check your listings for schedule information for donald trump's rally later on tonight in florida. the senate is ripped-- returning from their caucus luncheon voting on whether or not to move forward on the continuing resolution for short-term funding measure. the clerk: we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of priewl 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring a close debate on senate amendment 5082 to h.r. 5325, an act making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september september 30 2017, and for other purposes, signed by 16 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on amendment number 5082 offered by the senator from kentucky,

mr. mcconnell, to h.r. 5325, be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under this rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any members wishing to change their vote? if not on this vote the yeas are 45. the nays are 55. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not voting in the affirmative the motion is not agreed to the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: could we have order in the senate. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. mcconnell: i enter a motion to reconsider the vote.

the presiding officer: the motion is entered. 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 h.r. 5325 an act making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2017 and for other purposes signed by 16 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent the mandatory quorum call has been waived. is it the sense of the senate that debate h.r. 53425 an act making appropriations for the legislative branch for fiscal year ending september 30, 2017 and for other purposes 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: have all senators voted? does any senator wish to vote or change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 40, the nays are 59. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i enter a motion to reconsider the vote. the presiding officer: the motion is entered. mr. mcconnell: let me just say to my colleagues, senate republicans are prepared to pass a clean c.r. zika bill. we hope that important flood

relief will be a part of it. we'll continue working on this important matter. we're now going to an important security briefing, and i will have more to say about the matter later today. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 446, senate bill 2555. i further ask that the thune amendment be agreed to, the committee reported substitute amendment as amended be agreed to the bill as amended be 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? mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the democratic leader. mr. reid: reserving the right to object. bob dole, who we all knew and still know is a wonderful man

said and i quote -- "as we all learn around here, if you don't keep your word, it doesn't make much difference what agenda you try to advance." close quote. bob dole. so it's very difficult for me to allow senator thune's bill to advance today. i have great respect for him. that's without any question. i'm still waiting though, on republicans to keep a promise that they made nearly 18 months ago on the senate floor. they came to me and said it's so important that jon kyl who i also like from neighboring arizona. they had somebody they wanted to put on a very important commission. and i didn't want to do it because i thought it was fair that we had somebody to pair with. that's what we do around here. that's what mcconnell has done. i respect that.

i said give me your word and we'll go ahead and do this. no problem. i got their word. senator mcconnell and senator thune. they said they would do it as soon as the new congress started. that is almost two years ago. this woman is in limbo. there's an extremely important vote now before the commission dealing with top boxes on television sets, and she has not been confirmed in that job. it is wrong. i brokered that agreement between mcconnell and thune. i didn't want -- it wasn't my idea. it was theirs. to confirm republican commissioner michael riley -- he's the kyl person -- to a five-year term on the f.c.c. in return, i repeat, thune and mcconnell assured me they would confirm jesse rosenwersel.

i have been working on that name for two years to a new term when they were in the majority. they got in the majority just a few months after that. this was in december. she spent many years in public service. no one questions her qualifications. the senate confirmed her unanimously in 2012. her credentials and integrity are not in question. there is no doubt she will continue to serve the f.c.c. well. yet the republicans have continued to refuse to keep their promise and hold a vote on her. that's breaking someone's word. as bob dole, said all we learn around here, if you don't keep your word, it doesn't make much difference what agenda you try to advance. john thune the great state of south dakota, knows when senators make agreements, they should be honored. the american people also expect congress to do its job. and they're not doing their job because of what we're facing

every day with republicans. here's something from one of the major newspapers in america. i will only read part of it. with no budget resolution to regular appropriations bills ready to go, congress is now merely trying to extend current funding levels for a few more months h. this would allow legislators to return to the campaign trail and delay the hard decisions until after election. so far they still haven't even been able to execute the second-rate plan because legislators have repeatedly tried to tuck poison pill provisions into this must-pass bill. the result is that there is little more than a month before the election. congress again flirting with a shutdown and a year into the worldwide zika epidemic, congress still hasn't successfully appropriated a cent toward the crisis, nor has it passed any funding to help families affected by emergencies in louisiana or flint. you can't get anyone to confirm it either. merrick garland, president

obama's supreme court pick, can't get a hearing famously but he is hardly the only nominee being snubbed. the republican-led senate has confirmed 22 judges this congress putting it on pace to be the lowest number of confirmed judges in almost 70 years, 70 years. according to the alliance for justice, for context the senate has confirmed three times as many judges by this point in final congresses than two-term president bush, reagan and clinton. in all these cases mind you the presidents have also faced senates controlled by the opposite opposing party. but it's not just that. the senate's confirmed the fewest civilian nominees in modern history. as of mid september just 248 nominees have been confirmed. that's again half the average.

well, it is a shame that we're at a point here where i have to come to the floor. i have been in congress for 34 years and talk about people not keeping their word. let somebody deny that that is what was done. it's unfair, and i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. thune: mr. president i would ask unanimous consent i be able to complete my remarks with respect to the subject. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i know that the -- i'm disappointed that the minority has again chosen to put partisan politics ahead of passing noncontroversial bipartisan pro-growth legislation. my understanding is that their sole objection to passing the mobile now act is the wholly unrelated nomination of f.c.c. commissioner jessica rosenworcel. i know the minority leader is frustrated that she hasn't been

confirmed to another term. he also said on the floor previously that i have done everything possible within my authority as chairman of the commerce committee to advance her nomination through the process, and that is correct. we had her hearing we voted her out of the committee. scheduling the floor is not something that i control. what i don't understand, however, is yf senate democrats believe that blocking mobile now and other bipartisan bills that come out of my committee will help her cause. we invited commissioner rosenworcel to testify at one of our hearings leading up to the bill and ironically many of her ideas are reflected in this legislation. the bill also reflects the hard work and priorities of so many commerce committee democrats. in particular, two of the most important additions to the bill were senator schatz's promoting licensing spectrum act and senator klobuchar's dig once bill. if the mobile act now is not passed by the senate soon, their legislative efforts will have been made in vain. while i respect how important it

is to senator reid and other democrats that commissioner rosenworcel be confirmed this year, there is simply no reason for that effort to jeopardize the good-faith work that senators on both sides of the aisle did to create this bill. these two issues have been inexplicably linked, but they need not be. and so i would urge my colleagues to separate these unrelated matters and to pass the mobile now act without further delay. mr. reid: how do you feel the american people -- how do you feel about how they are being treated? case after case hung up in the supreme court. we can't even get a hearing on merrick garland. why? because they know the appearance he will make, it will be a good one. and after a public hearing, they will be even more embarrassed by not voting for this man. so even though a couple senators didn't keep their word -- and it wasn't just me and them. we have staff here who would be willing to vouch for what i just

said even if it weren't two senators not keeping their word, at the very least shouldn't they be concerned about the supreme court and what's not going on there? so i have no reservations whatsoever. this is unfair to come and ask for legislation to pass when we have a supreme court that is stymied, working short-handed. it's incredible that justice is not being served well in our great country. and we have as indicated in this thing i read only part of it congress is dysfunctional. as i mentioned this morning when my republican friend, the leader said that, well, he can't understand what's going on there seems to be some dysfunction here. talk about dysfunction. during the time lyndon johnson was the leader, we had one and perhaps two filibusters the second was gubernatorial. me my first eight years 644

filibusters, how is that for dysfunction? led by the republican minority. trying to embarrass barack obama and bring this country to its knees. so i do not apologize to anybody for objecting to this legislation. you can bring it out every other day. i'll object to it every other minute every other hour. it is wrong that the republicans are treating the american people the way they are. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i realize that many of the -- my colleagues on the other side of the aisle just voted against the short funding resolution because it doesn't include critical funding for flint. unfortunately, i believe this is a misguided strategy. now, i voted against it on the basis of something that can be corrected having to do with the funding of the increased number of troops that we'll have in

afghanistan and iraq, but i must be clear that the 300 million flint package that passed this body several weeks ago will become law by the end of the year. it's a mistake to take the country to the brink of a shutdown over an issue when we already have a bipartisan agreement on the solution. when the national press opened the eyes of america to the lead water contamination crisis affecting flint, michigan, a city of roughly 100,000 people, i told my staff it was time to get to work and see what went wrong, what could be done. we are so close to making this a reality, and i urge my colleagues to not create a standoff on the c.r. when we are taking care of the people of flint and communities around the country, which is very important. we did this in our wrda bill. i know that leader mcconnell spoke with speaker ryan and minority leader pelosi this morning and assured them that he is dead serious about ensuring

the flint package becomes law once we return from the break. let me remind you that on september 15 when the senate passed wrda 2016 with an overwhelming 93--- 95-3 vote, i pledged to not let politics or any lame-duck session jeopardize the emergency relief in wrda and to get this signed into law by the end of the year. i have been standing with my colleagues in michigan from the very beginning in support of our fiscally responsible solutions to help not only flint -- the flint community but also other communities facing drinking water emergencies and water infrastructure challenges solutions that the republican majority senate has supported strongly. the senate-passed wrda bill not only provides the critical support that flint needs but also would help to be prevent future water and waste water infrastructure crises across the nation. wrda is the right vehicle and i

am committed to getting this bill to the president's desk with senator boxer and my good friend senator stabenow by the end of the year. i know that many on the other side of the aisle are skeptical of our resolve in particular because of the uncertainty about -- about the wrda bill moving through the house this week without the senate flint compromise attached. it is important to understand that unlike the senate, different committees in the house have jurisdiction over the corps of engineers and the safety -- and the safe drinking water act. now, on our side, on the republicans' side, they are both in the committee that i chair and senator boxer is ranking minority. the house transportation and infrastructure committee has jurisdiction over the -- jurisdiction over the army corps of engineers. however, it is the house energy and commerce committee that has jurisdiction over the safe drinking water act. the house wrda bill only includes

issues that are under the jurisdiction of the t.n.i. committee. that's why the house wrda bill does not include safe drinking water amendments like the flint package. once the house sends is their t.n.i. version of the wrda bill tomorrow -- hopefully -- senator boxer and i will immediately attach the senate flint compromise as we conference with the house for a final bill. the republican house leadership has already assured me that this is the plan, and so it is time for us to stop playing politics with the c.r. on this issue and focus our attention on making wrda 2016 a reality. i can assure that you senator boxer and irin lock-- and i are in lock step agreement to get this. we showed that body that when we work together on issues like this our word is as good as a guarantee. even during difficult political

gamesmanship like what is happening on the continue resolution, i urge my colleagues to trust in our unique relationship in our ability to the flint package -- make sure it is on the president's desk this year. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: mr. president i trust my colleague totally. my chairntion i -- my chairman, i trust him totally. as far as the house is concerned, no. trust but verify. my friend says we have the wrongheaded strategy here on objecting to the c.r. he has a right to his opinion but we don't agree. this is the only way we can make the case because right now the house has the wrda bill. all they have to do is allow a vote to cover flint. yesterday the rules committee said "no." yesterday the chairman sessions

of the rules committee of the house said, it's an earmark -- which it is not because it does not just affect flint. in fact, it is a program to help all cities that have lead in the water that's poisoning the families. so trust? i've been around here a long time. i think ronald reagan was right when he said "trust but verify." show me the language. show me the commitment. and i see my friend here from louisiana, and he wasn't in the senate at the time that i was here with his predecessor but i will say this: senator inhofe and i when there was a tragic problem in louisiana with hurricane katrina, we stepped up and we put aside any issues in our own state to go where the suffering was. and i fought so hard for louisiana, i fought my heart out for them to get the money they

needed after katrina and i actually, with the help of my colleague, we made sure that all the gulf states got the money from b.p. to rebuild. so my heart is open to every person in this country every child in this country. no matter where they are whether it's in louisiana, west virginia california, oklahoma, michigan. we are one nation under god indivisible. and when we have an issue in a crisis, we need to move. so here's where i see it -- a little bit differently than my friend: i think it is the absolutely right strategy to keep fighting to get the help to flint in the c.r. that is called leverage. that is called smart politics. that is called fairness. that is called justice. at the same time, i support my

friend and colleague trying to get an ironclad commitment from the house leaders. it wasn't a good day yesterday for flint. they turned down congressman kill de's request to have -- congressman killdee's request to have a simple vote. speaker ryan said this is a local issue. and so did bill shuster. they called it a local issue. they don't even understand it if they call it a local issue because there was no elected local government in flint michigan. it was a appointed leaders by the republican there. so you know, my friend is so sincere, and i trust him 100%. i don't have to verify a thing he says, because he is a man of his word, that's it. and he knows how we feel about each other. we've never ever, ever walked away from each other. but the fact that he and i may

be in agreement that bring along necessarily the pooh emin the house. he says he's heard it on good authority. that's great. show me in writing where it's going to havment show me the guarantees. show me they're not going to load up wrda with poison pills that my friend and i know that we can't either side, accept poison pills. i don't see it. so right now, i think what we're doing is light. i with a nts to make a point. many republicans voted against the c.r. -- could be for other reasons. but even if every democrat voted for the c.r. today it would have done down, the number of republicans was so large voting against it. so we've go to a lot of work to do. and i would say through the chair to our leader, mitch mcconnell, the majority leader, you can add this thing in two minutes. you could talk about jurisdiction. we add all kinds of things to

c.r.'s. this would be something we could keep in louisiana we keep in everything else. we add in a totally paid-for bill. none of the other emergencies are paid for. they just go on the debt, on the credit card, pretty much. but we've paid for every penny of this, thanks to my friend's leadership and thanks to my friend from michigan, who stepped up and did away with the program in the auto industry that was very important to her. because she want to do the right thing p. so here's the path forward: our leader can look at the vote. it was pretty staid sad for his -- it was pretty sad for his clean c.r., he said -- iters not clean -- and that went down in flames. he can simply add flipts -- flint to it. we'd pass it in a heartbeat. or the house can take up the senate wrda bill or send up us a completely ironclad statement as to time, plashings venue when

they're going to fix the flint issue. i know my friend from michigan would like to be heard but this is not rocket science. we've got a bill fully paid for takes care of the whole country it's not an earmark. it passed here with 95 votes. let's get it done. it disentangles it from wrda, disentangle it from wrda. take care of the people, whether they're in louisiana, west virginia maryland, michigan. let's take care of the people. that is our job. i would yield the floor. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: mr. president, i believe i actually had the floor anyway. and i'm glad to yield the floor which i will do, to you. but i want to make sure that i'm clear in the statement that i made in that i don't disagree -- that you don't disagree with the statement that i made that we have a commitment to be sure -- doing everything we can to make sure this is in the wrda bill.

i tried to explain the difference in jurisdiction which makes it impossible for them to do it over there within the t.n.i. committee. they have jurisdiction over wrda but not these particular provisions. so while i have a lot of things in the c.r. i'm really wanting to get done -- imansed the -- i mentioned the military end. but on the zika fund, i have given speeches on the floor saying how important this is because i happen to have a grandniece who is pregnant in florida right now. and i'm really interested in getting this thing done, and it's going to get done. it's going to be a part of the ultimate c.r. but i just wanted to say that -- and i listened to the statement by the ranking member of the committee that i chair and i don't think that she disagrees with anything that i'm saying in terms of our commitment to get it done here. i understand where you're coming from and i will yield the floor. mrs. boxer: mr. president just through the chair, i would just like one minute to respond to my friend. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i agree with my colleague. if we can get an ironclad

exphiment to fix the -- commitment to fix the flint issue in wrda but hot just a vague conversation that somebody had that nancy pelosi had with paul ryan. i've got to look at the public statements. the public statements are a big leader in the house there said this is an earmark. it is not. another -- the speaker over there who is supposed to care about poor people and kids, said it's a local issue which it is not. they voted down a chance to have a vote. it's not very encouraging. now, i'm always encouraged when you speak because you're the most positive person i've ever met. we're going to get it done. and if it's up to us, it gets done. but there are other people that don't view this issue the way you and i view this issue. and all i'm saying is, as i wind down my days here, i've had a lot of experience in expecting that i get things done. people have said to me, oh, my god, you're right.

you're so right. you're on target. don't worry. well that's all good. show me the money. show me the path. show me the ironclad path for flint, and i'll step out of the way in a heartbeat. believe me. so i encourage my friend to keep working with the republicans. i'll work with the democrats. let's get an ironclad way that assures the people of michigan finally that they're going to have some light at the end of the tunnel. but i would say in closing the simplest way to do it isious to add the package to -- is just to add the package to the c.r. it is easy. just do it. it doesn't have a cost. it's all been thought out. 95 of us voted for it. and get it done. and i don't know for the life of me how the majority leader can't do this thing. just do it. like they say in the nike ad, just do it. every religious organization in this country from the catholics

to the jews, to the muslims to everybody, has said yes, this is a moral issue. take care of these people. i had the list today. it's in the record. now, we're all supposed to be people who care about moral issues and care about our children. and my friend, when he says he has a niece who is pregnant in florida, my heart skipped a beat. it is a scary time. and that's why we have to take care of the zika issue. but, at the same time, if his niece was in flint and bathing in water that still has lead, by the way he'd be just as upset. and i know he cares deeply. my friend cares deeply. and if everybody cared as deeply as he did we'd be in good shape. i will yield the floor. ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you mr. president. well, first of all i want to thank really two great leaders on the environment and public works committee the chairman

and ranking member, and i absolutely take the chairman at his word. i have since the beginning. chairman inhofe has been an extraordinary leader on this issue and other infrastructure issues and i believe him completely in terms of what he wants to get done. and the same goes for our ranking member, senator boxer. i have no doubts whatsoever. two weeks ago when we passed 95-3 the bill in the senate, the wrda bill, that has help for people of flint as well as other communities that have water -- lead-in-water issues, i was prepared and in fact went to house colleagues, democratic colleagues, and said, i trust the chairman and ranking member, let's get the bill going in the house, even if there's not flint

in it, let's get it to a conference committee and work it out, because i trust them and we will make sure it's in the final package. well the bill didn't get taken up in the house. there were -- whatever problems they had a week ago. and we began to hear that there was not support for flint in a final bill. we heard on the one hand from the speaker that the c.r. was not the appropriate place; wrda was the appropriate place to help families in flint. but, by the way he said, i don't support helping the families of flint in wrda. and the same thing with the chairman of the committee. and i know there's multiple jurisdictions. the distinguished chairman of the committee that has jurisdiction in the house congressman fred upton supports the provision and we're very grateful for his leadership and help as well. so this is easily worked out in

terms of the jurisdictions because the people with the jurisdiction are not objecting to this. so we've been given every signal now coming from the republican majority in the house that there is not a willingness to help. as late as yesterday with the rules committee when there was an amendment offered to put it in order to vote on by the house, and it was rejected. i've been looking for some sign that it is concrete, that it's real that we could actually do n. over and over again we're getting exactly the opposite messages. so then we find ourselves in the situation where the one thing we do know is going to happen is the short-term continuing resolution and another state another -- other communities louisiana being the principal one, where flooding is growing to get help -- is going to get help and i support that.

