[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> and the senate about to gavel in to resume work on nomination of notre dame law professor amy barrett to the 7th circuit court. if all the debate time is used her confirmation would take place in the middle of night, followed by a vote to limit

debate j joan larson to the 6th circuit. take you now live to the floor of the senate. the president pro tempore: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black , will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. sovereign lord of the universe, we pray today for all who govern.

use our senators for your glory, providing them with wisdom to live with the integrity that brings stability to nations. because of their labors, enable us to live peaceful, quiet, godly, and dignified lives, growing in grace and in a knowledge of you. lord, inspire our lawmakers in every situation to seek to glorify you, doing justly, loving mercy, and walking humbly on the path you have chosen. may they speak for those who

cannot speak for themselves ensuring justice for those who are perishing. lord, keep our senators ever in the circle of your unfolding providence, as they find delight in doing your will. we pray in your holy name. amen. the president pro tempore: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to our flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: the opioid crisis is hurting communities across our country. its challenges are complex and its causes are many. as i said last week, no single bill or program is going to solve this crisis on its own. only a sustained, committed effort can do that.

that's been my view over the years that i've been involved in this issue. from the first time i invited the white house drug czar to eastern kentucky to see the challenges posed by prescription drug abuse firsthand to my work on other initiatives like passing a law to help address the tragedy of babies born addicted to drugs. this is also what i believed is the republican-led worked hard to pass important legislation like jessi's law, the 21st century cures act, and the comprehensive addiction and recovery act in the last congress. i believe president trump took the same view as he announced another important step last week by declaring a public health emergency for opioids. i would like to once again thank the president for his commitment to continuing to confronting this crisis. we all know there's much further to go and as we're moving forward, republicans, democrats, the house and the senate, states and the white house, we should remain committed to working

together on policies and programs that actually deliver results. about an hour ago, the government accountability office released a report i requested about the federal government's response to opioid use disorders. the government's chief watchdog recommends that as the department of health and human services expands access to medication-assisted treatment, it should also develop clear measures to gauge performance. the g.a.o.'s study will help to ensure that dollars are spent wisely to fight the crisis of opioid abuse taking lives in communities all across our country. the announcement of g.a.o.'s conclusions will help us as we continue to build a comprehensive approach to combating heroin and prescription drug abuse. this is another step in the right direction as government officials review this morning's report and as agencies develop new plans to fulfill its objectives, i'll continue to work with partners in washington

and kentucky to address this important crisis. the goal, of course, is that one day we can finally put the pain of opioid abuse behind us once and for all. now, mr. president, on another matter, yesterday the senate advanced the nomination of professor amy barrett, president trump's impressive nominee to be a judge on the seventh circuit court of appeals. she is the first of four strong nominees to our nation's circuit courts that the senate will confirm this week. professor barrett's experience as a distinguished law professor at the university of notre dame shows her qualifications to serve our nation on the federal bench. she is going to be an asset to our judiciary. of course, some on the left have tried to invent any reason to prevent this president's nominees from advancing. for an outstanding nominee like

profess are a barrett, the task was not easy. they came to attack her cra den -- they can't asack her credentials which are impressive. they can't attack her belief in the rule of law. she is a nominee who will uphold our constitution and nation's laws as they are written -- as they are written, not as she wishes they were. now, unbelievably some on the political left, including some of our democratic colleagues, are actually criticizing professor barrett for a law review article she cowrote back in law school by saying it says the opposite of what it actually says. they claim that professor barrett wrote that a judge should put her personal beliefs ahead of the rule of law when in fact she said a judge should not do that. exact lip the opposite. -- exactly the opposite. she wrote if a judge's personal views were to impede that judge's ability to impartially apply the law, then the judge should recuse herself from the

case. as the coauthor of that article and current president of catholic university recently put it, the case against professor barrett is so flimsy, so flimsy, that you have to wonder whether there isn't some other unspoken cause for their objection. it does make you wonder. to those using this matter as cover to oppose professor barrett because of her personally held religious beliefs, let me remind you there are no religious tests, none for public office in this country. that's not how we do things here. our government and our nation are made better through the service of qualified people of faith. that will surely be true of professor amy barrett. i look forward to voting to confirm this accomplished law professor and devoted mother of seven later today and i would urge our colleagues to join me.

once we do, the senate will advance another of president trump's well qualified circuit court nominees, michigan supreme court justice joan larsen to serve on the u.s. court of appeals for the sixth circuit. justice larsen is the second of three accomplished women whom the senate will consider this week for appointment to our circuit courts. i assume that all three of these impressive women will receive strong support from our democratic colleagues who never seem to miss an opportunity to talk about the war on women. here's what nominees like larsen and barrett and the others will consider -- we'll -- and the others we'll consider this week represent for our judiciary. equal justice under the law for all. a share shake to every litigant. what a refreshing departure from president obama and his so-called empathy standard for selecting judicial nominees. really justice another of the

left's ideological purity tests and one that was anything but empathetic for individuals on the other side of the case. if you're the litigant for whom the judge does not have empathy, you're in a tough position before such a judge. finally, i'd like to express my gratitude once again to chairman chuck grassley for his continued work to bring these outstanding nominees to the senate floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order the senate will proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the barrett nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, amy coney barrett of indiana to be united states circuit judge for the seventh circuit. the presiding officer: the assistant democratic leader.

mr. durbin: mr. president, in recent days, the last two days, the republican leader senator mcconnell has come to the floor to complain about what he calls obstruction of president trump's judicial nominees. the majority leader must feel that many of us suffer from am niece ya. -- amnesia. it was just last year senate republicans under the leadership of that same senator mcconnell set a new standard of obstruction. the most prominent victim of republican obstruction, chief judge merrick garland, president obama's nominee for the supreme court. never, never in the history of the united states senate had the senate denied a supreme court nominee a hearing and a vote. senator mcconnell led the republicans last year in doing that. then senator mcconnell refused to even meet with judge garland,

refused to give him the courtesy of a meeting, even though the judge's qualifications were unquestioned and even though he had been confirmed to the d.c. circuit with broad bipartisan support. the way senate republicans treated merrick garland was disgraceful. but judge garland was far from the only victim of republican systematic obstruction during the obama presidency. in 2016 there were 30 -- 30 noncontroversial judicial nominees, 17 women, 13 men who were denied a floor vote by senate republicans. all but two of these nominees were reported out of the judiciary committee with a unanimous vote of democrats and republicans. some of these nominees, edward stanton of tennessee, julian neals of new jersey sat on that

senate calendar for more than a year waiting for a vote which the republican majority leader and his members refused to give them. during the last two years of president obama's administration, the republican-controlled senate confirmed only 22 judges in two years. that's the lowest number of confirmations in a congress since 1952. by comparison in the last two years of george w. bush's presidency, the democratically-controlled senate confirmed 68 judicial nominees, 22 under republicans for obama, 68 under democrats for president bush. and that's not all. republicans also obstructed 18 obama nominees by denying them blue slips. that's the permission slip from a senator from the state affected by the judicial nomin nominee. that included five nominees who had been state supreme court

justices who were not approved by republican senators to move to the federal bench. elizabeth taper hughes from kentucky, myra selby from qan, don beatty from south carolina, lewis butler from wisconsin, patricia timmons goodson from north carolina. senate republicans turned up obstruction of judicial nominees into an art form under president obama and yet senator mcconnell day after day has said, quote, i think president obama has been treated very fairly by any objective standard. he comes to the floor now regularly to complain about, quote, obstruction of trump nominees. senator mcconnell and the senate republicans set the standard for obstruction. if leader mcconnell thinks president obama was treated fairly with these facts, it's hard to understand why he's

complaining about the treatment of president trump's judicial nominees. so far this year the senate has confirmed four of president trump's circuit court nominees, four of his district court nominees. at the same point in his first year, president obama had one circuit court nominee and thee district court nominees confirmed. twice the number have been confirmed under president trump as were confirmed under president obama in each of their first years. president trump's nominees are moving twice as fast as president obama's when the republicans had the final word on approving matters on the floor. senator mcconnell controls the floor schedule. if he wants to schedule more votes on judges, i suppose he has the power to do it. he's exercising that power by doing something that's never happened in the history of the senate. four circuit court judge nominees will be considered this

week in the united states senate. and since the republicans in the senate are dedicating this week to judicial nominations, it gives us a good opportunity to look at the nominees that president trump has put forward for lifetime appointments to the second highest courts in the federal system. time and again, we have seen president trump nominate people far outside of the judicial mainstream. for example, there's john bush, now a judge on the sixth circuit, who blogd about the false claim that president obama wasn't born in the united states. who also compared abortion to slavery and said at his hearing that he thinks impartiality is an aspiration for a judge, not an expectation. damion shiff, nominee for the court of federal claims under president trump, who called supreme court justice anthony

kennedy, and i quote, a judicial prostitute, end of quote. jeff mattier, a trump nominee for the district court in texas who described transgender children as part of, quote, satan's plan, close quote, and who lamented that states were banning so-called, quote, conversion therapy that pseudoscience and attempting to, quote, convert lgbt americans into heterosexuals. and thomas farr, trump nominee for the district court in north carolina, whom the congressional black caucus describes as, quote, the preeminent attorney for north carolina republicans seeking to curtail the voting rights of people of color, end of quote. there is greg catsiss, nominee for the d.c. circuit, who refused to say at his hearing if the to torture technique known as waterboarding is illegal.

