quorum call:

mr. mccain: i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended and i be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mccain: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. mccain: here we go again. for the eighth consecutive year congress has failed to pass an appropriations bill for the department of defense on time leaving our troops operating on a so-called -- quote -- "continuing resolution." now fresh off an election where the american people were clear that they are fed up -- fed up -- with business as usual,

that's exactly what we're about to get if congress adopts another continuing resolution that would cut resources to our troops, hamper the war against isil and delay the cutting-edge equipment and reforms that they need. a continuing resolution would also make the job of managing the government's largest agency even more difficult and at the worst possible time. the presidential transition process currently underway is difficult enough on its own, but no incoming president has ever had to inherit a department of defense operating under a continuing resolution. no incoming president. but this is not the time for us to break that streak. as the name suggests, a continuing resolution is supposed to continue funding the government -- funding the government in situations where the congress fails to pass a

regular appropriations bill. so what's the big deal about continuing last year's funding levels? our nation asks a lot of the men and women serving in uniform. we're asking them to defend our nation and our interests in real time against rapidly changing threats and adaptive adversaries. but a continuing resolution would lock our military into last year's budgets and last year's priorities. does anybody believe that this year isn't greatly dissimilar from last year on the battlefield? it would place our -- a continuing resolution would place our troops at greater risk by forcing them to operate under an outdated budget that does not recognize the full extent of the threats they face. worse still, a continuing resolution doesn't quite live up to its name.

a continuing resolution would actually cut funds for our troops. a continuing resolution passed by congress in september to keep the government funded through the end of this year cut the military's budget by $9 billion at annualized levels. under a potential year-long continuing resolution, our military would be short $ 12 billion. an incoming and elected president of the united states stated time after time that we needed to spend more money on defense, that we are not taking care of the defense needs of this nation. we're not taking care of the equipment and training and benefits of the men and women who are serving in the military, that we have the smallest army that we've had prior to world war ii, that we've got the smallest air force that we've had since the korean war, that we've got the smallest navy since the end of world war 1. sore what are we going -- so what are we going to do? what are we going to do in

response to all of that, as conditions around the world become more chaotic? we're going to cut defense spending by $12 billion. not only would a continuing resolution cut resources, it would leave them with a wrong mix of funding among accounts. that means the wrong kinds of money is being spent on the wrong programs because we are continuing what we did last year under a continuing resolution, our military would experience shortfalls in some very important areas: training for our national guard and reserve, troops would be at risk of falling off track. as vladimir putin's russia continues to menace our nato allies, our military would not be able to carry out the expansion of the european reassurance initiative which is essential to deterring russian aggression in eastern europe. might i adhere as an aside, it didn't seem to get much notice

that a russian aircraft carrier, a russian aircraft carrier launching aircraft with airstrikes into aleppo, my friends, that is the first time in history that russia, generally regarded as a land power, has not got sufficient ships and aircraft capability to launch attacks into aleppo and homes in other parts of syria. and guess what they're doing? they are slaughtering innocent men, women and children. they are killing the very people that we have armed and trained and equipped and gone and sent into battle. it is atrocious. a continuing resolution would put our troops at greater risk in afghanistan and in the fight against isil. the president has requested a $5.8 billion emergency supplemental to cover the cost

of additional troops deployed to afghanistan and expanded operations against isil in iraq and syria. but a continuing resolution would not include any of these necessary funds which would fill a shortfall looming in january. put simply, this cockamamie idea, this abrogation of our responsibilities called a continuing resolution would shortchange american troops that are putting their lives on the line in afghanistan, iraq, and syria. meanwhile, the department of defense could have in excess of as much as $6 billion in money under a yearlong continuing resolution. however, those funds would be unusable because of restrictions on new procurement, on buying new weapons systems and other requirements. there's restrictions on that and increases, and there is not authorization for increases in

production rates. for example, we are firing off a lot of missiles. we need to replace those missiles. we need to replace the aircraft that are wearing out. we need new parts for them. none of that is possible under what is now being contemplated. under a continuing resolution of these, of any duration, our military would have to delay 78 new starts, 89 production increases which would affect critical programs, and that includes the ohio class submarine replacement program, the kc-46 tanker, the apache, the helicopters, the blackhawk helicopters. a continuing resolution would also delay major research and development initiatives. in short, what we are contemplating cut funds for our troops. it inhibits their ability to serve the nation and they are