i've supported every disaster effort that's come before the u.s. senate on behalf of many, many many other states and communities that were not even close to michigan because i think that's what we should do. so the people in flint michigan have been waiting and waiting and waiting every day bottled water every day trying to figure out how to get bottled water. once again they're being told wait and maybe something will happen maybe something will happen. but louisiana is so important we're going to do it now. i don't think it should matter where your zip code is or whether you have democratic or republican senators, it's our requirement, our obligation i believe to help. and to add insult to injury, we are the only disaster situation coming forth that is fully paid for by eliminating a program -- we phased out a program i

authored in 2007 that predominantly affects my state in order to pay for this help for flint and other communities. we're not just helping flint other communities with lead and water problems because it's so important. it's about life-saving measures literally for people. and so it's easy to put this on the c.r. it's totally paid for. we are not cutting another program to put the $500 million in for louisiana but the funds for flint and other communities is totally paid for. it's like add insult to injury to families in flint that have waited so long. so i -- again i trust the chairman completely. what i don't trust is what i'm hearing from the house of representatives and given that fact and given the fact that we have the ability to actually

help them right now through the c.r. i believe we should do that. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: under the previous order the senate stands in recess till

and the president was among the first to act to provide

resources to louisiana. and the president believes congress should do the same thing for flint and other communities that are dealing with issues.>> so they're saying they will take care of flint michigan and ... [inaudible] >> based on , as i've acknowledged on many occasions standing here i'm no expert in the legislative procedure but based on what i understand of the situation there is some funding for flint included in the senate version of the water resources bill. the house version does not include hunting , the house version does not include funding for flint. this is a little ironic because the speaker of the

house says he opposes adding funding for flint to the resolution and believes it should be handled in the water resources bill. but it's not included in the water resources bill he's sending to the house and then he has the nerve to suggest that democrats are the ones doing outlook so i guess a little clarity about republicans commitment addressing this issue is needed. and after waiting for six or seven months for the funding to come through , clarification would be eagerly welcomed by the white house but most importantly by the people in flint. >> . [inaudible question] i'm wondering, last night we saw her on the offensive on issues like trumps temperament and i'm wondering what the president thought about the tone of the debate

and the attacks listen, the president made the observation on a number of occasions that there's a tradition in this country of ... a pretty confrontational brand of politics and i think what the american people are looking for in their leaders are people who are tough enough to enter the arena and stand up for what they believe in and to make a forceful case for what they believe in and to respond to even tough criticism of their priorities and agenda and the president certainly engaged in that process over the last eight years or so and he's got the scars to prove it. you know, i know there was the expression from at least one candidate last night who was concerned that people weren't being nice to him but

look, this is supposed to be a vigorous debate and when you consider the stakes in this election, the president would anticipate and expect a tough debate on the issues. >> out of curiosity, why didn't you go on to talk and get his response or reaction and what your decision behind that? >> the reason the president wanted to go on the ryan seacrest show today is that today is national voter registration day and the president devoted most of his appearance on that program to encouraging people to register to vote . the president also paid to show with steve harvey that will air tomorrow where he made a similar case so that's why he did those radio shows but it's not surprising . there wasn't surprising anybody at the white house when he was asked by both those folks for a reaction to

last night on the yahoo hack, i wonder if anyone has concerns or questions about whether the company waited too long to notify users ? >> i can't the details in terms of what yahoo has indicated . occurred in the context of this but i refer you to my colleagues at the department of justice and department of homeland security who have jurisdiction here and maybe they will provide you with some greater clarity about what they've done . >> chris. >> also scheduled today is a fundraiser in dc , the victory fund that the dc is in the discussion. >> i'm sure the president has the goal of raising a lot of money at the event but what's in mind terms of the message you want to make today.

>> . >> this is a rather small event so it's not open, the present will spend his time in discussion with those attending the event and talking about , something you heard the president talk about a lot before which is the stakes in this election, how important it is for democrats to stand up for our values and fight for a candidate that seeking to advance them and the president has already spoken a lot publicly about said secretary quentin and i would expect them to reiterate that trump again at the events this afternoon.>> about the obama administration, there is an openly lgbt cast member and why the members brought that up and ... [inaudible] i

think chris the president is quite proud of his record, of ensuring that there are senior officials in his administration , let me say this way. the president is quite proud of appointing senior officials in this administration that reflect the diversity of the country. and that's true when you consider the president white house staff, it's true when you consider senior officials who serve at agencies across the government, it's also true when you consider the appointment of the president made it to the federal bench and you know, whether you evaluate this based on race or religion or sexual orientation, the president record surpasses that of his

predecessors. and he's quite proud of that legacy . he also believes it's a legacy that can be built on. and i'll let secretary quentin what her plans are for the choices she plans to make if she is elected president. >> josh, last night many people have thought that ... [inaudible] >> the president believes is important for people all across the country not to be complacent when the stakes are so high and that's why the president was encouraging

people to register to vote today on national registration day, that's why the president is going to spend a good portion of his october encouraging people all across the country to get out to the polls and make their voices heard in this election day and the president believes that an important thing to do . >> the president use strong language today, talking about some of donald trumps comments from last night, particularly when it came to donald trump saying it was a good distance deal with the housing crisis in america , benefiting from people's problems. he used the word ... [inaudible] >> i appreciate your restraint. >> thank you. [laughter] does the president feel upset about that that someone who essentially could be in the oval office profits

off of the american public's pain. >> i think the president believes that is a the question for voters to ask themselves. >> president obama's career in public life is different , obama has spent his early stages of his career as a community organizer. helping people in communities that were facing significant economic headwinds , protect their community and whether or not that is, that's what made the president and advocate for expanded health care access and affordable housing programs and education programs. and the president worked closely with faith-based organizations to help citizens organize and

petition their government . so when faced with these kind of challenges in the past, president obama wasn't seeking a profit, he was trying to help people. and he's pursued that same kind of approach as the leader of the free world and many of the policies he's been focused on as president of the united states, particularly early in his presidency were about ensuring that middle-class families would get a fair shake and a fair shot. that's why he fought so hard to make the consumer financial protection bureau, the only financial regulator in washington dc that has a mission statement focused on consumers and middle-class families. that's why the president fought so hard to expand access to quality affordable health insurance . by the president's focus on improving the economy has

been drawing the economy from the middle out. that's been his approach throughout his career and i think that's an approach that's worth building on. secretary clinton has a different story to tell when you consider her professional career, i let her talk about that but i think it is certainly appropriate and i think the president made this clear in the context of his presidential, when he was the candidate on the ballot he made it clear that he intended to pursue a different approach or pursue an approach different from that advocated by the republican nominee but it's an approach that's consistent with president obama's focus on middle-class families and how they get to the middle class.he's demonstrated in his career. >> lastly, when both candidates sat down about how to heal the racial divide and it was quite evident in this election cycle donald trump said he was about law and order and then he goes on to talking about . [inaudible] .

what does the administration feel about that particularly when you started not long ago having conversations on race and he's talking racial profiling . what's the point about that? >> again, as during the debate there are a lot of constitutional questions that are raised by that policy and there's even a federal judge who weighed in and made the stop and frisk policy used in new york was one consistent with the constitution. i've observed before , it's a little strange to hear somebody who claims to feel so passionately about protecting the constitutional right to bear arms treat the constitutional right protecting against illegal search and seizure so cavalierly. so president obama believes

both of those rights are worth protecting and that certainly is consistent with his approach to these kinds of issues. i think what's also true is we now leave it to officials in new york to this but since that stop and frisk policy was ended, we've seen an improvement in their crime rates. so can you draw a firm conclusion about the impact of that policy based on just a year or two of data? i'll leave that to the experts but there's other facts and i think they're worth considering if you evaluate the approach advocated by either candidate. >> does a president plan on sending more troops to iraq or syria? >> additional commitment of resources to our efforts against iso in iraq and

syria, you are the presidency many times about his approach to these issues which is every time the president gets his national security thing together to discuss our ongoing strategy against isil, they have a discussion about which aspects of that strategy are making the most progress.and we've enjoyed some important progress . there is additional progress that's been made on the ground against isil, both in iraq and syria. the news around the isil leadership in most and raqqa continues to tighten thanks to the efforts of the forces on the ground supported by the united states and coalition partners. we've also made progress in applying pressure to the isil leadership and earlier this month, or over the last month there are a couple of strikes that were taken by the united states that took to senior isil officers off the

battlefield, these are individuals who had a central role in plotting isil's external operations. that doesn't just hit the international security of the united states, it makes it harder for isil to carry out attacks in europe and other places where the united states is invested in our allies national security. but as the president had these conversations with his national security team, they are just looking to see which aspects of the strategy are showing progress, the president regularly asks could we make more progress if we don't vote additional resources to that effort? and when the answer to that question is yes, the president has worked closely with his team to find those resources and devote them to that effort in a timely fashion so i don't have any announcements at this point but i will let you know that changes. >> the daily beast reports the daily rates assyria, i was told today for the latest air strikes against the elements in aleppo that the

attack was coming. can you confirm the us government at that level had at that point? >> i've seen that report but i will follow it directly. >> share? >> cr, congress can agreement by the end of the week will the president signed today's extension to me. >> i have heard that option be quoted at this point but the print certainly is not interested in government funding last but it's not an executive branch responsibility, this is a legislative branch responsibility and republicans have a substantial majority in the house and senate and it is responsible house instead republican leaders to pass a bipartisan budget bill that arise in the president's desk in time for him to sign it before funding runs out on september 30. so i recognize that republicans are in the congress are scrambling to figure out how to get this

done . but some of that is attributable to the fact that they took seven weeks off earlier this year, maybe that's a time that would have been better spent to focus on putting together a responsible bipartisan budget . >> today the db circuit is hearing oral arguments in the powerplant. can you outline any of the administrations arguments ? >> i would leave it to my colleagues at the department of justice to make the legal case to the dc circuit. obviously, we've got a lot of confidence in the case that they will make . the administration was acting on a strong legal and technical foundation in issuing the policy that the administration announced last year. and the president is convinced that this is a policy that is important to

living up to the commitments we made in the context of cutting carbon pollution in a way that would be good for the long-term health of the planet. the presidents convinced that policy is going to end up being good for the us economy. we know investments in clean energy have created or supported tens of thousands of jobs across the country and we've had success in significantly expanding the amount of energy that is produced through wind and solar and other renewable forms . also i point out there are significant public health consequences for this policy. and our scientists estimate that implementing this policy by the reduced carbon pollution by 32 percent , by 2030, would avoid 3000 premature deaths , 90,000 childhood asthma attacks and

eliminate 300,000 missed work and school days each year by 2030 so this is, there are a lot of important reasons why the president has prioritized this approach to cutting carbon pollution and the administration is quite confident in the legal power of the argument that it would make before the dc circuit , about why it's in the presidents scope to make that kind of policy decision. >> josh, is here according to feed. >>

.. >> pass bills that would cut taxes for american businesses or cut spending, cut government spending or increase funding for the military or any of the other -- >> we are going to leave the rest of us, you can find it online, c-span.org, take you back live to the floor of the senate. this republican senate had such promise according to the republicans has been a flop. the senate hasn't kept its word to the nation. republicans assumed the majority in the senate, the republican

leader made grand promises to the american people. he pledged bipartisanship, he promised to bring an end to the senate's dysfunction which he spearheaded. as i mentioned this morning on the floor it's debatable how many filibusters lyndon johnson had to overcome in his years as majority leader. it was one or sure and maybe two. but it is easy to figure out when i had my eight years as majority leader -- 644 republican filibusters. he pledged that the senate would do its work. he the republican leader. but for all his losty rhetoric -- his lofty rhetoric, the republican has failed to fulfill his promises time and time and time again. there is no better example than the senate's refusal to fill the nomineenomination of merrick garland

to be justice on the supreme court. he was nominated 195 days ago. 195 days republicans have blocked this good man from getting a hearing or vote despite of the fact that he is extremely qualified. some ask well, why wouldn't they do a hearing? it's obvious. merrick garland would show the american people what kind of a man he is, what kind of a judge he would be. and it would be very hard for republicans to vote against him. so they just decide to double-down and not even allow a hearing. even republicans can't dispute his qualifications. the senior senator from utah, who formerly chaired the judiciary committee said there was no question -- quote -- "garland would be confirmed" and that he would be quod consensus nominee." no one questions judge garland's he had indication, his experience, or his integrity.

but senate republicans refuse to give this person a hearing. it's really shameful. so i ask where is the bipartisanship? republicans and democrats agree this man is exceptionally qualified, and yet his nomination languishes. day after day week after week, now month after month. where is the end of the dysfunction? where is the regular order? there is no bipartisanship. there is no dysfunction. i'm sorry, there is lots of it is dunks. -- there is no dysfunction. there is no end to it. no supreme court nominee in modern times has waited this amount of time without at least getting a hearing. this is unprecedenced. as jeffrey toobin has noted there's no dysfunction to be found in the republican leader's actions. that's what he said. and exactly here's what he said.

"such premeditated obstruction by a senate leader aimed at president with nearly a full year remaining in his term is without precedent." so where is the hardworking senate? we've established with republicans acting as they are bipartisanship is really lou usive. floss no regular order and now we're establishing that we're not working hard here. that is an understatement. *7 the senate isn't tending one of its basic constitutional duties: providing advice and consent on the president's supreme court nomination. instead, the senate has worked the fewest days of any senate in modern history. after we have this next 10-week break, it'll be the longest break in some 80 years. how about that? chief judge garland deserves a hearing. he deserves a vote. across the street from where we are standing now the upper

senate park, senators will be gathering for a rally at 5:00 in support of merrick garland. the people there are of good will only interested in our country. at that time they are going to call on republicans as we will, to heed their constitutional duty to act on garland's nomination. republicans have another chance to keep the promises they made to the american people. republicans should right this historic wrong on judge garland. they should give him a hearing a vote, but they should do it right now. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president i agree with what the democratic leader said. we've waited far far too long on this. i'd like to give everybody a bit of history. 11 years ago the senate

confirmed john roberts to the supreme court and as chief justice. he had his judiciary committee hearing in september. he was confirmed about two weeks later on september 29. all of us, whether they supported john roberts or not felt it was important to get this done so that the supreme court was not missing a justice when it began its term on the first monday in october as it always does. the senate acted responsibly. this was 11 years ago. there was a republican in the white house. i was one of those who voted for chief justice john roberts. there are others who voted against him. but he was confirmed.

that's what we did then with a republican president. but not today. in fact, under republican leadership the senate is deliberately leaving the supreme court shorthanded. none of us, whether for or against justice roberts felt that we should delay and have the court come into session with a 4-4 makeup. now, i believe that chief judge mehr-- merrick garland deserves the same consideration that chief justice roberts received 11 years ago. what is the difference? ah! it was a republican president then a democratic president now. this is playing politics with the u.s. supreme court and it hurts the credibility of our whole federal court system.

