i urge in administration and my colleagues to consider the costs of war that i have outlined and for all of us, republican and democrats, to work toward a peaceful and diplomatic solution to this crisis now. with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the mr. mcconnell: mr. president. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: for the past eight years we had a president eight years we had a president mr. president.

>> the majority leader. >> for the past eight years we have had a president who selected nominees for a nation's judiciary based upon what became known as the empathy standard, the empathy standard. an ideological litmus test designed to find judicial nominees who would favor certain groups or individuals over others. it's a great standard if you are the party in the case of the judge youhy have empathy for. it's not so great if you are the other person. not only does the standard deny every litigant a fair shake, it also disregards our nations bedrock legal tradition of dissenting equal justice under the law. president trump on the other hand is selecting nominees who will help ensure that the judiciary is true to his role in our democracy. later today the senate will vote to confirm one of those nominees

trevor mcfadden a district court judge for the district of columbia. his nomination was approved by the judiciary committee without a single vote inju opposition, t one vote in opposition. democrats needlessly delayed his vote or on the floor anyway. we have seen many delay tactics from them already this year. we push through everywe time. we are going to push through againn today. we are going to confirm the impressive judicial nominee before us and we we are going to confirm or judicial j nominees n the coming days as well. our effort to confirm qualified judicial nominees this year would notel be possible without the tireless work and effective leadership of our judiciary committee chairman chuck grassley. the bill under his committee i filed cloture last week on four well-qualified circuit court

nominees. these nominees understand their judge to put aside their personal preferences and design it on what the law says.t on what the we will confirm all of them this week no matter how long that takes. the first of these for circuit court nominees will confirm this week is professor amy barrett who was nominated by the president serve on the u.s. court of appeals for the 7th circuit. a mother of seven professor barrett again her legal cover your working for judge lawrence silberman of the d.c. circuit and then justice scalia. these prestigious clerkships gave her the opportunity to work closely with two giants of the legal field. today she is a respected professor at the university of notre dame whereby the way she was honored as a distinguished

professor of the year, twice. or this or barrett will bring a wealth of knowledge to the bench. professor barrett happens to be a catholic. her faith is important to her. she has spoken freely about it and the impact on her life but she also understands the role of the judge which is not to let personal beliefs dictate how cases are decided. unbelievably some on the political left including some of our democratic colleagues are criticizing her because in a lawsuit she wrote a law journal article that argued just that. her co-author of the article john garvey is now president of catholic university. he recently wrote the following. amy amy barrett allow professor of notre dame was grilled on wednesday by democrats on the senate judiciary committee about

an article she and i wrote together in 1998 when i was a law professor and she was my student. in that article we argued that the death penalty was immoral like the catholic church teaches and in common with quakers episcopalians presbyterians methodists and the 38 member community and the national pounces -- councils of churches churches. lamont is a catholic judge who held that view in rare cases happen recuse herself under the federal statute that asked a federal judge to step aside when she had conch and just scruples that prevent her from deciding a case in conformity with the facts and the law. president garvey once read that perhaps the lines of justice mounted the campaign to discredit professor barrett didn't get that far in reading the article.

the web site says this. stunningly barrett has asserted that judges should not follow the law or the constitution when it conflicts with their personal religious beliefs. iner fact this group claimed barrett has said that judges should be free to put their personal views ahead of the judicial oath to faithfully follow the law. the president noted however barrett said no such thing. she said precisely the opposite. they let people like president garvey wondering whether there is something going on here. the case against professor barrett is so flimsy garvey concluded that you have to wonder whether there isn't some other unspoken cause for their objection. president of notre dame also weighed in about these criticisms of professor barrett.

here are some of what he said in his letter to the ranking member of the judiciary committee. your concern as you expressed that he wrote is -- and professor barrett and it's a concern when you come to big t issuest that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country. i am one who's lives loudly he continued as it has for centuries in the lives of many americans. some of them have given their lives in service to this nation. chilling to hear from united edstates senators that this migt now disqualified someone from service as a federal judge. i ask you and your colleagues to respect those in whom dogma lives loudly which is a condition we call safe. a condition we call -- faith.

the attempt to live such faith could -- should command respect and not evoke concern.le professor barrett he wrote said she is followed unflinchingly and in rare cases in which her conscience would not allow her to she would recuse yourself. and i'll say that again. in rare cases in which her conscience would not allow her to do so she would recuse herself. i can assure you that she is a person of integrity who acts in accord with the principles she articulates. so mr. president let me remind colleagues that six of the constitution provides that quote no religious test shall ever be required in the qualification to any office. the united states constitution according to the founders this

is done to ensure that the people may employ any wise or good citizen in the execution of various duties of the government government. professor barrett of notre dame is just such a wise and good person and when the senate confirms her to the seconds circuit judiciary our nation will be better off. i strongly support her nomination and would urge my colleagues to do the same. >> thank you mr. president. good afternoon. this morning the former chairman of the trump campaign for president and a close associate turned themselves in to federal authorities on a dozen charges including acting as unregistered agents of a foreign power and conspiracy against the united

states. the indictments of mr. manafort and mr. gates show that the special counsel's probe is progressing in a very serious way and moving forward. what we know now is that an alleged unregistered foreign agent who was charged with wrongdoing tens of millions ofli dollars with foreign governments on behalf of their agenda was given the chairmanship of the campaign for the presidency of the united states and with it untold influence on the future president of his party. we know that mr. manafort has had continuing contact with the president since his resignation from the campaign. just as shocking was that the mission by a trump campaign adviser that he met with the kremlin contact to discuss so-called dirt on secretary

clinton. while we know that mr. mr. papadopoulos had expensive e-mail exchanges with other trump officials regarding his outreach to russian officials it is his admission that raises many more questions than it answers. mr. mueller and his team should be allowed to seek answers to those questions without interference from the president or anyone else. the stakes could not be higher. we are talking about the wellspring of our grand democracy, free and fair elections which have been going on for more than two centuries and we are disturbed and adulterated by hostile foreign power with no good intent for the people of this country. it's critical that we get to the bottom of this.

