Ben Sasse

Mr. SASSE

Mr. SASSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess until noon today.

Mr. SASSE

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. SASSE

Mr. SASSE. Madam President, I thank my senior Senator, Deb Fischer, for her leadership and drawing attention to the 150th anniversary of the University of Nebraska. Senator Fischer is a tireless champion of our State and of this special university, her alma mater. I am sad to admit in public that I am not a graduate of the University of Nebraska, but I had lied about my age for many, many years to be able to vend and sell concessions at Huskers sporting events before I was old enough to do it so that I could be deeply affiliated with this institution, even though I didn't graduate from there. I salute my senior Senator and her leadership in drawing attention to this. I want to tell stories about Coach Osborne, who was my boyhood hero, about crying as a 12-year-old after the January 2, 1984, national championship game in Miami, about Scott Frost and how he is going to soon lead us back to the promised land, but I have already been warned by the Presiding Officer that the Senate has some informal unwritten rules that actually prohibit football evangelism on the floor. I will move along to celebrate, with my senior Senator, our volleyball national championships, our bowling national championships, and the fact that Nebraska is or was once known as the Great American Desert, and we are now the most trade-dependent, export-dependent State per capita in the Union precisely because we live on the great Ogallala Aquifer, the most productive land anywhere on Earth and at any point in the history of the Earth. We grow so much more food than we can ever conceivably consume that we feed the world from Nebraska, and a huge part of that is because of the ag extension programs of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. There are a lot of great Americans and great patriots who serve at the University of Nebraska on the faculty, in the administration, and donors and alumni and our current students, and the 150th anniversary is a great moment for our State. All 50 States have colleges and universities they are proud of, but there is no State that is more identified with its university than Nebraska. I would like to join my senior Senator and applaud her for her leadership in bringing this resolution today.

Mr. SASSE

Mr. SASSE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the time until 5:30 p.m. today, including quorum calls, be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees.