chief justice roberts chief judge garland is eminently qualified. he hails from the midwest. he's d.c. circuit judge who's earned the respect and admiration of those who work for him. but unlike chief justice roberts who was confirmed in about two months chief judge garland has been pending before the senate for more than six months -- for more than six months. i mention that to my colleague -- i went back and checked the history. no supreme court nominee in the history of our country has waited that long. no hearing no vote, no consideration at all by the senate because the senate refuses to do its job a job we're required to do under the constitution. now maybe the republicans feel

this somehow benefits their party. it doesn't. this republican obstruction has consequences for all americans. because senate republicans refuse to do their jobs, the supreme court has been repeatedly unable to uphold its essential constitutional role as the final arbiter of the law. the uncertainty in the law has been harmful to businesses, it's been harmful to law enforcement and to families and children across our country. i don't know if the american people realize how much this refusal of the republican leadership to do their jobs has hurt them. the supreme court will consider cases that impact our voting rights -- all of us -- our religious rights, our access to

fair housing even to the a.t.m. fees we pay. the court may also decide to hear important cases on the right of students to be treated equally, on climate change, women's health, and money and politics. -- and money in politics. the supreme court should be at full strength to provide the american people certainty and clarity of our rights under the constitution. the same republicans who expedited consideration of chief justice roberts have since february used the excuse of the election year to justify this unconstitutional prolonged obstruction. but there is no election-year exception in the constitution for the president's duty to nominate supreme court justices. the constitution says the president shall nominate. the president did that. it also says that every one of

us have held up our hand and taken a solemn oath to uphold the constitution. that says that we shall give advice and consent on these nominations. there's no election-year exception in the constitution. none of us held up our hand and said, we will uphold the constitution, so help me god -- except in an election year. and there is no election-year exception in the constitution. our history proves this case. there have been a dozen vacancies in election years more than a dozen and we've always always confirmed the justice. in fact, most recently -- and i was here -- justice kennedy. we had a democratic-led senate. it was president reagan's last

year in office. it was a presidential election year. and it took a democratic senate just over two months to confirm justice kennedy. president obama's nominee chief judge garland, has been pending in the senate with no action for 195 days. 195 days and we haven't done one solitaire thing -- solitary thing. when we had a democrat-controlled congress and a republican president's last year in office, we confirmed in 65 days. chief judge garland by the standards that democrats gave to republicans, should have been confirmed by memorial day. we've had more than six months to examine his record. and it's not as though the senate has been consumed and overworked considering other

nominees. the last time we confirmed any judicial nominee was on july 6. republicans refuse to allow votes even on uncontroversial district court nominees that have been pending more than a year even those supported by republicans in their states, and -- and our independent federal judiciary is suffering as a result of this unprecedented obstruction, scrult of the united states senate not doing its job. it is longtime past for the senate to do its job. we have to treat our coequal branch of government with respect. there is no reason why the senate should not do its job in an election year. there's much work left to be done. the senate republicans are calling for another very long recess. the senate majority leader should let us get to work for

all the american people. we've had more recesses than at any time since i've been here. why not take a few days and immediately consider chief judge garland for the supreme court of the united states? our highest court should not be diminished further by republican obstruction here in the senate. when they come into session on the first monday in october the american people deserve to have nine members on the supreme court. the supreme court deserves to have nine members and the american people deserve to have us do our job. mr. president, i'd yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i thank my colleagues for coming to the floor this afterfoon for an historic -- afternoon for an historic presentation. mr. president, i just spent this last weekend a really enjoyable

weekend, being a baby sitter. my wife and i were able to baby soirt 5-year-old -- to baby sit our 5-year-old grandtwins. we spent a lot of time discussing the concept of fiction and nonfiction. they were trying to figure out which things were fiction and which things were nonfiction. we went back and forth through super heroes and all the rest of it and it was a lot of fun. i thought about that as i came to the floor today because when it comes to looking for fiction and nonfiction, the executive calendar of the united states senate on our desk would have to fall in the category of fiction not true, because in this calendar, you will find the nominations sent from the committee to the floor of the senate to be considered. at least that's what you think you're going to find. but instead what we find are the names of 30 nominees to become federal judges who have cleared the committees like the

judiciary committee and languish on this calendar, never to be called by the republican majority. some have been here for a year. they cleared the committee bipartisan votes. many of them nominated and approved by republican senators, but when they come to the floor it comes to a full stop. senator mcconnell the republican leader, will not approve another federal judge for president obama. he argues that whether it's the supreme court or other federal district courts, this is a lame-duck president and he has no obligation, being of the opposite political faith to give this president anything when it comes to judges. that's the republican senate position. that's senator mcconnell's position but it's totally inconsistent with two things. the tradition of the senate is the first. you see when george w. bush was in his last term in office and the democrats were in control

we approved 68 judges in that last year, 68 in his -- quote -- lame-duck year. so far this year, senator mcconnell has allowed only 22 judges to come through the senate. 30 sitting on the calendar. so by the tradition of the senate where the senate fills the vacancies when they need to be filled, regardless of the president's party and what year he is in his term, senator mcconnell ignores that. we have 90 federal judicial vacancies, 90 across the united states that need to be filled. over half of them are emergencies. the caseload is overwhelming and justice is not being served in those districts but senator mcconnell says no. the most egregious example is the vacancy on the u.s. supreme court. you could almost look through the windows out the door of the chamber here and see that beautiful building of the supreme court and realize that in a matter of days, they will reconvene to consider the most

important cases pending before the united states of america. what is different about the supreme court is there are only eight justices seated on the court. the untimely passing of antonin scalia in february led to a vacancy on the supreme court. president obama met his obligation under the constitution. article 2 section 2 says the president shall nominate someone to fill the vacancy shall nominate someone to fill the vacancy on the supreme court. president obama did it. 195 days ago he sent that nomination that name to the united states senate for advice and consent as the constitution directed it. senator mcconnell announced he would not fill that vacancy would not even give that nominee, merrick garland of the d.c. circuit court a hearing so

he could be asked the basic questions about his service on the court. in fact, senator mcconnell took another step and said i won't even meet with him. how many times has that happened in the history of the united states senate? never. politicians are careful to use that word -- never. we have never had a president submit the nominee to fill a vacancy on the supreme court who has been denied a hearing and a vote in the senate. never. why? senator mcconnell says well, president obama's leaving soon, as if he were only elected for a seven-year term and isn't entitled to be president in his eighth year but the real reason is pretty obvious. senator mcconnell and the republicans are praying that donald trump will be able to fill this vacancy on the supreme court. after watching the performance last night, can you imagine that that man would choose a justice

for life on the supreme court? that's what they're counting on. that's why they're leaving these vacancies, too. so donald trump, donald trump can fill those vacancies. it's a sad moment in the history of this country. it is the most accurate reflection of the dysfunction of the united states senate i can think of, that the senate republican leadership would ignore the constitution and the traditions of the senate, leave these poor judicial nominees languishing for up to a year on the calendar and refuse to meet their constitutional obligation to give merrick garland a well-qualified unanimously well-qualified in the words of the american bar association his time to come before the senate for an open hearing to answer questions under oath and to be subjected to a vote on the floor of the senate. republicans in the senate will want to brag about their great record of performance this year as the party in control of the

united states senate. what they cannot explain what they cannot live down is the embarrassment they brought to this institution by refusing to meet their constitutional responsibility. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: mr. president, i come to the floor this afternoon to join my colleagues in noting that we are now at an unbelievable unprecedented 195 days, that is over six months since the president nominated judge merrick garland to the supreme court. do you know what else could happen in this time period? we could have gone through the confirmation process for the last republican-nominated justice twice and still have 11 days left over. we could have sailed around the world almost four times or flown to the moon and back 30 times. but, mr. president senate republicans have refused to even hold one hearing for judge

merrick garland by allowing this absurd political game to continue republicans are preventing the rest of us from upholding our constitutional duty to consider the supreme court nominee. senate republicans won't say that their historic obstruction is because they are opposed to judge garland. they're just refusing to even consider him. and that is after many republicans after meeting with him have admitted that judge garland's distinguished career and work history show he is without a doubt someone who deserves a fair consideration by all of us here in the united states senate. he deserves a hearing. he deserves a vote, and i should add by refusing to do their jobs and by saying they want to leave it to the next president republicans are telling the american people they would rather save the seat for their presidential nominee to fill than even giving a strong nominee a fair hearing and a

vote. and we all know what that means. mr. president, this is far too important to the people of this country to hold off any longer. they have seen now the results of a short-handed supreme court split decisions and continued uncertainty about important issues. the court is nowadays away from beginning its october session. with every day that goes by and every supreme court decision that comes down without a full bench, the need for action is clear and clearer. this gridlock and this dysfunction that have dominated too much of our time and other work here in the congress should be pushed aside right now. republicans blocked the zika emergency funding bill for seven months and the gridlock has once again brought us far too close to another manufactured crisis a government shutdown. so mr. president i hope republicans will realize how ridiculous this partisan gridlock is.

after 195 days of being one justice short on the supreme court of the united states, i urge our colleagues to fulfill our constitutional responsibility hold a hearing for judge merrick garland give him a vote. we owe that to the people we represent, and it's simply the right thing to do. mr. president, washington state families should have a voice. families across america should have a voice. they have waited long enough, nearly 200 days to have nine justices serving on the highest court of the land, and they deserve better. and, mr. president while i have the floor here, i just want to bring to my colleagues' attention the anguish of the people in a community in my home state of washington, the city of burlington. right now, it is another community that is hurting. another senseless act of violence in a mall. a shooting that left five people dead. this is a headline that has become all too common in our

country. i urge everyone listening today to keep the victims and their families and their friends and their co-workers in your thoughts and prayers and i implore all of us in this chamber to come together. let's address the scourge of gun violence that has devastated one too many communities once again. enough is enough. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. booker: mr. president i'm grateful for your recognizing me and i want to thank my colleague from washington for her remarks. as for me, this is the third time this month that i've come to the senate floor to speak about the supreme court nomination currently pending before the senate and the judicial vacancy crisis as a whole within our country. it's been seven months that chief judge merrick garland's nomination to the supreme court is still pending and it's been about 19 months that the nomination of judge julian neals

of the district court of new jersey is still on hold. and just as was the case in the last few times i've come to the floor to speak our country is not only operating with an incomplete supreme court but it's also operating with a judicial vacancy crisis across our nation in multiple federal courts. the supreme court's term is about to begin in two weeks and without action to schedule a vote and confirm judge garland's nomination, the supreme court will still be operating without a ninth justice. just as it has for the past seven months. i do not believe that was the intention of our framers. i do believe that what this body is not doing is having a material effect on another branch of government which i believe is a subversion of the framing of our constitution and the functioning of our government. by failing to hold the vote on judge garland's nomination, we are crippling one of our co-equal branches of government. it's unacceptable that we would

consider taking a seven-week break from the business of the senate before us without ensuring that this co-equal branch of government is operating as it was intended by our framers. there is no credible reason for the refusal of a vote on judge garland's nomination. this is the kind of wait for a supreme court justice confirmation that's unprecedented in our history. judge garland as has been clearly stated by republicans and democrats who have both spoken over the years as to how well qualified of a nominee that he is. in fact, we've seen multiple people remark not just he is well qualified but in the grand scheme of the partisan divides in our country, he is relatively moderate in his judicial history. unfortunately, though, with that, we are still failing to see an up-or-down vote in this body. there is no reasons why this distinguished body should not confirm chief judge garland so that we have a full complement of justices on the supreme court

when the next term convenes in a couple of weeks. we also know that across the country, as i said earlier federal judges are overworked and our courts are understaffed because of a judicial vacancy crisis. the last time i came to this floor on this issue i notice that we now face 90 judicial vacancies in our courts across the country. 34 of which have been deemed judicial emergencies. a judicial emergency is not some subjective conclusion. it is an objective conclusion by judicial experts judicial staff that have nothing to do with the partisan politics of our land. but yet we are seeing no action being taken. there are 30 nominations currently pending on the senate executive calendar and all but two were voted out of the committee by unanimous vote. that includes 20 district court nominees. this is republicans and democrats in this body together giving a unanimous vote in the judiciary committee. there are nominations pending on the executive calendar from states all across our country

east to west, places including new jersey and new york, california, rhode island, pennsylvania hawaii, utah, massachusetts, maryland, oklahoma wisconsin louisiana indiana, north dakota, south carolina and idaho. so today when we are perhaps days from adjourning for another long recess, seven weeks i rise, as i said, for the third time to ask republican leadership with great respect and reverence for all the issues going on, obviously, in the senate but i rise to ask that we push forward this bipartisan package of well-qualified nominees that include two people who would be next on the list, ed stanton and julien neals from tennessee and new jersey, as well as nominees from california, new york, rhode island, and nominees from pennsylvania, again supported in a bipartisan fashion in the judiciary committee. the nominees for new jersey and

tennessee, julien neals and edward staunton are the two longest waiting nominees before the senate and deserve to be the next two nominees up for the vote. i have rejected or stood up in opposition to any efforts to skip those two nominees. mr. stanton is a nominee of the western district of tennessee. he is a highly qualified nominee. his experience as u.s. attorney and in private practice will suit him well as a federal -- as a judge in the federal court. mr. stanton is a highly regarded member of the community. judge neals the nominee for the district court of new jersey possesses undeniable strong qualifications. he possesses significant legal experience a distinguished legal career and unwavering commitment to justice. his kill, legal aptitude and unique thoughtful perspective are needed on our federal bench now more than ever. i know julien neals personally.

i worked by his side for about a decade -- close to a decade when i was mayor about seven years to be exact and have seen the thoughtfulness of this individual. he's one of the more impressive people i've met in my professional journey. there's no reason why judge neals or edward stanton the two longest serving and longest waiting nominees have had to wait to long -- so long to be confirmed. i simply ask the senate appropriately vote on the next two nominees in line making sure our justice system is functioning at its highest capacity. this isn't a republican or democratic issue. it's an american issue. i've been honored to serve the people of new jersey and the senate for nearly three years and during my time in this body, i have been surprised inspired and challenged by colleagues on both sides of the aisle but i have come to a point of hope and hopefulness that when it comes to real issues, like the functioning of another branch of government, that we can come together and we have the capacity to do the right thing. i know that this body is better than a tit-for-tat process about

we -- where we measure how many nominees president bush got versus president obama. this was not the intention of the constitution, not the intention of our framers. this is not something that's been a tradition in our country. i know for the good of the senate we can do better for americans across the country for the good of the senate. i know that the good senate can do better for americans across the country. part of our obligations is to ensure a functioning judicial system that can deliver justice for americans. the senate sun failing to hold its duty right now and has plunged our nation into a level of judicial crisis that is unacceptable. we can and we must do better. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, madam president. i today join my colleagues in rising to remind the republican majority of its abject failure to fulfill its constitutional

duty. i first spoke on the floor urging the majority to schedule a hearing and vote on the vacant supreme court seat on february 23 of this year, seven months ago. just to remind everyone, that was before judge garland was even nominated by the president. we shouldn't forget that even before the nominee was named the republican majority told the american people they were planning to ignore their responsibility to consider a supreme court nominee. that's the one promise they've actually kept. unlike their promise to get the senate back to work, they've kept their promise not to do their jobs when it comes to the supreme court and so many other issues. it's certainly not because they've been too busy. in the last 200 days since the president nominated judge garland, instead of giving him a fair hearing and vote, the republican senate has taken the longest recess in 60 years spent time fighting partisan

battles over planned parenthood instead of combating zika, neglected to act on economic issues for working families, like college affordability done nothing to address the influence of special interest money in politics failed to take action to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. make no mistake the republican senate has not done its job and that failure has real consequences. with the nation's highest court short-handed and often deadlocked it's been unable to service its constitutional functioning a the final arbiter of the law. because of republican obstruction, the court was unable to reach a decision on the final merits in seven cases in its last term leaving millions of families and children, law enforcement businesses uncertain of the law. from immigration to consumer privacy to a case about whether lenders can discriminate against married women the court was

unable to produce a final verdict. the supreme court handles -- quote -- the people's business as president reagan put it. every day that goes by without a ninth justice is another day the american people's business is not getting done. and now we're only a week away from a new supreme court term during which it will hear another docket of important cases involving voting rights, racial discrimination and housing cases that will impact women's reproductive rights and the rights of transgender children in schools. because republicans will not schedule a hearing and a vote on judge garland the supreme court will again go into these cases shorthanded. madam president again seven months later i say to my republican colleagues, the distinguished majority leader and the chairman of the judiciary committee schedule a hearing and a vote on judge garland because you refuse to do

your job the people's business is not getting done. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minute. a senator: madam president i come to the floor to speak again about the dangerous effects of leaving the current vacancy on the supreme court unfilled and the real consequences that the current vacancy has causessed for this country. ms. klobuchar: it has now been more than six months since president obama nominated judge merrick garland to fill the current vacancy on the supreme court, and we still haven't had a hearing much less a vote. as a result judge garland is now the longest pending supreme court nomination in history.

and since the senate has not acted, the supreme court will still be without a full complement of justices when it begins its october term next week. there's a lot at stake in the supreme court's upcoming term. the cases that the court will hear focus on significant issues that affect americans' everyday lives. among those cases are important questions involving voting rights and discrimination in housing. the court will also take up cases on immigration and environmental protection that would impact millions of people across the country. they could do this but we don't know. we know that they've been taking less cases and we also know there have been a number of split decisions including a recent one on a death penalty case. further delay in the confirmation of a new justice will compromise the court's ability to resolve these questions of law effectively. if we do not have a fully

staffed court in the next term, we risk more cases in which the court is unable to issue binding precedent and in which access to justice is denied for too many americans. in some decisions where there's been a full force with the -- the result is effectively the same as if the supreme court has never heard the case. that is certainly not what our founding fathers intended with the constitution. but more split decisions are not the only risks that we are facing here. the current vacancy on the supreme court also has implications for the number of cases that the court is able to take in the first place. we saw this play out many times last spring. in march of last year, the supreme court granted cert on eight cases. this year it only did so for two. indeed, we have seen time and time again over the court's last term that the supreme court simply cannot function well without a ninth justice. split decisions diminished

decisions, delayed decisions, no decisions. with only eight justices, the current court could not reach a final decision on the merits in seven cases during its most recent term. in five of these cases the court deadlocked in split decisions with four justices on either side. in the other two cases the court had to remand the case back to the lower courts when it was unable to render a decision on the merits. the lower courts rely on the supreme court as the final decision maker. there are courts all over the nation that may have different decisions and they are waiting for the final word from the supreme court. that is how our system of justice has worked. but what is most important is that in each of these case, the court was unable to carry out its constitutional obligation. the potential for worse during the court's next term is real. for instance, what if some of the landmark cases that are

familiar to citizens, what if miranda of arizona decision was a 4-4 decision or an emergency case like bush v. gore or brown v. board of education. former president ronald reagan recognized the importance of having a fully staffed court in 1987. he said and this is a quote "every day that passes with the supreme court below full strength impairs the people's business in that critically important body." president reagan made that statement around the same time that he nominated justice kennedy who was confirmed unanimously by the senate which was controlled by the opposite party, by the democratic party in the last year of a republican presidency. over the past several month i've tried fought myself -- tried to put myself in my colleagues' shoes. i asked myself what if we had an

opposite case, a republican president and democratic senate. what would i do? i would demand a hearing. i would never let a nominee float out there for six months while we have less decisions diminished decisions and no decisions. i wouldn't do that. i don't know how i would vote on the nominee. i would want to ask the nominee questions and decide if i felt that they were qualified to serve on the supreme court but our job under the constitution is to advise and consent. it is not to advise and consent only after a presidential election has occurred. this has been our practice in the senate for more than a century. for more than 100 years the senate has had a process that worked under both democratic and republican presidents and even in -- yes even in presidential years. through world war i through world war ii, through the depression through the vietnam war, through the economic downturn we were somehow able to make it as a democracy. we were somehow able to do our job and advise and consent.

