-- all the best as they take on this new opportunity and responsibility. I yield the floor. judicial nominations

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, over the past 2 weeks, my colleagues and I have patiently listened to arguments from both the House managers and the President's counsel right here in the Senate regarding a grave allegation from the House that the President has committed an act worthy of impeachment. As a Senator, I believe that the first and perhaps most important consideration is whether abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are impeachable offenses as asserted by our House managers. Impeachment is a necessary and essential component of our Constitution. It serves as an important check on civil officers who commit crimes against the United States. However, our Founding Fathers were wise to ensure that the impeachment and the conviction of a sitting President would not be of partisan intent. Since President Trump took office, many have sought to delegitimize his Presidency with partisan attacks. We have heard this right here in the Senate, and we have experienced it. This extreme effort to unseat the President, I believe, is unjustified and intolerable. Now that the Senate has heard and studied the arguments from both sides, I believe the lack of merit in the House managers' case is evident. The outcome of the impeachment trial is a foregone conclusion. Acquittal is the judgment the Senate should and, I believe, will render--and soon. For my part, I have weighed the House managers' case and found it wanting in fundamental aspects. I will try to explain. I believe that their case does not allege an impeachable offense. Even if the facts are as they have stated, the managers have failed, I believe, as a matter of constitutional law, to meet the exceedingly high bar for removal of the President as established by our Founding Fathers, the Framers of the Constitution. In their wisdom, the Framers rejected vague grounds for impeachment-- offenses like we have heard here, ``maladministration''--for fear that it would, in the words of Madison, result in a Presidential ``tenure during [the] pleasure of the Senate.'' ``Abuse of power,'' one of the charges put forward here by the House managers, is a concept as vague and susceptible to abuse, I believe, as ``maladministration.'' If you take just a minute or two to look at the definitions of ``abuse'' and ``mal,'' they draw distinct similarities. ``Mal,'' a prefix of Latin origin, means bad, evil, wrong. ``Abuse,'' also of Latin origin, means to wrongly use or to use for a bad effect. There is a kinship between ``mal'' and ``abuse.'' As the Framers rejected in their wisdom ``maladministration,'' I believe that they, too, would reject the noncriminal ``abuse of power.'' Instead, the Framers, as the Presiding Officer knows, provided for impeachment only in a few limited cases: treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanors. Only those offenses justify taking the dire step of removing a duly elected President from office and permanently taking his name off the ballot. This institution, the U.S. Senate, I believe, should not lower the constitutional bar and authorize their theory of impeachment for abuse of power. It is simply not an impeachable offense, in my judgment. Their criteria for removal centers not on the President's actions but on their loose perception of his motivations. If the Senate endorses this approach, we will dramatically transform the impeachment power as we have known it over the years. We will forever turn this grave constitutional power into a tool for adjudicating policy disputes and political disagreements among all of us. The Framers, in their wisdom, cautioned us against this dangerous path, and I believe the Senate will heed their warning. The other article, the House managers' obstruction of Congress claim, is similarly flawed. Congress's investigative and oversight powers are critical tools, and we use them in ensuring our system of checks and balances. But those powers are not absolute. The President, too, as head of a coequal branch of government, enjoys certain privileges and immunities from congressional factfinding. That is his constitutional right and has been the right of former Presidents from both parties. The President's mere assertion of privileges and immunities is not an impeachable offense. Endorsing otherwise would be unprecedented and would ignore the past practices of administrations of both parties. Adopting otherwise would drastically undermine the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution. This was not what our Framers intended. Nowhere in the Constitution or in the Federal statute is abuse of power or obstruction of Congress listed as a crime--nowhere. What constitutes an impeachable offense is not left to the discretion of the Congress. We cannot expand, I believe, on the scope of actions that could be deemed impeachable beyond that which the Framers intended. What we really have here, I believe, is nothing more than the abuse of the power of impeachment itself by the Democratic House. Doesn't our country deserve better? The President certainly deserves better. Today I am proud to stand and repudiate those very weak impeachment efforts, and I will accordingly vote to acquit the President on both articles. My hope is that, in the future, Congress will reject this episode and, instead, choose to be guided by the Constitution and the words from our Framers. Basically, I believe it is a time to move on. We know that the American economy is booming. The United States is projecting strength and promoting peace abroad. The President is unbowed. I believe the American people see all of this. At the end of the day, the ultimate judgment rests in their hands. In my judgment, that is just as it should be. I yield the floor.

Mr. SHELBY

Mr. SHELBY. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk.