[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 81 (Thursday, May 12, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2477-S2478]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Vote on Powell Nomination

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and 
consent to the Powell nomination?
  Mr. BROWN. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Toomey) would have voted ``yea.''
  The result was announced--yeas 80, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 176 Ex.]

                                YEAS--80

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Bennet
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Booker
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cortez Masto
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Daines
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Lummis
     Manchin
     Marshall
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Padilla
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Romney
     Rosen
     Rounds
     Sasse
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Tillis
     Tuberville
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warnock
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
     Young

                                NAYS--19

     Boozman
     Braun
     Cotton
     Cruz
     Hawley
     Johnson
     Lee
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Ossoff
     Paul
     Rubio
     Sanders
     Scott (FL)
     Shelby
     Sullivan
     Warren
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Toomey
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Van Hollen). Under the previous order, the 
motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and 
the President will immediately be notified of the Senate's action.
  The Senator from New Jersey is recognized.


                   Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2340

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I come to the floor today and will, in 
short order, seek unanimous consent for the passage of the Daniel 
Anderl Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2021. This bill, which was 
reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last December with 
overwhelming bipartisan support, is named after Daniel Anderl, the 20-
year-old son of U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas.
  Mr. President, 1 year 9 months 23 days ago, Daniel was brutally 
murdered by a gunman who targeted Judge Salas for her gender, her 
ethnicity, and because he could not accept a judgment in a case that 
she reached in her court.
  To carry out his horrific hate crime, the gunman used publicly 
available information, tracking down Judge Salas to her home in New 
Jersey and murdering Daniel in cold blood when he answered the door. 
And after that, her husband Mark also was shot and seriously wounded.
  Every single day since July 19, 2020, Judge Salas and her husband 
Mark have been dealing with the immense grief of burying their only 
son. No parent should have to experience such a devastating loss. Yet, 
in the face of so much pain, Judge Salas has channeled it into purpose, 
embarking on a personal mission to increase the safety and privacy of 
her fellow judges and their families.
  Now, I know Judge Salas well. Back in 2010, I was proud to recommend 
her to the Federal bench. A year later, when the Senate unanimously 
confirmed her by voice vote, she became the first Latina to serve on 
the district court of New Jersey.
  After the horrific tragedy she suffered, I made a personal commitment 
to honor Daniel's legacy through action. I told her I would not rest 
until we enacted greater protections for those who serve on the Federal 
bench to prevent another judge from having to endure the senseless 
violence Judge Salas experienced.
  The bipartisan bill I seek unanimous consent for is an effort I am 
proud to lead with 12 of my colleagues, including Senators Durbin, 
Grassley, Booker, Graham and Kennedy. Our bill would prevent potential 
assailants from using publicly available information to target judges 
or their families. It is a commonsense measure that would authorize the 
U.S. Marshal Service to monitor online threats and deter future 
attacks.
  It is so common sense that it was voted out of the Judiciary 
Committee with strong bipartisan support--I am talking about a 21-to-0 
vote in the affirmative.
  It is so common sense, in fact, that just, I think, 2 days ago my 
Republican colleagues led a similar measure to safeguard Supreme Court 
Justices and their families.
  So if the Senate passed an important bill without hearings--without 
hearings--directly to the floor to support and protect Supreme Court 
Justices and their families, I think we should do it as well for 
Federal judges. Nobody made an effort to change that bill.
  There is simply no explanation or justification to protect Supreme 
Court Justices while delaying legislation to protect Federal judges who 
face the same, if not greater, risk.
  No judge in America should have to fear for their lives as they work 
to uphold our Constitution, our democracy, and ensure all people have 
equal justice under the law.
  Every day that we delay in passing this critical legislation is a day 
that we delay necessary protections for the guardians of our 
Constitution and the rule of law.
  There are three branches of our government. One of the essential ones 
is the judiciary. They make decisions