brett tally, a nominee by president trump to be a federal judge in alabama, has never tried a single case, and who wrote in a blog, and i quote, i pledge my support to the national rifle association, financially, politically, and intellectually, end of quote. there is alabama district court and trump nominee lyles burke who hung a portrait of conservative jefferson davis in his office and defended it, saying it had, quote, historical significance. oklahoma district court nominee charles goodwin who received a rare rating, very rare rating of unqualified to be a federal judge from the american bar association. the list of trump nominees goes on. routinely, we see judicial nominees under president trump

who have a history of taking ideologically driven positions that are out of the mainstream. nearly all the members of the right-wing federal society, nearly all of these nominees are members of the right-wing federalist society which president trump uses as his gatekeeper for the federal bench. remember neil gorsuch, the supreme court justice? do you know how he was notified that he had been chosen to be the nominee for the supreme court? well, you would expect a call from the white house, right? maybe even the president. no. the white house decided to delegate the federalist society to notify him and called mr. leo, their director, saying why don't you call mr. gorsuch and give him the good news? well, it's no surprise to those of us who know that the federalist society, this conservative group is now the gatekeeper for all federal judges under president trump. many of these nominees have

given no reassurance that they will be independent as judges, and the question obviously is the president who has unfortunately denigrated and pressured federal judges in the past, what impact will he have on them? now let's consider the nominees before the senate this week. professor amy coney barrett, nominated to sit on the seventh circuit court of appeals, is a distinguished professor at notre dame law school. she has strong academic credentials. she clerked for justice scalia on the supreme court. but she has no judicial experience. she told the judiciary committee she could only recall three litigation matters in her entire career that she worked on, three. she has never served as a counsel of record in an appellate case or ever argued an appeal. given her lack of judicial record and her minimal record as a practicing lawyer, the judiciary committee looked to professor barrett's academic writings to try to understand

who she is and what she believes. basically, that's all we had to go on. much of professor barrett's writings deal with when she believes it's acceptable for judges to deviate from precedent. for example, in a 2003 law journal article, she called for, quote, federal courts to restore flexibility to the stare decisis doctrine, end of quote. in a 2013 article, she said, and i quote, more legitimate for a justice to enforce her best understanding of the constitution rather than a precedent she thinks clearly in conflict with it, end of quote. these are extraordinary, some would say even extreme views about the obligation of a federal judge to follow established precedent from someone who is seeking a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land. much has been said, and i would like to address barrett's law review article.

she cowrote an article many years ago in 1998 with john garvey in the "marquette law review" entitled catholic judges in capital cases. this article was about what she perceived then as the recusal obligations of, quote, orthodox catholic judges, close quote. the article said some provocative things. here are examples, and i quote -- a judge will often entertain an ideological bias that makes him lean one way or the other. in fact, we might say that every judge has such an inclination, close quote. or, and i quote, litigants in the general public are entitled to impartial justice, and that may be something that a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense, end of quote. and she wrote when discussing, quote, the behavior of orthodox catholics in capital cases that,

quote, the judge's cooperation with evil passes acceptable limits when he conducts a sentencing hearing, end of quote. mr. president, this is the article written by the nominee. this is an issue raised by the nominee. it was such a profound statement about the relationship between conviction, conscience, and religious belief that it was the subject of many questions from many senators on the judiciary committee. for the last two days, senator mcconnell has come to the floor and talked about the left asking questions about amy coney barrett's religious beliefs. obviously, senator mcconnell has not read the transcript from the senate judiciary committee meeting. some have suggested it was inappropriate for the judiciary committee to even question the nominee about the impact of religious belief on the discharge of her duties. some of my colleagues have questioned the propriety of such

questions in light of the constitution's clear, unequivocal prohibition of religious test. but i would remind the senate it was the nominee herself in this 47-page law review article who raised this issue on whether the teachings of the catholic church should have any impact on the discharge of judicial duties of a catholic judge. is it any surprise that five different senators, three republicans, and two democrats asked her about the article that she had co-authored? it's no surprise that the gravity of this publication and the issue it raised led committee members on both sides of the aisle to ask questions about the nominee's religious belief, the contents of her writings, and how it would enact her discharge of her dawts if she was approved pie the senate. who asked the first -- by the senate. who asked the first question about the religious beliefs of

amy coney barrett? republican chairman of the committee, charles grassley. he noted that professor barrett had been outspoken about her catholic faith and asked her when it was proper for a judge to put religious views above applying the law. chairman grassley also asked in his second question how she would decide when she needs to recuse herself on grounds of conscience. senator mcconnell comes to the floor and suggests that any reference to that article somehow raises questions of religious bias. let me say for the record i do not believe that chairman grassley is guilty of religious bias, nor have i ever seen any evidence of it. it was hard to imagine how he could avoid the obvious. she had written a lengthy article, co-authored an article on the subject. he felt dutybound, as chairman of the judiciary committee, to ask her questions about her belief on the subject. i don't believe that chairman grassley would ever apply a

religious test to any nominee, but he and many of us felt it important to ask professor barrett to state her position clearly on the convergence of her faith, her conscience, and her duties as a federal judge. similarly, republican senator orrin hatch felt it necessary to ask professor barrett to make clear a judge's duty when the laws or constitution conflict with a judge's personal beliefs. again, i do not believe that senator orrin hatch, republican of utah, would apply a religious test to any nominee, but the nominee's writings and the questions that those writings raised led him thousand ask the nominee that question. later in the hearing, senator ted cruz, republican of texas, raised the same issue. i quote what he said to professor barrett. i've read some of what you have written on catholic judges and in capital cases, and in particular as i understand it,

you argued that catholic judges are morally precluded from enforcing the death penalty. i was going to ask you to just please explain your views on that because that obviously is of relevance to the job for which you have been nominated, end of quote. that was from republican senator ted cruz. i do not suggest that he was guilty of any religious bias in asking the question about an article written by the nominee. i take our constitution seriously when it says there should be no religious test for public office, but many senators on the judiciary committee, republicans and democrats, three republicans, two democrats, including myself, felt the writings of the nominee warranted an inquiry about our views on the impact of religious on a judge's role. that is far from a religious test in violation of the constitution. at her hearing, i asked professor barrett several questions about her 1998 law

review article. i asked her whether she still agreed with her article. she said in general that she did. i said even though i am a catholic, even though i have gone through 19 years of catholic education, i have never run into the term, quote, orthodox catholic, close quote, which she used in that article. i asked her if she could define it. what was she saying? whom did she describe? she said it was an imperfect term but explained the context for her use of it. i asked her whether she considered herself in that category. her term, using her term which she put forward as carrying certain obligations on judicial recusal. she acknowledged again that the term was a proxy and that it wasn't a term in current use. some have argued that i was imposing a religious test. somehow the three republican senators in asking the same question have not been

challenged. or that i was insinuating that catholics can't serve on the bench. that is absurd. i'm catholic myself. i deeply respect and value the freedom of religion in our country and our constitution, and i will let my record speak for itself about the numbers of catholic nominees which i have appointed to the bench or tried to appoint to the bench with the concurrence of the senate during the course of my career. i voted for many judicial nominees who were of the catholic religion, including judge robb ericson, outspoken about his catholic faith whom i voted for a couple of weeks ago. other nominees i voted against i didn't think had the experience, judgment or temperament to serve in the federal judiciary. at nominee hearings, i asked questions to try to understand how a nominee would approach the job of a judge. i asked professor barrett questions about issues she raised in her writings that would directly impact her

discharge of her judicial duties. and i would note that professor barrett put forward her views as part of the academic legal debate. contrast that with paul abrams, president obama's nominee from the central district of california, aggressively questioned by committee republicans last year about statements he made while speaking at his synagogue. republicans ultimately blocked paul abrams' nomination. no one on this side of the aisle, not this senator or any senator, questioned whether they were applying a religious test in rejecting his nomination. when judicial nominees have put forward their views on issues like the intersection of law and faith as part of the academic legal debate, i think it is fair for members of the judiciary committee to ask them about it. that is no religious test by my measure. i voted g.p.s. professor barrett -- i voted against professor barrett's nomination in committee because i don't feel

she has sufficient experience and because of her writings on precedent on the cases that have been considered. no one doubts that she is smart, but she has barely spent any time in the courtroom. the only basis we have to judge her on are the academic writings. let's be honest. if a democratic president had put forward a nominee with so little practical legal experience as professor barrett and with a similar history of advocating for not following precedent, i think we know exactly how the senators on the other side of the aisle would have voted. as it stands, i cannot support professor barrett's nomination. i oppose the nomination of michigan supreme court justice joan larsen to the sixth circuit. she is one of the 21 supreme court candidates that the federalist society and heritage foundation handpicked for president trump. clearly knows right-wing organizations are confident that they will like her rulings if she is confirmed. when she appeared before our

committee, i asked some simple questions and was troubled by the response toes. she wrote an op-ed defending presidenpresident bush's use ofa signing statement on the mccain torture amendment. the mccain amendment prohibited torture and cruel, unhuman, or degrading treatment. i asked her about that 0 op-ed and asked her if she believes waterboardedding is torture and illegal. she would not answer the question. the law is clearly on this matter. i voted against nominees in the past who would not acknowledge this. i also asked justice larsen about the $140,000 in ads that a dark money front group called judicial crisis network had run in support of her nomination. she is the same organization that spent millions of dollars in undisclosed donations running ads to oppose merrick garland's nomination to the supreme court.

i am troubled that special interest groups are make undisclosed donations to these nomination' front groups. the donations should be transport so judges can make informed decisions about recuse african american i asked justice larsen if she could call on this front group to stop running ads in support of her nomination unless made public. she responded this was a political debate on which she could not opine. i think that is an absurd position give than the debate here is on her own nomination. i also asked justice larsen if she agreed as a factual matter with president trump's patently absurd claim that three to mile million people voted -- that three to five million people voted illegally in the nomination. she ducked claiming this was a

political game i believe she has not shown the necessary independence and she does not earn my vote. i oppose the nomination of colorado supreme court justice allison eid to the tenth circuit. she is another on the short list of 21 supreme court nominees from the federalist society and heritage foundation which was assembled for president trump. she's now been nominated to the seat on the tenth circuit once held by supreme court justice neil gorsuch. i'm troubled by dissents that justice eid wrote in a umin of cases. i asked her about one ever them. the case western operator v. grove involved a hotel that evicted a bunch of college-age friends into the night. the young adul adults drove awad the car crashed and the person was killed. the family of one who was killed

