The clerk mr. Schumer, no. The clerk mr. Rubio, aye. Mr. Warner, no. The clerk mr. Braun, aye. Mr. Rounds, aye. The clerk mr. Vance, aye. The clerk ms. Klobuchar, no. Mr. Scott of florida, aye. Mrs. Britt, aye. Mr. Budd, aye. The clerk mr. Tillis, aye. The clerk mr. Manchin, aye. Mr. Hawley, aye. Mr. Young, aye. Ms. Ernst, aye. The clerk ■mr. Romney, aye. The clerk mr. Johnson, aye. Mr. Lujan, no. The clerk mr. Manchin, no. The clerk mr. Blumenthal, no. The clerk mr. Sanders, no. Vote the clerk mr. Mcconnell, aye. The clerk mr. Hickenlooper, no. The presiding officer have all senators voted . Does any senator wish to change his or her vote . If not, the yeas are 47. The nays are 51. The amendment is not agreed to. Mr. Kennedy madam president. The presiding officer the junior senator from louisiana. Mr. Kennedy madam president , i ask unanimous consent that there be up to six minutes of debate equally divided prior to the scheduled roll call vote. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Kennedy thank you, madam president. Madam president , i call up my amendment 1354 and ask that it be reported by number. The presiding officer the senate will be in order. The clerk will report by number. The clerk the senator from louisiana mr. Kennedy proposes amendment number 1354 to amendment number 1092. Mr. Kennedy madam president , before i explain my amendment, i would like to yield 30 seconds to my good friend senator tester mr. Tester madam president , i rise in support of the kennedy amendment, in support of Second Amendment rights for veterans in montana and across the country. It is not right a d. C. R bureaucrat at the v. A. Could take away a veterans legal right to a firearm simply because they need assistance managing their finances. Ill tell you what a montana advocate told me. This threatens Constitutional Rights to ask for help managing affairs has been a barrier to veterans to receive help for years. Its time to end it so veterans can reach out for the financial help they need and the mental help theyve. I dont think anyone in this country should have a fiduciary to have to go to court to get back their rights. Mr. Kennedy madam president , there are 16 million veterans in our country. Sometimes some of them need help managing their financial affairs. When they do, they go to the Veterans Administration and the Veterans Administration appoints a phi fiduciary to help that veteran manage his or her financial affairs. But under current v. A. Policy could we have order, madam president. The presiding officer the senate will be in order. Mr. Kennedy under current v. A. Policy bet this. Under current v. A. Policy, if a veteran who defended this country has to go to the v. A. To ask for help managing his or her financial affairs, the v. A. Automatically reports that veteran to the Fbis National Instant Criminal Background Check system, we call it nics and that veteran loses his firearm. He loses his firearm automatically. No due process. No questions asked. This decision has not been made by a judge. Its being made by a bureaucrat. All our amendment would do would be to say the v. A. , just because youve asked for help with your money, cannot automatically take away your firearm or report you to nics unless a judge has ruled that that veteran is a danger to himself or to others. And i would like to reserve the balance of my time. The presiding officer the junior senator from connecticut. Mr. Murphy madam president , i thought one of the few things that we agreed on on firearms was that people with serious mental illness, people who are judged to be mentally incompetent shouldnt be able to buy guns. And thats what were talking about here today. We are not talking about people who just cant balance their checkbook. Were not talking about people who just need some assistance with their financial affairs. The standard that the v. A. Uses is the standard of mental incompetence. These are veterans who have been judged to be mentally incapacity. Let me put a finer point on it. Onethird of the veterans were talking about in this category are diagnosed schizophrenics. This amendment allows for every single one of them to have their gun rights restored. Some of the most mentally ill people in this nation, people to whom we owe a duty of care, people who are, frankly, more prone to suicide than the general population are now going to be able to get their hands on a weapon to kill themselves or others if we pass this. This is a death sentence for