putting the men and women who serve in the military at greater risk. why? why? because we refuse to act. we who represent them, we who are supposed to be standing for them. we're not going to pass a new appropriations bill. we're just going to kick the can down the road for another three months or more. in other words, some may ask if this continuing resolution delays some programs, can't we just make it up later? some programs, perhaps. but there's one area where we can't make up the losses of a continuing resolution, and that is readiness. we're asking our troops to be ready to defend this nation at a moment's notice. we're asking our troops to be ready to take the fight to isil. we're asking our troops to be ready to deter and if necessary defeat aggression in europe, the middle east and the asia

pacific. we're asking them to be ready today. but a continuing resolution would force trade-offs that undermine readiness. in other words, they will not be able to conduct the training operations, the replacement of parts, the maintenance, all of the things that go into making a ready military that's ready to fight. we are impacting them. we are harming be their ability to do that with a continuing resolution. and adding additional readiness funds later in the year would be too little too late. just papering over our failure to give our troops the resources they need when they need it. readiness tomorrow does not replace readiness today. every senior leader -- every senior leader, uniform and nonuniform, at the department of defense has warned congress about the negative impact of a continuing resolution on our men and women who are serving us in the military. our secretary of defense, ash

carter, has stated -- quote -- "a continuing resolution is a straitjacket that 'prevents us from fielding a modern ready force in a balanced way.'" a continuing resolution secretary carter said -- quote -- "undercuts stable planning and efficient use of taxpayers' dollars." the commandant of the marine corps, general neller, washed washed -- warned a long-term continuing resolution -- quote -- "dramatically increases risk to an already strained fiscal environment and disrupts our ability to properly plan and execute a budget and a five-year program." suppose you had the company or a corporation and that company like most companies and corporations small and large operate on a year-to-year basis. you tell that company for the first three months of next year you're not going to get additional funds. you're not going to be able to

plan. you're not going to be able to do what's necessary. they wouldn't stay in business. they wouldn't stay in business. the chief of naval operations, admiral richardson warned that a continuing resolution would lead to wasted taxpayer dollars. under a continuing resolution, the navy would be forced to break up its contract actions into smaller pieces. as a result, admiral richardson warned the navy would not be able to -- quote -- "take advantage of savings from contractors who could better manage their workload and pass on lower costs to the navy. these redundant efforts to drive additional time and cost into the system are exactly the same output. the chief of staff of the united states army, general milli, made several warnings about waste and inefficiency resulting from budgetary uncertainty. have no doubt, what a continuing resolution does is causes budgetary uncertainty. it's just a fact.

he said things like multiyear contracts, developing long-term relationships with industry where they can count on us and so on, that becomes very difficult. and what ends up happening is the price per unit goes up. so it is built -- so it has built-in inefficiency. it has built-in cost overruns. it is an ungood situation. it is not good, and it needs to end. general l milli is right. this madness needs to end. it's time for congress to do its job. when it comes to doing our constitutional duty to provide for the common defense, there is no call for lazy shortcuts and shortchanging of our troops. let's pass the defense authorization bill as soon as we get back. let's pass a defense appropriations bill that gives our troops the resources, predict ability and flexibility they need and deserve. and next year with a new president and a new congress, let's go to work immediately on

ending sequestration once and for all and returning to a strategy-driven defense budget. and let's work together on a defense supplement that will serve as a down payment on rebuilding military capacity, capability and readiness that have suffered under years of budget cuts and uncertainty. this year, this congress, let's do our jobs and pass defense authorization and appropriations bills. this is what the american people expect of us. and it's what the men and women who serve and sacrifice on our behalf deserve us from. -- deserve from us. almost everybody that i know, except those that don't tell the truth, predicted that -- did not predict the result of this presidential election. and what we are finding out, much to the dismay of some and the surprise of almost all, is that the american people, particularly in some parts of the country, are very unhappy.