i would also add to close my remarks that judge garland the nominee, has a widely credible ability to draft thoughtful opinions and build consensus among his colleagues on the bench. the president was well aware when he nominated judge garland that he would need to nominate someone who had that ability who had that ability with the kind of votes that we've seen in the senate, someone who is a fine man and he deserves the opportunity to make his case to the senate and the public deserves the opportunity to see the kind of justice he would be. it remains my sincere hope that he will have that opportunity for a hearing to prove himself in the months to come. thank you. i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. a senator: madam president i rise today to join my democratic

colleagues on the floor. mr. coons: in opposition to this chamber's inability to do its job and fulfill our constitutional obligations by holding a public hearing and taking a vote on president obama's nomination of chief judge merrick garland to the united states supreme court. as this body prepares apparently to head home for the next month and a half, let me share yet another reason why it is so important that we put partisan politics aside and do our jobs. as a member of the senate foreign relations committee i've had the opportunity to travel to many other countries and just this past june, i spent a week in south africa to commemorate the 50th anniversary of robert f. di's -- kennedy's ripples of hope speech. a former senator himself he inspired the antiapartheid movement with this uplifting and challenging speech. and just earlier today i had a

chance to meet with a friend from south africa who i connected with on that trip. and i had a reminder in our conversation a reminder that what we do teaches engages challenges much of the rest of the world. the united states and south africa although we are very different countries with different histories are similar in some very important ways and what struck me on this trip to south africa back in june and in the months since has been some of our important similarities and our important current challenges. we share powerful foundational commitments to our original documents, to the freedom charter in south africa, the declaration of independence here to our respective constitutions. and we have historically shared a strong respect for the rule of law. and we share deep understandings of the importance of capable and independent judiciaries to preserving our multiparty democracies. but today in the united states as in south africa divisiveness

and dysfunction are beginning to genuinely challenge the institutions that protect our constitutional order. here we need look no further than the matter that drives us to the floor today. the vacancy on the united states supreme court that is now approaching 200 days without any sign of progress or compromise from our republican colleagues, without any expression of a willingness to do what has been done routinely for a century here on the judiciary committee on which i serve we have not had a hearing and we have not had a vote. i've heard no significant issues or questions raised about the qualifications of chief judge garland. i frankly don't think one could raise significant questions. this is one of the most seasoned, most experienced judges ever nominated to the united states supreme court. but yet no progress, no hope of progress seems to be heard on our committee or here on the floor. even if we were to confirm judge

garland today, i think we need to realize that our inaction has already had a significant impact. all around the world what the united states says and does sends a strong message. it matters what we say. it matters what we do. and in this case, it has matters deep what i we aren't doing. this chamber alone can't heal a divided country with a single committee hearing. we can't heal congressional dysfunction with just one vote. imu these actions -- but these actions could serve as the first in a series of concrete steps to help repair the dysfunction and the division in our senate. we should start by holding public hearings, by letting the people of the united states understand what, if any questions or concerns there might be about this talented, decent, capable man judge merrick garland who is a been nominated to the supreme court and then build on that momentum by giving timely, thorough consideration to other judgeships across the country.

with 89 judicial vacancies -- with 9 current judicial vacancies from drict courts to court of appeals to the u.s. supreme court itself, our inaction doesn't just create uncertainty for those involved, it impairs our courts and actively harms our constitutional commitment to justice. from justice marshal to justice warren to justice scalia himself, the supreme court has been home to many icons of american jurisprudence men and women whose work and whose writings and reflections are known around the world. but as i suspect they might themselves have been the very first to remind us, nations don't endure because of unique or historic individuals, free nations endure because of institutions. and when it comes both to ensuring the proper functioning of our treasured american institutions and to ensuring its future independence and liberty we are not doing our job. we are failing to fulfill our

constitutional obligations and in doing so we are directly challenging the strength of our constitutional order. madam president we must not forget that every we do here -- everything we do here and that everything we do not do here sends forth a message to the rest of the world to those we hope watch and imitate our democracy. this inaction is something i hope they do not imitate. if we were to take action on judge garland's nomination, we would have the opportunity to not only strengthen our own institutions but to return to setting a positive example for the rest of the free world. we must leave no doubt that our democratic institutions can handle all the challenges they face. madam president i urge all my colleagues to seriously consider the consequences of this tragic inaction for nearly 200 days to consider this able and qualified nominee. thank you, madam president. with that, i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. blumenthal: thank you madam president. i am proud to join my colleagues who have come to the floor including the distinguished senator from delaware, and my friend and colleague from the great state of vermont in joining with them and with other conclusion colleagues who will -- other colleagues who will follow us in simply saying we should do our job and avoid the damage to our democracy that will result from our dereliction of duty if we leave town without a hearing and a vote to fill the vacancy created by the tragic death of justice scalia. i know something about the supreme court having clerked there for a year with justice harry blackmun; having argued cases there as attorney general of the state of connecticut.

i walk by or ride by the united states supreme court every day as i come to work here at the capitol, and i have tremendous respect -- in fact, reverence -- for the united states supreme court. its power derives from its credibility and trust its being above politics. it has no armies, no police force. its decisions are enforceable and enforced simply because the american people have confidence in its credibility. and the reason for that credibility was well-stated by chief justice john roberts. "we don't work as democrats or republicans" -- and i'm quoting -- "and i think its very unfortunate impression the public might get from the confirmation process." end quote.

that confirmation process is stymied and stopped stalled now by partisan paralysis that reinforces the misimpression among the public that the supreme court may simply be another part of the political process. the supreme court should be above politics. and this dysfunction and dereliction of duty does damage to our democracy because it drags the supreme court into the muck and morass of partisan politics and deprives it of the credibility and trust that are the underpinning of its force as a democratic institution. think of it for a moment: two elected branches, the president and the congress, and then an unelected one appointed

for life, totally dependent on its being above politics. we have a constitutional duty to advise and consent not when its politically convenient, not had it fits into our schedules, but when the president makes a nomination. we have fulfilled that duty consistently in the last 100 years, taking action on every pending nominee to fill a vacancy on the supreme court. the current impasse has real practical consequences in deprives individuals in this nation of justice they need and deserve. it has real consequences for real people. as we saw last term and as we're about to see on monday with the beginning of a new term, issues

of law essential to a functioning democracy and basic fairness will be left unresolved because of a deadlocked court. the resulting uncertainty causes harm across the land and across our economy creating confusion among businesses who need to know what the rules of the road are going to be. if money is borrowed, when does it have to be repaid? if regulation is to be challenged, will it be upheld? these kinds of decisions are in fact real cases before the united states supreme court and the uncertainty and confusion resulting from deadlocked court decisions and the lack of law -- because indecision means a lack

of resolution of legal issues -- has consequences that impede job creation and economic growth in this country p. -- in this country. by refusing to do its job the senate of the united states is precluding others from doing their jobs and from creating jobs and from growing our economy, as all of us would like to see done. i am not arguing here that any individual senator has an obligation to vote for merrick garland. i believe he is preeminently well-qualified. i've known him for years. i have tremendous respect for his intelligence and integrity and i believe he will convince others of my colleagues that he is extraordinarily well-qualified to serve as the next justice on the united states supreme court. that job of convincing our

colleagues is his to do, and he should be given an opportunity to do it in a hearing, as he has done for many of us in his individual conversations with us. but, unfortunately our republican colleagues have denied him even a hearing not to mention a vote. it adds insult to injury when this body not only stonewalls judge garland's nomination but departs for lengthy breaks, as we did in august, as we will now do again without giving him consideration. the senate this year has worked fewer days and taken a longer recess than in the past 50 years, despite leaving our constitutional duty unfulfilled. and that's why i am proud to

introduce today along with 42 of my democratic colleagues, including senator leahy of vermont, the ranking member on the judiciary committee along with my colleagues on the judiciary committee a resolution that says to the senate of the united states: do not leave town for a recess until we have provided a hearing and a vote on the pending supreme court nomination. do not leave town without doing your job. do not leave town without fulfilling your constitutional duty to advise and consent. that's what we should be doing. i'm not going to read the resolution but it says essentially that the president has the obligation to nominate.

we have the obligation to advise and consent. and we have done so in past years. we should do so now. and i'm just going to quote this one sentence. "forcing the supreme court to function with only eight sitting justices has created several instances and risks creating more instances in which the justices are evenly divided as to the outcome of a case, preventing the supreme court from resolving conflicting interpretations of the law from different regions of the united states and thereby undermining the constitutional function of the supreme court as a final arbitrator of law. be it resolved" -- and i'll paraphrase here -- "that the senate should not adjourn recess or convene solely in pro-form ina session until we have

taken action through holding a hearing on the) holding a vote in the judiciary committee and holding a vote in the full senate. some of the threats to our democracy come from outside this country, from violent extremists or military aggressors who mean to do us harm. but the threats to our democracy can also include self-inflicted wounds unintentional perhaps -- i know that my colleagues -- and i say this with the greatest respect -- believe that they are justified in what they are doing. we have legitimate disagreements, and we may disagree on whether merrick garland is qualified to be on the united states supreme court. i believe without question or

reservation, that he would be a great justice on the united states supreme court and he will be. but let's at least give him a vote. let's do our job. and avoid the self-inflicted damage to our democracy that will result from our leaving without upholding our constitutional duty. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mrs. shaheen: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: madam president i'm pleased to join senator blumenthal on the floor this afternoon aas a cosponsor of -- as a cosponsor of his resolution. i share his concerns that merrick garland has not yet gotten a hearing nor a vote in this body on his nomination to be on the supreme court of the united states. since the beginning of our nation the united states senate

has respected an important bipartisan tradition of giving timely and fair consideration to supreme court nominees. even during years when there is a presidential election. sadly, this year the majority party has broken that tradition by refusing even to hold a hearing on the nomination of judge merrick garland to serve as a justice. the current vang was created more than 200 days ago. president obama nominated judge garland more than seven months ago, and i am joining my colleagues on the floor this afternoon to urge the majority party and the leadership of this body to give judge garland a hearing, to give him a vote. it is time to extend to judge garland the same fair treatment that the senate has given to every other person previously

nominated to the supreme court by an elected president during a presidential election year. the majority party's refusal to date to consider the nomination of judge garland is really a shocking break with senate tradition. article 2 section 2 of the constitution is unambiguous about the respective duties and responsibilities of the president and the senate when there is a supreme court vacancy. the founders didn't intend, i believe, that these rules should be optional or should be something that could be disregarded. article 2 states that the president shall hold this office during the term of four years. not three years not three years and one month but four full years, and time and again senators have done their constitutional duties by considering and confirming supreme court justices in the final year of a presidency.

most recently justice anthony kennedy was confirmed in the last year of president reagan's final term in february of 1988. indeed, it was a senate with a democratic majority who confirmed president reagan's nominee, justice kennedy and they did it unanimously 97-0. the senate committee on the judiciary began holding public confirmation hearings on supreme court nominees back in 1916, and in the 100 years since then, never before has the committee denied a hearing to a nominee to be a justice of the supreme court, so never before in our history have we seen this happen, that the majority party in the senate has refused to conduct a hearing. since 1975, the average length of time from nomination to a confirmation vote for the supreme court has been 67 days

because our predecessors in the senate have recognized just how important the supreme court is to make sure that it's fully functioning. this bipartisan tradition regarding the supreme court has been put at risk by the majority's actions this year, but the senate will have another opportunity to act on the nomination of judge garland when we reconvene after election day during the lame-duck session and i hope that the majority party, once we get through this election will honor the senate's tradition that it will do the right thing that it will give judge garland the hearing and the floor vote that he deserves. we all know that as senators, we have sworn to support and defend the constitution, and our oath doesn't say uphold the constitution most of the time or only when it's not a presidential election year.

the american people expect us as senators to be faithful to our oath of office, and they also expect us to do our jobs, regardless of whether it's an election year. so let's respect that oath of office. let's do the job we were sent here to do by the american people. let's follow the constitution. as former justice sandra day o'connor a justice nominated by a republican president as she said just days after the current vacancy occurred back in february i think we need somebody on the supreme court now to do the job and let's get on with it. well let's get on with it. it's time for us to do our jobs. i yield the floor. mr. whitehouse: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: madam president on other judicial business, today the united states court of

appeals for the district of columbia circuit heard oral argument in west virginia vs. u.s. environmental protection agency the case that will determine the fate of the e.p.a.'s clean power plan. as that court considers our national plan to reduce carbon pollution from power plants, which is our largest source of carbon emissions i rise now for the 148th time to urge that we all wake up to the threats of climate change. in the runup to today's argument leader reid, senator boxer, senator markey and i released a report entitled "the brief no one filed," highlighting who was behind the legal challenge to the president's clean power plan. our report, which is structured as an amicus brief although not filed with the court shows how

state officials trade associations front groups and industry-funded scientists in the case are connected to the fossil fuel industry. in short the court of appeals has been barraged with briefs by amici curae and parties who are funded by oil and gas and coal interests. i hope that the court considers the appalling conflict of interest these briefs present when it considers this case. let's begin with why there is such a big effort by the fossil fuel industry to launch its proxies in this case. a working paper by the international monetary fund puts the effective subsidy of the fossil fuel industry in this country at nearly $700 billion per year. for the record, that's billion with a b.

and that includes the climate harm that they would get away with for free. to protect this massive subsidy perhaps the biggest subsidy in the history of the world the fossil fuel polluters have concocted a complex web of climate change denial. the web includes deceptively named nonprofits and fake think tanks, to use jane mayer's phrase think tanks as disguised political weapons whose purpose is to propagate phony science manipulate public opinion and create an echo chamber of climate science denialism. the polluters also wield their influence in our election campaigns with essentially effect since the citizens united decision of 2010.

a lot of this fossil fuel apparatus has turned up in the d.c. circuit. if we examine the members of congress filing amicus briefs against the clean power plan, we find massive funding to them from the fossil fuel industry. the center for american progress action fund and the center for responsive politics report that since 1989, member amici signing these briefs have received over $40 million in oil gas and coal campaign contributions. 34 senators opposing the clean power plan received over $16 million in direct conflictions and 171 representatives opposing the clean power plan received nearly $24 million. and that is just direct spending to candidate campaigns. on top of that, come fossil fuel

related political action committee contributions. over $42 million more to member amici since 1989. nearly $12 million to the 34 senators and nearly $31 million to the 171 representatives. in total the fossil fuel industry's disclosed political spending to members on these briefs amounts to nearly $83 million with approximately $55 million split among 34 senators and nearly $28 million split among 171 representatives. and of course citizens united opened the door to unlimited spending that is not disclosed as well, so we actually don't know the full amount or the full effect of fossil fuel political spending above and beyond that

disclosed $83 million. the cap action fund is labeled 135 of the 205 member amici as -- quote -- climate deniers -- end quote based on their past statements and their voting records. climate deniers reject the overwhelming consensus of pier-reviewed -- peer-reviewed science about the causes and effects of carbon in our atmosphere and oceans. often, interestingly contradicting the research of scientists and academic institutions in their home states even as to the effects of climate change manifesting in their home states. in this path, climate deniers are not following their constituents. seven in ten americans in a nationwide survey released this month favor the deny power plan. more than 80% acknowledged the health benefits of the plan. and of course the big polluters

don't just spend to influence legislators at the federal level. they also spend big on state officials, and they prop up trade associations, think tanks and front groups willing to push their antiscience agenda. many of these state politicians trade associations and front groups sure enough showed up in the clean power plan litigation. from the 27 states currently challenging the clean power plan in court the cap action fund has been identified 24 climate-denying attorneys general and governors based on their own past statements. these state officials received over $19 million in contributions from the fossil fuel industry since 2000. one small example of this, documents obtained by the center for median democracy show that murray energy, a coal company donated $250,000 to the republican attorneys general association in 2015 and received

a closed door meeting with state prosecutors to discuss the clean power plan. according to research director nirk surgey -- quote -- "it's no coincidence that g.o.p. attorneys general have mounted an aggressive fight alongside the fossil fuel industry to block the clean power plan. that appears to be exactly what the industry paid for." end quote. other energy companies and trade groups that gave money last year to the republican attorneys general association include koch industries exxonmobil, southern company and cloud peak energy. then there are the industry trade groups like the american coalition for clean coal electricity and the national association of manufacturers also petitions against the e.p.a. to pick just one the national association of manufacturers it has been described as a -- quote

-- trade association and corporate front group that has a long history of hiring lobbyists to promote antienvironmental pro-industry legislation. other front groups like the energy and environment legal institution have also filed briefs. e & e legal advances what it calls free market environmentalism using strategic litigation. it has made it its hallmark to harass climate scientists who work at public institutions and are vulnerable to state and federal foia requests. e. & e. legal received significant funding from the fossil fuel industry to engage in this harassment. documents made public in the bankruptcy proceedings of three separate coal companies arch coal peabody coal and alpha natural resources reveal payments to e. & e. legal or to its senior fellow chris horner,

a gentleman who has written not one but two books on why global warming is a hoax. e. & e. legal is also an associate member of the state policy network which the center for media democracy source watch describes as an $83 million right-wing empire, that in turn it receives money from a koch family foundation and from the identity scrubbing donors trust and donors capital organizations set up to launder the identities of big donors. such is the web of denial. madam president, i could go on. our report contains substantial detail on the network connecting the opponents of the clean power plan to the fossil fuel companies behind their effort. exxonmobil's c.e.o. may pretend concern about climate change and mouth support for a carbon fee but on his political gun decks

all their cannons are aimed to protect the free loading polluting status quo and the koch brothers don't even pretend. they will send us off a climate cliff to enforce their extremist ideology and to maintain their power to socialize their costs. these koch brothers are fine capitalist free marketeers when it comes to extracting private profits but when it comes to imposing public costs they're more socialists than tropsky. the hounds all come running to bay at the court. before the court of appeals takes their argument seriously it should consider the industry's financial relationships with so many ever the clean power plan opponents. it should consider their sorted

record of deceiving americans about climate science for years and it should consider the massive, massive conflict of interest of the industry lurking in the shadows behind their front groups. madam president i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. a senator: thank you, madam president. last week i lost my chief of staff who i worked with in various roles for over 40 years. a member of my staff ron hindel wrote a remembrance on behalf of the staff. it begins september 21 was the day that my fellow enzi staffers and i will never forget.

