Vote vote the presiding officer are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote . If not, the yeas are 92, the nays are 4. And the nomination is confirmed. Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. The president will be immediately notified of the senates action. The presiding officer the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. The clerk cloture motion we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of john w. Holcomb of california to be United States district judge for the Central District of california. The presiding officer by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. The question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of john w. Holcomb of california to be United States district judge for the Central District of california shall be brought to a close. The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. And the clerk will call the roll. Vote vote vote the presiding officer does any senator in the chamber wish to vote or change his or her vote . If not, the yeas are 83, the nays are 13. The motion is agreed to. The clerk will report the next nomination. The clerk nomination, the judiciary, john w. Holcomb, of california, to be United States district judge for the Central District of california. The presiding officer by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. The question is, is it the sense of the senate that the debate on robs robs to be United States district judge for the Southern District of california . The clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. The clerk cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on of Todd Wallace Robinson of california to be United States district judge for the Southern District of california. The presiding officer by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. The question is, is it the sense of the senate that the debate on Todd Robinson to be United States district judge for the Southern District of california shall be brought to a close. The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call the roll. Vote vote vote the presiding officer are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote . If not, the yeas are 33, the nays are 13. The motion is agreed to. The clerk will report the nomination. The clerk nomination, the judiciary. Todd Wallace Robinson of california to be United States district judge for the Southern District of california. Mr. Toomey mr. President . The presiding officer the senator from pennsylvania. Mr. Toomey mr. President , i have a unanimous consent request. We hope they die. We hope they die. We hope they die. Mr. President , these are the vial words the vile words that antipolice protesters yelled on saturday night outside st. Francis Medical Center in Los Angeles County, california. They were yelling that about two deputy sheriffs who at the time were clinging to life inside the hospital. They were clinging to life, just barely, mr. President , because earlier that night those two deputy sheriffs were brutally ambushed by a gunman to shot them multiple times as they sat in their patrol car. Simply doing their jobs, patrolling the local train station. One of the deputies is a 31yearold mother of a 6yearold boy. The other deputy is a 24yearold man. Both joined the force about 14 months ago. The female deputy was shot through the jaw but, heroically, she still managed to radio for help and apply a tourniquet to her partners wounds. What happened in los angeles, mr. President , to these deputies is horrific and it is dangerous, and it is a reminder that every single day Law Enforcement officers put on a badge and then risk their lives to protect all of us. And i mean every single day. Just this past sunday, a Police Officer in lancaster, pennsylvania, responded to a Domestic Violence call it came in a home in the city. His body cam video captured what happened next. When the officer arrived, a fullgrown man wielding a huge carving knife waving it over his head came charging out of the house and charged straight at the officer. The man who did this, as it happens, is scheduled to go on trial in october on charges of stabbing four people last year. What happened to the deputies in los angeles is not only horrific, but its part of a disturbing trend of violence against police. According to the f. B. I. , 37 Law Enforcement officials were intentionally killed in the line of duty just so far this year. Thats a 23 increase from the same period last year. Rioters have attacked Law Enforcement. Weve seen them h. R. Ing bricks and rocks and weve seen them hurling bricks and rocks and Setting Police cars on fire. Mr. President , this violence against police is not happening in a vacuum. Its not. In recent months the nation has been engaged in an important, substantive debate about the relationship between Law Enforcement and the communities that they serve and protect, and i happen to think that debate is important. Its one of the reasons that i supported senator tim scotts bill to provide more accountability and transparency with respect to Law Enforcement. But, unfortunately, our democratic colleagues blocked us from even being able to hold a debate on that bill. Senator scott and republicans were willing to allow votes on any democrat amendments. They could have changed the bill in any way that they saw fit, if they could make the case with their amendments. But they refused to even have a process, refused to even allow anyone, including in the themselves, to offer amendments. They refused to let us even consider the bill. And the Police Reform debate has exposed some radical voices. Unfortunately, that sometimes includes government officials who spew antipolice rhetoric. They call for defunding, sometimes even abolishing the police. And they want to boil out rioters in minneapolis. For example, after the two Los Angeles Deputy sheriffs were shot on saturday, not only did antipolice protesters yell we hope they die and other vile things outside the hospital, but the city manager of linwood, california, the very city where the deputies were clinging to their lives in the hospital, the city manager responded to the shooting by posting on social media the message saying, chickens come home to roost. Can you imagine . Protesters feed off the failure of elected officials to support and defend the police. In lancaster, after that knifewielding man was shot by an officer who was just protecting his own life, which was obviously under serious risk, protesters came out and started rioting, throwing bricks, rocks and bottles at police, smash windows at a Police Station and a post office, setting a dumpster on fire. Despite the fact that the video clearly shows that the officer was being attacked. He was simply defending his life. I have no idea why anyone would protest a Police Officer defending his own life. My own state of pennsylvania, a local democratic elected official in Delaware County recently posted an image unbelievable on social media of two black men holding guns to the head of a white Police Officer with a caption that said, does it have to come to this to make them stop murdering and terrorizing us . What kind of message is that . As Los Angeles County sheriff noted on sat after his on saturday after his officers were shot, and i quote, words have consequences. They do, mr. President. You know, instead of defunding the police, we should be defending the police, defending them against this kind of violence both in word and especially in deed. And thats why im here today