scores of deeply mentally ill veterans whavment it does not do is set up some process by which to have a court judge whether or not they should own a gun. In fact, there is no current cause of action for that to occur. We didnt have to be at this point where our only choice is to restore gun rights even to actively suicidal veterans. We made an offer to sit down and try to work out a compromise, a better appeals process, a mechanism for these veterans to go to court, but that did not happen. That offer was not accepted. And so instead, instead, madam president , we are voting on an amendment that gives gun rights back to every single seriously mentally ill veteran who had been judged to be mentally incompetent, even those that are actively suicidal. That is a death sentence, a death sentence for thousands of seniors, thousands of veterans all across this country if this becomes law. This is a terrible idea, and we should defeat it. Mr. Kennedy madam president. The presiding officer the junior senator from louisiana. Mr. Kennedy madam president , with all the respect i can muster, my colleague is what he has said is inaccurate. I understand this is america, you can believe what you want. There are some people that wish we didnt have a Second Amendment. I get that, but we do. And i agree with senator murphy. We both agree on this. Chris believes that love is the answer, and i do too, but i own a handgun just in case, and thats my right. And every veteran has that right. And we shouldnt take away a persons gun without a judge, not a bureaucrat at the v. A. , ruling that person mentally incompetent. The presiding officer the question is on the amendment. Mr. Kennedy i ask for the yeas and nays, madam president. The presiding officer is there a sufficient second . There is. The clerk will call the roll. Vote the clerk ms. Baldwin. The clerk mr. Barrasso. Mr. Bennet. Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Blumenthal. Mr. Booker. Mr. Boozman. Mr. Braun. Mrs. Britt. Mr. Brown. Mr. Budd. Ms. Butler. Ms. Cantwell. Mrs. Capito. Mr. Cardin. Mr. Carper. Mr. Casey. Mr. Cassidy. Vote ms. Collins. Mr. Coons. Mr. Cornyn. Ms. Cortez masto. Mr. Cotton. Mr. Cramer. Mr. Crapo. Mr. Cruz. Mr. Daines. Ms. Duckworth. Mr. Durbin. Ms. Ernst. Mr. Fetterman. Mrs. Fischer. Mrs. Gillibrand. Mr. Graham. Mr. Grassley. Mr. Hagerty. Ms. Hassan. Mr. Hawley. Mr. Heinrich. Mr. Hickenlooper. Ms. Hirono. Mr. Hoeven. Mrs. Hydesmith. Mr. Johnson. Mr. Kaine. Mr. Kelly. Mr. Kennedy. Mr. King. Ms. Klobuchar. Mr. Lankford. Mr. Lee. Mr. Lujan. Ms. Lummis. Mr. Manchin. Mr. Markey. Mr. Marshall. Mr. Mcconnell. Mr. Menendez. Mr. Merkley. Mr. Moran. Mr. Mullin. Ms. Murkowski. Mr. Murphy. Mrs. Murray. Mr. Ossoff. Mr. Padilla. Mr. Paul. Mr. Peters. Mr. Reed. Mr. Ricketts. Mr. Risch. Mr. Romney. Ms. Rosen. Mr. Rounds. Mr. Rubio. Mr. Sanders. Mr. Schatz. Mr. Schmitt. Mr. Schumer. Mr. Scott of florida. Mr. Scott of south carolina. Mrs. Shaheen. Ms. Sinema. Ms. Smith. Ms. Stabenow. Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Tester. Mr. Thune. Mr. Tillis. Mr. Tuberville. Mr. Van hollen. Mr. Vance. Mr. Warner. Mr. Warnock. Ms. Warren. Mr. Welch. Mr. Whitehouse. Mr. Wicker. Mr. Wyden. Mr. Young. The presiding officer senators voting in the affirmative britt, budd, collins, cramer, crapo, ernst, grassley, hoeven, johnson, kennedy, lankford, manchin, mcconnell, mullin, romney, rosen, rubio, sinema, tester, tillis, tuberville, wicker. Mr. Thune, aye. Mr. Cassidy, aye. Senators voting in the negative baldwin, blumenthal, booker, cantwell, casey, coons, duckworth, durbin, hickenlooper, kaine, murphy, murray, sanders, schatz. Ms. Hirono, no. The clerk mr. Lujan, no. Mr. Kelly, no. Ms. Hassan, no. Mr. Marshall, aye. The clerk mr. Heinrich, no. Mr. Cruz, aye. Mrs. Gillibrand, no. The clerk mr. Hagerty, aye. Mr. Van hollen, no. Ms. Warren, no. The clerk mr. Paul, aye. Mr. Wyden, no. The clerk mr. Brown, no. The clerk mr. Peters, no. The clerk mr. Graham, aye. Mrs. Capito, aye. The clerk mrs. Fischer, aye. The clerk ms. Klobuchar, no. Mr. Rounds, aye. Ms. Murkowski, aye. Vote vote the clerk ms. Smith, no. Mr. Cardin, no. Mr. Whitehouse, no. Mr. Merkley, no. The clerk mr. Markey, no. Mr. Scott of florida, aye. The clerk mr. Braun, aye. Mr. Schumer, no. Mr. Menendez, no. The clerk mr. Risch, aye. Mr. Carper, no. Mr. Reed, no. Mrs. Blackburn, aye. The clerk mr. Well much, mr. The clerk mr. Welch, no. Mr. Ossoff, no. Mr. Warner, no. The clerk mrs. Hydesmith, aye. The clerk moran, aye. Mr. Boozman, aye. The