it was on that day that we learned that george mcconaughey or flip as we all knew him had lost a valiant battle he had waged against cancer for the past year. mr. enzi: his loss has made these past few days a time of reflection and remembrance for us all about flip and his life. and i would ask that the unanimous consent that the entire statement follow my comments. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. enzi: yesterday we had a celebration of the life of flip mcconaughey in casper, wiem. it was -- wyoming. it was well attended. it turned out to be a reunion of people who had been touched by his life and his actions and particularly those who had worked with him. i'm sorry that i can't share the video that we all got to see of him growing up and his interaction with family and

others particularly since family meant so much to him. so i want to share with you some of the words that some of my remembrances, some of my memories. in the end there's only faith family and friends. flip is one of the richest men i know in all three categories. flip had faith. senate chaplain black was flip -- had flip as his hero. chaplain black drove out to their home when they were moving back to wyoming and did an anointing. i think that helped them make the long drive to wyoming. flip quietly shared his faith with others. flip participated in the chaplain's weekly bible study. flip attended a men's prayer breakfast on saturdays. flip attended church faithfully. flip had strength through his

faith. flip knew the importance of family. his closest friend of course was sheila. he knew how lucky he was that she said yes when he proposed. he said it was the best thing that ever happened to him. he also said his parents liked her better than him. flip knew about cancer since he was the caregiver through sheila's bouts with chemotherapy chemotherapy. then she was the caregiver and researcher through his operations test, and treatments. her research saved his life more than once. her love kept him going. flip knew family as a son as a brother, as a husband as a father and especially as a grandfather. he did all those roles well and he was an example to others. diana and i feel like we are part of his family and his family is part of our family. flip has been a caring brother to me and flip has always

treated staff as family. i didn't know him when he was the center for the glenrock football team and i wasn't there when his dad lost the race for mayor by one vote and years later found out that his own wife didn't vote for him. i didn't know flip when his dad found out he'd skipped school for a few days on his dad's own school board. he loved his parents but he revered his mother and he feared his father. i didn't know him when he graduated from the university of wyoming or when he married sheila or when i got the job as casper's assistant city manager. i didn't get to know him till i was mayor. as an accountant i ran on a balanced budget and agenda council meetings. then i found out and the shock i had that you had to know about sewer, sewer treatment police,

fire parks not to mention water which in gillette smelled and was color coded and in short supply or the town owned its own dilapidated electrical system. it's hard to entice somebody with that kind of knowledge to come to a boomtown but i was able to persuade flip to pull up roots and become the city's first administrator. he reminds me it wasn't until he bought a house and moved sheila to gillette that he found out the ordinance he was to work under was only through the first of three readings and that the mayor had to break the vote of a tie to get it that far. flip and i have gotten a lot of things done working together over 40 years. flip has never worked for me. he has always worked with me. as a team we used his city skills. i was just a salesman. i remember when his son jeff was born and then sarah. i remember their excitement for

each of these gifts of heaven. i also remember when our two sons discovered star wars and each one at had a millennium transporter. we spent our lunch hours for two weeks helping each other with the difficult construction to meet the christmas deadline. as a team we negotiated industrial sighting agreements with 12 of the cole mines -- coal mines. we were insisting the companies provide a town that their employees would want to live in and work from. some were harder to convince. their first trip to city hall they would bring a small plan. i would look at it, suggest that they weren't serious and then throw their plan in the garbage as i left the room. flip would be the good guy and stay and put them on the right

track. i'm sure those old line company execs wondered about negotiating with two kids, just 30 and 27 years old. the town had no money and the electrical system was about to blow up. i mentioned the color coded smelly water that was in short supply. the town got a water system for 30,000 people with only 10,000 people to pay for it. but we were able to convince standard & poors and moodies that we had a sound plan and what made it difficult it was while new york city was going bankrupt. now, flip had to put back together a town, too that was ravaged by a man on a solen d-9 cat. the man drove other cars. he particularly didn't like sports cars and he would go over them and back again. he pushed over power lines. he ripped up spring letter systems and -- sprinkler systems and gas lines. he drove through a bank driveup

and school yard. he wound up at an apartment basement after the d-9 cat pushed it off its foundation. the governor was in china and sent the article in chinese. my college roommate was in saudi arabia and sent the article in arabic. a little hard to read. now, i mentioned garbage. that's always a huge problem. we had a landfill that was about full needing another site. we made our annual visit to the county commissioners to request $25,000 from the county people use of the landfill. the chairman said, why with that amount of money we could run the whole thing. flip said, we'd be willing to pay you $25,000. they agreed. flip had the paperwork to them that afternoon and had it signed. it saved the city millions. after that everywhere flip went other towns would ask now how

were you able to get the county to take that landfill over? i can tell you it hasn't happened since and even recently reflecting on the lack of money but problem solved, he said only partly joking, we can finally tell about all the things that happened since the statutes of prosecution of limitations have run out. gillette did test cases in court for every new way that the state suggested the towns could operate. well then flip got a job as city manager in laramie an actual city manager. you know, he did his usual excellent job because his 15 years of serving there set a new record for longevity. he was also a leader and on the board of the wyoming association of municipalities until he came to washington. he still attended, spoke and was a part of the international city management association the

rest of his life. in washington his municipal reputation followed him. any state with a city or town problem referred them to flip, and he usually could work them through to a solution. he also counseled city managers often resolving their situation although sometimes helping to find a more suitable occupation. let me tell you how he came to be in washington. when i was elected senator i had over 500 applications to be my chief of staff. flip had not applied. he was the only one i could picture working with in that role organized focused superb manager. knew how i liked to operate could find good people, able to juggle successfully multiple crises. so my son brad and i drove to laramie. i caught him at the office after everyone else had left which was normal for flip. i said, flip, i need you to come

to washington and be my chief of staff. he said, i never went to washington, i don't like washington, i don't want to go to washington, i won't go to washington. so we visited about our families and then as brad and i left to drive home, when we got to the car, brad said, i think you got him. in disbelief i said, what part of absolutely no do you think was yes? but brad turned out to be right. i got a call the next day from flip who said, if that job is still open sheila and i talked it over and we might be interested. well, i got the answers and he and sheila came to washington and he and i were a team again for the next 20 years. flip knew the importance of working with everyone and found that the bipartisan chiefs of staff organization. he organized and managed a team that helped pass a record number

of bills. flip is also the best planning, meeting facilitator in the country. he led an annual planning session to have the detail and focus of what everyone would be expected to get done the next year. then he pushed to get it done. he was always a little frustrated because the people he put together were imaginative and competitive and had a strong tendency to do more than plan. he did insist that we never call it a planning retreat. he would emphatically slap his hand on the desk and say like general patten, we never retreat. speaking of competitive i do remember a contest between he and legislative director katherine maguire to see who could take the most spice in their mongolian barbecue. without beer. simes he -- sometimes he

traveled with diana and me on the weekends on wyoming work periods. you know in women women that will -- in wyoming that will include weather. he was driving us in a blizzard that hit us between towns and it was one of those wet heavy storms, the kind that clog up your windshield and you have to stop the car every few miles and clean the wipers off and clean the windows off. we were wondering if we'd ever get there. well he stopped again and then quickly got back in the car laughing, laughing vigorously. it was very un-flip. i got out to see what was so funny. we were almost to run over the sign that said "welcome to kimmer." flip was always the one to take the blame for any setbacks. he always got to the source and

like a good father, he trained the employee error into a teaching moment. flip was a people person. he was a brother to me and through the years he provided me with teachable moments, too. i can still hear him say mike, that's something you really need to do." of course, if it was a really tough assignment to talk me into he knew to enlist my wife, diana. everyone learned to listen closely to his commonsense instruction. he always downplayed his role. the most prideful thing i ever heard him say is, not bad for a butcher's son from gladrock. i mentioned faith family, and friends. let me conclude with a few notes from friends as i ask you the staff, his friends to jot down any and all mammogram royce that you can think of flip and share

it with sheilah and the family. that's the best way to fill the hole of the hurt that we all feel. so from leader mcconnell's chief of staff "he had a great knack for knowing when to encourage, when to kid and when to make you laugh through the stresses we all face." and from the new leader of the chiefs of staff "our beloved friend colleague and fellow chief, flip has passed after a long and courageous battle with cancer. we appreciated flip's self-deprecating humor straight talk and professionalism. we were witness to tremendous character, faith and courage as he walked through the blow of cancer. he was a friend and mentor when i was a young chief of staff. i was privileged to be part of a weekly prayer group with him." and from steve northrop, director of the health committee, "what flip went through these last several

months would have broken the spirit of a lesser man. we can take solace knowing he is with god now with no more pain, only peace. he was a friend and mentor and an inspiration as a public servant. he was a scary man when he needed to be, but he was always there when he needed to support advise, or give you a kick in the pants." so you can see that flip had friends everywhere he went, and even ones that he didn't know. because he served and he listened. people mentioned that he actually heard what they said. flip, we know you've been welcomed into your heavenly home and the lord has told you "well done now good and faithful servant." flip i thank you for calling me in your last thundershowers say

goodbye -- last hours to say goodbye. we miss you flip. and i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

ms. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: mr. president are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: the senate in a quorum call. ms. warren: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. warren: the republicans are threatening to shut down the government now. in less than 100 hours the united states government runs out of money. why? what is so important that republicans are willing to destroy thousands of jobs and cost our economy billions of dollars, the way they did back in 2013? well the answer is money -- not tax money not government spending. nope, this is all about secret money for political campaigns. republicans who control congress are refusing to fund the government unless everyone agrees to let giant publicly traded companies that spend millions of dollars trying to influence our elections keep all that money hidden. in just six years the world has

turned upside down. since 2010, when the supreme court said in citizens united that american corporations are people, those corporations have been allowed to spend as much corporate money as they want to get their friends elected and boy, have they spent money -- more than half a billion dollars from 2010 to 2015. today a powerful group of millionaires and billionaires runs around tossing out checks for millions of dollars to influence who wins and who loses elections. anyone whose idea haven't been glued shut can see that these waves of money are drowning out ordinary citizens, corrupting our politics, and corrupting our government. we need to reverse citizens united and take back our government. we need to reaffirm the basic principle that corporations are not people.

but that's going to be a long haul. the first thing we can do -- the least we can do -- the thing we can do right now is make sure that publicly traded corporations at least tell us when they spend money on political campaigns. let's be brutally frank about this. despite the impression that they usually give on television and in congressional hearings, public companies do not belong to their executives. they are not piggy banks for rich c.e.o.'s who want to advance their own personal political ideologies. by law these companies can spend money only in ways that will benefit their shareholders. so when a public corporation decides to spend a million dollars on politics, one of two things is true: either the corporation is trying to buy a politician or some

government favor or is it. well if it is, then that's corruption plain and simple. and if it isn't, that is a waste of shareholder money and it's illegal. either way shareholders and the public have a right to know. you know, the next time you buy cookies or shop on a web site or use a credit card, you may be contributing to the profits of a corporation that is funneling millions of dollars to political candidates you detest. you may be helping some corporation buy a senator who will help roll back environmental regulations or privatize social security or block a woman's access to birth control. now, that may be okay with you but if it isn't you might want to know about it and buy different cookies. the republicans don't want you to know. they are saying they will shut

down this government before they will let the s.e.c. make corporations tell about the secret money that they are pushing into political campaigns. well the american people want to know if giant corporations are buying politicians and the s.e.c. can make those corporations tell. more than a million people and organizations have written to the s.e.c. asking it to issue such a rule. this massive show of support has spooked republicans. after all there's an election in six weeks. at this very moment, billions of dollars in secret money is flowing into our political system much of it to prop up donald trump and his republican friends in congress. just turn on your tv and you'll see it. senator mitch mcconnell and the rest of the senate republicans have billions of

reasons for keeping this funding secret and billions of reasons to defend this rotten system. they are willing to shut down the government to do it. well if republicans think they can quietly hold the government hostage to protect anonymous corporate donors who want to buy off politicians if they think nobody else will notice, they should think again. if the republicans really think the american people sent us here to protect political corruption, then let's get it right out here in the open and let the american people see who's standing up for them and who isn't. and there's a second threat the republicans have issued. they won't help flint michigan. mr. president, the people of flint, michigan, have been poisoned poisoned by lead seeping into their drinking water, poisoned by a right-wing state government that decided to play fast and loose with the

health and safety of a largely african-american town, poisoned by a fraudulent cover-up that hid what happened while lead built up in the bodies of thousands of young children and caused terrible developmental problems and chronic health issues that will last for the rest of their lives. poisoned by a philosophy that says let's give tax breaks to billionaires and big corporations and then shrug it off when there's no money left to build infrastructure for clean water or provide education or opportunity for anyone else. poisoned by a republican philosophy that says, no one matters but me and my children; your children can drink lead. poisoned by the callous indifference of the republicans who control the united states congress. it has been over a year since

flint's water was declared undrinkable, nine months since it was designated a federal disaster eligible for our help, and during that time, 100,000 residents of flint -- mothers and fathers sons and daughters children and babies -- haven't had access to drinking water because of a republican state government that didn't care about the people living in flint and a republican congress that didn't care either. michigan's two senators -- debbie stabenow and garry peters -- have spent nearly a year trying to work out some kind of solution, any kind of solution, that the republicans who control congress would agree to. they even got a fully paid for emergency relief package to move through the senate with 95 votes, 995 vote -- 95 votes height rear in the senate -- height rear in the senate only

to work as republicans in the house are trying to tank it. recently, major floods hit louisiana. like flint louisiana received federal disaster declaration to make the thousands of people who've lost their homes eligible for our help. congressio -- congressional republicans urged on by the two republican senators from louisiana have decided to give louisiana the support that it needs to recover from this disaster as part of the government funding bill, and that's great. but the republicans who control congress say there will be nothing for flint. this is raw politics. two republicans represent louisiana and two democrats represent michigan. congress is controlled by republicans, so louisiana gets immediate help, but after a year of waiting michigan gets told to pound sand.

is this what we've come to? is this what politics has become? 100,000 people in flint a town where more than half the residents are african-american and nearly half within poverty gets nothing because voters sent two democrats to the senate? this is not a game. flint is not a democratic city or a republican city. it is an american city. the children who have been poisoned are american children. the principle of standing up for those in need is an american principle. i am a democratic senator from massachusetts, but i will help the republican senators from louisiana. i stand shoulder to shoulder with them in their hour of need, but i am sick and tired. i am past sick and tired of republican senators who come

here to demand federal funding when their communities are hit by a crisis but who block help when other states need it. their philosophy screams i want mine but the rest of you are on your own. it's ugly, it's un-american and it's just plain wrong. we must stand with the senators from michigan. we must stand with the children of flint and we must put aside ugly partisanship that is literally poisoning a town full of american families. any member of the house or senate who doesn't stand with them lacks the moral courage to serve in this congress. mr. president, i yield. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i come to the floor to speak about a bipartisan piece of legislation

overwhelmingly bipartisan. i hoped to be on the floor today to celebrate the passage of the survivors bill of rights. however, as is the case far too often here in washington, political gamesmanship is taking precedent over sound policy. the democrat leadership is holding up this bill for purely political reasons. the democratic leadership is delaying passage of this noncontroversial bill despite the fact that it enjoys broad bipartisan support. they are holding up this bill despite the fact that it is critical to help victims of sexual violence. they are holding this bill despite the fact that the same

language passed the senate judiciary committee unanimously. they are holding up this bill despite the fact that it passed the senate 89-0, and the house of representatives 399-0. the survivors bill of rights has been championed by a courageous rape victim, a survivor, amanda wynn. amanda is the founder and president of an organization that goes by the acronym rise, a group which worked closely with me on the development of this survivors' rights package to establish new rights for survivors of sexual assault. amanda was a victim of sexual

assault as a college student. her struggle with the criminal justice system in the aftermath of this traumatic event transformed her into a tireless young advocate for survivors of sexual violence. sexual violence, as you know, impacts millions of american women and men in our country every year. victims of such crimes should not face such an uphill battle in their pursuit of justice as miss wynn did. that's why i included this same language in the adam walsh reauthorization act. that bill which makes grants available to help states track convicted sex offenders unanimously passed the senate judiciary committee and the full senate just a few months ago.