and one of the reasons for their unhappiness is they believe that they have a congress that doesn't work for them. they believe that their elected representatives no longer have their interests uppermost, and when they see continued gridlock in congress, of course, the frustration level goes up, the approval rating goes down. i haven't met anyone who approves of congress recently that was paid staff or blood relatives. so the fact is that when we kick the can down the road and do not provide the fundamental necessity, the most important obligation we have to defend this nation and provide the men and women with the training, equipment, and readiness and capabilities that they need, then it is no wonder the american people hold us in such low regard. so i urge my colleagues -- i urge our leaders on both sides,

let's take up the defense authorization bill when we get back -- and i think we can do -- and then let's take up the defense authorization bill. i have confidence in our appropriators that -- i don't agree with some of the things that they've done, but they've carried out their duties. why don't we move forward? instead, for three months or more, we're going to put the military in a state of uncertainty, limbo, and we will harm their ability to defend this nation, and that is not john mccain's view; it is the view of the men -- the leaders in the military that we entrust, the men and women to their leadership. so i urge my colleagues to let's get going. let's get the defense authorization bill done. we can get the defense appropriations bill done in a matter of hours. and let's get those other aeption pros bills -- appropriations bills done as well. those for the f.b.i., for the

c.i.a., for our other intelligence agencies, for those agencies of government that also -- the f.b.i. -- those agencies of government that are entrusted with the security of this nation. let's get something for them, too. let's not kick the can down the road. let's do the people's work. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, as a longtime member of the appropriations committee, i believe very strongly that we should have regular appropriations, year-long appropriations, not continuing resolutions in all areas. i would remind my friend from arizona that, by tradition, appropriation bills begin in the other body, in the house of representatives. they have not sent over appropriations bills, regular appropriations bills, and it was just reported in the last few

hours that donald trump has told them not to have regular appropriations bills but to have a continuing resolution until the end of march. frankly, the senator from arizona is right. i agree with him. we should have appropriations bills on all subjects. i am sorry that the president-elect has decided that in his spare time he'll also run the congress and will not allow full appropriations bills. but while we're on the subject of the president-elect, he's indicated some of his appointments he'll make. some, of course, will require advice and consent by this body, and we'll do that -- i hope, even though this body has

refused to advise and consent on a supreme court nomination now pending before it. but there are others that he can appoint without coming to the senate. one is a man named stephen bannon. it is amazing that the president-elect, having said that he wants to bring the country together, that he wants to be a president for all of us, would then appoint to his inner circle, the ear of the president, stephen bannon. let me just read who's in the chicago -- what was in the "chicago tribune," in an editorial. "the problem is that bannon, who's at the right hand of a president, also works as a conduit to hate and intolerance.

bannon has said breitbart is the platform for the alt-right, yet the alt-right is repellents nationalists political movement that breeds racism, anti-semitism, and misogyny. the alt-right miasma opposes feminism, diversity, gay rights, gun control, and civil rights. according to a college professor thomas mann. at the fringes of the alt-right is where you'll find american neo-nazis and the klan, two groups evidently thrilled by trump's victory." those aren't my words. those are the "chicago tribune's" words. i would ask unanimous consent that the full editorial be placed in the record at this point. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. leahy: mr. president, everybody, whether we supported donald trump or not -- and obviously i did not -- but we want to give any president a chance to bring this country together. we've become terribly divided during this campaign throughout the country. even my own state of vermont, we heard of some of these divisions. i feel fortunate that vermonters reelected me. i have never run negative campaign ads and did not this time. i was opposed by somebody who ran a totally negative campaign. i think people reject negativism. there is so much positive about america.

we talk about making america great again. there's no other country that we would trade with. what country would we trade our country with? none. we are a great nation. but what makes us great is our diversity and our ability to come together. that's what we should be doing. i'd hope the president-elect would reconsider, would understand what a signal this sends to -- what a signal it sends to the country naming stephen bannon his white house chief strategist. we don't need more division. we certainly don't need people who might attack someone because of their religion. we need people who will realize the united states is an inclusive country, not an exclusive.

this is not the message we should send, not within our own country, especially not throughout the world. mr. bannon wants to go back and do breitbart.com -- as horrible as the things they've said, as horrible as anti-semitism is, as offensive as all these religious things -- they have a first-amendment right. but don't set that as the example of the white house, the president of what is already the greatest nation on earth. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. whitehouse: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the pending quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you. mr. president, i believe that senator warren from massachusetts will be joining me on the floor, and i would ask unanimous consent that, if she is here on the floor at the conclusion of my remarks, that she be recognized next so that our remarks can be conjoined with one another. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you, mr. president. one of the hallmarks of president-elecpresident-elect tn

was -- one of the hallmarks of president-elect trump's campaign was his desire to often clean up washington to try to lift the dark hand of special interests off of the leaser -- livres of government, and to drain the swamp here. i would like to assure the president-elect that on this side of the aisle, we are very keen to work with him on a whole variety of reforms to control the role of big special interests, their lobbying apparatus and their political machinery here in washington. i very much hope that president-elect trump will indeed choose to work with us. i hope that he will bear in mind that although he won the

electoral college, it appears now clear that secretary clinton actually won the popular vote and that she may have won the popular vote by as many as a million votes. it is also worth noting that if 2012 is any prologue to 2016, it is likely that democrat members of congress, of the house of representatives, received more votes than republican members of congress. the shift and the reason for republican control of the house of representatives has been the gerrymandering effort that has packed democrats into very heavily saturated democrat districts so that republicans can create strong but not massive majority districts for themselves.