Mr. SASSE. Madam President, I just listened to the senior Senator from New York--my friend from the gym and the minority leader--deliver some summaries of what he said was in the bill before us, and he implored this body and implored the people watching on C-SPAN to read the bill, stating they would find that all of these terrible things are in the bill. I see the minority leader has to leave the floor now, but, humbly, I would urge him to come back and show us where any of what he just said is in this bill. What he said wasn't true. I rise today for a simple purpose. I want to ask each and every one of our colleagues whether we are OK with infanticide. This language is blunt. I recognize that, and it is too blunt for many people in this body, but, frankly, that is what we are talking about here today. Infanticide is what the abortion survivors--Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is actually about. Are we a country that protects babies who are alive, born outside the womb after having survived a botched abortion? That is what this is about. Are we a country that says it is OK to actively allow that baby to die, which is the current position of Federal law? That is the question before us, plain and simple. Here are the facts. We know that some babies, especially late in gestation, survive attempted abortions. We know, too, that some of these babies are left to die--left to die. No further protections exist today to shield them from this ugly fate, and only some States have protections on their books. We have seen in our national discourse over the last month and a half a few States moving in different ways to undo protections that some of these babies have had at the State level. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is trying to right this obvious wrong. The bill's terms are simple: A child born alive during a botched abortion would be given the same level of care that would be provided to any other baby born at that same gestational age. That is it. This bill isn't about abortion. I am pro-life--unapologetically pro- life--but this bill is not about anything that limits abortion. This bill doesn't have anything to do with Roe v. Wade. This bill is about something else. What this bill does is try to secure basic rights, equal rights for babies who are born and are outside the womb. That is what we are talking about. Over the course of the next hour, as this is debated on the floor, people are going to say a whole bunch of other things. I would ask them to please bring the text of the bill to the floor when they do it and show us whether there is anything about limiting abortion in this bill. This bill is exclusively about protecting babies who have already been born and are outside of the womb. Every baby deserves a fighting chance, whether that 24-week old baby, fighting for air and fighting for life, having just taken her first breaths, is at an abortion clinic where she survived a botched abortion or she is in a delivery room at the local hospital. Both of those babies are equally deserving of care, protection, and humane treatment, and our laws should treat both of these human beings as babies because they are babies. They have been born, and they are outside of the womb. This really should not be controversial. In fact, my colleagues actually talk this way all of the time. This place feels like about one-third of the people here are currently running for President, so I would like to quote a few of them over the course of the last couple months. We ought to ``build a country where no one is forgotten, and no one is left behind.'' Amen to that. Amen to that. ``The people in our society who are most often targeted by predators are also often the voiceless and the vulnerable.'' That is true. Another offered a promise to ``fight for other people's kids as hard as I fight for my own kids.'' Last week, our colleague from Vermont announced his campaign by saying: ``The mark of a great Nation is . . . how it treats its most vulnerable people.'' Bernie Sanders was right. Now is the chance, in this body, to make good on that promise. Now is the chance to protect one of the most vulnerable populations on the land imaginable--tiny, defenseless, little babies, just having taken their first breath--or was that claptrap for the campaign trail or sound-bites? Or do people mean the stuff they say around here? Let's put it another way. Today's vote asks whether or not you want to take the side of people like Virginia's disgraced Governor Ralph Northam? Last month, before the news of his hideous yearbook broke, Governor Northam made clear that a baby born alive during an abortion could and maybe ought to be killed if that is what the parents and doctors decided they wanted to do after a debate. That was his position: You should make the baby ``comfortable,'' and then there could be a discussion about whether or not you throw that little baby into the trash can. That is what he actually talked about on the radio for a day and a half last month. Governor Northam is disgraceful for a whole host of reasons, but unlike some other people, he actually told the truth about what he wants. He wants a society where some people count more than others, and other people are worth less than others. He wants a society where some people can be pushed aside if they are inconvenient. In reality, that is what we are voting on today. Some of my colleagues want to write into our law a kind of permanent exception: ``Every human being should be protected from cruel and inhuman treatment--unless that human being came into the world through a botched abortion.'' Then, you can decide later if you want to kill them. Tonight, what we are going to vote on in the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act is a chance to see whether we are serious when people around here say they want to protect the innocent, speak up for the voiceless, and defend the defenseless. Tonight, we are going to have the opportunity to do exactly that. We can come to the aid of innocent, voiceless, defenseless little babies who have just taken their first breaths by protecting him and her from mistreatment and neglect. This should be, frankly, the easiest vote we ever cast in this body, but the prospect of what we are voting on here is threatening to one of the most powerful interest groups in America. The abortion industry has taken to attacking this bill wildly over the course of the last 2 weeks, even though, as we made clear repeatedly and as the text of this bill makes indisputably clear, this bill has nothing to do with abortion itself. Nothing in this bill changes the slightest letter of Roe v. Wade. Nothing touches abortion access in this bill. This bill is about living and breathing babies who are alive outside the womb. That is all that the text of this bill does, but Planned Parenthood and NARAL and their allies feel threatened by a bill to protect alive, out-of-the-womb babies. In other words, unlike this legislation, Planned Parenthood and others refuse to draw any line between abortion and infanticide. That is what their lobbying the last week has shown. That should tell us something about what these groups are really about. What they are about is a society built on power--the power of some people to decide whether other people get to live or die. This bill is a stumbling block to anyone who thinks that some lives are less valuable than others. This bill is a stumbling block to anyone who thinks that certain human beings should be disposable. This bill is a stumbling block to anyone who thinks that we should be able to quietly rid ourselves of little people who were ``inconvenient'' or supposedly ``unwanted.'' They are not unwanted. There are lots of people in every single State in this Union lined up waiting to adopt, including kids who have lots of hard life circumstances. In every State there are waiting lists of people who will take so-called unwanted babies. America is a country built on a different principle. Ours is a country dedicated to the proposition that all men and women--all boys and girls--are created equal, even the littlest--even if they happen to come into the world under the most horrible circumstances, even if they are crippled or inconvenient, or, apparently, for a moment, unwanted. Ours is a country that recognizes the fundamental indistinguishable dignity of every human being, regardless of race, or sex, or creed, or ability. As a country, we have struggled for 2 centuries--sometimes at enormous cost--to extend those basic human rights to more and more of our fellow citizens. Today's vote is simply an opportunity to continue that work. Let me say by way of closing that despite oppositions and setbacks and despite some strange rhetoric about this bill over the course of the last week, I am hopeful in the long term. Deep down, each of us knows that every member of our human family ought to be protected and deserves to be cherished and loved. The love we see every day in the eyes of moms and dads for their newborn babies is an inescapable reminder of that fundamental truth. Love is stronger than power. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for less than 1 minute.

Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, over the course of this afternoon, we have heard a whole bunch of things about what is supposedly in this bill. I know that a lot of people who are opposed to this bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, sincerely believe the talking points that they read from their staffs, but, humbly, we have heard speech after speech after speech about things that have absolutely nothing to do with what is actually in this bill. So as you get ready to cast this vote, I urge my colleagues to picture a baby who has already been born, who is outside the womb, and who is gasping for air. That is the only thing that today's vote is actually about. We are talking about babies who have already been born. Nothing in this bill touches abortion access. Thank you. Cloture Motion

Mr. SASSE

Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, thank you. In a few minutes, the U.S. Senate is going to have an opportunity to condemn infanticide. One hundred U.S. Senators are going to have an opportunity to unanimously say the most basic thing imaginable, and that is that it is wrong to kill a little newborn baby. Every Senator will have the opportunity to stand for human dignity, to stand for the belief that in this country all of us are created equal, because if that equality means anything, surely it means that infanticide is wrong. Frankly, this shouldn't be hard. Politicians come to this floor every single day and talk about how they care for the poorest or the weakest or the most marginalized members of our society. In recent weeks, I have heard it stated this way in powerful, eloquent, and, from some ambitious Senators, very clear terms about human dignity. One of my distinguished colleagues recently on the campaign trail declared rightly ``that the people in our society who are the most often targeted by predators are also most often the voiceless and the vulnerable.'' Amen to that. Another Democratic Senator seeking the Presidency said they seek to ``build a country where no one is forgotten, no one is left behind.'' Amen to that. Giving words of hope and encouragement, a third Senator reminded us that ``no matter where you live in America . . . you deserve a path to opportunity.'' Amen to that. A fourth continued that this individual was committed ``to fight for other people's kids as hard as I would fight for my own.'' Yet again, Amen. But, sadly, in the last week, these beautiful and inspiring words have been choked out by the ugliness and the cruelty from another public official. In Virginia, disgraced Governor Ralph Northam tarnished the American idea of equality under law. He betrayed the universal truth of human dignity, and he turned the stomachs of civilized people, not just in this country but in every country on Earth. Governor Northam endorsed infanticide. He said: The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. This was the quote--that the infant would be kept comfortable and resuscitated if that is what the mom and doctors wanted to do, and then they could have a debate about what to do next. He was literally talking about allowing space and time for a discussion about infanticide--no euphemisms or weasel words there. Infants can be kept comfortable and resuscitated, and baby girls could be left cold and alone to die. Just a few years ago, the abortion lobby was really clear in its talk about hoping that abortion would be safe and legal, but rare. This was the slogan. Abortion would be ``safe, legal, and rare.'' Now we are talking about keeping a baby comfortable while the doctors have a debate about infanticide. That is what we are talking about here on the floor tonight. We are not talking about second-trimester abortion. We are not having some big, complicated discussion about a mother's reproductive freedom. As important as all of those debates are, we are actually talking about babies that have been born. The only debate on the floor tonight is about infanticide. The abortion industry's PR army couldn't defend this. Many in the national media decided to overlook it, but none of us in this body can escape it. What we are talking about on the Senate floor tonight is infanticide. Instead of saying he misspoke and instead of offering an apology, the Governor of Virginia decided to double down on the ugliness and cruelty. This is not about a clump of cells. This is about fourth- trimester abortion. That is actually what we are talking about here tonight. Governor Northam is a disgraced coward, and he has such an abysmally low belief of human dignity that he couldn't say this basic truth: It is wrong to let babies who have been born die. He couldn't say it. This isn't about Republicans and Democrats. We are way beyond that. Everyone in the Senate ought to be able to say unequivocally that the little baby deserves life, that she has rights, and that killing her is wrong. Tonight every Member of this body has that chance. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act prohibits exactly the kind of infanticide Governor Northam was endorsing. That is it. It is based on the simple idea that every baby deserves a fighting chance. It is a simple idea that every human being is an image bearer. Even the weakest and most marginalized among us is no less human, and every one of us has a moral obligation to defend the defenseless. It is my understanding that some of my Democratic colleagues are prepared to object tonight. I humbly say that I don't understand why, and I beg you from the bottom of my heart not to do so. Please don't betray the ideals that have been so eloquently expressed. Please don't reduce truths to an empty campaign slogan, and please don't take the principle of dignity and equality this cheaply. There are two sides of the debate on the floor tonight. You are either for babies or you are defending infanticide. That is actually what the legislation is before us. Please don't block this legislation. Please don't let Governor Northam define you. Don't let an extremist pro-abortion lobby and pledge hold you hostage. Please don't protect infanticide. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration of S. 130 and that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. SASSE. With all due respect, Mr. President----