clerk mr. Sullivan, aye. The clerk ms. Stabenow, no. The clerk ms. Butler, no. Mr. Hawley, aye. Are mr. King, aye. The clerk mr. King, aye. Mr. Young, aye. Vote lerk mr. King, aye. The clerk ms. Lummis, aye. The clerk mr. Cornyn, aye. Mr. Cotton, aye. The clerk mr. Fetterman, no. The clerk mr. Vance is aye. The clerk mr. Barrasso, aye. Mr. Lee, aye. Ms. Cortez masto, no. The clerk mr. Schmitt, aye. The clerk mr. Daines, aye. Mr. Ricketts, aye. The clerk mrs. Shaheen, no. The clerk mr. Warnock, no. The clerk mr. Bennet, no. Vote the presiding officer on this amendment the yeas are 53, the nays are 45. The amendment is agreed to. The presiding officer the senator from illinois. Mr. Durbin mr. President , i rise to discuss an urgent need. The confirmation of two pending United States attorney nominees. U. S. Attorneys across the United States represent the department of justice they are the leaders we turn to locally to deal with problems beyond lowell Law Enforcement local Law Enforcement control. Whether were fighting fentanyl epidemics, whether were fighting those who would undermine this country, many who would cheat and steal at the expense of others, we count on professional prosecutors to make those decisions. We go through a process here where a president will name a potential u. S. Attorney. Thats not the end of the story. The attorneys name is then submitted to the Senate Judiciary committee, which i chair, and then it goes through a rigorous bipartisan process, an investigation of each one of these nominees. Until they clear both sides of the table, democrats and republicans, the nominees dont move. Once having cleared, they are then put up for approval before the Senate Judiciary committee. Traditionally that was virtually the end of the story. The name would hit the calendar, the calendar nawm would be called shall approved, and the person would move into action. Under the previous president , donald trump, there was a lot of controversy, political controversy associated with all sorts of issues. You have to wonder out of the 85 u. S. Attorney nominees proposed by president donald trump, how many of them ran into an obstacle or being stopped on the senate floor by democrats for partisan reason . The answer none, not one. Despite all the controversy of the Trump Administration, the feeling was it was only fair to these men and women asking to serve our nation as representatives of the department of justice to give them that chance if they cleared the bipartisan background process. They did, we gave our approval, they served across the nation. But unfortunately weve come into a new era. U. S. Attorneys, Law Enforcement officers who lead our nation to prosecute violent criminals and protect our communities from drug traffickers, terrorism and other things are still essential to our system of justice. Ive emphasized that the u. S. Attorneys offices in the Northern District of ohio that would be cleveland and the Northern District of illinois that would be chicago undertake important investigations and prosecutions that keep our communities safe. The state of ohio, like many others, suffers from the scourge of fentanyl trafficking. We know about this deadly narcotic. Its a killer. It is the fourth in the nation for Drug Overdose deaths. The u. S. Attorney for the Northern District of ohio oversees the areas response to fatal overdoses from fentanyl to the u. S. Attorneys heroin and opioid task force. I would guess many ohioans would want to know why that task force now is waiting for senateconfirmed leadership. In my home state of illinois, over the last two years the Chicago Police department has recovered more than 10,000 firearms. 10,000 a year from various criminal investigations. The u. S. Attorney for the Northern District of illinois is responsible for coordinating efforts with all the Law Enforcement agencies in the Chicago Firearms Trafficking Strike force. My constituents cant understand why one senator from another state is blocking the confirmation of one u. S. Attorney candidate in illinois, april m. Perry, who has been found to be highly qualified not only by the white house but by a bipartisan Investigative Committee of the Senate Judiciary committee. April perry is well qualified for this job. She would like to be on the job and should have been weeks ago, making it safer to live in my state. Another point i made before is the irony that the senator who is blocking these two nominees is considering this a toughoncrime