quorum call:

ms. collins: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from maine. ms. collins: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that proceedings under the call be

dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. collins: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, today i rise with my colleague from new mexico, senator heinrich, in discussing the securing america's voting equipment act of 2017 or the save act which we introduced earlier this week. mr. president, i know that you're well aware that the senate intelligence committee has been conducting an in-depth investigation into attempts by the russians to interfere with our election last fall. what we have found is the russians active measures preceded last fall and they continue to this very day. we have election coming up in november of this year and a

major election next year and both senator heinrich and i believe that it is so important that we act to assist states in protecting the integrity of their voting systems. our bill seeks to facilitate information-sharing on the threats posed to state election systems by foreign adversaries to provide guidance to states on how to protect their systems against nefarious activity and for states who choose to do so to allow them to access some federal grant money to implement best practices to protect their systems. now, mr. president, let me be clear that i know of no evidence to date that actual vote

tabulations were manipulated in any state in the elections last fall. nevertheless, as early as the summer of 2016, the f.b.i. discovered that foreign-based hackers had gained access to voter registration databases in two states. the department of homeland security confirmed that russian-linked actors attempted to access vedder -- voter roles in those two states. but more alarming is the fact that further investigation revealed that many more states than just two were ultimately found to have had their voting systems probed by the russians. the department of homeland security notified election officials in a total of 21 states that their election

systems had been targeted by russian government-linked hackers. mr. president, if voter rolls were altered or voter equipment tampered with, a compromise of these systems could open the door to voter disenfranchisement and undermined public confidence and the integrity of our free and fair elections, a bedrock principle of our democracy. in response to these alarming threats, the safe act would assist states in hardening their systems. it does not aim to tell states how to conduct their elections. the responsibility for conducting elections would remain with each state, as been our country's tradition since its founding.

state and r and -- state and local elections alone, however, cannot be expected to defend against cyber attacks from foreign adversaries. that is why our bill seeks to bring to bear the unique authorities, capabilities, and resources that the federal government can offer to state and local election officials. let me just briefly describe the heinrich-collins bill. first our bill would codify a decision made by both secretaries of homeland security, jeh johnson and john kelly to designate election systems as critical infrastructure. this designation allows d.h.s. to prioritize, providing assistance to election jurisdictions and to establish

formal mechanisms to enhance information share and collaboration within the electoral sector. more than 30 states took advantage of d.h.s.'s offer of assistance last year. our bill also addresses a shortcoming that i raised during a hearing before the senate intelligence committee in june regarding foreign efforts to compromise american voting systems. during this hearing, mr. president, we learned that not a single secretary of state had been cleared to receive classified information before the 2016 election or in the six months since voting systems had been declared as critical infrastructure. this delay is truly

inexplicable. we have to be able to share this critical information in order for state election officials to take the necessary steps to safeguard their systems. our bill addresses this limitation on information sharing by authorizing the director of national intelligence to provide security clearances to designated chief election officials in each state. that way the intelligence community can share appropriate classified information with states regarding foreign threats targeting election systems. our bill also mandates that d.h.s. conduct a threat assessment on physical and electronic risks to voting systems. then in collaboration with stakeholders, the department

will develop best practices to address those risks. a few simple measures can make a big difference. best practices like relying upon paper ballots, such as the state of maine currently does, and conducting post-election audits to ensure that the tabulation by vote-counting machines matches the results of the paper ballots can bolster both reel sill yens -- resilience and public confidence in the integrity of the voting process. our bill creates a voting grant program for states to upgrade and safeguard the integrity of their systems by implementing the best practice it's that have been identified. mr. president, last year the russian government sought to disrupt our democracy by threatening the integrity of our

elections. it is incumbent upon congress to assist the states and those charged with conducting elections at the local, state, and federal level to protect them from foreign interference, our bill would do just that. i'm very pleased to work with the leader on this effort, senator senator heinrich, and i would urge all of our colleagues to join senator heinrich and me in sponsoring this bill. thank you, mr. president. mr. heinrich: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. heinrich: thank you, mr. president. i want to start by just thanking my republican colleague from maine, senator susan collins, for her work on this legislation. in addition to her excellent work on the intelligence committee, her experience in homeland security and with critical infrastructure was