-- into a foreseeablably dangerous environment justice eid's dissent argued that the court should have dismissed the grove's family claim on a motion for summary judgment. she said that she saw no dispute in the case because she claimed a hotel video showed there were taxi in the area. the majority of the court saw the same evidence, the same video came to the opposite conclusion. the majority wrote, video footage from hotel security cameras shows two taxis in the vicinity during the time frame of eviction. no taxi is visible on screen during the time in which the group exited the hotel and walked to the parking lot en masse. in other words, the majority of the court looking at the same evidence could not reach the same conclusion. it is difficult to understand how justice eid saw this evidence as undisdisputed and why she wanted this case

dismissed on summary judgment. until you read the part of her dissent where she talks about, quote, the burden that the majority is placing on colorado businesses, close quote, that appears to explain her ruling, not the facts in the case. i asked justice eid written questions if she also considered the burden the court's decision would place on the young adults and their families. she did not respond. this is one of her troubling dissents but there were others. in the 2014 case city of brighton v. rodry guess, her dissent would have denied workers' compensation for an employ who fell down the stairs and needed brain surgery. a case people v. boyd, her dissent criticized a position on a marijuana appeal. the cases go on and give ample reason why i do not believe that this troubling record justifies justice eid placing justice

gorsuch on this important court. mr. president, the last nominee which i will address is i believe the most unusual, one of the most unusual i've ever seen before the senate judiciary committee. it is stephanos bibas, nominated for a lifetime appointment to the third circuit court. in 2009, professor bibas wrote a lengthy draft paper entitled corporal punishment, not imprisonment, end of quote. in it, he said for a wide range of crimes, quote, the default punishment should be nondis-figuring corporal punishment such as electric shocks, quote close. he went on to call for putting offenders, and i will quoting, in the stocks or pillory, where they would sit or stand for hours bent in uncomfortable positions. professor bibas then went on to

say, bystanders and victims could cheer and pelt them with rotten eggs and tomatoes (but not rocks), close quote. professor bibas called for multiple calibrated electroshocks or taser shocks, close quote, with medical personnel on hand to ensure, quote, that the offender's health could bear it, close quote. he also wrote, and i instinctively many readers kneel that corporal punishment must be unconstitutionally and immorally cruel. but near the objection withsta withstands scrutiny, close quote. he then wrote that corporal punishment, quote, in moderate without torture or permanent damage is not cruel, close quote. professor benefit bas said at his hearing he didn't ultimately

publish the 60-page footnoted paper because realized that his writings were wrong and offensive. he now says that he rejects this paper. but his 2009 paper was not just scribblings on a notepad. this was a polished, 60-page draft law review article. professor bibas admitted that he'd presented this draft paper to conferences. on june 8, 2009, a conference at the university of pennsylvania law school, on jewel 20, 2009, at george washington university law school, on september 12, 2009, at vanderbilt criminal justice roundtable. but according to the web site of the federalist society, professor bibas also gave presentations on this same article to three student chapters in the federalist society. september 3, did 009 at george

mason october 212 at the university of florida, october 22, 2009 at florida state, incredible bring, this presentation was advertised with the title, and i quote, corporal punishment: not imprisonment. the shocking case for hurting criminals, close quote. this is an insensitive title for a presentation that called for administering electric shocks to human beings. in his draft article, professor bibas thanked nine other people for their thoughts and comments on this paper. this was not something the professor wrote as a child or hurricane katrina a student -- or even a student. when he wrote this paper in 2009, professor bibas was a professor at the university of pennsylvania law school and he'd already worked as an assistant u.s. attorney u and he wrote this paper after congress had considered the mccain torture

amendment. at the hearing i asked him, do you remember the debate we went through as americans about the acceptable method of interrogation for a suspected terrorist overseas? do you remember the debate we had on the floor when senator mccain, the victim of torture himself as a prisoner of war in the vietnam war, came forward, authored an amendment which got a vote of 90-9 condemning torture cruel and inhuman and degrading treatment and the treatment of prisoners suspected of being terrorists? i asked him if he remembered that debate which occurred three years before he wrote this outrageous article. and he said, well, i want to make it clear, he said at the hearing, that i don't support waterboarding. so you support electric shock on american prisoners but you do not support waterboarding? and he said on the record under orientation i know it was a

crazy idea, close quote. this is a man seeking a lifetime appointment to the second highest court in the land. this paper deeply troubles me. not only did professor bibas go a long way down a dangerous path with his proposals, but this law school professor got the law wrong. the supreme court had made it clear in 20023 in the case of hope v. pelzer that corporal punishment in that case, the punishment practice in the state of alabama of restraining prisoners by tying them to a hitching post in uncomfortable positions constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment. professor bibas wrote his paper, workshopped it, took it to six different universities and then ran away from it only after he heard how offensive his professionals were. that's not my only concern about

his nomination. we spent a lost time at the hearing talking about his aggressive prosecution of linda williams. what was she charged with? the alleged theft of $7 from a cash register. the magistrate judge acquitted this defendant, even before the closing argument from defense counsel. the case was so weak, and yet aggressively pursued by then-attorney bibas. professor bibas apologiesed at the hearing for this prosecution, but we've seen over and over again many people who try to walk away from who they are, what they've done when this comes to a confirmation hearing. i believe these cases that i've mentioned, and particularly this outrageous article, show a real insight into the judgment and temperament of this judicial nominee. mr. president, i've been a member of the senate judiciary committee fo for a number of yes and i have a seen many nominees. i will tell you without fear of contradiction, i've never seen a

nominee who has written an article that is so unsettling, so worrying. i wonder about the temperament of this nominee. given the power that we are about to give him to judge the fate of others for decades to come, can we really trust his temperament? can we really trust his judgment? sadly, if the shoe were on the other foot, if this were a nominee that had been proffered by a democratic president before that same committee, i know exactly what his fate would have been -- he would never have been taken seriously or considered for such a high position. i ask consent that in the course of this statement that in a section that related to the nominee coney barrett that the article in question be placed in the record so that others can read it in its entirety. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. durbin: and i ask that the article by stephanos bibas entitled "corporal punishment punishment:not imprisonment" also be added in the "congressional record" in its entirety so that those who read my statement will understand exactly what it was based on. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: 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. schumer: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. yesterday morning we learned that for members of the trump campaign, mr. manafort, his one-time campaign chairman and mr. gates, a close associate of manafort's, were indicted on a dozen charges as part of special counsel mueller's investigation, including money laundering, a

conspiracy to commit fraud, and a conspiracy against the united states. the fact that the activity in question took place partially before the trump campaign offered mr. coman fort the role -- manafort the role of chairman in no way diminishes the gravity of the situation. if anything, it suggests that the trump campaign was negligent in hiring as its chairman a man who is an unregistered foreign agent working for a pro-russian proxy party in ukraine. that man is now alleged to have been laundering large sums of money and concealing his identity as a foreign agent to the f.b.i. and department of justice, including during his time during the trump campaign. imagine, imagine having such poor vetting and poor judgment to hire such a person as your campaign manager. we also learned that a trump campaign advisor met with the kremlin contact to discuss dirt

they possessed on secretary clinton and had several e-mail exchanges with other trump officials about his outreach to the russians. this disclosure should put an end to the idea that there is no communication or possible connection between the trump campaign and russia. it is not fake news, mr. president. it is not fake news. there was a connection between the trump campaign and russia. who was involved and how much and what happened is yet to be determined, but there was a connection, even though the president has denied that connection for months. the president can assert whatever he wants on twitter but the facts are the facts. there were official members of the trump campaign who were receptive to working with a hostile foreign power to attain damaging information about their political opponent. these revelations should concern

every member of this body, democrat, republican, independent, liberal, moderate, conservative. i understand the strength of this intrif cal forces in politics that weave everything into a partisan battle between two sides. there are two sides to every argument but no one is above the law no matter what side of the argument you're on. rule of law, an american democracy are indisputable as our bedrock. we cannot abandon it for political expediency. special counsel mueller who served both republican and democratic administrations, a lifetime public servant, a man of unimpeachable integrity was appointed by president trump's deputy attorney general. mr. mueller was a career prosecutor and as straight a shooter as they come.

he must be allowed to finish the work he started without any interference. president trump if he had nothing to fear like he claims would encourage special mueller to follow every lead and pledge his full cooperation. inst instead, president trump is again trying to divert our attention by making spurious allegations and trying to knock down anyone or anything in his way, playing right into the partisan two-sides instincts of washington. but, mr. president, this goes beyond partisanship. it goes right to the rule of law. the president has this tendency to call anyone who disagrees with him, anyone who has facts that he doesn't like a liar, dishonest, this, that or the other thing. that has demeaned and degraded our presidency and even our country. there are places where it must stop, and it should stop at rule of law.

and i say that to president trump who may never listen, but i say that to my republican colleagues here in this chamber. the founders of the public put at the center of our civic life no religion, dogma or sovereign, but rather the rule of law. it's what separated the american experiment from the hereditary monarchies of the era and outdated ideas like the divine rights of kings. the rule of law holds in check our people, including our president. donald trump is president, not king. he cannot decree things to go away, that facts are not facts. he is as subject as anyone else to the rule of law. that's what makes our democracy

so grand. no one, no one is above rule of law's protection -- sorry. no one is below rule of law's protection. no one is above its reproach, including the president of the united states. it safeguards our democracy from the user patience of demagogues and would-be dictators. it's why this noble experiment, the american experiment continues. and donald trump is shaking the foundation of that when he tries to get out from special counsel mueller's due process. what special counsel mueller represents is the rule of law at work in the 21st century democracy intentionally and spuriously impugning his integrity or sneering his efforts as partisan is not only

inaccurate, is not only false, is not only fake, but it's damaging to a core ideal in our country, the independent, impartial rule of law that no man, even the president of the united states, even donald trump, think what he may, is above the rule of law. special counsel mueller's investigation must be allowed to proceed unimpeded, and my friends on the other side of the aisle must help dispel the notion that his investigation is in any way partisan. to their great credit, many of my colleagues have done just that in the last 24 hours, and i salute them. the american people must have faith that when the very foundations of our democracy are shaken by a hostile foreign power, our independent judicial system built on the rule of law will not be degraded by partisan politics. we must loudly reject the forces and actors who will try to make it so on both ends of