i believe in the last election -- the last presidential election, i should say, states like pennsylvania and ohio reelected democratic senators statewide, elected democratic president statewide but then sent heavily republican delegations to the house of representatives because of that gerrymandering. and it may be a fluke of the way the california vote would have shaken out, but it would not surprise me tab it turn -- me that if it turned out in this election, democrats eelectors received a big vote than republican candidates forbe the senate. so those numbers are not in yet, but my point is i hope that president-elect trump will recognize that in a divided nation it makes more sense and will bind us together better if

we try to work together across party lines rather than try to ramrod a hard-right partisan agenda through. and there is no place i can think of -- perhaps infrastructure -- but few places where we are more willing to hear his ideas and work with him than on draining the swamp. the environment here in washington is obviously one that lends itself to very substantial political manipulation. and in all of that political manipulation, most of the cards are with the big special interests. indeed corporate lobbying of congress has been reviewed and measured as being more than all other lobbying of congress combined by a ratio of 30-1. so if you're wondering where the

power structure comes down here in this building, think about a 30-1 advantage for corporate lobbying over all other lobbying combined. there are issues where i think we can work together if in fact president-elect trump wishes to drain the swamp that are subta substantive issues. one is the current interest loophole which is a quirk of the tax code that allows people who are hedge fund billionaires to pay a lower tax rate than a brick mason or a truck driver does. that to me is not fair. we have seen some reflections of this in studies that looked at, for instance, an enormous

building in manhattan in new york city. the building is so big that it has its own zip code. and because the internal revenue service calculates tax payments and income by zip code, we can get a general sense of how much money the individuals in that building make and how much they pay in taxes. and what you see when you look at that study is that the average income of the inhabitantses of that building was well over a million dollars but the tax rate that they paid was actually in the low teens in terms of a percentage tax rate. and if you look at what the department of labor says about

security workers and about janitorial workers, you see that they pay more like a 20 plus, 20% to 30% tax rate in new york city. so what that leaves you with is a circumstance in which the hedge fund mogul coming back to his luxury apartment building in his limousine as he steps out into the rain is paying a lower tax rate than the doorman or the security official or the janitor working in that building. the doorman holding the umbrella over the head of the billionaire is probably paying a i looker tax rate -- paying a higher tax rate than the billionaire. so i can see why donald trump raised that issue on the campaign. and i can see why crowds

responded to that. it is a disgrace in the tax code. we would love to work with him. but then you look at who his transition team is and the chiefs of his transition team are a whole slew of hedge fund and wall street billionaires. the people getting out of the limo paying the low tax rates. when it comes time for donald trump to keep his promise on carried interest, it will be interesting to see if he can hold his own against the insiders around him who want to preserve this disgraceful tax loophole. we want to work with him on infrastructure. we think there should be a big infrastructure bill. the civil engineers of this country give our infrastructure a d. everybody who drives on our roads or crosses our bridges know we need to invest in infrastructure. but the koch brothers have already thrown down a gauntlet saying that they will challenge

the president-elect on that infrastructure plan. will he have the strength to proceed or will the insider lobbying political operation of the koch brothers block him? it's another contest that remains to be seen between insider politics and the president-elect. finally, the biggest swamp thing of them all is the fossil fuel industry. the fossil fuel industry has more or less taken over the republican party in congress. what remains of the republican party in congress is a little bit like what remains of that unfortunate farmer in men in black whose body was occupied by the alien who then walked around in the skin and the overalls of the unfortunate farmer.