calling on the senate to pass my thin blue line act today. My bill sends a very simple and clear message. Anyone who murders a Law Enforcement official should be prepared to pay the ultimate price. Under federal law, killing a federal Law Enforcement official is an aggravating factor for the federal jury to weigh when considering whether or not to impose the Death Penalty on a cop killer. But that consideration does not apply when a state or local Law Enforcement officer is killed, and so the thin blue line act provides that same level of justice to state and local Law Enforcement officers that we already apply to federal Law Enforcement officers by also making the killing of a local Law Enforcement officer an aggravating factor in determining whether or not to impose the Death Penalty in a federal case. In 2017, the house passed a bill, this bill, with bipartisan support, included support of liberals like adam schiff and bay tow owe rocker, and the and beta orourke and the bill has support from groups like the fraternal order of police, the National Sheriffs association, the National Association of police organizations, and others. Mr. President , the thin blue line act is commonsense, Bipartisan Legislation that the senate should pass now. Our Law Enforcement officers put themselves in harms way every day, and we are reminded of that every day. Theyre out there protecting us, and im not sure thats ever been more dangerous for Law Enforcement than it is today. We need to do our part to support them, to send a message to them that we support them, but to send a message to criminals and potential assassins that they will pay the ultimate price. The tragic event that a Police Officer is killed in the line of duty, we owe that officer justice, and im going to keep fighting for them to receive it. So, mr. President , as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the Judiciary Committee be discharged from further consideration of s. 1508 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. Further, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. The presiding officer is there objection . A senator mr. President. The presiding officer the senator from new mexico. Mr. Udall reserving the right to object. Thank you, mr. President. Thank you for the recognition. As a former new Mexico Attorney general and assistant u. S. Attorney, ive worked hard to prosecute Violent Crimes. Ive been privileged to work with Law Enforcement, and we are all thankful for the tremendous work the Capitol Police do here in our nations capital. The recent shootings of two law sheriffs deputies in california was heinous. Our prayers go out to the officers and their families. The perpetrator must be brought to justice. But i do not support rushing through this bill in response to the california shootings. Under california law, murder of a Law Enforcement officer already makes someone eligible for the Death Penalty. This bill needlessly expands the federal Death Penalty. As i understand this bill, for someone to be eligible for the Death Penalty, he or she would have to first be convicted of federal murder, and then it would need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim watts killed or targeted because he or she was a Law Enforcement officer. I also want to point out that the Death Penalty itself has widespread issues in many instances of misapplication. D. N. A. Testing and other science have proven that innocent people have been executed. The Innocence Project has found that 21 of 375 individuals who were falsely convicted and exonerated by d. N. A. Testing since 1989 have served time on death row. The Death Penalty has also been applied in a racially discriminatory way. A 1990 g. A. O. Report on capital sentencing noted that 82 of studies conducted between 1972 and 1990 found that the race of the victim influenced whether a capital murder charge was brought or a death sentence imposed. As Justice Breyer has noted, and i quote here, the factors that most clearly ought to affect application of the Death Penalty, namely comparative egregiousness of the crime, often do not. Instead, circumstances that ought not to affect application of the Death Penalty, such as race, gender, or geography, often do. Thats in a recent Supreme Court case here in 2015. I also understand that this bill has not been through the regular order in the Judiciary Committee. Its important that legislation that would have serious consequences is fully examined by the Judiciary Committee, the committee of jurisdiction here. Id also like to take this opportunity to call attention to key legislation that addresses violence and should come to the floor, and thats the violence against women reauthorization act. Vawa authorization expired over a year and a half ago, on february 15, 2019. Funding continues, but key improvements are being delayed by lack of reauthorization. Violence against women reauthorization act of 2019 is supported by all 47 democratic senators. The house passed the bill 263158. 33 House Republicans voted yes on that bill. This bill would extend vawa waw waw vawa for five years through 2024. As the member on Indian Affairs i know how critical this bill is for indian country. Native women face mutter raids that are more than murder rates that are more than ten times the National Average murder rate. There are more than 5,000 cases of missing American Indian and alaska native women, and 55 of native women have experienced Domestic Violence. More than four in five American Indian and alaska native women experience violence in their lifetimes. Without enactment of a vawa reauthorization, these tribes will lack the jurisdictional tools they need to keep their communities safe. The vawa bill also explicitly states that grant recipients can train staff to prevent lgbt discrimination and it adds dating partners convicted of Domestic Violence and stalking to the category of persons barred from having handguns. This bill would make a real difference in preventing Violent Crimes against women and has passed the house and has been pending before us here in the senate for many months. For these reasons, i respectfully object to the senators request. The presiding officer the objection is heard. Mr. Toomey mr. President , first of all, let me just say bringing up vawa cant be anything other than an attempt to obfuscate from the case thats in front of us. Id be happy to talk about vawa. I happen to agree that violence against women is a serious issue. Its a serious problem. All the programs in vawa are still fully funded. They continue. And i dont think anybody in this body or the other body has done as much as ive done to make sure that the crimes victims fund, the resources in that fund goes to the victims of crime, very much including women who are victims of violent crime, and children and the groups that serve those victims. And, as a matter of fact, ive supported previous versions of vawa. Theres been a bipartisan effort to get a new reauthorization of vawa. Senator ernst and senator feinstein have spent months developing that, but thats not the version thats been under consideration here. Mr. President , theres nothing incompatible about passing my legislation, the thin blue line act, standing up to protect local Law Enforcement and having a separate consideration about vawa. Theyre not mutually exclusive. Theyre not in any way related to each other. But unfortunately, our democratic colleagues are not willing to simply extend the same protection we extend to federal Law Enforcement o