pennsylvania avenue, and our leaders, our republican leader in the house and senate have an obligation, have an obligation to tell donald trump to lay off the mueller investigation and let it proceed where it goes. that's what our democracy is all about, and that's what leadership is all about. now, on taxes. according to their timeline, house republicans are set to release the details of their tax plan tomorrow. we'll see if they can do it, and if so, just how detailed it will be. what everyone in america should focus on is the question of who exactly the republican plan will benefit. will it be the poor, the working class, the middle class, or will it be big corporations and the richest 1%? we live in a time of immense inequality, so much so that it strains the bonds of affection that bind us together in this country. the wealthy have amassed

astonishing wealth, and god bless them. we don't begrudge them for their success. but working americans and middle-class americans have slipped further and further behind. the president is surely aware of this. he rode into the white house by channeling the legitimate anger and anxiety of working-class americans who have seen their jobs shipped overseas. will president trump and his republican party, once in power, turn around and rewrite the tax code to benefit the wealthy few at the expense of the middle class? will he do a 180-degree turn from what he campaigned on and what he talks about and pass a plan that the hard right, those wealthy thousand people who give so much money to republican party and think tanks, will he bow to them against everything what he campaigned on and what he says? it sure seems so. on wednesday, republicans will

likely propose to eliminate or substantially reduce the state and local tax deductibility of bedrock middle-class exemption claimed by over a third of all taxpayers, not just the wealthy, most of whom are in the middle class or the upper middle class. the proposal caused such angst in the house that it almost brought down the budget resolution, so republicans have crafted a compromise that would allow taxpayers to claim state and local deductions on property taxes but not sales and income tax. that compromise would still cost the taxpayers $900 billion. taxpayers in high sales tax states, tennessee, florida, nevada, would get whacked, as would taxpayers in high income tax states like new york, new jersey, california, minnesota, virginia, colorado. go figure that high property tax states like texas, chairman brady's state, would be better off under the proposal. picking winners and losers like

this doesn't solve the problem. the new state and local compromise is still a nearly trillion-dollar tax hike on the middle class to pay for tax giveaways to big corporations and the very wealthy, and i say to my republican colleagues, particularly those from suburban, fairly affluent districts in the house, middle class and upper middle-class districts, they vote for this compromise at the same peril as they voted for the bill that would totally eliminate state and local deductibility. the damage still remains, and don't think a small compromise, a small haircut can let you escape from the political whirlwind you will reap if you vote for this bill. now, the republicans are also likely to unveil tomorrow what they plan to do with 401(k)'s. we've heard reports that republicans want to tax 401(k)'s to get more revenue to pay for their tax giveaways to the rich.

it's another clear example that this plan is not going to be for the middle class. 401(k)'s are one of the best tools we have to encourage americans to start saving early for retirement. we know americans aren't doing enough of that right now, at the same time that defined benefit plans are enjoyed by fewer americans than in the past as companies reduce or eliminate pensions. why make it even harder for americans to prepare for their retirement on their own by saving through 401(k)'s? why tax them? so you can give tax cuts to the very rich. we democrats have a better deal deal to offer the american people on 401(k)'s. rather than have uncle sam dip his hand into american retirement plans, we democrats believe americans deserve a helping hand when it comes to their retirement. in just a short time, we will release our 401(k) plan. mr. president, i yield the

floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. president. last week, we voted on a judge who felt it necessary to sign up for a lifetime membership with a political organization in order to get his nomination forwarded back before this body. the judge we voted on last week became a lifetime member of the n.r.a. in between his appointment by president obama and then his appointment by president trump, a signal, apparently, to the new republican white house that he would align with their interests and views on interests related to the regulation of firearms in this country. we're going to see a parade of

very interesting choices for the federal judiciary come through this body, and they are going to be moved in rapid scetion as they are this week. i have been told that never before have we taken four votes on appellate nominees in a single week, and of course that stands in contrast with the republican senate that refused to even give a hearing to one supreme court justice over the entirety of 2016. i think it's worth knowing that this body can move fast when it wants to, and yet we watched a supreme court seat be stolen by this senate from a democratic president who, by constitutional right, had the ability to make that appointment. i bring up the lifetime membership in the n.r.a. because it is increasingly clear that you have to signal a level of extremism on issues like firearms in order to get your

name brought before this body, and that signal is wildly out of step with where the american people is on many of these issues. i have come down to the floor, mr. president, over the course of the last four years every few weeks in order to talk about the fact that there is no other country in the world where 80 to 90 people every single day die from guns. the numbers are absolutely stunning. 2,823 a month guy from guns, 33,000 a year. the majority of those are suicides, but there are a record number of homicides and accidental shootings in this country. americans by and large don't accept this rate of slaughter. americans want us to change our laws, and they don't want a judiciary which is going to stand in the way of congress'

ability to follow the wishes of our constituents. i have been coming down to the floor to tell the story of the victims because my hope is that, although the data hasn't moved this congress, 90% of americans want stronger gun laws, data incontrovertibly shows that in places that have universal background checks or laws requiring you to get local permits before you buy a gun, there are less gun crimes, maybe if the data doesn't move my colleagues, the stories of the victims will. deion rodney was shot on octobea few weeks ago. he was working at just right cuts where he was a barber in bridgeport, connecticut. he was the 22nd homicide victim in bridgeport this year. he had just finished cutting a young boy's hair in a chair when

a masked gunman chased somebody else into the barber shop. police said that deion was protecting the young boy, shielding the young boy from this intruder who came running in. he jumped out of his chair to try to get in between the boy sitting in the barber chair and the gunman, and the gunman shot him. the owner of the barber shop said deion had just finished his haircut, and the boy was getting ready to go outside when the gunman came in. he saved everyone in the barber shop. deion is 31 years old. he left behind his wife, his mother, brenty of other family members, and an 8-year-old daughter. speaking about their daughter, deion's wife said he loved her endlessly, unconditionally. his mother said deion is a part of me, he was my son, but he's also my friend.

his cousin said i know that everyone is recognizing his heroism now, but he was always like this, always a role model, always willing to give, always willing to go out of his way to help a stranger. nothing has changed all these years. i guess i'm glad that the masses can now see this. the owner of the barber shop went on to say deion's dead because of these people running around with guns. there are guns everywhere you look, in cities like bridgeport or new haven or hartford or new york or chicago. and people say, well, why is that? why are all these guns, many of them if not most of them illegal guns if you have strong gun laws in places like new york and illinois and connecticut? well, the reason is that gun

trafficking doesn't recognize state boundaries, and the guns that are used to commit crimes in places like connecticut come from outside of connecticut. a comprehensive ground-breaking survey of gun crimes in new york city found that 75% of the guns that are used to commit crimes in new york city come from outside of new york state. they come from states with looser gun laws in which you, as a criminal, can easily buy a gun without having to prove that you are a responsible gun owner. how do all these illegal guns get into bridgeport such that somebody can turn a corner, walk into a bab ber shop with a -- into a barbershop with a weapon in their hand? it's because criminals with criminal records go into gun shows in states that don't

require background checks at those forums, buy up dozens of weapons, load them into their car and then drive up to states with tougher gun laws and sell them on the black market. congress willingly allows this to happen because we have not moved our mandatory system of background checks to the places in which gun purchases are made today. data is a little bit hard to pin down, but anywhere from 25% to 40% of gun sales today don't involve a background check, and you can understand why sales have migrated to online. they've migrated to gun shows. they've gone to places where background checks aren't required. and i mentioned what the data tells us when it comes to background checks. the data tells us that background checks save lives.

here's just one slice of the data. in states that have universal background checks laws, 47% less women get shot by an intimate partner than states without universal background checks laws. that's because in the heat of passion domestic abusers often go to get a weapon, use it to perpetuate a domestic violence crime. you can't do that if you have a domestic violence history in a state with a universal background check law because wherever you go, you're going to be prohibited from buying that weapon. since november of 1998, more than 2.4 million gun sales to prohibited purchasers have been prevented because of background checks.

2.5 million people who were criminals or who were addicts or who were seriously mentally ill were stopped from buying guns because of our background checks laws. but because we now have at least one-quarter of all sales happening without background checks, that means that there are hundreds of thousands of criminals, hundreds of thousands of people with serious mental illness who are able to buy guns. so it's not surprising that 90% of americans, 90% of gun owners, 60% of democrats -- 90% of democrats and 90% of republicans support expanded background checks. i would argue that there's not another issue out there in american politics today that enjoys 90% support amongst republicans and -- amongst republicans and democrats. senator durbin corrected me and said that the latest survey is

actually 94% support from republicans and democrats. the only slice of the american electorate that you can get under 90% is n.r.a. members. and n.r.a. members support universal background checks at a 75% clip. so background checks saves lives. they are supported by the vast majority of the american public. and yet we can't get it done. this month, i along with a couple dozen cosponsors introduced a new version of legislation allowing for background checks to occur in every commercial sale that's conducted in this country, with commonsense exceptions: making sure that when you're gift ago firearm to a family member or loan ago gun to a friend who wants to take it to go hunt,

that you don't have to conduct a background check in those circumstances. but it it is a traditional arms-length sale, you have to go through a process that usually takes about ten minutes in order to prove that you are not a criminal. this proposal is supported by 90% of americans. and it is time that we recognize that it is directly connected to this epidemic of gun violence that plagues the country. let me close by making another argument to you. i know a lot of my republican friends talk a lot on this floor and on the cable news shows about the threat of terrorism to this country. well, when the terrorists decided to use planes as their weapon of choice to attack our country, we changed the way that our law protects us from attack by airplane. we made sure that we screened

individuals before they got onto these planes to make sure that they don't have weapons or bomb-making material that could ultimately threaten the rest of us. we now all take off our shoes every time we get onto an airplane because wreak that we needed to change -- because we recognized that we needed to change our laws in order to change the way these planes were being used to attack our citizens. these terrorists have recognized that it is now pretty hard to get son a plane. so they are now directing would-be tackers to a different forums. isis' propaganda magazine encouraged recruits in the united states take advantage of our loose gun laws. it specifically told people to go to gun shows where you will not have to present identification or submit to background checks in order to

buy military-style weapons that you can use to kill dozens of americans. isis and al qaeda are telling their potential recruits in the united states to go to gun shows so that they don't have to submit themselves to a background check, so that there is no paper trail of the gun that they are buying in order to kill americans. why wouldn't we adjust our laws to recognize that the new weapon of choice of terrorists is not an airplane but it is today a tactical weapon bought outside the background check system? i've got a million more reasons why we should do what 90% of american public wants and someday maybe we'll get there. 33,000 people a year, 2,800 a month, 93 a day. that is a rate of gun violence that is not twice that of other

industrialized nations, it the not five times, it is not 10 times. it is 20 times higher than the rate of gun violence in other industrialized countries in this world. and it is not because we have more people that are mental lil. it is not because we spend less money on law enforcement. it is, by and large, because we have a set of gun laws that allow for illegal guns, dangerous weapons to flow into the hands of very dangerous people. i hope my republican colleagues will take a look at the new background checks legislation that i've introduced with many of my colleagues and we can finally goat a place that -- get to a place that 90% of our constituents want us to be. i yield the floor.