the fossil fuel industry is a special interest. it's the biggest swamp thing in the swamp. will the president-elect be willing to take it on in any respect? that, too, remains to be seen. there are a lot of very powerful creatures in the swamp. it's one thing to say you're going to drain it. it's another thing to actually take them on. i am here to assure the president-elect that not just myself but many democrats would like to work with him towards responsible climate policies notwithstanding the nefarious presence of the fossil fuel industry, toward an infrastructure bill notwithstanding the ideological opposition of the koch brothers, and on carried interest, notwithstanding the infiltration already of his transition team by wall street special interests. and with that i will yield the floor to my outstanding

colleague from massachusetts and i thank the president for his attention. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president, and thank you, senator whitehouse. mr. president, last week hillary clinton got about a million more votes than donald trump and yet here we are. donald trump won the presidency and across the nation everyone is wondering what happens next. it is barely a week but we have already seen disgusting ideas emerge from trump tower. put a white supremacist in the white house. float a plan to register all muslim americans. draw up plans to round up millions of human beings and rip families apart across this nation. it is sickening and we will fight back. but hey, at least he promised to shake up our corrupt political system, right? i mean, after all when president-elect trump announced his campaign, he called out the politicians who were -- quote --

controlled fully by the lobbyists, by the donors, and by the special interests. when he accepted his party's nomination at the republican national convention, he said, when innocent people suffer because of our political system has sold out to some corporate lobbyist for cash, i am not able to look the other way. he promised that he would -- quote -- not be controlled by the donors special interests and lobbyists who have corrupted our politics and politicians for far too long. and that he would -- quote -- drain the swamp in washington, d.c. those are his words repeated loud and repeated long during the campaign. president-elect trump has now named most of his transition team. so how is he doing on his rock solid doubledown promise to get rid of the special interests and the lobbyists?

big surprise. trump is not draining the swamp. nope. he's inviting the biggest, ugliest swamp monsters in the front door, and he's turning them loose on our government and on our economy. in just one week the president-elect has elevated a slew of wall street bankers, industry insiders and special interest lobbyists to run the show in his transition team. let's run through just a few examples here. the guy in charge of staffing, the federal communications commission was on verizon's payroll and has produced studies apriled at capping the net neutrality rules. the guy in charge of picking the team that will decide energy policy in a trump administration is a lobbyist for the oil and gas industry. the guy picked to staff up the department of agriculture is a -- quote -- veteran food and agricultural lobbyist whose firm

has raked in millions representing the food industry. the guy leading the transition for the environmental protection agency has been paid by the oil industry and denies that climate change is real. the guy heading up the transition team for the social security administration is -- you guessed it -- a former lobbyist who spent much of his career working to cut and privatize the social security system. the guy -- and by the way, you may have noticed a pattern here, almost all guys -- working on transportation and infrastructure is a founding partner at a law firm that lobbies for the national asphalt paving association. the guy in charge of economic issues for the trump transition team served for six years as chief economist at bear stearns, the wall street firm that helped crash our economy in 2008. and he now runs a consulting

firm for wall street clients. trump's very first decision is to hand over the keys of government to the worst kind of d.c. insiders and special interests. it seems like all those promises to stand up for working people were just a giant con. as the outrage has spread, now we've heard reports that vice president-elect mike pence has decided to remove all the lobbyists from the transition team. yeah, i'll believe it when i see it. if we learned anything from this campaign, it's that team trump will make up things if it seems convenient. last night we already heard another version of this story. seems that lobbyists can come on board but only if they draw their formal lobbyist registration when they join the team. you know, swamp monsters today, swamp monsters wearing clean shirts and ties for the

transition team tomorrow, and swamp monsters once the transition is over. put a clean shirt on swamp monster doesn't change anything. they have already had ample opportunity to stuff transition plans with ideas that will be good for their well connected clients. and they will be disastrous for everyone else. besides, even if the lobbyists finish up early and leave, the trump transition team is still full of indiscrete insiders seeking special deals for themselves and for their companies. this isn't subtle and you don't have to take my word for it. here's how politico put it this morning. quote quote" populist candidate who raid against shady financialists on the campaign trail is now putting together an administration that looks like an investment banker's dream."