i'm very proud to have shepherded this bill through the judiciary committee. it is a commonsense piece of legislation. for months, i urged the house judiciary committee to pass this very bill. thankfully, that committee and the full house passed this bill just a few weeks ago. now the senate must act, of course so that we can send it to the president. unfortunately, the democratic leadership has chosen partisan politics over helping victims of sexual violence. since the house passed this legislation, amanda has been checking in with my office nearly daily on the status of when the senate will pass this

bill. while republicans are poised to move forward on this bill, democrat leadership has continued to stall miss wynn's efforts. among other things, this bill ensures that each and every survivor of sexual assault should have equal access to all available tools in their pursuit of justice. this includes proper collection and preservation of forensic evidence. the survivors bill of rights also secures a package of new rights for sexual assault survivors. amanda wynn has been working with both political parties to help fellow survivors. it's been an honor to work alongside miss wynn on this

critical piece of legislation. i will fight for amanda, and every survivor of sexual assault until this bill passes. so i call on the democrat leadership to stop delaying this bill immediately. we have an important bipartisan opportunity to improve the criminal justice system for survival of sexual assault. so today i ask the democratic leadership to simply put the victims of sexual violence on the highest of priorities put these courageous individuals above partisan politics. we've done this before, and we should do it again and particularly in this environment of today's speeches from the other side of the house or the other side of the senate,

decrying the fact that there might be too much partisanship in this body. this is a chance to demonstrate not only bipartisanship but unanimity in the united states senate that's already been demonstrated on this piece of legislation and get it to the president and help these courageous people that are fighting to help victims of sexual assault. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president i rise today like many of my colleagues to express

frustration and outrage that we are once again considering leaving town without helping the people of flint michigan, without helping people in other communities afflicted by lead poisoning across our nation. it is the height of irresponsibility and it is neglecting our duty as representatives of the american people. it has now been over a year since doctors first reported high levels of lead in children's blood caused by flint's water supply, and nine months of health officials report an increase in cases of legionnaires' disease connected to the city of flint changing its source of water. but still the 100,000 residents of flint are unable to drink the city's water so they're still tied to bottled water for use after use. and up to 12,000 children living

in flint now have to live with the specter of what their future might be after being exposed to lead in their water and we know what lead does to developing brain cells. it leads to lower i.q. scores, poor performance in school, inattention and impulsive behavior as well as aggression and hyperactivity. it damages severely damages the prospects of children it has poisoned. this is a story a tragedy an outrage, and yet here we are more than a year without action. what have we done in this last year to help the families of flint? while we have heard speech after speech here in this chamber we've held hearings in which my colleagues have questioned michigan officials about what

happened and what needs to be done. there have been press conferences. there have been op-eds. there have been media interviews discussing the need to take action but here we are without action without a bill headed to the president's desk. and some here may say well, we passed the water resources development act which did include some funding to assist the citizens of flint but we all know that the house hasn't passed their bill, their water resource development act bill. we all know that if they did pass their bill today it doesn't have support for the citizens of flint. we all know that a conference committee is far into the future since the house hasn't acted. so therefore a solution is not nearby. the prospect of a bill, water resources development act aiding the citizens of flint by getting to the president's desk are

simply a hope, but it is a hope far away. but we have a better vehicle right here, right now the continuing resolution to make sure the people of flint get the help they need. it is the bird in the hand, not the bird in the bush. at this moment, the continuing resolution before us however does not contain a single cent for flint or for other communities affected by lead poisoning. now, it does contain millions of dollars for people in louisiana hurt by the terrible flooding that hit that state and it's certainly the right thing to do to assist the citizens in louisiana. thousands of families lost their homes, they lost their

belongings everything they owned. 60,000 homes damaged by the flood. the coast guard, national guard and local first responders rescued more than 30,000 residents and more than 7,000 in the immediate aftermath were living in shelters. what happened to louisiana is a major natural disaster, the largest to hit our nation since the devastation wrought by hurricane sandy and we need to act, but we also need to act on flint and to act on the other cities affected by lead poisoning. louisiana needs our help and flint needs our help. when disaster strikes we should not weigh our response by whether a community's representatives here in congress are democrats or republicans. disaster knows no party.

when disaster strikes we should not pay more attention to helping the rich and influential rather than assisting the poor. when disaster strikes geography should not determine one's worthiness to receive assistance. and when disaster strikes race should play no part in our response. but when it comes to the failure to act on flint i believe that we in this chamber should reflect on the role race has played. does anyone here think that it would take more than a year for congress to act if this disaster in flint had befell a white suburb of dallas or orlando or chicago or la? or -- or l.a.? or if it were the upper middle class of white kids of lawyers

doctors and executives who had been poisoned by lead? does anybody here believe that, that we would have said and done nothing? but with flint it's a poor african-american community and we have done nothing. our nation was founded on a legacy of slavery and racism but we were also founded on a vision of equality and opportunity. and we have moved step by step to put the legacy of discrimination behind us and to embrace the vision of equality and opportunity for all but we still have a long road ahead of us to achieve that vision in its entirety. we've often been too slow to respond to the pain and the suffering and the loss of "life"

in our -- loss of life in our minority communities. that's idea phrase "black lives matter" resonates powerfully. it's not okay to profile americans based on race. it's not okay to target one community with stop and frisk tactics. it's not okay to treat one race as a client and another as a problem. black lives matter. and it's time we acted like that here in the united states senate. and let's start by responding quickly from this point forward on this crisis in flint. let's respond with the same urgency as the crisis in louisiana. the flooding in louisiana wreaked havoc on louisiana families, about you we all know that the poisoned water in

flint, michigan, wreaked havoc on the families there. if you go to flint today you see palate after palate after palate filled with waters, filled with water and it's scattered all over the city, necessary for drinking, for cooking, for washing dishes, for brushing teeth. they use it because they don't have a choice. so yes the people of louisiana have suffered a great loss, and i want to help them rebuild. but we know that the people of flint have suffered a great loss and i want to help the people of flint not as some vague point after the election, not at some uncertain future date. they need action now. the people of louisiana need

action now. and the people of flint need action now. well actually, they needed action a year ago. we cannot choose between helping these two american communities. both are suffering. both are in need. both deserve our attention. we cannot play election-year politics with people's lives hanging in the balance. we must provide in this continuing resolution the opportunity we have before us at this very moment aid to help the citizens of both tragedies. so i hope that our leadership from the right of the aisle and our leadership from the left of the aisle come together to negotiate a compromise that treats the people of louisiana and the people of flint equally and if it doesn't,ly be voting against this continuing resolution -- i will be voting

against this continuing resolution and i urge my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. a senator: mr. president i rise today to talk about one of the most important responsibilities we have which is the responsibility to help every community in a time of crisis. when sandy struck back in any home of new jersey, more than a hundred people lost their lives. eight and a half million customers lost power. more than 650,000 homes were damaged and 40,000 more were severely damaged or destroyed. hundreds of thousands ever businesses were forced to close with a $65 billion price tag in economic loss in 13 states up and down the east coast. mr. menendez: unfortunately

emergency relief languished for weeks as some of my colleagues on the other side actually debated the value of helping others. the junior senator from louisiana wouldn't vote for sandy funding because it wasn't paid for but now it seems that he's found jesus and seeks funding for flooding in louisiana and i would say rightfully so. the fact is we can't have a disaster policy that says blue states have to pay for disasters, purple states have to partially pay and no pay is needed for red states. we shouldn't be paying -- playing politics with disaster funding. when we do, real people suffer. but when it came to sandy a party that had never had a second thought about giving becomes of dollars in subsidies to big oil never saw a tax break for millionaires they didn't like, didn't step up to help families recover from one of the most devastating and ferocious coastal storms in history. the decision to turn what should

be a fundamental responsibility of government into a political calculation is not how this nation responds to disasters but unfortunately the unthinkable is becoming all too common. we saw it this summer with the fight over providing zika funding which should have been a no brainer. bells have been ringing for months but instead of being proactive and preparing an adequate and appropriate response republicans chose to poison our efforts with right wing ideological policy riders that prevented us from appropriately addressing this issue. so thanks to the majority, we did nothing while 20,000 american citizens in puerto rico contracted the virus. we did nothing while the virus spread to the mainland forcing the c.d.c. to take the unprecedented step of issuing a travel advisory in the continental united states, not some third world country but our nation's most largest and

vibrant cities, miami. yet even after all of this, once again we did nothing. why? once again three words come to mind as they have for the last eight years which is republican political obstructionism. now my friends on the other side seem to have moved past their state of suspended political animation and dropped their rigid ideological opposition to the zika funding. but there are still serious issues that have a major impact on children's health that we have not acted on. namely the lead crisis confronting not only those in flint but those in our schools in new jersey. it took three full months for the victims of sandy to get relief. it has taken months for this congress to act against the clear threat of zika. and here we are one year after we learned about flint and yet the republicans in congress have done what they do best which is absolutely nothing. i've even heard the lame counter

argument that -- quote -- well, flint was a manmade disaster, not a natural disaster so we don't have an obligation to help others. seriously? we don't have an obligation as a nation to help others? i reject that argument. federal government always has an obligation to help a community facing a crisis, whether leading the initial response to the b.p. oil spill responding to wildfires, superstorm, tornado floods or manmade disasters like the failure of the levees in hurricane katrina we were there as a nation. the question should not be manmade versus natural disaster. it should be the relief of human suffering in any disaster. last week one of my colleagues dismissed the crisis in flint as -- quote -- other people's gref, other people's grief. that's a pretty stunning

statement. shocking and blatant disregard for the fundamental mission to protect every american. in this chamber there is no other people's grief. we are all americans one nation one community indivisible and in a community there is no room to brush off the crisis as other people's problem. in the case of flint other people are a hundred thousand fellow americans the majority of whom are african-american 40% of whom are living in poverty, one in ten whom are unemploy -- ten whom are unemployed. the so-called other people are children facing a lifetime of challenges poisoned by a substance that we've known is toxic for decades. the other people are parents whose hearts are heavy with that thought that one of life's most basic needs clean water to drink, is being denied to their children. the other people are community

advocates that have spent the last year knocking on tens of thousands of doors trying to get the latest information to their neighbors about the ongoing health crisis. the other people were those whose health has been threatened by a local government that was more concerned about saving a buck than protecting their residents' lives. and now the federal government is failing them as well by callous dismissal that these are other people problems, not ours as americans but theirs and they're on their own. mr. president that's not the america i know. the america i know is one that stands together in times of crisis. we saw it in the aftermath of a disaster whether it's first responders running into the building towers, -- the burning towers on the morning of september 11, whether it's neighbors offering a place to sleep and a home cooked meal to those homes that were destroyed by hurricane sandy whether it's the hundreds of people who lined

up to donate blood after the orlando shooting. in a time of crisis, americans stand together. we don't dismiss cries of help as the problems of others. now, we've heard talk of the urgency of providing aid to the people of louisiana in the wake of the flooding, and i agree but we cannot let the people of flint be an afterthought. now, some say the majority leader is thinking about removing the disaster aid that will help louisiana just to prove a political point. so think about it. he'd hang out communities to dry because some in his party don't want to look out for flint. if the majority leader decides to withhold disaster assistance to both flint and louisiana that would be a cynical stunt that would hurt real people and frankly, we're better than that. we cannot turn what should be a question of the basic health and safety of our citizens into a political calculation.

but unfortunately the republican continuing resolution doesn't see it that way. it focuses on corporate giveaways at the expense of families businesses, and communities trying to recover from a disaster. and while our colleagues are fighting over which communities are more worthy of disaster relief a calculation i do not understand they are also shamelessly pushing policy riders that favor corporations over investor, constituents, and the american public at large. they pat themselves on the back for finding funding to address flooding in louisiana while quietly working behind closed doors to shield the pathways of dark money into politics. so let me take a moment and tell our constituents what they won't see in their republican senators' press releases. they won't see any mention of a policy rider intended to block the securities and exchange commission from requiring companies to disclose their political spending.

and here's why that's so important. the supreme court's 2011 -- 20 so decision -- 2010 decision in citizens united changed the campaign finance laws by opening the floodgates for unlimited and corporate spending on campaign ads, federal and state law advocacy efforts and many other efforts of political communication. in the 2012 elections outside groups spent more than a billion dollars which much of it funneled through trade associations and nonprofits with minimal disclosure. and in the 2016 cycle which i don't need to remind my colleagues is far from over, outside groups have already spent $790 million. for six long years companies have had free rain to solidify their influence in politics and maximize their impact on elections. and with no corresponding requirement to disclose how this money is being spent there is

simply no way to know if corporations are spending more money to defund social security or medicare, dismantle environmental protections undermine education programs, eviscerate wall street reform including taking down the consumer financial protection bureau. now think about that. the republican party is trying to make it harder for the american people to know how much money is being poured into the efforts that hurt consumers. in the past week alone wells fargo per perpetuated a huge scam on their account holders creating over 2 million fraudulent accounts. it was the consumer financial protection bureau that was instrumental in uncovering the scam and levying the largest fine in history. so here we are just two weeks later sticking in riders to hide dark money from shareholders. that's exactly the type of dark money that attacks the consumer

financial protection bureau and the american people deserve to know who is funding those attacks. the significance of this should not be understated. ultimately this is about silencing the voice of hardworking american families in favor of amplifying the speech and magnifying the influence of corporations. and, unfortunately it's all too emblematic of my republican colleagues sses approach to law -- colleagues' aapproach to law making. when big banks ask republicans to roll back critical wall street reforms, they say how far? when the oil industry asks republicans for a tax subsidy they say, how much? it's shameless, mr. president. shameless. clearly, we are defiantly turning our backs on consumers. so mr. president, we cannot continue down this obstructionist path paid with the remains of our long-he would

willingness to help hesp other in -- help each other in times of crisis. if we continue down this path when republicans are in charge, no assistance would be provided if the east coast suffered another super-storm because those are blue state. it would mean that a slow-moving infrastructure crisis in the inner city would be considered other people's grief. it would mean when democrats are in charge, no relief would be provided for tornadoes in oklahoma or floods in kentucky because those are red states. that is not what we democrats would do, and it is not at the end of the day the way to gonch. we need -- to govern. we need to stop dividing our country in to us versus them when it comes to fundamental human needs. in this election season, let's remember that, above all, we are all americans with common goals and shared values. let's focus on doing right by the american people rather than telling them that we can solve all of our problems if we just

turn the clock back to a better time and blame someone else. those people, the others for our problems. that's not good plirks and it's not -- that's not good politics, and it's not good government and it is not who we are as a nation or people. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: famously known as the natural state my home state of arkansas holds the proud distinction as the nation's leader in rice production. last year arkansas produced more than 50% of the total rice grown in the country.

on average farmers in arkansas grow rice on 1.5 million acres each year. 96% of those farms are family-owned and operated. as the number-one producer of this crop, arkansas has the unique role in the industry. that's why i'm proud to recognize the 26th anniversary of national rice month. i'm pleased to promote policies that enable our farmers to manage risk and ensure that high-quality u.s. rice remains a staple on tables across the globe. this industry is not only contributing to nutritious and balanced diet, it is also an economic engine in rural america. nationwide the rice industry accounts for 125,000 jobs and contributes more than $34 billion to the u.s. economy. in arkansas, rice contributes more than $1.8 billion to our

state's economy and provides thousands of jobs. we can increase both of these numbers even more if we open additional markets for our rice producers to compete in. rice farmers all across america would benefit from a change in policy with cuba because rice is a staple of the cuban diet. the united states department of agriculture estimates that u.s. rice exports could increase by $365 million per year if financing and travel restrictions were lifted. arkansas' agricultural secretary has said the economic impact on the state's rice industry could be about $30 million. rice production is efficient more rice is being produced on less land using less water and energy than 20 years ago. as great stewards of the land, rice farmers are committed to

protecting and preserving our natural resources. i'm proud to celebrate 26 years of national rice month and honor the more than 100,000 americans involved in the rice industry. adurablely i'd like to -- additionally, i'd like to make a comment about the devastating floods that northern eastern arkansas experienced in august. the recent floods caused serious damage to crop production, including rice. many of these crops were near harvest stage. the state suffered $50 million in crop losses due to the recent flooding. this damage is largely -- has largely flown under the radar. the final damages may be more than this preliminary estimate. the governor of arkansas has asked disaster assistance from the usda and last week the arkansas congressional delegation wrote a letter in support of the governor's request. secretary vilsack committed to

me that he would expedite this request as quickly as possible, and i encourage him to do so. agriculture accounts for nearly one-quarter of arkansas' economic activity. one out of every six jobs in arkansas is tied to agriculture. rice production is a vital part of agriculture's contribution to arkansas' economy. i'm committed to helping our rice producers succeed in today's global economy.

mr. boozman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. boozman: i ask unanimous consent that the senate be in a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each.

the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: mr. president i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. boozman: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. wednesday, september 28, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. further, that following leaders' remarks, the senate resume consideration of h.r. 5325 until 10:00 a.m. finally, at 10:00 a.m., the senate resume consideration of the veto message to accompany

s. 2040, as under the previous order. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. boozman: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of the senator from colorado, senator bennet. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. bennet: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. it is a privilege to be here with you this evening and i thank my colleague from arkansas for his allowing me to speak after the adjournment. mr. president, i rise to discuss the vacancy on the supreme court. nearly 200 days have passed since the president nominated judge merrick garland to fill the supreme court vacancy. yet the majority still refuses to hold a hearing on his record or a vote on his nomination. and, as a result, judge garland is now the longest pending nominee in the nation's history. and next week -- next week the

supreme court will reconvene for a new term with one seat still vacant. i remember reading justice scalia's opinion in a case where he described an eight-men court as a diminished -- an eight-member court as a diminished court. that was the language he used. so we have now a supreme court not just in one term but in two terms that has been diminished by the inability of this senate to confirm a nominee. there is no doubt that anybody with any -- with any sense can see that this has been an unconventional period in american politics. -- to say the least. but in many ways, the majority's refusal to even consider judge garland's nomination is the most egregious example of washington dysfunction i have seen. within an hour of justice scalia's death the majority

leader unilaterally decided the senate would not consider the president's nominee even though 342 days remained in the president's term. by taking this unprecedented action the majority leader hoped that the next president would nominate someone with the same originallallist judicial philosophy as justice scalia, and indeed that's what some of my colleagues have said. waiting would allow the next president to -- quote -- "nominate a justice who will continue justice scalia's unwaivering belief in the founding palestinians we hold deer -- founding principles we hold dear." by taking this position, they've made clear that they want the next president perhaps donald trump, to replace an originalist like antonin scalia with another

originalist. but by taking this approach, the majority leader has radically departed from the plain language of the constitution and more than -- in more than 200 years of historic precedent in this history. as an originalist -- and he certainly was -- justice scalia would interpret the constitution by examining the constitution by examining the meaning of the word when it was enacted. article 2 section 2, of the constitution says that the president shall nominate and by and with the advice and consent of the senate shall appoint judges of the supreme court. when a vacancy arises, the president has an affirmative duty to nominate a replacement and the senate in turn has the affirmative duty to advise and consent. that is what the plain language of the constitution requires, and that is what the original meaning would have been. but beyond the text of the constitution, we should also consider the traditions of our

predecessors in this chamber. members of the majority seem eager to make it point. one of our colleagues said that -- quote -- "we should follow the tradition embraced by both parties and allow his successor to select the next supreme court justice." another said -- quote -- "there is significant precedent for holding a supreme court vacancy open through the end of a president's term in an election year." mr. president, the truth is exactly the opposite. in fact, the majority's position today is absolutely unprecedented in the history of the united states or the history of the united states senate. recently professors robert carr and jason mazone combed through the history of supreme court nominations and senate confirmations for a piece that i believe appeared in the nyu law journal. since the founding of the country, there have been 103 instances similar to the moment

we face today where an elected president nominated a person to fill a vacancy before the election of a successor. where an elected president nominated an individual to fill a vacancy before the election of his successor. the professors found that in all 103 instances the sitting president was able to both nominate and appoint a replacement justice by and with the advice and consent of the senate. professors further wrote -- quote -- "this is true even of .. during an election year." that's the history. that's the president. that's the president. so when you hear people come out here and say the customary practice has been to do this or that it's not true. i sometimes wonder why people who are committed around here

are talking about the customary practice at all because it ought to be the plain meaning of the constitution that folks are following, but if we are going to talk about the customary practice, let's talk about what actually has happened rather than inventing it on the floor of the senate. and for the last 200 days, the majority has argued that we should for the first time ever ever depart from this 200-year tradition. i will say this on this floor -- there is nothing conservative about that position. that is a radical position at war with the founders' view of this when the chairman of the judiciary committee said -- quote -- the fact of the matter is that it has been standard practice his language, to not confirm supreme court nominees during a presidential election year he was incorrect. the fact is the standard practice of the senate is just as clear as the plain text and the original meaning.