absolutely critical to the drafting of this legislation. and with both of us as current members of the select committee on intelligence, we are continuing to work on the investigation into russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. you know, our committee heard yesterday -- we held an important open hearing where we had representatives from companies like facebook, google, twitter. we know that russian government-linked actors purchased online advertisements last year in order to influence voters, and frankly, to divide america. russia used bots and trolls to do this through social media networks. while the president has labeled these reports and ads as a hoax, now that facebook has released many of those ads and

acknowledged their extensive reach last year, i think we can all agree this is a problem we must solve before future election cycles. ill called election officials on how new advertisement platforms can better prevent foreign nationals from elicitly spending in the future u.s. elections. i hope to have the same sort of transparency for online political ads that we enjoy in print or radio ads. these are simple and straightforward steps we can can take. we also know based on intelligence assessments, that as part of russia's larger hostile effort to interfere in last year's election, russian actors targeted state election

voter, and the heart of the infrastructure that we all rely on for free and fair elections. and these intrusions, in my view, demonstrate a troubling vulnerability to future cyber attacks and manipulation of our democratic process. our democracy fundamentally hinges on protecting the rights of americans to be able to fairly choose their own leaders. and that's why i'm proud to be partnering with senator collins to introduce the bipartisan securing america's voting equipment act, or save act, to provide increased security for american election systems. i'm proud to join senator collins on the floor today to demonstrate our commitment to move forward in a bipartisan and pragmatic way to find solutions

to protect the integrity of that voting process. our bipartisan legislation would permanently designate state-run election systems as critical infrastructure. it would require the department of homeland security to create a federal grant program to help states upgrade the physical, electronic, even the administrative components of their election systems and develop the best practice it's that senator collins mentioned in her speech earlier. the save act would also require the director of national intelligence to sponsor security clearances to the officials responsible for the administration and certification of federal elections in each state. usually our secretary of states. the director of national intelligence would then share all appropriate classified information with those state officials to help them protect their election systems from these kinds of security threats.

finally, the save act would create a federal competition that would award computer programmer who discover vulnerabilities in nonactive voting systems so that the equipment and software surrenders can -- vendors can work to fix those vulnerabilities. the save act does not tell states how to conduct their elections or what policies or procedures or equipment that is best where they are. rather, this bill is designed to facilitate the kind of information sharing with states and provide guidelines on how best to secure those systems to allow states to access funds to develop those solutions and implement those best practices in response to these threats. i consulted closely with my own secretary of state from new mexico, secretary of state maggie taluse oliver in drafting this legislation to ensure that

it provides the security measures that state election officials need to keep our voting system security. i commend secretary oliver for her effort -- for her effort to safeguard this at the state level. we are at a critical place where the public is beginning to see the tactical evidence of how the kremlin sought to divide or populous. until we setup stronger protections of our election systems and take the necessary steps to prevent future foreign influence campaigns, our nation's democratic institutions will remain vulnerable, but we have the tools to fix those vulnerabilities, and i look forward to working with senator collins and all of our colleagues on both side of the aisle to ensure we do that. thank you, mr. president.

the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. gardner: i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to offer a unanimous consent agreement and complete my remarks prior to the vote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: i have four requests for committees to meet before the senate and have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: we about to vote on allison eid to become the judge for the tenth circuit which is housed in denver, colorado. i have had the privilege and honor of knowing justice eid who serves on the colorado supreme court for over a decade, since i was a young law student is how long i have known her. i know a lot of my classmates who had her as a professor, people who shared political perspectives far different from justice eid but they never criticized her teaching and found her to be open to debate and other views. most importantly what justice eid will do once confirmed to the tenth circuit court is make