Mr. SASSE. To the Senator from Washington, the bill we are talking about before this body tonight is because New York and Virginia--New York already and Virginia in debate--are having a conversation about removing exactly these protections. This debate is about infanticide and infanticide only, and this is a sad day for this body. It shouldn't be controversial to say that a newborn child deserves to be treated with dignity and humanity. It shouldn't be difficult to say that babies who survive an abortion shouldn't be left to die cold and alone on that table. I am sad, but I am not discouraged. I am actually encouraged by the strong group of Senators who cosponsored this legislation and who have come to the floor to support it tonight, and I am encouraged by the millions and millions and millions of pro-life Americans who continue to speak the truth in love. There is legislative work we need to do, but, far more importantly, in the movement for love and life and science and little babies, what we need to have happen is a lot more persuasion and a lot more conversation with our neighbors. A number of my colleagues on the floor tonight are prepared to do just that, and I look forward to listening to their eloquent and love-based, science- based speech. Thank you.

Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, this is gross, what has happened here tonight. We should pass this by unanimous consent. If we continue being unable to pass it by unanimous consent, a lot of us are going to continue to fight for a rollcall vote because it is the right thing to do. Those little babies aren't Republicans or Democrats; they are babies. They need protection from all of us. I thank the Presiding Officer.

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

Mr. SASSE

Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the provisions of rule XXII, all time postcloture on S. 1 be considered expired at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 5.

Mr. SASSE

Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, February 5; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; further, that following leader remarks, the Senate resume consideration S. 1 and that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings; finally, that all time during recess, adjournment, morning business, and leader remarks count postcloture on S. 1.

Mr. SASSE

Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 9, which was received from the House.

Mr. SASSE. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. SASSE

Mr. SASSE. 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.