ms. warren: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts is recognized. ms. warren: thank you, mr. president. just last week the republican-controlled congress rammed through a budget were the sole purpose of allowing republicans to enact a tax plan that will take money from working americans and put it into the pockets of giant corporations and wealthy individuals. the following week, they tilled an important rule that would have made it easier for americans to hold big banks and corporations accountable when they lie, cheat, and steal from working families. there have been countless stories of the trump administration in disaray, juicy rumors of distrust and division between and among congressional republicans and the white house, reports of republicans' inability to advantages key parts of their agenda. but that is only half the story.

the other terrifying half is this -- since day one of this administration, president trump and congressional republicans have been working hard to make government work better and better for the rich and the powerful. and while they have fumbled on their legislative agenda, they have been quietly working to help powerful interests capture our courts. now, that shouldn't come as a surprise. for decades, those powerful interests have poured eye-popping amounts of cash into electing politicians who will promote their interests in washington. they have handpicked politicians who will enact laws that will make it easier for corporations to abuse their workers or cheat their customers or make an extra buck and make it harder for agencies to hold them accountable for wrongdoing. they have executed a well-funded campaign to rig the rules of the

game so that the powerful always come out on top and the people come out on the bottom. and they know that the courts are the place where they can shape the law for decades to come. most americans already know that while we have one set of laws on the books, we really have two different judicial systems. one justice system is for the rich and the powerful, and in that system, government officials fret about being too tough on white-collar crime, so corporations walk away with a small fine and a pinky promise not to do it again. and when those executives break that promise, they get second, third, and 23rd chances. every time they get caught, the cycle repeats. the corporation pays the fine, says some magic words, and everyone goes right back to breaking the law.

the second justice system is for everyone else, and in that system, tough on time is the name of the game. people are locked up long before they go to trial because they don't have the money for bail. individuals who commit minor, nonviolent offenses are slapped with long prison sentences. and even after they serve those sentences and are released, they can branded with a scarlett letter that - creates barriers o housing and opportunity. that second justice system even traps families and children and elderly parents whose families are blown apart and whose communities are destroyed. that second justice system has earned america the dubious title of holding the world's highest incarceration rate. despite having less than 5% of the world's population, the u.s.

holds more than 20% of the world's incarcerated population. russia, china, north korea -- they don't even come close. not only in raw numbers but in the percentage of their population behind bars. america's legal system is great at locking people up, but terrible at doing what it's supposed to do. dispensing equal justice under law. those words, equal justice under law, are etched into the front of the supreme court. if we truly believe those words, we need to start making some changes. the and in recent years we've seen some progress. some state and local governments have made real efforts to reduce crime and lower incarceration rates. massachusetts is one of the states leading the way with elected officials in both parties debating transformative changes to the judicial system aimed at replacing this

tough-on-crime policies with smart-on-crime policies. the call for he reform also extends to corporate crime. public outrage at corporate greed has created pressure to hold the rich and the powerful a little more accountable. but president trump is committed to reversing that trend. he's working hand in hand with this republican congress to ensure that the rich get to play by their own set of rules while everyone else gets crushed under the awesome power of law enforcement. this week will be a big step forward for the two-part justice system, as this senate prepares to hand lifetime appointments to four judges whose careers make it clear that they have no interest at all in fixing our broken justice system. so let's just take a look at their records. colorado supreme court justice

allison eid, who was nominated to serve on the seth circuit court of appeals -- on the tenth circuit court of appeals has used her power as a state supreme court justice to shield corporations from accountability. she has voted to make it harder for individuals to bring class action lawsuits against huge corporations that break the law. sound familiar? mrs. eid would fit right in with the senate republicans who just voted to make it easier for big banks and financial institutions to cheat people and walk away scot-free mrs. eid also voted to deny workers compensation to an employee who was injured at work because, get this, he was injured at work, and the person was knocked unconscious and couldn't remember the details of what happened. so ms. eid said that means there's going to be no liability here. you know, this kind of blocking and tackling for powerful companies that hurt consumers

and workers should be embarrassing. with this president and this white house, it buys a lifetime appointment to the federal bench to shield corporations from the law on an even bigger stage. ms. eid is not the only nominee up for consideration who would leave working americans out in the cold. michigan supreme court justice joan larsen, who has been nominated to serve on the sixth circuit court of appeals, voted again and again to block injured plaintiffs from having their cases heard. giant companies and millionaires liked her so much that they spent over half a million dollars to get her elected to the michigan supreme court, and why wouldn't they? now she is going to be elevated to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench, and, you know, that's a pretty good return on their investment. yes, these judicial nominees have bent over backwards to help

the wealthy and the well connected escape accountability, but that is only half the story. trump nominees have a very different view of what justice means for individuals who lack the money or the resources to pay high-powered legal teams or to pay political campaigns to influence judge decisions and judge selection. this week, the senate will also vote on the nomination of stephanos bebass -- bibas. he worked as a federal prosecutor in manhattan. you would think there would be plenty of work for a federal prosecutor with oversight of wall street and all the other corporate executives in new york city. well, you would think that but you would be wrong. mr. bibas's most famous case involved prosecuting a 51-year-old woman accused of

stealing $7 from a cash register at her cafeteria job. that's right. while going to work every day in the shadow of wall street, mr. bibas decided that it was the best use of his time and federal government resources to pursue a $7 case. he eventually lost the case, but not before the woman lost her job. and then there is amy coney barrett, president trump's nominee for the seventh circuit court of appeals. now, she has also taken a throw the book at them approach to crime, at least to not white-collar crime. she believes that the miranda doctrine which protects criminal defendants from coercive police tactics is not required by the constitution, and she has criticized efforts to reverse damage done by the sentencing disparity between power and crack cocaine, a disparity that

has been rightly criticized by republicans, democrats, religious leaders, civic leaders across this country, as rooted in a long history of racial disparities in law enforcement. we have two justice systems in america, one for the rich and powerful, and one for everyone else. part of the way we fix that problem is by making sure that we put judges on the federal bench who are fair, impartial, and committed to dispensing equal justice under the law. fair and impartial judges are supposed to stand up for justice when prosecutors try to ruin someone's life over allegedly grabbing seven bucks from the cash register. they're supposed to stand up for justice when consumers and workers seek a day in court against giant companies who injured them, but the judges before the senate this week, they don't stand up for justice. instead, they stand up for the powerful against the people who

desperately need someone who will be fair, even to those who don't have money. these nominees are right at home in washington's rigged system. they are judges who will continue to apply one set of rules for the rich and powerful, and an entirely different set of rules for everyone else. it is no wonder that americans are so angry with washington. they have had it up to their eyeballs with bought and paid-for politicians who spend more time catering to their wealthy benefactors than promoting the interests of constituents back home. they are tired of giant corporations getting a slap on the wrist for massive wrongdoing while people from their hometowns linger in prison for minor crimes. they know that the legal system is deeply unjust and badly broken. it is up to us, to every member

of this chamber to fix that broken system. rejecting judicial nominees who will make it worse is a really good first step. that's not just the right thing to do. it's what the american people sent us here to do. thank you, mr. president. i yield and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: is the senate currently in a quorum call? the presiding officer: yes, it is. mr. lankford: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vis rated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: i have the approval for committee meetings that have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: i have an opportunity to speak to this

body today about amy coney barrett. this is a nomination to be a circuit court judge. it's a pretty high standard for those individuals because they hand some incredibly difficult constitutional cases. she received her -- she received her j.d. from university of notre dame law school. she currently serves as a research professor of law at notre dame university law school. she teaches and researches in the areas of the federal courts, constitutional law, statutory interpretation. she published a scholarship in leading jurns such as the texas law review. those aren't easy areas to publish for and an easy professorship to land.

she clerked for justice scalia and for judge silverman. following her clerkship sheervetion an associate where she litigated constitutional, criminal, and commercial cases, both trial and appellate courts many she served as a visiting associate professor at georgetown university law school. she seems to be imminently qualified. what seems to be the issue? interestingly enough, she faced a very odd set of questions during the confirmation process, not about her legal scholarship, not about her qualifications, but oddly enough about her catholic faith. it wasn't about her temperament, her fairness, or scholarship. it was whether his catholic faith would get in the way of her being a good judge.