sure she rules based on the law, not personal opinions or preferences but how the law dictates because that's the kind of judge she will be and continue to be from the supreme court to the district court. she will be somebody who is a guardian of the constitution as our founders were hoping we would see on our federal courts when they wrote the constitution. mr. president, i have one final letter that i would like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the record from the national native american bar association in support of eid's nomination. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. gardner: i ask for the support of my colleagues of justice eid's nomination. the presiding officer: the question appears on the eid nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 56, the nays are 41, the n.o.m. nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table, and the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action. there will be order in the senate. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of stephanos bibas of pennsylvania to be u.s. circuit judge for the third circuit, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of stephanos bibas of

pennsylvania to be united states circuit judge for the third circuit shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

quorum call:

vote: the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or wishing to change their vote? seeing none, the yeas are 54, nays 43. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: stephanos bibas of pennsylvania to be united states circuit judge for the third circuit. mr. toomey: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania.

mr. toomey: madam president, i rise to speak about the nomination of stephanos bibas, we just invoked cloture on his candidacy. before i do that, i want to take a moment to observe a big development. we have a big development in that the house of representatives, the majority ways and means committee members, led by kevin brady and the speaker of the house, paul ryan, have unveiled a tax reform plan that is a very, very exciting step forward in our ambition to bring tax relief, a direct pay raise to hardworking americans that we represent and to create an environment where we can have much stronger economic growth and much more opportunity and rising wages for the american people. so i want to congratulate chairman brady and the members of the ways and means committee. i know this process has a ways

to go, but they are off to a great start. i look forward to working with the members of the finance committee as we look to finalize this pro-middle class, pro-tax reform. let me get, madam president, to the issue of the candidacy of professor stephanos bibas and say how enthusiastically i support his candidacy to serve as a judge on the u.s. court of appeals for the third circuit. i want to thank the president for nominating professor bibas. i want to thank chairman grassley for moving professor bibas through the committee and thank leader mcconnell for bringing his nomination to the floor and i thank my colleagues who will vote later to vote this

well-qualified man to the court. professor bibas has a tremendous wealth of experience in the law as a legal scholar and practicing attorney. so much so that the american bar association voted to give him a unanimous rating of well qualified and let me tell you why. for one, he starts with really outstanding academic credentials. professor bibas graduated from columbia university. he studied at oxford university in england and earned his law degree from yale university. he clerked the highest levels of our court system. he clerked for the u.s. supreme court justice anthony kennedy and judge patrick hi gabotham. professor bibas is an

accomplished legal scholar. he served as law professor at the university of iowa school of law and university of pennsylvania school of law. he has been a prolific author whose academic writings are often cited by the u.s. supreme court, courts of -- courts of appeal, and has focused on criminal law. he has expressed criminal justice reform that i expect many of my democratic colleagues would share. for instance professor bibas criticize what had he sees as the overuse of plea bargains in the courts as being unfair toll criminal defendants who then never get their day in court. there's no question that professor bibas has extensive academic credentials. but he's also an experienced attorney, and he served on both

sides of our criminal justice system. he's been a prosecutor and he's been a defense attorney. he has a balanced perspective from both sides of this part of our judicial system. he served as a federal prosecutor in new york city where he prosecuted over 100 criminal cases. currently he is the director of the supreme court clinic at university of pennsylvania. he has argued six cases before the u.s. supreme court. he won a landmark u.s. supreme court decision for criminal defendants in a case that held that criminal defense attorneys must advise their noncitizen clients about the deportation risks associated with a guilty case. that was a professor bibas case. he represented dozens of other clients before the supreme court and most were pro bono clients, clients that he did not charge any fees because they couldn't afford experienced counsel.

he voluntarily provided that service for them. over the course of the work that he's done as a result of the work that he's done for the supreme court, he has been praised by justices kagan and ginsburg. justice ginsburg said he was among the best of lawyers presenting cases to the supreme court. end quote. i hope that all of my colleagues will support professor bibas' nomination. he has outstanding credentials, he's got a wealth of experience, and i hope everyone will see that in his background. i'm disappointed that senator durbin, our colleague from illinois, has stated that he opposes professor bibas' nomination. senator durbin said that he opposes his opposition because of an unpublished being academir that professor bibas drafted in