[[Page S2478]]

every day about what is the law of the land and what is the answer to 
disputes among us as individuals and entities. If that judge is fearful 
that their decisions at the end of the day will lead to violence 
against them and their families, how long will their judgment not be 
affected and, therefore, how long will we as a nation be able to say 
that the rule of law is truly in place?
  So I ask my Senate colleagues to join me today in honoring the life 
and memory of Daniel Anderl. Let us do the right thing and unanimously 
pass the Judicial Security and Privacy Act of 2021 named after him.
  So, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 190, S. 
2340; further, that the committee-reported substitute amendment be 
agreed to, the bill, as amended, be considered read a third time and 
passed, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid 
upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. PAUL. Reserving the right to object, I agree that members of the 
judicial branch need better protection. In fact, I have been appalled 
that leftwing pro-abortion groups released the addresses of our Supreme 
Court Justices and that there have been people at their houses trying 
to intimidate them. It is appalling and shouldn't happen. Whoever it 
was that released the addresses of the Supreme Court Justices should be 
punished.
  So I think there is bipartisan support in this. I was disappointed 
though that the White House has not condemned the release of the 
Supreme Court Justices. I think that ranting and raving and noise all 
night is disturbing the peace and isn't actually First Amendment 
protected speech.
  But if recent years have taught us anything, it is that Members of 
the legislative branch also need protection. That was clear in 2011 
when Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was tragically shot while doing the 
most important part of her job, meeting with constituents.

  Words cannot express how happy and inspired I was to see 
Congresswoman Giffords was in the Chamber as her husband, Senator 
Kelly, was recently sworn in, but words also cannot express the pain 
felt by the families of the people who were killed and wounded that 
day.
  That should have been a wakeup call to better protect Members of 
Congress and, in doing so, better protect the people around them. But 
just a few years ago, a shooter nearly killed Congressman   Steve 
Scalise during practice for the annual charity baseball game. I know. I 
was there. One staffer was shot less than 10 feet from me.
  The Capitol Hill police were there and saved our lives. Had they not 
been there, things might have been much worse. But the Capitol Police 
aren't everywhere, and our families live in many cities outside of 
Washington. Extending the provisions of this bill to Members of 
Congress would do nothing to change the content. In fact, I believe our 
legislative changes add four words ``and Members of Congress.''
  So I think these protections actually are good protections. I agree 
with the spirit of the bill; I agree with the letter of the bill, but 
really it should be judicial folks protected as well as Congress.
  My substitute amendment, which I will offer for unanimous consent, 
would make a simple change. My amendment would simply extend the 
protections that would be offered to the judicial branch to the 
legislative branch.
  So I ask the committee-reported amendment be withdrawn and that the 
Senator modify his request to include my substitute amendment which is 
at the desk; that the substitute amendment be considered read a third 
time and passed and that the motions to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator so modify his request?
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  I appreciate the desire of the Senator from Kentucky to protect 
Members of the legislative branch. I wish someone would have come to 
the floor the other night when we had a rush, which I thought was 
important, to protect Supreme Court Justices. That was a moment in 
which that could have been pursued. That went through lightning speed. 
That didn't even have a hearing. It didn't go through the process of 
the Judiciary Committee like this bill has, but there was no such call.
  And so I would work with my colleague on a separate legislation to 
provide protections for a different universe, including a legislative 
one. I know there are other Members who want to provide these 
protections to everyone. The question is that none of that has been 
moving on the floor. None of that has had the time and attention in the 
committee processes to ferret out the challenges, the issues, and 
whatnot. But every day we see violence against judges across the 
country, and we have an opportunity to take a moment of tragedy and 
turn it into something powerful.
  And I would work with my colleague on his desire, but at this point, 
because I am concerned that what we would do is not find a pathway in 
the House because there are already challenges in the House, even to 
the simple proposition of limiting these protections to Members of the 
Federal judiciary, I am afraid that such an expansion under this bill 
would render it useless in terms of any action in the House, and so I 
have to object to the proposed amendment but with a desire to work with 
my colleague on anything I can to move forward in a different way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Is there objection to the original request?
  Mr. PAUL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, just a brief remark. You know, I regret 
that in the goal to protect ourselves, we can't protect others.
  Not every law where we seek to provide a protection is ultimately 
grandly approached. I think that the passage of this bill would send a 
clear message to our Federal judiciary, who are not on the awesome 
Supreme Court, that they will be protected just the same as any Supreme 
Court Justice and that they can make their judgments without fear that 
violence will come their way to them or their family because of the 
decisions they make in our society.
  And then building upon that success, we can try to build and create 
greater protections for others. But this maximalist position is, 
unfortunately, one that, at the end of the day, doesn't provide 
protection for anyone.
  And so I will keep coming back to the floor. We will keep working to 
try to make this happen because this young man who died senselessly and 
his parents who had to bury their only son--his memory cannot die in 
vain.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama is recognized.