quite frankly, it wasn't about whether she had chosen a faith, it was the problem that she actually seemed to live her faith that became a big challenge during the questioning time period. it's odd for us as americans because this seems to be an issue that we resolved 200-plus years ago in article 6 of the constitution where it says there's no religious test. there's no evaluation to be a certain faith or if you have a certain faith to be able to take that faith off. we have a protection, not of freedom of worship, which i hear some say. that's not our constitutional protection. it is the free exercise of our religion, not just that you can have a faith, but you can both have a faith and live your faith according to your own principles. that's consistent with who we are as americans that we allow any individual to be able to have a faith and to be able to

live their faith both in their private life and public life or to be able to have no faith at all if they choose to have no faith at all. that's up to the decision much each american. but we don't ask individuals, as has been asked of this individual, whether her faith will be the big issue and whether the faith becomes a question of whether you're capable to serve other fellow americans. what's so dangerous, quite frankly about her catholic faith and christian beliefs for being a judge? are they afraid that she will speak up for those who will not speak for themselves, speak for the rights of all who are destitute, speak up and judge fairly, defend the rights of the poor and the needy? is that everyone is afraid that she will live out that biblical principle? i'm a little confused why

questions would come out that dogma seems to live loud in you which was asked of her. and other questions about her catholic faith. faith is a choice that each individual makes and it's extremely personal but also an extremely important choice. some individuals in america, myself included, choose to look past the mundane day-to-day events and to think there is both someone and something higher beyond us. we don't just look at the creation around us, we wonder about the creator who made it. we don't just wonder about cosmic dust smashing into each other, we ask the logical question. if cosmic dust smashed into each other and caused all that is, who made space? who made the cosmic dust that smashed into each other? how did that happen? faith drives us to be able to ask harder questions and to be

able to look a little bit longer at things where people seeing is plain, we ask what's behind it. it's not irrationale. it's part of who we are. it's part of how we're made. it's to be able to challenge individuals and to say that this person is so radical that they believe in things like do not murder, do not steal, do not covet, honor your mother and father. or things such as, whatever you do, do unto others as they would have you do unto you. it doesn't seem that radical a belief to wonder to be able to be a judge if you believe in those things. we dare to be able to believe in something beyond us. so do millions of other americans. i really thought our nation was past this. that our nation that speaks so much of diversity and of being open to other ideas is somehow

closing to people of faith. people that say they want to demand that everyone's inclusive are afraid of people that have faith and live their faith. why would that be? if we're going to be an open society, is it not open as well to people of faith, to be able to not only have a faith, but to live their faith. we hate moment like this in the 1960's, and i thought we had moved past it. there was a senator at that time running to be president of the united states. we know him as john kennedy. senator kennedy was speaking to a group of ministers in houston, texas, in the 1960's and he had to stand before them and explain his catholic faith because, quite frankly, there was this buzz, could someone be a catholic and be president? would you have difficulties with

in a? questions of professor barrett was similar to what senator kennedy was asked. senator kennedy said, while this year it might be a catholic at whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, and other years it may be a jew, a quacker, or -- quaker, or a baptist. it was a baptist that led to jefferson statue of religious freedom. today it is me, but tomorrow it may be you, until fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at great national peril. in fact, this is the kind of america for which our forefathers died. when they came here to escape religious test -- to escape religious test oath that denied

offices to those of less favored churches when they fought for the bill of rights and when they fought at the shrine, as j.f.k. said that day that he visited that day, the alamo or side by side with pruitt and crockett and no one knows if they were religious or not. there was no religious test at the alamo. he said, if i should lose on the real issues in the presidential race, i shall return to my seat in the senate satisfied that i tried my best and was fairly judged. but if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million americans lost their chance of being president on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole of the nation that is the loser in the eyes of catholics and noncatholics around the world, in the eyes of history and in the eyes of our own

people. this should be a settled issue for us not a decisive one. we -- diffive one. i look forward to supporting professor barrett in this position and i look forward to seeing her decisions as they come out of that court consistent with the law as she is well trained to be able to do. consistent with our convictions as americans. with that i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from virginia is recognized. mr. kaine: mr. president, thank you. i rise to speak on a topic i've often spoken about on the floor. we've been at continuous war since september 14, 2001, when congress passed an authorization of military force to go after the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. that was 16 years, one month,

and 18 days ago as of today. the war in afghanistan is the longest armed conflict in america's history, and it shows no signs of abating even six years after the death of osama bin laden. the conflict has been going on so long that many are somewhat immune to it. i heard a high schooler recently say war is all i have ever known. it's the status quo. it's the background music to daily life. and yet only .4% of the population of the united states serves in the military. that's down from 1.8% in 1968 and 8.7% in 1945. so it's increasingly unlikely that many of us even know those who are deployed and fighting in this ever expanding global conflict. sadly, last week for tragic reasons these issues were brought to the forefront with the death of four brave american service members in niger. army sergeant david johnson,

sergeant brian black, sergeant jeremiah gentleman johnson and sergeant dustin wright. two of those killed, sergeants johnson and -- the two sar jentsdzs johnson -- sergeants johnson were part of a 12-man patrol whose mission was not clear. we know they are trained occupation special lists and biological speck lists were outside combat roads. the department of defense described the mission of over 645 personnel in niger as advise and assist, but none of the varying accounts of what took place in early october seemed to support that seemingly benign summary of what occurred. frustration over this lack of understanding of the mission and the events that transpired are shared by everyone. from secretary mattis to all the members here. i can't imagine what the service members on duty and their families must be feeling. we have seen the strain that an ever expanding operational

commitment is having on our military from our service members relying upon foreign countries or contractors to provide critical air support when a serviceman is stranded on the battlefield for over a day or for our war ships whose schedules have been so strained that their crews are unable to safely navigate international waters. and being a senator from virginia, a state with one of the largest military presences, that's home to tens of thousands of service members and their families, i've got a personal responsibility to ensure that these strains don't lead to any more tragic mistakes. the attack in niger has also laid bare some other issues, how little information is provided to congress about u.s. troops deployed abroad, equipped for combat. how little congress exercises the authority and the oversight of these issues and demands information about a debate before the public. the possible mission creep and growth of military forces in africa, an increase by a factor

of 17 over the past decade, in which hundreds of missions are being run daily in over 20 countries where there is no specific authorization for use of military force provided by congress. and the niger operation really identified a gray area between advising and assisting in combat operations, which keeps some deployments just beyond the trip wire requiring congressional notification. a briefing was held last week with the department of defense to try and understand the scope of the niger mission. the reason for the escalation of our footprint, and why this surprising attack left our troops without support for so long. but beyond the immediate tactical answers, we need a strategic and fundamental understanding of how and where this country engages in military operations. and if the war on terror has become a forever war with no end in sight absolving the need for congress to weigh in and speak.

yesterday in foreign relations, we held a much overdo hearing for legal authorization on military force, solid testimony, straightforward answers by secretaries of state tillerson and mattis. i'm encouraged that we had the hearing and i'm encouraged that our chair at the end of the hearing expressed the desire to move forward to finally after 16-plus years engage in a debate in a congressional vote on war authorization. i was disappointed that the two secretaries who were being candid took the position that the trump administration needs no more legal authority to do what they're doing, but i have to acknowledge the position they take is exactly the position that the obama administration took, and it's exactly the position that the bush administration took. so i was not completely surprised. in fact, we shouldn't be surprised when the administration says we don't need any more authority, but of course we're not playing mother may i on this question. it's congress' role to article one to declare war. i disagree with the legal

analysis offered by all three administrations, and i was tough on president obama about this as well, that the 60-word authorization from 2001 covers military action all over the globe. but there is some legal dispute about the question still beyond the legal question. there's also questions of moral authority, political authority, and the abdication of responsibility in this body. 75% of the members of congress today were not even here when the 2001 authorization was passed and thus have never had to cast a vote on it, even as our men and women risk their lives and in some instances are killed in action. simply put, the 2001 has become a golden ticket that justifies military action against terrorist groups all over the globe without the need for additional congressional approval. i'm not surprised the executive wants to keep it that way. who wouldn't prefer such flexibility but we have a job to do. here's what we need to do. here's what i think needs to

happen. we need to end the legal gymnastics with the 2001aumf, a 60-word authorization against the perpetrators of 9/11 and applying that now to the fight against isil, boca ra ham and others is a stretch. the aumf outlined the military action as follows, nation's organizations or persons, the president terms -- aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on september 11, 2001, or that harbored such organizations or persons. there were 19 hijackers for the 9/11 attacks and we've now used the 2001aumf in 37 instances to send forces prepared for combat and engaged in combat to 14 nations, including libya, turkey, georgia, syria, iraq, afghanistan, yemen, ethiopia, djibouti, somalia, kenya and cuba. were all these instances and

nations and places really associated with planning or support of the attacks of 9/11? these legal interpretations are in addition to countless train and advise missions around the world to include those which took the lives of the four service members in niger. this is not an unforeseen combat environment. i found this interesting. in april 2014, the united states government, department of the navy, solicited contractual bids for personnel recovery, casualty evacuation, and search and rescue, aviation support, end quote, in high-risk environments in the following 14 countries, algeria, libya, mali, morocco, my nigeria, gawn na, opportunity niece ya, as directed by operational requirements. only five of those 14 countries have ever been notified to congress pursuant to war powers, letters, but we are planning to engage in casualty evacuation in connection with high-risk

activities in all of these countries in africa. i would like to have a process that informs congress and informs the public that is equal in transparency to what we put in contracting documents to inform military contractors. so senator flake and i have introduced an authorization for military force intended to keep the congress and the american people both informed of our military operations, but also engaged in carrying out our constitutional duty. the intent is to recognize the fluid environment that our military must operate, to implement the counterterrorism campaign. terrorist organizations don't necessarily operate in just one country. they don't follow the geneva convention. it is a gift kind of military action but the requirement for congressional approval is no less important. we need to make our legal authorities which are now dated current and appropriately scoped. and i applaud my foreign relations chair, senator corker, for after the hearing yesterday saying we would move to a markup and clearly i suspect an

amendment of the proposal that senator flake and i put on the table. we've done a lot of work on it. a war authorization should be bipartisan. if anything in this body should be bipartisan. i think a war authorization should be but we don't pretend we thought of everything or pretend that the bill cannot be improved. in conclusion, i want to make a few comments. times reported that president trump has approved without providing members of congress any information on why these changes are necessary. but he's approved changes giving the department of defense and c.i.a. pore latitude in commando raids against islamic terrorist groups scattered across the world all using the 2001 aumf as its legal justification. this expansion of war will only continue and magnify and mutate and do so without public scrutiny unless and until congress steps up to provide this, the oversight and legal authority that we're required to