2009. in that paper he proposed the consideration of corporal punishment as an alternative for certain criminal events. but professor bibas stated unequivocally that he decided not to publish the paper because he realized that that idea was wrong and does not support corporal punishment for criminals. he also testified that he fully understands and respects the difference between the role of a professor who considers theoretical questions on one hand whereas a judge handles a case that impacts the lives of real people. mr. president, one of the most important reasons that i'm an enthusiastic supporter of professor bibass is his clear understanding of the role of a judge in the american constitution system.

from my review of his record and from my conversation with him, it's clear that he understands the proper role of a judge is to apply the law, including the constitution, as written, not to make policy himself, and that his obligation is to treat everyone absolutely equally regardless of race, sex, wealth, political affiliation, political connectionings or anything else -- connections or anything else. many of my colleagues believe that the constitution is a living document by which they mean that it really means whatever a judge decides it means. under this view, changes to the law and constitution can be made by unelected, unaccountable judges who then substitute their policy preference for the preference of the american people. some who hold this view think that judges should take into

account such factors as a person's race or sex or wealth or political affiliation in deciding cases. mr. president, in my view, that is a deeply flawed view of the law and -- and it is fundamentally inconsistent with the principles of the separation of powers that is essential to our democracy, the sovereignty to the american people, and the fair application to law to all people. contrary to this view, professor bibas understands the proper role of a judge is to apply the law as written and to treat everyone who comes before him equally, not to impose his policy preferences or impose the law differently for different people. finally, let me say a word about professor bibas' temmerment -- temperament for the bench. he's a man of character and of a

-- temperament to be fit to be a judge. a bipartisan group of 121 law professors from across the ideological spectrum stated, and i quote, his fair-mindedness and consciousness are beyond question. end quote. we have no doubt that his judicial temmerment -- that he will apply the law fairly and evenhandedly in all matters before him. i am very pleased to support professor bibas' nomination of the third are circuit. i am completely confident that he has the intellect, experience, the temperament and respect for the limited role of a judge in our system. those attributes that are necessary for him to excel as a federal appellate judge, and i am pleased to speak on behalf of

this highly qualified nominee, and i urge all of my colleagues to support his confirmation. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from pennsylvania. mr. toomey: mr. president, i just ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule 22 all postcloture time on the bibas nomination expire at 1:45 today. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. president. i see my friend and colleague from pennsylvania on the floor and we've worked together on a number of things over the years, including now working together to impose and really enforce sanctions against north korea, putting together a bill modeled after the iran sanctions bill so that we're serious about working to get china and others to bring to the table. i want to thank my colleague for

his work on that. where we disagree strongly is on the bill that's emerged from the house of representatives, the so-called tax reform bill. the senator from pennsylvania said people should be excited to see it. i can assure you, mr. president, that if you're a millionaire or billionaire, you're going to be really excited about the bill that's coming out of the house an supported by president trump. so i want to talk a little bit about tax reform because we need tax reform in america. we need to simplify our tax code. it's been gummed up over many, many years with special tax breaks that are there not because they make good sense for the american people, but because somebody was able to hire a high-priced lobbyist to get them a break that the rest of the country did not enjoy. so we need tax -- to need to

simplify our tax code and we need to reform our tax code. unfortunately, what we're seeing come from republicans today, supported by the trump administration, doesn't do that. in fact, what it will do is provide full-time employment for tax accountants around the country because it creates all sorts of special provisions for powerful special interests. it will dramatically cut taxes for big multinational corporations and for millionaires and billionaires and everybody else is going to be left to pick up the bill in one way or another. so now we know why this has been cooked up behind closed doors for so long. people knew that it would have a lot of turbulence when it emerged, and secondly, we know why there's such a desperate

effort to ram this huge tax proposal through the house and the senate because people don't want the american people to figure out exactly what's in it because when they do, they are going to see that it's bad for everybody but folks who are at the very top or who are very powerful. the good news is that people have scrambled to begin to look at this. in fact, certain groups like realtors -- now we all have realtors in all our neighborhoods. they're often very connected to our community. they know exactly what's going on. and so they've been monitoring this republican tax plan and raising concerns about it. in fact, they said just a few days ago that because there was this effort to speed tax legislation through the house by thanksgiving and get it to mr. trump by the end of the year, quote, we then feel --