in the same article one historian said -- quote -- "you have to go back to the 1920's to see so much wall street influence coming to washington." so what happened? how come the guy who spent the election tweeting, i'm not controlled by lobbyists or special interests is stuffing his transition team full of lobbyists and special interests? well, when you ask the president-elect about his flip-flop, he says he needs lobbyists on his team because -- quote -- "they know the system." he said -- quote -- "everybody is a lobbyist in d.c." that is literally the opposite of what he said during the campaign, and it is also not true. many americans both inside and outside washington have plenty of expertise to serve the american public without being bought and paid for by special

interests. you know, americans are angry about a federal government that works for the rich and powerful and it leaves everyone else in the dirt. donald trump knows that. he talked a good game during the campaign and he promised to end corruption. he promised to drain the swamp. and after one week we've seen what donald trump's promise means. nothing. his word, his promise to the american people is worth nothing. well, mr. president-elect, let me be clear. i'm ready to fight on behalf of the millions of americans you have lied to. that includes the millions who voted for you and the millions who didn't. thank you, mr. president. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call: mr. hoeven: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. hoeven: i ask that the quorum call be suspended. the officer without objection, so ordered. mr. hoeven: thank you, mr. president. i rise today to pay tribute to my deputy chief of staff, stephanie shizler, who is retiring this week after 41 years of service in the senate -- 41 years. shows a been working -- she's

been working here longer than 9 members of the current -- 99 members of the current senate, which you'd never know by looking at her because she still looks amazingly youthful. but she and senator leahy are ou--our longest-serving senator today, both began their senate careers in 1975. her dedication to this institution and to serving our country is absolutely remarkable. stephanie is a well-known member of the senate community, having worked for me as well as four other senators -- richard stone, a democrat from florida; then bob kasten, a republican from wisconsin; then a good friend of mine dirk kempthorne, republican from idaho; and then blanche lincoln, a democrat from arkansas -- before joining our office. so just a remarkable record.

stephanie's bipartisan resume is a testament to her expertise and her skill but also to her integrity. stephanie is beloved by the entire senate community, from fellow staffers to capitol police officers to the folks that maintain the building, and it seems like she knows all of them, if you can believe that. she's built wonderful relationships around the hill, which is one of the reasons that she's so effective. no matter what you ask of her, steph knows who to call and how to get the job done -- and done we will. -- and done well. that includes everything from hanging animal mounts in my front office -- and some of those, like a huge buffalo or bison head, can't be an easy proposition. she figured out how to get it done, and now even a drone from -- hanging it or suspending it

from the ceiling in our conference room. while stephanie has always excelled at her job, she's always helped those around hadder to succeed. she sha's an eye for recognizing -- she has an eye for recognizing talent. for example, when she worked for senator kasten of wisconsin, she hired a young man by the name of paul ryan as an intern. of course, today he's speaker of the house. stephanie has always been able to see potential in people. that's a great example. and she's always worked very hard to help them to succeed. she's been a mentor and a surrogate mother to many staffers, in my office, in other offices, and throughout all of her tenure working in the senate. i want to thank her husband gordon and her children nick and

lee for supporting stephanie during all those late nights and long weekends throughout her career. stephanie is truly a unique individual and an irreplaceable member of my team. i keep pleading for her not to retire, but so far it hasn't worked. i'm not giving up, though. but she is truly somebody who cannot be replaced. while we will miss steph, we're grateful for the positive impact she's had on so many lives and her amazing influence for the good in the snavment we thank her for her service to our country, and we wish her the best, a -- as she begins this new chapter in her life. we're so appreciative to have had steph as part of our team, and we will truly miss her. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor, and i note the absence of a quorum.

the presiding officer: and the clerk should call the roll. quorum call:

mr. franken: mr. president, i

ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. franken: and i would ask consent to speak up to about 20 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. flank frank thank you, mr. president. -- mr. franken: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise today to address president-elect donald trump's selection of stephen bannon, a divisive figure and former head of the alt-right web site breitbart to serve as chief strategist and senior counsel to the president. in the early hours of november 9, after it became clear that he had officially won the race for the white house, president-elect trump appeared before his supporters to deliver a victory speech. he said -- and this is a quote -- "now it's time for america to bind the wounds of division. to all republicans and democrats and independents across this

nation, i say it is time for us to come together as one united people. after a long an contentious campaign, it seemed to me that the president-elect implicitly being a nounalled that some of the -- acknowledged that some of the rhetoric used during the race had alienate and offended some of our communities. "i pledge to every citizen of our land that i will be the president for all americans, that i will be president for all americans." now, mr. president, it's no secret that i did not support president-elect trump during the campaign, but despite the fact that i disagree passionately with our president-elect about the best way to approach many, if not most, of the challenges facing our nation, i truly believe that there are places where we can find some common