do. i've come to the floor of the senate since i came here in 2013 to speak about war powers, to speak about a need to revise the war powers resolution in 1974, to critique and challenge president obama around the libya mission which had no vote of congress to critique president obama who is a personal friend over the offensive campaign against isil without requiring a congressional vote. and since i was clear and repetitive in my critiques of president obama for using powers without congress being involved, i'm going to do the same with respect to president trump. at the end of the day my critique is more about this body. an executive overreach, executive will act but that does not expu inaction -- excuse inaction in this body. but i do worry about a progressive loosening of the rules from the bush administration to the obama administration to the trump administration that eventually has turned the 2001 aumf into a golden ticket that allows for

action against a non-state terrorist groups anywhere in the world on a presidential say-so. we shouldn't take our institutions and frankly the fairly radical rebalancing of powers in the constitution for granted. when madison and the other drafters put the declaration of war authority in the hands of congress, they knew they were doing something pretty radical. they knew the world of the day, 230 years ago last month was a world of kings and emperors and monarchs and popes. war was primarily for the executive. but they decided they wanted to do something different. ten years after the constitution was done, thomas jefferson as president was grappling with -- get this -- a nonstate terrorist group in africa. what could be done about them? and he wrote a letter to james madison and asked what was behind the war-making powers in the constitution's article one. madison described it very well. he said, our constitution supposes what the history of all

governments demonstrate. that it's the executive most interested in war and thus most prone to war. for this reason we've studied care, granted the question of war in the legislature. they were trying to change human history. they were trying to say that we shouldn't be at war unwilles there was a legislation -- unless there was a legislative collective judgment, not by 25% of the people who were there then but a legislative collective judgment expressed in an authorization that we should be at war. we're lacking that now. it's not hard to imagine a future president, whether president trump in the remainder of his term, or presidents in the future using the expanding war authorities to just -- to increasingly justify initiating war without the permission of congress. we asked president trump for the legal authority justifying the syrian missiles, the missile strike on syria he made in march and they have not yet provided an answer about their legal authority. what congress has done is basically told presidents you can do whatever you want, and that has a way of creeping and

growing and i think it already has. i think the american people deserve better, but especially our troops deserve better. i've said it before. i'll say it again. i can't think of anything more publicly immoral, public, civic immorality than ordering troops to risk their lives and be killed while congress is unwilling to cast a vote because this would be a politically difficult vote. i would rather not vote. i would rather make the president do it and blame the president if it works out bad, a political calculation has caused congress to advocate a responsibility while others are shouldering the burdens of responsibility even losing their lives in the process. finally, senator jacob javits wrote a book in 1973 titled owe who makes war." it was after congress passed the war powers resolution during the vietnam war. he offered a very impressive commentary. quote, many advocates of presidential prerogative in the field of war and foreign policy

seem to be arguing that the president's powers as commander in chief are what the president alone defines them to be. the implication that the presidency is beyond the range of congressional authority to check in the exercise of war powers raises a serious constitutional danger. if beaccept such a view -- accept such a view, the american people are relying on the good judgment of an incumbent president. we may not always be fortunate enough to see a person with such qualities in the white house. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor and i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that i be able to speak until such time my remarks are concluded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, the house and senate are moving forward on a final draft of our tax reform bill, and i'm excited about the progress that we're making. we've got one goal in mind with tax reform, mr. president, providing real relief to ordinary americans, to the parents who are questioning whether they can afford the car they need to fit their growing family, to the single mom wondering how she is going to pay the bills this month, to the middle-aged couple worrying about a secure retirement. everything in our tax reform framework is centered on providing relief to these americans. to start with, we're going to provide them with a substantial

amount of direct relief by lowering their tax rates and doubling the standard deduction so that they are keeping more of their paycheck every month. we're also going to significantly expand the child tax credit and we're going to simplify and streamline the tax code so it's easier for americans to figure out what benefits they qualify for and so they don't have to spend time and money filing their taxes. all of these reforms mean more money in americans' pockets. we're not stopping there. we're also going to focus on reforming the business side of the tax code so that we can give americans access to the kind of jobs, wages, and opportunities that will set them up for a secure future. in order for individual americans to thrive economically, we need american businesses to thrive. thriving businesses create jobs. they provide opportunities. they increase wages and invest in their won't and they -- in

their workers. and they unvest in new products and companies expand their businesses. right now our tax code is not helping businesses thrive. instead, it's strangling both large and small businesses with high tax rates. our nation has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, at least ten percentage points higher than the majority of our international competitors. that's a problem for american workers because high tax rates leave businesses with less money to invest in their workers, to increase wages, or to create new jobs. and this situation is compounded when you're an american business with international competitors that are paying a lot less in taxes than you are. it's no surprise that u.s. businesses struggling to stay competitive in the global economy don't have a lot of resources to devote to creating new jobs and increasing wages p. a study from the white house

counsel of economic advisors estimates that reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% down to 20% would increase average household income by $4,000 annually. a second study shows a similar pay increase. boston university professor and public finance expert larry kotlikov found that lowering the corporate tax rate to 20% would increase household income by $3,500 per year on average. that's a significant pay raise for hardworking americans. in addition to lowering the corporate tax rate, there's another important thing that we can do to increase the availability of jobs here at home. and that's reforming our outdated worldwide tax system. under our worldwide tax system, american companies pay u.s. taxes on the profit they make here at home as well as on part of the profit that they make abroad once they bring that money home to the united states.

the problem with this is that most other major world economies have shifted from a worldwide tax system to what's called a territorial tax system. in a territorial system t, you pay taxes on the money that you earn where you make it and only there. you aren't taxed again when you bring money back to your home country. now, most of american companies' foreign competitors have been operating under a territorial tax system for years so they're paying a lot less in taxes on the money they make abroad than american companies are. and that leaves american companies at a disadvantage. these foreign companies can underbid american companies for new business simply becauseie have to add as much in taxes into the price of er what products or services. when foreign companies beat out american companies for new business, it's not just american companies who suffer,

mr. president; it's american workers. it's the american workers employed by these companies who live and work in literally every state in the union, and it's the american workers who work for the small and medium-sized companies that form the supply chain here in the united states. for every american company that operates in countries around the world, there are countless companies here at home that supply the raw material for the products that are sold abroad. businesses that handle the packaging and shipping of those product oz, and enterprises that supply support services like accounting, legal, and payroll services. america's global companies rely on a web of supporting businesses that spans the country. and when these global companies struggle, so do these supporting businesses and their won't -- and their workers. by transitioning from a

worldwide systeworldwide tax sya territorial system, we will also be increasing wages, jobs, and opportunities for workers at the countless small and medium-sized businesses three-quarters our country who make up the supply chain for america's global companies. finally, mr. president, our tax plan will tackle the other key part of improving the playing field for american workers. that is lowering the tax rates on small businesses. small businesses are incredibly important for new job creation, but like big companies, right now small businesses are being strangled by high tax rates. that can make it difficult for small businesses to even survive, much less thrive and expand their operations. lowering small business tax rates and making it easier for small businesses to recover their invested capital more quickly will free up the money

that small business owners need to expand their businesses to add workers, or give employees a raise. together these aspects of tax reform are essential to reversing a lackluster economy of the last eight years. americans deserve better and tax reform can be the key to putting this country back on the path to solid, sustainable economic growth. mr. president, before i close today, i'd like to just switch gears for a minute and talk about judicial nomination. we've had the chance to confirm some excellent nominees this year so far as many of whom determines have ultimately supported. but despite this fact, democrats have insisted on delaying the process of almost every single nomination to a district or circuit court. that's pretty much the definition of partisanship. when you obstruct nominees based not on any disagreement you have with them but simply because you

don't like the person who's doing the nominating. mr. president, democrats' delays are ultimately pretty pointless. we're not going to stop confirming nominees just because democrats are dragging out the process. but these delays are a disservice to the american people. there are a lot of important issues the senate needs to be debating, from spending bills to tax reform. and the time that we waste on pointless partisan exercises is time taken from those important issues. mr. president, while democrats' partisanship is frustrating, there's much more serious issue that has come up during the judicial confirmations. that's thent religious sentiment displayed by some of my colleagues on the other side. aisle during amy barrett's nomination which we'll be voting on this week. ms. barrett's qualifications are well-known. the american bar association, which rates judicial nominees, has given her its highest rating of well-qualified.

as my colleague the minority leader has said, the bar association's evaluation is and i quote, the gold standard by which judicial candidates are judged, end quote. mr. president, despite her judicial qualifications, it became clear in the hearing on her nomination that some of my colleagues think she should be disqualified because she is a practicing catholic. that's right, mr. president. apparently practicing your religion is now grounds for declaring you unfit. -- to be a judge. here's what the constitution has to say about that. this is from article 6. and i quote, no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the united states. let me repeat that, mr. president. no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under

the united states. in other words, mr. president, in the united states, you can't be disqualified from serving a as a judge because you are a believing catholic or a believing member of any faith. the only qualification the constitution imposes is a commitment to uphold the constitution. yet the second-ranking democrat in the united states senate partnersly thought it was appropriate to ask if she was a practicing member of her religion with the implication that if she was, it might implicate her fitness for being a judge. democrats' questioning is not going to stop ms. barrett's knoll nomination but it is simply disturbing nonetheless. it is a scary thing when leaders of a major political party imply that there is no role for religious people in public life. and i don't need to tell anybody that that's contrary to everything that our founders stood for.