if the sitting president nominates an individual to fill a supreme court vacancy the senate acts with an up-or-down vote. and i should say i'm not here to say anybody should vote for the nominee. that's a matter of conscience for every single member of the senate but our job is to have a vote, and when members of the majority say things like -- quote -- "it's been 80 years it's been 80 years since the president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential year," unquote, they fail to mention that in the past 80 years a vacancy has not arisen at the supreme court in an election year at all. the 80-year time period that the majority highlights is precisely the 80-year period in which no supreme court vacancies occur during an election year.

if you go back just one more election 84 years ago, you will find a case from 1932 that is very similar to ours today. on february 25 of this election year president hoover nominated benjamin cardozo to replace justice holmes on the supreme court. the senate confirmed cardozo nine days later. so when senators come out here and say we have an 80-year precedent of not confirming justices at this moment in a president's term, that's only because there hasn't been a vacancy. i might as well say we have an 84-year president where we do confirm justices in the last year because that's what happened 84 years ago with justice cardozo. the senate also confirmed three other supreme court nominees in

election years in the 20th century, twice in 1916 and once in 1912 so i can extend my 84-year precedent farther back in history. through their research, professors carr and mazone found only six cases where the senate acted consistently with today's majority to deliberately ignore the president's nominee for a supreme court vacancy and wait for the successor but none of these cases is analogous in any way to the vacancy we face in this senate. in those six cases there were questions about the sitting president's legitimacy, either because that president had assumed office by succession, unlike the current president who was elected to the presidency and then re-elected to the presidency or because the nominations came after the election of the next president which we know is not the case today because the vacancy

occurred 340 or so days before the end of the president's term and anybody watching television last night would know that we have yet to select the next president of the united states. and what's amazing is that even in the remaining 13 cases where there was some question about legitimacy or it was after the successor had been elected the senate still confirmed a majority of the president's nominees. six for the minority which they weren't confirmed. the rest they confirmed. to suggest that this president whom the american people elected twice should not be able to fill a supreme court vacancy is a radical departure from the constitution's text and the senate's historical practice.

as the professors conclude, the majority's actions are -- quote -- unprecedented in the history of supreme court appointments. whether by interpreting the original meaning of the constitution or by following standard practice, every other senate every other senate has acted not by refusing to consider the nomination or stalling until after an election or waiting for the next president to make a nomination but by having a debate in full view of the american people and to give the nieman up-or-down vote. as i said earlier, of course the majority can withhold its consent by voting no. that's your constitutional prerogative. that's what it did in 1987 when the full senate voted against

robert bork even after the jibbing committee conducted full hearings and the majority voted against his nomination. the constitution doesn't say the judiciary committee shall advise and consent. it says the senate shall advise and consent. that's what a majority of the senate did in 1795 when it rejected george washington's nomination of justice john rutledge as chief justice. by the way that senate which unlike ours actually included some of the framers who wrote the constitution wept on to confirm three nominees, all in the fourth year of george washington's second term. all in the eighth year that george washington was president. this was true in 1968 when there

were serious serious concerns about president johnson's nominee, justice abe fortis to replace the outgoing chief justice. even then, even then in president johnson's final months in office, the senate held confirmation hearings and floor debates. the senate had a full and public debate on the merits of the nominee. in fact, as the professors found, only 12 nominations out of 160 over the entire course of the history of the united states failed to reach the senate floor. most of these were made near the end of a legislative session or were later withdrawn by the president, but in every other instance the senate brought the nomination to the senate floor for a full debate and consideration. if today's majority is concerned with the american people having a voice on who the next supreme

court justice is, we should follow our ordinary procedures and allow our representatives in the senate to consider the merits of the president's nominee. we have denied the american people a debate in a runup to an election when we should be debating what the composition of the supreme court should look like when we should be debating what's at stake in this presidential election, our floor is empty. and i say again this action has been taken in the name of conservatism. there is nothing conservative about this, nothing. this is a radical departure from standard practice. it is a threat to our democracy. it is a threat to judicial oversight. it is a threat to the rule of

law. it is lawless. and what makes this even worse is that the majority's failure to fulfill our constitutional responsibilities isn't really even about policy. it's about politics. it's about rolling the dice on an election instead of following the plain text of the constitution and more than two centuries of senate tradition and the history of the united states. we have had more than enough time to consider the merits of judge garland's nomination. the american people have watched the united states senate take the entire summer off and not do our job. in fact, as some of my colleagues have noted this senate has worked fewer days this year than any senate in 60 years. and a lot of those senates

didn't have a supreme court vacancy to fill. by refusing to consider the president's supreme court nominee for nearly 200 days, the majority is creating, i fear, i fear -- i hope not -- creating a new precedent, one that threatens to shape future vacancies to the court and further politicizes the one branch of our government that is meant to be above the partisan bickering that has paralyzed this institution. it is one thing for people in this body to drive the approval rating of the united states congress down to 9%. that's a feat. that's a feat. but to denigrate another institution of government this cavalierly for politics, that's wrong. the longer this vacancy remains the more uncertainty and confusion the american people

will suffer. petty politics is now jeopardizing, as i said earlier not just one not just one but two terms of the supreme court. we have to reject this unprecedented abdication of our most basic constitutional obligations. this is one of those things that's written in the constitution, and there's no one else assigned the duty of doing it other than the senate. the house has no responsibility. some people here have said let the people decide, as i said earlier. the best way of letting the people decide is by having an open debate here in the senate. but the constitution doesn't actually say let the people decide. it sets up what we ought to be doing. and i fear that if we start here where will it end? if a president can't have his nominee considered over 300 days from an election, why not two years or four years from an election? why not routinely hobble the supreme court until you get your way.

you have your president and your majority. until then, we don't do the american people's business. and even if, even if the constitution does not in fact, oblige us to consider president obama's nominee, it is nevertheless, it seems to me, our duty as responsible public servants to do so, and the american people's obligation to hold elected officials accountable and demand a full functioning judiciary. believe me, i know it's become fashionable for washington to tear down rather than work to improve the democratic institutions that generations of americans have built but as i said to impair so cavalierly the judicial branch of our government is unacceptable. it doesn't meet the standard of a great nation or a great parliamentarian body. comity and cooperation will not

be restored overnight or with a single decision in this senate. it has taken far too long for us to travel down this destructive road to deadlock ideological rigidity and bitter partisanship. but even with all of that, the least we could do is follow centuries of tradition and practice preserve the judiciary from the partisanship that has paralyzed much of the other two branches and act as conservatives by fulfilling one of our most fundamental duties as elected represent tiffs. it is long past time for the senate to do its job as every senate before us, until the founding has done. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

.. >> they'll spend a couple hours debating an override of that 9/11 lawsuit bill. we expect a vote on that around 12 noon. the senate today defeating a pair of attempts to limit debate and set up a final passage vote of a temporary government spending bill. currently, funding runs out this friday. right now we'll take out an interview we just did with a capitol hill reporter to learn more about the subject. >> host: with current government funding set to run out friday at midnight, we're joined by alex rogers, covering the story for "national journal." federal agencies are preparing for a government shutdown, not surprisingly, but as we talk how likely is it that the government will shut down after friday?

>> guest: well, senate leaders on both sides to have aisle are committed to making sure that doesn't happen. the biggest disagreement right now is over aid to flint for the water crisis there, about $220 million, and also for louisiana disaster aid for the terrible flooding that happened there as well. and senator mitch mcconnell said earlier today or he indicated that there could potentially be a deal to avert a shutdown by friday at midnight by loring arms on -- lowering arms on both those issues and taking it out of the continuing resolution. >> host: the senate tried to move forward, but senate democrats mostly and a handful of senate republicans blocking the efforts to move forward. is it mainly centered around the issues you just mentioned? >> guest: that's right. there was a vote to advance legislation today, but that loss by about 15 votes, there was a 60-vote threshold, and the question is still over aid to flint and also aid to louisiana

and a few other states that have been decimated by floods. >> host: this whole issue of the aid to flint gets a little complicated because it did, the senate did pass aid to flint in their version of the water bill which the house is now taking up. so why is the issue coming back up here in the continuing resolution? >> guest: well, the issue is really house republicans who haven't agreed to the language that's in the senate legislation that passed, i believe, with 95 votes. so senator john cornyn, the gop whip today acknowledged in interviews with reporters that the house republicans have made this a little bit complicated by not agreeing to that language in the water bill, and so now they're trying to be able to figure out if they should move forward and try to deal with this flint issue separately or if they can, like democrats want, put it on to that spending bill, that 10-week spending bill that'll fund the government through december 9th. >> host: what about funding to fight the zika virus?

how was that handled in the c.r.? >> guest: so that was a major contention throughout the year. senate democrats had filibustered legislation because of a provision that they said would block funding to planned parenthood, an affiliate in puerto rico. that language has been largely resolved. it's been -- you haven't really heard too much about that issue at all. it's in the language now, it's $1.1 billion to combat zika, and both democrats and republicans are pretty comfortable with that. both sides have been able to claim a victory on it. it's really this language on flint and on the louisiana flooding aid. >> host: we've been focusing on the senate. what about house leadership? what have we heard from speaker ryan or other republican leaders? >> guest: so the house is really in wait-and-see mode. they're trying to figure out what the senate's going to give them, and with such little time,

there's very little they can actually do to change the outcome of this. >> host: young, going back to that tweet from national journal which points out federal agencies at least being prepared for a possible shutdown, it points out that the last time the government shut down, 2013 the shutdown lasted 16 days, but there wasn't an election just around the corner which members have to go out and campaign for. does that put pressure on members to get this thing done by friday? >> guest: yeah, absolutely. they want to get out of here they want to go back on the campaign trail. they want to spend the next number of weeks through election day to go back home and talk to their constituents, and they want another long recess. >> host: alex rogers, covering a changing story on the c.r.. you can follow his reporting on twitter and also at nationaljournal.com. thanks for the update. >> guest: thanks for having me. >> and a live look right now in melbourne, florida, rally getting underway shortly for donald trump, his first since the presidential debate last night. right now you can see some local

sheriffs speaking with the crowd. when mr. trump comes out, we'll have that live right here on c-span2. press secretary josh earnest briefed and took questions from reporters at the white house today. the main topic of that briefing was the first presidential debate of the campaign season and president obama's reaction to it. [inaudible conversations] >> well, well, well. [laughter] where to start. [inaudible conversations] >> since i'm not sure where to start, darlene, why don't you decide where we're going to start? >> i'll start.

do you have any observations from the president about the debate last night? did he keep at least one ear on all or part of it? >> as predicted, the president did have the debate on television last night in the indian treaty room of the residence while he was reviewing his nightly to-do list. the president had the opportunity to talk about this with ryan seacrest just a little bit earlier this afternoon, but look, his main takeaway is that the candidate that he strongly supports is the candidate that performed quite strongly in the debate last night. she made a very powerful case, particularly at the beginning, for building on the economic progress this country has made in digging out of the worst economic downturn since the great depression. she laid out a strategy that's focused on cutting taxes for

middle class families, asking those at the top of the income scale to pay a little bit more closing tax loopholes that only benefit the wealthy and the well connected, focusing on investments in early childhood education, growing our economy from the middle-out. that is precisely the economic strategy that president obama's pursued, and that is the strategy that has yielded the longest streak of consecutive monthly job growth numbers in our nation's history. and we saw the census data released a couple of weeks ago that in 2015 the median income in this country rose higher than it ever has, at least on record, in one year and that poverty declined as much in one year as it has in about 50 years. so the president's to pursued a strategy similar to the one that secretary clinton advocated, and our country has benefited enormously from it.

and he certainly was pleased to hear her deliver such a persuasive case about why that's a strategy that is worth building on. >> what did he think when the subject turned to donald trump's taxes and -- [inaudible] to release them and he bragged about how it made him smarter to not pay any federal income taxes? i mean, is there any reaction from the president to that? i know you said you don't want to stand up here every day and react to everything donald trump says, but -- >> yeah. the president's also in a position where he has a little bit more latitude to respond to these kinds of declarations. so i think what i will, when i'll just leave -- what i'll just leave it to is the president is somebody, when he was running for president, made a conscious decision to abide by the standard that's been observed for more than a generation, which is he made a decision to release his tax returns.

and and even while serving in office as president, he continues to release his tax returns on an annual basis. and i'm not aware of any federal law requiring it, but if every presidential candidate in both parties dating back to the '70s has done it, then it certainly is something that voters can expect. and the president believes that kind of transparency is good for the process and good for voters as they make a really important decision about the future of the country. >> on one other topic, senate democrats are threatening to block the c.r. this afternoon because it doesn't include money for flint, michigan, which is an issue that you said has concerned the president. does the white house support senate democrats in their attempt to block this bill this afternoon? >> well, the president has made clear for months that congress needs to act to provide

resources to this community of flint. the president had an opportunity to visit that community back in the spring, and he met with the mayor, he talked to some residents, he talked to federal officials who were responsible for coordinating the response. and what he saw was a community that had been let down by their government. and we've been advocating for months that congress has a responsibility to step forward and provide resources to assist that community in their recovery. now, the executive branch, the administration has certainly fulfilled our responsibilities. the president mobilized fema fema handed out hundreds of thousands of liters of water. we have seen ramped-up assistance to meet the basic

health care needs of children that potentially were negatively affected by drinking the water. and there's been an effort to try to address some of these problems at the community level, but there is a significant investment in infrastructure in flint that's required to address this problem. and congress has a responsibility to step forward and provide those resources. the president's been calling on them to do that for months. so included in the proposed text, at least based on what i've been told, are steps that congress is taking to provide relief to families in louisiana and maryland and other places that have been hit by historic flooding. those are communities that need to be rebuilt as well, and the president was among the first to call on congress to act to provide resources to louisiana. and the president believes that congress should do the same thing for flint and other communities that are dealing

with -- [inaudible] >> republicans say, though, that they will take care of flint michigan, in separate legislation. so does the white house not believe republicans when they say -- [inaudible] take care of them? >> well, based on, as of, as we've -- as i've acknowledged on many occasions standing here i'm certainly no expert in the legislative procedure. but based on what i understand of the situation, there is some funding for flint included in the senate's version of the water resources bill. the house version does not include funding for -- the house version of the water resources bill does not include funding for flint. now, this is a little ironic because the speaker of the house says he opposes adding funding for flint to the continuing resolution and believes it should be handled in the water resources bill. but it's not included in the water resources bill that's advancing through the house. and then he has the nerve to suggest that it's democrats who

are the ones causing problems. so i guess a little clarity about republicans' commitment to addressing this issue is needed, and after waiting for six or seven months for this funding to come through, that clarification would be eagerly welcomed by the white house, but most importantly by the people in flint. roberta. >> you talked about the economic case that secretary clinton laid out, but i'm wondering, last night we saw her on the offensive on issues like race and the birther issue and -- [inaudible] and i'm wonder what the president said to you about what he thought about the tone of the debate and some of the attacks that -- >> yeah. well, listen, the president's made the observation on a number of occasions that there's a tradition in this country of a

pretty confrontational brand of politics. and i think what the american people are looking for in their leaders are people who are tough enough to enter the arena and stand up for what they believe in and to make a forceful case for what they believe in and to respond to even some tough criticism of their priorities and their agenda. and the president certainly engaged in that process over the last eight years or so, and he's got the, he's got the scars to prove it. look, you know, i know that there was an expression from at least one candidate last night who was concerned that people weren't being nice to him. but, look, this is supposed to be a vigorous to debate. and when you consider the stakes in this election, the president

would anticipate and expect, you know, a tough debate on the issues. i think that's what we saw last night. >> and out of curiosity, why did the white house or why did he choose to go on ryan seacrest to sort of talk about the debate? [inaudible] reaction to -- [inaudible] the decision behind that. >> well, the reason the president wanted to go on ryan seacrest's show today today is national voter registration day, and the president devoted most of his appearance on that program to encouraging people to register to vote. the president also taped an interview with steve harvey that will air tomorrow where he made a similar case. that's why he did those radio shows, but it's not surprising -- or at least it wasn't surprising to anybody at the white house -- that he was asked by both of those hosts for reaction to the debate last night.