position. Tough on crime when you refuse to put a person in the role of prosecutor who is supposed to put these criminals behind bars . When he ran for the senate, my colleague from ohio pledged to, quote, fight the criminals, not the cops. Thats his quote. He argued that americans will not be safe if, quote, politicians keep attacking Police Officers instead of violent criminals. I just have to tell him, his strategy is stopping two leading u. S. Attorneys, one in his state and the state of illinois is the best news that criminals have had in a long time. The same man who pledged to fight the cops now proudly brags that he wants to, quote, grind the department of justice to a halt. Im not making that up and hes not denied it. He said his goal is to grind the u. S. Department of justice fo a halt. Listen to this headline from a recent article in news max, quote, senator vance to news max. Blocking d. O. J. Nominees makes a. G. s job harder. We want to make the attorney generals job harder when it comes to prosecuting drug criminals . Is that what this is all about . I said it before and say it again, senator vance needs to read a resolution he proposed in this body earlier this year and take his own advice. He should give Law Enforcement officers the support and resources they need rather than trying to score political points by making their jobs harder. Unlike me, senator vance doesnt need to worry about sounding like a broken record. Each time i come to the floor to ask for unanimous consent, he offers a different explanation for why hes blocking the confirmation of these highlyqualified nominees. First he claimed he was punishing the Justice Department for what he falsely called, quote, unprecedented political prosecution of former President Trump. As i pointed out, this is a weak excuse for hamstringing Law Enforcement, considering the former president has now been indicted four separate times on 91 different counts and continues to threaten judges, prosecutors, jurors, and witnesses. Senator vance also previously stated here on the senate floor, quote, and i quote, its in the congressional record, my objection is not specific to the qualifications of the particular individuals that have been nominated. He said i want to make it clear, in reference to both ms. Y in illinois, in response i offer the junior senator from ohio the opportunity to keep his promise to support Law Enforcement by allowing us to schedule confirmation votes on these pending u. S. Attorneys, exactly what he said he wanted on the record in the senate. He looked me in the eye and agreed with me. He released his objection to both ms. Lutzko and ms. Perry on the condition that we hold roll call votes on them, which i agreed to. And then seemingly overnight he decided that he actually does object to even Holding Confirmation votes on these nominees. He then claimed that, quote, expecting us to vote on cloture is not too much to ask. I was surprised to hear that. It was a new wrinkle in his argument, considering that just last month the junior senator from ohio was on the senate floor attempting to force the senate to skip a cloture vote on one of his bills. I look forward to hearing what his new argument may be today. If he is trying to punish those who are in the process of prosecuting the former president of the United States, what is his retribution when it comes to the state of georgia . We now have so many counts naming the former president for wrongdoing and we have four of the people who have been accused who have pled guilty so far in that process. Does he have a special agenda now when it comes to the state of georgia to determine whether or not theres going to be some retribution, going to grind to halt the system of justice in that state . So we reached a point where its hard to explain. Senator tuberville of alabama is stopping military promotions of deserving women and men who have risked their lives in service to america. Another republican senator is stopping ambassadorial positions being filled. And now this senator has decided we have enough criminal prosecutors in america to take care of crime, we dont need more. We certainly need these two and many more doing a professional job. And so, mr. President , i ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader in consultation with the republican leader, the senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations calendar number 314 and 315, there be two minutes of debate divided in the usual form,