didn't feel we could wait said the national association of realtors. they began to do analysis of the impact. and here's what they had to say today when they caught a glimpse of what was actually in the republican trump bill. they say they're reviewing the details, but at first glance it appears to confirm many of our biggest concerns about the plan. eliminating or nullifying the tax incentives for homeownerships puts home values and middle-class homeowners at risk. we'll be hearing more from them, but they did a study. it was commissioned by pricewaterhouse coopers. that concluded that if you have adjusted gross income between $50,000 and $200,000 and you're a homeowner, on average you're going to see your taxes go up. they also concluded that home values around the country would fall by 10%.

not sure when they would begin to recover. but they would fall by 10%. home values down, taxes for middle-class homeowners up. home builders, which are a really important part of our economy, they're already against this strongly and have made it clear that this would hurt new home building around the country, which as we know, is an important driver in our economy. and even the nfib, national federation of independent businesses, took a look at the bill and said, and i quote, it leaves too many small businesses behind. i'll tell you, mr. president, exactly who this helps. this helps big multinational corporations. when you drop the tax rate to 20%, they get a $2 trillion tax windfall. now i'd be happy to talk to my colleagues about corporate tax reform that doesn't blow up the

deficit, but this proposal is a $2 trillion giveaway to big multinational corporations. under the theory -- under the theory that somehow when you give a big tax break to a multinational corporation it's actually going to increase the wages of their workers. well, mr. president, we know that just isn't so. we know it from independent analysts. so the nonpartisan professional congressional research office has looked at the claims of the proponents of this bill and say, no, this isn't going to be a big boost to workers. it's going to be a big boost to the owners of the corporations. and if you don't like nonpartisan analysis -- and you know, we have a new whole machinery of fake news around

here and around this country -- why don't we listen to the c.e.o.'s themselves. here's what rioters reported in a headline -- reuters reported in a headline. c.e.o. suggests trump tax cut may lift investors more than jobs. that's what the c.e.o. we know from our own experience and our own observations that that's actually true because let's look at the real world. we have seen record increases in corporate profits over the last many years. record increases. and did that extra money, did those bigger profits go to higher wages for american workers? they did not. they have been flat. they have been stagnant. we've had a growing gap between rising corporate profits and the wages of the people who work for those corporations. and so now we're going to give those same multinational corporations another $2 trillion

windfall and think it's going to somehow trickle down to the workers? it just isn't the case. that's not how they're using their profits. the owners of those corporations will pocket the overwhelming lion's share for themselves. we know that because that's what they have been doing already and giving them another $2 trillion isn't going to change that pattern. but to add insult to injury, mr. president, not only is this going to be a tax windfall for big corporations who have record profits right now, but because of the way this is designed with respect to the international tax code, it's going to create incentives for american corporations to move from baltimore, maryland, overseas or from any other place in the united states overseas. and i'm not just talking about moving their profits to tax shelters, which you see happen today. you know, they park their profits in the cayman islands.

they park their intellectual property in low tax havens. because they -- of the way they design this, a 10% average international cut, you're actually encouraging american businesses and corporations to move their operations and their jobs overseas. let's look at another part of the plan. we keep hearing from our colleagues that this is going to help folks in the middle class. let's look at the estate tax. if you're an american couple today and your estate is less than $11 million, you don't pay one penny -- one penny in federal estate tax. not one. and somehow it became an imperative of the republicans who put together this plan to give a tax break to people with estates of over $11 million.

