Brady

Aye

@LincolnHawthorne: I voted not to advance Judge Hardiman's nomination out of committee and will be voting against his confirmation should it advance. His questionable ethics and problematic rulings are frankly disqualifying.

Nay

Mr. President, I second the amendment and yield.

Mr. President,

I would welcome my colleague from Virginia introducing a bill to address federal funding of adult entertainment and sex work, which surely must have reached epidemic proportions with the way some are reacting to my amendment, though I somehow missed the memo that the brothels are now awash in taxpayer dollars. This bill pertains to illegal human trafficking, though, and I would prefer to keep it that way.

I yield.

Aye

Eller I: Aye

Eller II: Aye

@LincolnHawthorne: If @YuMiRoss would like to introduce a bill that addresses legal adult entertainment and sex work, I'll be happy to debate it and perhaps even vote for it. A bill to address illegal human trafficking is not that bill.

@LincolnHawthorne: I realize Senate Republicans have suddenly come to believe they have the unmitigated right to force through anything they please in whatever bill they please, no matter how extraneous, but they're wrong.

Mr. President, point of inquiry, is the advice of the Parliamentarian to sustain the earlier points of order to be upheld? I yield.

Mr. President, I second the amendment offered by my colleague from Georgia and I yield.

Mr. President, I second Eller I and Eller II.

I also move to strike Title IV as it's extraneous to the rest of the bill.

I yield.

Mr. President, I object to passage by unanimous consent and I move to strike Section 19. Whatever you may think of legitimate adult entertainment and sex work, the latter of which is legal and regulated in the State of Nevada, it has absolutely nothing to do with illegal human trafficking and has no place in this bill. I yield.

Mr. President,

I believe putting federal pressure on states to eliminate certifications and licensures may jeopardize the safety of workers and consumers alike. At the very least, I believe it should receive deliberative debate and a vote on the record.

I yield.

Mr. President, I object to passage by unanimous consent and I yield.

Mr. President, point of inquiry, which points of order are not sustained? I yield.

Mr. President, to address the Parliamentarian's question, I'm referring to the Medical Liability Reform subtitle. I yield.

Mr. President, further point of order: The Byrd rule requires that reconciliation measures be deficit neutral beyond the covered fiscal year, but this bill has not been scored by the Congressional Budget Office. I yield.

Aye

Madam President,

Point of order: Title I, Subtitle D appears to have a budgetary effect merely incidental to the non-budgetary policy change, in violation of the Byrd rule.

Additional point of order: Title I, Subtitle F appears to have no budgetary effect and thus violates the Byrd rule.

I yield.

Madam President, I second the motion to strike Title I, Subtitle A, and I yield.

@LincolnHawthorne: The Republicans' outrageous, go-it-alone attempt to repeal StormCare will undermine the American health care system, hurt the American economy, and increase health care and financial burdens for the American people. https://bit.ly/3oWuKoW

Hawthorne Blasts "Partisan, Disorderly, and Altogether Reckless" Republican Reconciliation Bill

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today Senator Lincoln Hawthorne (D-IL) blasted Senate Republicans for their "go-it-alone tactics" in attempting to pass the American Spirit Renewal Plan reconciliation bill, which he called a "partisan, disorderly, and altogether reckless bill." Senator Hawthorne's full statement is available below.

"It's outrageous that Republicans have brought a bill to the floor that would make sweeping changes to the American health care system. without so much as even a perfunctory attempt to negotiate with Democrats in good faith to pass a bipartisan bill that would truly benefit the American people. Instead they have loaded up this reconciliation bill with provisions they know will never pass through regular order, and rightly so given the disruption many of these provisions would cause to the health care system and the health and financial stability of the American people.

"But it's not just how Republicans intend to pass this bill that's so unacceptable, it's what the bill will actually do. This bill will repeal the Affordable Care Act, creating unprecedented turmoil and uncertainty within the health care system, from your family doctor's office to your local emergency room to your insurance provider. Turmoil and uncertainty in any economic sector is also a recipe for disaster in the overall economy, because there is nothing investors hate more than the kind of upheaval that could lead to recession -- and make no mistake, the Republicans' partisan, disorderly, and altogether reckless bill could plunge us straight into recession. The costs for these unproven Republican plans are sky high, and the ways Republicans claim they're going to cover those costs are dubious at best. One of the ways they plan to pay for it, by the way, is by cutting Medicare. Don't buy their rhetoric about 'reform,' what they're really going to do is make sure seniors are paying more out of pocket for health care, or that the additional costs they're creating to pay for their plans are heaped on other Americans at other points in the health care system, whether they can afford to pay or not.

"Meanwhile, it's doubtful that all the provisions in this bill are compliant with the rules of the budget reconciliation progress, and Democrats are going to fight to ensure Republicans follow the strict rules established for bypassing the Senate's regular order. We're also going to fight the frivolous and totally unrelated spending they've loaded onto this bill, like the almost $40 billion they're going to try to ram through for their border wall gimmick. This is not to mention their massive corporate tax cut, while at the same time they're asking everyday Americans to pay for their plans either now or in the future if in fact these cost offsets don't stand up to scrutiny as many anticipate they won't.

"In the coming days, you'll hear Republicans argue that Democrats have passed bills through reconciliation, but we have never done it like this -- we have only ever used the budget reconciliation progress when negotiations were exhausted, when it was clear Republicans had no intention of sitting down with us at the negotiating table and hashing out a deal in good faith. With this bill, Republicans have not only refused to come to the table, they've overturned it and decided on go-it-alone tactics that make a mockery of the deliberative traditions of the United States Senate. There's still time for Senate Republicans to come to their senses and say no to this disaster of a reconciliation bill and the appalling tactics their leadership, including the President of the United States, plan to use to try to force it through. If not, I hope House Republicans will prove more responsible than their Senate colleagues. In the meantime, Democrats will do everything we can to defeat this bill, and if Republicans so badly want to go it alone on this bill they may find they'll have a hard time getting sixty votes in the Senate for much of anything else."

20 minutes ago, Jewell said:

not sure if i’d strike something that popular from the bill. fight the byrd rule battle on the unpopular crap they’ve stuffed in

I feel like we have to strike everything that contradicts the Byrd rule, otherwise we're setting a precedent that some things that violate the Byrd rule can pass through reconciliation. I get that this is a popular provision but then again if it's so popular and they want it so bad, they can file a separate bill and pass it through regular order -- or we could do that instead.

@LincolnHawthorne: Let's be clear about what Judge Hardiman did. He donated to the Senators who were going to be recommending him and confirming him, while he was actually interviewing and being vetted for a judicial position.

@LincolnHawthorne: Most of the examples Republicans are citing of judges appointed by Democrats donating to Democratic campaigns occurred well before they were under consideration for a judicial nomination. That wasn't the case with Judge Hardiman. There is no comparison.

I'd love a logo for Hawthorne, I don't really know what imagery to put in it. Illinois' nicknames are the Prairie State and the Land of Lincoln, so maybe you can work with those for imagery. I'm not really that picky. I don't care about colors either except mostly blue.

I know this has been an extra helpful description...