ground. we both understand the need to rebuild our nation's crumbling infrastructure and to send americans back to work repairing our roads and bridges and our schools. both president-elect trump and i support closing the carried-interest loophole which allows private equity and hedge fund managers to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. these are issues on which i look forward to working with the next administration. so you can understand, mr. president, why i was encouraged by president-elect trump's call for unity because once an election is over and the heat of the campaign has subsided, the american people expect our leaders to come together, to find common cause and to get the work solve -- and to get to work solving our nation's problems. so i was disappointed when just

a few days later i learned that the president-elect trump had selected former trump campaign c.e.o. stephen bannon to serve as his chief strategist and senior counsel, a position the president-elect described as -- quote -- "an equal partner" to his incoming white house chief of staff. the selection of mr. bannon to serve at the very highest level of our government does not signal a willingness to set aside our differences and embrace unity. frar -- far from it. you see, mr. president, before mr. bannon joined the truch -- e trump campaign, mr. bannon was the executive chairman of breitbart news. now, breitbart nurks for those

who are not -- now, bright part news, for those who are not familiar with it, is a conservative web site founded by the late-andrew breitbart. even from its inception, breitbart was a bastion of far-right ideology whose writers and editors unapologetically courted controversy. but the site took a darker turn shortly after mr. bannon took it over in 2012. i think anger is a good thing, mr. bannon is quoted as telling a gathering of conservative activists, and it shows. mr. bannon guided breitbart away from more mainstream conservative opinion to instead traffic in an ideology of raci racism, misogyny, xeno phobia,

and anti-seminism. even a former breitbart editor, who has lamented the site's hard shift to the extreme right, described its comment section as "turning into a cesspool for white supremacist "me" makers. mr. president, i think it is important for the american public to understand exactly how mr. bannon's breitbart describes its fellow citizens. here are just a few of the articles breitbart published under mr. bannon's direction. "gabby giveds: the gun control movement's human shield." in this article included the quote "give fords is their human shield. the gun control representative

who could say -- do and say what she wanted without facing any real pressure to prove her claims were true." two weeks to the day after nine people were murdered at the emanuel a.m.e. chich in south carolina, breitbart published "hoist it high and proud:the confederate flag proclaims a glorious heritage." in the article, the writer asked -- quote -- "barack, you might just want to remind us again which state of the union, north or south, your ancestors resided in during the traumatic years 1861-1865 or did kenya not have a dog in that fight? " in political correctness protects muslim rape culture,

the author describes cases of sexual assault in europe -- quote -- "you won't hear much about it in the u.s. mainstream media because the epidemic is a by-product of the influx into europe of a million mostly muslim migrants." mexico is sending us colonists, not immigrants, a story in which readers are warned that -- quote -- "mexico sees mexicans as -- mexicans in the united states as strategic assets in every sense of that word. they are seen as extensions of the mexican state and partners in mexico's plan." this is nasty stuff. this is vile, and it comes all the way from the top, from

mr. bannon himself. in july, mr. bannon wrote a piece for breitbart in which he accused his political opponents of a -- quote -- "plot to take down america." by focusing on the need to improve relationship -- the relationship between law enforcement and communities of color. that was the plot to take down america. the article opened with mr. bannon explicitly and baselessly winking the man responsible for shooting police officers in dallas, texas, to the black lives matter movement. mr. bannon wrote -- quote -- "five police officers are murdered in dallas by a # #blacklivesmatter type activist turned sniper.

there's no question that the dallas shooter was a troubled man who harbored hate in his heart, a man who investigators determined was himself motivated by racist ideologies, but there is no evidence suggesting that the shooter was a member of black lives matter, a movement born in opposition to violence and hate. he was not a -- quote -- "activist turned sniper" a phrase mr. bannon crafted to suggest that the two roles exist along a continuum, to suggest that it's only a matter of time before the peaceful protester takes up arms. it is bad enough that mr. bannon sought to fan the flames of fear, anxiety and turn our

communities against americans peacefully exercising their first amendment rights, but mr.p at impugning activists who protest officer-involved shootings. no. mr. bannon proceeded to cast suspicion upon an entire race. he wrote -- quote -- "here's a thought. what if the people getting shot by the cops did things to deserve it? there are, after all, in this world some people who are naturally aggressive and violent ." while conspiracy theories aside, mr. president, theres a name for that kind of tactic. it's called a dog whistle. to some, such rhetoric doesn't seem -- may not appear overtly racist.