so first they lift that cap from $11 million to somewhere like $20 million, $22 million, and then they get rid of it altogether. that doesn't help a single american household with an estate less than $11 million. we're talking about two out of every 1,000 american households that benefit. that will apparently was a big priority of the trump administration and republicans who put together this plan. so who's going to pay for it? who's going to pay for the $2 trillion tax cut for big multinational corporations? who's going to pay for the windfall tax break for big, big estates? everybody else. that's why the realtors are against it. that's why the home builders are against it. that's why others are already

against it along with lots of other groups, because middle-class taxpayers are going to have to pick up the tab. you know what they do in this bill, this republican bill? they eliminate the ability of americans to deduct their state and local taxes. right? except for property taxes, all those state and local taxes are now going to be paid on twice. you're going to pay your state and local government. and then out of that same dollar you're going to pay your federal tax. that's double taxation. here's the irony. if you're a corporation in one of those states, you get to deduct your state and local taxes in whatever state it may be. you're a corporation, you get to take that deduction. if you're workers, if you're home owners, you don't get to take that deduction. you're going to pay more. and here's the, here's the

really ironic thing here. after we provide these big tax breaks to multinational corporations and millionaires and billionaires and raise taxes on millions of middle-class families, there's still leaving this country with a $1 is.5 trillion debt. it's written right into the budget. you know, i served as the senior democrat on the house budget committee for a long time. speaker ryan used to be the chairman of that committee. he talked at length about the dangers of rising national debt. you know what? this is a serious issue. i used to think my republican colleagues were serious about it, but now we discover they were only using that as a lever to justify their cause for cutting medicare, cutting medicaid, cutting social security, cutting education. oh, the debt's really high. we've got to cut all these

things. but tax cuts for big corporations and millionaires and billionaires, let's add that to the national credit card. $1.5 trillion to be paid for by everybody else. our kids and grandkids. and you know what will happen? pass this tax cut for the special interests and powerful americans, then all of a sudden i assure you our republican friends will rediscover their concern about the national debt. they'll rediscover it once they have been, get through with this windfall tax cut. and then they'll want to come around and cut medicare and medicaid and education. and you know how we know that? they already told us in the budget that passed this senate and the house, they called for cutting medicare by almost $500

billion. $473 billion to be exact. cutting medicaid by $1 trillion. cutting education investments very deeply. cutting our investments in national infrastructure. so we know that once they blow up the debt by another $1.5 trillion, they're going to come right back and say to seniors on medicare or americans who rely on medicaid orchids whose education you want to invest in, sorry now we've got that national debt we want we to inv. let's cut everything else. i hope everyone else will take a step back. we should not do something that will cause great damage to the country and great damage to the middle class just because of someone's political imperative, to get something or anything

done because the reality is that while we do need tax reform, we don't want to mess things up even worse than they are today. i would welcome the opportunity to work on a bipartisan basis for genuine tax reform and simplification of the tax code. but i will not support any effort that hikes our national debt by $1.5 trillion in order to give big tax breaks to multinational corporations and millionaires and billionaires. we can do a whole lot better. we should do better. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: our fourth circuit nominee this week, and i'm glass to speak in support of the nomination of professor bibas to serve on the third circuit court of appeals. that court sits in philadelphia. professor bibas is a highly

qualified nominee. his background as a well-regarded legal scholar and supreme court advocate will serve him well as a judge on that circuit. additionally, professor bibas received a rare unanimously well-qualified rating from the american bar association. my democratic colleagues on the judiciary committee have expressed to me that the a.b.a.'s ratings are very, very important to their evaluation of nominees. yet all the members of the committee voted against professor bibas in the committee despite receiving the highest rating possible. this is consistent with their votes against professor amy barrett, justice joan larsen,

and justice allison eid, all of whom received well-qualified ratings. it appears that my democratic colleagues don't actually read the a.b.a.'s ratings as particularly important when it comes right down to practice. professor bibas is the son of a greek immigrant who came to this country after surviving the nazi occupation of greece. he boasts impressive academic credentials. he graduated from columbia university, age 19. he then received degrees from the university of oxford and yale law school. after law school, professor bibas clerked for judge patrick higgenbottom of the u.s. court of appeals for the fifth

circuit. then for justice anthony kennedy of the united states supreme court. following these prestigis clerkships, professor bibas became an assistant u.s. attorney, southern district new york. his experience as a prosecutor gave him a firsthand view of the problems and injustices in the american criminal justice system. he decided to pursue a career as an academic and focusing then on improving the criminal justice system for all involved. professor bibas' first stint as a professor was at my home state of iowa, the university of iowa college of law. he taught criminal law and procedure there for