Mr. SASSE

Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, this place fancies itself the world's greatest deliberative body, but we would be deceiving ourselves if we ignored the biggest debate that has been happening in America over the last 36 hours. A publicly elected official--Governor of one of the 50 States--has been defending a practice that is morally repugnant. The Governor of Virginia has been defending a practice that is repugnant to civilized people across the entire world. Here is just one of the ugly nuggets from Ralph Northam, the Governor of Virginia: ``If the mother is in labor . . . the infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated (if that's what the mother and the family desired) and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother.'' Let's be very clear about what we are talking about. We are talking about fourth-trimester abortion or what anyone in the normal world calls infanticide. That is what we are talking about, and the Governor of Virginia has been defending this all day yesterday and again today, going out and trying to equivocate and qualify and then double down and again say he wants to defend this practice, which is infanticide. Let's be clear about what we are talking about. We are talking about killing a baby who has been born. We are not talking some euphemism. We are not talking about a clump of cells. We are talking about a little baby girl who has been born and is on a table in a hospital or a medical facility, and then a decision or a debate would be had about whether you could kill that little baby. We are talking about the most vulnerable among us, and we have a public official in America out there again and again defending this practice. This is infanticide that we are talking about. This should be so far beyond any political consideration. We are talking about a little baby--a baby with dignity, an image bearer. We are talking about a tiny life that has done nothing wrong to warrant being left to die cold and alone on a table. Everyone in the Senate ought to be able to say unequivocally that killing that little baby is wrong. This doesn't take any political courage, and if you can't say that, if there is a Member in this body who can't say that, there may be lots of work you can do in the world, but you shouldn't be here. You should get the heck out of any calling in public life where you pretend to care about the most vulnerable among us. There should be no politics here that are right versus left or Republican versus Democrat. This is the most basic thing you could be talking about. We are talking about a little baby born alive, and we have a public official in America defending the idea: Well, you could have a debate about killing her. That is why today I am starting a dual-track legislative process to make sure this body has a clear-eyed look at the issue before us, has a clear-eyed look at this atrocity, and to make sure the 320 million men and women who are actually our bosses--to be sure they have a clear-eyed look at what we stand for. Do we stand with those little, vulnerable babies in desperate need of care and comfort and support, medical treatment, food, or do we stand with the comments of the Governor of Virginia over the last 2 days? Tonight, I am beginning what is known as the rule XIV process. That is an expedited procedure for floor consideration of my legislation, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act. In addition, I want to announce that on Monday night, I am going to be sure that every Senator has the opportunity to come to the floor and say whom we stand for and what we stand against. So I want to announce that in addition to the rule XIV process that I am going to initiate in a moment, I also want Senators to be aware that on Monday evening, I am going to be asking unanimous consent for Senators to come to the floor and pass the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act legislation. I am going to ask all 100 Senators to come to the floor and be against infanticide. This shouldn't be complicated.

Mr. SASSE

Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I now ask for a second reading and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Mr. SASSE. Thank you. I look forward to the debate in this body on Monday evening.

Mr. SASSE

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

Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I am going to speak again shortly from the floor, but, very briefly, I want to associate myself with the comments of my senior Senator, Deb Fischer from Nebraska, who just spoke and welcomed Nebraska's pro-life students to the Capitol over the next 3 days. It is wonderful to be associated with a movement that is fundamentally about love and is about the dignity of every baby. So I join my senior Senator in welcoming Nebraska's pro-life students to the Capitol and to Washington, DC, for the March for Life on Friday. I thank the President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. SASSE