that is special counsel mueller's job and he must be allowed to perform it without interference. the rule of law is paramount in america. we pride ourselves on it. the investigation must be allowed to proceed unimpeded. the president must not under any circumstances in any way interfere with the special counsel's work. if he does congress must respond swiftly unequivocally and in a bipartisan way to ensure that the investigation continues and the truth, the whole truth comes out. now on judges. mr. president this week the majority leader has scheduled votes on four circuit court nominations. for the first time in my memory but the senate is being asked to process four circuit court judges in a single week.

the circuit courts have an immense influence on our country adjudicating some of the thorniest of legal issues but only the rarest and most vexing circuit court decisions are up peeled and taken up by the supreme court. for this reason we typically don't say it which circuit court nominees back to back, two back-to-back, to back. only a week after they have emerged from committee because members who are not on the judiciary committee usually need time, always need time to review these candidates for such important and powerful and far-reaching positions. why is the majority leader departing from this practice? well, one can argue it's because the republican agenda has been such a failure in this congress the leader has chosen to try to accomplish through the courts what republicans have been unable to achieve or the

legislative process. the republican agenda is so unpopular with the american people that it has stalled at every juncture. so now they have made a brazen move two packs the courts with judges and remake them in their conservative ideological age. why has the majority leader done it. the hard right frustrated at the failure of repeal and replace has for months been pressuring senator mcconnell to do something aggressive. senator mcconnell once again despite hise desire to make the senate work and i believe that is sincere in is bending to the hard right of his party by jamming through these judges, breaking the norms and traditions of the senate in the process t. i intend to oppose these extremist nominees. finally mr. president on taxes, the republicans have promised to

release the details of their tax plan this week. after months of talking about a plan with very few specifics we will finally get to see how the republican leadership plans to rewrite the tax code. from all indications so far the details of the republican tax plan will be chaired by those in the country clubs and corporate boardrooms a. working americans on the other hand may not have much to cheer about. the top 1% law firms headphones managers can celebrate a lower top rate and an enormous new tax loophole in the form of lower rates on pass through's. people who who will most take advantage of these pastors are not small businesses. they can't afford all the lawyers and stuff. it will be the biggest most powerful, the richest. the wealthiest 5200 families ine america, those with estates over

$5 million can celebrate the absurd repeal of the estate tax. corporate america can celebrate hundreds of millions in tax cuts which large corporations usually spend not on new jobs, not with the history shows that on ceo bonuses, stock buybacks. so while the wealthy and well off will be busy celebrating the new tax breaks they might get if the republican plan passes corporate america will be looking over their shoulder at some real tax hikes. republicans are debating how to eliminate or reduce state and local adaptability of bedrock middle class production claimed by nearly a third of all taxpayers the vast majority of whom make less than $200,000 a year. the republican framework says

they are going to eliminate the deduction o which totals tens of thousands of dollars ar year for many working families. that's why removing state and local races $1.3 trillion in revenue. the g.o.p. plans to spend that tax increase that they are getting from the middle class on tax cuts for big corporations and the superrich. to be clear it's b a one point 3 trillion-dollar hike on middle-class families. now there's a compromise on state and local deductibility that has been floated ined the press which is hardly much better. the republicans are talking about continuing to allow state and local detectability for property taxes but not incoming sales taxes. that compromise raises 900 alien meaning that republicans even with the compromise are instituting a trillion dollars,

nearly a trillion dollar tax hike on working families for the brakes at the very top. no matter how they construct this compromise republicans are still into the middle west and thedl upper middle class but ths time picking winners and losers. sales taxes hit consumers the hardest. ending the state and local to that the ability for sales tax would fall on the backs of working-class and middle-class americans particularly in states like tennessee florida and nevada which don't have an income tax but have a large sales tax. states like chairman brady texas on the other hand which have very high property taxes would be much better off. worse still the tax hike from the so isth called soft comprome would put huge pressure on state and local governments across the countryco whether to make the

agonizing decision about whether to raise taxes or cut spending for services, education, law enforcement, hospitals on which their constituents their middle-class constituents rely. a warning to my republican colleagues from high sale tax states like tennessee florida and nevada and high income states, a lot of republican congressmen in the states new york new jersey and california minnesota virginia colorado. this state and local compromise will not solve problems. the compromise did not solve your problems. it still hitchir or constituents write in their wallets. now another debate on the other side of the aisle is how do americans pre-tax contributions to their 401(k) plans. can you believe that? here in america where we want to help the middle class stay in encourage savings weak are makig

it harder. in layman's terms here's what our republican colleagues want to do. they want to tax their 401(k)s. i can't believe my republican friends are even considering such a bad idea. we had bipartisan support on expanding the ability to retire particularly now that so many companies are no longer giving pensions. giving americans the ability to put away free tax dollars for their retirement is one of the few provisions in our tax of that encourages early savings. tapping the amount americans can contribute pre-tax or in other words turning every 401(k) into something like a roth ira will discourage americans from saving and handicap their ability to retire leading to insecurity. now that defined benefit plans

have declined for years we democrats often joined by republican colleagues have looked for policy that would make for a one policies more attractive providere greater benefits. in other words the exact opposite of what the republican leadership is considering. .. special counsel mueller's russia investigation. watch "washington down"on tuesday morning. join the discussion. >> tonight on