>> >> for the fund and about that discussion. i am sure the president has the goal to raise a lot of money and terms of the message he wants to convey quick. >> this is a rather small even it so is not open to the press.

spending is time in discussion for those that are attending the event talking, what you have heard talk about before and ford democrats to stand up for our values and support the candidates. the president has already spoken publicly for his support of secretary clinton i would expect him to reiterate that at the event. >> what about the appointment of the elegy bt buber? have many other members brought that up and for what they have done? >> i think the president is

quite proud of his record to ensure that there are senior officials in his administration, i will say it this way, the president is quite proud of appointee senior officials in his administration that reflect the diversity of the country. that is true when you consider the president white house staff, senior officials who serve at agencies across the government, it is also true when to the federal bench. whether you evaluate that diversity based on race or religion or sexual orientation, the president's record and surpasses that of his predecessors. he is quite proud of that legacy.

he also believes it is a legacy that can be built upon. i will let secretary clinton speak to her plans for her appointments that she chooses to make the issue becomes president. >> last night hands down people say that hillary clinton was the victor. but there is still an open window for donald trump quick. >> for people all across the country, do not be complacent when the stakes are so high. that is why the president was incurred she people to vote today on national voter registration day also spending a good portion of his october emerging people to get to the polls to make

their voices heard what. the president believes that is the important thing today. >> there was very strongly greenwich bois -- like which when it came to donald trump and with the business deal. [inaudible] did the president feel as upset about that that could be in the oval office? >> i take the president believes that is a worthy

question for voters to ask themselves. president obama as career is different as obama spent the early stages of his career as a community organizer helping to help people that were facing significant economic head went -- headwind to protect their community. and whether or not that is what made the president and advocate for expanded health care access affordable housing programs. handiwork closely with faith based organizations to petition their government. so when faced with these challenges in the past he

was not seeking a profit but trying to help people. so that type of approach even as leader of the free world with many policies he has been focused on as president particularly early in the presidency, were about insuring that middle-class families would get a fair shake and a fair shot. with the consumer financial protection bureau the old the agency that has a mission statement focused on the consumers. why the president of affordable health care assurance and also to focus on a growing the economy from the left. he believes that is an approach wirth building upon. when you consider her

professional career i will let her talk about that but it is appropriate editing the president made this clear with his candidate of the ballot he made it clear that he intended to pursue a different approach different from the republican nominee but what is consistent with the focus on middle-class families. to demonstrate. >> when both candidates were asked how to heal the racial divide with the election cycle, drop -- donald trump and answered. but when you started conversations and he is

talky racial profiling what is the thought about that? >> those that are raised by the policy. with the stock down interest policy from york as i have been observed before it is strange to see somebody who claims to feel so passionately of the constitutional right to bear arms and protecting against that so cavalierly. they said both of those is inconsistent in what is also

true with the officials said the york can't speak to this but they see the improvement in their. so can you draw firm conclusions after one or two years of data access will leave that to the experts. but that is advocated by at least one candidate. >> [inaudible] >> it all have any announcements with the efforts against t11 but you heard the president speak many times about his approach which is everytime they get the national security team to gather to

discuss the ongoing strategy against t11 they have a discussion about which aspects of that strategy to make the most progress. and what has against ijssel -- isil with the abuse along the leadership continues to tight end chemical issue partners. had with that isil leadership there are a couple of strikes taken by the united states that took out to senior officials of the battlefield. sewed to applaud the external operations.

and for them to carry out attacks. and where they have invested in the national security. so with that progress that they regularly asking in rebate more progress if we devote additional resources? concern when the answer to that question is yes he works very closely we don't have any announcements at this point. >> with that special on filet today's before the latest airstrikes. can you confirm it had advance warning?

>> to quick topics. one if congress cannot get an agreement with the president signed correct. >> he certainly is not interested of government funding laps but it is not the executive branch responsibility the legislative branch and republicans have a majority and there is a responsibility for leaders to pass a bipartisan budget bill ad as the contest restrains. thrust

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ wow. wow. [cheers and applause] t20 everybody to 20. one group. wow. [cheers and applause] we have 12,000 people outside we will get them out on the runway we have 12,000 people outside incredible look at this we will then

florida so big it will be amazing. [cheers and applause] this is a movement like they have never seen before. [cheers and applause] last night was very exciting . and almost every siegel poll has us winning the debate against crooked hell larry wu dash hillary clinton. [cheers and applause] she is as crooked as they come. i will tell you what. we put them out today almost every poll that was an exciting evening before me. and it set the all-time record for television. who knows and?

[cheers and applause] unbelievable. is there anyplace more fun or more safer to be vannatter donald trott rally? --. [cheers and applause] we will take all the special interest and a lobbyist and corrupt corporate media upper cowrite back there. they are as corrupt as you can get. [booing] this ecolab then, she could not even pass her bar exam. for she failed. the single weapon is the

media. without the mainstream media she would not even we here. she would not have the chance. so we will create a new government that serves you and use of your family and your country with the kind of government you have them looking for for a long time. [cheers and applause] i will send the plane and i said wow but the fire marshal bois close as down at 12,000 people. when i looked at this side said al i understand. where is the fire marshall? let them and.

led the men's side. our country is filled with so many amazing people who left the set and inspire us. where is ready guiliani? [applause] where is he? look at him. he is a good man. we lost one great person and a heartbreaking accident on sunday for borland's he was a pitcher died at the age of 24. i just spoke to the owner of the team just about as good

a pitcher as there ever was at that age. we send our deepest condolences during this very painful time. also those truly great american icons. arnold palmer was very proud to call him my friend. a truly great demand. his legendary accomplishments for are well-known. his love of the fans to the

legions of americans and is probably even greater and all of the thousands of lives progress assemble for america and he will be sorely best. our thoughts are also with his loved ones. ours is truly special country agree will never stop fighting to keep the american dream alive. never. but fortunately the american dream is out of reach. our country is not working.

when i debated secretary clinton and on america's future. for the 90 minutes i watched her very carefully i was holding back i did not want to embarrass her. but she was stuck in the past. ninety minutes issue after issue. she defended the terrible status quo while i laid out our plan all of us together to bring jobs transix charity in prosperity back to the american people.

[cheers and applause] with the bits 90 bits she argued against change we have to get rid of a public care and strengthen the depleted military. we will do a lot of great thing is. get out and vote to perk you have seen all the polls but those were a savings of beauty. one after one of the places that don't even like we but i was on the cover of "time" magazine laugh laugh but one first of all, a fantastic guy but drudge 80% donald

trump. but more importantly look at the different polls we are up nationally cnn, most importantly look at the state's we are leading in florida. [cheers and applause] ohio. [cheers and applause] iowa by all what. [cheers and applause] north carolina. [cheers and applause] we have states that don't are believed eight of terms of republicans it is us. don't call us anything it is just as. and beans common-sense to bring civility back to our country use the law and order to protect our police

with everybody else i watched class night i found it so interesting going into a situation with one of the largest audiences sent the history of television. i took a deep breath and pretended i was talking to you my family. and she was talking about what she will do to get rid of vices or child-care or all these different things. i add -- 26 years to have done nothing. [applause] nothing. when she ran for the senate in new york mirror having a hard time to keep judges

fear because it was treating the jobs out of our country going to mexico and it was a disaster. now the worst deal ever signed by anybody in the world. it was a disaster parker she promised years ago to hundred thousand jobs upstate new york can't it was a disaster. they lost so many you have to see it now. but it is a disaster. they have gone to mexico and other places. and she said she would do something about it and the day after the election bye-bye. that is exactly what would happen if she ever would.

>> we cannot let that happen in. she is the candidate of yesterday and ours is uh campaign and the people of the future. [cheers and applause] hillary clinton defended everything she helped to create. the iran deal one of the worst deals ever. [booing] she defended her role to a leash isis' responsible with proper obama to create a vacuum by getting out of iraq that they should never have been there in the first place. everybody believe me i was against going into iraq. [cheers and applause] it is so well documented

there were absolutely against it. because they don't want to hear that. but the conditions of the editors cities where african-american families are living in a situation that nobody should be forced to live in. and they should be ashamed of themselves. i explained how she has been there 30 years and has not fixed anything no action typical politician and in fact, her all the experience is a failure like everything she has touched one failure after another after another about how she traveled all over the world and that is true she traveled all over the world and got us

nothing. debt and death and unemployment and i said last night secretary you are experienced but everything you did turn out bad. [cheers and applause] the price tag n data least is $6 trillion. we could rebuild the country to times over or more than that. sirach end in libya are in chaos. of the calf to nuclear leftists fee just sit back nine more years to have all the weapons they want how stupid is that?

how about the $400 million of cash? and then that turned out to be wrong he was $1.7 billion of cash radical islamic terrorism is spreading everywhere we have a president who will not even issue the term but a former secretary of state does not want to mention the term and allowing that people to come into our country by that thousands and thousands and we don't even know who the hell they are. you watch. here in america we have seen wide terror attack after another with the attack on

the pulse nightclub with the worst attack ever on the lgbtq community worst in history the york and new jersey and minnesota and san bernadine no. before that, these attacks go on endlessly all over the world. and they are made possible by our extremely open immigration system that is fostered by a president that doesn't know what the hell he is doing. [cheers and applause] and by a woman that i take it is incompetent is

secretary of state. hillary clinton virtually incompetent but she had a 550% increase of syrian refugees. what do you think of that? we have to make our country great again. we cannot do it. 550% of his already high number something funny happened the dishonest and by the way igo hall my wife says how was the crowd? they always keep right on

your face the only good thing about the protesters. but we don't have to many protesters. do you know, why? because they had spirit and give that hillary protesters have no spirit. but it is over and above the thousands sent thousands of people coming from obama 550 percent more and the press called me out. it is in five under% here rego. was it like? they tell lies you would not believe it then they say

that's not correct and i said what is the number that is the first time that ever happened. she was 550% overseas russia and china certainly if you look at what is going on with the rand -- iran and remember that not so long ago? here we are we give them all this money back, 1 billion in cash which cannot imagine what that looks like and they hate as. they are emboldened because we're dealing with stupid leadership and stupid people. north korea is more dangerous than ever.

syria is a catastrophe on clinton's watch is in ruins and only those countries are meeting got benefits of spending requirements. you have to pay your bills you have to pay your bills. [cheers and applause] do you remember that? then they said trump does not like nato. but if past to take care of terror and all of a sudden end with the "wall street journal" i don't want to be a deposition were but nato will not open a terrorist operation. but also for that reason we have to pay their bills.

we want to defend them and that is fine. so we have five out of 28 house stupid are we? to help us. is the two-way street. you do now that? with jobs and use the money. me get the drugs and they get the money. not any board. [cheers and applause] no more. [applause] t6. [applause]

>> we will build below wall 100 percent. 100 percent. are you ready? who was going to pay for the up -- pay for the wall? they will. they may not know which but the answer is mexico. it is one clinton official year after another. what has hillary clinton accomplished for your family in the last 26 years? nothing. nothing.

very negative things. thirty years of disappointment to help with then or children and she has done nothing for cauchy named the post office i think she named a road. she has done nothing. she was terrible. deal may think she succeeded was to help poor donors to cover-up for crimes. that is what she succeeded at. [chanting] hersey gold greatest achievement in my opinion is to get away with a horrible

crime that she committed with the classified information with her phony bills. with illegal servers when dash have then destroyed let's see what happens. to talk about how we have the worst so-called recovery since the great depression. the worst recovery. i laid out details for a specific plan american people rendered their verdict. we exposed to real position on nafta which is by the way on the single worst deal you'll ever see.

and the trans-pacific partnership. another disaster that she lied about. she lied and finally they said that she lied. i could not believe it. she said the gold standard she would routinely approved they say she will approve it and i tell you what and will be a disaster for florida and pennsylvania and ohio it will be a disaster. you cannot allow tpp to happen and will be a catastrophe. nothing is that as nafta but this is close. hillary clinton is a vote with tpp with the destruction and continued destruction of american jobs. america's jobs are in deep trouble companies are moving all the time as they are negotiating but don't worry

about it. [applause] if they company wants to fire all of their workers' m. move the plant to mexico when they make that something over the strong powerful border and only if they pay a base tax and then they are not leaving. that upsets the apple cart. on for the 2 percent of the company's for those that do believe it is okay because that country will make a lot of money as they pay the tax.

so just remember. that i have been doing this by year's. nobody ever told me about that? and then to have low interest loans? and then to do all sorts of the is. you want to leave our country and take these people had move to another country if he can just sell it to less? it will not happen that way anymore. that will not happen. [applause] one other than the small donor imf funding by zero campaign. i n this for a lot of money i have spent a lot of money. but the nice part i know

have hedged find people all over the place like hillary clinton that have total control of what she is doing. i am working for you. food the hell knows what will happen but it is a big day. today we have something where i under steven through largely small donors and others because of the success last night they raised almost $80 billion today. [applause] that was largely because of last night. fed vice part if they want to move a country to mexico and cannot get approval one lobbyist will call in and

they take their called the i guarantee they will get nothing. they will get nothing. we will keep our jobs with tax reduction. and that is the way it is. but i explained last night the support for the massive tax hikes 1.$3 trillion that will further destroy the jobs a regulatory situation and killing our jobs. and then the issue of debt it took 233 years for the united states to rack up and

now the first $10 trillion of debt. president obama lead double the debt and less than eight years. congratulations. [booing] as i said last night what do we have to show for it? infrastructure is crumbling of it. we have to budget but beautiful highways and roads bridges and tunnels and schools we haven't done anything. we double the debt and our country is the best. airport is third-world. think of it will guardia, kennedy lax third world airports.

we will fix our country. we will fix our country i talked about the corruption of government including citizenship to 1800 high risk of the graves that were supposed to be deported. 800 people that were to be deported they were in line to be deported. did you have to be pretty bad to be deported and of our country but they made a mistake. nobody ever says that and guess what happened to those 800 people? they became citizens. they became citizens. does anybody m. this magnificent room is there anybody here that is one of those 800 people?

raise your hand. they became citizens. that they said they made a mistake. it wasn't 800 it was 1800. how bad is this? it is so sad. sodium and immigration and customs enforcement yesterday just endorsed when donald trump first of the average endorsed anybody. [cheers and applause] and the border patrol when has endorsed trouble so so the border patrol agents had we have a share of joe and he knows of borders vice officers but they have never endorse any presidential candidate ever before they

are incredible people and responsible for all of the interior emigration reports the want to do the job but they are told to student back they called hillary clinton's immigration plan the most radical proposal in united states history. these of the people that know what is happening. the new fbi shows that they rose 15% and that is the largest single year increase in 45 years. houri feeling? i explained a policy like stopping addressed in chicago especially where it is going crazy could save thousands of lives and just like in your city under

where guiliani. [cheers and applause] t6 overwhelmingly in it will save african-american end hispanic lives that they are entitled to the same protection as every other american one. every other american monolith that the inner-city is to see how bad they are the crisis through the roof the education is horrible. no jobs. and it is what is happening in remember hillary clinton calls them super predators'. that was her term. super predators'. but if you look at african-american youth with the unemployed rates in the '50s and say to people they

are at numbers that you would not believe and what do you have to lose? i say this to african-american communities , what do you have to lose? donald trump and one will fix it. [cheers and applause] they cannot walk down the street in many cases. they are shot. the children are shot and killed and it is so sad. i will fix it just give me a chance. [cheers and applause] i also explained last night stop and frisk is constitutional. however there arguing with me taking a time that they can do stop and frisk and cities every day you have to do this. in chicago 3,000 shootings

since january 1st of this year. 3,000. of course, you have to do what it is based on the supreme court ruling from 1968 that law-enforcement is a matter of life and death any even survival for our country so i mentioned thousand sent thousands of people are being shot in different cities chicago is one of the worst. sixty% of murder victims under 22 in this country are african-american we have to help them ended is unacceptable it is unacceptable 6,000 african-americans are victims of homicide in our country every single year. nine more people think of it nine more people were shot

in chicago yesterday. yesterday. i will never back down. that's true. one i will never back down. i would never back down to save american lives. never. [cheers and applause] i would never back down through from by a to rebuild our inner-city is. how much more violence must there be before hillary clinton speaks authentically for even one second about the real problem facing our nation? she wants the votes then she is gone for years she has done an incompetent job the trouble we have because of

her and president obama you will not believe. all you have to do is open your eyes. hillary clinton has nothing to offer but the same tired defense one of the same failed establishment for her friends said the donors and special interest, a representative for the global list, those that want to strip the job soon the wealth from our country to give them to every other country. i am not running to be president of the world i am running to be president of view as the united states. [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause]

cameras, a turnaround to show the picture. go-ahead. turnaround. show the picture. all above way show the picture. showed at up did the quarter way high upon. i have dealt with a lot of dishonest people and i would say certain elements of the press are the most dishonest people i have never dealt with. the most dishonest. i a. abbott for america first. my economic agenda can be summed up in three beautiful words. are you ready? jobs jobs jobs wobble [cheers and applause] we will cut your taxes.

we will let you deduct the cost of child care. we will reduce regulations to create billions of two jobs for our country and unleash american energy from our workers. we will shrink the trade deficit to protect american manufacturing which will be led to slaughter. florida has lost when ratified manufacturing jobs that is the economic legacy of bill and hillary clinton. taxes and energy and regulatory reform will create at least 25 million new jobs over the next 10 years. let me tell you what else we

will do. we will repeal the end replace obama care. [cheers and applause] clinton not be other hand wants to expand that disaster to put the government completely in charge of america is health care to of the major reforms i am proposing is school choice and nd, or. we will end common core. [cheers and applause] by one every disadvantaged child in this country including every pore hispanic child every pore african-american child in this country to be able to attend a public private charter magnet or choice of school.

the great civil-rights issue of our time i will be a voice for freedom that includes freedom for people and cuba that is not right what is going on. how many people here are from cuba? [applause] i want to mention but this afternoon i spent a lot of time president obama made a one-sided deal with did you ever see him make a decent deal for this country? do you know what? crooked hillary will be worse end mark my words she will be worse than obama that is why you cannot let that have been in november

we have to win in florida. [applause] t6 did you see these characters the electoral college? one month ago in is tough but they say it is a very small pad very narrow bed to read three weeks ago somebody said this is not good news. one today i am watching now they are looking we are doing good. we will do something that has never been done before

we will get rid of that crooked woman she is very very dishonest so as by executive order will, as we get the ideal that we want to protecting their religious and political freedom we gave them everything and they treated us like deer. know how precious freedom of this like the people of venezuela my administration will be of place against oppression in this hemisphere.