Mr. SASSE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a very basic resolution. I want Senators to unanimously reaffirm our oath of office to a Constitution that explicitly rejects religious bigotry. It is useful to regularly remind ourselves that Americans are First Amendment people. Each of the five freedoms in the First Amendment-- speech, press, religion, assembly, and protest--defines who we are. In America, we talk, we read, we argue, and we march and worship without fear. Because of this fundamental celebration of human dignity and human freedom, America is big enough to welcome a whole bunch of meaty and messy fights on everything from whom you vote for to whom you call God. Just as the First Amendment prohibits the government from dictating anyone's religious beliefs, so, too, the Constitution explicitly rejects religious tests for Federal office. Our Constitution explicitly rejects religious tests for Federal office. This isn't a Republican belief; this isn't a Democratic belief; this is an American belief. But, tragically, over the last couple of years, some strange things have been happening in this body, and we seem to be forgetting some of those basic 101 American civics truths. I want to tell you a story. Brian Buescher from my State was recently nominated by the President to be a Federal judge for the District of Nebraska. This is an honor for him and his family, a celebration of his brain, work ethic, and his integrity. By the way, Brian is also Catholic and an active member of the Knights of Columbus. The Knights of Columbus, for those of you who don't know, is the largest Catholic fraternal service organization in the world. The Knights' 1.6 million members of the organization raise millions of dollars for charity every year, and they contribute millions of hours of volunteer service. Like a lot of guys back in Nebraska, Brian joined the Knights of Columbus to give back and to also be involved in a bunch of fish frys. This is not the stuff of headlines, but it is the stuff of basic neighborliness. This is where the story gets weird because at Brian's confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee a few weeks ago, one of my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee called the Knights of Columbus ``an extremist organization.'' Huh? It got worse. Brian then got a letter from a Member of this body asking him if he would resign his membership in the Knights of Columbus if he were confirmed to the Federal bench to ``avoid the appearance of bias.'' This is nuts. We are talking about the largest Catholic fraternal organization in the world being called an extremist organization and a nominee for the Federal bench being asked to resign from this organization so that he can serve without the appearance of bias. The clear implication here was that Brian's religious beliefs and his religious affiliations--in this case, an affiliation with a Catholic organization that invests countless hours and millions of dollars annually serving special needs kids--Brian was supposedly therefore potentially unfit for Federal service. This is the same kind of garbage that was thrown at a Member of this body, John F. Kennedy, 60 years ago when he was campaigning for the Presidency. So today I have introduced a resolution--a 101-level, basic resolution--that simply reaffirms the belief of this body in American religious liberty. The resolution simply says that it is the sense of the Senate that disqualifying a nominee for the Federal bench or any Federal office on the basis of his Catholic beliefs or membership in the Knights of Columbus violates the no religious test clause of the Constitution. It seems obvious on its face. In this resolution, we are simply reaffirming with President Kennedy and with countless other Americans across 230 years--Protestant, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist and others-- we are simply reaffirming the idea that America is big enough for disagreements. Stated differently, we are saying that we believe the U.S. Government is not in the business of trying to resolve debates about Heaven and Hell; rather, the business of the U.S. Government is to preserve peace and order so that you and your neighbors can precisely wrestle about things such as Heaven and Hell or sports loyalties or dietary preferences. America can handle principled pluralism and honest, serious debate. This resolution ought to have the support of every single Member of this body. After all, each of us took an oath to defend this very idea when we first came here. This is what America is actually about. The text of the resolution before us states: Expressing the sense of the Senate that disqualifying a nominee to Federal office on the basis of membership in the Knights of Columbus violates the Constitution of the United States. Whereas, throughout the history of the United States, the religious liberty protected by both the First Amendment and the No Religious Test Clause of the Constitution of the United States has been at the heart of the American experiment; Whereas, in 1960, the presidential candidacy of John F. Kennedy was met with significant anti-Catholic bigotry; Whereas, then-Senator Kennedy responded to the bigotry with these timeless words: ``For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. . . . Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you, until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.''; Whereas the Knights of Columbus (in this preamble referred to as the ``Knights'') constitute the largest Catholic fraternal service organization in the world; Whereas the Knights have a proud tradition of standing against the forces of prejudice and oppression, such as the Ku Klux Klan and Nazi Germany; Whereas the Knights are founded on the principles of charity, unity, fraternity, and patriotism; and Whereas, in 2017, the Knights made more than $185,000,000 in charitable contributions and volunteered more than 75,600,000 service hours: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that disqualifying a nominee to Federal office on the basis of membership in the Knights of Columbus violates clause 3 of article VI of the Constitution of the United States, which establishes that Senators ``shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support th[e] Constitution'' and ``no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.'' Period. Full stop. If a Senator has a problem with this resolution, they are probably in the wrong line of work because this is what America is. This is a super basic point. No religious tests. If someone has a problem with this resolution, what other parts of the Constitution are they against? Freedom of the press? Women's right to vote? Freedom of speech? This isn't hard. There are no religious tests for serving on the Federal bench. We in this body should rebuke these anti-Catholic attacks. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 19, submitted earlier today.

Mr. SASSE. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, 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.