make no mistake, that's by design. not every person who hears that kind of language understands that by saying -- quote -- "some people are naturally aggressive and violent" mr. bannon is suggesting that black people, after all the ones shot by the police, are naturally aggressive and violent. but to the alt-right, to those who read his web site, mr. bannon's meaning is all too clear. now, mr. brawn -- mr. bannon doesn't always attempt to cloak his views, at times connecting lines he draws are much clearer. in the very same article, mr. bannon suggested that efforts by the obama administration to pursue gun safety measures in the wake of the orlando shooting are nothing more than an effort to divert

attention away from refugees. never mind that refugees were not involved in the incident. let's all remember, mr. president that the tragedy it the pulse nightclub in orlando, a shooting in which 49 people were murdered and 53 others were wounded, was carried out by an american-born u.s. citizen. nonetheless, mr. bannon wrote -- quote -- "in the wake of orlando, the obama administration, with hillary clinton cheering it on, intoned against guns and hate and is now back to importing more hating muslims." to suggest that members of a peaceful protest movement like black lives matter were in league with a cold-blooded killer, that the sympathies of

the president of the united states, while not with the victims of gun violence, but instead with those who would seek to do us harm. to pit members of vulnerable communities against one another, lgbt people against refugees, peaceful protesters against the cops who rushed to shield them from gunfire, is abhorrent. and regrettably, mr. president, we have no reason to believe that mr. bannon would not seek to deploy such tactics from the white house. after all, they featured prominently in the trump campaign's final television ad, in the spot the president-elect's voice warns -- quote -- "those who control the levers of power in washington and global special interests don't have america's best

interest at heart." at the same time images of george soros, federal reserve chair janet yellen and goldman sachs c.e.o. lloyd blankfein, all prominent jews, flash on the screen. to those who may not know better , such an ad would seem innocuous. but to me, its message is obvious. the ad's antisemitic overtones which draw on an old and hateful conspiracy theory about jews controlling banks and financial markets were obvious to me. i call that a german shepherd whistle, designed to be heard in some of the darkest remaining corners of our country and our world. a politics that relies on this type of innuendo, stephen

bannon's brand of politics has no place in a modern presidential campaign, and it certainly has no place in the white house. let's be clear, mr. president. the use of racially charged rhetoric and innuendo is repulsive. the very purpose of deploying dog whistle politics in the context of a campaign is to attract the support of people who harbor hateful ideologies without offending the sensibilities of more mainstream voters. every member of this body, mr. president, should condemn rhetoric that sows the seeds of discourse. it is our obligation not just as senators, but as americans, to stand up to mr. bannon's hateful, divisive brand of politics and to reject it.

we can't change the fact that such strategies played a role in this campaign, but moving forward, mr. president, it is imperative that we not allow these corrosive tactics to become normalized. we cannot allow them to become a regular part of our politics. and if president-elect trump truly meant what he said during his victory speech, if he truly hopes to be president for all americans, he will recognize that such tactics stand in the way of that goal. and he will renounce them. the women and men the leader chooses to surround himself with show the public what kind of leader he will be. president-elect trump has a choice. will he truly attempt to --

quote -- "bind the wounds of division" or will our next president seek counsel from a man who proudly traffics in hatred, half-truths and pernicious innuendo? will president-elect trump's administration open its doors to all people? or will it seek to govern by exploiting old prejudices and pitting us against one another. the campaign is over, mr. president, but the wounds inflicted during the long battle remain raw. it's time to set about the work of healing them. i urge president-elect trump to begin that work by surrounding himself with people equal to the task. mr. bannon is not one of them. and he should not serve in the

next administration. i call on president-elect trump to appeal to america's better angels and to reject the dark politics represented by stephen. thank you, mr. president.

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. a senator: thank you. our nation has gone through a difficult election and normally we would be making the pivot healing those wounds. but this election has been particularly rough and the wounds sustained during the campaign continue to haunt our

nation. mr. merkley: many groups of americans across our country are frightened for the future, of being deported, of being targeted as muslims, of resurgent racism towards african-americans, of anti-semitism, of losing their right to marry the person they love. unfortunately, they have good reason to be afraid. we have seen a surge, a wave of hateful, bigoted, raceist, sexist attacks happening in communities across our country since the election. the divisive rhetoric and conduct of president-elect trump's campaign over the past year and a half is responsible for unleashing this blight on our country, and he has the responsibility to turn things around,