the right to be able to practice religion freely -- yes, in public, too -- was so fundamental to the founders' understanding of liberty that they made it the very first freedom mentioned in the bill of rights. people of faith have made incalculable contributions to our country and faith has driven some of the greatest movements in american history, from the abolitionist movement to the civil rights movement. i hope the democrat party doesn't move further down the path of excluding religious people from public life. if they ever succeed, they will destroy one of the freedoms on which our country rests. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. sullivan: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. mr. sullivan: i ask unanimous consent for appropriate amount of time to finish my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sullivan: mr. president,

one of the great things that -- one of the privileges really about being in the senate is actually being -- to preside, as you're doing right now, to sit in the chair, the presiding officer of the senate, and listen and watch my colleagues talk about issues that matter to them. a lot of times issues that matter to their states. and, you know, we have this amazing country of ours, so many great states. i goat hear -- i get to hear great stories, some treat texas, where the presiding officer is from. at our best we share values as americans together, opportunity, liberty, justice, fairness. really, it is one of the things that makes the senate a great body. and what makes us strong as a nation. and so, mr. president, one of the things i like to do is come down to the senate floor and pass on and talk about some of

the traditions in my state, some of the things that i think makes alaska the greatest state in the nation. i know some of my colleagues won't fully agree with that, but we all get to brag about our state. and when i do that i like to talk about this individual who we recognize as the alaskan of the week, often somebody who is doing? a remote part of the that he can not a lot of people know about that's very, very important to share that with my colleagues in the senate and other americans watching on tv, and i would like to today, mr. president, recognize a young alaskan from gamble, alaska, named chris apnigu conference a young whaler helping to keep the traditions we have in alaska, alaska native whale ago, alive and well and he is our alaskan of the week.

so this week -- this year chris was a keynote speaker at the elders and youth conference, a precursor to the alaska federation of natives conference held each year in one of our cities. it's the largest annual gathering in the united states of any native peoples, and there's nothing like it in all the country. a.f.n., as we call it, is certainly a highlight of my year. my wife and i and our kids always try to get there. so let me spend a few minutes talking about why chris' speech about whaling was so important and what happened after he landed a huge bowhead whale in alaska and why that was so inspiring for so many in my great state but really around the country. gamble, alaska, is where chris calls hoax it is a yupik village of about 700 people on' lawrence

island on the northwest eighth of alaska. it is one of 11 alaska communities that participate in two whaling seasons recognized and authorized by the international whaling commission, and these are subsistence communities. what does that mean? success sistence communities, meaning whale meat is actually a necessity in feeding these communities. i should point out that we have no road systems at all in northern alaska. most of alaska has no roads to connect it to community to community. certainly not in gamble. mr. president, you and i have is this the opportunity to travel around alaska. you've seen our great state. and you know that many, many communities are only accessible by air or seasonal barge. some are only be reached certain times of the year because of the weather. these communities need food. and they need whales. the annual bowhead whale migration provides the largest

subsistence resource available in these remote areas of our great state. even so, when a whale is ttackers the shirring does not stop with the residents of the community. each whale produces between six and 25 tons of food on average. this food is shared with other subsistence communities in our state and with family members and elderly throughout the state. a hugely important part of alaska native culture. this is another example of the resourcefulness of alaska native peoples that have enabled them to survive in the arctic, some of the tougherrest weather and conditions anywhere in the world for millennia and that have shaped the culture of alaska and the character of our state today. so back to ch conscious back to chris. he's an extraordinary hunter. he could aim and shoot a rifle

at the age of five. by 11 he trained himself to strike whales. one person wrote that he rode the ber ring sea -- they set out to do what their ancestors have been doing for thousands of years. after getting a bearded sale -- seal, they saw a whale. chris took a shot. it was a huge whale, 15 feet and 11 inches. it took two hours to tow it to shore and two days to carve it up. after a whale landed, it was time for the community to celebrate. mr. president, shortly after this, things unfortunately went sour for chris and the

community. a radical activist with a large online following read the story about chris and the whale and he began to attack chris and so did many of his followers from across the globe, hundreds of people, most of them adults. cyber bullying and attacking a 16-year-old boy from gambell alaska who, up to that point, had only left his village once in his life. shameful. no respect, no civility, and i mean vicious attacks, mr. president. i won't repeat them here. it's enough to say that they were greatly upset and the community, chris, his family, his mother cried all night. chris was angry that he and his family were being attacked for partaking in this necessary tradition that his community and his ancestors have been doing for thousands of years.

thousands of years. however, this young man, despite the hateful messages from adults, -- from adults who live a world away, despite the names they were calling him, chris, who is now 17, cut through the noise, stood strong, gave a great speech at a.f.n. and he will continue to hunt and feed his community and family the way that his ancestors had done at millennia. at his speech he said, will you stand with me as i continue my hunting from a ditionz with my -- traditions with my family? and the crowd applauded. they all rose when he asked will you stand with me? mr. president, i hope that everyone across the country stands with this extra ordinary

young man, truly brave, courageous as he continues his traditions and his right to haunted feed his community -- hunt and feed his community. i will hold a conference on the whaling community and how important it is. i hope that all americans stand with so many other proud alaska whalers and protecting their rights to hunt the way that their ancestors who hunted. thank you, chris, a young man in alaska, 17 years old, for standing tall for your people, for all of alaska and i thank his parents, susan and daniel, for raising such a fine hunter and congratulations, chris, for being our alaskan of the week.

mr. president, i would like my following remarks to appear in a separate place in the congressional record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr.sullivan: mr. president, i wanted to follow on with regard to what my colleague and good friend from south dakota talked about in terms of tax reform. we're debating tax reform now. we're marking up a bill. the finance committee is not marking up the bill yet, it's working on the bill. but as senator thune just mentioned, we have to have one common goal in this body which tax reform should be driving, and that's the issue of economic growth -- the issue of economic growth. now, mr. president, you would think that this is not -- this should not be considered a partisan issue, but one of the things i've been struck by in my little under three years in the anti-is how little -- in the senate is how little we talked about economic growth. mr. president, i've try to come

down to the senate floor and speak about this issue a lot because with the exception of national defense, in my view, this is the most important issue congress can be focused on right here, this issue of growth. how is the u.s. economy doing? is it strong? is it weak? are we healthy or are we sick? and, mr. president, by any measure over the last ten years we are sick. mr. president, i bring this chart to the floor a lot just to talk about what's gone on in the last several decades in terms of economic growth. this has the growth rates of every administration dating back to president eisenhower. if you look here at the numbers, this red line is kind of the important line. this is 3% g.d.p. growth. it's not great, it's not bad. the average since the founding of the repolitic, the average -- republic, the average is 4%, but 3% is okay.

it certainly is what we should focus on in terms of hitting. but if you look at this chart, in certain years eisenhower, kennedy -- by the way, very bipartisan. we've had really strong growth. when people talk about what makes america great, this is what makes america great, strong economic growth, ands this is -- this is what has driven our country for decades. you see some of the numbers, kennedy, johnson, 5%, 6%, 7%, clinton, reagan, 5%, 6%, 7%, and then you look at the last decade, boom, a giant dropoff. we haven't had 3% g.d.p. growth, mr. president, in well over ten years. as a matter of fact president obama was the first president ever to not hit it. so what happened? did anyone talk about it? did the last administration talk about it? they never talked about it.

as a matter of fact, what they did was they started telling americans, don't worry, we're going to dumb down expectations. we're going to tell you, despite this chart, despite what this really means, this represents the american dream. despite the fact that all previous administrations were focused on 3%, we're not going to talk about that. we'll dumb it down and call this anemic growth, 1% growth, the new normal. what does that mean? it means we're going to surrender. this is really america hitting on all sill enders. -- cylinders. this is what you should expect. i think the idea of the new normal which is what a lot of people in washington, d.c., talk about is one of the most dangerous concepts in washington, d.c., right now. the new normal means that despite this history of 3% or

higher for decades we're going to surrender because our policies have smothered growth, have smothered the american dream. mr. president, here's the good news. i think we finally have a white house that's starting to focus on this issue and certainly the congress is starting to focus on this issue and the senate is starting to focus on this issue with policies like tax reform, with policies like regulatory stream liengs, with -- streamlining, with policies like infrastructure and energy. our two states are part of the energy renaissance that can drive economic growth well above 3%. mr. president, as we focus on tax reform, as this body focuses on task -- on task, i'm -- tax reform, i'm hopeful that both

parties can agree that one of the key elements with regard to tax reform and any other policies is to -- policy is to get us back to traditional levels of economic growth. to get us back to where people say, i have an opportunity. look at this economy. not the doldrums and anemic growth and the new normal that we've been told by other federal officials we should accept as our fate. we should have policies that are focused on get back to above that red line and i'm certainly hopeful that my colleagues, all 100 u.s. senators, can agree on that goal, strong economic growth for american families and reigniting the american dream with strong g.d.p. growth that is much higher than what we've

seen in the last ten years. mr. nelson: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i ask consent to be allowed to speak despite the order of recess. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: thank you, mr. president. you know, it's been two months since hurricane irma hit florida and basically covered up the state and our people are still hurting because they don't have sufficient housing. if you lived in a mobile home, if you lived in a low-lying area, your home was destroyed. it is uninhabitable, the ceiling is collapsing, the mold and mill dew because of -- mill -- mildew is making it uninhabitable. and fema is supposed to provide

temporary housing. this is the law. that's what the people of florida are entitled to just like the people of texas are entitled to in the presiding officer's state, but it's not happening in florida. why? because they get on the telephone and they have to wait up to, documented, four hours to get somebody on the phone from fema or it takes home inspection 45 days before they can get ain't specter to -- an inspector to come out and see the home before they can be declared and be eligible for assistance, and that is just unacceptable. because if they don't have the means, especially if they don't have a job as a result of the jobs being destroyed in the hurricane, where are they going

to be able to get temporary assistance for housing? this is a fact that is happening in the state of florida and it's got to be changed and thus you see the bipartisan effort on behalf of my colleague from florida, marco rubio, and i writing to the head of fema today and saying, look, what happened -- even under the debacle years ago of hurricane katrina in new orleans, there they experienced an average wait time of ten minutes before they could get fema on to the line to help them. now we have people waiting as much as four hours, and so, mr. president, i wanted to bring this to the attention of the senate. we cannot have the aftermath of

a hurricane, two months after, where our people are hurting, they are suffering. they can't live in a healthy condition in the existing homes that have been destroyed in the hurricane. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate hearing taking until

place on capitol hill, a series tomorrow.s today and google and twitter and facebook xecutives are coming up to testify before the senate judiciary and the house and senate intelligence committees. for more, we turn to kelly cohen, criminal justice reporter examiner, ashington joining us by phone. what led n, remind us these three tech